Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Kelly Greene.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Claire Rattée: I’m very fortunate; I have a few people in the audience today that I’d like to recognize.

Today we have Steven and Amar again, from Together We Can recovery society. I’m really grateful I got to have a great meeting with them yesterday again, and they’ll be meeting with the rest of our caucus as well today. Really happy to have them here.

I’m also very fortunate to have Chief Glenn Bennett from the Kitselas First Nation, in my riding, here. Chief Bennett is an amazing leader for his community, and I consider him to be a very good friend. He’s also accompanied by Linda Morven, Darrin McCormack and Rick Brouwer, as representatives for the Kitselas First Nation.

I would just ask that the House make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Visiting us in the galleries today is Ronin London, who’s 19. He plays box lacrosse with the junior Victoria Shamrocks. How about that. He’s got a scholarship to study business and play division 1 field lacrosse in the United States, which is quite an achievement for him. He’s also, of course, very bright.

And the best part is that he’s got a great mom, Kathy London, who sort of heads up my office.

Harman Bhangu: I rise today to introduce two distinguished visitors from the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority who are joining us in the chamber today.

Robert Lewis-Manning is the chief executive officer. Mr. Lewis-Manning brings a lifetime of leadership experience in global marine transportation with the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Shipowners Association and the Chamber of Shipping. He has been instrumental in prioritizing partnerships with First Nations. He negotiated the first marine conservation agreement in Canada to protect endangered whales, carrying the support of three federal government departments.

Also, Colleen Turner is vice-president for strategic partnerships and innovation. Ms. Turner oversees teams focused on cruise ship tourism, Indigenous partnerships, sustainability and stakeholder engagement. She joins the harbour authority after serving as vice-president of Alberta Health Services and vice-president of the University of Calgary, where she distinguished herself in challenging leadership roles.

I ask my colleagues to join me in extending a warm welcome to our guests from the harbour authority, who make such a vital contribution to the prosperity of Victoria and the entire southern Island.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a lot of folks that work behind the scenes to support us in the work that we do in our ministries. There are three exceptional people that are visiting the House today.

I want to welcome Matthew Borghese, Mahee Azreen and Andrew Hughes. They are from the communications side of our ministry.

I want to thank them for all the work that they do and hope they get to enjoy the question period today. I look forward to chatting with them right after.

Can the House please make them feel really welcome.

Scott McInnis: I’ve had the pleasure and privilege to meet many husbands, wives, spouses and partners not only from our caucus here but also from the members in government. My general theme from those meetings is that we’ve all done pretty darn well for ourselves, and I’m certainly no exception.

My wife, Diana, is here from Kimberley today. I just really love her to death. She’s made so many personal sacrifices so I could be here to represent the great people of Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Rob Botterell: I rise today to acknowledge and thank our Green-terns, Connor Buzza and Kayla Bennett, and all legislative interns. Connor and Kayla have been a core part of the Green team almost the entire time that I’ve been an MLA, and it’s hard to imagine the caucus team without them.

[1:40 p.m.]

We have, in keeping with the grand traditions of the Third Party, put both to work throughout their time with our team. They’ve led development of our estimates questions, written questions for question period, written speeches and communication material. Both the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and I were fortunate to have them attend events and meetings in our constituencies with us.

I have no doubt that Connor and Kayla will make a huge contribution to British Columbia over the course of their careers, and we very much hope that they stay in touch as they go on.

I hope this House will join me in thanking Connor and Kayla and all the legislative interns for all of their efforts.

Mable Elmore: I’m very pleased to introduce Dr. Gerald Baier, associate professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, in the gallery today. Dr. Baier’s teaching and research interests include Canadian politics, with a focus on the constitution, federalism and public law.

Dr. Baier currently serves as the academic director of the B.C. legislative internship program, supporting the legislative interns during this time in the Parliament Buildings.

Can the House please join me in making him feel very welcome.

Kristina Loewen: I have the privilege of introducing a couple of people today. I want to recognize three outstanding disability advocates who’ve dedicated themselves to the fight for dignity, equity and justice for persons with disabilities across Canada.

Jeff Leggat is the founder of Disability Action of Canada, an advocacy group he launched in 2019 with a clear and urgent mission to eliminate legislated poverty for medically assessed and designated persons with disabilities. Jeff’s tireless work calls for monthly disability income support that is fair, equitable and tied directly to Canada’s official poverty line, no exceptions.

Joining him in this essential fight are Brent Frain and Sonjia Grandahl, two respected advocates based in Victoria. For years, Brent and Sonjia have campaigned for proper financial support for persons with disabilities and have made their voices heard across the political spectrum. Brent also hosts a powerful podcast bringing together politicians, advocates and community leaders to spotlight the issues facing the disabled community not only here in B.C. but across the country. I’m looking forward to meeting them this afternoon.

I have one more.

My good friend Danielle Johnston is also here, and I had the privilege of being there when she brought her child into the world a few years ago now.

Susie Chant: Today I have the honour of introducing a guest in the members’ gallery. His name is Jorge Yanier Castellanos Orta. He is the consul general of Cuba, based in Toronto, so it’s great that he is here to visit us today. The consul general is here on his first official visit to British Columbia, and I’ll be meeting with him this afternoon.

I understand he’ll have the opportunity to meet with you as well, Mr. Speaker.

Would this House please make him feel most welcome.

Misty Van Popta: Today on the front steps, we had a gift, a gift of music. At a time like we’re experiencing here in the House, where things are a bit stressful as we close out this session, a little music to cheer us up and feed our souls was welcome.

A bonus for me is that this band was from a school in my riding, Walnut Grove Secondary.

Will the House please make them feel appreciated for providing us with that gift.

Gavin Dew: I just wanted to join the member opposite in welcoming Dr. Gerry Baier to the House.

I was honoured to take part, now years ago, in the Institute for Future Legislators at UBC, which was just an absolutely terrific program, currently on hiatus. I certainly hope to see that come back. That was certainly a formative experience that Dr. Baier was a very important part of.

I do just want to use that as an excuse to look up at all the interns in the gallery and let you know that you will be back.

I just ask this House to join me in a thunderous round of applause to let these young folks know that some of you will come back as staff and some of you will come back and sit in these chairs.

[1:45 p.m.]

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to welcome my best friend, Rajni Goyal, to the House. She is visiting with her husband, Barinder Goyal. For those planning their summer vacations, they operate a very successful travel agency in Vancouver. They’re joined today by family members visiting from India: Ashwani Kumar Mittal, Asha Mittal and Ashisha Mittal.

Would the House please join me in extending a very warm welcome to all of our guests.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today to introduce to the House — for the first time in person, at least — my husband, Kalvin Warbus, and my daughter, Starling, who are always supporting me in spirit and love and understanding for how busy the schedule of an MLA can be in being away from home. I’m so happy to have them here.

It was my pleasure in 2014 to drag my husband across the U.S.-Canadian border to marry me so that we could live together.

Just one last thing. I wanted to outline that the earrings I’m wearing today were made by the Vancouver-Strathcona MLA — proof that Indigenous fashion is a truly bipartisan issue.

Trevor Halford: We are joined today by somebody who is very important in my world, to make sure that she is keeping me on task and, more importantly when I’m over here, that the people of Surrey–White Rock are getting very properly served. Melissa McCaskill from my office is joining us here today.

If the House can please welcome Melissa.

Paul Choi: I’m very excited to welcome to this chamber our local business leaders, who are led by hon. Chair, Mr. Speaker, and co-chair John McCarthy, Victor Shu, Cindy Lee, Lucas Lee, Chloe Chang, Kush Karia, Sarah Seto, Sheer Pang, Colin Zu, Anna Liu, Michelle Lau, Eric Lee, Armana Gabande, Xinlin Zhiang.I know I missed some; I apologize. They are our backbone of our economy.

Please, if the whole House would make them feel welcome today.

Hon Chan: I had the opportunity to meet with the team from Enterprise Mobility alongside our leader, John Rustad, today.

I’m pleased to welcome Troy Klemo, Kristin Ali, Carolyn Anderberg and Zach Authier to the chamber.

Enterprise Mobility’s portfolio includes Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Alamo and National Car Rental, operating over 80 locations across B.C. It was a pleasure connecting with them, hearing their insights and industry concerns.

Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to the House.

Tony Luck: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce my CA today from Fraser-Nicola. As many of us know, we cannot do without staff in our ridings. They’re the ones that get us out of a lot of quagmires and everything.

Today I’d like to give a warm welcome to Corally Delwo, my CA from Fraser-Nicola.

Rosalyn Bird: To follow up comments from my colleague, I would like to acknowledge and thank five amazing blue-terns: Alex Bailey, Priscilla Ng, Marina Haden, Deb Berman and Tony Miyoshi, who have assisted the Conservative caucus during this session through the B.C. legislative internship program.

Your dedication and passion have not gone unnoticed. Your hard work in communication, research and projects have been of great assistance. My colleagues and I are both appreciative and grateful for your contributions.

Together we forge new paths and ideas.

We thank you for being part of our very valuable team. We wish you well in all your future endeavours, and we are confident that you have very bright futures ahead of you.

Lawrence Mok: This afternoon in the gallery, we have Christopher Logie, my hard-working CA, and Daegan Baldwin, my hard-working communications and outreach director. This is their first time visiting the Legislature.

Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I rise today, a few days early, to celebrate the seventh birthday of my daughter, Abigail Ariella Dew. She is a singer, a dancer, a reader, a leader. I’m very proud of her, and I love her very much.

What I’d like to do right now is open a portal and send a giant heart blast.

Bryan Tepper: I’d like to congratulate two members of Surrey Water Polo, Jackson Culbreath and Airi Cowie. They were at the Pan Am Games in Colombia, Jackson on the men’s U17 water polo team and Airi on the women’s U17 team, both for Canada. Their teams won gold and silver respectively, an amazing accomplishment.

A round of applause, please.

Rohini Arora: I just want to take a moment to welcome Anika Dhaliwal, who is my CA. She’s visiting here, off from school just for the summer, so I get her for four months.

It is such an honour to have a young Sikh Punjabi woman doing the work in politics in a space that matters so much to me, being able to see her fulfil her dreams. Likely she’ll be sitting in one of these chairs pretty soon herself.

If everyone would join me in giving her a warm welcome, please, today.

Also, I just want to give a shout-out to Chris Camoso, a legislative intern who came into Burnaby East in the last week. It was so amazing to have them at the constituency, out and about, visiting and connecting with folks.

I can just imagine the amazing work that is ahead of you. Thank you so much for coming, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in god knows what kind of way.

Please, everyone, give them a warm welcome.

Members’ Statements

MOSAIC Community Clinic in Burnaby

Janet Routledge: The MOSAIC Community Clinic opened earlier this year in the Edmonds neighbourhood of Burnaby. It is a milestone in collective, community-based primary care.

It provides longitudinal, team-based primary health care tailored to serve five priority populations: newcomers to Canada; First Nations, Métis and Inuit individuals; new parents and their babies; people with complex mental health needs; and people experiencing homelessness or housing instability.

This culturally safe, trauma-informed clinic is operated by MOSAIC, a leading non-profit organization known for its work with newcomers and populations for whom social, environmental and economic factors negatively impact their health and well-being.

The clinic is the team-based care model in action, delivering low-barrier access through collaboration between doctors, nurse practitioners, social workers, lactation consultants, administrative teams and community service partners. The clinic matches patients with primary care providers through B.C.’s health connect registry and through self-referrals.

Front-line community agencies play a vital role in connecting Burnaby’s most vulnerable residents with the health care they need. The MOSAIC Community Clinic was born out of the uniquely collaborative nature of the Burnaby primary care network, where the Burnaby Division of Family Practice, Fraser Health, the Burnaby Interagency Council and the Ministry of Health come together to ensure that no one in our community is left behind when it comes to accessing timely, compassionate and appropriate care.

Funded from the Ministry of Health’s PCN program, the MOSAIC Community Clinic is transformative.

Secondary School Graduates of 2024

Ward Stamer: Everyone in this House has high schools in their ridings, and our grads of 2025 are beginning to have their grad ceremonies.

Here’s a sample of one of those congratulatory remarks.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’re here to celebrate the achievements, growth and potential of our grade 12 graduating class of 2025. Today marks an incredible milestone in your lives. You’ve spent the past 13 years in classrooms, on fields, in labs, libraries and Zoom calls. You’ve grown through challenges and triumphs, surrounded by your peers, your teachers and your families. Now standing on the edge of a new beginning, we’re celebrating not only what you’ve accomplished but what you’ve become.

You’re no longer the same people who first walked through the doors of your elementary school clutching oversized backpacks and wondering if anyone else was just as nervous as you. You’ve grown into young adults, capable, curious, resilient and ready. High school was not just about homework, tests and report cards. It was about discovering your passions, building relationships, finding your voice. And it was about becoming someone who can contribute to something greater than themselves.

The world you stepped into is not the same one that existed when you started high school. In these years, you witnessed a global pandemic, climate-related disasters and an evolving digital world. Your experience: uncertainty, disruption and challenge. But through it all, you adapted. You found new ways to learn, connect and lead, and you kept going.

Graduating in B.C. is something to be proud of. This province is more than a backdrop to your education. It’s a teacher in its own right. The mountains that rise behind your schools remind us to aim high. The coastal waters and ancient forests teach us the value of balance, patience and stewardship. From the vibrant urban centres of Vancouver and Victoria to the rural communities of the North and the Kootenays, this land has shaped your experience in unique and powerful ways.

B.C. is a place of diversity, innovation and care. We are home to incredible artists, scientists, entrepreneurs and visionaries. Whether you’re heading to university, college, the trades, work, travel or some much-needed rest, you are stepping into adulthood as citizens of one of the most dynamic and promising regions of the world.

Be safe during your grad ceremonies. We truly wish you success and a great future in whichever path you so choose.

Congratulations, grads of 2025.

Resilience and Support for
Community Capacity

Mable Elmore: The tragic event of April 26, 2025, has brought home the irrefutable need to develop institutional capacity in the community to support recovery and healing in the years ahead, which we will be grappling with.

It’s said that communities are the bedrock of society, yet too often they lack the structures to respond to crises, deliver on long-term goals and carry out systemic changes. Time and again Filipinos are extolled for their resilience. However, external investment in terms of policy, resources and infrastructure should follow as well to foster capacity in the community.

Resilience and institutional capacity in South Vancouver go hand in hand to enable communities to emerge stronger. Building capacity is thus a shared journey and a partnership. It’s a continuous collaboration and a long-term commitment.

Partnerships that have emerged out of this between the Filipino community and the United Way, through the Kapwa Strong fund, the Canadian Red Cross, the Catholic archdiocese, the Vancouver Foundation and, in South Vancouver, our Sunset on Fraser Business Improvement Association, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and our communities are really what is helping us on the path ahead and the road to recovery.

When communities are empowered, they drive solutions that are culturally sensitive to the needs and aspirations of their constituents. Let us therefore unleash the transformative power of enhancing capacity in the community.

When communities build capacity, they are laying the foundations of a better future for all of us.

Candlelight Cuisine
and Patti Halford

Trevor Halford: Earlier this month Candlelight Cuisine closed its doors. Candlelight Cuisine was a staple in Ocean Park. It was a staple in White Rock.

It was staffed by some important people: Lory, Daria, Katherine, Jaylene and its owner, Patti. The owner, Patti, holds a special place in my heart because that is my mom. After almost 40 years, she decided it was time to hang it up.

Why this place was so important to me…. I learned very early on. I learned, actually, when I was door-knocking. I would knock on a door, and they’d say: “Oh, you’re Patti’s son.” I was pretty proud of that, but I was also pretty proud of the fact that for the last almost 40 years, I watched my mom work six days a week.

[2:00 p.m.]

That’s how she put food on our table — by putting food on other people’s tables. It wasn’t always easy, but the staff that I just mentioned there…. They didn’t work there for years; they worked there for decades. It was because of how she treated her staff. It was the same way she treated her customers. She treated them like family.

It was a family business. When you go there…. You can’t go there now. We had cheese squares. That was my grandma’s recipe. The cookies were a recipe from my aunt. So it was a true family business, but it was done through hard work.

To my mom, I want to say thank you. Thank you for the meals. I wish I could get more of them. But thank you for showing me and others just how important it is when hard work pays off.

I hope that everybody there enjoys their retirement, and hopefully I’ll lose some pounds because of that.

I really want to say thank you to all of them, especially my mom, and congratulations.

Bryn’s Neighbourhood Table
Community Meal

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to recognize a deeply meaningful initiative in my constituency of Vancouver-Langara, Bryn’s Neighbourhood Table, hosted by St. Augustine’s Anglican Church in Marpole. Formerly known as the St. Augustine’s Marpole Community Meal, this weekly gathering was recently renamed to honour Bryn Catherall, a cherished member of the parish whose kindness, resilience and generous spirit left a lasting impact.

Bryn found a sense of purpose and belonging at the table, and his presence uplifted those around him. In turn, the community drew strength and inspiration from him. Today his legacy lives on through every meal served, every friendship formed and every act of service extended.

Every Thursday evening St. Augustine’s opens its doors at 5:30 p.m. to welcome anyone in need of a hot meal and a warm, inclusive space. A free three-course dinner is served at 6 p.m. — no cost, no barriers, no judgments. All are welcome.

It’s not just a meal. It’s a place of connection, dignity and care. I have had the privilege of joining the table on several occasions, and each time I’ve been moved by the hospitality, the laughter and the powerful sense of community.

St. Augustine’s also hosts the Marpole Community Food Hub on Thursday mornings, in collaboration with local organizations and the Greater Vancouver Food Bank, providing free groceries to those in need.

To Bryn’s family, to all the volunteers and all involved: thank you.

Bryn’s Neighbourhood Table is compassion in action and a true gift to Vancouver-Langara.

Immigrant Experience in Canada

Harman Bhangu: I stand here today not just as an MLA but as a proud Canadian because of the sacrifices my parents made, especially my dad, who is no longer with us.

When my dad came here, he never complained. He worked at mills, he drove trucks, sometimes both — one job in the day, one job in the night. He did whatever it took to provide for his family and his kids. He believed in the Canadian dream that if you work hard, keep your head down and never give up, you can make something of yourself.

Because of that belief, I am standing here today. I don’t have a fancy degree or elite background. What I do have is a relentless motor and a work ethic passed down from a man who kept pushing forward.

Some people say Canada is a racist country. I don’t believe that. Has it been perfect? No. But we’ve come a long way. We’ve progressed not through force or pressure but through natural progression, through the quiet power of people showing up, working hard and earning respect.

Just look at me. I’m a brown man. I’m Sikh, married to a white woman, and I’m standing in this Legislature representing thousands of British Columbians. That doesn’t happen in a racist country. That happens in a country that gives people a fair shot that are willing to work for it.

That is the Canada my father believed in. That is the Canada I was raised in. And that is the Canada I will always stand up for.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle: Joining us in the gallery today, all the way from the beautiful riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain, are grade 5 students from Vancouver Talmud Torah.

Vancouver Talmud Torah is a Jewish day school which welcomes a broad spectrum of families and students, from across Vancouver and beyond, to participate in an inclusive education and connection to Jewish values and traditions. Talmud Torah provides a safe and inclusive environment for Jewish families and students to learn and grow with their culture and religion and to embrace the teachings of the Hebrew language in a warm and nurturing setting.

I was honoured to get a tour of a brand-new Jewish day school here in greater Victoria with my friend and colleague the MLA for Victoria–Swan Lake. I appreciate having had that tour, and I’m overjoyed to be welcoming these students and another classroom from Talmud Torah later today.

I ask that everyone be on their best behaviour and join me in welcoming them.

Oral Questions

Management of Supportive Housing
and Deaths at Facilities

Claire Rattée: Government services are failing people, and as a result, people are dying. Diane Chandler died in one of this government’s showcase supportive housing sites, and her body was left in her room for 11 days before anyone noticed.

Her son Tyler is here in the gallery today. He told me he doesn’t want another empty condolence or carefully worded excuse; he wants accountability. The minister loves a victory lap, I know, but today is not the time. Her son was devastated by the answer he gave last time because it did not offer closure.

If this government has nothing to hide, will the Premier explain how Diane Chandler died in provincial care and why her son didn’t find out what happened until a month later?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We did have a discussion about this topic, and my heart goes out to Tyler and to his family. As I said then and I’ll say again now, it’s unacceptable for this to happen.

What I can share with the member, which I have shared with the member, is that when this incident happened, B.C. Housing reached out to the provider to find out what the issue was. There was a clear error made by the folks that work for that not-for-profit. They thought that they had seen the woman in question coming in, and clearly, they had not.

The policies have completely changed because of that incident in all supportive housing sites. Now every single supportive housing site is required to have a wellness check done on every individual in the room every 24 hours. They’re required to monitor people as they come in and out and verify who they are. That’s not just at that site, but it’s at sites throughout the province.

Again, my heart goes out to this family, but this tragic incident has changed the way supportive housing sites operate. And now on top of that, every not-for-profit is required to inform B.C. Housing within 24 hours of an incident, and they have to have a plan to immediately notify family members. That didn’t happen in this family’s case, and I’m very sorry for the family, but it has made significant, systemic changes in all of our housing across the province since.

The Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: With all due respect, I’m not buying it, because in 2017, Shawn Richards died in a supportive housing unit, and it took three days to find his body. Back then his mother was told that changes would be made and that no family would ever go through this again. It was said then that it was going to switch to 24-hour wellness checks.

Those wellness checks still do not address the root issue. What’s the difference if somebody is lying dead in their room for 24 hours or 11 days? That person died.

Seven years after this event, Diane Chandler died in similar conditions — encouraged drug use, no permanent staff. She had a clearly and visibly deteriorating struggle with addiction.

[2:10 p.m.]

No one knew that she died because the staff allegedly mistook another resident for her during the wellness checks. That other resident tragically died a few days later.

People deserve housing where they are supported, not just warehoused, and certainly not left to die alone in buildings where drugs are used, sold and encouraged.

If the government claims to care, why is the pattern not just continuing but getting worse? How many deaths will it take before this government changes its approach to supportive housing and stops encouraging open drug use in government-run facilities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member, in her question, stated a whole bunch of facts that I had shared with the member previously, which I appreciate the acknowledgement on.

We made changes after this tragic death to the RTB to allow for all not-for-profits in the province to do wellness checks, which some argue that they didn’t have the powers to do before. So it is a systemic change.

The member also knows, because in estimates we discussed it, that there are a lot of communities where we have supportive housing that has sobriety, where folks have gone through rehab and have the opportunity to be in supportive housing where there’s no drug use.

Then we also have housing that ensures that we meet people where they’re at. If a person has gone through treatment and needs that housing, we are rapidly growing that housing stock at the same time. The member knows that. Housing exists in different forms in different communities to meet people where they’re at. That’s what we’re trying to do with all of our housing.

The member can say: “It’s housing that we’ve deployed.” This has been a similar policy that was in place when the Leader of the Opposition was in government as well.

Supportive housing was opened up all throughout British Columbia in communities addressing encampments. It’s very similar. The difference is we’re scaling up opportunities for folks to get into housing when they’ve come through rehab as well.

Environmental Assessment of
Prince Rupert Gas Transmission
Pipeline Project

Rob Botterell: The massive U.S. investment firm Blackstone Inc. is the lead investor in the PRGT pipeline project. Blackstone is also a major investor in Canada’s rental housing market, which is bad news for people who pay rent in B.C. Blackstone’s involvement in the rental market contributes significantly to rent increases and the loss of affordable units.

Blackstone buying pipelines in Canada is bad news for the cost of energy. It also means that benefits from these projects flow to MAGA billionaires, not local communities.

My question is to the Premier. When will the Premier stop catering to Donald Trump’s top donors on Wall Street and send his MAGA pipeline back for a modern environmental assessment?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member knows that the process is with the excellent staff of the environmental assessment office right now. They’re making a decision, a technical decision, around the substantial start of the process. He knows that.

I would say this. Here in British Columbia, in the last year, we put out a call for power that saw, approved by the government, at a size equivalent to Site C, ten renewable energy projects. We are taking action to ensure that those projects are built.

Those ten projects are 51 percent owned, on average, by First Nations in this province, which indicates our determination to ensure that the wealth created in B.C. stays in B.C. equally. As we’ve dealt with other energy issues, we have done exactly the same thing. Whether it has been on reviews of royalties and other questions, we are here to ensure that the people of B.C. get maximum return on the extraordinary resources of our province.

We are building the province, and when we do that, we’re doing it in partnerships with community and, in particular, with First Nations.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

LNG Industry Impacts and
Health Care Cost Recovery

Rob Botterell: As the impacts of LNG are felt across the province, we are face to face with the already tangible devastation this will put on our health care system. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment continues to warn about the intensification that LNG will increasingly put on our health care crisis.

As more LNG terminals begin operations, the collapse of our health care system is seemingly imminent. Physicians in northeastern B.C. have been closing their practices due to the growing health implications of LNG, with no additional support from government to address this issue.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. As the government seems determined to continue on this LNG path, how does the ministry plan to recover the necessary health care costs resulting from increased LNG facilities?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I assume that the member misspoke. He understands that the first shipments of LNG have not left B.C. yet, so the health impacts to which he speaks that have occurred up to now clearly haven’t occurred.

Our approach to LNG is what we’ve said in this House a number of times: to focus on issues of climate change, yes, and on issues of First Nations involvement.

The member asked the first question about involvement. The Cedar project is majority owned by the Haisla First Nation. Perhaps he will be supportive of it. I don’t know. Returns to communities, returns to the province, jobs created.

We have the lowest-emission LNG in the world, and the actions we’re taking in the upstream, together with the oil and gas industry, to reduce methane emissions are good for public health, are good for the province and are good for everyone.

We are leading Canada in addressing this question because we are working, yes, with First Nations, yes, with environmentalists, yes, with the oil and gas industry to ensure better results for everyone in our province.

Access to Health Care Specialists

Anna Kindy: B.C. health care services are failing. This government, after eight years in power, is in constant crisis management in every aspect of health care delivery. Just one example of this failure is British Columbians stuck on wait-lists to see specialists in cardiology, in neurology, in psychiatry, just to name a few.

One pediatrician told me that her wait-list has increased to two years. A patient in North Saanich — it took eight weeks to get a lung biopsy and six months later hasn’t seen an oncologist yet.

People in B.C. are suffering, getting sicker and dying, waiting to see specialists. This government’s reassurances and platitudes are meaningless when people are continually falling through the cracks.

How long do the wait times have to be before this government takes this issue seriously?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

It is incredibly frustrating, I know, for patients to wait to be able to see a specialist. To see them or a loved one in their family feel stuck on a wait-list is a really hard thing to do.

Now, we are generally meeting our wait-list times and targets for urgent cases, but we know there’s a lot more work to do when it comes to improving wait times for non-urgent cases and for chronic conditions. We have a growing aging population here, with more complex health care problems, and that means we need to continue to redouble these efforts.

That’s why we are doing all the work that is underway to attract and retain more specialists, more physicians — a recruitment campaign into the United States. We’re going to continue to hire cancer physicians, for example, which includes 140 cancer physicians over the last couple of years alone, as part of our cancer action plan.

We know there is an incredible amount of work still to do. We are working to streamline wait-lists with health authorities, building more hospitals, adding more operating room capacity.

We are not going to stop, because we know that British Columbians deserve to get the care in a timely and equitable way. That’s exactly what we’re going to stay focused on.

Pediatric Services at
Kelowna General Hospital

Kristina Loewen: With all due respect, it’s not just frustrating; it’s life and death.

Doctors in Kelowna found out through the media that pediatric services were being shut down at Kelowna General Hospital for at least six weeks. There was no official communication from the ministry or Interior Health. This means no pediatric care in one of B.C.’s busiest hospitals. Parents, already in a terrifying situation, are now left in the dark.

How can the Health Minister claim that the system is stable when basic communication is breaking down and care for children disappears overnight?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

It is clearly a very stressful situation for families in Kelowna and the surrounding region to know that the pediatric unit inside Kelowna General Hospital is going to be unavailable for about six weeks. It’s a very difficult decision that Interior Health has undertaken.

I want to reassure people, because the member is not correct in her characterization that there are no pediatric services available at this hospital. Indeed, there are. I want everyone to know that critical care services for children and for babies remain open at Kelowna General. In fact, people should continue to take their children there in the case of an emergency.

Ten pediatric beds are temporarily closed to ensure the safety of children in the most dire sets of circumstances. I have spoken to Interior Health. I know that this decision wasn’t taken lightly. They do have a shortage of pediatricians inside the hospital right now.

The good news is there are two pediatricians that have signed contracts. One starts in July. There are three associate physicians in a pediatrician program that are coming.

They are also going to, in July and August…. Interior Health continues to do everything they can.

In fact, this weekend, a pediatrician from the U.S. is visiting Kelowna to see the community, make a site visit and hopefully make the decision to move here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We know we’re facing a global health care worker shortage, including pediatricians, and that’s why we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure that this service is available in Kelowna.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kristina Loewen: I just hope our kids stay healthy until July.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, careful with your words.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hold it. Calm down.

Kristina Loewen: Physicians are raising the alarm. There is no coverage plan, no extra support and no additional resources. Nurses are overwhelmed, and ER doctors are being forced to cover pediatric emergencies without training. One doctor said: “I guess I’m a pediatrician now.”

Will the Premier finally take responsibility for this collapse and direct the Minister of Health to meet with front-line doctors immediately?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Once again, I must correct the record. Any parent with a child in need of emergency care can and should continue to go to Kelowna General Hospital, where their child will be assessed and will be cared for.

Let’s acknowledge the incredibly hard work that pediatricians are undertaking in Kelowna and acknowledge that it is a very tough situation for them — the burnout that they are experiencing, the moral distress that they are facing. That is why a difficult decision is taken…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …to ensure that the acute emergency services that need to be there for children remain there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’ve just outlined the pediatricians that are coming to Kelowna. The work that Interior Health will continue to do….

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, please conclude.

Hon. Josie Osborne: What pediatricians and health care workers in Kelowna and families and community members need right now is our support and our assertion that we are all doing everything that we can to make sure people have the right information about the care that is available at the hospital, that families continue to take their children there.

They know that we are doing everything we can to address this and that we’ll continue to support the hospital, to support Interior Health and to support families in Kelowna.

Macklin McCall: A Kelowna doctor and parent posted a video exposing what Interior Health won’t admit. This isn’t a doctor shortage; it’s a full-blown pediatric care crisis. This unsafe staffing model forces one pediatrician to cover the ward, psychiatric care, emergency, the NICU and high-risk deliveries all at once.

[2:25 p.m.]

For years, they’ve been raising alarms, but as that doctor said: “Their voices have been silenced.”

How does this Premier expect one doctor to be in five places at once?

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is an incredibly challenging situation to be a pediatrician at Kelowna General Hospital right now, where a full staff complement would be 12, and there are six working. They are working as hard as they possibly can, and I know that.

That’s why, in order to ensure safety for children and for patients, a difficult decision was made to remove, temporarily, the services in hospital for pediatric services but to keep the emergency services open, to keep the NICU open, to keep the critical care services that are needed for children.

I’ll say it again. Families in Kelowna need to continue to take their children to Kelowna General Hospital.

I’ll say it again. Interior Health is working hard to undertake the hiring that they need to do. They are seeing successes with new pediatricians signing contracts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, the minister has the floor. Let her conclude it.

Hon. Josie Osborne: They’re looking at compensation, locums, remuneration models, everything that they can do to bring in people to fill these positions, even if on a temporary basis, to ensure that these services are here for people.

It’s a global shortage of health care workers. We have had….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I heard the member across the way say: “Closing down hospitals.” I just attended the opening of a brand-new hospital in the Leader of the Opposition’s riding.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order now.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, you are wasting your time. We are now deducting this time out of your question period today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Minister will please conclude.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation at Kelowna General Hospital is a very difficult one, and we are going to continue to do everything we can to fill those positions, to put physicians in place and to ensure that the services are there for the families of Kelowna.

Physician Staffing and
Emergency Services at Hospitals

Brennan Day: It’s not just pediatrics in Kelowna. West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni has had week-long ICU diversions going on for the better part of a year. This has caused dramatic hospital shortages in this minister’s own riding for weeks at a time.

Losing hospital doctors to general practice under the longitudinal payment model has severely impacted the staffing of GPs working in hospital settings.

Why is this government trying to fix health care access by destroying B.C.’s emergency departments?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Wow, I just don’t know where to start. I cannot believe….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Okay, Member. Member for Abbotsford South, you have made your point. Everybody heard it. Don’t worry.

Hon. Josie Osborne: You know, this entire session, I have been standing up and talking about all the actions our government is taking to strengthen our public health care system: opening a new medical school in Surrey, adding more seats at UBC’s medical school, making it easier for physicians to move to British Columbia and be credentialled to practise here, a longitudinal family physician payment plan that fairly compensates family doctors for the work that they do.

I know the opposition doesn’t like hearing about the track record, but we’ve got to go there.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Let’s just….

The Speaker: Hold it, Minister.

Member for Kamloops Centre, please let her conclude it.

I know it’s only two days of the session left. Let’s do it.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Over the last two years, we’ve added 1,000 family doctors. We have the highest number of family physicians per capita of any major province in Canada.

Who remembers GP for Me? When the opposition leader sat on this side of the House, he made a promise to British Columbians that they would have a general practitioner by 2015.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Minister, it’s okay. Thank you.

Hon. Josie Osborne: All right. I’ll finish on the next question.

The Speaker: No, no. Thank you.

Member, you have a supplemental.

Brennan Day: I’d like to remind the minister that net new doctors were 440 in estimates just weeks ago, so let’s make sure that we’re talking about correct numbers. Also, I’d like to say that unintended consequences are still consequences.

We know the minister is working on it. But this government’s actions have resulted in hospitals pulling ER doctors off the floor to cover other short-staffed positions in the rest of the hospital. This is causing even more acute hospital ER closures and diversions, whether intentional or not.

Why is this minister’s solution to our chronic health care worker shortage to treat it like a Jenga puzzle that’s on the verge of collapse?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member is speaking about emergency room closures, which are obviously very challenging situations for any community to face. The good news is that the big picture shows us that we are moving in the right direction. In the first quarter of this year, emergency room diversions are down a quarter. That’s 25 percent compared to the year before.

But we know that we continue to see pressures in specific communities, and I acknowledge that. That’s communities like Lillooet, communities like Burns Lake, communities like Mackenzie. That’s why health authorities work so hard to bring in locums, to take the steps that they need to attract physicians into these communities, to make sure that the number of doctors is there to keep these emergency rooms, these vital services, there for communities.

I know they don’t like the phrase “global health care worker shortage,” but it’s true. Every single province in Canada is experiencing this issue.

British Columbia continues to lead the way in terms of attracting physicians, bringing in new physicians from other jurisdictions. We continue to lead the way in adding family doctors into practices here in British Columbia. We continue to lead the way in building new medical school seats, hiring more nurses, doubling the seats of nurse practitioner training spaces.

These are the actions we have to continue to take. This entire session we have talked about all of the actions that this government is taking, and we have heard no new ideas from that side.

Emergency Health Care
Services in Rural B.C.

Tony Luck: We’ve raised the alarm on rural ER closures many times, but this government still hasn’t fixed the crisis.

The Lillooet ER just shut down for the 31st time this year and for the entire weekend, as well, when we need it the most. Residents are being told to drive two hours to Kamloops or call 911 and hope for the best. In what emergency do you have two hours to waste waiting for help?

When will this Premier stop abandoning rural British Columbians who are hours away from help?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question, and thank you also to the member for a really constructive conversation in my office this morning. I really appreciated it, because that’s how we can work together.

[2:35 p.m.]

My promise to rural British Columbians is that I will never abandon them. I will continue to fight hard, do everything that I can to support all of the work that communities are taking, that health authorities are taking, that unions are taking, that our government is taking to bring in more health care workers to rural communities, because people living in British Columbia’s rural communities deserve the same access to health care that anyone anywhere in British Columbia does.

I can assure this member that I will continue to do everything that I can in supporting Lillooet. We will continue to focus on Lillooet as one of those places that has had particular challenges. The good news is that one new physician was hired in April and three more are coming this summer.

It is going to take all of us pulling together to show physicians who want to move here that rural B.C. is a fantastic place to live. I need their help, and I hope I get it.

Government Action on
Issues in Health Care System

Á’a:líya Warbus: Unfortunately, with all the canvassing of the crippling health care system in British Columbia, we’ve heard a lot from this minister and from this government about what’s about to happen — about numbers that are spun in their favour; about numbers that, frankly, don’t add up to what we’re seeing as the reality in hospitals all across British Columbia.

We have said time and time and time again — personal stories, ER closures. Pediatric wards are shuttered. I have a child, I have kids, and I know if I were forced to drive four to six hours to the next ER, those would be four to six of the most terrifying hours of my entire life. No one should have to go through that. When people are in crisis, every minute feels like an hour.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I’m getting there, Mr. Speaker, but I just need a minute.

Every time you say that something’s improved by 25 percent, well, you didn’t have that far to go when it was in such a dire position to begin with. So it doesn’t feel that good to us on this side of the House and what we’re hearing from our constituents and people that are suffering.

So my question. With rural ERs closed, hospital hallways that are overflowing, seniors that are left to languish for years without care, the pain, abandonment and preventable deaths that were seen across British Columbia, will the Premier admit that this isn’t isolated — that this is, in fact, a collapse — and explain how this government let it get this bad?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member asks about what has happened, and I’m going to say that there are 1,000 new family doctors since 2023.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: There are almost 700 people every single day being attached to a family doctor.

Here is what has happened in the last six months: two new hospitals in Terrace and Fort St. James; three new urgent and primary care clinics in Langley, Nanaimo and Williams Lake; a new tower at the Lions Gate Hospital; a new allied health centre in Victoria; a new mental health and substance use centre in Victoria; two new treatment centres and recovery centres at View Royal and Prince George.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: When the Leader of the Opposition sat on this side of the House, he said no to a new hospital.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: He said no to a new medical school.

This side of the House knows what needs to be done. We are doing it, and we will not stop.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Anna Kindy: I rise on a point of order.

Yesterday during question period, the Minister of Forests misrepresented remarks that I made. He incorrectly said that I, and I quote, “referred to her own nations as being greedy for buying tenure and supporting our forest service.”

I request that the minister withdraw his remark.

The Speaker: The minister has a response.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I had a great conversation with a great British Columbian, Dallas Smith, who was there, part of that conversation. I encourage the local MLA for North Island to give her local Chief a call.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, no debate.

[2:40 p.m.]

Member, the point of order was raised, and the minister responded. That conversation took place outside of the House, so the Chair is not going to intervene in that.

We’ll leave it there.

Petitions

Peter Milobar: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Kamloops and rural residents looking for cancer care in Kamloops, in support of. Also letters from the bands of the Coldwater, Simpcw and Whispering Pines, as well as the mayors and councils of 100 Mile, Ashcroft, Barriere, Cache Creek, Clearwater, Clinton, Kamloops, Merritt, Sun Peaks, Williams Lake, the Columbia Shuswap regional district and the Thompson-Nicola regional district.

All are asking the government to reconsider and reconstruct the Kamloops cancer centre into one building as every other B.C. Cancer Agency centre is built across this province. That is also in conjunction with the poll that was done with 95 percent of the residents in Kamloops wanting the same thing to happen.

Point of Order
(continued)

Lynne Block: I rise to respond to a point of order raised by the member for Burnaby North the other day after question period. I want to provide some clarity and context to my question about a constituent from the member’s riding not receiving a response regarding emails about school budget cuts in Burnaby.

I understand that a general public meeting was held by the member for Burnaby North, I believe on May 10, in her riding, which this constituent, along with others, attended. The session was billed as a coffee and update on the happenings in the Legislature. The meeting evolved into a more focused discussion about budget cuts.

After this general public meeting, the constituent in question followed up several times and did not get a response. I’m happy to report, though, that after question period the other day, the member’s office did respond with detailed answers to the constituent’s questions.

I hope this clears up any confusion, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member, for your response. It seems very clear to me that it is a disagreement between the two members of what was said and what happened. It’s not a procedural issue the Chair can intervene in.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle: Joining us in the gallery today, all the way from Vancouver–Little Mountain, is a second classroom visiting us from Vancouver Talmud Torah, grade 5.

As I mentioned to the House when the first class was visiting, Vancouver Talmud Torah is an exceptional Jewish day school which welcomes a broad spectrum of families and students, from across greater Vancouver, to participate in an inclusive education and connection to Jewish values and traditions.

I am so delighted to get to represent Vancouver–Little Mountain and delighted to have you all in the House. Will the House join me in making these students and their staff feel welcome.

Rob Botterell: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to move the following motion: that section 11 of the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, 2025, in respect of Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act, be discharged.

Leave not granted.

The Speaker: Sorry, it won’t proceed.

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government
Services Committee

Paul Choi: I’m pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 43rd parliament titled Review of Statutory Offices’ Supplementary Funding Requests for 2025-26.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[2:45 p.m.]

Paul Choi: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Paul Choi: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to take some time to provide some brief comment as Chair.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is responsible for exercising general oversight of the province’s nine statutory officers, which includes reviewing and recommending their office budgets. This report summarizes the committee’s discussion with the statutory officers with respect to their supplementary funding request for the 2025-2026 fiscal year and contains the committee’s recommendations regarding these requests.

The supplementary funding recommended in this report is in addition to the proposed budget contained in the estimates that were presented on March 4. Those budgets reflect the recommendations made by the previous Finance Committee in fall of 2023.

When considering the supplementary funding requests, committee members were mindful of the current fiscal climate and the need to thoroughly scrutinize the spending of public funds. Using this lens, the committee limited its recommendations to funding required to support critical functions of each statutory office to ensure that British Columbians can access essential, efficient, effective and timely services. The committee appreciates the statutory officers that acknowledged the need to minimize spending and took a more prudent approach when making their funding requests.

On behalf of the committee, and with all members of the Legislative Assembly, I extend our appreciation to all statutory officers and their staff for the important work that they undertake in support of Members of the Legislative Assembly and British Columbians. I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office for their support during this process.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members, especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, for their thoroughness and dedication to the work of this committee.

Elenore Sturko: I also would like to extend my appreciation to all members of the committee, including our Chair, the member for Burnaby South–Metrotown.

The consideration of the supplementary funding request from statutory officers outlined in this report was the first substantive item of business for the committee, and I’d like to thank all committee members for their collaboration during this process and the careful consideration of these requests.

Given the province’s current financial position, the committee appreciates the efforts by statutory officers to streamline costs or find efficiencies, particularly those that requested minimal or no additional funding for the fiscal year. The committee encourages all statutory officers to continue to pursue further efficiencies and savings wherever possible.

Echoing the Chair, the committee recognizes the significant work that statutory officers perform for British Columbians, and we look forward to engaging with all statutory officers again in the fall to consider their budget request for the 2026-27 fiscal year.

Jeremy Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,000 British Columbians.

The Speaker: Member, can you hold your petition yet? Let’s finish with this motion.

The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Jeremy Valeriote: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,000 British Columbians to withdraw Bill 15 intituled Infrastructure Projects Act.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Garry Begg: I have the honour to present the gaming policy and enforcement branch annual report for the period of April 12 to March 31, 2024.

Jessie Sunner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Jessie Sunner: I believe they’re still in the gallery right now. We have been joined by a lovely group of seniors from PICS Society, which is located in my riding of Surrey-Newton. They have made the journey over. I know their ferry was a little late, so they didn’t make it for the beginning of question period.

I just wanted to welcome them, as well as their organizing team and executive who are here today, and we will be meeting with them later.

Thank you, and welcome to this House.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

[2:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Steve Kooner: The Richmond Jewish Day School was here earlier today, and I just want to extend a warm welcome. They’re located on No. 5 Road in Richmond, in my constituency.

If the House can welcome them.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 5.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move third reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates for the Attorney General.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued committee stage of Bill 15.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage of Bill 14.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:55 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Attorney General
(continued)

The Chair: We’ll call this committee to order.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $750,254,000 (continued).

Teresa Wat: The provincial committee on anti-racism has been formed under the Anti-Racism Act to produce an action plan to address the harms of systemic racism specific to Indigenous People, Islamophobia and antisemitism.

This committee is chaired by the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, an organization that has spoken out against the adoption of IHRA’s, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s, definition of antisemitism. He supported the BDS — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions — movement and criticized the listing of Samidoun as a terror entity under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Does the Attorney General have confidence that this committee will produce an action plan that will, in part, address the harms of antisemitism as laid out in section 4(b) of this act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. The short answer is that I’m very confident in the committee and the committee’s ability to represent the community.

I’ll just note that we have a wide range of backgrounds and diversity on that committee, including members from the Jewish community, the South Asian community, a whole range of members. They were screened in a merit-based process for different skill sets.

The one in particular that the member notes has done a lot of really important work, including co-founding the Islamophobia Legal Assistance Hotline, and has served on the previous version of this, the MARB board, so brings a lot of experience to the role.

Teresa Wat: Thank you for the Attorney General’s response.

[3:00 p.m.]

But this is the chair. I wonder. Is the Attorney General aware of the past comments made by the chair of this committee, where he defended Hassan Diab, a terrorist who was found guilty in France for the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue that killed four people?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to talk about this, but I think it strays pretty far from the estimates process and the question of budgeting.

Each member of that anti-racism PCAR committee had a merit-based process for the selection, and I already mentioned that we have a wide range of members from society that have done real work on combatting racism in their communities. That’s the kind of talent and service…. I’m grateful for the time that they’re giving for the work that we’re doing.

Teresa Wat: I guess to give due credit to the Attorney General, the chair is somebody that — I mentioned all the records of him — is obviously antisemitic.

The Attorney General was saying that there are many other members in the committee. Can the Attorney General tell us who represents the Jewish community in the committee?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to note that I find that a pretty outrageous accusation to make, in the House, of somebody that’s serving as a public servant and the chair of a committee that doesn’t have an ability in this forum to defend themselves.

I think that people’s records on combatting hate in the province and fighting hate in all forms…. If you’re going to accuse somebody of that, you should think about their record. I just find that to be a very offensive way to phrase somebody.

The committee is made up of a range of people, including a member from the Jewish community. I also want to note that the process of this committee is also to go out and engage with communities.

They will be tasked through the very explicit Anti-Racism Act that names Islamophobia, antisemitism and forms of racism. They’ll be tasked with the engagement with communities. It’s not about tokenizing anybody on the committee. It’s about having that committee have the skill set that they can go out and meet with the community groups and do the work that they need to do.

Teresa Wat: I really beg to disagree with the Attorney General’s comment just now, for a chair who defended Hassan Diab, who is a terrorist, who was found guilty in France for the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue that killed four people. I simply don’t understand why we have to choose somebody to be the chair, when I quoted earlier on, also, that he was against the adoption of IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, supported the BDS movement and criticized the listing of Samidoun as a terror entity under the Canadian Criminal Code.

It’s not an accusation. I’m citing all the facts, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Minister, do you care to respond?

[3:05 p.m.]

Member, I didn’t really hear a question there. I would encourage you to ask a question of the minister.

Teresa Wat: The question is…. I beg to disagree that…. The minister just now made the accusation that it’s not fair for me to accuse the chair of having a position. I’m just citing all the facts that I just cited.

I want the Attorney General to tell us: is it an impartial decision to appoint somebody with the background that I cited as a chair of that committee, the anti-racism committee?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The process for selecting members of the committee is first set out in the act, where it says that the members should have knowledge of current and emerging anti-racism racial equity issues and anti-racist expertise and then the requirement for some specialized expertise.

The individual that is now the chair of the committee was previously on our committee for MARB, so had extensive knowledge about how the Anti-Racism Data Act was implemented and carries that forward with his work. There were three members of the previous committee that were kept on this committee through a process of making sure that their knowledge was maintained and their expertise on how the committee’s work was ongoing through ARDA.

That was the process. It was not a political process; it was a merit-based process.

Teresa Wat: I do understand the process of appointment of a committee member. I used to be the minister and also had to set up a committee.

I guess I have to put on record that for an anti-racism committee chair to have such an obvious background of having some position on a certain community…. Whether he should be qualified to lead this anti-racism committee, I want to put on the record, since I don’t think I can get any answer from the Attorney General.

In view of the time that I’m given…. I’m only having half an hour. I might go back to the Anti-Racism Data Act later. But I want to move on to another subject.

In my estimates debate with the Attorney General last year, the Attorney General referenced that there’s an anti-racism team set up in the AG office. Their job is working with community groups, and what they have come up with from the communities is that education needs to change. She cited the National Association of Japanese Canadians. The work that the team had done with them was talking about the wrongs and historic past-wrongs approach. That led to the team being in communication with the Ministry of Education, that make the Minister of Education make changes to the K-to-12 anti-racism education.

[3:10 p.m.]

Obviously, the whole government, particularly the Minister of Education, is fully aware that education is very important. Then, of course, education resources are just as crucial as part of the government’s effort to eliminate racism and dismantle systemic racism in our province.

I received an email on March 27 this year from the manager of LearnSpace of the Ministry of Education informing me that there is no hosting agreement in place for the website of Bamboo Shoots: Chinese Canadian Legacies in B.C. I guess the Attorney General was not in this Legislature during that year. That’s why I give a little bit of background. The email asked if I was interested in hosting this website, as I was the Multiculturalism Minister in 2015, responsible for introducing this educational resource.

The email continued to say: “If this website is no longer needed, we can also discuss a decommissioning option. Please reply by April 10, 2025, so we can determine the next steps.” So I responded to the manager my interest that, of course, you should continue the hosting of this website, because Bamboo Shoots is an educational resource to try to teach not only grade 5 and grade 10 social science students about what are the past wrongs that the former provincial government has done to Chinese pioneers but to post on the website to educate the general British Columbian that we have to learn from history. Otherwise, history will repeat itself.

So Bamboo Shoots — I spent $250K to work with the Royal B.C. Museum to come up with these educational resources. At that time, when I worked with the Education Minister, we tried to introduce the curriculum about the discrimination against Chinese pioneers a century ago, and the teachers told me that we cannot teach this part of the history because we were never taught.

That’s why I decided to put aside $250K from my million-dollar budget for my Chinese legacy initiative, to come up with these educational resources so that we can let British Columbians know what the past provincial government had done. They were so discriminatory.

Then you can imagine how shocked I was when I responded to the manager that this should continue, the website, and I was told that an annual payment of $1,000 is required for the continuation of this website or it will be decommissioned, meaning that the Bamboo Shoots educational resources material that was done by the previous provincial government will be gone if I’m not willing to pay $1,000 every year for hosting this website.

I was shocked and disappointed that, Attorney General, you have been informing the whole government, every single ministry, that we have to pursue the goal of eliminating systemic racism from the government and other public organizations. Yet your colleague the Education Minister has the courage to say that this Bamboo Shoots — this educational resource material that I, together with the former government, developed to try to educate British Columbians about this shameful history in the past — will be gone from the government website.

As I told the Attorney General, this resource was developed in 2015 for grade 5 and grade 9 in their social science class with the purpose of providing students with valuable insight into the history — the contributions of and the injustices against Chinese Canadians in our province. I hope the minister can agree that this Bamboo Shoots educational resource, developed by the previous government, falls in line with the current government’s anti-racism initiatives.

[3:15 p.m.]

This government introduced two very important pieces of legislation, of which I was involved in the debate in the committee stage, Anti-Racism Data Act and Anti-Racism Act, to eliminate systemic racism. I’m hoping, and I think, all ministers in the government are fully onboard with this commitment.

So does the Attorney General think it’s appropriate for the manager of LearnSpace of the Education Ministry to even suggest that if this Bamboo website is no longer needed, the ministry can also discuss this decommissioning option? Surely, the manager of LearnSpace should have revealed Bamboo Shoots and is aware that these educational resources are helping British Columbia understand the dark history of injustices to Chinese pioneers.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start by acknowledging the work of the member when she was minister and that that was, I’m sure, very important work at that time. She talks about those stories of the hardships that Asian people faced when they were immigrating here were not part in schools and were not part of curriculum. I think that kind of pioneer work that she did…. I just want to acknowledge her for that.

It’s the first that I’ve heard of this, so I’d have to take that away to understand how this plays with the Ministry of Education, as it doesn’t sit with my ministry.

I will say that right now — I’m sure, maybe the member knows — we have a commitment to developing K-to-12 anti-racism mandatory curriculum in schools, and that would be something that I think the Ministry of Education is working on.

There may be a way to incorporate that past work into the work that’s there, and I’ll just take that away.

Teresa Wat: Thank you, Attorney General, for your kind comments on what I did when I was the minister.

I’m hoping that the Attorney General can really talk to her colleague the Minister of Education to find out what is happening. I certainly hope that the payment decision that somebody…. Obviously, because I’m so passionate, I might have to take it out of my own pocket to pay for $1,000. But what happens if I’m gone, I’m no longer the MLA? Do I still keep paying $1,000 every month to keep this website going?

This is such a good education material, Bamboo Shoots. I don’t want it to be gone for good. I hope this is really negligence on the part of the staff, and also, if not the Education Minister — whether she knows what’s the priority of this government to eliminate systemic racism. I hope that this payment option, as I said, is just a negligence.

I’m hoping that the Attorney General can make sure that Bamboo…. I hope that the Attorney General can go on the website and look at Bamboo Shoots — I hope it’s still there — to understand how great this educational resource is and can still be there and maybe incorporated as part of your current plan to introduce anti-racism education from K to grade 12.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Same answer as before. I’m happy to look into it. It’s the first I’m hearing about the issue.

Teresa Wat: So do I get a commitment from the Attorney General that I will get a response, either yes or no, for sure, within a reasonable period of time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not my ministry, and it’s not in this estimates budget, so I don’t have a full answer based on what I know. But my commitment will be to speak to the Minister of Education and understand how this program is being integrated or what the thought is about it.

[3:20 p.m.]

Teresa Wat: I guess I don’t see a really positive response to my question then. I do understand that this doesn’t fall into your portfolio, but this is part of the anti-racism goal, and the anti-racism initiative is under the Attorney General. Educational resources are a tool to help eliminate systemic racism, so I’m just hoping that this will really be pursued. And $1,000 is not that much money for this government, having so much deficit.

Anyway, I am going to send an email to the Education Minister after this, and then I can also send the email chain to the Attorney General for info. I will cc the Attorney General so that you know what’s going on, what’s happening, and I’m sure you’ll be shocked too.

Now turning to the racism hotline. Since the launch of the racist incident hotline in May 2024, finally, after the pandemic was over — I urged for the setting up of a hotline in 2021; anyway, it is there — this House has heard very little in terms of updates or outcome.

We understand from the news release that was issued in March this year that the number of calls received is about 600, a number that does not really reflect the lived reality of racialized communities in B.C. Clearly, we know incidents of racism occur, still, quite frequently.

To the Attorney General, what specific action is the government taking to increase public awareness of this help line, particularly among communities most impacted by racism?

As a side note, I would say that virtually all my constituents have never heard of this help line, which is really a shame because we spent money setting up the hotline, even with support services as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To answer the question in a few ways, first of all, we’ve done a lot to do with marketing for RIH.

I think it’s interesting to put it into perspective. I remember when I was looking at the stats as I was tracking it in the first year. It’s also sad that we’re having people use the line, because that means that they’ve experienced something hateful and they’re reporting it, but at least they’re getting the supports they need.

As of today, we’ve received 804 calls. That’s resulted in 2,318 referrals. Just a little comparison there is that California, which is something that we were looking at, has a similar help line, and they received 900 calls, obviously for a much larger population, in one year of operation. We are at 804 calls as of today.

But we are working hard to get the message out, to the member’s question. In the budget, it was over $300,000 that we put into marketing, and we also have materials in many different languages to make sure that we’re getting the message out there to everyone. We’ve done outreach in schools and are also, I know, through the PS of Anti-Racism, working to just get the message out there through faith groups, schools and organizations that this help is out there, along with our partner organizations who are the receiving end of the referrals, who are also getting the message out there.

Since it’s relatively new, we still have work to do with that, but those are some of the tools that we’re using to get the word out there.

Teresa Wat: Thank you, AG, for providing the updated information.

I just wanted to bring this up just to warn not to waste the setting up of the help line in want of more awareness. I’m glad to know that the ministry is working on promoting even more extensively. Hopefully in next year’s budget debate, I won’t have to ask this question.

Another question I want to know is…. I haven’t seen any clear communication on how the data collected will be used, data collected from this hotline. I’m sure, as the Attorney General said that she listened to it…. We should collect all this data and try to analyze it and try to see how we can use it to drive systemic change.

[3:30 p.m.]

I haven’t heard anything on this. What is the timeline? I’m hoping that we can release the data to the public to know what kind of racism complaints or reports all the callers have. When can we expect it to inform real policy changes to better protect racialized and minority communities in this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just ask the member to stay tuned because we are…. First of all, the data that’s collected is respectful of the person, the privacy of the person and the sensitive nature of what we’re collecting. In that way, we’re very careful. We’ll be careful with anything we release to make sure people know that when they call, their privacy is respected.

We are waiting for a full year of data before we’ll release it, so just stay tuned on that. We will be reporting out our first year of operation so it’s a solid set of data.

Teresa Wat: I was worried that I can’t speak anymore. I have no more time.

Unfortunately, I have still a number of questions that I want to interrogate. I was told I can’t, so I’m going to send a written question to the Attorney General so that I can get some response back.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions or speakers, the question before this House will be Vote 14.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $750,254,000 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $112,638,000 — approved.

Vote 16: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 17: independent investigations office, $12,652,000 — approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee will be adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:34 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call the estimates for the Office of the Premier.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 3:36 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We are going to sit in recess for seven minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:36 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this committee back to order.

We are going to call on the Premier to move the vote.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000.

The Chair: Thank you, Premier. I wondered if you may have any opening statements or introductions to make.

Hon. David Eby: I do, hon. Chair. Thank you very much.

I am joined here by staff this afternoon. To my right, Shannon Salter, head of the public service. Jessica Prince, Maya Engelbrecht and Tom McCarthy are to my immediate left. Very much appreciative of the support of staff here this afternoon.

This estimates session and this session as a whole take place at a time of real global uncertainty. We started this session with the President of the U.S. initiating a series of threats towards our country — outright annexation, economic harm forcing us into a political union with the United States; and it really woke something up in British Columbians.

People made commitments about not travelling to the United States, to only buying Canadian products. We spoke with one voice that we were never going to become the 51st state and that we were going to stand up to those threats.

Here in B.C., we took the liquor off the shelves, and we committed to buy from Canadian companies, B.C. companies and other trusted trading partners rather than Americans.

Where we are now…. We’re seeing rapid global change and transition as a result of the threats emanating from the White House. But it’s not exclusively that. Europe is reducing their energy dependence on Russia because of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. China’s export controls on critical metals and minerals, that have hobbled American industry, have placed an increased importance on the resources we have here in the province and our ability to provide those, to provide stability to the global economy.

In this time of disruption and instability, there’s nowhere else I’d rather be than right here in British Columbia. We have everything we need to succeed. We have the resources that the world wants. We have cheap, clean electricity to produce them. Our ports face two-thirds of the world’s population, growing global markets, and can assist us in reducing our dependence on the United States.

But the biggest advantage we have, obviously, is British Columbians. Their skills, their talents, their innovation, their entrepreneurship, their resilience in challenging times are our secret weapon. And there is no question in my mind but that B.C. will be the engine of the new Canada that emerges from this time of global turbulence.

We have an obligation not just to British Columbians but to all Canadians to seize this moment, given the critical importance we play not just as a government for British Columbians but as a province in Confederation. We won’t back down. We’re going to rise to the occasion.

We have introduced a series of bills in this House around fast-tracking projects to be able to respond to the moment that we’re in; to ensure that we get things built faster; to both strengthen our people, through public services, and our economy; to grow our economy, prosperity for everybody.

We’ve launched a vision in partnership with First Nations for an economic future in the northwest of this province that promises to deliver $30 billion in capital investment in that region of the province, delivering those critical metals and minerals needed by the world.

It’s also about our clean electricity plan: $6 billion in private sector investment to deliver clean electricity to businesses here and to people in the province.

But it’s not just about growing the economy and the GDP. It’s also about people. Here in the province, rents are falling, and they’re falling faster than other provinces in Canada. Homes are being built.

We have more doctors and nurses coming on, including and particularly from the United States. We’ve doubled the number of nurses coming to British Columbia from the U.S., and they’re coming in just days. Their approvals to get to work, rather than…. Previously it took months for them to hit the floor to support other nurses and support British Columbians.

[3:50 p.m.]

And we’re helping with costs. Car insurance rates are flat for the sixth year in a row. We’ve delivered the fourth ICBC rebate to support drivers, and we eliminated the consumer carbon tax to help British Columbians with costs.

We have much more to do. As I say, this opportunity that we have is not just opportunity. It’s also a responsibility, a responsibility to all British Columbians to seize the moment but a responsibility to all Canadians to ensure that our country stands on our own two feet.

Canada depends on us to do this. Business as usual won’t cut it. Saying no won’t cut it. This is a moment where we step up, and British Columbians have always stepped up when it matters most.

That’s the context of the discussion today. That’s the context of the legislative session. We have definitely stepped up in this session of the Legislature.

I look forward to hearing the questions from the opposition today as we work together to ensure a strong province for British Columbians.

John Rustad: I want to start, as well, by recognizing the staff. Thank you for being here and the work you’re doing.

We’ll do our best to try to flow questions through a number of topics and try not to jump around too much in terms of where we go. Obviously, in the Premier’s estimates, it can go on a wide range of things. Like I say, we’ll try to keep things as focused as can be and make our time as efficient as possible.

As we go through this…. I thank the Premier for his opening comments, and yes, we are at a very critical time. I just want to reiterate something that the Premier just said: saying no won’t cut it. I think we’re going to have an opportunity to come back to those words numerous times through the course of these estimates, especially given his comment with regards to oil moving out to the coast, at the latest opportunity he had to get together with other Premiers.

Regardless of that, I think about B.C. being the engine of Canada, and I agree with the Premier there. It has the significant potential to play a huge role in terms of Canada and in terms of the Canadian future. Nowhere is that more important, I think, than throughout rural B.C., and that’s why I think it’s going to be important we start off with some questions with regards to rural B.C.

I agree about critical minerals and metals. It’s a shame it takes 15 years, up to 15 years to get a mining project through in this province. So we’re going to explore some topics around that and the process.

Electricity, of course, is an important piece. The Premier touched on that, and I agree. That is a critical need in British Columbia. We are short of electricity in British Columbia. We’re in a deficit at this point, and we’ll certainly be exploring some options and some of the issues associated with that.

First of all, like I say, I think it’s important that we start on the rural side, because whether it’s investments, whether it’s minerals, whether it’s movement of energy, whether it’s sequestration of energy…. All of that happens in more rural settings, not so much in urban settings.

With that, I want to start off with the first component of questions. Over to the member for Skeena to be able to ask some questions with regards to her critic role. Stikine, sorry — member from Stikine.

Sharon Hartwell: Although Skeena and I are neighbours and so is Nechako Lakes, we’re all in this House together.

I’d like to start with just a preamble to the Premier to let him know how my comments are going to go this afternoon.

Vancouver’s skyline is bankrolled by the mills, the rigs and the haul trucks of rural British Columbia, yet those towns face billion-dollar fire seasons, fibre baskets and approval queues that turn opportunities into orphan prospects. Rural British Columbia remains the economic engine that fuels urban prosperity, but too often the communities that drive our resource economy are left behind when it comes to approvals, infrastructure and policy certainty.

These questions aim to clarify the Premier’s commitment to expediting investment, modernizing processes and unlocking the full potential of B.C.’s forestry and mining sector while delivering fair returns for the rural people who make it possible.

Will the Premier provide a table showing, for each of the past five fiscal years, the number of major mine environmental assessment certificates applied for, approved and still pending, together with the average and longest processing times?

[3:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, due to a time allocation order regarding Bill 7, I’m going to call on the Premier, if I could, to report progress of the estimates of the Premier’s office.

Hon. David Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:58 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:59 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act

The Speaker: Hon. Members, it being 4 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, the House will proceed to the consideration of third reading of Bill 7, intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move third reading.

The Speaker: Members, you heard the question of third reading of Bill 7, intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Lore	Valeriote	Botterell
NAYS — 44
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman	McCall	Kealy
Armstrong		Brodie

The Speaker: Members, Bill 7, 2025, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act has been read a third time and has passed.

Steve Kooner: I ask leave to present a petition on Bill 7.

The Speaker: Just proceed.

Leave granted.

Petitions

Steve Kooner: It would have been better to present it earlier, but I’d like to present it now. There are 1,687 paper signatures. There were 29,264 online signatures for a total of 30,951 signatures to have Bill 7 withdrawn. I’d just like to present this.

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:15 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this committee back to order and call on the Premier to move the vote.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000 (continued).

The Chair: I believe we will await an answer for the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

Hon. David Eby: I thank the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for starting us off on an interesting note here.

The Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities actually travelled through Terrace, and then, right through the member’s constituency as first trip as minister of state, meeting with local mayors.

One of the notes that the mayors brought forward was, obviously, always advocacy for their communities but, certainly, appreciation for the work that we did together on the Resource Benefits Alliance request. When the province is deriving benefits from, particularly, the northwest, it was the advocacy of these mayors that there should be some return back to communities, which was much in line with the member’s question.

The Kitimat-Stikine regional district receives $11,898,950 annually through that program. The town of Smithers, $21.9 million. The goal of that is to recognize exactly what the member said, that there is significant contribution from rural communities in this province to the overall prosperity of the province and that they should be able to do the basics — pave their roads, open community centres and provide benefits for community members. I’m very proud of the work we did there, and I’m very grateful to the work of those mayors from the northwest that we got that done.

On the specific question about mining, I hope the member also raised this with the Minister of Mining. I can provide some broad information, although I don’t have the chart the member is looking for.

[4:20 p.m.]

For major mines, we’ve been working hard on reducing permit timelines. We’ve reduced those timelines by 37 percent. In exploration, Mt. Wilson Silica Ventures had notice of work for the Longworth silica project approved in 44 days.

J2 Metals copper and molybdenum project notice of work went from application to approval in 54 days.

Osisko’s Cariboo Gold obtained their major mine operating permit in 13 months.

Artemis Gold’s Blackwater gold and silver mine, which I hope to visit soon, is officially opening shortly and obtained its major mine operating permit within 18 months.

The Cariboo Gold project: 634 people employed during construction, and a $1 billion investment.

Artemis Gold: 457 jobs over the life of the project, a $13.2 billion contribution to the provincial economy.

Overall, we are meeting 90 percent of our legislated timelines for environmental assessment. We just finished an amendment for Cedar LNG 40 percent faster than average. Cariboo Gold’s environmental assessment was completed 20 percent faster than average. We’re working with the permitting agencies to do concurrent permitting so that permits can be issued after a certificate is issued. We’re estimating that if we’re successful in that, we will see improvements of 30 percent or more for projects that are currently underway.

The Highland Valley Copper combined environmental assessment certificate and permitting process is nearly complete and is anticipated to be referred for decision shortly. The Eskay Creek environmental assessment certificate amendment is well underway, and the permitting process is set to begin this month.

The typical average regulatory timeline for this scale of project would be 5.5 years. We expect to reduce this by 30 percent, through a deep, collaborative approach with nations and the proponent. This was the first project to have a consent agreement with a First Nation.

The Red Chris environmental assessment certificate amendment is well underway, and the permitting process is set to begin in June. The typical average regulatory timeline for this scale project would be 3½ years. We expect to reduce this by 30 percent through, as I said, this deep, collaborative approach with nations and the proponent.

The Mount Milligan combined EAC and permitting process started at the end of March 2025. The typical average regulatory timeline for this scale of project would be 3½ years. We expect to be able to reduce this by 60 percent through a tailor-made approach to managing the EA and permitting review as a combined process.

These four mining projects are subject to decisions under the Environmental Assessment Act, as well as statutory decisions under the Mines Act and Environmental Management Act.

While I wasn’t able to provide all of the data the member was seeking, best placed to the minister of mines, I hope it does provide some of the data she was seeking in terms of where government is going and what is in the queue right now.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you, Premier, for the answer. I guess I’m going to have to shorten my questions so that I can get through a few more of these today.

At what precise stage of the EA process is the Tenas steelmaking coal project today? On what date does cabinet expect to render its certification decision? What permitting milestones remain before construction can begin?

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. David Eby: I apologize for the delay.

Now is the member’s time to ask whatever she wants, but the Minister of Environment is responsible for the EAO process. The Minister of Mining would have this information quite readily available. We have to take some extra steps to try to obtain it for her, and we have.

Currently the project proponent is revising their submission. The EAO understands that they will receive the submission from the proponent and start the assessment phase in November of this year. So it’s currently not with the EAO; it’s with the proponent.

Sharon Hartwell: Will the Premier confirm whether this government will admit or support the fact that metallurgical high coking coal for steelmaking is a critical mineral?

Hon. David Eby: Our critical minerals list — like many provinces, we align it with the federal list. That assists us in minimizing challenges between provincial and federal programs in terms of attracting investment.

[4:35 p.m.]

Maybe this would assist. I can agree with the substance of what I understand the member’s question to be, which is: should it be considered as critical? The answer is yes. Metallurgical coal is required in the steelmaking process around the world. B.C.’s steelmaking coal has the lowest emissions in the world.

We’re supportive of and trying to assist steelmaking companies in adopting green ammonia as co-firing for, ultimately, a future where coal is not required, but that future is not here yet. Our metallurgical coal is needed and reduces emissions where it’s used preferentially to coal from other jurisdictions.

We’re working with the sector to ensure a strong and thriving met coal mining sector in the province. The most recent example is the 2024 permitting of the Quintette mine. It had been closed for 24 years, and it demonstrates that investors are seeing British Columbia as a place to help meet global demand with respect to metallurgical coal.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for the answer.

Moving along to the top end of the riding, in Atlin, they’ve always struggled with permitting. The thing that I’ve heard through the office is that now that they have to…. Some of them are waiting up to three years for their permits for their placer mines.

Is there some way that the government is going to be able to streamline rather than fast-track their permits for the seasonal entrepreneurs? They still have to pay their fees for their claims all year long. The other thing that goes along with that is they’re having to put some things online to register their claims, and they don’t want to do that because that’s confidential information.

Can the Premier provide any information on those two items so that I can let them know what the government is doing about that?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Mineral and coal exploration, placer and jade aggregate and rock quarry Mines Act permits are managed by regional offices of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, which are located in Victoria, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Prince George and Smithers.

The Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals is working with industry associations to reduce permitting backlogs and review timelines for notice-of-work applications related to exploration. The ministry has made significant improvements, overall, to regional office application forms and has provided guidance to assist operators in submitting high-quality applications.

In particular, they introduced a permit intake window batching process in the fall of 2022. This is on the exploration side. Since 2022, overall, these regional permit backlogs have been reduced by 52 percent. In 2024, the average turnaround times for exploration permits were 145 days and 167 days for sand and gravel permits.

[4:45 p.m.]

Specifically, in relation to placer permitting, in 2022-2024, these were applications received by the ministry for placer mining: in 2022, 109; in 2023, 120; in 2024, 73. For 2022-24, these were decisions that were made by the ministry: 147 in 2022, 113 in 2023, 74 in 2024.

As the member can see, there are more decisions than applications being made, so the backlog in placer mining applications has been worked through. This has also likely been eased by the fact that government has restricted jade placer mining. There was a practice, particularly in the Tāłtān area, that was quite destructive to local rivers. It was quite an environmental issue in the region. The government worked with the Tāłtān to address it.

Also, with respect to the member’s question about Atlin, the Taku River Tlingit and others, the opportunity in that region that was facilitated by making what was a difficult decision, but an important decision, about jade placer mining has enabled the possibility of what we think is $30 billion in capital investment in major projects.

In the Atlin region of the Taku River Tlingit area, there is a Canagold project which will provide significant employment in the region and has the potential to assist with remediation of an historic mine site in the area that’s resulting in acid rock leakage in the region as well. It is an area of remarkable opportunity.

We’re working through our backlogs with respect to placer mining, and the member’s constituents should be hearing answers from the regional office and can check with the regional office on timelines. Probably the Smithers office would be the most likely location for that.

Finally, with respect to the online permitting process, I’m not totally sure. The member might be able to assist me with clarification.

On the new exploration mineral tenure application process, the only online information that is public is the name of the company. Proprietary information is not made public. We are aware of the sensitive nature of that information with respect to exploration that’s taking place in the province. What is public is the name of the company.

If it’s not what the member was talking about, I’m happy to hear from her, and we’ll do our best to get updated information.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for that. I would welcome that information, because that’s not what I’m hearing on the ground.

Part of the discussion, I think, with the placer miners is that although there is an office in Smithers, which the Premier knows, it is taking an awful long time from season to season to get some of them processed. I don’t know whether that’s a lack of staffing or a lack of people that are qualified to do that. I will be happy to follow up on that with the Premier or the mining office.

Moving on to roads, Babine Lake resource roads and the Suskwa are in terrible shape, and on those two roads alone, as we’ve talked about before, the majority of the money to fuel this province comes out of the North, out of the Golden Triangle in that area. So they’re seeing about 150 or 160 truckloads a day on each of those roads for the only two mills that are operating in that area.

The Babine Lake Road is a historically old road. It’s had improvements up and down, but right now the Premier needs to commit to putting a substantial amount of repairs to those roads, because the loggers are seeing up to $75,000 in repairs on their vehicles.

What’s in the budget for that, and how soon can that be accomplished on both of those roads?

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The Minister of Forests is responsible for forestry roads, many of which serve small rural communities and First Nations communities.

Obviously, being the sole means of access and egress for these communities, support for road maintenance and capital upgrade funding is important. That’s why Budget 2024-2025 increased road maintenance and capital upgrade funding, which is already improving five key forest service roads in the province that access ten First Nations communities, making them safer for community members, ambulances, service vehicles and school buses.

Budget 2024-25 provides the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation with $12 million in one-time funding that it’ll allocate to the First Nations to support capacity-building, including equipment acquisition and training so they can maintain the roads for their own communities.

The forest road maintenance budget has increased by $3.2 million, totalling an amount of $9.6 million over the three-year fiscal plan. That’s the increase. The forest base capital budget increased by $5.5 million, totalling $16.5 million. That’s the increase over the three-year fiscal plan.

In the North, it was the Leo and Driftwood FSRs and the Cunningham FSR, a combination of 270 kilometres of improvements, where some of these roads were improved.

Specific to the member’s question, we were able to find information about the Babine Lake Road. Specifically, there is a local maintenance contractor responsible for maintaining that road and paid by the province to do so, paid to maintain the road in good condition, and if there are issues related to that, reporting that to the Minister of Forests so we can ensure that the maintenance contractor is meeting expectations.

[5:00 p.m.]

I can advise that the contractor has been awarded a contract to do $100,000 in base repairs to the Babine Lake Road, that there will be a seal coating of the first 18 kilometres of the road starting at H-16 and that gravelling work will also be done on the road.

We don’t have information about any scheduled improvements to the other road mentioned by the member, but the Ministry of Forests maintains a maintenance budget to address issues in communities. I would encourage the member to meet with the Minister of Forests on that.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for the answer.

I will follow up with that, but it’s my understanding that that piece of road that I’m speaking of actually belongs to the province and it’s part of the highway system which the provincial government is supposed to maintain.

The other road that’s in really bad shape is Highway 37. As you know, we talked about Highway 37, or the province did. You talked about $30 billion invested in the North for mining. Is the Premier prepared to upgrade Highway 37, put money into it so that they can get up there and bring out these resources? How much is that?

The pavement condition reports 42 percent of the segments are in poor or very poor shape. At what point are they going to upgrade the road so that we can get on with the mining that’s expected in the North?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The province is committing $120 million to this project to improve Highways 37, 37A and 51. The federal government is committing $75 million out of their critical minerals fund for this project. It’s a combination investment of $195 million, which will enhance road safety and reliability. It will definitely assist with mining development in the region, but it will also open up better access to more services for First Nations and local communities in the region.

President Slater of the Tāłtān Central Government has been supportive of this investment. President Slater says: “Mining is a part of our culture and economy. For thousands of years, Tāłtāns prospected, mined and traded obsidian. While we recognize the need for critical minerals for a low-carbon future, this can only happen with the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, the pace and scale of mining in our territory will be determined by the Tāłtān Nation. Today’s announcement regarding safer highways for our people is welcomed by the Tāłtān Nation.”

You can hear in that quote the importance of improvements to community, to continued support of the Tāłtān for mining. In the Golden Triangle, we have a generational opportunity to partner with First Nations, protect land and water for future generations and also realize $30 billion in capital investment in this province, hundreds of jobs and significant GDP growth, leading to increased revenues for the province to deliver services to British Columbians.

Upgrades to these highways — 37, 37A and 51 — have been a top priority for the Tāłtān Central Government for many years, which is why this was prioritized. Specifically, the project will provide a series of improvements for Highway 37, including widening shoulders; creating pullouts for slow-moving vehicles; adding chain-up/chain-off areas; and increasing Wi-Fi access along 800 kilometres of roadway, which might sound like an amenity, but it’s actually potentially a life-or-death emergency service for people in remote areas.

Highway 37A, which provides access to Canada’s northernmost ice-free port in Stewart, will also be upgraded. The Highway 51 segment includes the connection from Telegraph Creek to Dease Lake and Highway 37.

Chief Carmen McPhee of the Tāłtān Band said: “Our three Tāłtān communities have struggled for generations with safe passage via Highway 37 and 51 to southern communities where people depend on the everyday facets of life, including emergency health care, food and other everyday necessities often taken for granted by many residents of B.C. Resource development must result in the betterment of First Nation communities. While we applaud this announcement, there is much more work to do not only in Tāłtān territory but elsewhere in the province.”

I can assure the member that we are definitely doing that group. This highway will benefit not just mining, not just the Tāłtān but the entire region.

I thank the member for the question.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for the answer.

I just want to know if that work is going to start this year. There are many communities up there that are going to benefit from those improvements.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: On Stewart-Cassiar Highway, engineering and geotechnical work is underway right now. Major works are expected to commence next year.

On Highway 51, culverts are being replaced, and other work is underway this year. We are in different processes on different aspects of the project, but work is beginning this year on 51, and then major works start next year once the geotech and engineering is complete on the other.

John Rustad: Thanks to the Premier for those answers for my colleague. One of the reasons the questions were quite specific around a number of projects is that there is often a timely delay in getting responses from ministers, when requested, about this, so we thought it might be a way to be able to get some of the information.

Perhaps a quick question to the Premier with regards to the time it takes for ministers to be able to respond to questions from MLAs. How long does the Premier consider to be appropriate to be able to get a response?

Obviously, there are lots of issues that come up that can be responded to pretty quickly, but in several cases here, particularly around questions around mining, it was several months and no answer.

I wonder if the Premier has an opinion in terms of how quickly his ministers should be able to respond to questions and whether or not there’s a message he would send to his ministers with regards to being able to respond more quickly or appropriately to questions that have come from members of this Legislature.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Top line, my expectation is that ministers provide answers as quickly as possible to colleagues in the Legislature, including from the opposition and Third Party. I don’t have knowledge of the specific issue the member has identified; I was trying to do my best to figure out with our team what he was referring to. But that is the expectation that I have.

One of the things that MLAs can do to assist…. I suspect we’re past this point, but in the early days, there would be questions going to Legislature offices rather than ministerial offices or political staff. The fastest and best route is to direct it either to the minister directly or through political staff to the minister.

Certainly, my expectation is that those staff and ministers make themselves available to receive and answer those questions.

John Rustad: Thank you to the Premier. In many cases, at least certainly in my experience…. I’ve been in this building and had the honour of representing my riding for a number of years. I’ve always had the opportunity and many of my other colleagues have had the opportunity to end up talking to regional staff to be able to answer questions.

Of late, all regional staff, certainly that I’m hearing from other members of the Legislature on the opposition side…. They have been told by regional staff that they can’t answer the questions, that they have to go through the minister’s office, which obviously creates significant delays.

I’m just wondering if the Premier can confirm that that is now the direction of this government — that all questions must go through ministers’ staff and that there is no opportunity for MLAs to be able to have those quick and easy relationships with people on the ground to be able to answer questions directly.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member has a different recollection than I do. When I sat on that side of the House, I would have loved access to the Ministry of Housing executive directors, to B.C. Lottery Corp. analysts, to ICBC policy staff.

I’ll say this. When the member sat on this side of the House, the government never hesitated. If we asked for a briefing, they’d arrange a briefing for us on points of information. We had casework. Housing was the file I paid the most attention to, because I was the critic for the longest period. Minister Coleman would take that casework seriously and respond to us about it.

The big picture is that ministers and their teams are expected to get answers to MLAs about casework that you have. That’s your job. It’s our job to ensure all British Columbians get answers to concerns that they have. There are occasions where direct access is needed and it’s necessary to get information out quickly — emergency response, wildfire preparedness, and so on.

Generally speaking, the approach is through the ministers and through political staff to get information and to do casework. We strive to be responsive to all members of the House, including MLAs from our party, when they have concerns around casework, because the concerns of British Columbians are important to us.

There are exceptions to the broad policy, but it’s certainly not new. The goal here is to ensure that complete and accurate information is provided in a timely way to all members.

John Rustad: One of the reasons why I’m asking about information or the process to be able to chat with local people…. For example, in a health authority, it’s sometimes important…. On many occasions over the years, I’ve met with the CEO of Northern Health. Other MLAs have met with CEOs of other health authorities to get an update on what’s going on. It has been very effective.

[5:25 p.m.]

One of our MLAs put a request in to one of the CEOs of a health authority and had been waiting several months to get an opportunity to meet. Staff got an email back, saying that they would have to connect with GCPE, the government communications folks, before they could schedule a meeting.

I’m just wondering why they would have a say as to whether or not a meeting would happen between a CEO of a health authority and an MLA.

Hon. David Eby: I’d advise the member that GCPE has no role in scheduling meetings for health authorities. The member’s question had related to access to direct government, as I understood it, but I understand now he’s referring to health authorities.

Just as a broad principle, we’ve got almost 100 MLAs here that would very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with their local health authority CEOs and go through detailed questions and concerns about their communities. The challenge is that there is only one health authority CEO in each region, managing and triaging requests so that we can get information to members quickly. These CEOs are expected to run the health authorities.

We can still get information. We can still get relevant details and assist with casework in other ways. The member is correct that there is not a direct access line for meetings with health authority CEOs for MLAs, but we’re happy to arrange whatever we can in providing information, to MLAs, that they may have or in assisting with casework in relation to health authorities or projects in their regions.

John Rustad: That wasn’t exactly the question I asked the Premier. Usually, once a year or maybe twice a year, you get an opportunity to meet with the CEO just to go over all the priorities and various issues. Usually it’s a team that goes through, so I just couldn’t quite understand why a meeting like that would have to go through GCPE.

Regardless, I do want to move on. There are other things that we need to talk about it. It just seems to be rather strange.

[5:30 p.m.]

It made me wonder a little bit about the Premier’s statement after the election, where I think he said something along the lines that he wasn’t willing to work with everyone whose opinions he disagreed with. I wonder if that, maybe, is coming into play.

Regardless of that, I do want to move on to some other topics that we need to be canvassing. In particular, I want to talk about the permitting process and the environmental assessment process that we have in the province of British Columbia. Starting off, we’ll go into talking a little bit about mining.

Over the last number of years, the amount of money being spent on exploration has dropped by 27 percent. The amount of metres drilled in terms of exploration has dropped by 40 percent. There’s a continual complaint about the challenge and the time it takes to get permits for various projects. Those are all known facts, and the Premier talked about those in terms of his response earlier to some of the mining things.

What I’d like to ask the Premier is: what are the factors that go into the time it takes to get a permit through for the mining sector? The various components that go through, whether that’s consultation, whether that’s environmental, whether that’s various other components…. What are all the things that lead up to the time frame it takes to be able to get the permits approved for a mining sector, whether it’s exploration or whether it’s additional work that needs to be done in the mining sector?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: A lot of energy and resources have gone into reducing permitting backlogs related to notice of work for exploration in the province. There have been improvements made to application forms and guidance made to assist operators in submitting high-quality applications.

In particular, the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals introduced a permit intake window batching process in the fall of 2022 for mineral exploration files. The process provides a scheduled approach to permit reviews and provides operators with more predictability with respect to when their applications will be reviewed. I’m happy to say that since 2022, the backlog has been reduced by 52 percent. The ministry is aiming to eliminate the backlog entirely by July of this year.

In 2024, the average turnaround time for exploration permits was 145 days, excluding proponent time. Examples of this…. Mt. Wilson Silica Ventures had the notice of work for their Longworth silica project approved in just 44 days. J2 Metals copper and molybdenum project — notice of work went from application to approval in just 54 days.

The member asked: what are the factors? Maybe he could provide a little bit more detail about what he’s after. The stages of consideration of an exploration permit are…. There’s an initial screening stage, for completion and obvious issues with the application that need to be addressed. Then there’s a review and consultation stage, there’s a permit drafting stage, there’s a referral stage, and then there is the decision on the permit.

The member presented data that might suggest that mining was not doing what it is doing in our province, which is growing dramatically. Last year mineral exploration expenditures in B.C. amounted to $550 million, the fourth-highest amount on record. Employment in the sector has grown by 10 percent since 2017, with 40,000 jobs for people in mining, in communities throughout the province, over the last three years.

Capital investment in B.C.’s mining sector is the highest it’s ever been, growing 116 percent since 2017. Since 2017, 198 new mining businesses have opened in B.C. That’s 55.3 percent growth. That’s more than double the rate in the rest of Canada.

We’re pushing hard on mining. This week’s announcement in the northwest is another example of how we’re working hard to get mines under construction and doing it in partnership with nations and also in a way that protects the land for future generations.

John Rustad: Well, the numbers the Premier says…. Perhaps he should talk to the Association for Mineral Exploration. Their numbers seem to be somewhat different in terms of the actual exploration that is going on in B.C. and the results associated with that. But that can be something the Premier could argue with them down the road around this.

The reason why I’m asking, in particular, about the factors going into the permitting process is that overall, what I’m told by MABC, the Mining Association of B.C., as well as AME BC, the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C., is that it can take 12 to 15 years to get a mining project through in British Columbia. When you look at that….

[5:40 p.m.]

The Premier gave numbers, for example, on the Blackwater project, of 18 months to get its major mining permit done. It started in the mining application process; I think it was 2012 or 2013. It was 12 to 13 years from the time that it started going through the process of applying to get a permit, applying to open a mine, to the time when the mine is now opened, which we’re going to be celebrating, actually, on Friday. I think there’s a ribbon cutting and opening for the Blackwater project.

When I look at the 12 to 15 years it takes to get a mine open in this province, I look at Sweden, and it says it takes two years to do the same thing. I’m trying to figure out just what it is that takes so long in British Columbia to get a mining project operating compared to other jurisdictions. When you go to, for example, Australia, I think it’s three to five years. You go down to Chile. I think it’s two to three years. I think it’s three years in Chile. Other jurisdictions in the world have figured out how to do this.

It’s great that the Premier has got a focus and wants to see all the mining up in the northwest of the province. We certainly support seeing the mining activity, and I think, quite frankly, there are some 27 mines in this province, with a total of about $100 billion worth of investment that could go ahead in British Columbia. Seventeen of them are in the permitting process and could happen quite quickly, with the other ones taking a little bit longer.

But the reality…. When it takes that long to get a mine open, to get through a process in British Columbia, it begs the question: why does it take so much longer here than other jurisdictions?

Perhaps a simple question to the Premier, who seems to have become a big fan of mining, which is great to see. Has he actually done a review of British Columbia’s process from the start through to the end of being able to get a mine open versus other jurisdictions that are far more efficient and far more capable? And has he done any kind of analysis in terms of how that time could be significantly reduced so that we can actually build confidence in the mining sector in British Columbia?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Big picture, government is meeting 90 percent of our legislated timelines in the environmental assessment process. We completed the Cariboo Gold environmental assessment 20 percent faster than average. In the energy sector, the amendment for Cedar LNG, 40 percent faster.

We’re working with permitting agencies to do concurrent permitting so permits can be issued after a certificate is issued, which we estimate could provide timeliness improvements of 30 percent or more for projects that are currently underway.

The major mine projects where we’re seeing results of improvement…. Osisko’s Cariboo Gold obtained their major mine operating permit at 13 months. I know the member is critical, but it was 18 months for Artemis, for the Blackwater gold and silver mine to obtain its major mine operating permit. There was a lot of process before the application came in, but it was 18 months under my watch as Premier. Not at the time that the member sat on this side of the House. That was four years that project drifted.

The member says he’s in favour of our work in the northwest on mining. I’m not so sure about that. I know who is: the Mining Association of B.C.

“This vision and partnership recognize that mining and critical minerals in northwest B.C. and all across our province can help secure our economic future and long-term prosperity amidst the serious geopolitical, economic and fiscal challenges that Canada faces. The Kaska, Tāłtān, Taku River Tlingit First Nation, along with B.C. and Canada industry workers and other stakeholders will embark on a process that will protect important lands and provide generational economic benefits for the northwest and the entire province and country for decades to come.”

That’s Michael Goehring from the Mining Association of B.C. The Mining Association of B.C. is in support of that.

The member opposite has singled out the protection of land and water in the northwest for ridicule, saying that the goal of protection of 30 percent of our land base by 2030 was absurd. He has, on social media, playing to what audience I don’t know, suggested that working with nations on consent-based agreements, which is what we’re working on in the northwest, gives a veto to nations and that creates a racial….

Maybe the member can remind me of the words he used, the incredibly derogatory words he used to describe working in partnership with nations to get projects on faster.

He is not in favour of what we’re doing in the northwest, and it’s why the sector languished. This is hard work. It’s challenging work. Everybody’s got to give a little bit. But the vision that we have, that’s being realized in the northwest, is replicable across the province. It’s getting mines approved. The partnerships at the Blackwater mine are remarkable and exceptional. Red Chris was a consent-based agreement.

We’re keen on this work, because it is getting results. We’re growing our sector. We’re growing employment. We’re growing capital investment, and we’ve got lots more to do.

[5:50 p.m.]

John Rustad: I love to see the rhetoric coming from the Premier. Obviously, I got under his skin a little bit, but the question was really quite simple: how is it that another jurisdiction can do it in two years and that it takes 12 to 15 years in British Columbia? Why not do the analysis so that you can tear apart all these issues?

The Premier goes on the attack about that. I’ve never said things like that. I support the northwest, mining in the northwest. I support the First Nations and their opportunity to be able to prosper in it. Economic reconciliation is all about that. That’s what I’ve talked about.

What I do want to know from this Premier is why he won’t do the work of looking at other jurisdictions and simply doing the analysis. What is it that they are doing that is so much easier or better so that they can get projects done in a much faster way? Will the Premier commit to doing that analysis, looking at these other jurisdictions and doing that comparison to British Columbia, so that we can understand why it takes so long to get projects approved in British Columbia?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I just had to gather some receipts.

The Minister of Environment, the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals and the Minister of Water, Lands and Natural Resources have been tasked by me, in their mandate letters, to do a review of the full permitting process in the province, expediting permits, which includes a review of other jurisdictions’ approaches.

[6:00 p.m.]

I have already asked the ministers to do exactly the work the member has suggested, and it is well underway. We’re seeing results. I’ve outlined for the member where we’re seeing results in terms of driving down permit times. If the member says that we’ve got more work to do, well, I certainly accept that critique. We do. We’re going to continue to do this work.

The member insists, though, that he supports the work in the northwest, which includes land protection towards our 30 by 30 goal and includes consent agreements with nations in order to get these projects done.

His party is sending out tweets. Here’s the president: “Do we live in a racial oligarchy? This is getting wildly out of hand.” This is in response to a Globe and Mail article from May 11.

The member himself, in the Narwhal headline: “B.C. Conservative Leader Says His Party Would Kill ‘Nonsense Plans’ for New Protected Areas.”

The member’s tweet, May 12 — this isn’t some ancient history:

“British Columbians are in agreement on reconciliation and have a respect for First Nations cultural rights, including title. However, B.C.’s provincial government is supposed to govern for all British Columbians. The Premier’s NDP should not be giving any special group (1) veto on whether or not projects are prioritized by B.C.’s government, (2) veto powers over land rights and access rights on privately owned property in B.C., (3) veto over access to and use of public lands in B.C.

“The B.C. NDP’s veto approach is setting back reconciliation, driving away investment and undermining B.C.’s economy and breaking down trust between British Columbians. B.C. needs to end the Premier’s veto if we want to get our economy going again.”

Well, actually, working in partnership with nations on consent agreements is exactly how we’ll keep our economy going and, in fact, grow it quite substantially if we are successful in our work in partnership with the nations of the northwest of the province.

This member says he supports it, but his public statements quite clearly demonstrate that he is not in support of this massive economic opportunity and what is required in order to realize it.

John Rustad: No, I don’t support this Premier’s 30 by 30 plan. I’ll say that very clearly. I think that is an absolute disaster. It’s part of the WEF. If he wants to run this province based on other jurisdictions, I think that’s just fine. We have more protected area in this particular province than any other jurisdiction in Canada, if not in the world already, especially once you start adding in constraints that are in place. We’ve done a good job in this province of protecting land to date.

With regards to that, when it comes to the First Nations issues, trust me, the Premier and I will get an opportunity to go into quite some detail about that a little bit later in estimates.

Nice to see that the Premier has started looking at other jurisdictions in terms of what we need to do in this province. It’s a shame that didn’t happen eight years ago when the NDP first started, with the changes they made to environmental assessment as well as the other layers upon layers of bureaucracy that’s been put in place that has made it so difficult to get anything done in this province and also so incredibly expensive.

I’m glad the Premier has admitted that he has failures in his government from over the years in terms of why we have such poor economic performance in this province and why we haven’t been able to get things going.

For example, the Premier mentioned Highland Valley Copper as a project that’s being fast-tracked going forward. How many years is it now? Five, six years since we’ve been waiting to get permits through because there are two First Nations that disagree. The other First Nations are on side.

I once asked the deputy, or one of the people in the government — I shouldn’t name one person in particular, because I don’t even know if that person is still involved in the bureaucracy — about this. This was back about seven years ago when I talked to him about this. I said: “In a situation like Highland Valley where you have 17 First Nations or thereabouts that require approval, what happens if one decides it doesn’t want to go forward?” Well, the project will just have to stop until we can get consensus.

Those are thousands of jobs that would have to be put on hold, that would not be able to work. The workforce would move on. Mining would have to stop until you work through the issue and get consensus. What about the other nations that wanted it to go forward? What about the company? What about the workers? What about all of their rights? What about their needs in this province?

[6:05 p.m.]

I agree entirely that you need to be able to sit down, you need to work through things with First Nations, and you need to be able to come to agreement. At the same time, you may end up in a situation where you have one that doesn’t agree, and you have to be able to move forward in that particular case.

Highland Valley, the Premier highlighted, is a project that’s obviously been operating for many, many years. It’s been in the permitting process, and it’s been stalled out because of the policies and approaches of this government. Now it says it’s going to fast-track, and it’s putting it on its list to celebrate, even though it’s been years now in the making.

When it comes to permitting and the permitting process in general, this is one of the reasons why I’m asking about these reviews. It’s great to see that these reviews are taking place, and I’m looking forward to actually seeing that. I sure hope the Premier comes out and gives the full list of all the delays and problems and challenges that we have in British Columbia versus the other jurisdictions so that we can look at the mess that has been created by this government, in terms of being able to move forward, and the suggestions for how to improve it and make it work.

That’s good. I guess a quick question I’ve got on that…. The Premier has got these in the mandate letters for the various ministers to look at this. What is the time frame expected to come back? I mean, is this in their four-year mandate, to look at this to come back, or is this in a matter of a few months to come back, in terms of changing it?

Obviously, it’s important to improve this process and to speed it up to be able to get these investments happening, so I’m just very curious to know how quickly the expectation is of this Premier to be able to have the analysis, whether that analysis will be made public in terms of it and what the expectation is for implementation.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member decries the economic performance of the province. Since 2017, we have the second-highest GDP growth in the country. Our GDP growth, at 20 percent, is second among provinces, behind only P.E.I. Our unemployment rate is one of the lowest among provinces and below the national average. Our debt-to-GDP is one of the lowest in the country.

So far this year we have the second-highest increase in private sector employment in the country. Last year we created 41,100 private sector and self-employed jobs. In 2022 and ’23, we attracted a record-setting $117 billion in capital investment, which is 73 percent more than 2017.

We’ve got to keep working. There’s a major threat on the horizon. Well, that’s realized, actually, with the tariffs, the duties that are being imposed on the seafood industry, on the softwood lumber industry, and the continued threats from the President of the United States, which is why we are doing this permitting work. Not exclusively — we started this permitting work before. But that’s certainly why we need to get these projects across the line. At least the member and I can agree on that work.

The member seems to understand that we’re preparing some kind of a report and then, following the report’s recommendations, taking action. What’s actually happening is that as projects are going through and bottlenecks in permitting are being identified, they’re being addressed in our prioritized projects list.

But also, the public service is doing the work to identify the systemic issue that’s causing that — legislation, some sort of internal process — and fixing it so that future projects benefit from it. That’s how we’ve been able to cut the old backlog of permits by 52 percent, also adding additional resources to be able to process.

The average timeline for major permitting review projects has dropped by 36 percent because of this approach. We’re going to continue that. We’ve more work to do on that. I gave the member some examples previously. I don’t think I need to repeat them.

The important takeaway here, I think, should be that what’s happening in terms of the mandate letter direction to the relevant ministers is a process where the issues are being identified and fixes are being put in place for projects immediately, and then the systemic fixes are taking place. We expect to be able to bring forward some proposals around specific policy or legislative amendments, as required, through this process.

Finally, the member outlined that it’s his opinion…. How do you go ahead on Highland Valley Copper? You’ve got one nation that disagrees. These hypotheticals are not helpful. The project has been referred to the ministers, and we expect a decision shortly.

I’m grateful to the nations for their work with government and to the company for their commitment to British Columbia.

John Rustad: It wasn’t hypothetical. It was the reality for Highland Valley that they went through that process, but regardless of that….

You know, the Premier does like to crow about GDP and the growth and everything else and best in Canada. Here are the real numbers.

The GDP, on a per-capita basis in Canada, this province being no different, was 0.14 percent per year for the last decade, ten times worse than the GDP for the 30 most developed countries in the world, on average. Ten times worse. As a matter of fact, it hasn’t been this bad since the Great Depression.

That’s the reality of what we’re facing. The only way the numbers are looking better, which the Premier likes to crow about, is because there’s been immigration. And it’s great. We need more people working in this province. We need doctors; we need nurses; we need all that sort of stuff.

But when you look at the GDP on a per-capita basis, it is the worst since the Great Depression. Something to think about, in terms of this. And it’s not just one year — ten years running. It just happens to coincide with what was going on both federally and, of course, what’s been happening here provincially.

[6:15 p.m.]

I’ve taken, though, from the Premier’s answer that, no, there isn’t going to be a report of the comparison. No, there isn’t going to be the analysis and public accountability in terms of it, so there’s going to be no real way to be able to tell in terms of how they’ve been able to increase it and the relative terms to that.

My opinion also seems to be that this is a slow, ongoing process as opposed to what is really needed, which is the urgency to make these changes to get these projects happening. I suppose that’s why the Premier started off talking about using the legislative hammer to undo the mistakes of the NDP government over the last eight years, in the previous legislation that was brought forward. But I’m sure we’ll get a chance to talk some more about that as well.

Maybe just one final question on the mining thing before we move on to a different topic, in terms of this. The $30 billion that the Premier talks about in northwest B.C. — I’m assuming that’s maybe half a dozen different projects. I’m not quite sure exactly how many projects that refers to in terms of that amount, but obviously, if you’re talking about somewhere between $2 billion and $7 billion per project, that’s roughly what it would be.

I’m told by the mining sector that our port capacity can only handle about two or maybe three more mines operating, and then we do not have the bulk capacity to be able to ship ore out of British Columbia.

I’m just wondering if the Premier has actually done the analysis of all of the issues that are associated with opening up new mines in this province, including the port capacity and rail capacity, as well as the road networks and labour forces that are needed to be able to get these mines open, and whether that is actually part of his work or whether this is just virtue-signalling about wanting to see mines open in the northwest.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I agree with the member. We need to dramatically increase our port capacity. It’s been a key priority for the government.

[6:25 p.m.]

First, let me address some aspects of the member’s question. He raised the issue of immigration. Close to 300,000 people moved to British Columbia in the last two years. I certainly understand why. It’s a great place to live. The member is right though. That does have a significant impact on the per-capita GDP data. Canada as a whole did see significant population growth during the period.

We are proud of our growth here in British Columbia and being second in Canada among provinces, but we want to do more. We know that growing faster will enable us to provide the services to British Columbians that they deserve, as well as high-quality employment and good family-supporting jobs, including in mining.

The member asked me specifically about port, rail and road. I would add, to that list, electricity, in terms of the infrastructure, specifically for the northwest and perhaps generally as well. So I will include some other data, if it’s of interest to the member.

With respect to ports, the work that we’re doing in the northwest with the federal government includes work on port capacity to support what we hope to realize in terms of mine development in the northwest. That is an active conversation with the feds.

The member may have noted the western Premiers event that took place just a week ago. A corridor prioritization request was made by all the western Premiers, from Hudson Bay to northwest ports — which would include Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Stewart — to make sure that the federal government was recognizing that if we have capacity rail, road and energy transmission along that corridor, we’re able to access both the European markets and Asian markets — European through Hudson Bay, with Manitoba’s plans there, and Asian markets through British Columbia.

It’s a very exciting proposal that we hope the federal government will take us up on and include a discussion of the potential for doubling the rail line, for example, along that corridor to increase capacity.

In less speculative news, procurement for the Roberts Bank terminal 2, which this government supported, will begin this summer. There was a press release on May 14, which is very positive news for British Columbians and for Canadians.

We see that major potash producers are looking at potential investments in the southern ports, as well, out of British Columbia, which is supporting our friends in Saskatchewan and their mining efforts out there.

That’s ports and the corridor that accesses Asian and Eastern markets, which will support activities in the northwest.

I told the member for Skeena about the $195 million investment in the Stewart-Cassiar Highway and Highway 51 to support not just mining and moving resources but also people in those communities, to make life better for them and support the needs of those communities. That geotechnical and engineering work is underway, and major construction is expected to start next year on the Stewart-Cassiar. Then for Highway 51, preconstruction works are already underway, culvert replacement and other works.

On the issue of electricity, which the member did not raise but I would like to, the North Coast transmission line project is a project that we hope will be able to support the mining work happening in the northwest.

There’s a direct connection. The president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C. said: “New investment in transmission lines and supporting infrastructure is an important step that will enable the development and electrification of new critical mineral mines in British Columbia while ensuring our province’s mining sector continues to have among the lowest GHG emissions in the world. Clean and reliable electricity is key to positioning B.C. as a leading global supplier of responsibly produced critical minerals essential to clean technologies and climate action.”

[6:30 p.m.]

The CEO of the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada said:

“This plan to proceed with an unprecedented level of capital planning and construction to rapidly grow B.C.’s electricity system demonstrates leadership from the B.C. government to support clean growth and attract investment by making clean, affordable electricity available across the province. Enabling further electrification of the natural resource sector across B.C., from the Lower Mainland to the far north, opens up real opportunities to grow the sector while significantly reducing emissions. We are also pleased to see the implementation of streamlined approvals for the CleanBC industry fund projects to increase speed and certainty.”

These projects include renewable power calls for power. We have ten projects underway, nine of which are majority Indigenous-owned, generating about 5,000 gigawatt hours of electricity annually and representing $6 billion in private capital investment in the province, creating 2,000 jobs during construction.

The member will remember these. He described them as unicorn farts. We support this kind of investment. The member opposes it. I don’t know why. We are creating jobs. We are electrifying the industry. We’re building the infrastructure.

I appreciate the member’s interest in this project. Maybe this is one area — including clean energy, perhaps — that he can get himself to supporting. And then we can just still hold hands across the aisle and support the development of this amazing province we call home.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

John Rustad: Let me get this right. The Premier has come out and announced $30 billion worth of potential investment to the northwest. Some dollars are going to the roads. That’s good to see. And waited for a conversation with the other provinces with regards to the potential growth of the ports. In other words, there’s no analysis of the actual port capacity in the northwest of British Columbia to be able to handle those mines and no understanding of the fact that you cannot go ahead with those mines unless you actually have those.

Mind you, if you have to wait 15 years to get the mining projects approved, then perhaps the port capacity will be there in the future. But if you’re talking about streamlining these projects and trying to get them done in two years, there is no way that the minerals can actually get shipped, because there isn’t the port capacity.

I’ve visited the ports. I’ve talked to them. I know what the capacity is in the northwest in terms of those ports. Hence, I will repeat the virtue-signalling comment as opposed to an actual plan in terms of how to get our minerals to market. That is if it’s going to be happening in a timely way, as opposed to many years down the road.

But yeah, let’s talk about electricity in terms of what’s going on for the northwest as well as the entire province and the numbers that I have seen.

Two years ago about 10 percent of our power, net, was coming from the United States. Last year it was somewhere between 10 and 20 percent, net, coming from the United States. So far this year it’s been 6 percent roughly, net, that’s coming to the United States.

The government, in the meantime, after running a power plant on Vancouver Island for the entire winter to help meet the needs, is going to shut it down and once again become more reliable…. This government has actually removed the need to be energy self-sufficient. That was in legislation. That was one of the first things it did eight years ago: remove that requirement for energy self-sufficiency, which is a real shame, because now we are in this situation where we’re more and more reliant on whether that’s coal- or natural gas–fired power coming from other provinces.

The Premier is in the process of a promise to build a new power line between the northeast and the northwest of British Columbia. I think the projected cost is around $3 billion, but every project this government has touched has been at least significantly over budget and behind delays, so I’m anticipating it’ll be a minimum of $5 billion.

Perhaps we could start with just some basics on numbers. Site C added about 10 percent to the power capacity in British Columbia. It’s not quite 100 percent up, I’m understanding, if I heard the Minister of Energy in terms of his comment.

The question is: what is the added cost to ratepayers once Site C is fully up and running in British Columbia? Site C, I’m assuming, is around a $16 billion or $17 billion cost. What is the projected cost increase to ratepayers, and over what period of time is that project being amortized?

[6:35 p.m. - 6:40 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Where to begin. The Site C project is amortized over 80 years. From the current fiscal year to ’27-28, we’ll add a further 0.7 percent to rates. Almost the entirety of the Site C rate impact is already in current rates.

The province is committed to ensuring we have affordable hydro rates and keeping rates that are cumulative inflation. Since 2017-18, the cumulative rate increases at Hydro will be 12.4 percent below cumulative inflation, an abstract statistic.

[6:45 p.m.]

It’s helpful for British Columbians to know how rate increases compare across Canada. Alberta saw a 40.1 percent increase in the consumer price index for electricity between the years 2020 to 2024, according to the Globe and Mail. New Brunswick saw a 23 percent increase; Nova Scotia, 17 percent; Newfoundland and Labrador, 14 percent; Ontario, 13 percent; Prince Edward Island, a 12 percent increase; Saskatchewan, 12 percent increase; Quebec, a 10 percent increase. In Manitoba, 9.7 percent increase. British Columbians during that period saw a 6.6 percent increase. It was the lowest in Canada.

The member made some comments in his lead-in to his question that were not accurate. He said that we no longer require B.C. Hydro to be energy self-sufficient. The Clean Energy Act includes self-sufficiency requirements identified in section 6. In addition, self-sufficiency is a planning criterion when submitting plans to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The member is right. We did remove something under legislation. It was the extravagant standing offer program. There was a recommendation in a report called Zapped about the impact of the standing offer program under the B.C. Liberals when the member sat around the cabinet table.

That project, the standing offer program project…. When we compare the rates that the then government was paying for electricity for the standing offer program compared to the projects we just tendered, in today’s dollars, and compare the cost then to the cost now, dollars then to dollars now, in today’s projects the average price of these projects is almost 50 percent lower than the last call for power when the member sat on this side of the House.

The member released a tariff response plan in which he outlined that one of his key tariff response approaches would be to stop work towards the power line from the northeast to the northwest. This is the same power line that I went into some detail on in my previous answer, so heartily supported by industry as reducing their costs, reducing their emissions and increasing the capacity for expanding opportunities for industrial development in the northwest.

The member, in his lead-in to his question, also alleged that government was not prepared, that he knew the port capacity but government didn’t know and didn’t have an idea about what was required to move the minerals.

That’s not correct. The Red Chris and Eskay mine expansions are in work. There is capacity in the port for that. There will need to be expansion for Galore. That is actually the work that we are doing with the federal government as part of what was announced on Monday — what the member called virtue-signalling. I call it a really important and critical plan for our provincial economy — but not just me, representatives from the mining sector and leaders in the business sector as well.

I look forward to realizing that, and I hope the member supports it as well.

John Rustad: Once again, I find it interesting, just in terms of the mining projects, when you look at the announced $30 billion investment yet zero announcement with regard to support capacity associated with it.

At least the Premier has…. Apparently, their staff or the Premier has looked at it. There still are the two…. It’s what I suggested, and part of the third, and then you run out of space. You can’t be announcing that you’re going to be moving ahead with mining projects in a very timely way within a two-year target, two to three years, without having a significant plan already in place for port capacity because that takes years to build out as well.

With regards to the northwest transmission line, the power line from the northeast and northwest, yeah, I do oppose it. That’s going to be likely a $5 billion project that the ratepayers of British Columbia are going to have to pay for.

Before I go into talking about that project, maybe a simple question to the Premier, although I never seem to get any real, simple or direct answers. Who’s going to actually pay for the power line from the northeast to the northwest? Is it the ratepayers, or will industry be paying the cost of that power line?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: B.C. Hydro’s policy, which is a sound one, is that industrial customers pay for the transmission line and generation that they require. The challenge with that, historically, has been that you have someone wanting to come to build a project, and they’re told: “Absolutely, welcome to British Columbia. Here’s your invoice for $1 billion.”

[6:55 p.m.]

Our goal is to build out transmission and generation in advance in order to drive economic activity, rather than wait for a proponent to come and go through an extended process with Hydro and wait for years and create barriers to investment in the province. We want to say: “The electricity is ready. It’s here. It’s ready to go. We can connect you right away.”

Ultimately, the cost will be borne by industrial ratepayers. We think there’s a potential, and we’re going to be advocating for it, for federal support to reduce the upfront cost as we build out this transmission and generation across the province. For example, the Infrastructure Bank is providing financing to nations around some of the clean energy projects that I mentioned earlier and enabled the flow of private capital for those projects so that ratepayers don’t have to carry that cost.

I’m surprised the member is so opposed to this transmission line.

Just for clarity, this is the North Coast transmission line. The member has referred to the northwest transmission line. It’s an easy mistake. I’m not saying it to be critical; I’ve made the same mistake myself. The northwest transmission line, for clarity, is the one that’s north of Terrace. It was completed about ten years ago.

The North Coast transmission line is the proposed one that runs from Prince George to Terrace in phases 1 and 2 and would construct a new 500-kilovolt line north of Terrace up to Bob Quinn Lake in phase 3.

The reason I’m surprised the member is so opposed to it is that industry is so supportive of it. The Mining Association of B.C.’s president and CEO: “New investment in transmission lines and supporting infrastructure is an important step that will enable the development and electrification of new critical mineral mines in B.C. while ensuring our province’s mining sector continues to have among the lowest GHG emissions in the world. Clean and reliable electricity is key to positioning B.C. as a leading global supplier of responsibly produced critical minerals essential to clean technologies and climate action.”

Tristan Goodman, from the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, the CEO: “This investment demonstrates leadership from the B.C. government to support clean growth and attract investment by making clean and affordable electricity available across the province, enabling further electrification of the natural resource sector across B.C. From the Lower Mainland to the far north, it opens up real opportunities to grow the sector while significantly reducing emissions.”

The work, importantly, is driving prosperity across the province, including for First Nations, including some nations that wouldn’t have had significant economic opportunities, that they get to participate in this project in a meaningful way.

The Clean Energy Association of B.C. noted that, and of course, these are major companies, employing thousands of British Columbians, that are going to be building these projects. “The 2024 call for power was historic, showing what’s possible when First Nations, industry and government collaborate to deliver clean electricity, drive investment and advance reconciliation.”

I hope the member reconsiders his position on this. It’s important for development in the northwest. It’s a significant investment that will employ many British Columbians, both directly and indirectly, and it’s widely supported.

John Rustad: The reason why I oppose it is you’ve got $5 billion, or what I think it’s going to cost — obviously, it’s much more once you start talking about taking the line out to Prince Rupert and building the other extensions, in terms of the overall project, which is going to be needed — when you could just generate the power in the northwest and save the money.

You don’t have to pay the cost. You don’t have to build the infrastructure. You don’t have to put the time in. Most importantly, you can keep your rates down. There’s lots of natural gas available up in the northwest from the PNG line, which has tremendous amounts of excess capacity. Put in a natural gas–fired plant in Terrace. It’s good, clean energy.

After all, we’re getting 10 percent or more of our electricity today already from natural gas, if not coal, coming from the United States. We don’t seem to worry about that in terms of it. It would be a huge savings.

Not to mention that I’ve had First Nations talk to me about the swath that it’s going to cut through certain key territories and areas as well — that the power line will create through their territories.

Regardless of that, you’re looking at saving ratepayers in British Columbia 90 percent of the cost. It would cost about one-tenth to generate that same amount of power in the northwest. To top it all off, we don’t have the power. That’s why I oppose it, because I think that’s where we should go.

[7:00 p.m.]

Now, the Premier is going to be able to go on some long rant about GHG emissions and all this kind of stuff, and how we can’t be using natural gas. I heard all those same arguments from the Premier about the carbon tax, too, and now it’s gone. He seems to not care about that. He seems to not think that we’re saving the world now because of a carbon tax. That’s gone.

Look, let’s be realistic. People in British Columbia can’t afford this boondoggle type of project. They need projects that make sense. That end, on top of it, would reduce the delivery charges for everybody along the northwest for the natural gas that they need to heat their homes.

Sure, the Premier may want to talk about heat pumps in the northwest. I challenge him to go up there when it’s minus 30 and see what a heat pump would do in keeping a house warm. You get to about 9 degrees in your home. I think we can get into talking about GHG emissions and the climate stuff at another time.

I realize we’ve got a vote coming up, so would you want to do this? I’ve got a question I want to ask about power generation and the costs associated with it.

I’ll look for direction from you, Mr. Chair, as to whether I should ask that or whether we need to stop at this particular point, report out progress and ask leave to sit again. Is that what you’d like?

We can carry on? We don’t have a vote? I thought we had….

Interjection.

John Rustad: Okay, got issues. Well, in that case here, let me ask the question to the Premier and keep it pretty straightforward.

When you look at the analysis of other countries in the world that have put significant amounts of wind and solar in place to meet their power needs — in particular, when you look at places like England or Germany, these types of approaches, with other countries as well — the analysis is that adding 10 percent power coming from wind and solar puts about a 35 to 40 percent increase in the cost of power. That’s the analysis that’s out there.

The Premier has just announced that 10 percent of the new power in this province is going to come from these wind projects. This is why I’m asking him how much Site C and others are going to cost in terms of this. If that’s the way it has played out everywhere else in the world, and we’re adding these projects on, that should be a significant increase to the rates in this province.

Has the Premier done that analysis? Has he looked at what has happened in other jurisdictions? Is he looking at what that cost is going to be to ratepayers? Is he planning to inform ratepayers about the significant cost increase to electricity rates in British Columbia, through his approach of approving things like wind and solar and even things like the North Coast transmission line?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The cost of the energy in the 2024 call for power is about 45 percent, almost 50 percent, lower than the contracts awarded in B.C. Hydro’s last call for power, under the then B.C. Liberal government, when the member was sitting around the cabinet table. If we had continued with the ten-year rates plan of the previous government, today British Columbians would be paying $140 per year more for electricity than they do right now. That old approach caused rates to skyrocket by 80 percent.

The member advocates strongly for natural gas power plants as a cheap alternative to B.C. Hydro’s approach. If that were true, then Alberta would have some of the cheapest electricity in the country. They do not. They have seen the largest price increase in Canada, a 40 percent price increase.

The member discounts climate change. I know he doesn’t believe that it’s real. He called it “a lie” — climate science. He calls renewable energy “running the country on unicorn farts.” He is a conspiracy theorist about these things. He is in full denial about science.

He believes that the World Economic Forum, the WEF, is forcing children to eat bugs and directing this province to do our 30 by 30 plan. He has bizarre beliefs about climate change and the World Economic Forum, so it’s hard to have a serious conversation about this stuff.

Even putting aside all that, the London Metal Exchange is preparing a new category for metals that are low-carbon, which it expects will command a premium on global markets. The European Union is actively considering a carbon border-price adjustment that will provide preferential access to low-carbon metals and minerals to their market, a major market for diversification of B.C.’s resources.

Even if you don’t believe climate change is real, like the Leader of the Opposition, at least understand that some people are willing to pay a premium for lower-carbon metals and minerals. That is where the puck is going.

[7:10 p.m.]

For the member to be pursuing energy policies that resulted in a 40 percent price increase in Alberta, that would restrict our access to markets like the EU and that would deprive us of access to the London Metal Exchange initiative around low-carbon metals and minerals…. It’s not the right path for British Columbia. I just fundamentally disagree with that.

As I said, the overall cost to do the North Coast transmission line will be borne by industry. But it is my sincere hope, recognizing the economic growth and opportunity here, that we can work with the federal government to reduce the burden on industry and come out with a win for everybody by driving prosperity in this province.

The Chair: Due to the time allocation regarding Bill 14 imposed on May 6, I would ask the Premier to ask this committee to report progress.

Hon. David Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We are sitting adjourned.

The committee rose at 7:11 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:11 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress on the estimates of the Office of the Premier and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act

Nina Krieger: Committee of the Whole on Bill 14 reports the bill complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act

The Speaker: Members, the question is, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, the House will proceed to the consideration of the third reading of Bill 14 intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Division? I hear the division. Division has been called.

[7:15 p.m. - 7:20 p.m.]

Members, before we proceed with the vote, I would ask members who are participating online to keep your audio and video on.

Now, Members, the question is third reading of Bill 14 intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
	Lore
NAYS — 46
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman	McCall	Valeriote
Botterell	Kealy	Armstrong
	Brodie

[7:25 p.m.]

The Speaker: Hon. Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote now.

Given that Bill 14 has passed earlier stages of consideration by the House, the Chair votes in favour of the motion for third reading of Bill 14.

Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

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

Point of Order

Sheldon Clare: Point of order. I would observe that the minister on the screen has a blurred background, and I believe that’s not allowed in the orders, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think that vote should count.

The Speaker: We’ll ask the Whip of the government, or the House Leader will check with them what is the technical difficulties of that. We’ll check it out. Thank you.

Members, just to clarify on that question the member has asked, there is guidance that there should not be any artificial background. There are no guidelines to not have the blurred background if somebody is sitting in a room.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 7:29 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we are going to call this committee back to order.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000 (continued).

[7:30 p.m.]

John Rustad: I always find it interesting to hear the Premier respond with not responding, of course, to the actual question but just giving rhetoric. Once again, he continues to make false statements with regards to whether I believe that climate change is real or not. I have never said that climate change is not real. He can infer anything he wants, but that’s fine.

The other thing I’d just like to comment on, just because we’re on that particular topic for a moment, is maybe we should go and read the many, many quotes of the Premier’s perspective on the carbon tax when we asked him to remove the carbon tax and how important it was to save the world, how important it was to stop climate change. “That’s why we’ve got the carbon tax, and it’s working.” Of course, then, well, we’re just going to get rid of it. “Don’t worry about what I said. It doesn’t matter. I didn’t really believe that.”

Regardless of that, the question I asked the Premier…. I think it’s just a valid question that needs to be answered because the ratepayers in British Columbia need to know. In other jurisdictions, when 10 percent of the power is coming from things like wind and solar, we’ve seen a 30, 35, maybe even 40 percent increase in the cost of power.

What is the rate increase that is going to be happening to the province of British Columbia for the 10 percent that he has currently under call, currently moving forward with these rapid projects to the ratepayers, which is going to add that 10 percent power?

Guess what. That’s coming every other year or whatever that edition is of the additional power calls that are coming, continual increases from wind and solar, yet not a word from this Premier in terms of how much it’s going to cost ratepayers.

Will the Premier come clean with the ratepayers of British Columbia and say how much this is actually going to cost the ratepayers?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member started off with a quite spirited narrative — not any actual quotes, but a quite spirited narrative.

The member himself…. This is an actual quote, not made up. I won’t dramatize it. On December 26, 2011, from the member himself: “B.C. has a carbon tax because the evidence presented to Gordon Campbell convinced him that we should move in that direction. Cabinet and caucus supported this for a variety of reasons. For me, moving away from fossil fuels to something more sustainable is not a bad goal.” The member advocating for the carbon tax, supporting it, voting for it, multiple budgets. I’ll leave it at that. That was him then.

The member insists he never said that climate change wasn’t real. Well, how could you? I mean, with the fires we’re seeing in Canada right now. What he says isn’t real is climate science, the science of why we’re seeing change in the climate. Climate scientists have reached a 97 percent consensus that human activity is driving climate change — 97 percent of scientists.

Here’s what the member says. “We should not be trying to fight climate change,” in 2024. “Climate issues, the issues we have today with our climate, are not an existential threat. It’s not a crisis,” April 2024. It’s not even a crisis.

In June 2024, he was kicked out of the B.C. United caucus for a post claiming carbon emissions don’t contribute to climate change. It wasn’t the first time. In 2021, while he was still a B.C. Liberal MLA, the member objected to our commitment to reduce carbon pollution because he said it was “ridiculous” and “misinformation” to describe carbon as a pollutant.

In August 2022, he said: “The CO2 theory,” climate change, “does not hold water. All of their projections and predictions have been wrong, yet the masses have bought into a lie. And as the saying goes, it is far easier to convince someone of a lie than it is to convince them they have been lied to.”

In 2011, he said — I don’t know if this was before or after he issued that last quote: “I am still keeping an open mind, but the arguments to date suggest that global warming may turn out to be a hoax.” I guess he resolved himself on that.

The House Leader…. Pardon me, not the House Leader. The member from Abbotsford. I don’t know; is he the deputy leader? I don’t want to misattribute this to a member.

I mean, the member can be cute about this, but let’s be honest. He doesn’t support and he doesn’t believe in climate science. He doesn’t believe that carbon pollution causes climate change. He doesn’t think we should do anything about it. So I do not know why he is trying to pretend otherwise.

Now, on the specific…. He called it rhetoric. My gosh. This is a serious point.

In any event, the member is asking about rates. He’s interested in protecting British Columbians from hydro rate increases. Now, he wasn’t when he was in cabinet. During his time as a B.C. Liberal, rates increased 54 percent above the rate of inflation for Hydro customers. In our whole time as government as the NDP, we are accumulatively 12 percent lower than the rate of inflation for hydro rates. We have the lowest rate of increase in the entire country for hydro rates. That’s our record, and that is his record.

The projections for the recent calls for power have an impact of less than 2 percent per year. We recognize that we need to build out our generation capacity in the province. There’s huge demand. The province is growing very quickly, and we’re going to make sure we provide that support and also drive industrial growth in the province.

John Rustad: Oh, we could go back and forth on this, but I just can’t resist one more time about the whole CO2 stuff. The Premier just says CO2 is the cause. Let’s accept that as a premise.

Why’d you get rid of the carbon tax? Simple question. If you believe it’s the cause, and you’re out there to save the world, why’d you get rid of the carbon tax? You say that the carbon tax was saving the world. The carbon tax was reducing CO2 emissions. Well, you got rid of it just like that.

Going against what he also obviously believes. So I don’t think there can be any credibility from this Premier in terms of what matters when it comes to those issues.

[7:40 p.m.]

What I have said about climate is really simple. You can’t change it. You can adapt to it, and adaptation is where we need to be.

Obviously, all the efforts that the Premier has made and why we needed the carbon tax, why he fought to keep that carbon tax for so many years…. He said anybody that thought about getting rid of the carbon tax was a denier. He’s gotten rid of the carbon tax. I guess that means he’s a denier. That’s just the reality that he has to face, and we’ll get to that when we get to, I’m sure, the next election, where he gets a chance to throw more fertilizer out there to the public to try to deceive what’s going on.

Regardless of that, he still has answered the question partially, in terms of the rate increase from these things. He hasn’t honestly brought it forward. Peer-reviewed articles have shown what that cost increase is in other jurisdictions, and he’s not coming clean with that. Obviously I’m not going to get that answer. The Premier doesn’t seem to want to come straight up with giving the answers around these things.

Let’s look at another aspect of power and power generation in the province of British Columbia. I’m looking at it from the perspective that we are in an energy shortfall. We’re going to be building new projects. Okay. We’re going to find out how much that’s going to cost. The ratepayers are going to ultimately pay for that down the road.

We have mandates. We have electric vehicle mandates. We’re pushing and supporting using heat pumps in this province. We are significantly increasing demand.

I think it was just the other day that Bell announced that they’re going to be building some AI data centres here in British Columbia. Great, happy to see the investment in British Columbia. But that takes a lot of energy, and they have some numbers in terms of how much electricity those demands are going to be.

Mines are obviously going to take up electricity demand, in terms of where that’s going to go, as is LNG in terms of that side of things. Demand — we’re already in a shortfall, and demand is growing rapidly. The Premier continues to promote additional demand, and we don’t have the power to meet those needs.

Many analysists have said, just for example, on heat pumps…. Heat pumps were to go out in every home and every commercial business in the province, which is what the push is to do. You’d need to build the equivalent of six or seven more Site C dams. We’re not going to likely build another major dam in B.C., so we’re going to build six or seven times that power in wind power.

I’ve already said what the peer-reviewed article is in terms of the cost increases to electricity by relying on things like wind and solar. Not to mention, the more you add, you move from the high-value projects to the medium-value to the low-value projects in terms of the potential return on wind.

We have a huge problem, I think, in terms of electricity and meeting our electrical demands. But let me boil it down to a more simple question, since we’re never going to come to agreement and I’m likely never going to hear the appropriate answers anyway.

EV mandates that are in the province…. The more we’re trying to push this…. Obviously, we don’t have the electricity for it. Does the Premier believe that his EV mandates are realistic for the people in British Columbia? What’s it going to do to the average person in the province, the average cost of a vehicle in British Columbia? These EV mandates are kicking in this year, in the ’26 year model.

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Well, I’m glad that the member recognizes the remarkable economic growth taking place in this province despite the challenges we face.

The member outlines a number of increasing demands for electricity: energy, mining sector, tech sector. We need to build in advance of demand and ensure we’re able to meet this opportunity that, certainly, I see and members on this side of the House both see and support.

The member said something curious in his response. He said: “Let’s accept the premise that carbon dioxide causes climate change.” That’s not a premise. I believe that it is true, and 97 percent of scientists…. They’ve done the work. We can see it in our forest fires and in the impact on the climate. I wonder if the member accepts that it’s true, except as a premise.

In any event, the commitment we made to British Columbians during the election was that we would support them in ensuring that we were growing the economy, and that’s what we’re doing, and driving down emissions wherever we can. That’s part of what our hydro strategy is.

Over the last 15 years, B.C. has been a net importer in seven of those years and a net exporter in the other eight. There have been recent drought conditions that have reduced the ability of B.C. to be a net exporter, but even despite that, B.C. Hydro made a net profit of $2 billion selling electricity between fiscal years ’20-24.

[7:50 p.m.]

That revenue goes back to helping keep rates affordable for British Columbians. By bringing on additional capacity, we can sell more electricity, including to the Yukon and to Alberta. We’re hopeful to work with them on electric inter-tie that benefits both our provinces. We think that, working together, we’ll be able to keep rates low and also support our neighbours and fellow Canadians.

On the specific question of the EV mandate, an update for the member. In 2024, light-duty zero-emission vehicles…. The member calls them electric vehicles, but we…. I mean, it’s mostly theoretical. There aren’t a lot of hydrogen vehicles driving around. They are mostly electric.

In 2024, light-duty zero-emission vehicle sales represented 22.4 percent of all new light-duty vehicle sales in B.C. There are almost 200,000 of these vehicles registered in our province. In 2024, we had the second-highest uptake of these vehicles in Canada in gross numbers.

The ministry’s forecast that came out in October 2024 shows that industry is on track to meet the 26 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2026. There has been some levelling of demand, and I would say that economic volatility, the removal of federal incentives…. We’ve still seen year-over-year growth on average. British Columbians are choosing electric vehicles where appropriate.

For context for the member, we’re not the only jurisdiction with a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate. They have been adopted across Canada and in the United States as well.

However, with all those things said, as times change, we need to ensure that these things are continuing to be relevant and providing benefit to British Columbians. That’s why the ministry is currently conducting a review of British Columbia’s zero-emission vehicle standard. The review will include market trends analysis, input from interested parties and allow for any necessary adjustments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act and regulation. The last review of the standard was done in 2022.

There is a zero-emission vehicle advisory council in the province, which includes members from across the zero-emission vehicle sector, including automaker associations, representatives of industry, environmental NGOs, academia, infrastructure providers, local governments, and provides strategic advice to the province on how we can meet our goals of reducing emissions from vehicles to drive down carbon pollution, which is the cause of climate change.

John Rustad: I can’t help but just add another little beautiful comment. Why we need the carbon tax in British Columbia: “because we’ve got wildfires, and we’ve got floods. We’re feeling the impact, and we need to have this changed. Oh, but don’t believe what I say, because the carbon tax is now gone.” That is the definition of denial, I suppose, but regardless of that….

I thank the Premier for those comments with regards to the EVs and EV review that’s going on. Will that review actually be completed in time for the 2026 sales year, which is obviously starting in September when those models start coming on the market?

I’ve met with the dealers, obviously, just recently, met with the car manufacturers not long ago, and they’re all saying the same thing, which is that these targets are completely unrealistic. They are going to be significantly problematic for them, particularly when these targets carry forward beyond 2026. The low-cost vehicles, ICE vehicles, will end up being taken out of the market, and it will significantly drive up the costs for vehicles.

I’m just wondering if the Premier cares to commit to actually having that review completed by September when these things come in so that they can be adjusted.

But my understanding, as well, and maybe the Premier can confirm this, is that the targets for the EVs are in legislation. In which case, of course, the sales of this will start in September, and the earliest the Legislature will come back again will be October. I might be wrong about that. Maybe they can do it through regulation. But if there does need to be changes, obviously that would be something that would have to be looked at for the fall sitting.

It would be great if the Premier could just confirm that the analysis will be done in a timely way, that things will be ready and that, if need be, legislation can be moved forward for early October to change or hopefully eliminate those mandates in British Columbia.

[7:55 p.m.]

But on top of that, of course, there is the other component, which is the power and the power needs for that. Has there been the analysis done in British Columbia to show that the electrical needs just added from EVs alone are going to be able to be met within British Columbia, given the fact that the Premier likes to, maybe, confound the issue by saying it’s about net revenue?

No, it’s not about net revenue; it’s about net electricity use. Yes, there are sales of electricity, but there’s purchased electricity, and we’re net purchasers of electricity in this province. In other words, we don’t have the power. We’ve got mandates that are going to add the power. Even with Site C coming on, we’re not going to be in that situation.

The question is: will the review be done in time? Can we get legislation, if that’s what’s needed, done quickly enough so that we aren’t going to be causing damage to the new-vehicle market here in British Columbia? And do we have the power to meet these mandates? Will that be part of the review?

Hon. David Eby: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 7:56 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:57 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act

Jessie Sunner: Section A reports Bill 15 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act

The Speaker: Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act.

[8:00 p.m. - 8:05 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I rise on a point of order, a point of clarification, a point of trying to figure out consistency. I note that the Clerk….

The Speaker: Member, not during the vote. After the vote is cast, we will consider your point of order.

Peter Milobar: This is about Bill 14 though.

The Speaker: No, we are now dealing with Bill 15. We will be listening to your concern after.

Peter Milobar: As long as it’s after, that’s fine. Thank you.

[8:10 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act. I would like to remind members participating remotely to have your video and audios on.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
	Lore
NAYS — 46
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman	McCall	Valeriote
Botterell	Kealy	Armstrong
	Brodie

The Speaker: Hon. Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. Given that Bill 15 has passed earlier stages of consideration by the House, the Chair votes in favour of the motion for third reading of Bill 15.

Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Point of Order

Peter Milobar: I rise based on the earlier ruling on Bill 14, and I would note that the Clerk had to make a quick evaluation of the situation to the Speaker.

However, under Standing Order 8(3), it very clearly says: “In enabling remote participation of members in proceedings of the House, the Speaker shall (a) approve the video conferencing technology platform used to support hybrid proceedings of the House, and (b) establish and publish rules, expectations and requirements for remote connectivity and participation by members and shall consult the House Leaders or Whips as required.”

Why that’s important is that you did publish guidance for members participating in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly remotely on February 24, 2025. Now, I know this House has a great tradition of Speakers relying on the precedence of other Speakers’ decisions over time. However, I would note that you are the only Speaker that has ever had to deal with remote Zoom proceedings.

We have had in the past, in this session alone, members ruled out of order, and we lived by that ruling, based on the guidance that was not followed of the guidelines issued by the Speaker on February 24, 2025.

“Location and background: a quiet, private location with good lighting should be selected. The backdrop must be neutral, free of political or partisan images or slogans. Zoom virtual backgrounds must not be applied. An exception may be only granted if the Speaker or Chair is advised in advance that a member must join parliamentary proceedings remotely from a medical or care facility.”

The Minister of State for Trade magically has no blurred background in the same room on this vote as he had in Bill 14. The only way to have a blurred background is by electronic means, which would be virtual. That is the only possible way the technology happens for the Minister of State for Trade to have a blurred background on one vote and, half an hour later, a clear background.

We would ask a reconsideration based on the Speaker’s own rulings and rules issued on February 24, for this particular sitting, that the Minister of State for Trade was not eligible to have his vote cast on Bill 14 previously.

[8:15 p.m.]

Again, we recognize it was a quick reference point the Speaker had, but it’s very clearly spelled out from the Speaker’s own office what the expectation of participation is. Anybody in the virtual realm will tell you that a blurred background in the exact same room that now has a clear background, with the same person in focus at the same depth, was a virtual background.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s pretty clear right from the first vote that the member was in a room. As per your guidelines, hon. Speaker, that has not changed. The room was the background. And I….

Interjections.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yeah, and I’m reading the rules from the guidebook:

“Members must have the audio and video functions enabled with their face clearly visible in order to be counted towards quorum. Members may seek the attention of the Speaker, such as to raise a point of order or reserve their right to raise a question of privilege, by sending a Zoom chat message privately to the Clerks at the table or by raising their hand in Zoom. They must ensure that good connectivity and lighting have been established with audio and video functions enabled.”

It’s pretty clear he had audio and video functions enabled.

“Connect from a suitable indoor private location. Connecting from a public area or from a vehicle is not appropriate. An exception may only be granted if the Speaker or Chair is advised in advance or the member must join parliamentary proceedings remotely from a medical care facility. Ensure that focus, behaviour and actions reflect those of being physically located in the chamber and therefore not engage in multitasking or private activities.”

None of those things took place. The member had what the key element was, which was the face must be in focus and…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …it was not an artificial background.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Sheldon Clare: On Zoom, a blurred background is a virtual background. For anyone who doubts this, I encourage them to sign into a Zoom conference and look up “virtual background.” The choice includes a blurred background.

That is something I have been teaching for many years, and I am very familiar with it. That was an ineligible vote.

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Members, the Chair has already ruled on this issue earlier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

The Chair does not consider a blurred background to be a virtual background.

Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, no argument with the Chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission has left by making a very disparaging remark to the Chair. He will not be allowed to return to the chamber until he comes back and apologizes, and he will stay out.

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

The Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed at 8:19 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 8:30 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier
(continued)

The Chair: I call the House to order.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000 (continued).

Jeremy Valeriote: I will acknowledge that I wasn’t planning to do this tonight.

Interjections.

Jeremy Valeriote: There’s never a dull moment, and I will not be debating the merits of Zoom backgrounds with the Premier. I’ll try and fill the time until we can all adjourn and go home.

I will ask a hard question of the Premier to start. This government has passed at least four pieces of controversial legislation in the last few weeks — one at 1 a.m.; another one by walking back a significant part of the legislation; and two more today by time allocation, which left us unable to fully debate the bill, and then the Speaker casting the tie.

I’d be interested to hear the Premier’s reflections on this session as it has occurred.

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Thank you to the member for the question and for being quick on his feet. You know, history is written by the people who show up, so congratulations to him on that.

He raises an important question. How do you manage the House? How do you ensure that the government’s business gets done but that there’s also fair time to air concerns, ask questions and debate?

Right now it’s 8.30; the member will know that we don’t ordinarily sit till nine o’clock most nights. This has been a significant challenge for many members, I know. These are 12-hour-plus days for members. Many of us will go 14-to-16-hour days, in order to facilitate late-night settings, to add more time.

We went to three Houses, and I appreciate the support of all members and of the House Leaders in being able to do that. In doing so, we added dozens and dozens of additional hours of debate on bills, and not just government bills.

This session included, for the first time, private members’ bills that were debated and passed in this place — a bill of a private member from the government side and a bill of a private member from the opposition party. I’ve been here for ten years, and I’ve never seen that — let alone in two.

The member notes controversy about legislation. I know the member is a relatively new arrival here. Much legislation is heavily debated. It involves change, it involves debate, and it often involves controversy. That is not an unusual thing. What is unusual is how few pieces of legislation we were able to get through in the fall session.

I would attribute this not to malice or misconduct on anyone’s part. I just think we’ve got a bunch of brand-new MLAs. When you look at the turnover in this place, we’ve had a huge number of people who are finding their feet. They’re learning about the process. They’re learning about how to do estimates. They’re learning about debate on bills, and so on, and they’re using different mechanisms to raise their points.

[8:40 p.m.]

It’s all appropriate and all necessary, but ordinarily, we get about 20 pieces of legislation through the fall session; in this session, 13 pieces of legislation. So not only did we add significant additional hours, we reduced the overall legislative agenda. We have bills that are carrying over to the next session.

But at the end of the day, the bills the member has identified as ones he is asking me to reflect on are critically important bills. They respond to a rapidly evolving situation with our biggest trading partner, the President of the United States attacking our economy, going after our ability to support British Columbians and doing it in the name of annexing Canada as the 51st state.

These are significant and profound issues that have resonated around the globe, and it is in this moment that British Columbia needs to respond. British Columbians expect us to respond to ensure that we’re protecting, as best we can under this threat, our economy, that we’re supporting them and their families with high-quality services, that we’re building the schools and hospitals we need, and that we’re doing so efficiently and quickly.

I know that the member, unlike the member who was just asking me questions, understands the challenge and imperative of addressing carbon pollution and climate change bills that facilitate us building clean electricity faster, creating jobs across the province, doing it at 50 percent of the cost of the previous government’s initiatives and doing it in a way that allows us to assist in decarbonization in the Yukon, Alberta and British Columbia heavy industry, including the mining sector, that we hope to grow quite significantly to respond to the imperatives around electrification and clean tech.

These are crucially important bills. So the member is right. There are always puts and takes. There are considerations to be made about ensuring that members have a chance to debate. The House Leader has tried to achieve that by extending sittings. We have tried to achieve that as a government by expanding opportunities for private members to bring bills and move beyond debate to legislation, including from the opposition side, including making government drafting available.

I am proud of the work of the Minister of Infrastructure, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Finance and other ministers that moved significant bills, as well as every colleague on this side of the House and certainly the work of many people to debate and address these issues, but particularly proud of the NDP caucus for their work through this session. They worked incredibly hard and took some risks in allowing space for opposition to expand debate and expand participation in really meaningful ways. I’m grateful for that.

I think this session brings learnings for all of us, moving forward, and it also brings important legislation to respond to a significant economic threat to our province.

I hope the member will indulge me as I briefly address a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The member asked about the zero-emission vehicle strategy and made a number of assertions about it. The bottom line is that we are committed to working with automakers and dealers to determine the best way to support zero-emission vehicle adoption in B.C. and protecting affordability for British Columbians.

It’s a very straightforward issue of import and substitution. We import refined petroleum into British Columbia. We produce electricity here. So if we substitute electricity for refined petroleum, we create jobs here, we create prosperity here, and we support British Columbians in growing our economy. That’s why we are such fans of this approach, not just that it reduces carbon emissions. It’s good for our economy.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

Just wait for a moment for the Speaker to join us.

The committee rose at 8:44 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:45 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

John Rustad: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, the member for Kelowna-Mission would like to come in and share a few words.

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of Comments
Made in the House

Gavin Dew: Earlier I made an inappropriate remark, and I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. You now have permission to sit.

Speaker’s Statement

Guidance to Members on
Chair’s Rulings and
Respectful Behaviour

The Speaker: I remind all members again, as I have said many times before, you can disagree with each other, but never question the Chair’s ruling. Secondly, never be disrespectful to the Chair. I would say never be disrespectful to anybody but particularly to the Chair.

It’s our tradition. That’s required here, and I hope all members are listening to that.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:01 p.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 6.

On clause 6 (continued).

Kiel Giddens: We’re back into committee stage debate on Bill 15. For the viewers at home, this comes right after…. In the House, the House Leader for the Third Party has just tried to put forward a motion to take off that time allocation so that this could actually be moved to the fall, so we could actually…. The government voted against that with a voice vote. They needed unanimous consent for this to come forward.

We are stuck now on clause 6 of a 48-clause bill. Today we are very likely to not get through every single clause of the bill. So I will stick to trying to go through clause 6. We have a number of questions. But there’s going to be a guillotine motion that comes forward on closure of this bill that has happened, so we will not get through everything today.

I think about what the minister has said before, saying that the framework of this legislation is modelled after the process laid out in the Significant Projects Streamlining Act and that it’s not entirely new power. When that act was brought into force, there was a lot of talk about qualified professionals at that point — and their use. That was something that certainly was used.

At the time, the NDP opposition of the day…. It was a two-person opposition, and Joy MacPhail was the Leader of the Opposition in the House. She had said: “It’s unbelievably heavy-handed, and it’s absolutely controlling. It is the equivalent of a banana republic. The Premier can now micromanage the entire province if he wants to.”

She went on to say: “The Premier has absolute power. If any previous administration brought in this legislation, I can just imagine what the current Minister of Finance would rail about it. I can just imagine what the current Premier would say. It is appalling that not one government caucus member has the guts to stand up and say: ‘The emperor has no clothes.’ And they won’t.” That was in Hansard in 2003, when that act was being debated.

We’re looking at qualified professionals in this case. We’re on clause 6. We’re not going to make it through this entire bill. But I just have to ask one time here: why did the government choose not to pull this bill when they had a chance just now? They could have actually forced this to the fall so that some of these consultations and amendments could actually occur in good faith. Why did that not happen?

The Chair: Member, we are on clause 6, and your comments need to be relevant to the clause at hand. I would ask that you please help me understand how those are connected to clause 6.

[3:05 p.m.]

Okay. If not, we’ll move on to the next question, which is from the member for Courtenay-Comox.

Brennan Day: I think my colleague makes an excellent point in terms of the rush. I know we’ve had some fulsome discussions in this room that have identified issues with the bill. This is why we’re here, to do this work — specifically to make those clarifications.

I will, however, move into section 6, qualified professionals. I’m going to pick up where we left off yesterday. The new certification pathway under section 6 may streamline approvals, but it also raises serious questions about how internal disagreement is handled and a few other things that we were starting to litigate.

I’m going to move into a few questions leading off of yesterday. Since projects using the qualified professional certification will bypass internal ministry permitting, how will contradictions between internal staff concerns, whether it’s this ministry or others, and the qualified professional findings be reconciled, particularly when those internal concerns do not make the public record through the streamlining process?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We actually responded to this exact question yesterday already. I’m also happy, though, to correct for the record some of the comments made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Before I do so, though, I want to acknowledge the Elders and leaders from the Nisg̱a’a Nation who have joined us in the House to witness debate today on Bill 15. Thank you so much for being here. We know that your time is valuable. I want to honour the fact that you have chosen to share that time with us here.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie referred to comments made by me, characterizing them as saying that the powers in Bill 15 are not entirely new. For greater clarity, what I was referring to is one of the six tools.

Bill 15 includes six new streamlining tools, five of which are directed at provincial government processes. The sixth tool, which is the one tool that is directed at local government processes, is modelled after an existing act called the Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

The member referred to that act as having a qualified professional reliance model. It does not. The Significant Projects Streamlining Act deals only with the three-step alternative process relating to local government decisions.

But the member also raised the issue of urgency. What is the urgency around Bill 15? We have canvassed, and I have answered many questions at length, as to the purpose of Bill 15.

[3:10 p.m.]

Bill 15 is tabled in order to help government help communities deliver critical infrastructure projects faster. In growing communities, we know that we need more schools, more hospitals, more of everything to support growing communities.

That urgency…. The level of urgency that faces us today, which has led us to table Bill 15 and calls upon us to ensure that this bill is put in force as soon as practicable will be obvious for any parent who has a student attending a school that is bursting at the seams because their community is growing far too quickly.

It will be obvious to any health care worker who is working in a hospital that can no longer be fully utilized because that hospital is at end of life and requires rapid replacement.

That urgency will be obvious to anyone with an aging parent who is on a wait-list to get into a long-term-care home.

That urgency will be known by a First Nation who may be ready to go with a project partnership on a critical economic development opportunity for their community, and they are coming to the province and asking us to get our House in order. That is the urgency behind this bill.

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: Point of order. This isn’t relevant to section 6. This is a speech about why there should not be any delay. That’s not relevant to assessing the application of section 6.

The Chair: Thank you. I would agree with the House Leader of the Third Party.

Debate Continued

Brennan Day: This has clearly become quite a political discussion regarding this bill. I think the qualified professionals…. I have a few questions specifically related to that, which pertain to section 6.

Qualified professionals are currently somewhat shielded from political pressure, because the final decision rests with the various ministries that are in charge of the project. Under this new model, they become the decision-makers.

In this case, I’ll use archaeologists as one example, where rights and title comes in and archaeological permitting is required. Environmentalists, we’ve used. Biologists in another case. Engineers, obviously, are quite protected, because those decisions that are made politically and to advance political expediency are shielded. Those decisions are shielded somewhat, because the ministry is ultimately holding the buck.

Under the new model, they become the decision-makers. How do we ensure that they’re not politicized, especially when they’re standing in for what would otherwise be a political judgment call when it’s not clear? Because these grey areas happen.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you for the…. I certainly understand the member’s interest in section 6. I’m really glad for that question.

For greater clarity for the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I was responding to a direct question about the urgency of the bill from a previous member prior to your entrance into the House.

We canvassed this before. We have a qualified professional reliance model. Firstly, statutory decision–makers are not political. They’re members of the public service. They make decisions according to regulations that are currently in place.

[3:15 p.m.]

With the qualified professional model, the intent around this is to identify those permits that are appropriate for certification by a qualified professional.

As you know, government has many, many different types of certifications and permits. Some will be highly complex and very high risk, and some will be not as complex and lower risk. It is our intention that higher-complexity, higher-risk permits will stay with statutory decision–makers.

But there are many types of permits that are lower risk, where the opportunity for a qualified professional model is ripe. Some of the examples we gave yesterday would fall under that.

In order for a qualified professional model to work with any particular permit or certification, there would have to be clear objectives and standards for the meeting of that certification.

The member rightly pointed out yesterday that there are many permits within the provincial government sphere where the expectations, standards, outcomes and objectives of those permits are not clear, which results in a lot of back-and-forth and a lot of churn in terms of decision-making. The qualified professional reliance model would take a particular permit — and again, it would have to be an appropriate permit — actually set out a clear and objective standard and an objective for that permit and then identify the qualified professionals that are trustworthy and experienced enough to be able to actually certify that that standard has been met.

A roster will be created. The details of this roster and the details of who a qualified professional will be are under section 28. That roster will be maintained through a rigorous compliance and enforcement regime.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

You keep referencing sections in the future, but we know that closure will be invoked today, and we will not get, likely, to those sections today, which is very unfortunate. I agree with you. They need to be fulsomely investigated and discussed here in this room. Unfortunately, we likely will not get a chance to do that.

You referenced churn, which I think is a very interesting way to describe red tape in government currently under permitting, but you also referred to cabinet judgment and that transparency in the public process — that there’s going to be centralized control in cabinet over what gets released and what does not get released through the process.

You also continue to refer to the qualified professional registry. I think it’s very important that that registry itself doesn’t become a political tool, where professionals who raise valid concerns — environmental or technical objections, potentially, or vice versa, if they’re extremely pro a certain position — could be removed or sidelined from diverging from a government’s narrative on a specific project.

What protections would be in place, and how will the qualified professional registry be managed going forward under Bill 15?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It may be helpful for the member to know that the opposition is welcome to manage the remaining time as they wish in terms of prioritizing which sections they would like to hit. So if section 28 is a section that is particularly of interest, it’s possible to also call the vote on sections in between as well, if there are sections that they’d like to prioritize.

I’m not sure about the member’s reference to cabinet judgment. Perhaps he could clarify that. I don’t think I used that term, but I would be happy to answer the question based on what the member intended by that reference.

In terms of the professional registry, the ministry would work with the professional regulating body to manage this registry. To be clear, it is not managed by any elected official. The prequalified list of professionals and the subsequent registry would have to follow the existing procurement processes that guide all government activities.

Rob Botterell: Clause 6 starts addressing the key issue of the move to a qualified professional approach. So I’ll have a series of questions in relation to this. I’ll begin by returning to the concept that we’ve discussed in earlier clauses but applying it to this clause.

Will the use of a qualified professional on a project within the territory of a nation on whose territory the project is…? Will the prior consent of that nation be required for the use of a particular qualified professional?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It is those kinds of questions that we anticipate hearing from First Nations about during the development of the regulation. We’ve set out in statute the general intentions of the regulation, but we do intend to consult and cooperate on the details of that regulation.

In addition to that, keeping in mind that category 2 projects will also have a regulation that is developed for them in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, when a category 2 project is designated as provincially significant, the OIC must also identify which tools that project will have access to and the details of those tools, including whether or not they’re able to access a qualified professional reliance model for which permits.

All of that will be encompassed in the OIC. Given that the designation of the project itself is expected to have First Nations support on it, and that can only be achieved through consultation on that particular project on a case-by-case basis as well, then yes, the First Nation will need to provide support for the use of those tools too.

In terms of the actual details of, again, the qualified reliance model, we expect that First Nations may also have views on the types of permits that they may be interested in having access to through a qualified professional reliance model and perhaps feedback on the kinds of qualified professionals that they can provide into the process.

So all of that is to come.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Section 6(3) explicitly removes discretion of a regulator by saying that a qualified professional certification must be considered the permit or approval required by statute.

My question to the minister is: what permits are going to be included in section 6 and therefore replaced by certifications of qualified professionals?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This topic was canvassed yesterday as part of debate on section 6 as well. I’m happy to provide an overall summary for today, seeing as how it’s a new day.

The permits that will be eligible for this model…. That was the question: “Which permits will be eligible for this model?” It will be informed by the regulation….

The Chair: Members, I just remind you to silence your electronic devices. Thank you.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It will be informed by the regulation that will be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations. It will be informed by a designated project — i.e., what kinds of permits does that project require, and what sorts of tools would be appropriate to use on, if not all, some of those permits? There would need to be an analysis of the complexity and the risk of each permit, because not every permit is appropriate to be diverted to a QR model.

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Your Eminence.

The Chair: Wow, a promotion.

Rob Botterell: I’m just learning from my Conservative colleagues the appropriate lexicon for this.

The Chair: Well, you just need to use Twitter.

Rob Botterell: The minister has highlighted a framework for establishing which permits will be involved, which tools will be involved, in which cases qualified professionals will be involved.

I’m drawn to the context in which we’re operating, which is that…. We are operating in a context where the minister has assured us that if this legislation passes today, which I expect it will, that in the development of regulations, the interim approach, which we’ve discussed in relation to other clauses, will inform the work with First Nations.

In the case of clause 6, the degree to which nations can be engaged will be foreclosed by the passage of this legislation, because under the interim approach, it is open to nations to suggest an alternative approach, and it would be considered in good faith. So it’s not limited to simply applying clause 6 as it’s structured.

[3:35 p.m.]

My question is: if on a project that is in the territory of a particular nation that the government wishes to pursue using the tool of a qualified professional under clause 6, if that nation says, “No, we don’t want to use the qualified professional approach; we prefer to use the existing environmental assessment process and not use qualified professionals,” what will be the response of the government?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: A correction on my previous answer. I said QR process; I meant QP process — just for clarity.

An EA process and a qualified professional process under section 6 are not functionally interchangeable. They are two completely different things.

Rob Botterell: Let me offer a clarification of the question. If the government is looking to proceed on a particular project in a nation’s territory under clause 6, and the nation does not consent to using that process, will the government respect that decision of the nation?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: With respect, the authorization of tools for designated projects was actually section 5.

Rob Botterell: It’s one of a number of examples. We’ve all heard the enormous and negative impact and fallout from the Mount Polley event and the 24 million tonnes of debris that resulted in. We also know that in the review of the Mount Polley disaster, the qualified professional approach was criticized at some length. Serious concerns were raised about the qualified professional approach.

[3:40 p.m.]

There were serious concerns raised about the independence of the qualified professionals in the cases where they are hired and employed by the company or the proponent.

In light of the Mount Polley disaster and other events that the previous leader of the Green Party, Sonia Furstenau, canvassed in some detail over many years with this government and through her personal experience dealing with the events that surrounded the Shawnigan Lake property within her riding at the time, why did the government choose a qualified professional approach when it has all these flaws?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Mount Polley incident and all of the circumstances that led to that unacceptable failure is exactly why our government went through the process of completely upending the oversight and regulatory and governance structure of regulated professional bodies through the Professional Governance Act. It was the whole purpose of that entire exercise. The model that we are proposing today is informed by the lessons learned from that process, as well as the Auditor General report and the Ombudsperson.

This model is focused on setting standards and objectives, working with regulatory bodies to ensure transparency and accountability, keeping in mind, again, that the process and the oversight and governance structure of regulated professionals under the Professional Governance Act as it exists today is entirely different from how it previously existed at the time of the Mount Polley disaster. And our ministry is taking it even further by creating a roster of vetted prequalified professionals.

[3:45 p.m.]

One of the very important lessons that was learned as well is that this model is absolutely not appropriate for all permits. Complex high-risk permits would remain with the ministry decision-makers.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. Minister, you’ve made my point for me. What you’ve just said is that if permits are complex, then we’re going to use the existing process. Yet what I keep hearing over and over again is there’s urgency. We can’t wait three months. We’ve got to get this passed tonight and royal assent tomorrow because the future of the province is at stake for a three-month delay.

Yet you’ve just indicated that section 3 will not be used except where the permits are relatively straightforward, so there won’t be any acceleration in the movement of projects.

My question to the minister is: what protection will the public have against a certificate that is issued erroneously or without consideration of key impacts that would otherwise be considered in the permit or approval?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We have the authority, under the Professional Governance Act, to implement an auditing compliance and enforcement regime, which is what we will do on this model. And a pre-vetted, prequalified professional on the roster for this program that fails to appropriately certify to the standard will be removed from the roster and no longer able to perform that work.

Gavin Dew: I’d like to just keep digging into this vetted prequalified roster of qualified professionals a little more if we can. My understanding from what I’m hearing is that this will be a specific roster for these specific purposes. I would like to understand a lot more about exactly what that process of vetting and prequalification will actually look like. And I’m sure the minister will not be surprised, based on my prior lines of inquiry, that I would like to understand exactly how that vetting and prequalification process is going to be kept clear of political interference.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Ministers and elected officials are not involved in procurement processes. Those are entirely managed by the public service.

Gavin Dew: That is insufficient as protection against the politicization of this process, in my view.

I would return to some of the themes that we have canvassed previously around the designation of projects, and I would submit that if you are a project proponent who is going to go through this process, who is going to become a designated project and who is going to have a qualified professional driving the process, then what will happen as a function of this is that there will now be a select, vetted, prequalified list of qualified professionals who will be instrumental to decisions as to whether or not projects get to move forward. That has the potential to create significant upward pressure on the price of said qualified professionals to project proponents.

Again, this prequalified vetted list will be a pre-selected, high-end group of qualified professionals who are instrumental to whether or not projects get to move forward. In all likelihood, that will create scarcity value for those specific services. These qualified professionals have been selected by someone in government. That means that their rates will in all likelihood go up. Those costs will be passed on to project proponents. But equally important, that means that being one of these vetted and prequalified professionals has the potential to be immensely lucrative.

Obviously, I think we all have a tremendous amount of respect for the kinds of qualified professionals that work on projects, but this is a commercial reality on the ground. If you are a major company, an individual practitioner, and you hope to participate and be part of this, you will have a tremendous commercial incentive to become a prequalified, vetted, qualified professional who has the ability to hold the very life of a project in your hand because you are an extension of the arbitrary power that government is giving itself through Bill 15.

Again, I would say the principal matter that concerns me around this bill is that…. I’m for projects moving faster. I’m for getting things done. I come from major projects. What I am worried about is the tremendous blind spot that this government appears to have to the potential for there to be real or perceived influence or influence peddling or the monetization of influence within this construct.

The same well-connected NDP insiders who I have shown in this committee stage have dozens of clients that they are bringing into the Premier’s office to meet about major projects that they stand to make huge amounts of money from, helping through the informal process of getting designated or of preclearing their designation or of ensuring that the Premier’s office looks upon their project positively before they begin going through the formal process. There is tremendous potential — tremendous potential — for undue influence within that process.

I’d really love to hear the minister give us a convincing response as to how, again, the selection of this elite group of qualified professionals is going to be safeguarded from political influence.

What I’m seeing over and over again is a naivety. I do believe that the minister wants to believe this is a clean process. I think the minister wants to believe that what we’re doing is moving forward the dependencies on a Gantt chart. I understand all of that, but I really see a giant blind spot from this government around influence.

[3:55 p.m.]

I see a lot of holier than thou, getting up on pedestals and preaching about how clean and pure and wonderful this government is, but this is also a government that has multiple former cabinet ministers lobbying, that has a former president of the NDP lobbying, that has the former chief fundraiser of the NDP lobbying, that has the former executive director of the NDP lobbying — and making a whole bunch of money off of helping to shepherd people through processes exactly like this.

As more and more arbitrary power is vested in government and is invested in individuals chosen by government, it is incredibly important that the public can have confidence that someone is watching the watchman, that someone actually has clear transparency around how these qualified professionals are being selected and, again, on these informal, inevitable processes that are going to happen.

Would the minister please provide us with a compelling explanation as to how the process of selecting this special list of qualified professionals unique to the application of this bill is going to be kept absolutely, spotlessly clear of political influence by a government that has shown that it is easily influenced by NDP insiders?

The Chair: The committee will take a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. Calling Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order.

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you so much, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Welcome back, everyone, following the vote.

Generously, I think that the member’s monologue contained, or perhaps was based on, a lack of understanding of provincial permitting processes within government and perhaps has not been following along closely enough on the debate on section 6 on how the QP model will work. The member engaged in quite a bit of dramatic interpretation, I would say, about how powerful and financially lucrative vetted prequalified professionals might be as service providers under this tool.

I think that it would perhaps be helpful to walk through a hypothetical example. Let’s say there is a project that requires for a wetland to be filled, and as part of the work that they are doing under the Water Sustainability Act, they also require a permit under the Wildlife Act. And they require, as part of this work, to remove amphibians from the wetland.

[4:30 p.m.]

Government has assessed and analyzed the different permits that are required by this project as part of the portion of their project that requires the filling of the wetland, and government has, again hypothetically, determined that the risk and complexity around the collecting and translocating of amphibians would be appropriate to pass over to a QP model. The government will set standards as to how we expect the collection and translocation of amphibians to be. We set standards in that way.

Under a QP model, a registry has been created, working together with the College of Applied Biologists, to identify all of the herpetologists that could be qualified to certify that the collection and translocation of salamanders, frogs, toads and other amphibians has been done correctly. The herpetologist will then be engaged for the project off of the registry. They will monitor the work and certify whether or not the collection and translocation of these frogs, salamanders and toads has been done correctly. That certification then allows for the other work that follows, the filling of the wetland.

By regulation under section 28, we would set the pay for such a specialist for this kind of work, for this kind of permit. The registry for the qualified herpetologists, again, would be something that we would work together with the College of Applied Biologists, which is a regulatory body that is regulated under the Professional Governance Act.

Those regulatory bodies that are regulated under the Professional Governance Act set codes of standards, standards for professional conduct. Should a herpetologist not act ethically or not certify the correct collection and translocation of salamanders or toads or frogs on this wetland-filling portion of a greater project, not only could they be removed, and would they be removed, from our registry, but they could also lose their professional licence entirely.

All of this work, including the creation of the registry, would also need to follow the rules around procurement that are set out in the core policy and procedures of government.

Gavin Dew: Generously, I think the minister might believe the example she has just provided is one that should elicit a shrug. Coming from major projects, the reality of major projects, the reality is that the requirement to relocate toads, salamanders, frogs, the way in which that is undertaken can mean months. It can mean years. It can mean millions. It can mean tens of millions. So I do just really want to make sure it’s clearly understood by the minister that these kinds of decisions — which, unless I am misinterpreting, the minister wants us to believe are little administrative decisions — are decisions that are not of power and consequence.

The impression seems to be that we should shrug and say: “Hey, no big deal.” Entire projects in the real world become viable or non-viable, get built or don’t get built because of the way in which requirements around the relocation of toads or salamanders play out. Millions, tens of millions in cost — very, very significant for project proponents.

[4:35 p.m.]

So if what I’m hearing is that the minister thinks that’s not consequential or thinks that that is somehow minor, it really, really worries me.

The broader theme that I’ve tried to raise around the way in which qualified professionals are chosen to be on this list and the concern around exactly how significant powers with millions in consequence are going to be delegated by government, administered by government — these are really serious issues.

I want the minister to understand that I have spent weeks talking to the same stakeholders that she is hearing from. Many of those stakeholders…. On the one hand, yes, they want projects to move forward. Yes, they want projects to be able to be expedited. Yes, they want to see efficiency. Some of them will say that publicly. And a lot of them, publicly or privately, are equally as passionate in their concern about the way in which these arbitrary powers will be used by this government and the potential for undue influence, the potential for rent-seeking behaviour by well-connected NDP lobbyists.

I have spent a lot of time in committee stage walking through my concerns on an evidentiary basis around the number of well-connected NDP insiders, who I have specifically laid out — the former cabinet ministers, the former president of the NDP, the former executive director of the NDP, the former fundraising head of the NDP — all of whom are lobbying, including for major projects that have the potential to be designated under this act.

I want the minister to understand loud and clear that for every statement of support she sees from people in the business community, there is fear. There is concern. There is the concern that speaking out will mean being blackballed by this government, which is trying to give itself arbitrary power to pick winners and losers.

There is pervasive fear that whether it be through the designation of projects, whether it be through the selection of qualified professionals…. There is real and serious fear as to what this arbitrary set of powers government wants to take for itself will be used to do, how it will be used to pick winners and losers, how gatekeepers, informal gatekeepers, will be erected before a project ever reaches the formal process.

I want the minister to understand how crucially important that is, because when the minister sits across from me, laughing at the suggestion that there could be influence on the selection of qualified professionals, as she did ten minutes ago…. Perhaps she thinks this is funny. Perhaps she thinks this is not serious. Perhaps she thinks it’s not a problem that there is a huge number….

The Chair: Member, can I remind you’re speaking…. Perhaps “the minister,” rather than “she.” If you could stick with the parliamentary side of things, that would be appreciated.

Gavin Dew: I don’t think it’s inappropriate to refer to a minister by a pronoun, but I’m happy to refer to the minister.

The Chair: Thank you so much. I do appreciate that.

Gavin Dew: I would ask the Chair to let me complete my line of inquiry. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Please don’t argue back with me. Remember that. Please. I know you’re passionate. Please, just use “minister.”

Gavin Dew: When the minister sits across from me and has to cover her face as she laughs because she thinks it’s funny that there could be concern….

The Chair: Member, I’ll get you to stop for a minute.

Recognizing the Minister of Agriculture and the House Leader.

Point of Order

Hon. Lana Popham: I’d like to raise a point of privilege. I think that this is going down the road of personal attack on the minister, and I don’t think it’s acceptable.

The Chair: Okay, if the committee can stop for a minute, please. Everybody in the committee, take a deep breath for me, please.

I’ve heard a point of order from the acting House Leader. I appreciate that.

[4:40 p.m.]

If I can remind everybody in the committee that this is a committee to debate clauses and to work through clauses and to make it through clauses. That’s what we’re here to do. Okay?

I understand that we are all deeply passionate people. I recognize that. We wouldn’t be here if we weren’t. However, the expectation in the committee stage is that we will work through the work in front of us. All right?

Now, member for Kelowna-Mission, I’m happy to recognize you, but I think your point has been made. I think that we have all heard your point. The public has heard your point. If you could move towards your question, that would be very helpful. Thank you so very much.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: I’ve never been asked not to use a pronoun as a matter of decorum.

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. If you don’t like the way I’m chairing, I do apologize for that, but I am in this position. If you could take the guidance and move on, that would be great. Thank you so very much.

Gavin Dew: I’m aware of no precedent for this.

I’ll make it simple. Will the minister concede…? Will the minister tell us whether the minister believes that the public should have total confidence in this government that there will be no undue influence on the use of these powers — that the public should ignore their own eyes when they see that there are well-connected NDP insiders setting themselves up as lobbyists to provide access to government, to provide access to the process for project designation and, potentially, to provide access to being on the list of qualified professionals?

Will the minister stand up and tell the public that they should have total confidence in her government to administer the arbitrary powers it is taking for itself under this bill in a way that is above reproach and without conflict?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: If I may, I deeply, deeply reject the characterization the member made of my response. I provided a sincere response using a very detailed example. I deeply reject his characterization of my face. Anyone else in this committee watching me or listening will not have heard any laughing. I’m sorry if my….

I just don’t know what to say to this. I believe I’ve answered the question. I provided a detailed response more than once on this very question to multiple members. I simply have nothing further to add.

Misty Van Popta: We’re going to go back to just the transparency piece and, possibly, reporting.

I know that the answer is probably going to be that you can build this into the regulation. Maybe I’ll just ask if it is something that you’ve considered for regulation, especially when it comes to certifiers and certifications.

Will the minister publish an annual list of every permit replaced by qualified professional certification, plus the names of the certifiers, just so that public audit could be obtained?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The qualified professional certifications, so the authorizations for the use of qualified professionals, will be public through the OIC and B.C. Laws. The list of qualified professionals will also be public.

The knitting together of that in order to provide greater transparency I think is a very valid suggestion. We’d like to work that through as part of the regulations.

Misty Van Popta: Just to follow up with that. It was actually more in line of which permits are being streamlined into a certification, not necessarily the certifiers themselves. If a certifier is combining a bunch of different permits and things like that, is there going to be a listing of what has been combined?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, I can confirm that’s what I intended by my previous response. The OIC will indicate the project, the permits that are being designated tools under the act, which permits are being provided a QP model, and then we would want to be able to find a way to make it more searchable and transparent.

This was actually raised, I believe, by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie yesterday as well. We provided a similar response. We think it’s an excellent idea. We want to be able to provide that greater transparency. We’ll have to work out exactly how we do so, but it would be our intention to do that.

Misty Van Popta: Hopefully another easy answer here for you, in the sense of…. When it comes to consultants and QPs, does the ministry plan on limiting it to qualified professionals who have practice insurance in British Columbia, or are you going to allow an out-of-province engineer to certify B.C. work without B.C. coverage?

When we start limiting the amount of consultants and things like that, you know, if another firm from outside the province…. Would they ever be allowed to certify work without insurance?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This is an excellent question, and it’s really helpful to hear. It’s actually been quite helpful to hear the comments of the member for Langley–Walnut Grove as well as Prince George–Mackenzie.

I know your name, but I don’t remember your riding. That member as well.

The Chair: Courtenay-Comox.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Courtenay-Comox.

A lot of these questions do have to be worked out in regulation. So what we would say is that a qualified professional — particularly, we’re thinking about qualified professionals that are registered under the PGA — would have to be registered to work in B.C. in order to be on the registry.

With the question of insurance, we don’t quite have access to enough information right now to fully understand the insurance that a practising professional would have to have and that relationship with licensing. So we would have to work that out. Definitely something that we would be able to require as part of regulations. We have that regulatory-making authority.

The one caveat I would offer is that this is the current state of the situation. With all of the discussions about interprovincial trade, there is an element of that discussion around the labour mobility as well and mobility of expertise.

[4:55 p.m.]

So it is too early for me to know. I would be speculating only on whether or not that would have an impact. But I just wanted to flag that for transparency.

Brennan Day: Just to follow up, supplemental to that, interprovincial is one thing, certainly, but I’ve worked on many large projects executed by large engineering firms which would be required to launch any of the tier 1 projects that you’re discussing here. How would that relate, same question, to international certification and international liability? Certainly, in this case, a lot of these projects would require outside expertise, and we have a labour shortage across the country. It’s not just specific to B.C.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Keeping in mind that we are not talking about qualified professionals that might be generally required by a project for the implementation of their project…. We’re talking about qualified professionals specifically for the purposes of this QP model to provide certifications on provincial permits. We would want to be confident that any permit we put forward for a QP model for that permit — that we would be able to establish a robust registry of people who are qualified to work here in B.C.

So recognizing that the member is right that there are projects that use international expertise, we would not be looking to that pool for permits that are currently for provincial statutory decision–makers to potentially be opened up for a QP model, if that makes sense. I just want to make sure that we’re talking about the same thing, and I think we might be talking about slightly different things.

Rob Botterell: The lack of definition in Bill 15 has sparked a lot of questions, and shortly we’ll be out of time to ask those questions. But in the time we have, in other provincial legislation, when there is consideration or an intention to establish a registry, there is actually a provision in the act or in the bill to establish the registry.

To the minister: why does this bill not include provision to create the registry for qualified professionals?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s under section 28.

Rob Botterell: In the Shawnigan Lake events and the events surrounding the contaminated site at Shawnigan Lake, the qualified professionals in that case had a secret agreement to split all future profits from the contaminated landfill they were engineers for.

[5:00 p.m.]

Now, I understand in terms of clause 6 that this reflects qualified professionals providing particular services.

But where in the bill does it establish that qualified professionals under clause 6 could not have profit-sharing agreements or some sort of incentive plan? Where is that prevented in legislation?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to refer back to my response from earlier today, the one I provided in response to the member’s question around Mount Polley, because the Shawnigan Lake situation was also part of the impetus for the changes that we have since made. The lessons learned that I referred to in that response also include lessons learned from the Shawnigan Lake situation.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Where in provincial legislation does it prevent these types of agreements, profit-sharing agreements? Where is the specific provision?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It may be helpful for the member to refer to section 57 of the Professional Governance Act. Section 50 also speaks to how professional bodies can cancel registration as a result of violations there as well.

Rob Botterell: I don’t have that act in front of me, so is there a specific clause in that section that prevents profit-sharing agreements?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 57 specifically speaks to conflicts of interest.

Rob Botterell: Perhaps, not being an expert in qualified professional provisions and professional reliance….

[5:05 p.m.]

Could the minister, for the purposes of clause 6, provide a bit of an overview of how the authority to conduct the responsibilities assigned under clause 6 would be delegated to the qualified professional? That would be helpful, just to understand the framework.

Also a related question is: who will the qualified professional be paid by? Will the qualified professional be paid by the proponent, or will the qualified professional be retained by government?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The proponent would be responsible for covering the cost of the qualified professional under this model.

In terms of the framework…. I know that I’ve heard from members of the opposition who have lamented that we don’t have that many hours remaining for debate. I just want to flag that I’ve actually provided an answer describing the framework of how this will work, and perhaps our time is better spent on different questions, respecting that there may be other, new questions that members would like me to answer.

We can refer you to Hansard for the other.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. I certainly have no intention of wasting the time we have left, which, of course, we sought to have extended. The government refused our request to extend. In fact, we offered to extend the session, given how important this legislation is. As the minister has noted, there’s urgency, and we were willing to sit into June.

I’ll change the direction of my questioning to come back and seek further clarification on an issue that we’ve canvassed in relation to other sections and canvassed to some extent in this section. I can only say that the reason I am seeking clarity on this is that it is an overwhelming concern for First Nations in this province.

Earlier today the Premier received a letter from the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs raising concerns about Bills 14 and 15. I will do everything I can to focus the portions of the letter I read in relation to clause 6, but some of it is important for contextual reasons. I’ll provide the context and then move into the question that relates directly to clause 6.

The Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs say: “We are writing to raise Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs’ serious concerns about Bills 14 and 15.”

Of course, I’ll focus on 15 and relate it to clause 6.

“The content of the bills has left many questions unexplained and unanswered for us. We’re in court concerning a major proposed oil and gas infrastructure project, Ksi Lisims LNG, which we’ve determined will have profound negative effects on the Gitanyow wilp, including to endangered salmon and our way of life.”

I think this part of the letter is quite relevant.

“By removing provincial responsibility under the Environmental Assessment Act process, you are abdicating consultation and consent duties that are parallel to the Gitanyow wilp sustainability assessment process, which B.C. has recognized as an expression of Gitanyow lax’yip laws. There has been no meaningful consultation with First Nations, including ours, in developing these bills. You’re contravening DRIPA and moving us backwards on reconciliation.”

[5:10 p.m.]

The letter provides a detailed explanation of the serious concerns of the Gitanyow. Later in the letter, the Chiefs join in calling for a withdrawal of the bill to allow for meaningful consultation.

It is in this context that I want to seek further clarification on clause 6 and the operation of clause 6, specifically in relation to the Gitanyow. They’re very clear that they do not support any change in the environmental assessment process as it relates to this project — and I’ll provide the letter to the minister, because the Premier’s office may not have forwarded it yet — but more generally, to projects that affect the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

I mean, I will draw attention to the fact that they raise the same concerns I raised yesterday around core territory.

My question to the minister is: if a First Nation such as Gitanyow says. “We want to have nothing to do with qualified professionals under clause 6,” will this government respect that request?

I’ll just add this to clarify. This isn’t about further consultation and engagement under the interim approach and working together, which is hugely important and should be happening right now. This is just a very specific question.

If a First Nation says to the government after this legislation is through the guillotine and has royal assent and goes into effect…. If a nation, like the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, says, “No, we do not want clause 6 applied to a project in our territory,” will the government respect that request?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The authorization of tools for use for designated projects was canvassed under section 5. Section 6 is about once those authorizations have already been provided and how they’re used.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

I think the minister, earlier in the discussion of Bill 15, in earlier days, pointed out the fact that some of these clauses are related to each other. Let me rephrase the question, so I can come fully within the boundaries of clause 6 and not veer into earlier sections and not veer into the other 42 sections that we may not have time to consider in the time left.

Clause 6 says: “If authorized in a regulation under section 4, a certificate issued or provided by a qualified professional may be used in accordance with this section and the regulations.”

Then clause (3) says: “If a qualified professional certification is issued or provided under this section, the certification must be considered to be the approval, permit, licence or other authorization that is required under the prescribed enactment and to have been issued or provided under that enactment.”

[The bells were rung.]

If the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs categorically request and reject the application of clause 6(3), will the government respect that decision of the Gitanyow Chiefs, in relation to a project on their territory?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 6 strictly deals with the use of the qualified professional certification once that tool has been selected for a designated project. Prior to that, there would be work around the type of permit that the project would need to achieve, the range of permits, and whether any of those permits would be offered tools.

The selection of those tools would be under section 5. I think the member’s question is relevant to section 5, but we have canvassed section 5. The member’s question is relevant to section 4, the designation of projects, as well. But again, we have canvassed those for many, many hours, and we are now on section 6.

Brennan Day: I think everybody will be very happy. I believe this is the last question we have before we can move on to section 7, which times up very well with the recess.

[5:20 p.m.]

We’ve been discussing conflict-of-interest disclosures in regards to the QP certificates and the registry process. This is a fairly simple question, but I think it requires a fairly reasonable response or at least some engagement. It may trigger a couple more questions.

Would the mandatory conflict-of-interest disclosure be something that this ministry would consider under this bill, including the identity of the proponent, frequency of prior certifications and any overlapping project involvement with cabinet-designated initiatives or other government-run projects? You know, full transparency on what other projects those qualified professionals are engaged in with government so that it is clear to everybody involved that there’s no favouritism being played, effectively.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The orders in council…. All of the designated projects and the tools that each designated project will have access to and the permit that those tools are applied against will be made public by OIC, and that’s searchable through B.C. Laws. The qualified professionals lists will also all be public.

Similar to some of the comments made by your colleagues, we see the value in being able to easily cross-reference one with the other. We don’t currently have a capability to do it right now, but we would like to be able to in order to provide that transparency and that disclosure that the member is referring to. So that’s work that we’ll be undertaking as part of the development of this program.

For greater clarity, as well, in terms of conflict of interest, the Professional Governance Act has a section around conflict of interest, and each of the regulated bodies under the Professional Governance Act also has conflict-of-interest requirements and standards that their licensed professionals are expected to follow, as well as subsequent investigation processes, and so forth, for those who are suspected to be in violation.

I’m not speaking to the PGA right now in all of the correct terms, but there’s a whole process that is built into the PGA and into the systems of regulation itself, so it’s quite fulsome. It’s one of the reasons why we were able to move forward with this concept with greater confidence. It’s because of the work that had been done through the Professional Governance Act in recent years.

Brennan Day: Following with that, these tools are available to…. Any large engineering firm does these types of conflict reviews internally, generally, on the procurement side, but certainly with this bill, and the criticism around it from multiple groups, transparency, I think, is key here.

I think this is one section…. If adopted and run out by government, it could be a model for other ministries, certainly, to increase that transparency to the public from government to ensure that it’s a fairly easy process for people that have complaints. I think the other consequence of that would be that we would see far less meaningless FOIs, which I’m sure the ministry staff deal with on a very regular basis across the ministries, where people have to go on a fishing expedition to find what is or should be basic, publicly available information.

I would highly recommend that as a bit of a shield to criticism on this bill going forward in the adoption.

Clause 6 approved.

The Chair: And on that note, I call a ten-minute recess. I have 5:25 on my watch. I’d like everybody back in the seats at 5:35, please. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 5:25 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order. We are on clause 7.

[5:40 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I rise on a point of order just to clarify something for the benefit of the minister, and I don’t plan to dwell on it because it relates to a section that’s now passed. But just for the information of the minister, section 83.1 of the Professional Governance Act does allow for profit-sharing in the form of a limited liability partnership arrangement.

I’ll leave it at that. I’m not wanting to discuss it. I just want the minister to be aware of that.

On clause 7.

Kiel Giddens: We appreciate the hot dog recess earlier. Somehow, I didn’t get any mustard on my shirt, so it was a success. But it’s pretty wild around here. I saw members walking down the hallways with pizza in their hands, so it’s a bit of a wild time here in the Legislature.

But let’s get back to clause 7 debate here on Bill 15. Clause 7 might appear technical in nature, but I think it is, again, pretty consequential to the overall bill. We’re talking about permit queues and coordination behind the scenes for the public service. At its core, this is really a highly subjective framework, and that’s one thing that we need to dive into here.

It’s repeated many times that one of the concerns that the official opposition has is the government’s ability to pick winners and losers, and this is a tool that will give government and cabinet the ability to do that. It gives government the power to fast-track some permits, while others may wait indefinitely. They may actually be held up because they’re not getting through the system. They could get gummed up because others are moving ahead in the queue.

So my constituents and the public, I think, deserve to know on what basis this government will be prioritizing some of these permits. I want to ask us some questions in regards to that.

Maybe to start off, how will this tool be used in practice to prioritize the projects that are designated? How will they jump up in the queue in practice? If the minister could describe that maybe to open up the discussion here.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: By way of a hypothetical project, the process might look something like this. First, the project would have to meet the criteria to be designated. We canvassed that extensively under section 4.

[5:50 p.m.]

We would work with the project proponent to understand the full range of permits that would be required for the project, and then, through the process identified in section 5, identify tools for some or most or all or whatever number of permits the tool might be useful for. We would assign those tools, permit by permit.

For all the permits that might be assigned, the prioritization of provincial permits tool, under section 7…. Our ministry would work with the permitting ministries, keeping in mind the Ministry of Infrastructure doesn’t do any permits. We don’t issue any permits. The existing permitting ministries still have that, so there would be some cross-ministry collaboration to understand the scope and scale of these permits, bundle them together, coordinate amongst the ministries and basically shepherd the bundle through the different permitting processes.

By doing so, we can find efficiencies. For instance, one major efficiency might be to take the entire bundle of permits and take that bundle to consult with affected First Nations as one bundle so that they see it once, and it’s all done at once. This process would basically be shepherded through the various permitting authorities until they reach the outcomes, be it a positive outcome or a negative outcome, keeping in mind that this process doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome. It just makes sure that the bundle is hitting the right people as quickly as possible.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response. I think that is useful as a starting place, and I think we can get into some hypothetical examples as we get through this. I appreciate that the Ministry of Infrastructure is not a permitting ministry, and I think the opposition canvassed in estimates quite a bit on those existing permitting ministries, where their capacity lies and whatnot.

I know that a lot of folks watching for those specific ministries will be interested in this topic. Under subsection (3), how would a regulator expedite a permit application because it’s been ordered to do so? For example, would the minister then expect the regulator to hire additional staff to expedite that permit?

Again, I go back to estimates. We talked about capacity and all those kinds of questions, I guess. How does that process actually work for those existing permitting ministries?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you to the member for the question.

What the member is observing is absolutely true. I don’t know if the member actually said it specifically, but I believe this is the point that the member is raising, which is that certainly prioritization of provincial permits under section 7 is not a magic tool that suddenly clears backlogs. It doesn’t create capacity out of nowhere.

In that way, it is a self-limiting tool. The more infrequently it is used by government, the more effective it is. The more frequently it is used by government, the less effective it is, because if we have a pile of permits waiting to be seen and every single project is prioritized in some way, you still end up with a pile of permits.

So it is a self-limiting tool, in that way, and not a durable solution. More durable permitting solutions are all of the other work that government is doing in order to try to speed up timelines and permits for all projects. This tool in Bill 15, recognizing that there’s longer-term work to be done, allows government to prioritize those critical projects now, in the meantime.

Again, speaking to the limitation of this format, where sometimes I forget the rest of the question by the time I stand up, I’m happy to take the next question and go down this conversation that I think the member is headed.

Kiel Giddens: Really it is about trying to dig into how the tool will work in relation to the work of these other ministries and their capacity. I do actually agree, very much so, with those durable permitting solutions. I think that work needs to happen, and actually that is what the opposition has been saying pretty clearly. Instead of Bill 15, that would be the focus of work that we would prefer to see go ahead to streamline permitting across the province.

But anyway, back to it. I’m just trying to understand, in relation to this clause, that work that the other ministries need to do to make this clause actually beneficial to the overall objectives of prioritization of permits in this case. Does that make sense?

[6:00 p.m.]

Okay, I’ll try to re-ask it. How will the prioritization of permits work with those other ministries who are doing that work for durable permitting solutions to actually operationalize that priority queue?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Work on overall permitting solutions, those durable, long-term, fundamental changes, systemic changes — that continues across all ministries. Across the natural resource sector, over 60 policies, processes, legislative and regulatory reform opportunities have been identified so far for action to speed up projects. So that work continues.

There’s staff that is dedicated to that transformation work, including…. There’s a governance structure to lead and drive that work and ensure that the necessary systemic changes occur — and dedicated resources to that work.

Then there are other resources that do the work of processing permits. So the prioritization of provincial permits under section 7 would basically help reorganize the pile of permits, and those permitting resources would prioritize according to that.

Kiel Giddens: I would like to just get a little bit deeper into that queue of permits though, especially if there’s a certain class of projects. Maybe an easy example would be wind projects, just given that there’s a whole bunch of them that have been announced as priority already by the government.

For the record, the Energy Minister always says we’re against all the wind projects. We’re not. We’re just against the idea that…. Why only wind projects? There could have been others that were added there as well so or looked at.

If all projects are prioritized, then really none are. So how does that queue actually prioritize which ones, in practice? Related to that, I think, what kind of timelines is the minister considering under subsection (3), where it does reference that?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Bill 15 wouldn’t actually be applicable to wind projects, because wind projects, being under Bill 14, are going to the B.C. Energy Regulator.

But I think the point of the member’s question is well taken. It probably would help to illustrate the scale of the number of permits that are in queue right now in comparison to the number of permits we’re talking about using this tool for. In terms of category 2 projects, we’re talking handfuls of projects — kind of that scale.

There are literally thousands and thousands of backlogged permits in government right now. In estimates, it was revealed that in terms of water permits, the queue right now is 7,800.

We’re giving you the scale of this. We’re not talking about prioritizing every permit to the front. We’re talking about taking those handfuls of provincially significant projects and helping them get through.

Kiel Giddens: Those durable permitting solutions are absolutely essential, so that’s what we will need to continue to focus on and work, hopefully collaboratively, to achieve that.

You mentioned Water, Land and Resources Stewardship water permits in that example. It might be helpful, just given that regulator is noted here….

Can the minister outline all the people or entities that have been designated as a regulator under this clause?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Regulator in this context would mean the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. We’re basically talking about permitting ministries. It includes Ministry of Transportation and Transit; Ministry of Forests; Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Agriculture; and the Ministry of Mines. Within these ministries, there are hundreds of statutory decision–makers throughout the province.

The regulator, as in the ministry, would be disclosed as part of the OIC because we would have to assign the tool and the permit that that tool is referring to and who holds the permit and who’s responsible for expediting that permit.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for that answer. That is helpful clarity, certainly.

Those statutory decision–makers certainly have their own challenges, and that’s where that durable permitting solution really comes into play. One of the hangups is really that they don’t always feel empowered to make the decisions. They’re stuck in various processes, whether it’s consultation with another ministry, whether that’s somewhere in Indigenous consultation. That’s a really challenging thing for the statutory decision–makers to grapple with.

In that same vein, subsection (4) talks about…. There’s a phrase that says — I’ll just make sure I read it properly: “if the minister considers that the permitting prioritization process will not sufficiently expedite the review or issuance.” I’m wondering if the minister could define “not sufficiently expedite” first and maybe explain what this subsection means in relation to the entire clause.

[6:20 p.m. - 6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Subsections (4) and (5) under section 7 are basically an escalating process. Let’s say the prioritization of permitting in the way that we described earlier when we started out this section is done. Time goes by, and no meaningful progress has been made on those prioritized permits for this provincially significant project.

[The bells were rung.]

I’ll just wait for the bells, if that’s all right. It’s too distracting.

Okay, so the section 7 tool has been engaged. Time goes on. There’s been no meaningful progress. Subsections (4) and (5) are an escalation option for this tool. It would be done by Lieutenant Governor in Council, so it’s an order in council made by the recommendation of the minister.

Examples will probably be helpful in this case. Let’s say the bundle of permits has made very little meaningful progress. A minister could recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that a task force with dedicated resources is designated to the bundle of permits and provides a focused effort and energy on it to get it by.

Another example could be an order in council that tasks the deputy ministers of the relevant permitting ministries to report that progress on a regular basis, kind of help that along.

Another example actually speaks to the example by the member for Courtenay-Comox from a previous section debate. Let’s say that within a permitting ministry, multiple experts are going back and forth on a permit and are unable to resolve the differences between their expert opinions.

[6:30 p.m.]

An escalation pathway could be by order in council directing that ministry to seek an independent, outside, third-party opinion and resolve it. So those are examples of escalation rules.

Kiel Giddens: It sounds like there is quite a wide range of those prescribed actions, and I do understand that subsections (4) and (5) work together in tandem. But those prescribed actions — it seems like there is a very, very wide range. Maybe in just trying to limit the scope and make sure that those prescribed actions, since they are quite wide…. I wouldn’t want a statutory decision–maker to be penalized in some way for not sufficiently expediting a project.

I’m wondering if the minister can confirm that if a regulator or a person misses an imposed deadline, they won’t be penalized for doing so. That could be in the form of budget cuts, demotions or salary clawbacks. I don’t know. The types of things seem like a wide range of “anything could be prescribed,” I guess, so I just want to make sure that that wouldn’t happen to those public servants.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to thank the member for his concern for our very hard-working and devoted public servants.

I can confirm, absolutely, that we could not do any of those kinds of things to penalize a public servant under this section. There is, of course, the Public Service Act, and performance measures and management are very strict and codified, so this legislation could not overcome that.

Kiel Giddens: I fully agree. Public servants are very hard-working.

I just want to ask another question on scenarios, I guess, in the same vein, asking as the Labour critic for our caucus. A lot of permits that may be required are required based on safety, for example — the safety of those working on the project, the safety of, afterwards, the users of this infrastructure.

We’re wondering what safeguards might prevent any…. If there’s a timeline that has been designated or whatnot, what safeguards are in place to make sure safety is not going to be compromised for those working on the project or, eventually, those users?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Section 7 changes no standards for any permits whatsoever. It’s really about that “where in the pile are you?” question.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe I’ll shift gears on questions a little bit and go back. Again, I talked earlier about the permitting queue. The minister made comments on government working with proponents on…. We’re getting into constraints. We’re trying to figure out, also….

Proponents are obviously preparing a lot of information. But some proponents have much larger capacity than others, and I’m thinking, maybe, of the private sector with a large corporation, for example. If you’re talking about a proponent that is a local government, their capacity is much more constrained. A First Nation — their capacity is much more constrained.

When government is working through that process, how will that be taken into account to make sure their permits are actually not falling behind some others that government may be working with at the same time, and they’re getting ahead in the queue because of that?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The section 7 tool, the prioritization of provincial permits, doesn’t resolve all of the challenges that a project proponent or a project will run into.

What it does is allow for that project’s specific permits to be seen by a decision-maker sooner rather than later. In the hypothetical scenario that the member has painted, perhaps a proponent has submitted an incomplete permit application for whatever reason. Having that permit prioritized to the top of the pile still means that they would find out that their permit application is incomplete when they are Nos. 1, 2 or 3 as opposed to Nos. 6,000, 6,001, 6,002. So there are still benefits to this, even in the scenario that the member has described.

Kiel Giddens: I think that answers it. Actually, I appreciate that the minister brought up if the application was missing data or something like that. I think that was something that I was curious about, as well, so I appreciate that added colour there.

I guess another concern…. I have to go back to where I started this clause discussion on this tool and giving the minister and, by extension, cabinet the ability to prioritize. I still have the concerns that this is about picking winners and losers. I’ve said that many times. I’m trying to find out if there are any safeguards to make sure that this isn’t going to be used for sidelining projects that are politically disfavoured.

You know, I worry about projects that are not…. They’re explicitly being told, to us, that they are not included in this, like an LNG project, for example. Are they going to fall further behind because other projects that are more favoured by government…? The cabinet has given it the thumbs-up. It’s a category 2 designated project. Is an LNG project that will never make that cut now going to fall further behind in permitting? That’s something I’m quite concerned about, because we need to develop our LNG projects. We have many more in the hopper that could be going.

We also need, of course, mines. I think that critical minerals are something that both parties align on. But oil and gas is something that we see as a way out of the provincial deficit that we’re in, the provincial debt situation. We need to develop our oil and gas resources, and I don’t want to see oil and gas permits hung up in the process because they’re not prioritized in the same way.

Oil and gas may not be the only projects that are politically disfavoured. There may be other ones, even in other industries, that could be used, but it’s an example. It’s an industry I’ve worked in before, as well, so certainly, you know, I have an interest in and knowledge of kind of trying to work through challenges.

They’re complex projects, some of those LNG projects. Obviously, they’re megaprojects. But that also goes to the challenges in permitting for well permits right now. There are lots that are hung up in the oil and gas sector, lots of challenges that are happening up in the northeast and in Treaty 8 territory for getting permits through.

The minister mentioned water permits earlier. I think the number was 7,800 water permits. A lot of those water permits are up in the oil and gas sector. So if we’re working through that water permit queue, I don’t want to see the oil and gas permits falling down out of favour and out of their ability to actually get ahead.

I’m wondering what safeguards are in place so that we can make sure that these critical industries for our province actually have a chance of success.

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member may be interested in knowing that, in terms of projects in the oil and gas sector, they already get access to streamlining tools and have had access to streamlining tools for quite some time through the B.C. Energy Regulator, formerly known as the Oil and Gas Commission. Given the member’s interest in that sector…. They already actually get quite a substantial access to streamlining tools.

In regards to the tool under section 7 of Bill 15, to provide greater assurance, this tool does not allow government to take a project and deprioritize it. It only allows it to take a project that’s been designated and prioritize it.

Given the scale that we’re talking about and that we’ve referenced, handfuls of projects versus thousands of permits in a pile, the material difference for a project that is being prioritized is significant. But the material difference for the rest of the projects that remain in the big pile is not as significant. They’re there. They do move a few steps down. But given the scale, you can see how the prioritization of several handfuls of projects is kind of felt and distributed across the rest of the permits.

But having said that, it speaks to the importance of the systemic work and the other solutions that government is also working on. This is not a one-and-done kind of solution. It is helpful in the immediate term, but we still have work to do, and that work continues on the entire permitting system to move projects, all projects, through the system more quickly.

[6:50 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: The example I provided in LNG projects….

I respectfully submit that the minister is actually incorrect on BCER being the only regulator for those permitting needs. I worked on the Coastal GasLink pipeline. So I know that, obviously, we had…. BCER permits were a major part of that entire application, but so was the environmental assessment certificate, and that had all those conditions and permits that were required from that.

Ministry of Forests, for example — you need road-use permits. To operate a construction workforce accommodation, you need permits from the health authorities. You need permits from WorkSafe and Technical Safety B.C. You need permits.

So it’s all a whole host of permitting challenges that could be gummed up because the LNG project is put to the back of the line ahead of some of these other projects that are more politically palatable. So I am concerned that an LNG project would not have the same success factors through a permitting process and some of those critical permits, and I can think of….

[The bells were rung.]

I will continue, after the bells there, Chair. Thank you.

I can recall specific permits that were delayed at the time of working on Coastal GasLink that were critical to the project schedule. They were critical to…. We had millions of dollars a day in labour expenses out there, and we were waiting for permits, and that hung up things on the project. It cost absolutely millions because we couldn’t get that water permit we just talked about. In some cases, we — as in the project — had to bring in water from elsewhere and use a big c-ring to try to fill that because we couldn’t get those permits.

But that’s just one example. There are many critical permits in many different ministries, government agencies, that an LNG project, a project of that scale needs, and is required. So whether that’s a pipeline…. We know, though, that it’s not going to be included under Bill 15. An LNG project is not included. They’re not included under Bill 14 either.

How are we supposed to expedite those types of projects? It sounds like we’re not going to. We have Ksi Lisims LNG. We have Cedar LNG. These projects matter. They matter to Nisg̱a’a, and many of those Nisg̱a’a members were here today. Cedar LNG certainly matters to the Haisla.

How are these projects that are actually in advanced stage…? Cedar LNG is at a stage right now where they’re beginning their construction process. And if they now fall behind in permits that they require…. You don’t get all your permits up front. Some of them are as you go on a project, as-needed basis basically.

So how can these LNG projects actually be certain that they’re not going to fall behind because government has decided that another project that is provincially significant is more politically palatable to the NDP, that they will not lose their ability to keep their timeline and schedule on the project and all that cost?

I know that Ellis Ross, who is a former member in this place, just took a seat in Ottawa today, and he spent his career fighting for that Cedar LNG project, and I do not want to see all that work he has done really cost and not be what Haisla had dreamed about at the end of the day, having that project of their own. They’ve taken an equity stake, so they’re owners of this project. I don’t want them to be financially worse off because permits are held up because other projects are moving to the front of the queue because of Bill 15.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide a little bit more context on how LNG projects are still going to be able to get the permits that they require to get done under this new regime.

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to thank the member for so clearly articulating his concern so that I can better understand his experience of these projects and where he’s coming from. I have nothing additional to add from what I had provided in my previous response, except to repeat again that we acknowledge that Bill 15 doesn’t address all of the issues, all the problems that important projects in our province may face. And we have more work to do across the spectrum. I do really appreciate the opportunity to better understand where the member is coming from here.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the discussion on this with the minister. I do hope that, following this, it’s a discussion that we can continue, because I think these LNG projects certainly are a critical path for the province. As I said, if we’re going to get out of the current situation of debt and deficits that we have in this province, it’s really one of the best and only paths out to contribute really meaningfully to putting a dent in that.

I just have to ask a follow-up. I think I likely will know the answer, but being from a rural riding, I certainly want to make sure that rural British Columbia is going to be also equitably treated from a project-priority perspective in this when permits are moving to the front of the queue.

I’m not going to get into a diatribe on lobbyists. We’ve already gone down that route, but that concern exists. I recognize that there aren’t as many government MLAs from rural ridings. So there may not be as many discussions about some of these really significant projects that are happening in rural B.C. There may be more interest and attention on urban-centric projects.

I want to make sure that rural permitting is going to be really prioritized and make sure that that is also top of mind. I’m wondering if the minister would be able to comment on that regard.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to thank the member for providing voice to his region, an incredibly important voice. I can assure the member that there are significant conversations within government about the economic opportunities available in B.C. to become Canada’s economic engine.

[7:00 p.m.]

We know, as well as the member knows, that the largest land-based projects in B.C. occur in rural and remote areas and are economic drivers for rural and remote communities.

I acknowledge the member’s concern. I want to assure him that we’re very keenly interested in supporting those kinds of opportunities in rural B.C.

Kiel Giddens: A sincere thank you to the minister for providing that response. All of us, of course, are representing communities. We want to make sure our communities’ voices are heard, so thank you for that.

I’m sure the minister would recognize a line of questioning of concerns that the opposition has about that “picking winners and losers” concern, overall, that we’ve been bringing up. Again, I go back to my role as the Labour critic within our caucus.

A concern that I’ve raised multiple times already in other clauses is that of community benefits agreements. It’s not just that though. It’s restrictive project labour agreements and other forms of action on a project that really exclude non-union contractors and exclude non-union workers.

Of course, I have…. Absolutely nothing wrong with unionized contractors doing excellent work in our province, unionized workers doing fantastic work building British Columbia. But there are many non-union contractors also doing that. There are many alternative forms of workers, and some workers prefer that choice to work in different work environments. I don’t want to see them excluded on projects.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

When we’re talking about prioritizing permits, in this case, and moving others to the front of the queue, especially on category 1 projects, I would really…. It would be a shame to see a scenario where projects are obviously prioritized based on the union affiliation of those contractors and projects.

I know that there’s a preference, obviously. We’re seeing projects like…. We saw it on the Cowichan Hospital. We’re seeing it on the Richmond Hospital. I think in Prince George, the UHNBC is going to be a community benefits agreement project.

Interjection.

Kiel Giddens: No? Okay. I got it confirmed that it’s not. That’s good.

But we’ll see that Highway 1 projects and transportation, for example, have been…. I mentioned that the work happening on the Trans-Canada Highway near Sicamous had a blockade on it just two weeks ago. The Splatsin First Nation was concerned that they’re getting shut out of work on the project because they weren’t sufficiently affiliated as a unionized contractor who had unionized workers. So they actually blockaded that.

It was the Highway 1, and residents were having to take a 50-minute commute around that section just to travel around that important bridge. So it’s a serious concern.

This is now a kind of long-standing point of difference between us as the official opposition and the government. We would rather see much more fair and open tendering on projects.

Can the minister confirm that permits for non-union projects are not going to be held up because category 1 community benefits agreement projects are getting put to the front of the queue?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member may be interested to know that the Ministry of Infrastructure’s portfolio is well over 1,000 projects, of which 80 are over $50 million and three are under community benefits agreement. The UNBC project that the member referred to is not a CBA project. I know that the member for Langley–Walnut Grove also asked this question during estimates. It’s an alliance model contract. It’s very different. We’re happy to share more about that.

For greater comfort, those projects that are designated for access to streamlining tools under Bill 15, particularly the section 7 tool relating to prioritization of provincial permits for those projects…. Unionization on those projects will not affect their permitting prioritization under this section.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that response from the minister. It’s one that, again, I think, following this process, we’ll want to continue to monitor.

I’m not going to continue to go down this. I think I’ll continue to have these conversations. I had canvassed extensively in estimates for the Ministry of Labour, and we also will in other contexts, I’m sure, as well. But it’s one that, as a Labour critic for our caucus, I will be monitoring for performance going forward.

I think we may be called out here in a few moments, but as we’re getting…. Basically, the time allocation on Bill 14 is coming to an end here. Maybe that concludes a line of questioning that’s been on concerns, certainly that the opposition has, on picking winners and losers.

Before we break, I’ll ask one that I missed earlier. We talked before about the capacity of Indigenous communities. If they have an Indigenous-led project, they may…. I appreciate the minister responded that if they’re missing data or they’re missing information, they wouldn’t lose their spot in the permitting queue.

But the other one, when we talked about statutory decision–makers and their ability to move things forward…. Obviously, there could be a wait in consultation. There are so many different ways proponents are trying to work with nations to help with capacity. There’s obviously capacity funding that’s provided in projects. That’s very common from both government and the private sector. But I guess in that process, as we have that queue of permits that are being prioritized, when that consultation record, that consultation data is something that is holding up, will the Indigenous project or the consultation record hold that line in the queue of the permit? Is that something that’s going to hold up…?

[7:10 p.m.]

I’m not asking in the most eloquent way right now, but I just want to make sure that Indigenous rights are going to be still protected here, in this case, for consultation, but that those permits are not going to fall behind because of the fact that’s what they’re waiting for.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I know I’ve said this a lot, but….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, division has been called in the main chamber. This committee will stand recessed until the division is complete.

The committee recessed from 7:13 p.m. to 7:31 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order. We are on clause 7.

Kiel Giddens: I know we’re very short on time. We just voted on Bill 14. It was a very close vote, and I expect that to be the same on Bill 15. Moments from now, we’ll be voting, likely, on that as closure hits us.

Just one that we asked earlier on, on the clause, but I don’t think I really got into, necessarily: the criteria of when…. We talked a little bit about the prioritization under subsection (4) and when the minister is deciding on whether the prioritization will not sufficiently expedite a file.

If those criteria could just be described a little bit further. Is it months of delay? Is it cost overruns or purely ministerial discretion in that case before those are recommended to prescribed actions in subsection (5)?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s by discretion.

Kiel Giddens: Okay. I’ll try to move fast.

Will the regulation require regulators to publish service standard performance reports? The reason I’m asking is that I’m wondering if there’s something in which MLAs will be able to see which ministries are actually meeting expedited timelines based on this.

We talked earlier about the water permits being a major source. But if we’re trying to track, we want some public visibility into seeing where the actual problems are so that, as MLAs, we could start to really push on encouraging improvement on those durable permeating solutions in that structure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’ll want to track metrics across all tools, yes.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just to catch up on another one I neglected to ask on subsection (5)…. I found this interesting, the way it’s worded: “one or more prescribed actions.” I don’t know why the drafting had to have specified that one or more.

[7:35 p.m.]

Will cabinet or the government publish an annual list of the specific prescribed actions that it took under this subsection? There’s going to be a cost component to that, so I think taxpayers should be able to judge whether those prescribed actions actually pay dividends or not.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: All orders in council are publicly published. I’ll reference previous responses in this vein.

Certainly, we would want to be able to provide as much transparency around this process as possible, and part of the work that our ministry will undertake is a system of how to piece together all the different types of publicly available information relevant to designated projects.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Kiel Giddens: Wow, what progress we’re making here, folks.

Clause 8 is really, in my read of it, where Bill 15 reaches into regulatory frameworks, environmental assessments. I do see it, and again, I talked about it in the LNG example previously. It opens the door to a two-speed EA system, potentially. That is something where I think, again, there are concerns on that, where designated projects may get special treatment and, potentially, even less rigorous scrutiny as well.

Part of the concern that even the private sector would have on this, likely…. I think there’s a lot of private sector that want to make sure that decisions are very durable, obviously. This is a bit of a shift. I think Bill 14 and Bill 15 in tandem here, when it comes to environmental assessments…. It is going to be interesting to see how these play out, how these tools are going to be used.

But decisions need to be based on science and not political convenience. That’s something that I’ve always stood by, and certainly I know my colleagues on the official opposition would as well. We need to understand what’s really being altered here, who benefits and what really is going on in the name of speed in this case.

Just to start off, how does clause 8 preserve that scientific independence of environmental assessments while introducing project prioritization?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: In terms of the streamlined environmental assessment process, section 8 is not that. In the interest of time, I do want to assure the member that yes, project proponents want a durable process. We want a durable process as well, which is why a streamlined environmental assessment process is not at all about changing the standards of what an EA…. It’s not about changing standards; it’s about adjusting the process to meet shortened timelines.

That being said, section 8 is about the issuance of minor provincial permits or lower risk provincial permits where a project that is reviewable under the Environmental Assessment Act has successfully achieved a certificate. This is an authority that already exists in the Environmental Assessment Act itself. So the Environmental Assessment Act allows this under section 37. The Environmental Assessment Act does…. Again, it allows the minister responsible for that act to do this. By including it in Bill 15, it basically extends that authority to projects that are designated under Bill 15.

Kiel Giddens: I would want to dig into that a little bit further but I’m going to run out of time, so I want to ask a question. It is related to what the minister described. Subsection (4), despite another enactment…. That really is one that some folks have raised some concerns with.

I’m going to point to the B.C. Cattlemen, who have raised concerns overall with Bill 15. For example, a rancher downstream who fears the work associated with an approval under this section may lead to well water contamination. Because an approval under section 8 is final and binding, do they have any route for appeal?

It says the right of appeal is stripped only from citizens and property owners, not from the proponent creating a…. This could create a one-way legal street. Do they have only the judicial review route in this case, or what is their appeal mechanism if something does happen to their property?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to make it clear. Section 8(4), the entire subsection (4), is not unique to Bill 15. The wording is replicated from section 37(2) under the Environmental Assessment Act to say that the issuance of the approval of the provincial permit under the other act made by the minister in this section is considered to be final and binding and is not subject to review or repeal under that other act.

However, we have confirmed from the environmental assessment office that even under the Environmental Assessment Act section 37(2), those decisions are still subject to judicial review.

[7:45 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Seriously running out of time here. I will cross-reference after the fact on that act to convey that.

I met with a number of environmental organizations this morning that had serious concerns with Bill 15 as well. This particular clause is where they raised a whole bunch of points in conversation. In the interest of time, I’m going to read a series of questions into the record, and some of these…. We’re going to answer them right now. I’m hoping to get some answers so that these groups will have some answers after the fact.

Under 8, subsection (2)(b), if the minister can dictate permit conditions, will those conditions automatically incorporate any Indigenous-led environmental management plans approved under some other approval mechanism such as DRIPA, or can they be ignored? That was one question.

Number 2…. And I know these will all be available in Hansard later. Thank you to the good folks at Hansard.

Under 2(c), the phrase “other reasonable conditions” seems to me that it is pretty wide open. So I’m wondering if cabinet can publish a template of baseline conditions, whether these be, for example, bonding, public access easements, reclamation, security — those are examples — so the proponents can know the playing field that’s being contemplated here.

On subsection (5), what minimum public notice period will regulations mandate before an order is issued so citizens aren’t blindsided? Again, that accountability matters to folks, especially when we’re talking about an environmental assessment process, because that’s when decisions, again, are durable. I go back to that word all the time we’ve used.

Since, under this clause, obviously there’s a fast-tracking for these cabinet-preferred projects, will neighbouring property owners receive an equal statutory right to seek injunctions if they can show irreparable harm? And I used the landowner example previously, but I think that full status of legal options would be good for these stakeholders to understand. These are things that are usually in an EA process. A lot of times, some of these discussions actually form part of conditions, for example.

If clause 8 order forces issuance of a water licence, will it still respect existing senior water rights under the Water Sustainability Act? And again, I met with streamkeepers this morning and groups that are involved in watershed security, and they’re very concerned with what this means for their participation in the EA process to be able to ask these questions.

Similarly, can the minister confirm that an order under 8 subsection (2) cannot override conditions attached to an EA certificate that protect critical habitat for species-at-risk listed wildlife? And this is a very important example.

Obviously, we talked about LNG projects, for example. We talk about anything to do with caribou, and this really comes into a very important point for how proponents are going to move forward. Again, are these decisions going to be durable? Are we going to end up in court, or is the federal Species at Risk Act going to come in and take over basically? Because we do know that there are those override powers if they deem that B.C. is not managing caribou properly.

I’m rushing through these questions, but it’s very challenging…. We’re going to get closure on this bill, but we’re only on clause 8 of a 48-clause bill. This is some serious work that we still need to get through because this Hansard record is also public information about what the public can expect. And we’re getting closure on a bill, and it’s very challenging to see that….

[7:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, I ask that you please take your seat.

Kiel Giddens: So we’ve just got closure right now. So that’ll be it.

Interjection.

The Chair: No, it’s based on the time.

Kiel Giddens: So I can’t finish…?

The Chair: You cannot.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, sorry. I shouldn’t have gone down that diatribe then.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Hon. Members, it being 7:50, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, the committee will now proceed to final clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 15, intituled the Infrastructure Projects Act. In accordance with the time allocation order, I will now put the question on all remaining clauses on the bill.

Members, pursuant to the time allocation order, a division on the remaining clauses and the title cannot be called. But in accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage on division. With that, we will proceed.

Clauses 8 to 48 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved on division.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 7:55 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I shall call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, to order.

On clause 15.

Jordan Kealy: I’d like to propose an amendment to clause 15. This is different than the one that was originally on the order papers. This one is updated, just because I noticed that there was a flaw with one of the things that I had done on it.

[CLAUSE 15, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as follows:

15 (1) In this section:,

“Act” means the Agricultural Land Commission Act;

“agricultural land reserve” has the same meaning as in section 1 (1) of the Act;

“non-farm use” has the same meaning as in section 1 (1) of the Act;

“soil or fill use” has the same meaning as in section 1 (1) of the Act.

(2) Subject to the regulations, the regulator may permit, with or without limits or conditions, any of the following for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out of a streamlined project:

(a) a non-farm use or soil or fill use of land in the agricultural land reserve;

(b) a subdivision of land in the agricultural land reserve.

(3)(2) Sections 20 (1) [non-farm use] and 20.3 (1) [soil or fill use] of the Act do not apply in relation to a use of land that is permitted under

(a) subsection (2) (a) of this section, or

(b) the regulations.

(4)(3) Sections 18 (5), 19 (2) and 21 (1) [subdivision] of the Act do not apply in relation to a subdivision of land if the subdivision is permitted under

(a) subsection (2) (b) of this section, or

(b) the regulations.

(5) Section 7 (5) and (6) [power of commissioner to subdelegate] of the primary Act applies in relation to a power referred to in subsection (2) of this section.]

Do you want me to hand it in and then read about it or explain it?

The Chair: You can speak briefly, and then we will take a brief recess.

On the amendment.

Jordan Kealy: Right now the text that I’ve got struck out on this is, in regard to the agricultural land reserve, that we should not prioritize energy projects over our agricultural land and the uses that it provides — food. It’s a valuable resource for us. I believe that it should go through due process and that it should never be prioritized when it comes to energy.

We saw with the Site C dam that we lost 31,528 acres due to that project. That was already a major loss for my region. I believe that if we allow this to go through, then we really are just prioritizing energy over our farmers, our food and agriculture.

The Chair: Okay, we will just take a five-minute break, and then we will come back.

The committee recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 15. It is deemed that it is in order. Does anyone wish to speak to the amendment?

Jordan Kealy: The reason that I proposed this amendment, as I said previously, is that the priority, when it comes to given industries and what we rely on…. Agriculture is one of the founding ministries in this government. It’s essential for people to live and to have food on their tables.

The land base that we have is limited, and we keep on losing more of it. Right now, there are better ways to prioritize our energy system than squashing the rights of our agricultural land reserves.

I’ll leave with that right now.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Obviously, the amendment strikes out everything in the section, so approving the amendment would be the equivalent of voting against the section — exactly the equivalent. We are happy to deal with the amendment, but I think what would be probably more useful to members is to have the broad debate that members may wish to have on this section in the debate on the main motion.

I’ll just say that in no way does the legislation affect the application of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. In no way.

Twenty years ago under a Liberal government, there was delegation — almost the exact same words — for oil and gas, which has a far larger footprint, by the way, than renewable energy programs. It was put forward by a Liberal government at a time when the Liberals had 77 seats in this Legislature, and then it was reaffirmed three times after that by Liberal governments.

What we’re seeing is the same delegation authority that the B.C. Energy Regulator has been dealing with for 20 years under its legislation and under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, delegated by the ALC throughout that time.

[3:05 p.m.]

What we’re doing is making, effectively, the same delegation for renewable energy projects. In other words, they have — and we’ll go through it when we discuss the main motion — the detailed capacity of the B.C. Energy Regulator to deal with these issues and to hold the government’s responsibility for the agricultural land reserve in the Agricultural Land Commission Act through serious and thoughtful regulation.

This is why we’ve put forward this amendment, because it’s required for a single-window regulator. If you’re against that for this, you have to be against that for oil and gas — except, of course, for the 20 years that that wasn’t the case, right?

We oppose the amendment, such as it is, and ask members to support that opposition.

Jordan Kealy: Well, I’m not a Liberal. I’m the MLA for one of the regions that’s been pretty much affected the most out of energy projects, out of the whole province.

When we look at the three dams that are affecting my region, the land that just got destroyed by the current project that was based on clean, renewable energy….

The Chair: You have to speak to the amendment, Member.

Jordan Kealy: I’m referring to agriculture and the land base.

Right now I’m referring to the 31,528 acres that was lost just to the previous project. That is following the current regulations.

What I am saying is that if you bypass using extraordinary measures, it just allows for an even greater number to be lost without the proper consultation to happen in place to be able to help farmers and our agriculture sector and the land base that’s already diminishing in a major way.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 15.

Division has been called.

[3:10 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is are you in favour of the amendment to clause 15.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson	McCall	Valeriote
NAYS — 6
Beare	Morissette	Routledge
Dix	Greene	Phillip

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes against the amendment, to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading. So the amendment has been defeated.

We will just give a few moments for the minister’s staff to come back in and get settled.

[3:20 p.m.]

Ian Paton: We’re here today to talk about clause 15 of Bill 14. In this section, the act refers to the agricultural land reserve. It refers to non-farm use. It refers to soil or fill use.

I’d like to start by saying that the Agricultural Land Commission, which was brought into legislation in 1973 by the NDP government…. I’ve always been in favour of the agricultural land reserve. But the Agricultural Land Commission, as part of the land reserve, as we all know, or should know, is an independent administrative tribunal, which is at arm’s length from government, which I’ve always been told.

I’ve made attempts over the years here to talk to the land commission or talk to the Minister of Agriculture about getting certain things done. And I’m told: “MLA for Delta South, you can’t do that. You can’t be talking to the land commission. They’re a third-party independent administrative tribunal.”

The B.C. Agricultural Land Commission’s primary mandate is to preserve agricultural land and encourage farming within the agricultural land reserve, or the ALR. This includes working with local governments, First Nations and other government bodies. The ALC also prioritizes protecting and enhancing the size, integrity and continuity of the ALR and its use for farming. I don’t see that in clause 15, which we are talking about here this afternoon — preserving agricultural land.

“The ALC’s core responsibility is to ensure that the valuable agricultural land remains available for farming. The ALC promotes farming activities within the ALR, working with various stakeholders to support farm operations and compatible uses. The ALC collaborates with local governments, First Nations and other government agencies to integrate the interests of the ALR and agriculture into their planning and decision-making processes.”

By the way, this is from the website of the Agricultural Land Commission.

“The ALC must prioritize the protection and enhancement of the ALR’s size, integrity and continuity as well as its use for farm purposes. The ALC actively works to enable and accommodate farm use of land within the ALR, ensuring that agriculture remains a viable and sustainable sector in British Columbia.”

I want to talk for a minute about the fact that — and I’m sorry to drag this out again — my father, by the same name, was chair of the Agricultural Land Commission in the late ’80s, early ’90s, under the Socred government.

The number one thing I remember my father bringing home was how freaking mad he was those decisions made by the land commissioners and by the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, who was my father…. There were orders in council that went over and above decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission. I always remember that.

This is what I see here. Everything I’ve just read about the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve…. What I’m seeing here is not being dictated properly because of what’s in here, in section (2) of clause 15: “(a) a non-farm use or soil or fill use of land in the agricultural land reserve” and “(b) a subdivision of land in the agricultural land reserve.”

“Subject to the regulations, the regulator may permit, with or without limits or conditions, any of the following for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out of a streamlined project….”

[3:25 p.m.]

Suddenly, here we are. I deal with this week in, week out, year in, year out — people coming to us and people going to the Agricultural Land Commission asking for soil permits, the use of soil and infill on farmland and the subdivision of land in the agricultural land reserve.

Now, these are things that are asked for by farmers in this province all the time, and typically they’re constantly denied, yet suddenly, now, under clause 15 of this bill, we’re seeing that renewable energy projects are going to get the opportunity to do the things that everybody else cannot do in this province if you’re an owner of farmland or you’re farming on Crown land in British Columbia.

My first question: can the minister confirm that these fast-track projects can in fact be exempted for regulations that govern the ALR?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we’ve had a discussion over a couple of days, where we’ve had questions from members who want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act but are striking themselves as defenders of environmental assessment. As recently as today, a couple of Conservative members who wanted to repeal DRIPA are declaring themselves as defenders of DRIPA. That’s a political debate; this is a factual one.

I said this in the discussion of the amendment. The members of the opposition say they want one-window regulation of energy projects. They say that, but they just voted against it. They just voted against it. In 2004, the member will know, the authority over the same things, non-farm-use agricultural land, was delegated from the Agricultural Land Commission to the B.C. Energy Regulator, where it has been regulated for oil and gas, which has a lot more impact on the land, for 21 years.

I just want to make this point, because that’s been in place for 21 years. It was renewed in ’10, renewed in ’14, and it was renewed in ’17 — four times under Liberal governments. The member used to be the Liberal Agriculture critic. That was their decision.

Exactly what he’s condemning here was put in place at that time, and I didn’t hear any of this, because the commission act is still in place, and the provisions of the act are still in place for the purposes of oil and gas projects. That authority was delegated to the B.C. Energy Regulator, specifically for non-farm use of ALR land for oil and gas activities, within the place where there are oil and gas activities, which is the Peace River country.

The responsibility under the delegation agreement, as it is here, is to enforce relevant provisions of the act and the agreement. That has happened for 20 years, right? What has the B.C. Energy Regulator done? Naturally, it has worked hard in that area to do precisely what they’re being asked to do in a much more narrow field of endeavour here, which is renewable energy projects, to deal with applications for non-farm use in the ALR.

For example, in the three years starting in ’21-22 and ending in ’23-24, there were, under those provisions, 60 applications submitted and 35 accepted. Often applications are turned down, as they would be at the commission. That’s their responsibility. The member represented a party that did that, exactly what we’re doing today. There was no discussion about it, as he says in second reading, that it effectively guts the ALC mandate.

It didn’t gut the ALC mandate, and if it had, he would have talked about it, which he didn’t. Just to not make any unfair comments in this committee, which I wouldn’t do, the member has spoken 250,000 words in the Legislature. It’s hard to believe. It has been eight years. Until we debated Bill 14, he didn’t mention the B.C. Energy Regulator once.

Clearly, because I think he’s a very good critic for Agriculture…. He’s one of their two critics for Agriculture. He’s a very good critic for Agriculture who I’ve seen in this time. He’s very well informed, has family experience and is a farmer himself. He didn’t raise any issues because, presumably, he didn’t see any issues in all of that time, for the same regulatory regime that we’re talking about for renewable resources.

[3:30 p.m.]

If you say…. And if you believe what he said before — “a systemwide override mechanism, a violation of the spirit of the ALC” — well, it was his party that did it, but I’m not a member of that party. I wasn’t a member of that party, but I don’t think they did that. They delegated the authority, and the act stayed in place.

The B.C. Energy Regulator produce annual reports, by the way — I’ll share one with the hon. member — every year, where they deal with that. So let me just say that I don’t agree with that characterization. I addressed these issues at second reading.

This is how you create a one-window regulator. That’s what we did for oil and gas. It’s been in place for 20 years, and no issues have been raised by the hon. member about that regulation and the annual reports that have been produced by the B.C. Energy Regulator and their outstanding staff team that does that job. We’re talking about action that simply extends that to renewable energy projects.

I’ll go further about the position of the opposition. What the member wants to do, and campaigned on in the last election, is extend one-window regulation over the ALR and everything else to nuclear projects. Okay for nuclear, okay for oil and gas; not okay for renewables.

Well, I disagree with the member, as he can tell, but I’ll just say very clearly that this is absolutely the same direction as has been going on for oil and gas for 20 years. It’s how you create one-window regulation. If you have multiple windows, it’s not one window. It’s multiple-window regulation. The opposition says they favour that, except they just voted against it.

I say to the member that that’s why it’s in place. There is a record in annual reports of how the B.C. Energy Regulator deals with these issues. There’s a record of decisions. There’s a period over time they have an obligation to enforce the act, and all this does, just like the delegation agreement in oil and gas, is extend that responsibility for renewable energy projects to the B.C. Energy Regulator. It doesn’t change the law, doesn’t change the commission, doesn’t change the agricultural land reserve. All the provisions are there to be enforced, except by a different regulator, because we’re moving to one-window regulation.

So if the member is saying that’s okay for oil and gas, in his view, because it clearly is, and not okay for renewable energy, that it’s okay for nuclear energy projects but not okay for renewable energy…. If that’s his position, he should say so. Otherwise, he should respect the work that’s been done over the years by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Ian Paton: Obviously, the minister has done his homework, but I was not with the B.C. Liberal Party 20 years ago when the oil and gas regulation was part of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

That was then; this is now. So now we have a new bill which is totally different from the oil and gas. This is a new bill in front of us today, and in the bill, it says that “without limits or conditions, any of the following for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out of a streamlined project: a non-farm use or soil use…of land….” We’re going to talk about that.

Like, what are we able to put on land that a farmer, a landowner in the ALR can’t put on, yet suddenly government wants to be able to put fill material on ALR land? Are you kidding me? A subdivision of land in the agricultural land reserve, which none of us can do.

I have people come to me all the time and say: “I’ve got an 80-acre farm. Could I possibly go to the land commission and ask to have 20 acres split off, or maybe five acres, so grandma and grandpa could live on the farm?” No way. You’re never going to get that done.

Suddenly the NDP government, under Bill 14, comes ahead and says: “Guess what. Under Bill 14, we’re saying now we can waltz in. We’re no longer at arm’s length from the Agricultural Land Commission. We can waltz in and do whatever we want. We can subdivide farmland. We can put fill on farmland, tonnes of gravel, so that we can put up these wind towers or solar panels.”

That’s what I’m saying. That was then; this is now. I don’t have a problem with what’s going on in the Peace with that, with the oil and gas, but this is something new — renewable energy on farmland.

Section 15(2) says that the regulator “may permit, with or without limits or conditions, any of the following for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out of a streamlined project: (a) a non-farm use or soil or fill use of land in the agricultural land reserve; (b) a subdivision of land in the agricultural land reserve.”

[3:35 p.m.]

My question to the minister: can the minister confirm that Bill 14 allows for the subdivision of ALR farmland and for energy projects to go up on ALR farmland?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member talks about non-farm use, which is how these hundreds of decisions were made. I agree that this single-window regulation was put in before he was elected to the Legislature. But you know, there have been annual reports on the BCER’s oversight of agricultural land delegated from the Agricultural Land Commission dealing with the agricultural land reserve for eight years, and not a word, not a mention.

The significance of that is that the member is a good critic, and he’s very assiduous. That tells you how effective the B.C. Energy Regulator is in the area. It’s effective, it’s loyal to the law and it does allow for and does regulate agricultural land in specific ways with respect to oil and gas, just as it will, under this provision, for renewable energy and just as it would, if the Conservative Party had its way, for nuclear reactors, which is their party’s proposal.

One-window regulation for nuclear energy. That’s what their proposal is. One-window regulation for oil and gas — they’re clearly in favour of that, but they’re not in favour of the B.C. Energy Regulator having these responsibilities for the agricultural land reserve for renewable energy projects. And that’s a difference in view. It seems almost entirely indefensible, but there it is. That’s what the position is.

I could say the annual report — I’m very happy to share the most recent annual report that I have with the member — about the B.C. Energy Regulator and the work it does lists off decisions and numbers of decisions and types of applications on the oil and gas side. I think they do an excellent job, and they have staff qualified to deal with that, as you would expect, given the significance of oil and gas and its footprint on the land and the agricultural land in the region.

I guess the member can explain why it’s okay for oil and gas to have one window and what will be okay for nuclear reactors — that they want to have one window — but not renewable resources. You know, the agricultural land reserve applies, and it’s the responsibility of the B.C. Energy Regulator, in needs-specific and constrained circumstances, to take charge of that regulation, as it does for oil and gas today.

[3:40 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Nuclear power, to my knowledge, was not going to go on ALR land. It was going to maybe go somewhere in B.C. — maybe, maybe — but it wasn’t going to go on ALR land. This bill — everything’s going on ALR land or Crown leasing land for farmers and ranchers.

Because we know that the ALC is a third-party tribunal which is at arm’s length from government, my question to the minister is: how is government suddenly not at arm’s length from the ALC and has the ability to ram through Bill 14, clause 15, and suddenly make changes that none of the other landowners in British Columbia can make?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Surely the member knows that the B.C. Energy Regulator is an independent regulator and makes decisions. You can see that in the detailed and serious approach it takes to agricultural land with respect to oil and gas, which the member supports.

For him to suggest that oil and gas development doesn’t affect agricultural land is absurd. I mean, it’s just absurd, but he supports it. He supports the responsibility for non-farm use to be taken from the ALC to the B.C. Energy Regulator for the purpose of oil and gas. He supports the single-window approach as a member of the Conservative caucus for nuclear reactors. They support it for nuclear reactors, a single-window approach. They support it for oil and gas, but they don’t support it for renewable energy.

That’s how they just voted in their vote with the independent member on this section. They voted against this section. They voted against the purpose of the legislation. They voted against single-window regulation. They don’t support it, except for things I guess they like — in particular, like oil and gas and nuclear reactors.

Yes, the independent regulator — that is, the B.C. Energy Regulator, and if the member has concerns about how they deal with agricultural land, he has not raised them heretofore — will, of course, have this responsibility delegated specifically for renewable energy projects — not, as many members on the opposition side suggested, to remove land from the ALR, which he doesn’t do — but that responsibility as a life-cycle regulator of the resource and of these renewable energy projects.

Ian Paton: I’ve been to the Peace many times. I go up there every summer. I inspect all the farms, and I see the massive amount of farmland up in the Peace. I understand, and I’ve seen it all.

What I’d like to know is if the minister recalls what we did back in 2018 here, Bill 52 and Bill 15. Bill 52 was going to solve all the issues of losing farmland in British Columbia, so was Bill 15. Bill 15 also said that the only people that could apply for these rules in the land commission for soil deployment, non-farm uses and subdivision of land would be municipalities or regional districts or First Nations.

Why is government suddenly able to storm troop in and be able to do these things that even Bill 15 said only municipalities, regional districts or First Nations could make application to the land commission for these particular things we’re talking about?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just say to the member: words have meaning, and the term “storm troop” has meaning. I think it’s disgraceful he uses that. Disgraceful. It is totally out of order to make a reference like that, and he should withdraw that.

Interjection.

The Chair: I’m recognizing the member for Delta South.

Ian Paton: I retract.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I mean, Hon. Speaker, I take it pretty seriously, you know. He can talk about his family. I’ll talk about mine. My family’s lost people to terrorism on both my side and my wife’s side. We understand the impact of violence, as do many members of the Legislature. So I take it seriously.

I know the hon. member is a good person, and I could tell that from his immediate retraction of that. But I just want to say….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I know, but words have meaning too, and we’ve heard a lot of words on this bill. We’ve heard a lot of times…. The word “authoritarian” was termed.

I consider myself a serious supporter of democratic principles and institutions. We are, on this bill, in the Legislature bringing forward initiatives to put in single-window regulation, something the previous government did 20 years ago for oil and gas and agriculture.

[3:45 p.m.]

The record over those 20 years, and the record over the seven years that I’ve recently reviewed, has been good. We know this, because if it hadn’t been, I’m sure the member would have raised it, which he didn’t in that time.

This is an issue of debate. It’s a legitimate issue of debate as to whether we should go to single-window regulation for renewable projects. The opposition can legitimately oppose it. It’s no problem. No problem that they can legitimately say, “We want multiple-ministry regulation of these proposals,” or: “We only want it for oil and gas and nuclear.”

But they can’t say…. I don’t think they can argue that what is an issue about where the Agricultural Land Commission Act is applied and who applies it is a matter of democratic principles. We’re deciding. We’re making a decision about whether those responsibilities can be delegated for renewable energy projects in this House.

Ian Paton: Once again, my apologies. It was a Star Wars connotation, frankly, but I retract.

The Agricultural Land Commission, and I see this on the budget estimates that I went through with Agriculture, is in a state of complete disrepair in this province, as far as I’m concerned.

The budget for the land commission is sitting at $5 million, and it’s basically been sitting there for years right now with hardly any increase. The Agricultural Land Commission agrees they have six compliance officers for the entire province of B.C.

Agriculture and loss of agriculture and non-farm uses going on AR land that aren’t being stopped — it’s death by a thousand cuts. Here we are now looking at more opportunities for non-farm uses, for soil fuel use, for subdivision of land.

My question to the minister: where do you see the future of the Agricultural Land Commission if things like this keep happening here in the Legislature with bills that just come forward that say: “We have the power to do this, to create a clause that says we can do what we want on ALR land”? Have you sat down and chatted with the chair and the executive director of the Agricultural Land Commission about Bill 14?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, I haven’t talked to the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission — at least, I say with a smile on my face, not recently. You can look that up in Google, I’d say to the member for Surrey–White Rock.

The oil and gas activity in the province, just to put a sense, is 20 years of regulation, 2 percent footprint of oil and gas on agricultural land. What we’re doing here is saying that just as for oil and gas, for renewable oil we want to have a one-window approach, not multiple ministries but one window.

We announced that we were intending to do this in February, and we brought legislation forward to the House. It’s straightforwardly put there. It’s a democratic debate.

The Agricultural Land Commission Act applies. It’s just that in this respect the regulatory agency is the B.C. Energy Regulator. I don’t want to compare the number of inspectors or anything else. But you’ll see, and I’ll share the annual report with the member later, but I would say to him that they do thorough and excellent work, as you would expect they would, in applying their responsibilities on the agricultural land, the Land Commission Act.

Through the agreement, they hold the authority to authorize and administer non-farm use on ALR land for oil and gas activities and to enforce relevant provisions of the act in the agreement, which they’ll have to do with renewable energy projects, as they’d have to do if the member’s party got their way and we were going to this regulation for nuclear energy. We’d have to do in that circumstance then.

What we’re saying is, and we’ve said many times in this House, we have 20 years of experience with this Energy Regulator, dealing with regulating the Agricultural Land Commission Act — 20 years. I just say again to the critic: I haven’t heard…. I had estimates here, had estimates here for years, and I haven’t heard anyone raise issues around how they are enforcing the Agricultural Land Commission Act in the oil and gas sector.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think they will do an excellent job in doing the same in renewable energy, and that’s the change. It’s not a fundamental change. The act applies. Its provisions apply, but the regulator for non-farm use and the other provisions here is the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Ian Paton: Thank you, Minister.

Once again, I’ll talk about how what’s up north under the oil and gas…. That was then, and this is now. What we’re looking at now are things happening on Vancouver Island, in the Okanagan, in the Fraser Valley. We don’t have oil and gas issues down here. That was up in the Peace. Now we’re looking at what can happen on good farmland in the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, the Kootenays — places like that. That’s my fear. That’s my worry.

I’m shocked that the Agricultural Land Commission — the chair, Jennifer Dyson; the executive director, Kim Grout; and 14 commissioners that sit on the board of the Agricultural Land Commission to make decisions about non-farm use, about soil permits, about land that’s being excluded from the ALR — have not been spoken to by the minister about this Bill 14.

My next question. The overriding body that oversees agriculture issues in the province is the B.C. Agriculture Council. My question to the minister: has the minister sat down with the B.C. Agriculture Council to discuss the issues we see in Bill 14?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to make this point…. And no, I haven’t talked to the B.C. Agriculture Council. Of course, in the development of legislation, the ALC and other ministries that are affected in any way by legislation always get consulted, as they would be in this case.

What we’re doing here is what we’ve done for many years in other areas. Just for the member’s edification, I suppose: 1,866 inspections under the provisions of the delegation agreement by the BCER consistent with the enforcement of the Agricultural Land Commission in ’23-24. That’s a pretty substantial effort.

It certainly doesn’t justify saying, as he says in the House, that moving the responsibilities for people who care about the act to another independent regulator for these purposes guts the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It does not. It’s the same provision that has been in place for years.

If he’s saying that there should be one rule for the Peace and one rule for everyone else…. I think the approach that has been taken with the B.C. Energy Regulator over time and on agricultural land over 20 years…. There’s a demonstrated experience in doing this work that makes the B.C. Energy Regulator well suited to enforce the act on energy issues on agricultural land, as they’ve been doing for 20 years without complaint, at least from the hon. member.

Ian Paton: I’m rather shocked that Bill 14 is going to be voted on, I believe, tonight. Clause 15 in Bill 14 is here before us today with major issues affecting agricultural land in British Columbia, and the minister has not met with anyone from the B.C. Ag Council or the Agricultural Land Commission.

My question to the minister: has he actually sat down and met with the Minister of Agriculture about this bill? The Minister of Agriculture is a huge proponent of saving farmland in B.C. I’ve had many dust-ups about fill material and people being able to separate off a small lot on their farm for grandma and grandpa to live on and things.

The Minister of Agriculture was here yesterday and actually voted against our amendment to give farmers and ranchers 30 days of consultation before solar panels or wind turbines go on their agricultural land or their Crown land.

My question, again: has the minister sat down and gone over it with the Minister of Agriculture before Bill 14 got registered?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member is correct that the Minister of Agriculture is an outstanding advocate for the agricultural land reserve and for agricultural land. I’m very proud to serve with her.

The member may not have raised the issue of the B.C. Energy Regulator and its relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission, but it’s something the minister herself has taken seriously and looked at in her time as minister. Is the Minister of Agriculture on the case? Of course she is. Do I talk to the Minister of Agriculture about this and many other things, and do I learn from the Minister of Agriculture all the time on these questions? You bet I do.

What that says is that we’ve had a system in place for a long time, and we want to make sure it’s working well. That’s why we do annual reports, and we have an independent regulator with professional staff doing thousands of inspections every year in the Peace country on the responsibility for agricultural land. The member can’t raise any issues, and hasn’t raised any issues in all his time here, on this question.

I guess what I’d say is that if you want single-window regulation, and there are multiple fields…. We talked about agricultural land, about heritage conservation, which we referred to, and others here in the act, in Bill 14. If you want to have that single-window regulation, which the opposition purported in the election campaign to support, at least for nuclear energy….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In your platform, single-window regulation.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: You bet. I’m happy to share it with the member. We may have some votes. That’ll give us some time.

That was the position of the…. Single-window regulation for nuclear.

Interjection.

The Chair: The minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix: That was the policy. I don’t want to overstate it, I say to the member for Surrey–White Rock. I don’t want to overstate the detailed understanding, going back multiple platforms, that people might have of what’s in their own platform.

But in this case, we’re talking about single-window regulation of renewable energy. The member, the Agriculture critic — or one of the Agriculture critics — supports, presumably, the B.C. Energy Regulator and its outstanding work every year in its delegated authority for the Agricultural Land Commission Act for oil and gas. He supports that. Wants it for nuclear. Doesn’t want it for renewable energy.

My position is pretty clear. I think this is a good idea. I think the B.C. Energy Regulator, like the Agricultural Land Commission, is an outstanding regulator. These regulators have worked together on this issue for decades now at the behest of a B.C. Liberal government. It’s something that we haven’t changed and have supported since then.

I think it’s pretty straightforward that if you’re going to go for single-window regulation, you can’t have multiple-window regulation. That’s what the member is proposing. It’s okay that he proposed it. It’s okay that he disagrees with the bill. But it’s absolutely incorrect, with something that we’ve had two decades of experience with, for him to say that it’s a major infringement on the Agricultural Land Commission.

Ian Paton: So why the clause my colleague just mentioned?

It’s interesting, Minister, that prior to 2017, we actually had two zones in B.C. I don’t know if you remember that.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

Ian Paton: Through the Chair, zone 1 was for the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, the Okanagan. Zone 2 was for up in the Peace region. It gave them the opportunities for such as oil and gas.

I’ll move on from there. I want to look at how this could affect…. We all picture these wind turbines up in the Cariboo, the Chilcotin, Logan Lake, Merritt — places like that. But we’ve got to think for a minute about the Fraser Valley, our prime farmland in the Fraser Valley.

I’ll tell you a quick story. Believe it or not — I have photographs — right next to our farm in 1928, there was a company called Boundary Bay Oil Co. that put up a huge derrick, and they drilled for oil right on prime farmland in Delta.

My question to the minister: if someone comes along and decides that there’s oil or gas to be found in the Fraser Valley on prime farmland, would they be allowed to go ahead? Would this be a streamlined project, to separate off a piece of farmland, say on the Paton farm, and say: “Go ahead. Drill for oil or gas”?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, we will have a recess. Division has been called.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14 back to order. We are on clause 15.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I got asked a hypothetical question — I love hypothetical questions — by the member. In his proposition, what would be required would be, of course, to first acquire the subsurface rights, which would be a statutory decision in that case. Then they’d need an ERAA permit, involving, of course, consultation with impacted parties. Then the ALC would adjudicate, in that case on non-farm use.

It’s in a different territory than the Oil and Gas Commission. The reason we don’t apply the Oil and Gas Commission, or now the BCER, to that territory is there aren’t such resources there.

Ian Paton: While we’re on the subject of subdivision of ALR land for renewable energy projects…. Let’s not think about the North. Let’s think about the Fraser Valley or Vancouver Island. Could the minister explain to me…? If a developer comes along and says, “There’s a 100-acre farm in Abbotsford; it’s a perfect wind coming; we’d like to put seven or eight wind towers on that farm….” Explain to me how that works?

[4:20 p.m.]

Government would come in and, through the land commission, make application for non-farm use and have that property subdivided. Would it be expropriated from the farmer, or would the farmer be paid out for that piece of land that the development company wants to put the wind turbines on?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Expropriation would be measured by B.C. Hydro. It would be a last resort, as one can imagine. I’ll remind the member, of course, that when Site C, which was discussed earlier, was taken out of the ALR, that was by OIC of cabinet in that case, in 2015. In the case of B.C. Hydro, occasionally at least, it has the power to go to expropriation in building its projects, but in the case of these projects, it would require either the ownership of the land or consent of the landowner.

Ian Paton: A lot of us think of wind turbines on just poor land up north or wherever, or we think of solar panels, and we picture them down in the desert in Nevada — you know, huge plots of land that are really of no use to anything. So they put solar panels there. But it doesn’t say that in this bill. Basically, they can go anywhere in the province on ALR land.

Again, I’ll ask for examples of using good ALR land in the Fraser Valley, in the Okanagan or on Vancouver Island for wind turbines or solar panels. For a farmer in Chilliwack or Abbotsford, if a company wanted to put solar panels on that farm, would the government make application to the Agricultural Land Commission for a non-farm use for those solar panels or wind turbines, or would it just be automatic?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as the member knows — and the member knows because we’ve worked on some of these issues together and talked about some of these issues together — some of the most imaginative things happening in energy happen on farmland and will continue to, and there’s a lot of reason for optimism for that. That’s not what we’re talking about here, but just to make that note, and he knows that from his constituency.

That said, it’s the proponent that makes the application on which areas. The member, I think, would understand. The proponent makes the application, and the decision-making, of course, would require consideration of relevant information — as it does in the application of any act — such as relevant provincial policy, the impact to the farmland or if the non-farm use is compatible with the agricultural land in the long term and, of course, consultation.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. So what I gather from that answer is a proponent that would come forward to say: “We’d like to put a wind farm on a farm in Chilliwack,” or solar panels in an orchard in the Okanagan. They would make an application to the ALC for that non-farm use or for that separation of farmland off of the main farm for the renewable energy project. It would still actually have to go through the Agricultural Land Commission for a decision.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Under this act, that application would be made to the B.C. Energy Regulator responsible in this area for the application of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and they could only make the application after they get their permit.

Ian Paton: Essentially, like I said earlier, I feel very sorry for Kim Grout, Jennifer Dyson and all the commissioners at the land commission — the incredibly poor funding that the land commission gets every year in this budget.

[4:25 p.m.]

Unfortunately, I think what I’m hearing is the Agricultural Land Commission will not have any say in these applications for non-farm uses.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the regulator applies the act, and the regulator can cost-recover to make sure the province’s taxpayers are not on the hook for that.

One of the strengths of this model of regulation, of course, is that the regulated — meaning, for example, the renewable energy companies in this case, or in the case of oil and gas, the oil and gas companies — are paying for the regulation. It’s self-supporting in that sense, and it’s life-cycle regulation.

I disagree with the member’s characterization. The B.C. Energy Regulator has been doing this work, with this act, for 20 years. They are very serious about their application of the act. There may be criticism that’s been brought forward, but in the time that I’ve been responsible for this act, I have not heard that criticism.

We have looked at these questions and made sure there’s a good relationship with the ALC and the BCER. That’s something my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has worked on in her time in that ministry, as well, and done an effective job.

When application is made and permits provided, those decisions are made consistent with the application of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, as the B.C. Energy Regulator has been doing for 20 years for oil and gas.

Ian Paton: You know, one of the things that the Agricultural Land Commission, and Bill 52 and Bill 15, that were fought for so hard by your NDP government back in 2018, got passed…. The Minister of Agriculture was so happy, because: “We are going to save farmland in B.C.” There’s going to be no more splitting up of our farms in British Columbia. There’s going to be no more soil deposit with illegal dumping. We’re going to save….

I read here: “The ALC prioritizes protecting and enhancing the size and integrity and continuity of the ALR.” In other words — this goes all the way back to the days of the Socreds, 1973 — it’s to keep big farms intact. We don’t want to split them up with small, little packages.

What I see here is the proponent can come in to a 100-acre farm in the Fraser Valley or Vancouver Island or whatever, and say, “I want to split off 20 acres from your 100-acre farm,” and suddenly that’s going to be okay. That’s completely against Bill 52 that was passed here in 2018.

You’re suggesting, Minister, that this can happen. I’m not sure why you’re shaking your head, because it’s right here in black and white, with Bill 14, non-farm uses. Suddenly, farms are going to get split up. If you want to put wind turbines on a farm in the Fraser Valley, you’re going to be allowed to do that.

Could you comment on that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member’s talking about the subdivision provision, which was brought in…. I know the member’s focused on wind farms, but the North Coast transmission line and the other transmission lines are also in the scope of the legislation.

Subdivision is part of what will naturally happen in the building-out of transmission lines. They’re registering on farm lines in general — it’s a non-farm use, obviously — but in the building of the North Coast transmission line, 90 percent of which is on a current right-of-way, some of which goes off that right-of-way and, inevitably, given the strength in the agricultural land reserve in B.C. and the land everywhere, will go through agricultural land.

[4:30 p.m.]

Principally, the subdivision isn’t from what he’s thinking, but it’s for B.C. Hydro and the construction of transmission lines. That would be a natural process, and this has occurred on agricultural land for generations, of course.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The member will know that we need to get electricity around the province. Those provisions are in place for that reason in general. That’s not the line itself but, you know, the substations and the permanent installations associated with the land, which might well be conceivably on agricultural land as you build out along a linear project such as that.

That’s what the member is talking about. Really, what we’re talking about overall is that this is life-cycle regulation, similar to oil and gas, in the sense that there’s a responsibility. At the end of the life cycle of the project, the project goes away. To restore from the project — that’s an obligation.

Because of the way we do the regulation at the BCER, it means it’s self-supporting, supported by fees against the renewable resource companies or, in the case of oil and gas, the oil and gas companies. We’ve kept them separated so that, effectively, you’re paying for your own regulation.

There is a fund in each case, and we’ll come to it later in the bill, should we get there in the debate, that allows for restoration and has a fund for restoration of the land, which is the responsibility, of course, of the renewable energy project.

Ian Paton: Does this clause really empower the staff of the Energy Regulator who are not trained to evaluate soil classifications or assess long-term food security impacts to approve non-farm use or soil or fill use on agricultural land?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the team of professional agrologists at the BCER would beg to differ. They’ve been working in these areas, of course, for a couple of decades, and there’s an outstanding team. I’ve talked to you about the inspections in the thousands that they produce every year. They’ve got a lot of experience in this area.

Again, one doesn’t have to diminish that expertise to suggest that we’re not in favour of one-window regulation here. That’s fair enough, if that’s the member’s position, but I think the BCER, which has been addressing the Agricultural Land Commission Act, as I’ve noted, for 20 years and has a team of people to do that and produces annual reports detailing its role and has professionals in the area, including agrologists, is well suited to this work and has been for a long time.

Donegal Wilson: Several times over the last couple of days, we’ve heard about how the Energy Regulator has been doing this work for a long time, and I appreciate that they have. Is there the ability to table their actual policy for how they are going to handle agricultural land reserve under the BCER?

I went on their website. I could find things for gas and oil, for hydrogen, for LNG, but I could not find anything for renewable energy. So if the actual policy for how they manage it within the ER…. It would be appreciated.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, the current policy is evidence-based. It’s in the delegation agreement with the regulator. I’ll share it with members of the opposition if they wish. Perhaps I can share it with the Agriculture critic if he wishes, because I have some of the documents here. I’ll make copies for the session so that you have it.

There’s a delegation agreement annual report, so the ’23-24 version. There’s the delegation agreement. It’s evidence-based, and obviously, having done the work for 20 years, the staff is well suited to that work.

I’m happy to share that information, which will be mirrored, of course, as this new legislation comes into force.

Donegal Wilson: If this passes, will that be added to the website for the public to be able to understand how this process is going to work and how those farmers will be consulted?

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair. Good to see you.

The current delegation agreement is posted to both the Agricultural Land Commission website and the B.C. Energy Regulator website. It’s there now. Obviously, updates to that will be posted as well.

Donegal Wilson: Well, I appreciate that. It’s probably buried somewhere in the website. When you go to the BCER, how we do these things, you can find how you do LNG, how you do hydrogen, how you do oil and gas. When you go to that, if you’re a landowner, what you need to know and the process….

[4:35 p.m.]

The question is: once this passes, will that be added for renewable energy?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The current agreements are on the website now, and new agreements will be added to it, absolutely. I’m sorry that the member had difficulty finding it. It’s no problem. I printed out some copies, and I can print out some more.

Scott McInnis: Recently updated, May 5, on the government of B.C. website is the Indigenous food security and food sovereignty program.

Just a really simple question here for the minister. This provides a framework for supporting local initiatives around the province for, as it states, food security and food sovereignty for Indigenous people in British Columbia. Are any of these projects currently taking place within the food security and food sovereignty program on ALR land?

Hon. Adrian Dix: You know, it’s excellent. The member for Delta South will know that the Deputy Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions was also a former Deputy Minister of Agriculture. It helps a little bit in answering these detailed questions. I didn’t want to get up and say: “Oh, he knew about that program in detail.” I got a little bit of good counsel and advice.

It’s an excellent program — a granting program, obviously — that builds food security in communities. For example, sometimes in some communities, that might be the construction of greenhouses; in others, building food security. As the member will know, the wind projects are majority First Nations–owned, and they take place around the province. We’ve gone through the list of nations, so we don’t need to do that.

This program is an excellent program. It provides grants — obviously funded by the government but through the New Relationship Trust. I’m very supportive of the program. I know the Minister of Agriculture is, and I’m glad to hear the member is as well.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I do appreciate that the deputy minister does have some background in this field.

I hope I can continue with a couple of lines of questions here around this. Unless I missed something, I wasn’t quite clear on the answer, as far as cross-referencing with the First Nations agricultural needs assessment that was done, which supports the food security and food sovereignty program.

Currently are there any of these projects being supported throughout British Columbia which are on ALR land?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Now, we don’t want to get too far, for two reasons: one, the Minister of Agriculture is way better at answering questions on agriculture. I think we have consensus on that. Secondly. of course, it’s not Agriculture estimates. As I understand the program…. Obviously, it can take place on private land, potentially on ALR land that a First Nation might own or control, or on First Nations land in the province. All of those could be the case.

[4:40 p.m.]

It’s an excellent program that supports food security and food sovereignty for First Nations and has a lot of support in the First Nations community — as do, as the member will well know, renewable energy projects. Of course, all of the wind projects are 51 percent First Nations–owned, with the exception of one, which is 49 percent.

Scott McInnis: I understand. This is directly related to the clause that we’re on in Bill 14, but there’s no denying that this is directly related to agriculture in many ways, as it’s looking at exemptions on ALR land. I hope the minister has been able to cross-reference, either with the Minister of Agriculture or with his team, about some of these potential impacts that this will have.

You won’t find any argument from me, absolutely, about food security and food sovereignty for all British Columbians, especially Indigenous British Columbians — no question about it. Now we’ve identified that yes, some of these projects are on private land that is within the ALR. How will these exemptions impact the food sovereignty efforts currently taking place on ALR land?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will clearly understand that we don’t anticipate that they would, in any way.

The section, as the member will know, is central to one-window regulation, as the succeeding sections do move responsibility, with respect, to renewable energy projects or these provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission’s responsibility to another independent regulator, the B.C. Energy Regulator, which has 20 years of experience in addressing issues on agricultural land.

Last year it conducted thousands of inspections related to its responsibilities around agricultural land and oil and gas, which is obviously a significant issue in communities, especially in the Peace.

This is an extraordinary regulator that does the work on agricultural land. It has been for a long time, on delegation agreements from the Agricultural Land Commission, and now will continue to do that work, not just with respect to oil and gas projects, which have their own impact on agricultural land, of course.

If you look at the record over the time that the B.C. Energy Regulator and its predecessor, the Oil and Gas Commission, have been responsible, about 2 percent of agricultural land in the affected area, in the Peace area, is taken up by oil and gas. Obviously, these impacts in the province will be limited as well. It’s not to say they’re not important. That’s why we have a regulatory process to ensure that the Agricultural Land Commission Act is enforced.

Scott McInnis: As the Indigenous food security and food sovereignty program expands — the minister has stated that there’ll be, I believe, a second call to power coming — and as this program of green power expands, what safeguards and guardrails are in place to protect Indigenous communities that are pursuing this food sovereignty program? Whether they have a greenhouse facility or an open field growing various goods, what safeguards are in place when they are on ALR land?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m just getting used to this, but that’s good. It almost feels like the Third Party.

The member referred to consultation, the role of First Nations and calls for power. I went through this on Monday and Tuesday that there was an extensive consultation with First Nations in the development of the criteria of the call for power. It will be reflected in the second call for power, which has been announced and will be delivered shortly.

We’ve seen those issues consulted on. That consultation will continue in the regulations. We’ve had some debate about that in the last couple of days as well. On a particular permit, this would be an issue, for example, that First Nations or others could bring forward and that would be addressed in that permitting process.

This could include, for example, conditions placed on the permit, as is the case in oil and gas. The B.C. Energy Regulator has been dealing with the Agricultural Land Commission Act now for 20 years. They’re experienced, and their agrologists are experienced in dealing with this. They have, obviously, a regular and really profound consultation process with First Nations, not on an occasional basis but on a daily basis.

Ian Paton: I’m picturing, in my mind, farmers and ranchers, either in the Fraser Valley or up North in the Chilcotin or the Peace country. Somebody wants a piece of their land for a wind tower project, for solar panels or for hydro lines. The rancher has a lease, a tenure that he has on maybe 1,000 acres to graze his cattle, but suddenly the proponent wants to put up nine wind towers.

I guess I could lump two things in here. What would be the compensation for a rancher who feels that his operation has been compromised by these wind towers? Is he provided any sort of legal recourse if he’s unhappy with how things have been done on his farm, if perhaps the land has been ruined with trucks coming in to build these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think I understood the member’s question. Obviously, if the rancher owned the land, it wouldn’t apply. If he just owned the land, it wouldn’t happen.

If he’s a tenure holder of grazing land, which I think I understood correctly to be his question, of course, he would have a right to notification and to intervene in that process. There could potentially be conditions put forward by the regulator to raise exactly those issues in the process. Just as is the case now — in similar circumstances, with respect to, say, oil and gas — you can make that argument.

There are other complications with oil and gas to do with subsurface rights, to stay on top of the earth for the moment, on which they would raise that question, in that process. The only difference, as you know, in the Agricultural Land Commission Act is the lack of a right of appeal.

That’s in the founding legislation. That’s in the Agricultural Land Commission Act legislation, which is being enforced in this case by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Ian Paton: When we think of subdivision of farmland, non-farm uses, in a way it’s sort of like a rezoning, I’m thinking, within a regional district or a municipality. If a project took place in the Fraser Valley with a renewable energy project, the land that was used on an ALR farm, which is obviously assessed for farm use, for the new piece that the renewable energy project sits on, what would be the assessment of that, and what sort of new zoning would that take?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think we’re talking here, again, about transmission lines, in this case in terms of the subdivision, not in terms of wind farms. You wouldn’t subdivide in the case of a wind farm. The responsibility…. You get a non-farm use authorization for a permanent installation, which does occur on transmission lines. They are required for that, but there’d be no impact to municipal zoning.

Heather Maahs: My question is: have farmers or ranchers been provided with legal recourse if they believe a project harms their land access?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There is a consent provision if it’s their land, if it’s private land. That’s fairly straightforward.

Heather Maahs: I’m not sure that that’s entirely correct. Could you please clarify that, for farmers and ranchers and their access?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would say to the member that we answered the question as we heard the question, and the answer was that if it’s…. You can’t build a wind farm on someone else’s land, essentially. So it wouldn’t apply in that case.

Of course it would require consent, because then you require consent of the landholder, but then the landholder would be providing consent.

Donegal Wilson: Just for clarification on that, they may not own the actual access to the land. They may own the land and may own the farm, but the access to it may be a forest service road. It may be a right-of-way. It may be a bunch of things.

If their access road to their land is impacted and they’re unable to access their land, do they have any legal recourse?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t think you’d put a wind farm on a private road that would block access. I mean, if you did have turbines, you put them on, you know, either side of the road, maybe, so I don’t think that would apply.

But if there was a concern about that, that would obviously be raised in the permitting process.

Ian Paton: To the minister, you spoke of, I think, nine projects that you mentioned yesterday for wind power that are up in Logan Lake, different areas.

My question to the minister: have each of the local bands — for instance, the Upper Nicola Band — all been consulted about these projects that are coming forward?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: By definition, they are making the application. What they did…. What these projects were: there was a consultation in 2023 around a call for power. That consultation was extensive with First Nations, and an advisory committee that was led by First Nations was part of that process.

The call for power came forward in 2024. About, I believe, 22 projects…. One of the conditions of the call for power was a minimum 25 percent First Nations ownership. You were assessed based on the price of power and all these other questions. I believe 22 projects applied. Not all of those were wind, obviously.

Nine wind projects were successful, based on the criteria. It was a process overseen by a fairness commissioner at B.C. Hydro, so it was independently overseen. The results were that, of the successful projects, nine were wind projects and one was a solar project.

The member is asking if the First Nations were consulted. Well, they’re their projects. They own the projects. They made the applications. So by definition, they’re consulted.

Ian Paton: I think we can all picture…. We’ve all flown over wind farms on the side of mountains, solar panels down on the desert, different things like that. When clause 15 is saying that, without having to go through the land commission or the ALC, a subdivision of land is going to be enacted and non-farm use or fill use….

When we put up these huge solar panels and wind turbines, there’s going to be massive fill material come in, like rock, gravel, all those things that will be covering up farmland. I mean, it has to. That’s how you build things. You just don’t build it on the soil. Then these massive turbines are going to come in with these massive propellers.

My question is: when these projects are finished or they fail, who will clean up what’s there and take away the fill material that got brought in and the concrete to build these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As you’d expect, the proponent would have to retain the topsoil, first of all. Also, this is life-cycle regulation. That’s the advantage of the B.C. Energy Regulator in this area, for the projects in the overall.

We’ll be talking about this later in the legislation, in the bill, but there is an obligation on the proponent to remediate and restore the land. There’s an obligation in the act, as there is for oil and gas projects. This is obviously a significant issue in the Peace and for farmers in the Peace. The member goes there regularly. He will know this, right? So there’s that obligation.

We also have a regulator who is supported, and we’ve debated this in previous sections and in future sections, by the regulated…. In other words, the oil and gas industry pays for the oil and gas regulation. The renewable energies will pay for the renewable energy regulation.

Because of that, there will be, as there is in oil and gas, a fund created — there’s reference to that later in the act — to ensure that if a company would fail under those circumstances, there’s a fund able to address that, as there is now with oil and gas and the similar provisions that have been in place, I think I might have mentioned to the member, for 20 years under the Energy Regulator.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. We’re possibly coming close to the end, but a question to the minister. Could you tell the room what the environmental lifespan is of a wind tower project, with the massive propellers, the massive oil lubricant inside? What’s the lifespan?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Obviously, when you have an energy project process like that, you’ll have regular repair of the project. The member would know that. These are pretty serious wind companies, and there are wind projects around the world. So there’d be that.

I don’t know if the member is just saying what the lifespan is of the project. What I can tell him, specifically, is that the electricity purchase agreements that are with the successful proponents in this round are for 30 years.

Scott McInnis: Just a clarification with something the minister mentioned, the Lower Nicola being a partner in one of these projects. As we know, there are several nations in that region. Have they also all provided consent to this project moving forward?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Of course those nations will be consulted through the permitting process, as one would expect. The proponents of the projects are individual First Nations, as you’d expect, unless — it’s possible; one could imagine the circumstances — multiple First Nations came together on a particular project. That could happen.

It hasn’t happened in these ten cases. The proponents are single First Nations who are partnered and own 51 percent of these projects.

Heather Maahs: Will the ALR land used for renewable projects be taxed at a higher industrial rate or protected under agricultural assessment schemes?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The farm tax credit, as the member knows…. I fear I’m entering into an area where other members know more than me. To get that, you have to be farming. If you’re not farming that particular part of the property, you wouldn’t get the farm tax credit.

Heather Maahs: In Chilliwack, a lot of the farmers, my constituents, are becoming increasingly alarmed at the rate of ALR land coming out and being built on. What assurances do they have that more land will not be removed, and they’ll see turbines going up on rich, fertile ALR land?

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, we’ve gone through a round of wind and solar projects the equivalent of Site C. They’re in ten locations around the province, a big province.

With respect to land in the member’s riding or any other riding, this is not the removal of land from the ALR. This section shifts responsibility, when it comes to the non-farm use of renewable energy projects, to the B.C. Energy Regulator. The act still applies. The Energy Regulator can, on this basis, remove land from the ALR, because it’s non-farm use.

In addition to that, the B.C. Energy Regulator has been addressing these issues in oil and gas for 20 years. They have teams of agrologists and others on staff, and they do a really good job.

The delegation agreement that put this in place was put in place in 2004, not under this government but under a previous government. It followed on the idea of one-window regulation, where you don’t have multiple regulators for the same project. You have one regulator applying all of the laws.

The B.C. Energy Regulator, in its regular reports, does a really excellent job of this. I just refer the member to the thousands of inspections. For the ALR portion, the responsibility of the B.C. Energy Regulator, within its oil and gas sphere, is now going to be expanded to renewable energy.

What I’m arguing to the member is: if you believe in one-window regulation, the idea of energy projects moving as a class to the B.C. Energy Regulator, as her party does in other areas — I won’t get into that again — then this is a reasonable thing to do.

[5:05 p.m.]

You have to acknowledge, and we have acknowledge, the excellent work by the B.C. Energy Regulator in this area.

Heather Maahs: I guess my concern with this response is the ALR process has gone very quickly in a lot of these circumstances, quicker than normal circumstances when it goes through the entire process for ALR with the farmers and the lands. My concern is the statement here in section 2 that says “with or without limits or conditions.” That’s the piece that has me concerned.

Hon. Adrian Dix: What that means is that the regulator can permit with or without conditions. So it might be possible. You can envision a permitting without conditions, but in a process, there may be conditions on that regulation. That’s what that means. It doesn’t mean what the member was suggesting it means.

Ian Paton: Just a couple more questions, and then we’ll likely move on. Can the minister provide comparative examples of similar deregulation in other provinces or other countries?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As the member knows, this is not a deregulation. It’s a transfer of authority for an existing law and regulation.

Ian Paton: I just want to close out on clause 15. I just want to have it go on the record, as the critic for Agriculture for my party, that I am flabbergasted that Bill 14 and clause 15 is going to be voted on this evening without even having met, the minister has admitted, with the B.C. Agriculture Council, which represents 32 different farm products in the province, or the actual commissioners, the executive director and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m surprised that when we have a process that’s based on the existing regulation of oil and gas, to hear the member….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member….

What we have is the idea of one-window regulation for oil and gas, which was put in place by the previous government and has been successful. We have a regulator, the B.C. Energy Regulator, that has a wealth of experience, and we can point to that wealth of experience.

There are lots of issues. We have, I think, an outstanding agricultural community. There are lots of issues in agriculture, and the member has cited some of them. He’s a passionate advocate, and I would acknowledge that every day — his family’s history and all he brings to that.

In this area, the B.C. Energy Regulator does an excellent job of taking care of its responsibilities for oil and gas, and it will in this area for renewable energy resources. This idea that the B.C. Energy Regulator would be a one-window regulation is something that his previous party supports and that his current party supports in other areas. So what this does is maintain the legislation, maintain the regulations — a transfer of authority to the B.C. Energy Regulator, as we did with oil and gas.

Of course, we work through these processes any time any law gets touched on. The consultation and the work together and putting a law together is effective. This will be true on the next section we talk about, with respect to heritage conservation, just as it is with this one.

I have great confidence in the B.C. Energy Regulator to address this area, a confidence built on their decades of experience. This is a transfer of authority of an existing act. It is not what the members said in the House. It’s just not.

[5:10 p.m.]

You can disagree with it, but not on the basis that it’s a gutting of the Agricultural Land Commission and its responsibilities. That’s the disagreement, but about 22 members got up on the opposition side and made assertions that were not correct, and I don’t think that contributes to the debate either. We can have a legitimate debate about legitimate points of disagreement, but suggesting that this is a gutting of the agricultural land reserve is simply wrong.

Ian Paton: This’ll be my last statement.

It is absolutely gutting of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission with Bill 14. If the chair of the land commission and the executive director and all the commissioners and staff at the Agricultural Land Commission were watching this today on television, they’d be slumped back in their seats going: “What the heck? What has come over our Agricultural Land Commission?”

My final question to the minister: what is the future of our Agricultural Land Commission in British Columbia after this bill, if it passes this evening?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, its future is strong. This is a government that is committed to the agricultural land reserve, and this model has….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, I’ve recognized the minister.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: What is a mockery is that the member, when the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission Act have been for 20 years regulated with respect to oil and gas by the B.C. Energy Regulator, in all of his years as critic — his 250,000 words in this House — has not raised one issue about the B.C. Energy Regulator until his second reading speech on Bill 14. Not a single time — not in estimates, not anywhere else.

We are committed to the agricultural land reserve. What this does…. It’s one-window regulation, as it has been for oil and gas. They want this for oil and gas. They want this for nuclear energy.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, it’s just your platform. It’s just the platform, the member’s platform. It may not be in the platform next time. We’ll see. The advocacy for nuclear energy hasn’t gone well in election campaigns recently.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The oil and gas on the ALR…. We’re talking about thousands of investments, thousands of inspections by the B.C. Energy Regulator to ensure that our Agricultural Land Commission Act is upheld. The members support that for oil and gas, but they’re opposed to renewable energy. They’re opposed to clean energy, so they don’t want the same form of regulation to be in this place.

This is a form of regulation. Given the size of the oil and gas industry and the size of the renewable energy industry, I’d suggest one is way bigger than the other — at the moment, anyway. We are hopeful that that will change to a degree.

This is what we’ve been doing for 20 years. The member has never objected to it before, and for political reasons, he’s objecting to it now. But we over here support the agricultural land reserve.

The Chair: Shall clause 15 pass?

The clause is carried.

Division has been called.

[5:15 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote.

The question is shall clause 15 pass.

Clause 15 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Parmar	Sandhu	Routledge
Dix	Whiteside	Malcolmson
NAYS — 6
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson	McCall	Valeriote

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 15 to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading.

On clause 16.

Donegal Wilson: Under clause 16, I’m going to make some assumptions that a lot of the things that we talked about in clause 15 are also going to apply in clause 16. Just to confirm that, though, the Energy Regulator will still have the heritage act within what they need to meet. How will we be delegating decisions, and how will that be recorded?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This section on the Heritage Conservation Act has some parallels to the previous section because I would say about, in this case, 24 inaccurate statements were made by different MLAs about this provision. It’s different, though, than the previous section and some of the ones following it in that responsibility for the Heritage Conservation Act is already in the Energy Resource Activities Act, which was passed in 2008.

What this delegation allows the Minister of Forests, who’s the minister, to do is delegate for level 1 projects during the transition period. These are powers that the B.C. Energy Regulator already has in spite of the comments.

I’ll just say that one comment from the member for Richmond-Bridgeport, who suggested that this section on a power that the Energy Regulator already has and an act that they already apply would be used to bulldoze Indigenous or even Chinese pioneer burial grounds, is just completely false and not what the legislation is.

I’m happy to report what it is and just to say to the member that the role in archaeology in the Heritage Conservation Act of the B.C. Energy Regulator, formerly the Oil and Gas Commission, has been in place since that act was introduced and passed in 2008. I think I may be wrong. It was a member from the Peace who was the minister who brought it forward, in any event.

[5:30 p.m.]

I can go through in detail, as I did with the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the decisions and the work done with respect to the Heritage Conservation Act, going back many years in this case as well. The delegation here is the Minister of Forests to the B.C. Energy Regulator, during this transition period for what are called level 1 projects, which we dealt with earlier. The authority for the Heritage Conservation Act exists with the regulator already.

Donegal Wilson: We’ve added this into the act because we’re looking to streamline, and you’re looking to create one window for these. Is there a reason? If we can include these for renewable energy, why can’t we include it for all applicants that are coming in with projects that perhaps are pipelines, mines or mills? Why does renewable energy need this specific request?

Hon. Adrian Dix: All oil and gas activities are already regulated by the B.C. Energy Regulator, which applies the Heritage Conservation Act. That’s exactly the case now.

Donegal Wilson: I had expanded that to include mines and other land-based activities.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member might suggest that. But the B.C. Energy Regulator currently, by enactments in 1998, in 2008 and then in 2022 for hydrogen — that’s when that was added in — is responsible for energy and now is responsible for renewable resources. It’s an energy regulator. We feel it has strength in that area.

You’ll see it in the annual reports they do. When they’re working on archaeology, the depth of their knowledge and ability to deal with the section of the act is already in place. So what we’re dealing with is just ensuring that they also have authority during the transition period, because it’s an important area.

The B.C. Energy Regulator has authority for heritage conservation under the act already, the act that has been in place now for 17 years — which is, I’d just say, interesting, given the comments made about the Heritage Conservation Act at second reading, which seem to misunderstand that.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the minister’s tone there.

I feel like we’re creating this for this small group of projects. We’re fast-tracking them. We’re getting them through, but there’s a whole class of renewable energy projects that aren’t going through this process. What do these changes within this bill provide to these projects that other projects aren’t going to benefit from?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I don’t want to relive that particularly scintillating debate, but in section 1 we define “renewable energy project” under the act to deal with, really, all forms of renewable energy. So the member is simply wrong. We also added a section which allowed us to add in the future a renewable energy resource that we’re not aware of now. So we have the capacity to add on to that.

There was some disagreement with that in the committee, but in any event, why is it this small class? It isn’t. The act deals with renewable energy projects and the application. The role of the Energy Regulator, in ensuring that the proper enforcement and application of the Heritage Conservation Act, which has been in place now in legislation for 17 years, will continue — with, obviously, the regulation of renewable energy added to that.

Donegal Wilson: For the record, then, there would be no instances of any archaeology review that would be skipped for these projects. There would be no cultural trees that would be removed or any land disturbance to archaeology sites? It would still all be covered under the BCER, or would these projects possibly have the ability to get past that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, any issue with archaeology is administered according to the act and would be administered by the regulator. We have a Heritage Conservation Act, which has this purpose. The regulator, across forestry and other areas, is the Ministry of Forests. In Energy, this has been delegated to the B.C. Energy Regulator for 17 years.

[5:35 p.m.]

Just to cite…. I’d be happy to be sharing documents with my colleagues later. There’s the archaeology audit report for 2023 by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

If you have a project, say…. For example, the member for Peace River South will know the ARC Attachie project, which has been going through the B.C. Energy Regulator for permitting and approval. There are, as you would expect, archaeological issues related to that project, and those have been dealt with and are being dealt with by the expert staff of the B.C. Energy Regulator and the archaeologists that are on staff, as has been the case for the last 17 years.

Larry Neufeld: I already know the answers to these questions, but given the fact that there has been, as the minister may have described them, some misinformation, I think it’s apt that we do put into the record. So I’m going to ask the questions and allow him to correct the record.

My first question is: why should the regulator, not the Minister of Culture or Indigenous Relations, manage protected heritage sites?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member is asking a different question. Those sites are administered now by the Minister of Forests under the Heritage Conservation Act.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

The next one that I think would be worth, again, reading into the record is: what capacity or training does the regulator, the BCER, currently have to assess archaeological significance?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you to the member for the question.

The professional archaeologists on staff, to begin with, just to go through the history of the BCER’s archaeology audit program, which was introduced in 2008, 17 years ago…. The BCER introduced the archaeology audit program in 2008 to assess energy resource permit holders’ ability to manage archaeology resources. The AAP was created as a necessary component of the performance-based and professional reliance review process for archaeology. It is the permit holder’s responsibility to ensure all legal and regulatory obligations are met.

BCER applicants are expected to engage archaeology professionals to evaluate archaeology conflicts within proposed development areas. It is the expectation of the BCER that under such a process, permit holders take responsibility and are accountable for the protection and management of heritage resources. Permit holders must ensure planning and development activities comply with the Heritage Conservation Act and meet conditions set out by the BCER.

The BCER provides support throughout the entire life cycle of each project to assist permit holders in achieving best practices when managing archaeology resources. It is in the post-construction phase of the project that the AAP is engaged with when the BCER evaluates the effectiveness of the permit holders’ performance by auditing their archaeology management system.

Each audit considers changing trends in the energy resource industry to ensure all aspects and types of developments are considered. The BCER publishes, each year, you’d be interested to know, an archaeology audit report on its website. I can further link it, but it’s archaeology-audit-report-2023_final.pdf.

The 2023 archaeology audit report details result from BCER audit of oil and gas companies’ archaeology practices related to office documentation and field practices. The audit is part of a performance-based review process. Participation by applicants is required for the BCER to gauge the efficiency of individual companies’ management systems.

The results of the most recent audit program report indicate most auditees have practices that address many aspects of successful archaeology resource management system, but it identifies areas of continuing improvement with the industry.

I think the member will agree that under the excellent regulation of the B.C. Energy Regulator, its experienced archaeology branch, its experienced work in working with the Heritage Conservation Act — which it has done, under the act, since 2008 — expanding that to issues around renewable energy projects is something the B.C. Energy Regulator would easily do.

That’s the approach that’s taken, and that capacity that has been in place now for 17 years, that started in 2008, indicates to me that issues around the Heritage Conservation Act would be well taken care of by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

[5:40 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that very thorough answer and, in particular, spelling out the webpage. I do appreciate that. Again, I think it is important, given some of the misconceptions that have been identified, that we do get some of these things on the record.

Can the minister confirm if clause 16 includes power over First Nation burial sites or unregistered heritage grounds?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They would, absolutely. Beyond that, I want to just give the depth of this because it sometimes…. If we look at the period from 2018 to 2025, the decisions made on Heritage Conservation Act matters — which is, of course, in the oil and gas industry in that time: 65 site alteration permits issued; total number of archaeology sites impacted and dealt with, 142; archaeology impact assessment reviews, 522; mitigation reviews, 1,747.

In all of that time, and that’s seven years, involving 2,000 decisions, one is currently subject to legal challenge, one out of that 2,400 reviews and actions.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Just to clarify, I may have misheard, but did the minister state that clause 16 would have — I believe that I may have misheard that — power over First Nations burial sites? I think I might have heard that, so perhaps if we can clarify that, please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The B.C. Energy Regulator, as it does in oil and gas, has a responsibility to address the Heritage Conservation Act as it affects those industries in there, both as projects and then in operations and life-cycle regulation. They have that authority.

They don’t have authority to designate a site. Do you know what I mean? Those aren’t their authorities. Their authority is to regulate those industry practices and to enforce the Heritage Conservation Act, as they’ve been doing for the last 17 years.

Larry Neufeld: Will existing heritage protection orders issued by the province remain in effect, or could they be overridden with this legislation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This does not change existing orders.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

The next question: is there a list of heritage impact assessments conducted for the selected wind projects? Actually, you know what? I’m going to scratch that question. We did discuss that yesterday.

I’ll move on to another question. Can the public or local First Nations appeal a decision made under this legislation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This has no effect on appeal considerations. If, under the Heritage Conservation Act, a particular decision now is subject to appeal, it would continue to be subject to appeal.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

I believe this one has already been discussed, but again, I think in the nature of this particular clause, it would be worth placing it back into the record.

[5:45 p.m.]

Have the union of First Nations Chiefs and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations been consulted on potential delegation of authority as has been perceived, perhaps, under this legislation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes. We discussed the consultation that took place on the act, so yes.

I’d just say…. Really, we’re talking about it at length because of some of the discussion that has taken place in the debate. But this is an existing provision, an existing authority, of the B.C. Energy Regulator.

What we’re doing here is allowing for a delegation of authority under what’s called level 1 projects as the energy regulator starts to address issues. That was level 1, and we talked about what that was. So this is quite a minor change in authority of this provision.

I don’t dispute that there are issues that have been raised by First Nations about the legislation, and we’ve discussed those at some length in the committee.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for the clarification.

The next question that I would have, again, as part of a clarification component of this section, is: what happens if an archaeological site is uncovered mid-construction that was not identified preconstruction?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The provisions of the Heritage Conservation Act apply, which means — as we’ve seen a number of times, including with B.C. Hydro and many others in the energy sector — a stop-work, an assessment of the site and, potentially, other actions taken under the act that the regulator would have authority over.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you again for the clarification.

My next question would be…. Again, this is a clarification one. I know that we’ve had this discussion at length, but I think this is a real opportunity here to package it up in a nice little record.

How does this clause align with article 11 and article 12 of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will know there’s a Heritage Conservation Act transformation project taking place now. This really doesn’t fundamentally change the act anyway, so it doesn’t affect that process. That process is ongoing.

Issues of bringing the Heritage Conservation Act and issues around the Declaration Act and its connection to that are being dealt with in that process.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Larry Neufeld: I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I think there’s an opportunity here to give the minister a very clear opportunity to correct what he has identified as perhaps some information that could be interpreted a little bit differently.

What justifies excluding renewable energy facilities from the…? Actually, I’m not going to ask that one.

What are the implications for liability in the event of equipment failure or fire under these standards?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to say, maybe for starters for the committee, that section 17 of the bill applies a select provision of the Safety Standards Act relating to gas systems, pressure piping and refrigeration equipment at renewable energy facilities to ensure that Technical Safety B.C. and the BCER are not regulating the same equipment. This is the same model that is currently used for oil and gas and hydrogen facilities.

They say — again, that member for Surrey–White Rock — that essential safety standards under the Safety Standards Act can now simply be disregarded. False.

Member for Richmond Centre: the bill allows the regulator to override existing safety regulations. False.

The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine: another deeply troubling provision is the removal of the Safety Standards Act. False.

I could go on 20 more times, but I won’t. I’ll just say that this is a technical amendment.

Obviously, the member for Peace River South didn’t raise it in second reading because he took the time to understand the bill.

This does not override any safety standards. It merely means that we don’t have duplication of regulation. It makes sense for the legislation. It’s exactly the same application of the Safety Standards Act that exists for the oil and gas industry and for hydrogen.

I would add that it’s really important not to scare people with respect to legislation. There are 20-plus quotes I could name where people suggest this does something completely other than it actually does, so I’m happy to have an opportunity to clarify that to the House.

Larry Neufeld: One final opportunity to clarify on this clause, and then I’ll move on. Has WorkSafeBC reviewed or commented on the safety component that is represented by this clause?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There is no change to WorkSafeBC’s jurisdiction or responsibilities.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Larry Neufeld: Another opportunity for the minister to provide some clarification. On clause 18, will recovery strategies for at-risk species be integrated into project conditions?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The legislation doesn’t change how the Wildlife Act operates. Instead, it allows the decision-maker to be changed to the BCER for the purpose of supporting the one-window model. Bill 14 does not remove any existing requirements or processes under the Wildlife Act — none — including the ones discussed by the member.

The bill enables the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship to delegate select regional manager and director powers under the Wildlife Act to the BCER, as we’ve done in the single-window model, through the range of legislation. This provision is needed to support a one-window approach, as a project proponent may now need permits under the Wildlife Act to proceed with their projects. In exercising delegated powers under the Wildlife Act, the BCER has to follow the same processes and make the same considerations as if they were the official named in the Wildlife Act.

For example, if the B.C. Energy Regulator were delegated section 25(1) of the Wildlife Act, which provides for the cancellation or suspension of permits, they would still have to make decisions according to the Wildlife Act, including only suspending or cancelling the permit if the cause was sufficient, providing the permit holder with an opportunity to be heard and informing the permit holder of a period of ineligibility. Essentially, this is the application of the Wildlife Act as it is now, with a role in the regulation of renewable energy projects for the B.C. Energy Regulator.

There was a lot of discussion in second reading about the risks to hunters and trappers and guide-outfitters. None of that is correct. This is the same Wildlife Act restricted narrowly to regulating renewable energy resources regulated by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

I think this would be an excellent opportunity for the minister to provide some clarification, so I’ll ask this question very directly. Will this delegation of power that was just discussed include any ability to bypass hunting, trapping or species disturbance rules?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The B.C. Energy Regulator is regulating, remember, the proponent of a renewable energy project and the authorizations of that proponent. The regulator will not be able to cancel or suspend permits issued to someone that is not the proponent of a renewable energy project.

I’ll just say that it is exactly the opposite of what 31 members of the opposition said. That’s just a fact.

As I said to people, hunters and guide-outfitters have got lots of issues, and they’ve got issues with our government. I engage with them all the time. I admire people who love the outdoors, who are hunters and are trappers and are guide-outfitters. This does not change things for them unless, by coincidence, they’re running a renewable energy project. But that’s not to do with their being hunters or guide-outfitters or anything else.

Like I say, and it’s important, there are always legitimate disagreements in legislation, but this isn’t one of them. We don’t need to create ones that don’t exist. This one doesn’t exist, and we don’t want to create any uncertainty for people when there isn’t any uncertainty here.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that clarification.

One other opportunity here that I think would be reasonable to provide some clarity on: could permits be approved even if the proposed site is a known nesting area or critical habitat?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, species are well protected in federal laws as well as the Wildlife Act. What would happen is that those acts would apply both at the federal level and at the provincial level.

[6:00 p.m.]

It’s hard to comment on a specific case that you don’t know about, but I think, in the circumstances of the member’s case, that no, that would not happen. If it did happen, it would have to comply with the Wildlife Act and the federal laws protecting species, which are, shall we say, fairly strict.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

Another one, which I think could help provide some clarity, is: can the minister confirm if habitat impact assessments are still required under this clause?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s an important principle that the regulator has to apply the act. If those requirements are required under the current act, they will be required.

Larry Neufeld: I do believe that I know the answer to this one already as well. Will biodiversity corridors and species-at-risk habitats be mapped and excluded from streamlining, for projects that are subject to this act?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Protecting species will be, obviously, a role for the outstanding teams of biologists at the BCER, who will certainly be able to address that. Of course, the existing provisions of the Wildlife Act will apply. This is a limited application to renewable energy projects.

Larry Neufeld: This was touched on, but it’s worth, in my mind, making it very clear. What process exists for citizens to review or challenge permits under this act?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As noted, these are delegations. The Wildlife Act stands on its own, so any opportunities that exist now under the act will continue to exist.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

This will be my final question on this clause.

I think, again, this is something that would help clarity. Can this clause or can this act be used to allow industrial access through provincial parks or conservatories?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That would be no.

Donegal Wilson: Will any of the areas where we’ve been actively planning or working on restoration of linear lines to protect wildlife habitats be considered for these projects? There are large swaths of the province where we’ve been actively restoring linear lines to protect caribou and other wildlife habitats. Would any of that work be undone by considering a project — either roads to these windmills, or linear lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, obviously, projects are assessed case by case, and the biologists working on the projects would be considering all of those questions.

As noted to the member for Peace River South, the provisions of the Wildlife Act are unchanged here. They’re simply being applied by the professional staff of the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Donegal Wilson: I’m not positive that all the work that’s being done under the restoration of the linear lines specifically falls under the Wildlife Act. My concern is that we spent a lot of provincial money removing linear lines, and then we’re going to go back in, and we’re going to put roads and these big structures in areas that we’ve actively been trying to remove those lines from.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Not everything is under the Wildlife Act, but this section is about the Wildlife Act. What it says is that the provisions of the Wildlife Act, which provide all kinds of protections, are in place and enforced in the narrow band of activity of B.C. renewable energy activities.

Right now we’re talking about nine projects plus the North Coast transmission line. That’s significant, but it’s an existing line already. It’s not a new line through British Columbia. The Wildlife Act will be regulated for that specific purpose by the B.C. Energy Regulator. If there’s a specific project and a concern, it will be the responsibility of the B.C. Energy Regulator to enforce the Wildlife Act. There’ll be opportunities for people, in that process, to make their case heard as well.

That said, the provisions of the Wildlife Act, which we’re talking about here, are intact. Things don’t change, and it certainly doesn’t change issues in the application of the act for hunters, guide-outfitters or anyone else.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Larry Neufeld: I think I did admit to this on day 1, that I am not a lawyer and I don’t profess to be one. This clause was something that had me take a very close look at the Offence Act. Clause 5 of the Offence Act is not written in a manner that I think many people would clearly understand, so I do have a number of questions on it.

The first question is: can the ministry identify what types of violations under this act can now be prosecutable due to the exclusion of section 5?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I want to lay out the significance of the section. It’s a good way to start, as I understand it. Perhaps we’ll answer in advance questions that the member might have.

This provision ensures that no new offences are created under this act. Instead, the existing offence provisions under the Energy Resource Activities Act will apply to streamlined energy projects as if they were energy resource activities under the act. Basically, this means no new offences. The things that are offences under the Energy Resource Activities Act will apply to renewable energy.

That’s the purpose of this section of the act. It is a technical addition. We’re making an addition, and we’re applying the Energy Resource Activities Act and offences there. We’re saying there are no new offences to that act. You’ve got your offences; those are the offences; they’re in that act.

Larry Neufeld: That does help to a certain extent. I actually did go back into the ERAA and tried to find the administrative penalties and the criminal penalties. I don’t know if I just didn’t look hard enough, but at any rate, I did fall down and go back to the internet. I will admit that this information is from the internet, so hopefully it’s correct.

In my working career, it was one thing that was always talked about — the potential for imprisonment, of up to three years, under the ERAA. I recognize that it’s germane to this clause, but I realize we’re not talking about that act. Can we confirm that that is in fact the case?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The key provisions of the ERAA are in section 86, and then there’s a series afterwards with it, but the ones detailing the offences are in section 86 of the ERAA.

[6:10 p.m.]

They’re detailed, and then there’s a separate regulation, which I’ve asked staff to provide to the hon. member, which details the penalties. They’re by regulation, because those would change more. Those wouldn’t necessarily be in the act.

I won’t go through all of the sections that are contraventions. They’re all found in section 86, and those would continue to apply. All this provision does is ensure that this act doesn’t add additional offences here. These offences would apply to energy resource activities under the act.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that explanation.

I’ll be honest. As a layperson, when I first read that clause and then went back into the act itself, at first read it did seem as though the penalties had been removed. So that’s why I did dig into it, but I am happy to hear that is not the case.

I think also, in the vein of clarity, I will ask a few further questions, again just to get them on the record.

Will a violator still face administrative fines or only civil remedies under this act?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is yes, and I’ll just give you this example on the clause. There are these fines, and there are administrative penalties. The administrative penalties are in the accompanying regulation.

But just as an example. Section 86(1) of the ERAA: “A person who contravenes section 21, 35 (1), 36 (1), 37 (1) or (2), 39 (3), 40, 61 or 81, or in relation to an order issued under section 49, section 82, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1.5 million or to imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or to both.”

That’s the first set of fines that the member has found on the internet, and he’s quite correct.

In subsection (2), just as an example: “A person who contravenes section 35(3) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1 million or to imprisonment for not more than two years.”

Those are obviously serious actions. In addition, there are administrative penalties that exist in the regular statutes of the ERAA.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you again to the minister for that answer.

I think I’ll ask one final question with respect to clause 19, as it is a one-sentence clause. This one again raised some…. When I first read it, my interpretation was different from what the clarity here has been given.

Under the guise of my original understanding, I will ask this question. Has Crown counsel raised concerns about enforcement limits under this clause — i.e., are they sufficient?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

Clause 19 approved.

Jeremy Valeriote: I rise to move an amendment to clause 20.1 in my name.

[CLAUSE 20.1 by adding the underlined text as show:

20.1 The Minister responsible for the administration of a regulation that is made, amended, or repealed under this Act must, as soon as practicable, publish the following on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the ministry:

(a) a summary of the regulation

(i) that is made, or

(ii) as amended

(b) the rationale for the enactment, amendment or repeal of the regulation;

(c) the name of the person or entity to whom the regulation applies

(d) the statutory authority under which it was issued

(e) any limits or conditions attached to the decision or authorization

(f) any other prescribed information]

I’ll speak to it. May I speak to it briefly?

Jeremy Valeriote: This amendment, should it pass, would require all regulations that are made, amended or repealed under this act to be, as soon as practicable, published on a publicly accessible website. Any regulations…. A significant amount of regulations will come under this act, under clause 20. There are eight subsections of classes of regulations.

I’m aware that orders in council are currently findable on a public website, but they’re not easily findable or publicly accessible. These would include a public summary and, most importantly, include the rationale for the regulations that are made under this act, so why cabinet considers it’s necessary and what it hopes to achieve with them. This is a simple measure to ensure transparency and accountability for decision-making.

We’ve heard from the minister that regulations will be made under this. As enabling legislation, regulations will come. The B.C. Energy Regulator process will be developed as we go.

The Chair: Member, I’m just going to stop you here. Because you’re adding a clause after clause 20, it would need to be moved after the clause 20 has passed.

Interjection.

The Chair: That’s an additional…. It’s not a subclause 20(1). It’s a clause 20.1. It comes after 20.

Trevor Halford: Can we just take a brief recess to clarify?

The Chair: Sure.

The committee recessed from 6:15 p.m. to 6:18 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole, Section C, back to order.

Jeremy Valeriote: Given the sequencing clear-up, we’ll adjust this to adding words under clause 19.1.

[CLAUSE 19.1 by adding the underlined text as show:

19.1 The Minister responsible for the administration of a regulation that is made, amended, or repealed under this Act must, as soon as practicable, publish the following on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the ministry:

(a) a summary of the regulation

(i) that is made, or

(ii) as amended

(b) the rationale for the enactment, amendment or repeal of the regulation;

(c) the name of the person or entity to whom the regulation applies

(d) the statutory authority under which it was issued

(e) any limits or conditions attached to the decision or authorization

(f) any other prescribed information]

On the amendment.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just speak very briefly to it a little bit more.

Simple transparency. I’ll note it’s the same provisions as we put into Bill 7, which I’ll note the Third Party just voted in favour of at third reading. Bill 7 required some transparency. Well, I will say that if this is good enough for the Attorney General, this should be good enough for this bill.

I would urge members to vote in favour of this simple transparency measure for regulations that are yet to come on this legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

We’ll take a brief recess to review the amendment.

The committee recessed from 6:19 p.m. to 6:24 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the Committee of the Whole, Section C, back to order. We’re back to order, room. Thank you.

Reviewing the proposed amendment, it is in order, so debate on clause 19.1, the amendment.

[6:25 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: I want to speak in favour of the amendment that my colleague has put forward here. I think it’s pretty rational and actually is somewhat nearing what we’ve seen in previous legislation that was supported by the government.

Unfortunately, we’re now getting pressed for time because this government’s chosen to invoke closure this evening.

I support this amendment, and I urge the government to do so as well.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t support the amendment, because we already do this. We publish regulations in a place that everyone knows, which is B.C. Laws. We publish them now.Publishing them in another place at a different time doesn’t add to transparency. It takes away from transparency.

I appreciate the desire for transparency here, but both BCER regulations and Lieutenant Governor in Council regulations are published, and they’re published upon coming into effect on a public website that’s well known and understood by everybody. To duplicate that somewhere else wouldn’t make sense, so I wouldn’t support the amendment, not because I’m hostile to the amendment but because I don’t think it’s a good idea, so I would oppose the amendment. Clearly, it’s not needed to do the purposes.

I know the member has another amendment this links to, and that’s a different debate that we’ll have, perhaps.

In this case, the amendment isn’t necessary. It’s duplicative. We already do this, and we’ll continue to do this.

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

The ayes have it.

Division has been called.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just a point of order. I think there’s clearly a division here. The suggestion was that the ayes have it on the amendment, so we’re obviously calling a division on that. If this is an issue on the amendment, we’re not supporting the amendment as presented by the member, on the government side, so there will presumably be a division on that question. So division.

The Chair: Division has been called.

[6:30 p.m. - 6:35 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is on the amendment, which is clause 19.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson	McCall	Valeriote
NAYS — 6
Dix	B. Anderson	Malcolmson
Arora	Whiteside	Neill

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes against the amendment, keeping the bill intact in its original form and adopted as at second reading.

Jeremy Valeriote: I rise to move an amendment to clause 19.2 in my name, adding text which, again, similar to the amendment of Bill 7, would task a select standing committee of this assembly to be referred all regulations made under this act.

[CLAUSE 19.2 by adding the underlined text as shown:

Review of the Act

19.2 (1) In this section, “select standing committee” means the select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly that is designated for the purposes of this section.

(2) A regulation made under section 11, 13 or 20, or under the Energy Resources Amendment Act stands referred to the select standing committee.

(3) If a regulation is made under section 11, 13 or 20, or under the Energy Resources Amendment Act, a copy of the regulation must be filed as soon as practicable with the select standing committee by the minister charged with the administration of the section under which the regulation is made.

(4) Within 30 days after the date a regulation is filed under subsection (3), the select standing committee must begin a review of the regulation.

(5) On or before May 31 of each year, the select standing committee must present a final report to the Legislative Assembly.

(6) The select standing committee may file any interim reports and the final report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.]

I will be quite clear in that I support the idea of streamlining renewable energy projects, but….

The Chair: Member, we’re going to have to determine whether or not the amendment is in order, so we’re going to take a brief recess. If it’s in order, then you can speak to it. Thanks.

The committee recessed from 6:38 p.m. to 6:43 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I’m calling the committee back to order on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

On the amendment from the Leader of the Third Party, the amendment is deemed out of order. I can tell you the reason why. It’s due to the fact that there is no energy resources amendment act.

Amendment ruled out of order.

On clause 20.

Trevor Halford: It’s unfortunate about that amendment, but I definitely respect the process.

I’m trying to frame a way to ask this. What guidance documents would exist to prevent abuse of this clause?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t want to be too government 101 here, but there’s the Constitution Act, the Interpretation Act, and there are the four corners of this act, which is true of all legislation prepared and presented in the Legislature.

[6:45 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Will the government be publishing a schedule of regulatory decisions made specifically under this clause?

Hon. Adrian Dix: All OIC laws are published in a manner that the member is quite familiar with. OICs are published, as the member knows, as acts come into force. They are regularly published. That was part of the discussion in the last section. So obviously, when regulations are made, they are published. That’s true whether it’s by the B.C. Energy Regulator under its authority or the Lieutenant Governor in Council under cabinet’s authority.

Trevor Halford: So by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, can that be declared new projects streamlined without public consultation or impact assessments? Can new projects come into effect without consultation, or what I call an impact assessment?

Hon. Adrian Dix: New projects can be designated to transfer to the regulator for oversight. Obviously, new projects can’t be approved in this way. They go to the oversight bodies.

Clause 20 approved.

Jeremy Valeriote: Mr. Chair, I rise to attempt the second amendment with typo removed. Same amendment.

[CLAUSE 20.1 by adding the underlined text as shown:

Review of the Act

20.1 (1) In this section, “select standing committee” means the select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly that is designated for the purposes of this section.

(2) A regulation made under section 11, 13 or 20, or under the Energy Resources Activities Act stands referred to the select standing committee.

(3) If a regulation is made under section 11, 13 or 20, or under the Energy Resources Activities Act, a copy of the regulation must be filed as soon as practicable with the select standing committee by the minister charged with the administration of the section under which the regulation is made.

(4) Within 30 days after the date a regulation is filed under subsection (3), the select standing committee must begin a review of the regulation.

(5) On or before May 31 of each year, the select standing committee must present a final report to the Legislative Assembly.

(6) The select standing committee may file any interim reports and the final report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting.]

The Chair: Thanks. We’ll take it, and we’ll circulate it.

On the amendment.

Jeremy Valeriote: This amendment would task a select standing committee with reviewing the regulations that are put forward under this. As stated previously, I support the idea of streamlining renewable energy. But we need to make sure the checks and balances are intact and that there is a legislative oversight on this.

The select standing committee would review the regulations and report back to the Legislature.

The Chair: Great, thank you. It’s in order.

Would you like to briefly speak to it?

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll briefly speak to it. I understand we’re close to the guillotine, and I’m sure it’s very tempting for the government to push this through. However, I do believe this is a transparency and oversight.

I take the minister’s point about the previous amendment, that these are published. However, this would bring the regulations that are made under this, which are paramount to how it is going to be enforced…. Particularly, the B.C. Energy Regulator process and enabling legislation require regulations. We don’t know what those are.

This should be beyond the control of just the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It should come back to the duly elected Legislature. This would allow the committee to have the ability to receive regulations and ensure legislative oversight.

I understand that we are on time constraint, but I would urge the government to allow this to pass so that we can….

The Chair: Members, noting the hour, I’ll put the question on the amendment before the committee proceeds to finalize clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6.

Point of Order

Trevor Halford: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Are we limiting the opportunity to speak to the amendment?

The Chair: Yes.

[6:50 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: But under the standing orders, I don’t think that that’s…. I’m not challenging the Chair. I just want clarification on what the rules are regarding an amendment on….

The Chair: Due to the time allocation as was adopted by the House on May 6, we have to proceed to clause by clause.

Trevor Halford: I’m just clarifying. There’s no opportunity for members in this committee room right now to speak either in support of or in opposition to the amendment that my colleagues put forward?

The Chair: No.

Trevor Halford: I was understanding that the amendment process had to carry out for the vote, but that was not a restriction on the speakers. If I’m mistaken, then so be it, but I thought that we would be able to speak either in support of or in opposition to an amendment.

The Chair: That is the case.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

A division has been called.

[6:55 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section C, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote.

The question is on the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson	McCall	Valeriote
NAYS — 6
B. Anderson	Neill	Kang
Routledge	Dix	Malcolmson

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes against the amendment, to keep the bill intact in its original form as adopted at second reading.

In accordance with the time allocation order, I will now put the question on all remaining clauses of the bill. Members, a division on the remaining clauses in the title cannot be called, but in accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage on division. With that, we will now proceed.

Clauses 21 to 24 inclusive approved.

Clauses 25 to 27 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 7:02 p.m.