Contents

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Peter Alan Lea Ford

Sheldon Clare: Our House has been missing someone important this term. Peter Alan Lea Ford, member of the Order of Military Merit, Canada decoration, passed away on August 15.

Some of us in this House were able to be at the service; many of us were not. I wanted to just say a few words about our friend Peter, who led the work in this chamber with great dignity, with great humour and with terrific efficiency.

He truly was a gentleman. He was a naval chief petty officer first class. He was the base chief at Esquimalt. I was really proud to meet him, get to know him, for the short time that I did. I learned a lot about Peter from his family and friends at the service we held for him back in September. I know that it was important to be there, and it’s important to say his name again.

Many in this House were at that service, and I know the family and all of us appreciate that. I wanted to just say a few words about Peter because I know he is deeply, deeply missed here. I miss him, and I know everyone else who knew him does as well. So for my introduction, I want to just say his name, Peter Alan Lea Ford, MMM, CD.

I hope he’s enjoying baking scones and golfing and doing all those wonderful things that an old sailor does up in heaven.

Bravo Zulu, Peter.

Introductions by Members

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to welcome two very special friends, Nilda Borrino and Linh Lam. They’re representing Marpole Neighbourhood House. Having lived and worked in Marpole almost all my life, I have had the chance of visiting Marpole Neighbourhood House several times.

[1:05 p.m.]

The kinds of services they provide for the community, the programs…. They even have their own community garden where they grow fresh vegetables and cook warm food. The child care programs, family programs, free English language classes, so many good art and culture programs…. I really commend the work that they’re doing for the community.

I welcome Linh and Nilda to the precinct today, and I request everybody to make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Ravi Parmar: In the main chamber, we’ll continue second reading on Bill 31.

In the little House, Committee of the Whole on Bill 17.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Hon. Adrian Dix: Before the lunch hour, I started my speech on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. That time I was able to describe the sections related to the North Coast transmission line, which is, I think, a nation-building project that in particular supports the north of British Columbia but all of British Columbia.

The north of British Columbia — in particular, the northwest, but also the northeast — has the potential for economic growth that is profound and has to be supported. It’s important, I think, for people in the northwest to have access to power in the northeast.

I’ve heard talk about how “you’re building the northwest transmission line to favour or to support mineral interests in the northwest.” Yes, we are, just like we built the Interior–Lower Mainland line just a few years ago, paid for by the whole rate base of B.C. — paid for by ratepayers in Terrace, ratepayers in Smithers, ratepayers in Dawson Creek and ratepayers everywhere else — to serve Metro Vancouver.

We should support the North Coast transmission line everywhere. My constituency should support it and other constituencies should support it because the opportunity for wealth — the creation of wealth, of jobs, of families, of supports in communities — that will be created in the northwest is breathtaking for our province. A dozen mines. The interests of the Port of Prince Rupert. The lowest-emission LNG projects in the world, two of them led by the Haisla and the Nisg̱a’a First Nation.

The opportunity that’s presented by clean energy in our province should be shared there, because right now that region is capped. They can have the electricity that goes there. They can’t have more unless we double transmission capacity. It’s not just about generation. We’re doing that with all the clean energy projects we’re doing, the ten that we have announced — Site C, nine of them wind, one of them solar, the ones that are in the second call for power, the ones that are in the call for expression and interest on firm power.

We need to generate more electricity, clean electricity, and we’re doing that. We’re doing that in order to deliver to the northwest of our province — other parts of our province, as well, but in particular the northwest — the jobs and the opportunities that people in other regions have. This is something that we have the opportunity to do. It’s a generational decision in terms of wealth and one that I think should be supported by all of B.C. and, in fact, all of Canada.

That’s why we’ve made the strong case that the North Coast transmission line, which is truly a national project, should be supported on the major projects list of the government of Canada, just like two B.C. projects are already — one of which will be served, in a sense, by the North Coast transmission line as well, the Red Chris project, and others — to create those opportunities in mining that we have not seen in a generation. We’re making progress we’ve not seen in a generation that they’re available in the northwest.

So that was the first part of it. I won’t relive the entire speech. The member for Peace River South was there, so he experienced it prior to the lunch break.

[1:10 p.m.]

I just want to continue to talk in terms of the second part of the bill, which is the allocation framework. This was applied to three specific industries that have highly scalable needs for power, and we’ve seen this around the globe. We’ve seen it in other jurisdictions. We’ve seen it even on the connection side — not the demand side, the connection side in Virginia. Four gigawatts of new data centres in that state. In the state of Texas, six gigawatts, 6,000 megawatts, just for data centres.

The accompanying pressure on residential rates that comes with that and, often, the lack of local benefit…. You don’t want to deliver hundreds of megawatts of power for something that ultimately produces three security guard jobs, protecting the outside of a data centre that no one works in.

We want to have the economic considerations of British Columbia favoured in access to the clean electricity that we have all produced over generations — the people who built the Shrum, Bennett, Keenleyside, John Hart, Site C and all of our dams in this province — available to benefit the people of B.C. So that’s the reason for it.

We talked about how it will work, that the allocation framework that we’re talking about will apply those kinds of standards.

Data sovereignty. We need data centres, and we need AI in B.C. We have issues around sovereignty over our data right now. We’ve seen some of this in jurisdictions such as France, where domestic privacy considerations are overridden in some cases, or proposed to be overridden — we’re not talking about small companies here; we’re talking about companies such as Microsoft — by domestic policy considerations in the United States.

We’re a sovereign country, and we need to ensure that we protect the data. We need to have control over our data here, and that means we need to build data centres domestically. AI is a growing industry. We need to take advantage of it to further economic development in our province.

What we’re proposing to do in these industries where demand vastly exceeds supply in every jurisdiction in the world…. We need to have a way of allocating that that is better than first come, first served. The first person in the door, no matter what they’re proposing as an end result, gets access to the power, and everyone else waits or doesn’t get it.

We’re proposing an allocation framework. The first call, we expect, will be in January. We will have 300 megawatts for AI and 100 megawatts for data centres available for people to bid on, based on the value of what they’re producing on data sovereignty, on job creation, on economic value to the province.

We would set the terms of that, but it would be B.C. Hydro. When they make these decisions on calls for power, as well, they have an oversight mechanism on what they do and make the decision based on the criteria we’ve said are important. I will encourage members of the House, including my colleague for Peace River South, who’s always very thoughtful in these matters, to be involved in discussing what those criteria should be, because I think that’s important.

Those are the ones we see: economic value, jobs, data sovereignty, reconciliation, climate change, etc. Can we can reuse some of the heat? That’s the nature of it.

I want to discuss, as I finish these remarks, why these three industries.

I think I’ve talked about it a little bit before, but in particular, hydrogen. I’m a strong supporter of the hydrogen industry in B.C., and the allocation framework only would apply for hydrogen for export, not for hydrogen for domestic use. There really are no projects now. So this is unlike the AI and data centre things, where there are clearly as many projects as you’d like if you have clean, available, inexpensive power. In the case of hydrogen, those projects are not there right now.

Certainly, the production for domestic production aids us in our environmental and our economic development objectives. In fact, on Friday, I will be at an event where the industry is showing some of its successes in B.C. But that’s not what’s affected here. They all have the same access — hydrogen for domestic use — as manufacturing, energy, forestry, mining and all the other sectors.

Hydrogen-for-export projects proposed in B.C. have been orders of magnitude, obviously, larger than for domestic consumption. We had one project that sought to take all the power from Site C for that project, and obviously, that wasn’t a realistic proposition, I would say, for the benefit of another jurisdiction.

[1:15 p.m.]

They produce less revenue for the province, these hydrogen projects for export, in addition to using massive amounts of valuable clean electricity. Again, involved in a restriction where they would access some, but we would have some control over that.

There are, of course — as the member will know, as many will know — large efficiency losses in the hydrogen production process that would be very challenging as well. We think that clean electricity, that those options, should be pursued, but they should be within an allocation framework, and that’s why hydrogen for export was added to it.

Now, everyone knows that the global market for hydrogen-for-export projects has suffered mightily due to costs, slow technology adoption and difficult general market and business case issues. That’s just the case. But that doesn’t mean that the story’s over. The member for Peace River South and I had a discussion of this during our estimates debate about the value.

These are not the only hydrogen projects available. In fact, we’re having a lot of success in B.C. now and a lot to talk about. If conditions improve and this market becomes more promising, then the allocation framework or a similar kind of process auction, whatever you would call it, would apply to that sector.

I just want to reiterate with respect to AI and data infrastructure that these are clearly power-hungry sectors. I talked about it earlier. Other jurisdictions have struggled mightily. I can go through them. I think the review that we did in advance of this of the struggles of places such as Maryland, Virginia, Utah, New Jersey and others, which I spoke of earlier, is significant. The loads are significant.

We can look next door to Alberta, where they recently opened up for requests, and they got 16,000 megawatts of requests from large loads such as AI. Well, the system’s peak load right now is 12,000, so this is obviously enormous and beyond what they could do or anyone could reasonably do. They had to respond by taking back the request and putting other limits on it.

They have a different system than B.C., of course. We have the benefit here in B.C. of B.C. Hydro as a provider, which is a huge benefit to us. I mean, electricity rates are about 67 percent higher in Calgary and Edmonton than they are in B.C., which is a real tribute to the people who have built B.C. Hydro into the company it is. Electricity rates in B.C. have dropped 12.4 percent below the rate of inflation.

It’s not just Alberta. Seattle, 40 percent higher. Portland, 45 percent higher. New York, 400 percent higher. B.C. Hydro is a great thing for British Columbia, as Manitoba Hydro and Quebec Hydro are in their respective provinces.

In terms of data load requests to be connected in Ontario, they’re 30 percent of Ontario’s peak power demand, and you see this in other jurisdictions. I talked about Virginia, Texas, Oregon, Maryland and other places.

These projects can happen quickly. It’s a little unlike a mining project, which develops over time and you prepare for. It happens quickly and then can go away quickly. That’s what we’ve seen, and that’s led to huge increases in costs in other jurisdictions.

Other jurisdictions have responded differently than we have, and we’ve learned from them. Quebec, for example, implemented an evaluation framework, and they decided the person who should make the decisions on all loads above five megawatts should be the Minister of Energy.

Now, that’s not a terrible suggestion, I say as Minister of Energy, but I don’t think it’s the right suggestion. I think our job as legislatures is to apply the criteria and the rules and have competitive processes address the question of the allocation of energy in this case, and that’s what I think we should do.

In Quebec, the framework requires all projects over five megawatts to obtain authorization from the Minister of Economy, Innovation and Energy before they can be connected by Hydro-Québec. That’s not a road we’ve taken. That’s a road they’ve taken. Largely it was to control demand that was well above what they could supply for much of the last decade.

There are different measures in Oregon, where they’ve implemented new regulatory measures with respect to large energy use facilities involved in data-processing services.

In Utah, where they’ve done some of the same things, they have different models and different systems in those jurisdictions.

[1:20 p.m.]

I mentioned, in the United States, the governor’s race in New Jersey and the focus on rate increases linked to data centres. So ordinary citizens in New Jersey and small businesses and communities are paying for data centres which may not be delivering in terms of the economy but are driving up residential rates. It’s something that we don’t want here in B.C.

We cannot leave the pace of that growth unchecked. We have to pace it out. That means having AI and data centre opportunities but putting them within our means and having a competitive process with B.C.’s interests at the centre of it. It’s about growth, in fact. It’s about B.C. becoming the engine of economic development, but it’s also making sure our electricity is prioritized for industries that will power our future while providing a path forward for connecting new, emerging industries such as AI.

The clauses in the bill are targeted, strategic and essential. They give us the tools to allocate wisely, to enable generational investments in key sectors and to grow sustainably by leveraging economic growth, enabling the power of our clean electricity.

I’ll just say this. It is extraordinary, here in B.C., what we’ve built as a generation. In 1960, and I mentioned this in introducing the bill, W.A.C. Bennett decided that the economic future of the province was linked to the development of the Peace and the Columbia rivers. It wasn’t without consequence.

The member and I have talked about it. The members from the Kootenays, from Cranbrook, knows this. Building those dams was not without consequences for people living in those regions. But the Premier at the time, who was a Social Credit Premier, acted to nationalize B.C. Electric because the private sector would not make the investment necessary to see that happen.

A generation of people worked in industries, including and especially the forest industry, pulp mills that were energized by clean electricity in B.C. They wouldn’t have viewed that in the prism of the discussion of climate change or any other question, but they did it, and their legacy is profound.

That continued over time, and it continues to this day. It’s why we’re engaging in the calls for power we are — for clean electricity, to build out the electricity of our province and to deal with, this time, in a way similar to what they did in that time, to use B.C. Hydro as a means of economic development at a time when we need to take advantage of our clean electricity advantage.

We need to move forward in this to build a stronger economy in our province, one that we can both be proud of and that creates opportunities in industries across our province, creates generational opportunities that will allow us to lead our country and respond to international circumstances such as are occurring in the United States and the challenge of the world today.

I ask members of the House — this is, as I say, modest legislation; there are five sections in it — to support a bill that will help build the North Coast transmission line, that deals with a partnership with First Nations, that enables the mining industry and the cleanest LNG in the world and the Port of Prince Rupert and communities up and down the line — the Port of Stewart, communities up and down the North Coast transmission line, which all, in the case of the direct line, happen to be represented by members on the opposition side of the Legislature — that they support those North Coast transmission line provisions and that they support this allocation framework, which ensures that B.C.’s interests come first in this clean electricity that generations of British Columbia workers and residents have supported and made happen, that, in these sectors, we allow ourselves to put B.C. first, to give our priorities first, our jobs, our economy, our data sovereignty, our values into decisions around how electricity is allocated.

This is a program and a plan that supports clean electricity and a clean economy, a clean energy economy. It does do those things. That’s B.C.’s advantage. That’s an advantage that we’ve built up for generations and that we’re building on now with new renewable electricity, especially as prices come down for electricity in new renewable sectors, compared to existing sectors.

B.C. is leading, and we have got to see the signal ahead of us. That signal is to build our province. Build opportunities in our province. Create opportunities in the northwest. Ensure that B.C.’s interests are protected.

[1:25 p.m.]

In a time when the world is seeking an economy like ours, one that believes in clean electricity, we need to be there to meet that challenge, and this bill, this modest bill, is part of that effort.

I look forward to the further debate and ask all members of the House to support Bill 31.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to my colleagues from across the aisle. I don’t have a joke for you this afternoon. I apologize. I should’ve thought of it over lunch. I apologize. I will do better next time.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Well, perhaps. Perhaps it will come to me. I could say something about hiring someone to write jokes for me, but I won’t.

I’d like to make a couple of statements before I do get into my written remarks. My experience in the House over the last year has been quite varied. I would suggest that one of the things that I’ve been most surprised with is how many things that the minister and I agree on when it comes to the energy file. I would say on its basis, the bill that is before us is something that I would not disagree with. However, I do have issues with it, and that is something that I’m going to be speaking to today.

The minister did talk about the importance of getting energy out to the west coast. Wow. I’m a northerner, and I’m industry-based. How could I not agree with that, especially given the fact that we’ve had a net import of 15 percent of our energy from neighbouring sources over the last three years? Where my concerns would come in….

I’m also a massive supporter of the hydrogen industry. I do. I look forward to owning a hydrogen-powered vehicle at one point in my life. I would very much enjoy doing that.

I do have, again, some concerns. I know some of these, hopefully many of them, will be addressed during committee stage. The minister did talk about it in his remarks around the perception of choosing winners over losers. I am very much looking forward to digging into that process of competitiveness and seeing how that works and understanding very clearly how those decisions are made. I do appreciate the fact that he did indicate….

Sorry, is that parliamentary language? I can say he or she? Sorry. I don’t know why I flustered myself on that one. There’s your joke for today.

At any rate, I would suggest that the collaborative approach is very much appreciated. That’s something that I would look very much forward to doing.

The ratepayers are of significant concern to me, and that is something that the minister did mention in his remarks as well. As many will know that have listened to me speak before, Site C is in my riding. One of my concerns is the volume of power that Site C would actually be able to produce to send through this line to the northwest.

That leads into my next statements. I have said this publicly — that the minister and I agree that British Columbia has the cleanest natural gas on the planet, bar none. I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that in this House. Industry, private money, has already spent the equity to deliver massive quantities of that incredibly valuable product to the west coast. That product represents an economic value to this province of a minimum, and I’ve said it in here before, of $1 trillion. That’s a t, not a b.

Without going down a rabbit hole, which I’ve been accused of doing once or twice in the past, I have done reservoir engineering in my youth, and I can assure you that that one t is a minimum. The real number is likely to be — I can’t promise anything — significantly higher. The value to this province to fund health care, to fund education, to fund forest recovery is monumental. Industry has already paid for the transmission line out to the coast.

[1:30 p.m.]

Part of why I brought Site C up is, as an engineer, I followed the construction, the design, very closely, especially because it’s in my backyard. The first number I recall hearing for construction costs was, and I do have a good memory, but don’t hold me to it, I want to say in the order of $2.8 billion. That was before there were obvious issues around foundations.

It jumped to…. It was either $6 billion or $8 billion. I can’t remember the first jump. I want to say $6 billion. Then it went to $8 billion. Then it went to $12 billion, and then it’s ending up around $16 billion.

Why that’s important for me to speak to is…. I don’t know where the first number came from on the North Coast transmission line, but the first one that I recall hearing was $500 million. I could be wrong on that, but I did hear it. I don’t know where it came from. The second number I recall was $3 billion. Now I’m hearing $6 billion.

My concern is cost control and where this will end up at the end of the day as far as cost is concerned and with respect to ratepayers. That’s a significant concern of mine.

I will further reiterate that what I’ve already said is that private industry has already paid for that line to go to the coast for the world’s cleanest natural gas. It is exceedingly easy to buy, if not off the shelf, nearly off the shelf.

You’re shaking your head at me, Minister. Perhaps we will explore further in estimates. I’m quite certain that I am correct on that, but I love to debate, so we will debate.

Back to my thought process around the gas. If we’re not utilizing plug-and-play…. It’s a very easy design for a gas fuel system for electrical generation. It’s very scalable, and it’s something that the beautiful people of this province own. They own the resource. They get paid by the resource. Those revenues pay for health care. They pay for forestry. It’s an incredibly important, underexplored resource in this province.

That being said, that is going to be the crux of…. Well, that and others, as I get into my written remarks.

Where I had a challenge in outright supporting the bill is that there are components here which…. We have noticed a similarity from Bill 7, Bill 14, Bill 15. I know the minister did address some of those in his remarks around picking winners and losers. Again, I very much look forward to understanding that process much better.

I will suggest that the perception of a potential for government oversight or excessive government oversight is the same language that has existed in the previous bills. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I think that perception is still there. That’s something that I would, again, be very much interested in and looking forward to delving into.

I will get into my…. I’m sure not everyone wants to sit here and listen to me speak for the next four hours, or do you?

That’s a thumbs-up. You might get what you’re asking for. Well, apparently I have 22 minutes left, so you won’t get four hours out of me.

Into the written remarks. I will say that at its surface, as I’ve already stated, this bill does look like any other administrative update. It is four pages and one sentence — no doubt. I can’t argue that. It appears to be a tidy piece of legislation adjusting the Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1996, and the Utilities Commission Act.

When we do read the provisions carefully, as I’ve already stated previously, there is a perception of the continuation of a pattern that emerged in our spring sitting, with the bills that I had mentioned, that being the steady concentration of decision-making power within the cabinet, potentially sidelining independent regulatory oversight. Again, that’s something I would very much be looking forward to delving into. This, for obvious reasons to many, could be construed as a troubling tendency to govern energy by executive order.

Bill 31 grants cabinet sweeping authority to decide…. Again, the minister…. I’m not saying it’s incorrect, and I would love to delve into that deeper. The perception could be that the decision is made of who will receive the electricity and who won’t. Again, understanding the process, I’m not necessarily opposed to that. We need the electricity, and we have to be reasonably intelligent on how we allocate it.

[1:35 p.m.]

I would further say that Bill 31 validates, retroactively, agreements between B.C. Hydro and First Nations in the North Coast transmission line project, and it authorizes B.C. Hydro to enter into future co-ownership arrangements without returning to this Legislature for approval.

Those may sound like administrative efficiencies, but as I’ve said many times in this House, efficiency without oversight is a danger. There is a concern there that, and I truly do believe this, when we take the decision-making ability out of this House and we allow bureaucrats to make those decisions without oversight or direct input from those who are elected by the people and are responsible to the people…. I have concerns with that. Perhaps those are concerns that we can assuage during the committee stage.

I won’t go through the clauses. Again, you’ve got me for 19 more minutes. You don’t have me for four hours, so I might skip around a little bit here.

I will say that this line stretching from Prince George through Fraser Lake and Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake is a major piece of infrastructure. As a northerner, obviously, I can’t for a second…. In fact, I applaud the fact that we’re looking at investing in the North. The North deserves it, without question.

I would say on its face, this clause — this is clause 1 that I’m referring to — reflects an admirable intent. It appears to ensure that Indigenous communities have a direct equity stake in the development and the governance of key energy projects. I would go on to say that while this clause has commendable aspects to it, I might also suggest that it potentially fails in how it structures that authority.

The designation of these agreements is left entirely to cabinet, which again is another concern that I have brought up in the past.

I’m going to skip ahead because I think I’m starting to put some folks to sleep.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: No? A few more jokes in there will keep you awake.

Moving ahead, I’m going to skip to clause 2. Section 2, I would suggest, is a new section, and it’s the heart of the bill, which is the most consequential. It grants cabinet authority to regulate, restrict or even prohibit electrical services, which again was spoken to, but I do need to understand that better.

We’ve already talked about cryptocurrency. We’ve talked about data processing, and I do agree. I agree with the minister’s comments in those respects. Cryptocurrency — I’m not sure I necessarily agree. With my proposal, with the ability to scale the power generation significantly more quickly and, I would suggest, at a lower cost, it would potentially allow us to maintain, once the numbers are run, that component.

I don’t know what the economics are behind it, but anything that will bring economic prosperity to this province…. Boy, you’re going to have a tough time getting me to argue against it.

We’ve talked about the delegation of power. That’s something, again, that we do need to more fully understand in this House. It’s something that we all recall, what we went through with Bill 14 and Bill 15, and there is a perception already that there is a similar concern. We do need to address that, the concern, obviously, being what I’ve already stated, that the debate would not happen in this chamber. It would happen behind the closed doors of cabinet.

The people of this province need to be aware. There are probably 20 or 30 of them watching us right now, but they can always go back and watch us later on. They’ll know exactly what the minister said. They’ll know exactly what I said. They have the right to do that. They absolutely have the right to do that.

Making those very important decisions behind closed doors is concerning. It’s concerning to me.

I already talked about Bill 7. I don’t want to rehash old things. Well, old things — all of, what, six months or eight months old? It expanded ministerial direction, powers over B.C. Hydro’s resource plans. Bill 14 also quietly inserted provisions into the Environmental Management Act and other laws, allowing cabinet to bypass regulatory steps in the name of efficiency.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’m an engineer. I am all about efficiency — 100 percent about efficiency. We need oversight, and we need transparency when we do it.

Similar comments around Bill 15. I don’t want to repeat myself too many times, but the….

I lost my train of thought there, so I will move back to the written word. I would say that each of those bills, as is this one, was justified as a modernization. Again, a person from a background like mine, how could I argue modernization? What I would say, though, is that we have to be very careful that modernization does not become a synonym for centralization.

I’d also like to consider the practical implications. Section 21.1 empowers cabinet to prohibit electrical service for specific industries, not temporarily, not conditionally but for a specified period or indefinitely. I know the example was given of the crypto. On its face value, without seeing the numbers, I will admit…. I admit when I know things, and I admit when I don’t, and I’m not familiar with that industry as much as I could be.

The problem I see there is that if we permanently prohibit that industry, once we do supply the power, have we taken the ability for this province to benefit from that industry? They’re going to go somewhere else. That potentially means that entire sectors employing hundreds or even thousands of British Columbians could lose access to power on the stroke of a pen. Again, I think that assurances around how these powers are going to be applied is something that would be of benefit to all of us.

In this case, I would suggest that we imagine an AI data centre investing millions to build near Prince George. Actually, I’m going to change that to Dawson Creek, so I’m sorry, Prince George. The data centre, an amazing, beautiful thing near Dawson Creek, is planning to hire 200 local technicians. Under this bill, potentially, the cabinet could decide tomorrow that such activity no longer aligns with political priorities, and the facility could lose its electrical service authorization.

I would love to explore that. I’m glad to see your head shaking because I would love to…. That is a concern, and I would love to get that on the record, that that’s not a possibility or not a concern. I would suggest that that same concern that I would love to explore further, potentially, could apply to a hydrogen producer or a cryptocurrency operator. I would love to dig into that a little bit deeper.

Again, perhaps we can, during the committee stage, assuage these concerns, but my concern would be investor confidence. We need to be absolutely clear that in X plus Y, the cost of X is X, the cost of Y is Y, and it adds up to Z. Investors need to know what that Z number is, and they need to make the decision whether they’re going to invest their billions of dollars in this beautiful province or whether they’re going to go somewhere else. They need certainty. They beg it. They deserve it.

I would go further to say that the Conservative Party believes in energy certainty, in a stable, transparent framework that encourages innovation rather than punishes it. I think we can get there together, and I’m very willing to do the work, without question.

There is a concern…. Well, you know what? I already have said it. I don’t necessarily disagree with limiting a particular high usage just because we do have a limited supply. What I would suggest, and I already have said it, is that my concern is the transparency of how that is done.

I would suggest an opportunity for those who may be affected to have a chance to consult — that those from the opposition who have an interest, representing the people, have an opportunity to consult, and the people, the citizens, who may or may not be affected by the loss of infrastructure, the loss of jobs by banning that particular industry, have an opportunity to consult. I believe that that’s our duty as people that stand in this place of honour to remember who we report to. It’s the people of this province.

[1:45 p.m.]

I don’t want to belabour lessons from Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15. I think we’ve already talked about those at length.

The retroactivity clause is another one that I’m looking forward to digging into. That raises some questions in my mind as to why it’s necessary and why it is something that…. If things were done in the proper manner as they were done, why do we have to pass laws to cover them retroactively? That does concern me. That makes me think that there’s something there that we need to look at significantly deeper, just for the simple fact: why are we doing that? It doesn’t make sense to me.

I’m not sure why we have the ability to do that. What are the boundaries around it? Can we go back and retroactively legislate something to 1969? Is that appropriate? What happens to the people that were abiding by the law of the day? We change the law retroactively; what peril might they be in? I would love to get into that a little bit further on and understand it better.

I would also say that one of the…. I do agree with this, grid stability. Again, there are many components to this that I do agree with. Grid stability, without question, is going to be very important, without arguing.

The technical challenges deserve technical solutions, would be my suggestion, as opposed to political ones. I provided a very viable and, I believe…. I haven’t run the numbers, but instinctively, I’m quite convinced that the solution that I provided at the beginning will provide ratepayers with a much more scalable version of electricity, at a much lower cost.

I may be wrong, and I haven’t run the numbers, but I think why we’re going a route of spending $6 billion, that we know of, before we put a shovel in the ground, on a power line which would be questionable whether there’s any power to send through it, relative to utilizing the cleanest source of natural gas on the planet that’s already there, paid for by industry…. We’re subjecting the ratepayers to that $6 billion bill, that we know of. Therein lies the concern for me, or one of the concerns.

I would go on to say that grid management should rely on tools like dynamic pricing, which already does happen; time of use rates, which already does happen; infrastructure.

I would suggest from the previous statements that I made in the last few minutes that there is a concern that we could be drifting from responsible energy planning to politicized energy control. That’s something I’m very interested to work with the minister to dissuade. It may very well just be a perception, and I hope that it is, but it’s something that I feel that we should be looking into.

I’ve already talked about the retroactive validation. The precedent is a concern. I used the extreme example of going back to 1969. Clearly, I don’t expect that, and I think that is a ludicrous number, but it’s used as an illustration of potentially what could happen. If it’s not, I would love to understand that mechanism as to how it’s not possible.

Part of that I’ve already spoken to, legal irregularity automatically erased. If we do it here, if that is a potential and if it happens here, where does it stop? How do we stop it from happening?

I won’t beat that one to death. You’re lucky you only have me for six more minutes.

I would further state that our party’s vision is grounded in accountability, transparency and respect for both economic opportunity and environmental stewardship. I know that I’ve heard more than the minister say, on the opposite side, that we produce the cleanest natural gas on the planet. I know we do. That was the industry I worked in for 30 years. I am proud of that industry.

[1:50 p.m.]

What is being portrayed in certain areas of the media is not what’s happening on the ground. I live there. It’s not happening. I work there. It’s not. We have a world-class supply of the cleanest natural gas on the planet, and it’s already at the coast.

I would say — which I already have; I’ll repeat — that I do not reject the goals of this bill. I have concerns with the method about which it goes, and I hope I’ve done a reasonable job of illustrating that. I would suggest that any arrangements that are undertaken with this bill are overseen through transparency, that they’re reported publicly and that they’re reviewed regularly. I think that’s quite reasonable.

I do believe in regulating high-load electricity consumers. I would suggest, which I already have, that that needs to be done through an open process and not necessarily driven by political ideology.

I know what I do for a living. I’m not ignorant to that fact. I know that political ideology is a part of our life, but I’m also a very strongly science-based person. I’m willing to forgo politics to make sure that the people of this province get the best that they can, and I think everyone in this room knows that. So this is one of the things that….

I will repeat this for the sixth time because everybody loves hearing it. Most of us have agreed we produce the cleanest natural gas on the planet, and it already is at the coast. I could keep repeating that for the next three minutes, I guess, if you like.

I would suggest that the B.C. Utilities Commission should remain the impartial forum for such determinations that we’ve already talked about and that cabinet is providing policy direction only, not case-by-case authorization. That’s something I’d love to delve into. I don’t know the answer to that at this point, but that’s part of the process. That’s what I’d love to….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I just want to recognize the member for Maple Ridge East.

Larry Neufeld: Absolutely.

Lawrence Mok: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Lawrence Mok: In the gallery and behind me, we have a group of 15 students ranging all the way from grade 1 to grade 7. They are being accompanied by about 15 adults. They are from Ridge Meadows Home Learners organization. They are here today to visit the Parliament Buildings and also to visit the Legislature, and hopefully they’ll go back with some additional knowledge about parliamentary process.

A little bit about Ridge Meadows Home Learners. It is a 100 percent volunteer-run group of home-learning families who plan and organize local events, meet-ups and field trips throughout each school year for home-schooled children and their families.

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

Debate Continued

Larry Neufeld: I don’t know that I have explicitly stated this in the House before, but I will do it now. I do believe in decarbonization. I do. I don’t believe in it being done at the expense of competitiveness. I don’t believe in it being done overly expeditiously. That costs people their ability to pay their bills. I do not believe in the economics of not taking advantage of a gift, a financial gift, that this province has that is sitting under our soil.

I would further state that British Columbia’s path to a sustainable energy future lies in innovation, not prohibition. I do believe that this Legislature, not cabinet, should remain the ultimate authority on the province’s energy direction, until I sit on that side of the House.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’m going to move ahead here. Bill 31 is presented as an energy modernization bill and, to a certain extent, it is such. I would say in substance, though, that there is another chapter that I’ve illustrated, or hopefully have, around the concern of increasing centralized control.

I know for efficiency, there are rational thoughts why that is being done, and on a certain level, it’s difficult to argue that. But I think there has to remain a very strong oversight and a very strong ability for clarity and transparency.

What I’m going to state is that certainly, on this side of the House, we do support the principles of reconciliation, sustainability and grid reliability, without question. Where I find the challenge in endorsing the bill is the potential trade of accountability for authority. I think that’s something that we can dig into in committee stage. The minister is likely to remember that those were many of the questions I had during Bill 14, and I will admit that most of them were answered to my satisfaction at the time.

I would ask that the government reconsider its course, through amendments, and reaffirm the role of this assembly and the B.C. Utilities Commission in protecting the energy grid and the energy process.

With that, I will grant everyone here the privilege of me sitting down.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s always a pleasure to hear the member for Peace River South speak. Lots of eloquence. Obviously, while we differ on many perspectives, it is always great to hear about his perspectives, coming from industry as well. I think that’s important. I have always appreciated the time that I have gotten the chance to spend with him.

It’s a great privilege to be able to rise in this House, and I want to do so by acknowledging that I’m honoured to be here on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking Peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I want to acknowledge the shared territories where my riding, Langford-Highlands, is from, the SC’IȺNEW̱ First Nation, T’Sou-ke, paaʔčiidʔatx̣ and MÁLEXEŁ First Nations, and thank them for the honour and privilege of being able to live, play and work on these beautiful territories here in southern Vancouver Island.

It’s a real pleasure to be able to rise in this House and talk about this important piece of legislation, Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, and begin by thanking the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions for the leadership that he has provided in this role to be able to bring forward a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation piece of legislation that speaks to once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation project that will deliver prosperity, jobs and opportunity for all British Columbians. That is certainly what I want to touch on in the time that I have to be able to speak.

This is a project that, I expect, does not come up on the doorsteps in Langford-Highlands, in the days and weeks ahead when I get back out door-knocking. In the time that I have to speak — in my capacity as Minister of Forests and also, more importantly, in my capacity as the representative for the people of Langford-Highlands — I want to talk about what this project means for the people of Langford-Highlands; for all British Columbians; for people in the North; and, in the context of what’s going on in our country right now, for all Canadians as well.

As the minister referenced in his remarks when he opened debate just before lunch, for one generation, it was the construction of hydro dams. For another, it was railways that connected all of our communities. Here we are. Here we have an opportunity right now where we are talking about clean energy infrastructure, a superpower for us here in British Columbia that I believe, with this project, the North Coast transmission line, is going to define the next century here in British Columbia.

The ability for us to be able to create good-paying jobs, family-supporting jobs and the prosperity that is going to deliver for people all across this province, all across this country….

[2:00 p.m.]

I’ve had the opportunity and the privilege as the Minister of Forests to get the opportunity to tour parts of the northwest of our province. I often joke that I visited in the winter, prepared for it to be very cold, and it was plus 4 the entire time. So I always joke with the mayor of Terrace and mayor of Smithers that if it can be plus 4 in the winter any time, I’ll be there. I’m a bit of a wimp when it comes to the cold weather.

The northwest, without a doubt, like much of the North, as I visited my colleague from the northeast, faces many barriers and challenges, huge challenges. We’ve talked about it in relation to forestry and curtailments of mills, closure of pulp mills. There was a time when there were booming pulp mills in the northwest of our province. The same can be said for forestry in the northeast as well in relation to mills operating there.

Here we have an opportunity to talk about a piece of legislation that, from my perspective and those on this side of the House, really has the opportunity to be able to build and allow us…. In a time where we are facing arguably the most serious economic threat our province has ever faced, certainly in my lifetime, here is an opportunity for us to be able to stand up on our own two feet and make sure that we’re able to deliver that prosperity that I think we all want for our families, our communities, our province and our country.

There is extraordinary potential in northern British Columbia, but in particular, in the case of northwest B.C., for critical minerals, for mining and for the ability to be able to open up multiple mines. We’re not talking about one mine. We’re talking about multiple mines. The ability for LNG…. As the member said, the cleanest, greenest LNG in the world is found here in British Columbia, and that is something that I am very proud of, as is the member opposite.

Also, the opportunity for forestry, for value-added manufacturing. There used to be a real strong hub of forestry in northwestern British Columbia, but after destructive policy changes in 2003, when we removed appurtenancy, we saw those forestry jobs and that processing capacity leave northwestern British Columbia. I hope there is an ability for us to be able to rebuild that, in addition to value-added manufacturing of all kinds. There is huge potential here.

Again, it’s been a great honour and privilege for me as an MLA and as a Minister of Forests to get the opportunity to be able to visit many of those communities, communities that I never thought in a million years that I would get the pleasure of being able to visit, and see the beauty that is British Columbia and see the people of British Columbia hard at work delivering that prosperity.

This is what, in my eyes, the project, the North Coast transmission line, has the potential for and will deliver. As the Minister of Mining will know, you can’t process minerals or produce hydrogen or LNG on diesel forever. Here is the potential for us to do that with clean, green electricity. That’s what this project delivers — that ability to be able to create those jobs.

I want to talk a bit about…. I had an opportunity, as I was hearing the member across the way speak, to jot down some notes about what I believe this project can deliver for British Columbians.

First, I think it’s obvious from the conversations so far that this is going to bring reliable, clean, green power to the northwest of this province, which is something that has been a hurdle for growth in the northwest of our province.

Two, it’s going to enable electrification and help us reduce our emissions. We are dealing with the threats of climate change all the time, and here is an opportunity for us to be able to lead with a major project that still allows us to be able to electrify and reduce our emissions.

It is evident when we talk about the North Coast transmission line that we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of jobs created in construction. We are talking about long-standing jobs that will result in billions in investments.

The fourth piece of it, as I was hearing the member across the way speak and the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions…. This project opens the door for billions of dollars in activity in the northwest of our province here in British Columbia, new private sector investment. This is the ability for the private sector to step up, to come in and for us to open the doors wide and say: “Make your investments here in British Columbia. Create good-paying jobs here in B.C.”

[2:05 p.m.]

I think, to wrap it all up, this project, the North Coast transmission line, the work that we’re doing with this legislation before the House, has the ability to be able to create that long-term economic security that I would argue we probably all hear, as members of this House, from our communities…. I’m surprised. Nine minutes in, and I haven’t mentioned his name yet, Donald Trump, and the threat he has put on our province, our country, the entire world.

The Minister of Jobs often talks about how during the first term of Trump’s presidency, his goal was to build a wall between his country, the United States, and Mexico. Second term of his presidency, he is building a wall around the United States to keep everything away from the United States.

This is a project, the North Coast transmission line, that is a game-change, not just for northwestern British Columbia, not just for the north of B.C., not just for British Columbia alone. This is a project that is a game-changer for all of Canada.

As the minister has said a number of times in this House and outside of this House, as the Premier has said in countless visits to Ottawa and at press conferences, this is a project that is in the national interest. This is a nation-building project. This is a project that should be outlined very clearly by the Prime Minister as a nation-building project and should be referred to the major projects office.

We spend an awful lot of time talking about fictional projects like fictional pipelines, where you’ve got $14 million set up by the government of Alberta to create more of a PR company than to actually deliver jobs and prosperity. This is a project that delivers jobs. This is a project that delivers prosperity. It is not fictional. It is real, and it is going to happen because here you have a government that is focused, determined and ready to bring it forward.

That is something that excites me. That’s what excites me for the ability to be able to speak to this project.

As I touched upon in my earlier remarks, this project is about delivering economic opportunity and regional growth. I want to again highlight the important work that is already happening in the northwest of our province but also the potential for more.

I used to be a staffer, now a minister. I’ve planned many travels. I’ve spoken to a lot of people about the northwest. I have yet to visit Prince Rupert. I’ve always got the open invitation from my colleague the Minister of Environment. I look forward to doing that in the days and weeks ahead. I feel like I fully understand Prince Rupert because I’ve learned so much about it, but it’s one thing to read about it in a book or to listen to someone on a Zoom call. It’s another thing to have boots on the ground.

Prince Rupert is an economic hub not just for British Columbia but for Canada. What this project means is access to power for a community like Prince Rupert. This project means expanding port capacity. I believe that the Port of Prince Rupert, which is already an economic hub, has the ability to become the greenest trade hub in the entire world. This project sets the Port of Prince Rupert up for success across the northwest.

As my colleague the Minister of Mining talks about, this project has the ability to attract new investments in critical minerals, critical minerals that Canadians not only rely on but that the entire world, including the United States, relies on. This is what this project is all about.

In the context of forestry, I want to highlight a particular project that I think has the ability to be able to benefit from this project, and that is the work that the Kitsumkalum First Nation is doing. Skeena Sawmills went bankrupt not too long ago, went through bankruptcy proceedings. Who stepped up and purchased Skeena Sawmills, without a dime from government, was a First Nation called the Kitsumkalum First Nation. The member from the Fourth Party may want to take note of this.

The Kitsumkalum First Nation stepped up. They took the investments that they had made in other projects and other economic opportunities, and they bailed the northwest out. They bailed the town of Terrace out. They went in on their own and purchased the tenure and purchased that aging, decrepit mill called Skeena Sawmills. They have made the commitment, by pouring the investments into that purchase, to say: “We are not only going to create jobs for our residents; we are going to create jobs and prosperity for Terrace and the entire northwest of our province.”

[2:10 p.m.]

That is First Nations not sitting on the sidelines. That is First Nations saying: “We want to create jobs not just for our members but for every British Columbian.” I am so proud to work with the Kitsumkalum First Nation. They have gone above and beyond as a nation in wanting to serve the entire province, to want to create that prosperity.

Chief Troy Sam and I often have conversations. I’m actually hoping he’s going to be joining me on my trade mission to Japan next month to talk about the potential for his mill when it’s back up and operating, to be able to be a trade destination for the Japanese and for South Korea as well. Chief Sam is a visionary. Diane Collins, one of his lead project managers on this, is a visionary.

This is the type of work that they’re doing to be able to benefit people in the northwest, and this project gives them hope. That mill is old. I’ve had a chance to visit it, and one of the biggest hurdles is the state of that mill. The ability that that nation has to want to get it back up and operating…. They’re harvesting every single day.

It’s a very difficult land base to go out and harvest. I think about 60 percent to 70 percent of much of their territory is pulp logs, which does not bode well, especially when you look at the price of pulp logs these days and you don’t have the capacity for production right now. They are stepping up.

When I think of this legislation, the North Coast transmission line — and I know we talk about mining in relation to this project; I know we talk about LNG — I’m thinking about forestry and the potential to be able to rebuild our forest sector that declined when the B.C. Liberals were in charge on this side of the House. I’m talking about the potential for us to be able to create those good-paying jobs in forestry once again.

There are hard-working loggers working in the northwest of our province every single day. We want to create an opportunity for them to be able to take those logs and not send them out of this province, not send them out as raw logs but to process those and to be able to create world-class wood products closer to home. I am so excited about that. I am so excited about the leadership that the Kitsumkalum First Nation is showing.

I have to reiterate it again, because we often hear in this House criticisms of First Nations, slowing us down. You hear really ruthless remarks from the OneBC Party. But here you have a First Nation that is leading the way, that is making investments that are not just benefiting them but benefiting all British Columbians. That makes me proud to be able to work with a guy like Chief Sam and to be able to work with the Kitsumkalum First Nation.

This project is about building the backbone for an entire industry, the clean energy economy for northern British Columbia and the entire country. I think there is potential when we talk about the relationship with Alberta. There is potential when we talk about the relationship with Yukon. This project, as I’ve said a number of times inside this House and out, is a nation-building project.

The partnerships with First Nations, seeing the benefits in forestry that I’ve had…. There was a time when First Nations would be sitting off on the sidelines, seeing harvesting activities happen in their territories and not getting the opportunity to be a part of those or to reap the benefits from those, and then seeing people come in — 30, 40, 50 years ago — and just go out and clear-cut and gut the land, and then for them to face the consequences of what comes afterwards.

I am proud to be the Minister of Forests here in British Columbia that just saw, not too long ago, 20 percent of the tenure here in British Columbia in the hands of First Nations. These are nations that are leading the way in forestry. These are nations that…. I think of my friend Chief Lindsay Tighe from the Shackan Indian Band, who is creating good-paying jobs in Merritt and the Nicola Valley region. I think of Chief George Lampreau, who is leading the way in a visionary approach to forestry, bringing people together.

When I think of Chief Lampreau, I think of a true leader who is not just focused on his nation; he is focused on the entire Thompson and Nicola Valley region. My opposition critic from Kamloops–North Thompson and I often talk about what it would be like if Chief Lampreau was in charge of this province. Things would be moving, I’m sure, even quicker, because he has that vision, and it excites me for the ability to be able to work with him.

I know he is excited about projects like this and projects that create the ability for us to be able to lift people up, and that’s what this is about.

Also, I think it’s important for us to acknowledge the important work that goes into environmental stewardship, the protection of salmon, the protection of caribou and other critical habitats as well.

[2:15 p.m.]

I am very proud of the work that goes on in my ministry, and I know the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is as well — of the work that we’re doing to protect our land base, the work that we’re doing on preserving 30 percent of our land base by 2030. This is work that has been happening over the course of our time in government, because it matters. There are economic benefits that come from this environmental stewardship, but there’s also so much work that goes on in ensuring that future generations get the opportunity to benefit from this as well.

First Nations have told me in my visits throughout British Columbia that access to power is the foundation for economic prosperity. I heard that loud and clear from nations in the northwest. This is what this project delivered for them.

Again, from my perspective, and I think all members on this side of the House would agree and, I hope, most of the members on the other side…. I know the Leader of the Fourth Party will not agree with it. This legislation is an act of reconciliation. This legislation is about shared prosperity.

There is a leader in this House…. It’s a sad excuse that that leader is recognized as a political party. It should not be a political party in this House. But this is about shared prosperity. This is about reconciliation. This is about building all of us up. We cannot afford to go backwards. That’s what happens when we elect people to sit in this House that want to take us backwards.

I think it is upon all of us as legislators to ensure that someone like the Leader of the Fourth Party never gets the opportunity to sit on this side of the House. I know I will make it my mission in life for as long as I am breathing and living in British Columbia to ensure that that person over there never sits on this side of the House.

This is about reconciliation. This is about shared prosperity. This is about building each other up. This is what the North Coast transmission line is all about, something I’m very excited about.

I want to talk about workers and communities in the time that I have left. I want to talk about the fact that every major project in British Columbia must create prosperity for our province. I want to talk about the good-paying jobs that this project will create, the apprenticeship programs, the local hiring opportunities. This project will put British Columbians to work.

I think of those that have been working on the pipeline. I think of those that have been working on LNG Canada phase 1. I think of those that were working, as the member opposite touched on, in his constituency on Site C. I’m thinking about the electricians, the heavy-equipment operators, the engineers, the technicians. This is going to have a lasting economic ripple effect in the entire province of British Columbia and the entire country.

I’m not just thinking about those jobs. I’m particularly excited about those jobs because I’ve got a little brother that made the decision to go in the trades. I think of people like him and his friends that are in the trades right now when they see projects like this. I think of the people in the IBEW. I think of the B.C. Building Trades, which has been a long, strong advocate for creating opportunities for prosperity for its membership.

I want to thank Brynn Bourke and the B.C. Building Trades for holding us accountable, for supporting our government in making sure that we can bring forward legislation like this that creates good-paying jobs for their members, jobs that will not just benefit those living in the northwest of our province. I think people in all of our ridings will get the opportunity to be able to go up and work on this project.

Every mill, every facility that connects to clean electricity instead of diesel cuts greenhouse gases. This is what climate action looks like. This is not just tangible results in the case of setting targets. This is real action that we as a government are taking in building the economy, moving forward. That’s something that I’m very excited about.

I’ll just conclude with this. In my conversations in the northwest of this province…. I’m going to extend it all over the place. I have had the privilege of getting the opportunity, as the Minister of Forests, to be able to visit almost every corner of this province. From the North, that often feels very disconnected from government for obvious reasons….

We don’t spend enough time in the North. I often say that to my colleagues. We need to get out and spend more time in communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

I particularly want to thank the member for Peace River South for the time that he spent with me in his community, as well as the member for Peace River North. That was a real eye-opener for me, getting a chance to be able to visit their communities, getting a chance to do the drive right from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson and all the way back down, getting a chance to visit the beautiful province that is British Columbia but also getting to meet the people that make up this province as well.

I’ve heard from people in the North — mayors, Chiefs, business owners, workers, young people — that they want to be a part of the clean energy future that we’re building here in British Columbia. They don’t want this to be something just for the Lower Mainland or just for the Island. They want this to be something that brings our entire province together.

This project, the North Coast transmission line, is our answer to that call. It is our answer to their call of wanting to come together to be able to build what is going to be a major project, not just for our province but for our entire country.

As the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions acknowledged in his remarks, as I think of this project, I think back to the leaders that once sat in this House. I think of W.A.C. Bennett, former Premier of this province for decades, who, as the minister touched on, is a big reason why we have the success with B.C. Hydro.

I think of one of my predecessors, Dave Barrett, who had the opportunity to represent much of the West Shore, from Esquimalt all the way out to Port Renfrew — the work that he did and the leaders that sat in this House during those periods in the ’60s and ’70s when we were building those major projects.

Here we have the opportunity to look to the path forward. I often talk about this in the context of forestry, but I want to talk about this not just in the context of forestry but for everything as it relates to the natural resources sector and to our province and to our economy, moving forward, especially in the context of what we’re dealing with, with Donald Trump’s presidency.

Here we have an opportunity before us. We have an opportunity and a path forward. There are people that are trying to take us backwards, without a doubt. We all know who they are. Here we have the ability to build the path forward for us.

I think for British Columbians, many of them are asking themselves right now…. The path forward is rocky. Without a doubt, it is rocky. But I think there are many British Columbians right now who don’t know what the path forward is.

I want them to know that with the North Coast transmission line, this is just one major initiative that we are building to ensure that we can have that strong path forward, that we don’t go backwards, that we move forward in a way that creates good-paying jobs for British Columbians, that provides the prosperity that our economy needs to be successful in every corner of this province, the prosperity that gives young people hope to know that when they’re going to school in the trades, they’re going to have good-paying jobs.

They’re not going to get layoff notices project after project. They are going to have the ability to be able to create a good life for themselves, a life where they can work hard, be successful and live a really good life, where they can raise a family, buy a home and live a life that everyone is proud of.

That is the hope that I have in the people of Langford-Highlands. That is a hope that I know that all of us have on this side of the House for the people of British Columbia.

The North Coast transmission line has the potential to build prosperity, to build the economic engine that our province is and to ensure that our province will be the economic engine of our new Canada. This is the work that we’re doing on this side of the House. This is the work I’m excited about. I’m excited about the potential that the North Coast transmission line has.

Once again I want to thank the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions for his leadership that he has shown in this House, for being able to come and tackle big problems and be able to come forward and bring solutions to the table.

To the people of Langford-Highlands, you may not know right now what the North Coast transmission line is. But I want you to know…. When you think about the North Coast transmission line, I want you to think of two things: jobs and prosperity. Jobs for people in British Columbia. Jobs for Canadians. Prosperity for all of us. Prosperity that delivers for families, and prosperity that ensures that we can pay for the services that all British Columbians rely on — new schools, health care for all. That’s what this project is all about.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to be able to speak to Bill 31. I hope all members of the House will support Bill 31 and ensure that we can build those jobs, build that prosperity for all British Columbians.

[2:25 p.m.]

Jordan Kealy: As I rise today, I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Forests for his trip up north. I appreciate the fact that he did come up and see my region. I don’t necessarily agree with some of the rhetoric about parties. I am here as an independent, and I represent my constituents.

I come from the region where we produce 38 percent of the province’s hydroelectric power. We produce the most hydroelectric power out of any region in the province. There are ripple effects when it comes to energy production and the types of energy production that we produce in the province. That’s one of the things that I’d like to bring up when we look at certain projects like this, especially major infrastructure that we look to build with taxpayers’ dollars.

My region just saw the construction of Site C. The ripple effect was flooding 7,000 hectares of agricultural land that was very important to our region, and it was a loss that we faced. There are consequences when it comes to building certain things.

We hear talks about clean energy. Nothing is truly clean, especially when we talk about wind turbines and the effects of them. Most people don’t think about the turbines themselves and what it takes to make them, to maintain them, what goes into them, the concrete that goes into making them and the reclamation effort afterwards — whether or not there is planning in place or whether or not it’s going on agricultural land and you’re displacing agricultural land, or the displacement of the property values that might be around it when you end up putting items like that on the land.

We have Site C. We have Peace Canyon dam. We have Williston Lake dam. I wanted to be able to speak about some of the projects and the stability of power and how it’s created. Power isn’t just power when you flick on your light switch. When you have certain power generation, you have stable power generation.

You can have erratic power generation. Solar and wind are erratic power generation. When it goes into the grid, it is not stable. It is not constant. Certain projects that we have around the province, which is amazing…. We’re fortunate to have hydroelectricity, and I’m grateful that our province is so bountiful with those projects.

We have to look at projects far to the future of what will provide that constant, stable power generation that can actually power major lines that are being contemplated going to the west, reliable and constant stable generation.

We need major energy projects, not little inconsistent ones. When Site C came into place, it was already fully taxed and on demand. My colleague across the aisle brought up the issues that we’re facing and that we have to buy electricity from other provinces or from our largest trading partner, to the south, and whether or not we can rely on these partners for power, especially if we or if those other countries or provinces start bringing in major data centres that consume huge power loads. We have to think about our own grid.

I would highly urge that we look at major power generation that is constant. One example is….

The Minister of Forests. I urge him that when they come up for a caucus meeting, I would love to be able to take them up to Fort Nelson. Fort Nelson has an abundance of dry natural gas. It is perfect for power generation. It may not have the condy in it. That is what makes the Monte basin to the south so rich. It has the condensate as well as the gas and is perfect for that transmission of the natural gas going to the coast. At the same time, they get the condensate that is worth a lot of money.

[2:30 p.m.]

In Fort Nelson, they’ve got a lot of nice dry natural gas that we can harvest for co-gen facilities that can generate natural, environmentally sustainable, constant power. We need large power generation before we contemplate putting in other big projects.

When you look at this power generation, if you use natural gas, it’s environmentally friendly when you use these turbines. It can actually have regeneration systems attached to it where you can heat towns alongside them at the same time as generating power for the grid.

At the same time, we’re looking at electrifying oil and gas facilities that already use natural gas, to power these facilities that are very efficient. They use turbines already. They’re almost as efficient as electrifying them. I think it’s a falsehood to say that we should electrify them and say that it’s environmentally friendly, because it isn’t efficient to use taxpayer-funded dollars to actually provide or to put in transmission lines to electrify these facilities when they can stay producing environmentally power-generated to transmit the product that they’re already moving. They’re currently in place, doing this already.

I rise today to strongly oppose Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, a bill that, behind its technical language, represents one of the most concerning expansions of cabinet power over our public utilities and provincial assets in recent memory.

At first glance, the bill appears administrative, an update to the Hydro and Power Authority Act and the Utilities Commission Act. But when you look closer, it reveals a government that is quietly centralizing control, reducing oversight and creating conditions for selective economic favouritism without public consultation, debate or transparency.

Part 1 of this bill creates a new framework for North Coast transmission line ownership. It allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council, meaning cabinet, to designate any agreement between B.C. Hydro and a First Nation as legally binding and enforceable, even retroactively.

That means cabinet can take any past or future deal involving our publicly owned transmission lines and make it law after the fact without bringing it before this Legislature, without independent review and without public disclosure.

This government is writing itself a blank cheque. It’s saying, “We can validate any agreement we want whenever we want,” that British Columbians don’t get to question it. That is not reconciliation. That is rule by executive order.

We all want reconciliation done right, built on transparency, fairness and shared prosperity. But when you start handing out ownership of taxpayer-funded infrastructure behind closed doors, without accountability, you erode public trust and weaken the very foundation of democratic oversight.

The second half of this bill is equally troubling. It gives cabinet the authority to prohibit, restrict or regulate electricity use for certain activities — namely, cryptocurrency mining, artificial intelligence, data processing and hydrogen production for export.

Now, I understand the need for energy management and sustainability, but this bill doesn’t set out a policy that gives the government a mechanism to control who can access power indefinitely and at their own discretion. This is not energy planning. It is economic gatekeeping.

[2:35 p.m.]

Cabinets could decide tomorrow that one data centre or crypto operation can operate while another cannot. It could impose punitive rates on a business it disapproves of while rewarding those it favours. It could reshape entire industries through regulation, with no accountability and no appeal.

When B.C. Hydro loses revenue because of these political decisions, who makes up the difference? The ratepayer? Families? Small businesses already struggling under the highest cost of living in the country?

This bill allows the cabinet to pick winners and losers in our economy and then pass the bill to the people. This is part of a growing pattern under this government where the concentration of power replaces principles and accountability.

We’ve seen that in previous bills that have passed in this House, with Bills 14, 15, 7. It seems a regular trend that bills are taking power further and further out of the House. This House is meant to have discussions, where we pass bills, to bring them into the House to be able to view them and talk about them, no matter what they’re about.

We saw it in the Land Act consultations that sought to hand over Crown land authority by regulation. We see it again here — a slow, methodical transfer of control away from the Legislature and into the hands of the cabinet and unelected bureaucrats.

Bill 31 isn’t just about hydro lines or hydrogen exports. It’s about who controls the levers of our economy — the people, through their representatives, or a small circle of ministers and appointees operating behind closed doors.

A more practical approach to energy and governance is simple. I believe in clear laws, transparent processes and equal treatment under them. I believe in power in communities, not bureaucracies. I believe that reconciliation, when done honestly, must include every British Columbian, not just those with access to a cabinet table.

Bill 31 fails on all three counts. It opens the doors to selective energy rationing, the quiet privatization of Crown assets and then retroactive legalization of deals the public never approved. It erases checks and balances that exist to protect citizens, and it does so under the guise of modernization.

This bill may be called an Energy Statutes Amendment Act, but what it really amends is the balance of power in British Columbia, tilting it firmly away from the people and into the hands of the executive. For that reason, the protection of democracy and accountability in this province, I stand in firm opposition to Bill 31.

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. The bill launches a bold set of actions designed to drive investment in British Columbia that will grow the economy, diversify markets, create new jobs, enabling province- and nation-building projects that will unlock the full economic potential of northern and coastal B.C. It represents a triangulation of this government’s goals for clean energy, sustainable development and reconciliation.

This is progressive governance in action, governance that doesn’t focus on profit for a small number of people but makes sure that large projects generate meaningful partnerships and shared economic prosperity for all British Columbians.

We are at a pivotal moment in our province. As we pivot towards clean energy, sustainable development and reconciliation, this bill offers a tangible pathway to align those three imperative goals.

[2:40 p.m.]

This project isn’t just about wires and transmission lines. It’s about building meaningful participation, ownership and economic sovereignty for Indigenous people in British Columbia. This bill offers economic prosperity unseen for projects of this nature before. It will fast-track the construction of the North Coast transmission line from Prince George to Terrace out to Bob Quinn Lake, and it will unlock tens of billions of dollars in real shovel-ready industrial projects across northwestern British Columbia.

Bill 31 introduces a new electricity allocation framework. Rather than a first-come, first-served system for connections to the grid, the province will prioritize industries that create the greatest benefits for British Columbia, such as mining, manufacturing and critical minerals. At the same time, it signals limits or controls on power-intensive uses like data centres or crypto mining that may consume large volumes of electricity but deliver comparatively fewer local jobs and public revenue.

The legislation enables meaningful growth of industrial electricity demand in a way that is aligned with job creation and public revenue and aims to anchor that growth in B.C.’s interests and align this growth with our goal of meaningful reconciliation with B.C.’s First Nations, across whose territory this project will move.

This project will create key economic opportunities for all British Columbians. The North Coast transmission line, as I said earlier, is estimated to unlock tens of billions of dollars in real shovel-ready industrial projects in this province. According to one analysis, once operational it could contribute nearly $10 billion annually to British Columbia’s GDP and create almost 10,000 direct full-time jobs. Those are not just numbers. They are meaningful employment, tax revenues, regional development and strong communities.

The president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia stated: “As a nation-building project that will bring clean electricity to mining projects in the northwest and central B.C., the North Coast transmission line will strengthen Canada’s position as a leading global supplier of critical minerals and metals.” This is nation-building. That’s leadership. That’s why B.C. had 40 percent of the federal government’s nation-building projects.

This project will harness B.C.’s competitive advantages. Here in B.C., we have access to relatively clean, abundant electricity. We have major natural resource endowments like critical minerals, mining and forestry. Bill 31 shifts the policy to ensure that we harness these advantages in a way that creates local benefit. The new allocation regime aims to ensure that when energy-intensive projects connect, they do so with the purpose of jobs, long-term economic development and public revenues.

This project will foster innovation while protecting priorities. Emerging industries like AI, data centres, hydrogen export are part of the future. Bill 31 allows for these but subordinates them to B.C.’s broader economic interests, assuring that energy use does not crowd out more job-rich industries and that growth is anchored in benefit, not just in the consumption of power.

This project will ensure regional development and fairness. The North Coast transmission line and the associated infrastructure create the possibility of increased investment in north and coastal regions, helping to reduce regional disparity and build more widespread economic prosperity, unlocking the long-known, underutilized potential of these regions. This government has a vision and is taking action to turn that vision into reality.

This bill ensures that we can build these lines while protecting affordability and sustainability. Ensuring that economic growth doesn’t compromise affordability of electricity for households and businesses is critical. Bill 31’s framework works to maintain that the public interest is paramount by anchoring decisions to benefit B.C. citizens.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we have the committee on Bill 17 ready to report.

Stephanie Higginson: I reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

Stephanie Higginson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[2:45 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports Bill 17 complete with amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Next sitting.

Deputy Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: In Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

In the main chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Stephanie Higginson: Bill 31’s framework works to maintain that the public interest is paramount by anchoring decisions in benefit to B.C. citizens, not just an energy-for-anything mindset that we have seen have a negative impact in other parts of Canada.

While other jurisdictions have been challenged to address electricity demands and, in many cases, have placed significant rate increases on the backs of ratepayers, B.C. is taking a unique and proactive approach to avoid the missteps seen in other jurisdictions and establish a publicly owned electricity system as the backbone of a growing economy. The framework intends to maintain standard industrial rates for approved projects and to ensure electricity remains affordable for households and businesses.

I have a vision of the future with a Bill 31 that’s fully implemented. A mining or critical minerals project sets up in northern B.C., drawing power via the North Coast transmission line. It creates hundreds of jobs directly and thousands indirectly in supply, in logistics and services. Electricity remains affordable for households and small businesses even as we expand industrial demand. Because the infrastructure is planned, the costs are managed.

The benefits are anchored in the province and shared with the local First Nations. Regions that previously had limited infrastructure benefit. There are new roads; new grid access; new investment spillovers into housing, schools and local services; record-breaking investments into the north of B.C., unlocking the potential that previous governments have ignored because it was too complicated.

This is what vision looks like. Because of this, the province strengthens its economic platform, clean energy and natural resources, and value-added manufacturing rather than simply raw resource extraction. Most importantly is that produced economic benefit flows back into the communities via taxes, jobs and local business opportunities, rather than being captured entirely by external interests, because this is what it looks like when progressive governments are put to work for British Columbians.

I urge everyone to support Bill 31 with the view that this is not just a law about energy. It is an economic transformation. We approve this because it sets the stage for sustained growth, for new jobs, for First Nations, for regional and local prosperity.

To the citizens of northern and coastal British Columbia: this government recognizes the possibilities that you offer to British Columbians. New possibilities for yourself, for your children, for your grandchildren. Increased employment, stronger communities and more equitable economic opportunities.

This bill is a statement about where British Columbia wants to go. It says we want to use our advantages, our clean energy, our natural resources, our human capital, not just to export raw value or pay lip service to growth but to build economic prosperity for all of British Columbia. It says we want jobs, we want investments, we want regional fairness, we want future-facing industries.

When we pass this legislation, we are not simply writing rules about electricity. We are choosing to step into a future where our economy grows, our communities strengthen, our regions prosper and our people have more opportunity. Let us pass this bill and build the British Columbia that works for all of us, now and into the future.

Dallas Brodie: Energy is fundamental to human flourishing. Since the days of Wacky Bennett, when we built the W.A.C. Bennett dam on the Peace River and signed the Columbia River treaty, British Columbia has been an energy-rich province, a province of abundance and prosperity. But that seems to be a thing of the past.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 31 is an SOS to British Columbia. It is a hazard light signalling a stark and unbelievable reality. British Columbia is now an energy-scarce province, and the focus of this bill is centralization and allocation of scarcity rather than the construction of abundance. Oh, for the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett today.

Just the other day Barry Penner at the Energy Futures Institute noted: “The government has admitted there is a backlog of new power demand amounting to more than six times the total capacity of the Site C dam.” Yes, that’s six Site C dams.

Bill 31 does two major things. One, it rations what’s left over of the power to political allies. Two, it gives away equity in multi-billion-dollar transmission lines to Indigenous bands. Not surprisingly, the cost of the line has now doubled from $3 billion to $6 billion.

Today, after decades of failed NDP and Liberal mismanagement, British Columbia is more dependent than ever on the United States for our basic energy security. B.C. Hydro has become a major net importer of electricity from the United States, where most of their electricity is generated from fossil fuels. Oh, the irony.

But here’s the thing. Legislating scarcity is not the answer. Abundance is the answer. The NDP and Liberals have turned us from being an energy superpower into being an energy weakling. Rather than distributing power equally and without prejudice, Bill 31 will allocate based on political alignment. This fact is as certain as the day is long.

I will be voting no on this communist Bill 31, which seeks to centralize power in the hands of the government and unelected officials and give preference to friends and insiders.

David Williams: First off, before I start, I’d just like to say I’m here to debate, unlike some members across the aisle who want to disparage other members and other parties. The second thing, I’ve heard that W.A.C. Bennett referenced multiple times by multiple people, and I’d like to remind that he was a conservative visionary for sure.

It is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. This legislation touches on two pillars of British Columbia’s energy future: the relationship between B.C. Hydro and Indigenous partners and the growing challenge of managing new industrial power demands in an era of constrained generation and rising electrification goals.

This bill is short on paper but long on consequences. It rewrites how our province can share ownership in transmission infrastructure and how it can decide which industries get access to that electricity. Both of those powers could shape our energy landscape for decades to come.

British Columbians deserve to know exactly what that means for their communities, their power bills, their economic opportunities. While we are told to electrify everything — our cars, our homes, our industries — B.C. Hydro itself is warning that firm power is tightening and that we currently face shortfalls. Often we are importing. In that contradiction lies the heart of this bill, more control but no capacity guarantees.

Over the past several years, British Columbia has seen a rapid change in how energy is generated, transmitted and consumed. We are electrifying vehicles, homes, industries while trying to maintain affordability for taxpayers.

[2:55 p.m.]

At the same time, we face the emergence of entirely new classes of power users — cryptocurrency miners, artificial intelligence data centres and hydrogen production facilities built to serve export. These industries can consume much more electricity than entire municipalities. Many can appear within a very short time frame, and if unregulated, they can jeopardize grid reliability. That is the backdrop of Bill 31.

Everyone in this chamber agrees that we must manage the growth of these power-intensive industries carefully, but how we do it and who makes those decisions matters just as much as the outcome.

While the goals of this bill may appear reasonable on the surface, the mechanism it introduces is deeply concerning. Bill 31 concentrates extraordinary authority in the hands of cabinet, authority to decide which industries may receive electricity, which agreements are legally binding and which projects will move forward, without the scrutiny of the B.C. Utilities Commission to the public.

This is not shared governance. This is centralized control. It replaces transparent, evidence-based regulation with ministerial discretion. When decisions are made behind closed doors, determining who may receive power and on what terms, that’s not energy planning. That’s executive command.

You know, Indigenous cooperation and equity is certainly something that I and the party support. No one in this House disputes the importance of Indigenous participation in major infrastructure. True reconciliation must include equity.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

However, Bill 31 gives cabinet the unilateral right to designate partnership agreements under section 12.1 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act, agreements that then become valid despite any other law. There is no requirement for disclosure, no legislative review, no assurance of fiscal transparency. That’s disturbing. That’s also not reconciliation. That’s governance by decree.

True partnership demands transparency. Communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, deserve to know how equity is valued, how revenue is shared and what liabilities Hydro may assume on their behalf. Without those details, we risk repeating past mistakes. We’ve seen partnerships built on enthusiasm but undermined by confidentiality, leaving communities uncertain about the real benefits.

Let’s be clear. Indigenous co-ownership should mean shared decision-making, not delegated risk. It should create lasting revenue streams for First Nations, not the possibility of additional liabilities for ratepayers. But by allowing cabinet to bypass all safeguards — financial, regulatory and procedural — this invites mistrust.

In my region, I’ve seen the value of honest partnerships. When projects like hydro expansions and transmission upgrades are developed through open consultation, they bring jobs, skills and local pride. But when those decisions are made in secrecy, they divide communities. Reconciliation done well unites. Reconciliation done poorly divides. This bill risks the latter because it trades accountability for expedience.

The second half of this Bill 31 amends the Utilities Commission Act to give government near total control over who gets access to electricity. Under the new section 21.1, cabinet may prohibit, restrict, as a condition of power of supply to any class of customer, including cryptocurrency, AI data centres and hydrogen producers, and may define those classes however it chooses.

There is no requirement for public consultation, no obligation for BCUC review and no appeal process. These are all deeply disturbing.

[3:00 p.m.]

This means entire sectors could be shut out of power access through regulation alone, without notice, without hearing and without a single page of evidence tabled in this House.

We all agree that British Columbia’s limited clean power must serve the public interest first, but that principle should be applied transparently through the Utilities Commission, not by political order in council behind closed doors.

Let’s think about who gets caught in that web. It won’t just be massive crypto operations. It could be small rural manufacturers, food processors or data service firms who get swept into the same regulatory class because of vague definitions.

In my own region, there is already a struggle to secure adequate interconnection from Hydro. If cabinet starts rationing power access without consultation, rural B.C. will be the first to lose out. It could be the small and medium businesses that keep local economies thriving.

Once again the unintended victim will be the people farthest from Victoria, which brings us to unintended consequences. The consequences of this approach reach far beyond stated targets.

Investor uncertainty. No global company will commit billions to a data, hydrogen or manufacturing facility if its access to electricity can be rescinded by regulation at any moment.

Regional inequity. Northern and Interior communities that were once promised new jobs from transmission expansion may find the customers for that power restricted after the lines are built.

Fiscal exposure. If Hydro finances Indigenous equity through borrowed funds or guaranteed returns, those obligations will fall back on ratepayers when projects are delayed or cancelled. We know how that goes.

Innovation risk. When government policy becomes unpredictable, innovation doesn’t stop. It simply moves. It moves to a different jurisdiction. Emerging industries will develop in Alberta, Washington, Alaska — all instead of here.

Precedent. Once cabinet can pick winners and losers in one sector, what prevents any future government from using the same power for others? Forestry, mining, agriculture. Do we want to go there? This is how uncertainty spreads through an economy, quietly through regulation rather than legislation.

Let’s move on to the role of the Utilities Commission. For decades, the B.C. Utilities Commission has been our province’s safeguard against arbitrary decisions. It ensures that rates, projects and industrial customers are assessed through evidence, consultation and, hopefully, fairness.

Bill 31 sidelines that process. It replaces open hearings with confidential cabinet discussions and regulatory control. It tells British Columbians, “trust us,” rather than “show me the numbers.”

The B.C. Utilities Commission was created precisely because past governments tried to micromanage Hydro decisions. Guess what. They failed. It was meant to depolarize energy planning, to make sure that Hydro served the public interest, not a political interest. This bill unravels that protection and sets us back decades.

If government wants flexibility, it can be achieved without secrecy. Fast-tracked reviews, emergency exemptions or even conditional approvals — these are all tools that already exist within the BCUC framework. There’s no reason to replace them with cabinet authorization.

[3:05 p.m.]

I love transparency and accountability. If the government truly believes that this authority is necessary, then at minimum, it should require annual public reporting on all designations and regulations made under sections 12.1 and 21.1. It should table fiscal summaries for Hydro’s partnership liabilities. It should mandate BCUC review before any new industrial restrictions take effect.

None of these safeguards appear in this bill. If the government refuses to take those steps, then this isn’t about flexibility. It’s about control.

For communities across the Interior and the North, this bill raises practical concerns. We all want to see economic opportunity flow from projects like the northwest transmission line, but those benefits will only materialize if industry has the confidence to invest.

By giving cabinet the power to revoke or restrict supply without oversight, the bill may deter precisely the development it seeks to manage. When power access becomes political, businesses don’t gamble. They leave. That means fewer projects, less jobs, less tax revenue and, ultimately, higher rates for those left here.

In rural British Columbia, communities depend on small industrial and agricultural processing. Stable power access is essential. If they fear they’ll be deprioritized next time government changes its energy priorities, they’ll stop expanding.

When allocation is in the hands of one person, they can pick and choose winners. They can turn around and say: “You know what? This is a priority for this government.” You know what? Small communities may suffer. Small businesses may suffer. Once investment erodes, it can take decades to rebuild. We’ve seen this show before.

Let’s not overlook who ultimately pays the bill. If Hydro borrows to finance equity stakes in transmission expansions under cabinet direction, that debt still lands on the ratepayers. If a project falters, if revenues fail or political risk scares away customers, Hydro still must recover the costs. That’s usually done through higher rates. That is the real price of unchecked discretion. It’s not just a line in the statute. It’s another line on everybody’s household electricity bill.

I cannot support legislation that centralizes decision-making, limits consultation and reduces transparency in the name of flexibility. We can and should pursue Indigenous equity participation. We can and should ensure that electricity serves British Columbians first. But we should never grant sweeping powers without checks, balances or public accountability.

Bill 31 gives too much control to government, too little voice to citizens and too few safeguards for the future. Until those flaws are corrected, until independent oversight, fiscal transparency and mandatory consultation are built in, this bill should not proceed.

If the government truly believes in this framework, it should bring it back after consulting with BCUC, with Indigenous partners and with industries that depend on reliable power. Let’s have a little consultation with the public as well. Bring it back with guardrails, oversight and balance. Power without accountability is not flexibility. It’s risk.

I took a trip up to the northwest, and I agree. The potential up there is unlimited. We certainly do need transmission. It’s a gem. We’re lucky to have a province with so much potential, but we have to have regulations and rules and fairness and equity and all the other things that go with it. Businesses also need certainty. We need reliable power. We need strategic guidelines. I could go on.

[3:10 p.m.]

I do believe that if you bring back a bill that the public can support, I don’t think there’s an issue about how we want energy infrastructure built up north. I think 99 percent of the people in the province would support that. But currently, the way it sits right now, this is not a good bill.

In my closing here, again, British Columbia’s energy system was built on trust that B.C. Hydro would deliver affordable, reliable power and that government would manage that system in the open. Bill 31 replaces the openness with discretion and the consultations with control. It risks turning sound energy policy into a political instrument.

Our energy future should be built on these three things: reconciliation grounded in respect, development rooted in transparency and regulation guided by fairness. Bill 31 delivers none of these.

Let’s take a step back, fix what’s missing and return with a bill that unites rather than divides, one that balances reconciliation with accountability and innovation with integrity.

Until then, I must stand opposed.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: It is an honour to rise in this House today to express my support for Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, a forward-looking and necessary piece of legislation about powering opportunity for people, communities and industries across our province.

This act is about ensuring that clean electricity drives responsible growth and about building the infrastructure that will fuel our clean energy future and sustain well-paying jobs for people in this province.

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

This is a historic time for the mining sector. It is truly a historic time for the mining sector, a time we haven’t seen before, because we are transitioning to a low-carbon future. In order to do that, we need critical minerals, projects moving forward faster than ever before while maintaining the highest environmental standards at the same time.

In the northwest, we have half a dozen private mining projects worth $50 billion in investment and tens of thousands of jobs for the people in local communities. We need clean power to bring those projects to life. That’s why I support Bill 31.

Demand for electricity is at a record high level. Industrial projects in mining, LNG and manufacturing are ready to move forward, but many regions lack the transmission capacity they need. Without timely infrastructure, tens of billions in investment could stop.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Energy Statutes Amendment Act addresses this by accelerating the construction of the North Coast transmission line in partnership with First Nations, prioritizing clean electricity for sectors that create jobs and reduce emissions and ensuring responsible, balanced growth across the province. This is not just about building a power line. It’s about unlocking economic potential in the North. It’s about giving our mining sector the energy security it needs to expand and compete globally.

The North Coast transmission line will twin the existing line from Prince George to Terrace and extend to Bob Quinn Lake, right to the heart of the Golden Triangle, where it will power new mines and help prevent up to three million tonnes of carbon emissions every day. That’s why this transmission line is very, very important to the people of British Columbia: to grow the economy, to create good jobs and, of course, to transition the economy to a green economy.

It is unbelievable. This transmission line, which can support thousands of jobs in mining, is opposed by the current Leader of the Opposition. That’s unbelievable. We have a golden opportunity, with global markets going up for gold and copper, as we all know, to support one of the greatest mining regions in the world. The opposition would ignore it.

The mining sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy which provides good jobs, supports communities and drives innovation today. The world is demanding the very minerals that B.C. produces: copper; nickel; and other critical minerals that power electrical vehicles, wind turbines and batteries. In order to grow responsibly, the mining sector needs clean, reliable and affordable power, and Bill 31 makes that possible.

The North Coast transmission line will power B.C.’s northwest, which is home to an abundance of mineral resources: copper, gold, antimony, nickel, molybdenum and more. There are over half a dozen mining projects moving forward right now.

As Michael Goehring, president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia, said: “The North Coast transmission line will strengthen Canada’s position as a leading global supplier of critical minerals and metals and unlock more than $45 billion in near-term economic activities for British Columbia and for all Canadians. The mining association’s economic analysis estimates that the operation of these mines over several decades will deliver some $420 billion in economic activity for B.C. and for Canada.”

Michael Goehring’s words capture exactly why this project matters, why we need this line. The North Coast transmission line is not just about power. It’s about unlocking responsible mining, creating long-term jobs and ensuring that the clean energy transition is built on sustainably produced critical minerals. That’s very important.

Clean electricity means clean mining. It allows B.C. to reduce emissions while producing materials needed for the global clean energy transition. By powering mining with hydroelectricity, we are helping B.C. deliver some of the lowest-carbon copper and critical minerals in the world.

[3:20 p.m.]

This legislation ensures that our clean power system grows alongside the industries that need it most, industries that build our economy, not just consume energy.

We are already seeing progress where clean energy and mining come together. With B.C.’s rapid growth, major industrial projects are emerging across the province, which will unlock significant economic developments and job opportunities. Their success hangs on access to reliable, clean electricity.

The member who was speaking before me was saying that he understands that there is a huge potential in that area. We agree on that point. But in order to realize that potential, we need clean energy, clean electricity. That’s what this bill is for. This is, I think, massive potential for the people of British Columbia in terms of creating jobs, creating revenue, bringing in investment from other countries. I don’t think there’s any other opportunity like this in the northwest, and that’s why this line is very important.

I was away in America, in Beaver Creek, attending what we call the investors summit, where investors from across North America came to basically meet with mining companies to invest their hard-earned dollars. One of the things they were asking was certainty. They need certainty that the project will move forward.

NCTL will provide, in the northwest, where we have more than half a dozen mining projects, certainty to the investors. They want to invest money because now they know that these projects are going to move forward. These projects are going to move forward in a very responsible way. They will produce clean, critical minerals for the transition to low-carbon economy, not only in British Columbia or this country but in the global community, because we provide critical minerals to a lot of other countries.

With B.C.’s rapid growth, major industrial projects are emerging across the province, which will unlock significant economic development and job opportunities. Their success hangs on access to, as I said earlier, viable and clean electricity.

We are focused on ensuring that B.C. Hydro remains responsive to evolving market conditions and the growing demand for clean electricity. This includes enabling investment in industries that will grow our economy, create well-paying jobs, reduce emissions and keep energy affordable for British Columbians.

Northern B.C. plays a pivotal role in this growth, with current active mining operations and the potential for future critical minerals like nickel, copper, molybdenum and rare earth elements. Northwest B.C., the Golden Triangle, already hosts two major mines in that area. They are Brucejack and Red Chris. I look forward to many more mines there in the future, with the help of the North Coast transmission line.

Projects like the future Baptiste mine by FPX Nickel…. They are already working with B.C. Hydro to secure a share of their power that NCTL provides. FPX Nickel is working with local First Nations to advance the project. It is a very positive project and would be one of the lowest-emission nickel mines in the world. Nickel is used in everything from stainless steel to jet engines and lithium-ion batteries, helping power our future.

[3:25 p.m.]

Projects like Eskay Creek. It is working its way through permitting right now and has a proposed economic benefit agreement with Tāłtān Central Government. Eskay Creek will mean hundreds of jobs in that area for the local community, producing gold, silver, zinc and antimony for the market.

There are so many projects in the northwest. It is hard to name them all. But one last one I would like to mention today that I want to highlight is Galore Creek. This is one of the world’s largest undeveloped copper deposits, and it sits in the northwest. It is approved in the budget. That would be one of the biggest in the world.

Last year this government jointly, with the federal government of Canada, put forward $190 million in federal funding to support road infrastructure in the region. That will help the Galore mine to move forward, and the NCTL will provide the clean power to that mine that the project needs to move forward. So that’s why this NCTL is very, very important.

When we provide certainty that this power is coming, I look forward to being able to report back to this House and to the people of British Columbia that these projects are continuing forward towards permits, construction and operation and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for the people of British Columbia, bringing billions and billions of dollars in investment for this province and, of course, revenue, which is very important to improve and provide health care and education to the people of British Columbia.

These projects also show that when government, industry and Indigenous partners work together, good projects move forward faster and the community benefits more.

Reconciliation is at the heart of how we build a stronger mining future. Bill 31 gives B.C. Hydro clear authority to enter into co-ownership agreements with First Nations. Six First Nations, including hereditary leaders of the Wet’suwet’en, have already signed term sheet agreements for phase 2 of the NCTL. These partnerships will ensure Indigenous governments share in both ownership and long-term economic returns.

It doesn’t stop there. This government recently supported a joint purchase of the Port of Stewart by the Nisga’a Nation and Tāłtān First Nation — that was a very good day for the people of British Columbia — with Arrow Transportation.

The Port of Stewart is the primary export port. It is the primary export port for copper from the northwest, where all these mines are going to take place and ensure First Nations see economic benefits from this project. This is also one of the closest ports to Asia, so we can ship the copper concentrate to Asia quickly, from anybody else in this country and in North America, with this port. That’s why it’s good economic sense.

We are supporting the First Nation to purchase the port. We are supporting the mining sector to have the road network connected to them so that they can ship the concentrate from mines to the port. Now we are building the NCTL to provide this clean power to these mines. With this, we will have the cleanest mines on earth.

Construction on the North Coast transmission line is expected to begin in 2026, with phased completion of it being in 2032 and ’34.

[3:30 p.m.]

The project is one of our government’s 18 priority projects. It will open doors for new mines and create training and contracting opportunities for Indigenous businesses. Bill 31 will strengthen local economies across the North and ensure that clean energy powers our growth.

As I said earlier, we have more than 17 mining projects in this province, private projects proposed, and of course we need clean power to have the green economy moving forward for the people of British Columbia. That’s what this whole power line is all about, to provide power to, of course, the local community and also to provide power to economic growth in that area. That’s very good news for the province of British Columbia and for the people, because with this, we are going to become the economic power of the country.

Bill 31 is, as I said earlier, more than an energy bill. It is an investment in British Columbia’s mining future, and it will help ensure B.C. remains a world leader in low-carbon mineral production and will grow regional economies across northern B.C. The North Coast transmission line is a true nation-building project. We look forward to continued collaboration with our federal partners as we work to build the clean energy infrastructure that will power Canada’s future.

I commend the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions and his team for their leadership on this project, and I am proud to lend my voice and my support to Bill 31 on behalf of the mining and critical minerals sector and all those who believe in building a stronger B.C.

I would like to conclude by saying it will help support billions in private sector investment in providing the infrastructure certainty needed for major projects to move forward, including clean hydrogen, critical minerals and LNG.

We need to take bold action, like the government of the 1960s and ’70s that expanded B.C. Hydro to power provincial growth. But we are doing it in a way that reflects today’s values, supporting the future growth of our province for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to actually finish here because of my throat, so thank you very much for your time.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. Appreciate that.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. Representing Prince George–Mackenzie means representing a part of the province that knows energy inside and out.

I appreciate the comments from the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. Mining is critical to our future in northern B.C. as well. But I think we do have some points of disagreement on the bill, and I’ll get into some of those.

We know energy in Prince George and northern B.C. because we’re at the crossroads of the pipelines that heat our homes. We have a refinery, providing the fuels to northern B.C.’s industrial base, that has been talked about in this House, actually, last spring. It was under duress because of government policy failure, but we were able to work together to save those jobs, protect those jobs.

There’s power cogeneration in my region. The Conifex co-gen plant in Mackenzie turns wood waste into about 230 gigawatts of electricity, and it’s something we need more opportunities to see in the region.

[3:35 p.m.]

Of course, we’re also at the crossroads of B.C. Hydro’s backbone of transmission lines from northeast B.C. that run west to Prince Rupert, for the port and industrial areas there, and also to power the south, and the main trunk that powers most of the homes in the larger population centres. We live close to the work that keeps British Columbia powered — the mills, the mines, the transmission lines, the people who show up in every kind of weather to make sure the system keeps running.

B.C. Hydro has a major office in Prince George, and I particularly want to really thank the power line technicians that keep the lines running, the lights on, for each and every member here and all of our neighbours.

From where I live, energy policy isn’t just something we assume as a given. There are people who are actually working hard to do that work to heat our homes and power our devices, providing the energy needed for our entire economy. It’s also what puts food on the table. I put food on my table, actually. I worked in the energy industry for 12 years before being elected here, so energy policy is important to me. I hope it is for everyone here as well.

This bill deserves full scrutiny for any positive benefits and also its failures. Energy policy is complex, and when you pull one string, you end up disrupting another. The government has said this bill will help manage the province’s growing power shortage by giving cabinet more flexibility to decide who gets connected first and by allowing key transmission projects to move more quickly. That’s the pitch. On the surface, that may seem reasonable. I, for one, don’t want to see investment or jobs stalled because we can’t get electricity where it’s needed.

As always, the devil is in the details. I want to see projects streamlined, and I want to see certainty for energy jobs we need in my region. Unfortunately, I’m not sure this bill will actually streamline approvals.

There’s also a detail that the Energy Minister, when he spoke earlier to this bill, didn’t include in his remarks, and that’s the fact that B.C. Hydro doesn’t need this bill to build the North Coast transmission line. That’s something that we’ve heard from the members opposite so far. It seems like this bill is needed to build the line. It’s actually not. This is all spin from the government to take shortcuts because of their failures. This transmission line can go ahead without Bill 31. Economic reconciliation can take place without Bill 31.

As I get into it, let’s get into some of the problems of the bill and the problems overall in our energy policy and processes here in the province.

B.C., as all of us know, is short on power. We’ve heard from Barry Penner and the Energy Futures Institute as much this week, further saying, describing Bill 31 as the government’s own quiet admission that we’ve entered into a serious supply crunch.

For years, experts warned that our growing population, the push to electrify vehicles and homes and new industrial demand would stretch Hydro’s capacity. Those warnings have been brushed aside by the members opposite. Now the crunch has arrived, and government is trying to manage scarcity by changing the rules of the game. Under this bill, the old principle that B.C. Hydro must treat industrial customers equally is being thrown out. That’s what we’ve heard.

I fully want to see changes at B.C. Hydro. We need to make things more flexible there. But this one has some serious risk behind it. From now on, cabinet will get to decide who gets priority, who plugs in first and who waits.

Deputy Speaker: Prince George–Mackenzie, I’m sorry to interrupt. Would you reserve your right to speak and adjourn debate? We have Bill 18 to report from the little House.

Kiel Giddens: Speaker, I’ll reserve my right to speak and adjourn the debate.

Kiel Giddens moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports Bill 18 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

Division has been called.

[3:40 p.m. – 3:50 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The Speaker: Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: We’ll call the chamber back to order. We will look to our member for Prince George–Mackenzie to continue debate on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act of 2025.

Kiel Giddens: We’ll continue talking about the energy supply crunch that has occurred in this province. Where I was going with this that is the government is trying to manage scarcity by changing the rules of the game. Under this bill, the old principle that B.C. Hydro must treat industrial customers equally is being thrown out.

As I said, I want to see changes at Hydro. But what we’re seeing here is the same road we’ve gone down before with the government overreach bills last spring when we talked about Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15. These are overreach. That is not a small adjustment to how we do business in this province. It’s actually a fundamental shift in how we’ve managed energy in this province for decades, in how we’ve managed projects in this province for decades, in how we’ve managed all of the decision-making of government.

We need to have a rules-based system. The Globe and Mail, when they reported on this, noted, “The government intends to scrap the rule to provide electricity equally to industrial customers,” as I’ve said, “and start picking which sectors deserve priority,” so in plain terms, only selecting the projects that have the blessings of the cabinet. Only those ones will be on the government’s list, and you’ll get your power connection fast-tracked.

If you’re a project like a sawmill, a pulp mill, a data centre or another type of employer that, perhaps, maybe for whatever reason doesn’t fit the government’s current definition of a priority, you could be waiting a long time.

Now the government says this is about efficiency, using limited power wisely. I understand that instinct, but fairness still matters. Transparency still matters. When government has the power to choose winners and losers, British Columbians need to see the rules up front, not after the fact.

[3:55 p.m.]

Investment capital also needs to see the rules up front. These are global players that can invest anywhere in the world. They prefer clear rules to make those decisions, not rolling the dice to see if their lobbying pays off.

Overall, the public and investors…. With this change, we’re seeing a shift in how decisions get made in this province, who makes them and how much daylight the public will get on that process.

The sad thing is that even the merits of this bill have flaws because the government has really broken our permitting system. This is something I canvassed with the government last spring in those overreach bills that we talked about.

I was questioning the Minister of Infrastructure during Bill 15 debate. The Infrastructure Minister admitted: “There are literally thousands and thousands of backlogged permits in government right now.” That was a real quote coming from this government about the permitting system and what’s flawed and what’s going wrong in the way projects are being developed. In that same debate, we talked about 7,800 water permits being backlogged, for example.

The government’s supposed fixes, like this bill, don’t actually fix that problem. All they do is reorganize the project queue based on NDP preferences. So instead of fixing the system for everyone, the government is creating a shortcut for some while leaving others behind.

British Columbia doesn’t need a system based on political preference. We need a permitting regime that is fair, accountable and transparent, and one that evaluates all projects based on merit, not ideology or politics. That means streamlining processes across the board. It means fixing backlogs at their source, supporting ministries and regulators with the capacity they need, of course, and giving communities and proponents clarity about what’s expected.

It also means simply stopping the requirements to do certain things that don’t matter in the first place. That’s one of the problems that has got us here to where we are today. This is a problem to continue watching, and it’s something I’m going to be taking into account as I watch the progress of bills like this one now and in the future.

I’m going to shift gears now and talk a bit from a labour standpoint. The stakes are high in that area as well.

The North needs to see benefits from projects, including new transmission projects, if the North Coast transmission line indeed goes ahead. Any project in northern B.C.’s backyard should have workers from the region. We need to pull from the whole province, of course. We need the skilled tradespeople from across the province, but we also need those apprenticeship opportunities in northern B.C. and contracts for businesses in northern B.C. No one disputes the potential that these projects can provide local, but it has to happen.

I just met with the IBEW Canada this week and appreciate the efforts that the union is making on apprenticeship in particular.

The question for this bill is whether those benefits will actually land in local communities. Will they pass us by in northern B.C.? Too often when projects are political or they don’t have that accountability, the promises of local hiring and training may evaporate. Contractors come in from, sometimes, out of province. Oversight slips, and workers who live near the project are left standing on the sidelines.

I attended B.C. Hydro’s open houses for the North Coast transmission line. It goes right through land of landowners, properties of many of my constituents. They need to be treated fairly, and people in my community should benefit from a project like that. I told B.C. Hydro directly that procurement should be designed with local priority.

It sounds like they’re proposing Indigenous contracting participation. I actually think that’s a very good thing. But they actually need to score certain joint ventures higher in their procurement. A JV with a Prince George or Burns Lake business is very meaningful. It needs to be scored higher in those procurement scorecards when they’re making award decisions. Otherwise, a company from Edmonton will end up partnering with the nation just to bring in their own workforce, and both the nation and the local communities are left upset about the lack of employment benefits.

I have seen this on projects, so I expect that Hydro and government proponents will take a serious look at this. That trend needs to be recognized and cut back in procurement.

[4:00 p.m.]

If the government is going to take more control over who gets power and how projects proceed, it also has to take on responsibility to make sure those projects create lasting, high-quality jobs for British Columbians. That means ensuring there are clear expectations for local hiring, proper apprenticeship ratios and safe working conditions. It means that every time a project is advanced under this system, the public should be able to see how many jobs were created, how many apprentices were trained and whether commitments to workers were actually kept.

That will now maybe bring me to accountability, because that’s how some of these things actually occur.

Bill 31 gives cabinet, of course, the ability to bypass the oversight normally provided by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That’s something we’ve canvassed here already. The BCUC’s role is to ask tough questions on behalf of the public to make sure the big decisions about power supply are based on evidence and not on politics. Removing that layer of scrutiny only increases the risk of mistakes and poor planning. When the Energy Minister was the Energy critic in opposition days, I recall him making that very same argument, actually.

I believe in transparency, and this government shouldn’t be afraid of that oversight. Any new discretionary power should come with clear reporting obligations. When cabinet issues a directive under this bill, it should also have to publish the rationale, the criteria and the expected impacts, including how the decision supports local employment and economic development. But transparency isn’t a strong point at this point, and that’s what we’re seeing with this bill.

I think that the government should also publish the impact to ratepayers. Right now that will be bypassed under this, and the government is hiding the cost, the true cost, of the North Coast transmission line from ratepayers. I think we need to dive into that.

It’s also hiding the true cost of Site C, and we’ve known that. It’s going to be more than $16 billion, and ratepayers need to know what actually is going on. We need more accountability to build trust among the public, to get solutions, to get things done and to get the power generation and the transmission that we need.

Another important, broader concern is reliability of our energy systems and the ability to keep the lights on and industry running. This should be much more clear in energy legislation. We often talk about affordability and sustainability, and both are essential, but if we don’t have enough reliable power to keep our industries operating, our affordability targets will collapse under their own weight. Reliability must be the foundation on which everything else stands. We used to have self-sufficiency legislation in this province, but that was taken away.

So if reliability is now in question, British Columbians deserve to see the real numbers. In a perfect world, the public would be able to see how much electricity we’re producing, consuming, importing or exporting at any given time. That level of transparency would go a long way towards rebuilding confidence that the government is being straight with people about the state of our power system. Quite frankly, it would also help the decisions of the investment community and the business community on which power projects actually make the most sense. It would help us attract investment capital.

From the perspective of northern and Interior communities, this bill sits at the intersection of opportunity and risk. We want development, certainly, in our region. We want the transmission lines and the industrial projects that bring jobs and revenue. We also want to make sure that those benefits don’t come at the expense of fairness or local input.

Mackenzie, in my riding, has had power allotment actually taken away from them without a say in that process. B.C. Hydro did not give them a say whatsoever. There’s so much potential in Mackenzie, but they can’t do proper economic development, unfortunately, without power.

There is a data centre now in Mackenzie, Iris Energy, and it could expand into more AI data processing in the future. As Canadians, we should be looking at data sovereignty and not relying completely on U.S. servers. That’s a real problem that we’ll have to tackle in another bill. Mackenzie is actually a perfect place for data storage to be taking place because of the lower ambient temperatures and proximity to fibre lines. This government should focus on self-sufficiency so we can actually expand data centres to protect Canadian data and not limit them like this bill does.

The reason Mackenzie had its power taken…. Once the Canfor pulp mill shut down, that energy was actually allotted elsewhere when it wasn’t being used. Mackenzie had no say in that whatsoever. All of a sudden, that just disappeared. The former Canfor pulp mill site…. Fortunately, it was just purchased by a redevelopment firm last Friday, and that is a very good thing, a chance for the community to turn the page on some tough economic times.

[4:05 p.m.]

Power is a constraint. To see new industries develop, B.C. Hydro’s current policies and plans are a barrier to Mackenzie’s potential, and that needs to change. This bill doesn’t fix any of that, any of the problems for Mackenzie, and I want to see that happen.

If the government wants to prioritize energy allocation, then maybe it should also look at prioritizing the people who live in the regions and consult with communities properly on this. Fairness in allocation should go hand in hand with fairness in opportunities for communities like Mackenzie.

Now, I want to be clear. This side of the House believes in securing B.C.’s energy future. We all understand that the province needs more electricity and a modernized system to manage it. We actually believe we should be self-sufficient, and if the government wants to make this legislation stronger and fairer, there are straightforward ways to do it.

Let’s maybe start in looking at changes that could be potential here. Let’s start by actually anchoring reliability into the law. The system is required to keep the lights on for everyone, not just for a few preferred industries. Let’s make the allocation rules public so every employer knows the criteria and every citizen can see the decisions based on evidence, not on lobbying. Let’s pair the fast-tracking of projects with firm expectations around worker safety, training and local participation.

There should also be more protection for the independence of the regulator, particularly for public trust, when billions of ratepayer dollars are on the line here. Those kinds of improvements wouldn’t weaken the bill. They’d make it more credible, they’d make it more fair, and they’d show British Columbians that this government can walk and chew gum. Let’s move fast but do it transparently and responsibly.

British Columbia’s success has always depended on getting energy policy right. We’ve talked a lot about W.A.C. Bennett and his legacy and what he has given us as a gift in B.C.’s natural advantages. We have natural advantages, including that legacy of clean power that has attracted investments, supported communities and kept our economy competitive. But that advantage only lasts if we protect it. We have to actually make things better for investment, not worse. We actually have to plan ahead for energy needs, with more realistic assumptions.

Bill 31 acknowledges that there’s actually a real problem and that the government has played a part in creating it. Our province doesn’t have enough power for our needs. The challenge now is to fix that problem in a way that doesn’t undermine the legacy and values that built our system in the first place. Also, fairness, transparency and respect for the people who keep the lights on each and every day — those workers, the line technicians that I talked about earlier in my remarks.

This bill is flawed as we see it currently. We don’t need the NDP in charge of economic decisions. These are market decisions that should be made.

On this side of the House, we believe in free enterprise and competition. If the government had that as a focus, maybe they’d see more support on this side of the House, because at the end of the day, my priority is for my family and for my communities, providing hope for the people in the province again.

To do that, we need reliable power, good jobs and a future where British Columbia’s workers and communities can thrive.

Thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I’m asking for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I have the honour to introduce to the House today Teri Forster and Michelle MacNeill. Both women are here on the precinct today.

Teri Forster is the B.C. Nurses Union northwest regional council member and a city councillor for the city of Prince Rupert. She’s in town with her BCNU colleagues and is a strong advocate for our riding on health care workers.

Michelle MacNeill today met with Minister Jodie Wickens. She is the executive director of North Coast Community Services Society, which runs the family connections centre and other programming in Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii. This is invaluable work that so many families count on.

I hope that everyone will make them both feel welcome today.

[4:10 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to all members that we’ll not use names of our ministers or members of this House in any form.

Debate Continued

Hon. Terry Yung: I stand today in support of Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. This bill is about clean energy. It’s about how we can grow our economy and create more jobs for the people of B.C.

I listened with great interest to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I was actually up in Mackenzie last week and talking to a lot of people, even in my home riding.

We live in uncertain economic times. I think we can all agree that growing the economy and creating more jobs is going to be beneficial for the people of B.C., and this is what we are trying to do here.

This bill will ensure that B.C. Hydro remains responsive to changing market conditions and growing demand for clean electricity. It will grow our economy, create well-paying jobs and reduce emissions and keep energy affordable for the people of B.C. It also will address our record-high demand for clean power. As you know, power is needed for our businesses, our homes, our industries.

More importantly, I’m excited about the fact that this bill will help unlock billions of dollars in potential investment across B.C. in the forms of clean hydrogen, critical minerals, LNG and port expansion projects. They all need one commonality before moving forward, and that’s access to reliable, clean electricity.

The North Coast transmission line is part of a nation-building project. It makes us a better province, a more effective country, while providing employment and hope for our workforce. It also provides partnerships with First Nations, ensuring that Indigenous communities are not just consulted but are true partners in moving forward, sharing the opportunities, jobs and revenues this bill and development will generate.

Again, this bill is about economic certainty and opportunity, about equity. It is about the ability to have a brighter future, more secure access to energy.

In closing, this legislation is about our future. It’s about fairness to a future that belongs to all of us. Through this energy amendment act, we’re building the infrastructure, partnerships and policy framework needed for this province to grow in a new era of clean economic development.

Sharon Hartwell: I rise in my place to talk about Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

I have concerns with this bill. It’s making some substantial changes to the operations of B.C. Hydro.

The government is saying this bill is needed to build the transmission line to the north coast. This bill is not needed to build the North Coast transmission line. B.C. Hydro has all the authority it currently requires to build the line. It has built transmission lines all over the province and didn’t need this legislation in order to do so.

We have a government, and I think the minister will agree with me, that has championed a publicly owned utility. This is a government that long has championed the idea of public utilities, but they are now entertaining the idea of partnering ownership of this new transmission line with different entities. This is unusual. B.C. Hydro doesn’t share ownership of any other transmission line that resides completely within B.C., and I have no doubt if I’ve missed a power line that is owned by a third party that the minister will stand in his place and correct the record.

[4:15 p.m.]

It is one thing for B.C. Hydro to buy power from an independent power producer, but it’s another thing entirely for B.C. Hydro to sell off a portion of the transmission lines themselves.

Bear in mind that this government did, in fact, stop buying power from independent power producers and then has started that up again. They now have two calls for power to build and buy power from independent power producers. We’ve raised our concerns about this before, specifically this year when the same minister brought in legislation to speed up the process of those power projects.

But I digress. This bill is not about power generation. It is in large part about the transmission of power. This bill is about a transmission line that is going to cost $6 billion. That’s $6 billion just to move power from Site C to B.C.’s north coast.

Site C, by the way, that this government did not want to build. Site C that was on time and on budget, a budget that was nowhere near $16 billion when they formed government. The same Site C that came years behind schedule and billions over budget. Now it’s finally generating electricity again, electricity that this government, back when they were in opposition, did not think was necessary, did not support building.

Ultimately, this government did reluctantly keep building Site C. That brings us to today, where now they have legislation saying they must spend a minimum of $6 billion to build a transmission line to the north coast. Bear in mind that’s the cost now, but we’ve seen countless projects from this government go severely over budget.

The government is doing this to support industrial projects in the north coast, again, projects that this government did not support when they were in opposition. When they were in opposition, they opposed LNG. Now they support it. I support LNG. It’s a great benefit for the province, and I’m glad this government supported it when they formed government. But again, I digress.

This transmission line is to provide more electricity on the north coast. On this side of the House, we have another idea for how to get sufficient electricity on the north coast. We support small modular reactors to provide electricity in B.C.’s northwest. It would create the electricity needed at a fraction of the cost of this new transmission line. Even if you spent the entire budget of $6 billion, it would not create enough electricity for all the industrial projects that are proposed.

There is a second part of this bill which allows B.C. Hydro to regulate and restrict electricity to retain entities. One is to mine cryptocurrency; to store and process electronic data, including electronic data used for AI; and to produce hydrogen for use outside of Canada. Bear in mind that this government previously championed the idea of producing hydrogen and enticing cryptocurrency mines to B.C. It was only a few years ago that this government, via B.C. Hydro, was talking about providing lower electricity rates to entice bitcoin mines.

In 2018, under then Premier, the now late Premier Horgan, B.C. Hydro proposed a load attraction rate. This would be a lower hydro rate for…. In the words of one B.C. Hydro business development manager: “This rate would help B.C. Hydro compete with clean jurisdictions that have lower power rates than us. We need to get in the game.”

We need to get in the game. That was the position of B.C. Hydro under this government not that long ago. This government, through the public utility, was championing bringing cryptocurrency mining operations to B.C. through subsidized electricity rates. They have since backed away from offering a lower electricity rate for these operations, and now, through this legislation, have gone in a complete other direction. They are proposing through this legislation to control and regulate electricity, but then I already mentioned that earlier.

This is a large piece of legislation, and it is complex and deserves proper scrutiny. You can fully expect His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition on this side of the House to raise questions during the committee stage.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today in strong support of this legislation, a bold step that will help us power British Columbia’s next generation of economic growth through clean energy, reconciliation and partnership.

[4:20 p.m.]

In these uncertain economic times, people across our province want to know that government is focused on growing and diversifying our economy, that we are creating good jobs, supporting families and preparing for the opportunities of the future. This legislation does exactly that. It positions British Columbia to seize the clean economic opportunities of the coming decades, opportunities that build on our strengths, honour our values and benefit every region of this province.

British Columbia’s clean electricity is one of our greatest competitive advantages. It’s what sets us apart in a world that is moving rapidly towards low-carbon growth. Generations before us had the foresight to build B.C. Hydro, a public system that powered homes, industries and communities for decades. Now it’s our turn to think just as boldly.

Demand for electricity is at a record high. Companies are lining up to build new mines, new ports, hydrogen facilities and manufacturing plants, but they need power to do that, and they want that power to be clean. The world is watching how we respond. Will we have the courage to move forward and meet this moment? This legislation says yes, we will.

At the heart of this effort is the North Coast transmission line, or NCTL. This is not just another infrastructure project. It’s a nation-building opportunity for British Columbia and for Canada. The NCTL will unlock tens of billions of dollars in private investment across northern B.C., delivering clean, reliable energy to a region that has long been constrained by limited transmission capacity.

It will power new mines, port expansions, LNG projects and emerging clean industries, the kinds of developments that create good, long-term, family-supporting jobs. Once complete, the North Coast transmission line is expected to generate nearly 10,000 full-time jobs, contributing close to $10 billion each year to our GDP, and deliver about $950 million annually in public revenues.

It will also help prevent up to three million tonnes of carbon emissions every year by replacing diesel and other fossil fuels with clean hydroelectricity. That is what I call smart growth — clean, responsible and forward-looking.

What makes this project truly historic is not just its scale. It is how it’s being done. The North Coast transmission line is being built in partnership with First Nations from the start, from planning and permitting through the construction and ownership. For far too long, Indigenous communities were left out of projects that shaped our lands and futures.

Today we are doing things differently. As Chief Wes Sam of Ts’il Kaz Koh Nations has said: “This is not just about one transmission line. It’s about the future of major projects co-owned by First Nations, projects that showcase Indigenous leadership, prosperity and self-determination.” That is the future that British Columbia is building, one where reconciliation isn’t just a word in our speeches but a reality in our economy.

[4:25 p.m.]

This legislation also makes an important step toward modernizing how we allocate our clean electricity. We are seeing tremendous growth in new and emerging industries — data centres, artificial intelligence, hydrogen production — all of which are coming forward with massive energy demands. These are exciting opportunities, but we must ensure that our limited clean power is directed where it delivers the greatest benefit to British Columbia.

This legislation establishes a clear framework to do just that, prioritizing industries like mining, natural gas and manufacturing that have long anchored our economy, provided stable jobs and generated public revenues.

At the same time, we are taking a careful, balanced approach to fast-growing sectors like data centres and AI. We have seen what happens in other jurisdictions when growth outpaces infrastructure: higher costs, unreliable grids and massive rate increases. We will not let that happen here.

British Columbia’s approach is responsible and proactive, ensuring B.C. Hydro can manage growth, keep energy affordable and protect the integrity of our grid. That includes permanently banning new crypto mining connections and focusing instead on projects that align with our strategic priorities and serve the broader public interest.

This is about balance. We are taking bold action to grow our economy and create jobs, but we are doing so responsibly, keeping energy affordable, protecting the environment and ensuring that people and communities benefit.

By moving forward with the North Coast transmission line, we are giving investors the certainty they need to proceed with projects that have been years in the making. Without this project, dozens of major developments representing tens of billions of dollars would stall, putting at risk the jobs, the revenues and the growth they would bring. This legislation fixes that by providing the infrastructure, cost certainty and partnerships that investors and communities need to move forward with confidence.

Some have compared what we are doing in B.C. to projects proposed elsewhere in the country, but there is no comparison. Unlike projects that exist only on paper, the North Coast transmission line is backed by real demand and real investment. B.C. Hydro already has 14 customers in the lineup waiting to connect, representing over $50 billion in proposed projects, ready to go once the line is built.

This is what leadership looks like — not waiting for opportunity to come to us but building the infrastructure that allows British Columbia to lead the way, to be the economic engine that drives a cleaner, more independent Canadian economy.

As our Premier said so clearly: “B.C. will be the economic engine that drives a more independent Canadian economy, powered by clean energy, built through partnership with First Nations and driven by the hard work of British Columbians.” This is exactly what this legislation makes possible.

[4:30 p.m.]

When I meet people in my constituency of Vancouver-Langara — small business owners, students, newcomers, families — they often tell me the same thing. They want a government that thinks long term, one that invests in the future, creates opportunities and leaves behind a stronger province for the next generation. That is what this legislation is all about.

It’s about ensuring that the prosperity of the north coast strengthens our entire province, from Prince George to Vancouver, from the Nisg̱a’a Nation to the Lower Mainland. It’s about proving that clean energy and economic growth and opportunity can go hand in hand. It’s about showing that when we work in partnership — government, industry and First Nations — we can build something truly transformative.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The North Coast transmission line is not only an investment in infrastructure. It’s an investment in people, in communities and in the promise of a clean, prosperous future for all British Columbians.

I’m proud to stand in support of this bill, and I urge all members of this House to join me in supporting it, to power our province’s next chapter of growth, partnership and opportunity.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, and I’m here to express my deep concern with what this legislation represents not just in energy policy but in the continuing pattern of this government to centralize power and erode confidence in British Columbia’s investment climate.

I rise to speak to this bill because I want to bring the voices of Boundary-Similkameen to this House. This bill has the potential to have impact at home.

Earlier this month I had the privilege of attending the opening of a new, large manufacturing facility in Grand Forks for Boundary Electric. I had the opportunity to gather with management, investors, community members and their employees to celebrate their success.

We got to do this in a month when Grand Forks was also hit by the indefinite closure of their Interfor mill, so this celebration was bittersweet. That is why Boundary Electric’s expansion was really needed good news for our community. It reminded us all that even in tough times, local entrepreneurs are pivoting to new opportunities. They’re building, they’re hiring, and they’re exporting made-in-B.C. products to the world.

Boundary Electric has deep roots. Founded in Grand Forks in 1947, the company grew from a local service shop into a modern manufacturer of transformers, switchgear, substations and fully modular data centre power systems. Today they ship into utilities, mining, renewable projects and, yes, data centres across British Columbia and North America.

For more than three quarters of a century, they’ve been investing in people and capability in our region, and their new facility signals long-term confidence in rural B.C. jobs and skills for the community of Grand Forks. I’m speaking about Boundary Electric today because Bill 31 has the potential to limit investment in data centres here in B.C., data centres that Boundary Electric builds.

I also want to connect directly to another Boundary-Similkameen business, which is DMG Blockchain. DMG operates a data centre in Christina Lake, and over the last several years, they have purchased and expanded a 30-plus acre site, invested in high-capacity substations on this property and shifted from pure bitcoin mining into a diversified model that includes high-performance computing and AI workloads, alongside hosting services.

[4:35 p.m.]

This Christina Lake facility is homegrown and positioned to support new AI and data-processing demands as the technology evolves. For me, here is the important link. Boundary Electric helped DMG stand up that Christina Lake site, designing and delivering substations, purpose-built controls, and the high voltage and underground cabling that made this project possible.

That single relationship created an entirely new market for a Grand Forks manufacturer. Since then, Boundary Electric has grown into a leading supplier of modular data centre power solutions well beyond our valley, winning contracts across North America precisely because they proved they could deliver at home.

This is what rural economic development looks like when we get it right, a feedback loop where one investment seeds another. One business provides good-paying jobs for other businesses in British Columbia, whether it’s electricians, fabricators, millwrights and technologists. These skilled teams, in turn, build products that get exported to the next data centres around the world and the province. Wages paid in Grand Forks buy groceries in Grand Forks, train apprentices and encourage families to stay and put down roots.

Bill 31 tells these very employers to think twice about investing here. When cabinet is empowered to prohibit services to whole sectors, to cap megawatts at will, to decide which companies are eligible or to impose rates or conditions, then you’re not just regulating. You’re injecting political risk into a business model. No CFO can sign off on a multi-million-dollar substation or a long-lead transformer order from a Grand Forks manufacturer if a regulation can arrive tomorrow that turns their power off or pushes them to the back of a politically managed queue.

For my riding, that has the potential to create cancelled orders, idle production lines and lost export momentum. We are providing these data centres and these products to mines and critical businesses across this province. It could mean shelving plans to expand into a new manufacturing facility, taking construction, fabrication and operational jobs to other communities or out of our province. It means fewer apprentices, fewer spinoffs and one fewer reason for our kids to come home after trade school.

We should be doing the opposite. We should be giving clear, transparent, technology-neutral rules that welcome flexible, interruptible loads to help finance and balance our grid, with price signals, standard interconnection queues and publicly set guardrails that protect ratepayers without picking favourites.

Boundary Electric and DMG Blockchain are proof that rural B.C. can lead in the digital industrial economy, that data and computing can anchor real manufacturing and skilled trade jobs from small towns across B.C. and possibly beyond.

Bill 31, as drafted, does not support that growth. It chills it. It inserts uncertainty where we need certainty and politics where we need policy — centralized control when we need clear, bankable rules. If we want prosperity, we should enable the very businesses that are creating it, not make them gamble on political discretion for something as basic as access to electricity.

With Bill 31, this NDP government continues their troubling trend. Whether it’s in housing, forestry, energy, this government continues to concentrate authority in the hands of a few ministers and their cabinet, undermining independent regulators, local governments and market confidence.

Bill 31 appears to follow this pattern exactly. It gives cabinet the power to decide which industries can access electricity and under what conditions. It allows cabinet to prohibit a utility from supplying power to a given sector for a specified period or indefinitely. In other words, if government doesn’t like your line of work, if it doesn’t fit the political mood of the day, they can simply cut you off. What investor in their right mind would risk millions of dollars under that kind of uncertainty?

What makes this all the more baffling for me is that this same government has just created a ministry of artificial intelligence and innovation, a public admission that the digital economy and data-driven industries are part of our future.

[4:40 p.m.]

They’ve held press conferences talking about the potential of AI, data science and B.C.’s potential. But then they introduce a bill that effectively tells those same industries: “Don’t come to British Columbia. We might not have the power.”

You don’t build an innovation economy by flipping the light switch on and off. You build it by creating certainty, by welcoming investment, by encouraging innovation of small businesses and ensuring that rules are stable and understood.

Subsection 2(3)(d) is particularly troubling. It gives cabinet the authority to establish “rules by which a public utility must select which persons are eligible to receive electricity service for a listed purpose.” Think about that. Government can not only decide which industries get access to power; it can also decide which companies within those industries can access the power. That’s not a fair market. That’s a gatekeeper economy.

Whenever government becomes the gatekeeper, the result is always the same — winners and losers, chosen by political favour instead of performance. This bill enables that. It embeds politics in what should be a neutral, transparent process of energy allocation.

With Bill 31, what’s being ignored is the flexibility that many of these industries can offer. Data centres and crypto operations are uniquely capable of scaling their power usage, throttling up when there’s surplus capacity and curtailing when the grid is constrained. That’s not the problem. It’s an opportunity. These flexible users can absorb excess energy in off-peak hours, helping to stabilize rates for everyday British Columbians. They can help finance infrastructure, contribute to grid stability and provide demand-side management that actually benefits all ratepayers. Instead of harnessing that flexibility, this government is shutting the door on it.

Let’s turn to the other half of this bill, the North Coast transmission line. Bill 31 authorizes B.C. Hydro to enter into co-ownership arrangements. I believe that, as written, this legislation ensures that B.C. Hydro and, by extension, all taxpayers, will bear financial risk. Not just the ratepayers connected to the B.C. Hydro grid but British Columbians are effectively funding a massive transmission expansion that will primarily benefit industrial customers.

But these projects are either not confirmed or do not exist. If we need this power to garner industrial investment in the northwest, then where are the companies and projects that will benefit, and where is their investment? I don’t see a clear framework for cost recovery or transparency on how ownership will affect long-term rates.

It’s also about precedence. For decades, this NDP government has championed the idea of public power, B.C. Hydro as a Crown corporation serving all British Columbians. But with this bill, it appears that they’re taking the first steps towards selling off parts of that public asset.

B.C. Hydro has always had the authority to build transmission lines. They don’t need this bill to do that. So why is this government legislating the ability to enter ownership partnerships and to retroactively validate those agreements? I believe it’s about paving the way for partial privatization, one project at a time. That should concern every British Columbian who believes in keeping our core infrastructure in public hands.

This is about more than one bill. It’s about the philosophy that underpins this government’s approach to economic management. Instead of empowering people, they centralize. Instead of encouraging innovation, they control. Instead of building confidence, they breed uncertainty. Bill 31 is a symptom of a deeper problem, a government that doesn’t trust the people, the market or even its own institutions to make good decisions.

British Columbia deserves better. We deserve an energy policy that supports growth, attracts investment and respects taxpayers. We deserve transparency in how major projects are financed and fairness in how those benefits are shared. We deserve a government that empowers innovation rather than smothering it under red tape and political control.

I cannot support a bill that hands cabinet this level of unchecked authority, authority to decide who gets power, who gets investment and who gets left behind.

[4:45 p.m.]

Bill 31 picks winners and losers. It undermines confidence. It discourages investment and moves us further from common sense for British Columbians.

Steve Morissette: As Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, I’m proud to rise in strong support of Bill 31, the North Coast transmission line act, a project that represents one of the most exciting rural and regional economic development opportunities in a generation. This bill is about connecting, literally and figuratively, the incredible potential of our north to the clean electricity that powers our province. It’s about opening doors for communities, unlocking new jobs and building a stronger, cleaner rural economy for decades to come.

The North Coast transmission line, or NCTL, is a game-changer for the northwest. For too long, the lack of reliable, affordable power has been a barrier to growth in communities that have the talent, resources and the drive to succeed. This project changes that. The NCTL will deliver clean electricity to an area that’s currently constrained, creating the foundation for new mining projects, port expansions and clean hydrogen developments.

These are projects that mean family-supporting jobs, local procurement opportunities and revenue for small businesses in communities like Terrace, Kitimat, Prince Rupert and beyond. As someone who works closely with rural and northern communities, I can tell you this is exactly the kind of infrastructure investment that helps rural regions thrive. It doesn’t just power industry. It powers possibility.

British Columbia’s clean electricity is one of our greatest competitive advantages. Around the world, industries are looking for jurisdictions that can provide reliable, low-emission power, and we have it right here. The North Coast transmission line will allow us to leverage that advantage to attract investment and grow our economy in a way that aligns with our values — clean growth, responsible development and partnership with First Nations. It’s part of our larger vision for clean economic development, creating jobs while reducing emissions and doing it in a way that keeps energy affordable for people and businesses alike.

What makes this project truly special is how it’s being done — in partnership with First Nations. For too long, major projects were developed without the involvement or consent of Indigenous Peoples whose territories and communities were directly affected. This project takes a different path.

By working together from the start, we’re ensuring that First Nations are true partners involved in planning, development and governance and that they share directly in the benefits. That means faster decisions, stronger community support and a more sustainable approach to growth. It’s a model for how we can and should build major infrastructure in this province.

When we invest in rural infrastructure like this, we’re not just creating jobs today. We’re building the foundation for long-term rural prosperity. The North Coast transmission line will support dozens of private sector projects representing tens of billions of dollars in investment. These projects will bring employment, training and business opportunities to rural communities that have sometimes been left behind.

The benefits will ripple outward, from new housing demand to small business growth to community amenities supported by local revenue. In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, I hear it all the time. Communities want the tools and infrastructure to chart their own future. This project gives them that power, literally.

[4:50 p.m.]

When we think about the big, bold decisions that shaped our province, the hydro dams and transmission lines of the ’60s and’70s, they were built to power a growing economy and a growing population. Today we face a new kind of opportunity, one that’s about powering a clean economy and ensuring that all regions, not just the Lower Mainland or the south, share in the benefits of growth. The North Coast transmission line is our generation’s version of that vision, a nation-building project that reflects modern values, sustainability, reconciliation and shared prosperity.

We’re also being smart about how we grow. The new electricity allocation framework ensures B.C. Hydro remains responsive to changing market conditions, while prioritizing industries that create real value, industries that grow our economy, reduce emissions and provide good jobs.

We’ve seen what happens in other jurisdictions when demand from fast-scaling sectors like crypto mining or AI centres gets ahead of supply. We’re not going down that road. Instead, we’re taking a balanced, thoughtful approach that focuses on strategic sectors from critical minerals to clean hydrogen, the kinds of industries that will drive rural and provincial growth for decades to come.

Let’s not forget that the demand for this project is already here. B.C. Hydro has 14 customers waiting to connect, representing more than $50 billion in potential investment. Without the NCTL, these projects stall, communities miss out, jobs are delayed and opportunity is lost. With this bill, we’re sending a clear message: British Columbia is ready. We’re ready to move, ready to invest and ready to lead the clean economy of the future.

As someone who spends a lot of time in small towns and rural communities, I see every day the pride, the innovation and the determination that drives rural British Columbia. The North Coast transmission line builds on that strength. It ensures that rural and northern regions, the resource heart of our province, have the power they need to grow and succeed in a clean, sustainable way.

It’s about partnership, it’s about progress, and it’s about ensuring that every part of this province, from the north coast to the Kootenays to the Lower Mainland, shares in the benefits of B.C.’s clean energy future.

Let’s move forward with confidence and optimism. Let’s get this line built. Let’s unlock the potential of the North, and let’s keep building a brighter, cleaner future for all British Columbians.

I’m very proud to support Bill 31.

Korky Neufeld: I rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 — legislation that, in my view, raises serious concerns about transparency, about governance and about the long-term stability of British Columbia’s energy system.

I had a situation that happened in Abbotsford West during Thanksgiving weekend. On the south side of the freeway near McCallum Road, we had a power outage from about eight in the morning until about seven in the evening. Had we been doing our turkey, we would have been eating raw turkey, but luckily, we had ours on the Saturday. It just made me realize how fragile our system is.

In this grid that was without power was the Abbotsford Centre of entertainment, University of the Fraser Valley, several large chicken operations. I think people need to know that there’s a secure source of power at all times, and we rely on it heavily. I know we did.

[4:55 p.m.]

At its core, this bill makes substantial and unnecessary changes to the operations of B.C. Hydro, changes that could fundamentally alter the role of our publicly owned utility and how electricity is governed in this province.

One, unnecessary legislation for a project B.C. Hydro can already build. Let’s begin with the basics. The government says this bill is needed. It’s necessary to move forward with the North Coast transmission line, a $6 billion project meant to connect new industrial developments in the northwest. It was $3 billion. Now it is $6 billion. But B.C. Hydro already has all the authority it requires to build transmission infrastructure. This legislation is not required to construct that line.

So why is Bill 31 here? Why, indeed. Possibly because this government wants to change who owns it. Possibly because this government wants to change who benefits from it. This same government has long claimed to champion the idea of public utilities, of keeping power generation and transmission in public hands for the public good. Yet now, through Bill 31, it is opening the door to selling off portions of B.C. Hydro’s assets to other entities, even if indirectly through limited partnerships.

It is one thing for B.C. Hydro to purchase power from independent producers, but that has always been a matter of contract and supply. But it is quite another for B.C. Hydro to sell off portions of its own transmission infrastructure, especially a project of this scale.

We have to ask some questions that demand answers. What happens when our public utility becomes a partial landlord to private investors? What happens when ownership of the grid itself becomes fragmented? Who controls the system? More importantly, who is accountable to British Columbians when costs rise or priorities change?

Two, Indigenous partnership — important, but not a shield for poor policy. Now, to be clear, we support meaningful — key word “meaningful” — Indigenous partnership and ownership in energy development. The principle of reconciliation through shared economic participation is essential. However, that principle should not be used as a political cover for poor legislative design.

This bill conflates genuine Indigenous equity participation with the major reconstruction of B.C. Hydro’s legal and operational authority, something that deserves more public scrutiny than it’s been given. We must never allow the government to use Indigenous co-ownership as a shield to avoid oversight and as a shield to justify decisions that would otherwise be controversial.

Three, a better option for the North: small modular reactors. We support economic growth in B.C.’s northwest. Long overdue. But we also believe there are better, more affordable, more reliable ways to generate electricity needed in that region instead of spending $6 billion or more, because cost overruns and cost delays on many of the previous projects of this government are a reality.

Instead of spending $6 billion or more on a transmission line that may double in cost again before it’s completed, the government should look at small modular reactors, SMRs — modern, scalable nuclear technology that can provide clean, stable, local power at a fraction of the cost, with far fewer environmental impacts.

SMRs could meet the energy needs of mining and LNG projects while creating high-quality jobs and maintaining full public control of generation. But this government refuses to consider innovation in nuclear energy, preferring instead to pour billions into long-distance wires and political deals.

[5:00 p.m.]

Four, cabinet power to pick winners and losers. The second half of Bill 31 gives cabinet extraordinary powers over who can and who cannot access electricity in British Columbia. Cabinet will now have the ability to regulate, restrict or even ban electricity use for entire categories of industries, including cryptocurrency mining, data storage and processing, including AI.

AI is a huge growth area. We need to think well in advance. Do we have the capacity? The production of hydrogen for export….

Let’s remember that this is the same government that only a few years ago was encouraging all of these industries to set up in British Columbia. In 2018, B.C. Hydro was actively trying to entice cryptocurrency miners to the province, offering discounted rates to attract investment. Their own business development manager said: “We need to get in the game. This rate will help B.C. Hydro compete with other clean jurisdictions.”

That was only six years ago. So what has changed?

B.C. Hydro’s own 2021 electrification plan identified crypto mining, data centres and hydrogen production as key opportunities for industrial growth. It stated explicitly that B.C. Hydro needed to be “more proactive and customer-facing to attract and secure investment by emerging energy-intensive industries.”

Fast forward to today. Those same industries are now being told they’re not welcome here anymore. They’re being regulated out of existence by the very government that once courted them to come here. That’s not sound energy planning. That is policy whiplash. It sends a message to investors that B.C. is not a reliable jurisdiction for long-term industrial investment. We have seen and heard money leaving this province, and here we go again.

Five, a dangerous centralization of power. Bill 7, 2.0; Bill 14, 2.0; Bill 15, 2.0. This bill also represents a troubling centralization of decision-making power within the cabinet. Under Bill 31, cabinet can unilaterally — which means no public consultation, no public debate in this House by elected officials — set or change electricity rates for certain sectors. It can also decide who is eligible for service. It can also impose limits or caps on total electricity availability. They can even force utilities to collect lost revenue from other ratepayers.

In other words, the government will have the power to pick winners and losers in the energy economy, not through open competition, not through regulatory process but through ministerial decree. That is control.

To make matters worse, if that is possible, the bill overrides the B.C. Utilities Commission, our independent and non-partisan regulator. Decades of public policy have been built on the principle that energy decisions must be evidence based. They must be transparent. They must be subject to independent oversight. This bill unplugs that principle and plugs it into political discretion and backroom regulation.

Six, what this bill really admits. The real story behind Bill 31 is that B.C. is running out of power. Despite years of promises under the CleanBC plan, this province has not built the generation capacity required to support both electrification and industrial growth. Today, October 2025, B.C. Hydro is importing as much as a quarter of its electricity, at a cost of $2.26 billion. Often generated by what? Fossil fuels in Alberta and the U.S.

I’ve got to repeat that. Hang on. B.C. Hydro is importing as much as a quarter of its electricity, at a cost of $2.26 billion, generated from fossil fuels in Alberta and the U.S. Isn’t that interesting.

The connection queue for new industrial projects now stands at more than 7,000 megawatts, six times the capacity of the Site C dam. Instead of confronting this reality and developing new generation capacity, the government has chosen to ration what little electricity that remains, deciding who gets connected and who gets cut off. This bill is about rationing, not innovation. It’s about managing scarcity, not solving it.

[5:05 p.m.]

Seven, questions for committee stage. We have many questions at committee stage. I’m just going to throw out a few that we’re going to ask for answers on. We want to get them on record, the questions, and we want the answers on record.

Why is this government granting itself the power to override the BCUC and set rates by regulation? Why is this bill necessary to build a transmission line that B.C. Hydro already has authority to construct? What safeguards are in place to prevent the sale or transfer of public transmission assets to private hands? Why does this government continue to mismanage electricity planning, shifting from promotion to prohibition in a matter of years? These and many other questions will be asked.

British Columbians deserve clear answers. No slogans about clean growth while our utility is forced to import dirty power to keep the lights on.

I scanned the internet and looked at responses to this bill. First, I want to see what the newspapers are saying is the government’s position.

Our Premier frames the bill as economic and climate strategy to electrify resource industries, reduce emissions and generate $1 billion in annual revenue and 10,000 jobs. The NCTL is described as a nation-building project to unlock industrial development in northwestern B.C. and strengthen reconciliation through Indigenous partnerships. Cabinet oversight is justified — it’s justified — as a way to accelerate approvals and to ensure strategic use of limited electrical supply.

Let’s see what industry or the experts’ response to this is. Analysts say Bill 31 acknowledges an energy shortage, with 7,291 megawatts of unserved demand, six times the capacity of Site C. Critics describe the bill as rationing electricity rather than expanding generation, warning it would deter new investment in hydrogen, AI and digital infrastructure. Calls continue for B.C. to leverage domestic natural gas and diversify its energy mix rather than rely solely on hydroelectric capacity and imports.

Even the opposition and environmental people have concerns. The B.C. Greens and watchdog groups argue the bill weakens oversight by sidelining the B.C. Utilities Commission and consolidating decision-making in cabinet. They warn of reducing transparency, potential political influence in power allocation. Environmental advocates question the NCTL’s root impacts and the decision to bypass environmental assessment processes.

In closing, Bill 31 is not a vision for the future. It’s a confession of past failures. It acknowledges that this government has not planned adequately for power demands it has created through its own policies. It weakens public oversight. It risks the integrity of B.C. Hydro and politicizes electricity allocation in ways that could haunt this province for decades.

We all support reconciliation. We all support clean energy and regional growth. But we cannot support a bill that uses those goals as a cover for poor planning, political control and creeping privatization of our public utilities.

British Columbia built B.C. Hydro to serve the public, not to serve the political convenience of the government of the day. For that reason, we’ll be raising serious concerns with this legislation and holding the government accountable at every stage of the debate.

Scott McInnis: It’s a pleasure, late in the week here, to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. I want to make a few comments in my not-too-lengthy speech here today.

First of all, I did have the opportunity…. I appreciate the ministry sharing a briefing with us on the bill. As a supporter of economic reconciliation with First Nations across this province, I understand that there’s quite a bit of work to do before this project can move forward.

[5:10 p.m.]

It does sound to me like all the agreements are not in place, and the consultation process has not been completed. This, obviously, is very concerning if we’re going to plan for this project, moving forward. As we know, that process does take time, and there’s back and forth. Negotiations are very detailed, and they take time. I think it’s really important to point that piece out. The government has quite a bit of work ahead of it in order to complete that process in its entirety.

There’s an issue here, and it has been mentioned several times before, so I won’t get into it in too much detail and say what other members have been mentioning on this side of the House. But where is the power? We’re importing 25 percent of our power every single year from outside of our borders.

That demand is not going down, for several reasons. We have a growing population. We have industry to feed, and I’ll talk more about that in a moment. We also have some let’s call them lofty goals with the CleanBC program instituted by this government.

If we are truly going to have electric vehicles mandated in this province, the demand for electricity will only continue to grow. Additionally, we do have municipalities that have made the decision to electrify new builds. That will greatly increase the demand for power in this province.

When we’re looking at a quarter of our electricity coming in from somewhere else, we have a serious shortfall here. I feel like we’re putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Now, I know what the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions is thinking: “Well, we put out a call for power. We have a plan.” Well, correct me if I’m wrong, please — with a yes or a no head shake, if he may — but it appears that will only make up about 8 percent of the shortfall. So we’re quite far behind before we become energy self-sufficient in this province.

It’s extremely frustrating, I have to say, because again, we have the ability to do it here. We have, now that this government has admitted it, the cleanest, most ethically extracted natural gas on the planet. Why aren’t we burning it to create electricity in the northwest? It makes logical sense.

It would be cheaper. We would have tremendous First Nation partnerships in areas that need progress on economic reconciliation. It would be faster. I just don’t understand why we’re creating this tremendously long transmission line when there’s clearly a better solution in front of us, which we’re ignoring.

Now, I’d understand it maybe four or five years ago, when this government thought LNG was the worst thing in the world. But now it appears they’ve done a 180 and are supporting any LNG project that comes forward. Well, let’s use it here.

Again, it has been mentioned before that there is a cost, obviously, associated with this project. When it was introduced in 2023, the estimated cost was $3 billion. Now it looks like it’s going to be $6 billion. I can guarantee on the record that it’ll be much higher than that when it’s all said and done.

Yes, things are expensive. Also, this government doesn’t have a great record of getting things done on time and certainly not on budget. So it would have been, I think, appropriate for the minister to at least maybe give us a realistic ballpark as to what this was going to cost at the end of the day.

Another thing I was hoping to hear from the minister is…. He’s talking about taking the little power we have and allocating it for various industries under this bill. What he failed to mention was: are there any companies actually interested in doing that? Yes, we want AI centres, data centres, across this province.

[5:15 p.m.]

I see the minister shaking his head. Well, why didn’t he mention that? A list of companies that are ready and willing to say, “When you have the power ready, we’re coming” — that would have been a great selling feature, I know, for me. Nothing.

I do want to talk for a second about the possibility and the reality around hydrogen projects in this province. Now I’m going to read a quote from a CBC article, March 27, 2025. It says: “Over the past six months, at least seven large-scale hydrogen production projects have paused development or been cancelled due to a range of issues.”

[The Speaker in the chair.]

When we look back into some of these projects, it seems very clear that not only is the economic environment in this province not conducive to attracting big business like that, but they don’t have any power. So it’s laughable that the minister talks about a great and expanding hydrogen industry in this province. It simply isn’t going to happen.

Mixt Energy, McLeod Lake Indian Band and Mitsubishi’s $5 billion green hydrogen and ammonia production project for export on Kerry Lake Reserve near Prince George, Shell Canada’s Aurora green hydrogen project for domestic use near Port Moody, TC Energy’s green liquid hydrogen export project for northwest B.C., Kanata Clean’s blue hydrogen production project for export in northwest B.C., NorthRiver Midstream’s blue hydrogen production project for domestic use in Taylor, Prince George clean hydrogen project and, famously, Fortescue’s Coyote project worth $2 billion — all gone.

This is not a province that these companies are looking to invest in for hydrogen production. It’s ridiculous that the minister would even insinuate that. We don’t have the power for that stuff. A quarter of our power, as mentioned, is being burned using fossil fuels and imported into this province from the United States and from Alberta. We are not energy self-sufficient, and I find that to be, honestly, a threat to our sovereignty. Where’s the elbows up?

We don’t have power in this province, and the steps we’re taking by building a few wind farms here and there ain’t going to cut it. Why are we not using the clean natural gas, with Indigenous partnerships along the way, to produce the power on site where we need it? I don’t understand. I can’t wrap my head around that. Does the government feel like if we just sell it somewhere else we’re going to save the planet or save B.C. from climate change? It makes no sense to me.

My last comment is around…. I read through the bill a couple of times, and it’s concerning, because it’s a shell bill that’s going to be enacted through regulations, which we have, on this side of the House, zero control to even talk about. That’s super frustrating, because yes, I’m a huge believer in these build Canada projects. We need them. But it can’t be just a one-way street and what the NDP thinks is the right way to do things is the right way to do things.

I’m speaking in opposition, obviously, to this bill. I think there are some serious questions to ask in the committee stage around this bill and how it’s actually going to look on the ground, because the idea is that…. It appears like we’re installing a new kitchen sink, but we turn the water on, and it just dribbles out. We don’t have power in this province.

[5:20 p.m.]

I would love to have a conversation and a debate in this House about how we’re actually going to look at solving our energy crisis in this province for the next five, ten, 15, 20 years. This doesn’t cut the mustard.

Noting the hour, I’d like to reserve my place and adjourn the debate for today.

Scott McInnis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Darlene Rotchford: Section A reports progress on Bill 21 and seeks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:21 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:08 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: All right. I will call the committee back.

On clause 7 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 7 in front of us.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Steve Kooner: We’re back working on Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. We are now at clause 8, and clause 8 deals with….

[1:10 p.m.]

The following section is added: “Transition – intimate-image claims.” “If, on the coming into force of this section, the tribunal has jurisdiction over a claim described in subsection 136.2 (1) (b) as a tribunal small claim under Division 3, Tribunal Small Claims, of this Part, the claim is to continue as an intimate-image claim.”

Now this is a transition addition. Would the Attorney General’s department be able to explain why this was added? What’s the purpose behind this one?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a transitional kind of provision. Damage claims made under section 6 of the Intimate Images Act are currently treated as tribunal small claims. Once these amendments come into force, they will be separated out as intimate image claims. This transition provision will ensure that any process claims will continue without interruption.

Steve Kooner: Since we are dealing with claims and existing claims here and the effect of this, that’s why the transition comes in here.

The first question: how many existing tribunal small claims are expected to be automatically reclassified as intimate image claims when the act comes into force?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m sorry to say we don’t have the breakdown of what might be impacted or a number to offer the member.

Steve Kooner: Although the Attorney General doesn’t have an exact number, is there an approximate ballpark? Are there hundreds of claims? Is there any type of estimate or anything?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to give an estimate…. One of the reasons it’s very difficult to predict or understand numbers is because these files can turn around so quickly as well. As I mentioned earlier, you can have sometimes, maybe, a same-day protection order or things we can move quickly.

Right now there are 67 cases that are active, I’m told. I’m not sure how many are damage claims and/or protection order applications, but that gives you an idea.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for the answer.

Has the CRT developed internal procedures to ensure a seamless transition for ongoing cases?

Hon. Niki Sharma: One of the things that we will do is…. This is enforced by regulation, as we did with the bigger act, to give the CRT time to adapt to the changes.

Steve Kooner: Other than the time, is there anything else that’s being provided to CRT to help adjust to this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Some of these changes were actually requested by the CRT. I think we mentioned that off the top.

As we get through it, you’ll see that some of them are just to help them do their job better. It’s not the bigger bill that we’re talking about and just process changes and some other changes. No, it’s just a matter of changing the law and nothing else.

[1:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Since we don’t have examples of exact numbers of cases that might be affected by this transition…. The Attorney General just mentioned that this is something that the CRT was asking for.

So in drafting this legislation, was there any sort of comparative analysis done with, say, other provinces and what they did when they needed to make amendments with this type of legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just like I mentioned earlier on, in an earlier line of questioning, there aren’t any jurisdictions that have a similar process that we have, so comparative measures don’t really make sense.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Another question related to this transition, although we don’t know the exact number of cases that might get affected. The question is this: are there cost implications or filing-fee refunds for those claims that are reclassified? If claims are getting reclassified, are there going to be any sorts of monetary consequences as a result of this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, there would be no impact on the claimant.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Steve Kooner: On clause 9. With clause 9, there’s a title stated here, “Intimate Images Protection Act,” and then it reads: “Section 1 of the Intimate Images Protection Act, S.B.C. 2023, chapter 11, is amended by repealing paragraph (b) (i) of the definition of ‘decision maker’ and substituting the following: (i) the tribunal if the amount claimed is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal under Division 8, Intimate Image Claims, of Part 10, Tribunal Jurisdiction, of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, .”

Maybe the Attorney General’s department can enlighten us on the basis for this particular change.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The proposed amendment to the definition of “decision maker” will reflect that the jurisdiction of the CRT will now be over claims for damages under section 6, if the amount is less or equal to the amount prescribed under the maximum amount, so whatever was set as the maximum amount of damages.

Steve Kooner: Just to confirm, I think we’ve dealt with it in other sections, but with this particular definition, the tribunal is the only decision-maker when the amount claimed is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, correct?

Should I repeat the question?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The term “decision-maker” is broad in the sense that it could cover, depending on where the claim is brought, a judge or a tribunal member.

Steve Kooner: I take note that we’re changing a definition here in terms of decision-maker and that throughout this particular bill there have been some changes to definitions. I don’t think there have been enough changes done to the definitions.

I did have a concern in regards to this particular bill in terms of the definition of “intimate image.” I think, in the general sense, some questions were made and some answers were given in regards to what is caught by intimate image. I was told that AI imaging would be caught, but there’s nothing explicitly stated in the original definitions on whether an AI image would be caught, like a deepfake image.

At this point, because I feel that this is an important thing to take into consideration…. I know the original act came into force about 2½ years ago when the Attorney General first became the Attorney General. I believe she said that was her first piece of legislation. Now we’re revisiting this legislation to make amendments, to make improvements, because this area of law is growing rapidly with the digital age and is affecting a lot of victims and potential victims. We owe it to them to make sure we’re considering all newer facts.

Say that two years ago people may not have heard of AI. Over the last two years, it has expanded. It has come faster, and it’s growing faster. We want to make sure that there is no ambiguity in that definition when it doesn’t talk about AI, deepfake images and altered images. We want to make sure that when people are making claims, they’re not getting caught by that. They should be able to bring that claim forward.

I do have an amendment here. I will introduce it, but first I’ll read it, and then I’ll hand it to the Clerk here. I guess I would be adding clause 9.1.

The Chair: One moment, Member.

Member, just for a point of clarification of order, we have to deal with clause 9, and then we could deal with an additional clause being added.

Steve Kooner: Oh, okay.

Clause 9 approved.

[1:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: As I was stating earlier, I know that we just dealt with a definition in clause 9, and now we’re getting to the latter part of the act. Although we’ve just dealt with the definition, I see that this is a new piece of legislation.

Even the original piece of legislation is fairly new. It has been about 2½ years, and AI has grown within that period, just in the span of two years. I didn’t know what AI was two years ago. You see this happening, people posting images online, and it’s not the actual person that is in that picture. Those images were created.

There are a lot of companies that are saying that you could get…. They’re promoting virtual assistants, people that are nonexistent. It’s just created by AI. So if somebody creates nude images of someone, and somebody is being affected and embarrassed, they should have some recourse.

It was explained that this bill should catch AI, but we don’t want to have a system where we just want to wait and see. Then we’re going to have to come back here, and another bill will have to be introduced. It’s going to take time. The whole thing, why we’re doing this now, is for expediency.

I’m introducing and moving an amendment. Basically, I, Steve Kooner, move in the Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, intituled Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to amend as follows:

[CLAUSE 9, by adding the following underlined text as shown after clause 9:

9.1 Section 1 is amended by repealing the definition of “intimate image” and substituting the following:

“intimate images” means

(a) a visual recording or visual simultaneous representation of an individual, whether or not the individual is identifiable and whether or not the image has been altered in any way, in which the individual is or is depicted as

(i) engaging in a sexual act,

(ii) nude or nearly nude, or

(iii) exposing the individual’s genital organs, anal region or breasts, and, in relation to which the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy at,

(iv) in the case of a recording, the time the recording was made and, if distributed, the time of the distribution, and

(v) the case of a simultaneous representation, the time the simultaneous representation occurred;

(b) a deepfake or digitally created representation, including through the use of artificial intelligence, of an individual in which the individual is or is depicted as

(i) engaging in a sexual act,

(ii) nude or nearly nude, or

(iii) exposing the individual’s genital organs, anal region or breasts; .]

Basically, it reiterates the top portion and adds the AI portion into this bill.

I’d like to pass this up so we can get copies.

The Chair: Okay, this committee will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1:29 p.m. to 1:34 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, committee, I’ll call us back to order.

We have confirmed that the amendment is in order, so now we will proceed to debate on the amendment for Bill 17, with the addition of 9.1.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: As I was stating in the introduction of this amendment, I know that in earlier discussions of this bill, the Attorney General has stated that the definition would include AI.

[1:35 p.m.]

When I did a reading of the original act, I couldn’t find anything on AI in the definition, unless I’ve missed something. I think it’s really crucial, because AI did not exist five years ago. We’d never heard of it.

We started hearing about it back in 2022, and that wasn’t too long ago. Like I said, the online forums are rapidly increasing, and AI is even increasing at a rapid pace. Businesses are trying to keep up with it. People are using it in every facet of what they do today. It’s affecting every single industry, and it’s affecting all the entertainment industry as well. It’s affecting social media platforms.

We’ve just got to get in front of it. We’ve got to be able to deal with it, because people are altering images with AI. Sometimes they’re totally fake images; sometimes they’re partially fake images. You don’t want a perpetrator getting away with it because the arbitrator feels they don’t have authority to look at it. They go back to the act, and they say: “Well, this is AI.”

If somebody has legal counsel, I’d assume legal counsel will try to make that argument, on the other side. “Well this doesn’t address AI. This is not a real image.” So they’re not caught by the damages claim in this. That could have real consequences for potential victims.

When you build this into the definition of “intimate image,” you deal with the situation full on. It has been 2½ years since this original legislation was introduced, and we’re now doing an amendment bill 2½ years later. If we catch an issue now, we’re going to be here 2½ years later.

At the rate that AI is growing — it just started two years ago — who knows where we’re going to be at? Who knows how many claims we’re going to have to be dealing with? We just can’t afford having all those potential victims not having any sort of recourse.

I think it’s an important amendment. This is the time to do it, because we’re sitting here, and we’re dealing with this legislation. Both sides of the House feel that this type of legislation needs to exist because it’s a real, real concern. We heard in second reading debate that there were emotional stories from MLAs from this House that had experience with this area of law. With AI coming into it, we just don’t want people not having recourse if they’re victims.

The definition needs to be amended to explicitly state that it does cover those types of images that have to deal with deepfake or digitally created representations through the use of artificial intelligence. I feel that the purpose is good, and now is the time to do it. Otherwise, we might be coming back in another 2½ years. That’s just way too long. That’s my submission on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to talk through why I won’t be supporting this amendment.

I think we talked about this earlier on in the process. The definition right now says clearly: “whether or not the image has been altered in any way.” It clearly states that already.

That definition was run through the Uniform Law Conference. That’s a group of experts that have gone through to give guidance to legislatures about how to capture certain things. That definition is broad enough to include AI. Just to further clarify how I know that it is broad enough to include AI: since the two years of running the tribunal, they’ve made decisions that have been about AI-altered images.

I’m assured by the chair of the CRT that every tribunal member…. Because it’s so broad, they have the ability to interpret that to mean any altered image, altered in any way, including the technology or not. That captures any AI or digitally altered image.

[1:40 p.m.]

Also, in the construction of the amendment, there’s no definition of “deepfake,” and I don’t think that’s a legally understood term. Along with “digitally created representation,” I think these are terms that would leave more room for subjective interpretation.

I think it’s clearer to say, “whether or not the image is altered in any way,” because it’s broad enough to cover any technological interventions. As I mentioned before, I know it does because the CRT is already making decisions on AI-altered images using that definition.

The Chair: The question is on the amendment. Shall the new clause 9.1 proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough pass?

Amendment negatived.

On clause 10.

Steve Kooner: Clause 10 is under the same category, Intimate Images Protection Act. The wording here is: “Section 5 is amended by adding the following subsection: (10) For certainty, the name of an applicant may be included in a determination or order made under this section, or in a related decision.” That’s what this reads, for the record.

I have some questions on this particular clause. The first one is: why does the minister now permit an applicant’s name to be included in decisions or orders?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To start with, there are provisions in the act that make sure that there’s a publication ban, just generally, with the proceedings related to anybody here.

The reason for this amendment was to clarify ambiguity that may arise. The way this system is set up is that you don’t have to name a respondent. You don’t have to name the person who has the image and is distributing it. You’re asking for a protection order, and the order will be available to deliver to somebody, which says: “Stop distributing this image.” A tribunal member, in making that, has to somehow describe the image.

Different ways of doing that. You might have a link. You might have a link that clearly says: “Here’s where it is. Stop.” This is the order that can be delivered to anybody. You might do it through text, right? You might say: “The image of this.”

But there are instances where the tribunal may need to name the person in order to make it clear who they’re saying that image is of to stop. So this makes it clear that there’s an ability to do that type of order.

Steve Kooner: We just touched upon the applicant naming. It doesn’t allow the respondents to be named, the perpetrator. So it’s just one side.

I want to clarify that these orders are just…. One side will have the applicant, or will it have nobody’s name at all?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. Just to clarify, there’s no restriction in…. I’ll break it down a little bit. Maybe that’ll help explain it.

The point of this system is to make it so you don’t have to name a respondent. You can get an order for the image, that this is an image being distributed, and deliver the order to who it is. There are instances in this act that could be where you do name a respondent, and then there would be different provisions that apply.

The amendment here is separate from all of that. It’s specific to the issue I described earlier about enforcement.

Steve Kooner: When we’re talking about the applicant, we’re talking about the victim. I understand it’s talking about enforcement. But when you put it on enforcement documents, somebody’s name, is that not visible to the open public?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. As mentioned, there’s a publication ban on generally. Also, once the victim receives the order, it’s up to them who — with the help, of course, of all the victim support services that we have available to them — needs to be delivered the order.

Steve Kooner: Are there circumstances where an applicant’s name could be on the proceedings as well?

Although, like you said, there’s a publication ban, but is there a choice? Maybe somebody wants to do it. What’s the actual circumstance when the name is going to show up or when the name is not going to show up, or is it just a general procedure that the name will never show up?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The whole act, in the way it’s set up, is about protecting somebody’s privacy. The tribunal takes the privacy of the victim extremely seriously, so that would mean that in the decisions that they have made, I’m told, they only give information that’s necessary in a protection order.

Steve Kooner: I just want to make it clear. The default is that a name would not be shown or shared, and that’s how the procedure will work — despite, say, that a victim might say they might want to make it public.

Is there anything that they could do to say that, because that’s something that they want to do, and they feel that that might be a deterrent factor if they brought it up?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to be clear, this is, I think, beyond the scope of this particular clause. I just would refer the member to the publication ban section, which I think answers the question that he’s asking related to the flexibility of the victim to decide, in instances where they want to.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for this chance, again, to stand and speak to this bill. It’s on public record that this bill has some personal meaning to me in my family, and any chance that I can have to try and help make things better in this regard for any victim is appreciated. So I really appreciate this opportunity.

Due to time, rather than going through a lot of other questions first, I’m going to move an amendment. I’ll table that now, and then I’ll speak to it after.

The Chair: Member, do you want to move the amendment, and then we’ll take a recess?

Misty Van Popta: I move an amendment.

[CLAUSE 11, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

11 Section 20 is repealed and the following substituted:

Limitation period for administrative penalty proceedings

20 A proceeding for the purposes of ordering an administrative penalty under this Part must be commenced within 26 years after the date the contravention of the order to which the administrative penalty relates is alleged to have occurred.]

The Chair: We will take a five-minute recess, and then we’ll reconvene.

The committee recessed from 1:56 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order.

Misty Van Popta: I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leave granted.

Amendment withdrawn.

Misty Van Popta: I would like to move a new amendment and will table when I get a copy, to re-sign it.

Thank you for the help with the procedure, Chair. I’d like to move my amendment.

[CLAUSE 11, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

11 Section 20 is repealed and the following substituted:

Limitation period for administrative penalty proceedings

20 A proceeding for the purposes of ordering an administrative penalty under this Part must be commenced within 24 years after the date the contravention of the order to which the administrative penalty relates is alleged to have occurred.]

The Chair: We will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 2:07 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I’d like to call the committee back to order.

We are on an amendment to clause 11.

On the amendment.

Misty Van Popta: I just want to take a quick moment to acknowledge the Attorney General for the opportunity to not only speak to me privately but for working across the line to make sure that this amendment is workable for both sides.

I’ve received a lot of great messages. There’s just a lot of humanity in the moment on a topic like this, from lots of members from all over the House and all over the building, actually.

The importance of this amendment is to move the opportunity for…. If somebody breaches an order to stop promoting an image, there’s a time and a window for somebody for a penalty.

In our family’s experience, even though she was a minor…. If I look at other victims, whether they’re minors or adults, the time of recovery from a traumatic experience like this often goes beyond two years, in my opinion. In talking on how we can strengthen that ability for people to receive a penalty in claims like this. We’ve negotiated to four years, which I’m really thankful for.

The original amendment spoke to six years, but I think that this amendment, at four years, still captures the intent, which is to move beyond a two-year window when trauma is still quite fresh.

I appreciate that. That’s all I’ll say to it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just wanted to thank the member opposite for bringing to this place the humanity of the impacts of what this type of harm can do to people, in such a real way.

Part of the reason we’re here to do this work is to make it better for people, and I hope that today she can go home and tell her kid that she made a difference in changing the law, that her story didn’t go unnoticed and that we’re all trying to work together to make it better.

We’ll be supporting the amendment.

Amendment approved.

On clause 11 as amended.

Steve Kooner: The clause is now amended, so we’ll be speaking to the amended clause, correct? Okay. We are dealing with clause 11.

[2:15 p.m.]

Under clause 11, we have here section 20, I believe, which now with the amendment reads: “Limitation period for administrative penalty proceedings.” “A proceeding for the purposes of ordering an administrative penalty under this Part must be commenced within 4 years after the date the contravention of the order to which the administration penalty relates is alleged to have occurred.”

Since we actually got this amendment through with the support from the other side, I don’t have any further questions on this particular amendment.

I’ll move to the next one.

Clause 11 as amended approved.

On clause 12.

Steve Kooner: Now we’re on clause 12, and clause 12 deals with section 22.1 of the original act.

For the record, what clause 12 states in regards to section 22.1…. It has: “Indirect collection of personal information.” Subsection (1): “In this section, ‘affected individual’ means an individual who an aggrieved person believes may be liable under any of the following sections: (a) section 5, application for expedited intimate-image protection order; (b) section 6, claim for damages; (c) section 15, application to Supreme Court for injunctive relief; (d) section 16, tribunal may order an administrative tribunal.”

This section goes further into “aggrieved person.” It means: “a person who is considering whether to make an application under section 5, a claim under section 6 or an application under section 15 or 16; (b), an applicant or claimant; (c), a person who has made an application under section 5, a claim under section 6 or an application under section 15 or 16.”

“‘personal information’ has the same meaning as in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”

This section actually continues. There’s subsection (2), and then there are subsections (3), (4) and (5). But for the record, I’ve shown the gist of this section.

I’ve got a few questions in regards to this. The first one…. This particular section states that the minister can collect personal information about an affected individual from a source other than the affected individual. What channels will this be through?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: These provisions are to help the IIPS do their work. If you notice the definition of “affected individual,” as the member read out, it’s “a person believes may be liable.” They are not necessarily, at that time, liable.

The primary source under the subsection that the member is asking for, I’m told, is the victim. The victim is likely providing information about an affected individual to the IIPS for various reasons. So this makes it clear about the personal information and the ability to do that.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

Just another question on clause 12 here. There is some terminology under this particular clause. I think it refers to “reasonably necessary” somewhere around here in regards to the minister’s discretion. Subsection (2) reads: “The minister may collect personal information about an affected individual from a source other than the affected individual if the minister considers that the personal information relates directly to and is reasonably necessary for any of the following purposes.”

In regards to reasonably necessary, can you explain what that means?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not a defined term, so it would be the ordinary meaning of reasonably necessary.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Steve Kooner: Going further into this particular clause, we support bringing those to justice who have committed an offence related to non-consensual sharing of intimate images. However, are there any safeguards in place to prevent the misuse or overreach of these collection powers?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have a whole regime for privacy in the province, as the member knows, with the Privacy Commissioner and all the enforcement and oversight mechanisms they have. Just to make it clear that already under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, there’s been…. The Privacy Commissioner oversees this or is making a decision to oversee it in the same way. The recommendation is just to put it inside the act.

Steve Kooner: I’m not sure if this was answered, but I’ll ask the question. What is the reason for the minister to collect data regarding personal information, not law enforcement, to bring about justice?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is entirely a civil process. It’s not a criminal process. So it wouldn’t be a criminal process, as the member suggests. As I mentioned before, it’s the intimate images protection service, so it’s for the purpose of protecting the victim.

Steve Kooner: Could more detailed information be provided in regards to how a victim gets protected when you’re just collecting data? How do you protect the victim as a result of collecting data?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Along with all the other things that I’ve already talked about, the support…. A specialized team of victim service group sits in the PSSG that’s there to provide support for the victim.

An example might be if the victim wants help serving, not in the same legal sense as a court but delivering a protection order to somebody, then the intimate image protection service would collect information about that person in order to help the victim do that.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

In terms of this collection of information, will any of it be shared with law enforcement? Why I ask this question is that there is a reference made to the Public Safety and Solicitor General department. It flows from that.

There is information being collected. I know this is a civil form of adjudication, but the Public Safety and Solicitor General department was mentioned just now. I just would like to know if any of this information will be passed on to law enforcement as well.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This process is about the victim choosing. Of course, it’s open to the victim to choose a criminal process, to make a report to the police. But this is a separate process. They’re choosing to go to a civil…. In the context of the intimate image protection service, unless there was something about the victim asking them to give it to the police because they’re doing a parallel claim or something civilly, that wouldn’t happen, ordinarily speaking.

[2:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I’d just like to clarify. If the fact pattern is so egregious, and it’s blatantly obvious a crime has been committed, and that’s the scenario of intimate images being shared and what’s happened, there is no mechanism under this piece of legislation to actually inform the police.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have to understand that we’re dealing with the collection of private and personal information in the context of this, and dealing with the victim. So the victim, when they call the intimate images protection service…. The first thing is to support the victim. That also includes giving information about the different processes available to them. That’s the purpose for it.

There are other options or avenues available to the victim at all times. But getting through the door to victim services…. We want them to be clear that they’ll be protected, their privacy will be protected, and that it’s about focusing on them getting all the information they need to pursue whatever they choose to pursue.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Steve Kooner: For clause 13, we are dealing with the commencement section. This is the last clause of this bill.

In regard to clause 13, the question I have is: why do clauses 1 to 9 come into force by regulation, but the rest come into force on the date of royal assent?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is what we did with the original act too. We had some sections that were by regulation in order to make sure the CRT is ready once they come into force.

Steve Kooner: What types of clauses will the CRT be ready for? These are grouped clauses, right? So there’s one group and then the second group. What are they ready for, and what are they not ready for?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The ones that are excluded from by regulation are ones where they clearly don’t need time. We already talked about those sections in detail, but the privacy provisions, the naming of the applicant and the limitations period.

Clause 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:34 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole back to order on Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

Bryan Tepper: I would like to move an amendment to clause 10.1, which reads as follows:

[CLAUSE 10.1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Limitation on terms of non-disclosure agreement

10.1 An agreement between a post-secondary institution and any person, including a collective agreement or an agreement settling existing or contemplated litigation, must not contain any term that, directly or indirectly, prohibits the post-secondary institution or any person related to the post-secondary institution from disclosing that a formal allegation has been made that a member of the institutional community committed sexual violence toward another member of the institutional community, and any such term that is included in an agreement is void.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We will take a short recess to make copies of the amendment for the other committee members.

The committee recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 3:09 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I’m calling to order on Bill 18. We’re on the amendment to add clause 10.1.

Bryan Tepper: Non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, are contractual agreements that are used by corporations, government agencies, sports clubs, universities, youth clubs, religious institutions, powerful individuals and others to cover up harassment, discrimination and other abuses. They’re also used to hide the underpayment of severance, maternity benefits and other entitlements and to cover up everything from faulty products to medical malpractice.

[3:10 p.m.]

In some of these places, NDAs are incredibly useful to protect trade secrets and intellectual property. So what is the problem with NDAs? The NDAs permanently gag victims and often prohibit them from speaking with family, friends, or even counsellors about what happened or from warning others. They also allow abusers to move on with impunity and chill the climate for anyone wishing to speak up. In a survey, 93 percent of respondents who signed NDAs reported negative mental health consequences from doing so.

Many agreements also include non-disparagement clauses, which bar victims from making any negative remarks about the abuser or employer, whether or not they are true. This is an unacceptable constraint on free speech. It’s estimated that more than a third of employees have signed an NDA in Canada and that tens of thousands are signed every year in cases of sexual harassment or, in this case, sexual violence alone.

Cases where NDAs are used to cover up crimes include the famous Harvey Weinstein, the Hockey Canada incident, Roger Ailes and Peter Nygård.

Then I would ask: is this an equity issue? Definitely. Our data shows that five times as many women report signing NDAs as men. They are also disproportionately used against minority groups, people with disabilities, low-income workers and other marginalized groups. Victims can be given a choice of a clause that protects only their privacy and not that of the abusers. An NDA forces victims to protect the perpetrator’s or organization’s identity in order to protect themselves.

NDA legislation has already passed in the U.S. in 28 states and their federal, as well as in the U.K. and Ireland. Legislation has been tabled in six Canadian provinces and federally.

It’s imperative that legislators immediately add it to something like this when we’re talking about universities and sexual violence that’s being perpetrated on people so that we can collect proper data and that people can follow through on these incidents and on the reports that are collected.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I have examined the amendment proposing to add a new clause, 10.1, put forward by the member for Surrey-Panorama.

The amendment adding clause 10.1 proposes to declare a provision of any agreement between a post-secondary institution and any person to be void if a provision, be it a collective agreement or a litigation settlement agreement, prohibits the post-secondary institution or any person related to the post-secondary institution from disclosing that a formal allegation of sexual violence has been made.

The impact of the proposed amendment, if adopted, would result in the invalidation of provisions of agreements and appears to extend beyond the bill’s stated objective.

I therefore conclude the proposed amendment exceeds the scope of Bill 18 and is therefore ruled out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

On clause 11.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you, Chair.

Back on this, section 11 says institutions must make training available. I’m going to ask the minister: why no mandate that it be mandatory, annual or tracked for completion, even?

[3:15 p.m.]

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Before I answer on Section 11, I just want to speak a bit about the non-disclosure agreements, noting that we recognize that non-disclosure agreements can be used to prevent people from speaking out about harassment, discrimination, sexual violence and gender-based violence. But we know that this isn’t an issue that only exists on post-secondary campuses, and the misuse of NDAs is something that really can occur across society in different ways.

This is why the Attorney General Ministry is reviewing information that they’ve received from the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign and working with community members to see how legislative changes can be made in a more holistic manner that will apply across sectors, not just piecemeal to this legislation. I just want to start with that, to note that that is something that our government is working on and is attuned to.

Also, with our sexual violence action plan, which is released alongside this legislation, there will be guidance for post-secondary institutions in developing non-disclosure agreements and the impacts of what they have on gender-based violence, sexual violence within post-secondary communities.

Now to answer your question on section 11. We recognize that there is an importance of providing training to the post-secondary sector to effectively respond to and prevent sexual violence in post-secondary institutions and ensure it’s trauma-informed and survivor-centred.

However, we also recognize that there are complexities that come with mandated training — for example, the institutional capacity and budget considerations. Also, research shows that when you mandate training in this way, the objective isn’t always met and that people can be resistant to such training. With this in mind, what we see is that training needs to be responsive to the needs of the specific post-secondary communities.

A one-size-fits-all approach will not address the complexities and risks associated with sexual violence. It actually could increase resistance to behavioural change when it comes to this. With those complexities in mind, this section has struck a balance, ensuring that institutions have the training and are making aware and really pushing it, without making it mandatory.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. You almost asked my next question.

Because it is listed down there, there is no requirement in that clause about training to be trauma-informed or survivor-centred. This does leave room for outdated victim-blaming modalities.

Is there any portion in that that I’ve missed and that actually does require the trauma-informed or survivor-centred training?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The training resources are something that our ministry has provided to post-secondary institutions to help support them.

In 2017, the ministry provided funding and support for the development of the sexual violence prevention and response training series, which launched in 2021. It has open-source facilitation guides and is trauma-informed and survivor-centred. Those are the real principles that guide it.

[3:20 p.m.]

As well, in fall of 2021, we introduced the Safer Campuses for Everyone training module, which is a four-module, 75-minute online training series that focuses on a decolonized, inclusive approach to discussing sexual violence and consent that can be implemented in the institution’s learning system.

Bryan Tepper: I understand those have been made available. I just want to clarify again: is this a requirement through this bill, or is it that they have that material, and whether they use trauma-informed or survivor-centred is up to them?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Most post-secondary institutions that are already providing this training are using a trauma-informed and survivor-centred approach. That is the expectation of the ministry as well, as is outlined by the objectives of this legislation, in ensuring that they are responding to the needs of the persons and groups that are most likely to be impacted and fostering a culture of consent and accountability.

These are all things that underlie the legislation that we’ve brought. I will say that the use of our training resources as well as building on those is something that post-secondary institutions are doing. We’re grateful for them to be our partners in this work to really help address sexual violence in the most meaningful way.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Bryan Tepper: The very important clause we have here…. Can the minister explain why section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this act or regulations made under this act?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: So this section…. This is standard language. It’s a law of general application that sets out the procedures and prosecuting of most offences under provincial law. Section 5 of the Offence Act would make it an offence to contravene enactment, and the person that contravenes it would be prosecuted, or, if convicted, they would be subject to penalty.

It’s really to disapply the Offence Act so we aren’t going beyond the scope of the legislation and what the intention of the legislation is. It’s very standard across most legislation.

Bryan Tepper: I just want to confirm that you said “disapply” not “apply” when you were saying that.

Okay, thank you. I’ll take that as answered.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

[3:25 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Under subsection (3)(b), can the minister explain what the different classes of post-secondary institutions are and define what “things” are for us?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: With regard to different classes of post-secondary institutions, it recognizes that there are universities, colleges, institutes that are regulated under this act that would come under here. So that answers that piece.

What this provision does is it allows government the ability to set regulations that are specific to institutions and to the needs of that area. In terms of the wording of 3(b), this is standard wording that, including events and things, allows for…. This is found amongst many acts and legislation, and it allows the widest scope of power to ensure that whatever was to happen, we have the power to make regulations to capture the entire picture of what could be occurring at a post-secondary institution.

Bryan Tepper: That’s one of those things that worries me as well — giving unidentified powers, really, in some of these locations, such as “things” that you can add later. I think this is just something to be wary of.

I will move on, and I will do this a little slower because you guys may need to look. I’m not sure.

Under the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act…. It was section 7, which is fairly close to clause 13 here. I noticed that it’s both in subsection (3)(c)…. The other two are somewhat similar, but (c) is gone from that one. If I might ask why that portion was deemed not necessary.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This is an update just to reflect modernized drafting language. If you look at subsection 7(3) of the previous act, it doesn’t say “may make different regulations” in subsection (3). It takes the “may make regulations” power to (c). Whereas currently under subsection 13(3), the beginning of that section has already written “may make different regulations for” and outlined what the specific scenarios are.

Basically, (c) is captured under (b) in the new drafted legislation.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. That is actually what I thought as well, so I really appreciate that.

I’ll make one more comment that I’ll turn into a question here for this. We do have…. Regulations can be different for different institutions. Do we have a danger of creating a two-tier system, where elite universities get weaker rules?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just off the set, there is no intention to have any weaker standards for any institutions. What this really gives us is the ability to ensure that different institutions that might be smaller in size or have capacity challenges — that we’re able to support them better in different ways to what their needs are.

At the end of the day, the expectation is that this will be applied to its fullest extent across all public post-secondary institutions.

Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:34 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:56 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 21 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to take an opportunity to thank the team that sits here from the AG that helped put this together for their work.

With me today is Anne Foy, Nina Bindra, Natalie Barnes and Kelly Farish.

On clause 1.

Steve Kooner: I’d first like to thank the Attorney General’s staff for being here today. Like all bills, there’s a lot of preparation that goes behind it, and the support staff and the team in the Attorney General’s department play a big role in helping bring this legislation forward and helping us inform the people that are listening at home what this bill is all about. Getting to address the importance of the different issues in this particular bill…. I do thank all of you for being here today.

I thank the Attorney General, as always. We’re working on another bill.

To get into the clause…. We’re on clause 1. Clause 1 is under part 1, the Insurance (Vehicle) Act amendments. Clause 1 states, for the record, that sections 14.1(2), 14.2 and 14.3 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, RSBC 1996, chapter 231, are repealed.

Now I have some questions in regards to this repealing here in clause 1 of these sections in the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. The first question is why are these sections, 14.1(2), 14.2 and 14.3, being repealed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They are being repealed because they will no longer be required after the addition of part 5.1.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that clarification that they are no longer required, but now that takes me to the second question. What exactly did those sections provide for? What was their importance? Why are they not needed anymore?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These sections were enacted in 2021 as a legislative response to the class action lawsuit against the province related to the reimbursements of costs of health care-related services.

Steve Kooner: As a result of repealing these particular sections, was there any sort of analysis done to see if the removal of these particular sections would have any sort of impact on the workings of the act and also the organization that this affects, which is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: So just like any piece of legislation that’s done, there is an analysis. Some of that is some of the amendments that you see before us in this bill about that. When we go through the sections, I’ll be able to explain it.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

Since we are in clause 1, I’d usually ask some general questions, as well, about the bill. The question that usually comes to mind is the amount of consultation that was had in preparation of the bill and what consultation was had. So that’s my next question in regard to this particular bill.

I understand there are two main parts of this bill. The first part of the bill deals with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. Then the second part of the bill deals with the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office and the authority and responsibility and duties of that particular office.

At this, maybe because we’re keeping it pretty general, I think if the Attorney General can explain just a consultation procedure that was done for the entire bill at this stage, that would be helpful.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll just cover what we, for the first two clauses, which deal with the amendments…. The PGT deals with the rest of the clauses. So this specifically would be related to ICBC. Who did we consult? We consulted internally within government and with ICBC.

Steve Kooner: As a result of those consultations, what was discussed? What were the concerns and what was the discussion in regard to creating these changes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The results of the consultation are what you see before you. That was the result of it, and ICBC raised no concerns.

Steve Kooner: In regards to these consultations that were had and this bill being created, how did this bill originate? We can talk about the first part if you like. How did the first part of it originate? What made the government move?

I know that I did have a briefing from the Attorney General’s department, and I was informed about the class action that had happened. I was told that this was in response to that. Was this a government-initiated action, or was it more so the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia saying that we have to resolve the issue here that has come about?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I just previously mentioned, the first two clauses are in response to a class action lawsuit against the province related to the reimbursements of costs of health-related services.

[4:05 p.m.]

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

I can read out the details a little bit more about the litigation, if that’s helpful. Rorison is a certified class action against the province in relation to moneys paid by ICBC to the province from 1973 to present for medical practitioner services under the Medical Services Plan arising from motor vehicle accidents.

Steve Kooner: What would have happened if this legislation had not been brought forward? I know there is a class action; this is a response. But what would have happened if you did not bring this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s hard to act and answer in the hypothetical. If we didn’t do this legislation, then we would have carried on in our defence, as we are doing right now in the class action.

Steve Kooner: Where has the class action reached? Is it still being tried in the Supreme Court, or has it gone further in other courts?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There have been a number of applications on this matter, up to the Court of Appeal, started in 2020. At this stage, the common issues trial is set for September 2026.

Steve Kooner: So this legislation is brought forward. What bearing will this have on the litigation? Will the litigation keep continuing, or will it stop?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of course, it’ll be up to the court to determine what happens in the litigation. We have a pretty stellar team of lawyers that are on it.

The purpose of this legislation is to protect taxpayers by establishing a valid retroactive tax that ensured no funds would need to be paid to the plaintiff in Rorison or other potential plaintiffs who bring similar challenges to this long-standing practice that every B.C. government has used since the 1970s.

Steve Kooner: Since this part actually deals with the certificates of insurance and states that there’s a tax in regards to those policies that were purchased and all that, will this impact the policyholders at all in regards to their premiums, coverage or future claims?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: That’s good to hear that it won’t impact them.

From your consultations, was there any sort of concern in terms of what could be potential impacts of bringing this legislation forward? Sometimes you bring legislation because it’s the best of the evils. You want to bring a solution forward. But sometimes there could be some negative consequences too.

Are there any consequences that are anticipated, regardless of how remote they might be?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I mentioned before, in the consultations that we conducted, no concerns were raised.

Steve Kooner: In formulating this particular repealing, were there examples looked at for comparison — how other jurisdictions dealt with this situation in order to come up with this idea?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Every jurisdiction has a different regime when it relates to these types of things. Our response is specific to our insurer here, ICBC, and the history with respect to this in our province.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: We are on clause 2. It states that the following part is added, part 5.1, “Retroactive Tax.” We got into a little bit of talking about retroactive tax.

This next part of this clause actually deals with definitions and deals with section 94.1. There are a whole bunch of definitions in here, ones for “accident,” “agreement,” “certificate,” “costs of health-related services,” “policy,” “predecessor act” and “relevant period.”

In regards to this particular clause, I have a few questions on the definitions. The first one is on the relevant period one. It states here: “‘relevant period’ means the period starting on April 18, 1973, and ending on the date this section comes into force.”

My question there: can the Attorney General confirm that the definition of “relevant period” is inclusive of all certificates and policies issued in the period since April 18, 1973?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That date goes back to the first act, when it received royal assent, for ICBC on April 18, 1973. So the member is correct. It does cover everything.

Steve Kooner: If it covers from April 18, 1973, and it covers certificates, that would cover all certificates, right? There would not be any exemptions. It would cover the whole period and any sort of certificates that were issued during that period.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Now I’d like to ask a question about another definition here, on “agreement.”

It states here: “‘agreement’ means an agreement between the corporation and the government, whether in written form or not, entered into in or after 1973 including, but not limited to, the following: (a) the agreement dated January 21, 1988, entered into by the corporation and British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Health; (b) the agreement dated April 1, 1994, entered into by the corporation and British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Health.”

In regards to this particular definition, there seem to be two dates which are listed here. We have 1988, and we have 1994. Perhaps we can get enlightenment on these two dates. Why are we specifying certain dates? What does this mean?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s to be very specific to capture the agreements and when they were entered into and signed. Those two dates for subsections (a) and (b) are reflective of that date.

Steve Kooner: Can you provide some context around that? What particular agreements? Is there some sort of better description? All it states here is “agreement between the corporation and the government,” and then you have these two dates. Maybe more of a detailed description there.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The agreements were cost and reimbursement agreements that set out the details between the Ministry of Health and ICBC.

Steve Kooner: There were no other agreements other than these specified dates?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to note, the way the definition is set up is defined very broadly. It just specifies these two, but it’s broad enough to include agreements that are entered into in or after 1973.

Steve Kooner: If these are designed to catch other agreements, how many agreements are we talking about?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re going back quite a ways for 1973, so I can’t stand up here and give the member a number, because I’m told that there were many versions that may or may not have been written down, well before our time.

The purpose of this is to be broad enough to capture any such thing that may have happened during that period that isn’t at least these two specific…. We have those two specific agreements, but beyond those two specific agreements.

Steve Kooner: Just asking for clarification. Did I hear the Attorney General say some of these agreements may not even have been written down?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. My team tells me that the roots of the practice date back even beyond the 1950s, when they may not necessarily have had written agreements like we would do today and probably have done for decades. We’re going back, again, right to the 1970s, so it’s quite a ways.

Steve Kooner: Other than written agreements, what agreements would you have — an oral agreement?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m told that in the 1950s, they called them gentlemen’s agreements or handshake deals. So there you go, a bit of history.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Going on to another definition.

We have here: “‘costs of health-related services’ means costs of health-related services arising from bodily injury or death arising out of an accident.” So the costs of health-related services are tied to bodily injury or death arising out of an accident.

[4:20 p.m.]

The question is going to go to interpretation here. What if there’s an interpretation issue? How will disputes over interpretation of bodily injury or death arising out of an accident be handled given the retroactive nature of this legislation??

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the ordinary meaning of the word for “bodily injury or death arising,” as the member’s question is related to. The reason these terms are used is because there’s a lot of case law that understands and uses this type of language related to these things.

Steve Kooner: That’s helpful. There’s probably some exhaustive interpretation already done through case law, and that makes sense.

Now, there are a few more definitions left. The ones that I asked questions of so far, those are the ones where I wanted some detailed information. I would like to also go through all these other definitions.

We have just spoken about accident in this last one. That’s in here. Can the Attorney General just explain why you had to put “accident” in here again? I’m sure the Insurance (Vehicle) Act has a reference to accident.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for that one being specifically included in there is that apparently there are a lot of different potential definitions of “accident” in different parts of the act, so it’s to be clear what that term means in the context of this provision. It ties it to section 1.1.

Steve Kooner: All right. I have got similar questions for this other stuff.

These terms come up routinely if you’re ever dealing with the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia or you’re dealing with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. We have “accident.” We’ve got “certificate.” We’ve got “policy.”

I’m going to ask the question about certificate as well: “‘certificate’, if issued under a predecessor Act, has the meaning set out in the predecessor Act.” Now, I believe certificate is listed in the original Insurance (Vehicle) Act, so why write that here? Predecessor act, I assume, is just the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. Why write it again here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The previous versions of the IVA define “certificate” differently. This definition ensures it is clear that the new tax applies to those certificates as well. That’s the reason for it.

Steve Kooner: Then we have policy as well. It states here: “‘policy’ means a policy, as defined in section 1(1), issued by the corporation.” Similarly, I’ve seen that definition. I believe it’s in the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

Is it for the same reason that you’re putting it in here as the reason that you supplied for certificate?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s to ensure that the only optional insurance that’s captured in this section are those that are issued by ICBC. The system in our province means that it could be other insurers that issue optional insurance, but we’re only meaning for it to apply to the ones issued by ICBC.

Steve Kooner: Some people come from other provinces, and they have insurance. Would it affect them in any way? They purchase insurance here halfway through the year. Would that have any applicability to those people that change insurance mid-year?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Now moving to the last definition here. The “‘predecessor Act’ means the following: (a) the Automobile Insurance Act; (b) the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act; and (c) the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act.” I assume all of these three acts are the same act, but somewhere along the line, the name was changed from Automobile Insurance Act to Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, and now it’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

Can the Attorney General explain what was the reasoning behind defining it here? I believe when you…. Those previous versions of…. If you look at the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, I think there are maybe references to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act there.

If you have all those acts defining each other why list them here again?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The definition of “certificate” says “issued under a predecessor Act.” So there was a need to define what predecessor act meant because of the different definitions of “certificate” contained in them.

That lists, to be clear, which predecessor acts we’re referring to.

Steve Kooner: I assume these definitions were formulated pursuant to consultation. Was there any advice to incorporate further definitions? Was there any further discussion that some further…?

We are dealing with retroactive action, and we’ve had various names of this certain legislation, and we’re talking about a 50-year period. So was there any discussion to kind of include more definitions? If you are clarifying differences and you’re doing cross-referencing, there are only seven definitions in here. Are we good with these ones? What was the discussion around that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m confident with our drafters that they took a look at what was needed and what was needed to be defined under this act.

Steve Kooner: I’m good with this one.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Steve Kooner: We’re into part 2, “Public Guardian and Trustee Act.” We’re on clause 3 here, and we’re dealing with section 1 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. In here, we’ve got these definitions.

[4:30 p.m.]

Maybe we can start with the consultation section. We can talk about consultation, because we deferred that to now. We’re not only looking at the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. We are also looking at some consequential amendments to some other acts.

Maybe the Attorney General can explain what consultation was done in regard to all this stuff.

Hon. Niki Sharma: These were amendments that were asked for by the Public Guardian and Trustee. It started, and I think it involved a lot of deep conversations, with the PGT to go through what was needed to change, including with MCFD, because obviously that’s very relevant to the changes that we’re talking about here.

We also consulted with 18 Indigenous nations, MNBC, treaty Nations and an organization that represents Indigenous children.

Steve Kooner: What led to the formulation of this part of the bill? What prompted the government to say: “Look, we’ve got to make some changes”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There were a few policy objectives related to these changes. One was driven by the PGT that wanted clarification. I think it’s because a lot of their authorities came from a patchwork of pieces of legislation. They wanted that cleaned up so it was contained in one place.

Another aspect of it was that we’re doing a lot of work with MCFD to transfer jurisdiction over their children to Indigenous communities. So that work also is part of this, because what it will do is help…. If those organizations or First Nations communities want the help of the PGT for the property of any particular child that they’re working with, then they have those authorities clarified in this bill.

Steve Kooner Can the Attorney General just elaborate on that? If there are Indigenous authorities, they have authority to deal with children, but they may ask for help. So is the Attorney General just explaining that they have ultimate jurisdiction, but they can ask for help, or does the PGT still have jurisdiction? Is the PGT sharing through agreements with the Indigenous authorities?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to clarify, the work that we’re doing at MCFD is about returning jurisdiction to Indigenous people, which they rightly have had and have had the impact of it being taken away. So it’s the returning of that jurisdiction over their children.

What this will do is by coordination agreements, an Indigenous governing body can form an agreement with the PGT, and when the PGT comes in, their job is to manage the assets or property of a child. The services may be wanted or desired by the Indigenous governing body, so they would sign a coordination agreement with the PGT. I think the Quw’utsun have one at this stage. It would allow the PGT to do that.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for the explanation.

Just a further explanation. This act talks about property guardianship and talks about when a child does not have, say, a parent or guardian, then the Public Guardian and Trustee gets involved.

Now, we just talked about Indigenous authority. How would that work? Would that go…? Say if there was a situation where an Indigenous child does not have a parent or guardian, then would the Indigenous authority get guardianship there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. Actually, it’s a broad-scope question, and I’ll do my best to give a high-level overview of how the system works.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think the question is: what happens in the instance when an Indigenous child doesn’t have parents? So the answer is, “It depends,” which is usually the answer in legal scenarios. The reason being that it could be MCFD because the Indigenous governing body, jurisdiction hasn’t been given back to them over that child.

If that’s the instance, then there’s a difference between a personal guardian and a property guardian. “Personal guardian” makes sense; it means that you are the guardian of the child personally. Then the property guardian is for whatever the property is of that child. That’s a different type of guardianship.

When it’s a parent, of course, it’s both. But the minute there is no parent, it depends. If it’s MCFD, then the PGT becomes the child’s property guardian. When a child is temporarily in MCFD custody, the director is the child’s property guardian, and when a child is relinquished for adoption, the PGT becomes the child’s property guardian.

When jurisdiction over an Indigenous child is given back to an Indigenous governing authority, the Indigenous authority becomes the property guardian. Then at that stage, especially under these changes, they can ask the PGT to be the property guardian of that child, if it’s their decision and they want to do that.

You can see that it depends on the different avenues, but this piece of the bill is meant to clarify authorities for the PGT.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that when the PGT has authority over property, in situations involving non-Indigenous children, there’s a parallel going on there? When there are Indigenous children, the Indigenous authority has that authority over the property guardianship. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think it was, almost. It’s just the thing that I was talking about before. If the Indigenous community or governance hasn’t resumed their jurisdiction, then it’s MCFD. But in the instances that they have, then it would….

I think that that’s what you were getting after.

Steve Kooner: So the only way the PGT will get authority over the Indigenous child’s property, to be the guardian, would be if there’s an agreement signed between the Indigenous authority and the PGT, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s right.

Steve Kooner: All right. Here in clause 3, before we get into the definitions, were there any concerns as a result of those consultations that were had, with these different groups, in regard to amending this Public Guardian and Trustee Act subject here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No concerns. It’s something that certainly the PGT was asking for, and the communities that we reached out to were grateful for the clarity that this would provide.

Steve Kooner: Now just moving into these definitions — there’s a whole bunch of them — I’d like to go through some of them.

In the first one, I was looking at “child,” under subsection (b), adding the following definition: “‘achild’ means a person under 19 years of age.” What drove the shift to make it under 19 years of age? What led to that? Why write it in there as under 19 years of age?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s just important to note that this, in terms of content, hasn’t changed. It means a person under 19 years of age. It just used to be called “young person,” and it’s changing it to “child.” This aligns it with the Child, Family and Community Service Act, just to line them all up for the same age.

Steve Kooner: There are a whole bunch of definitions here in subsection (d), adding the following definitions: “Indigenous authority,” “Indigenous child,” “Indigenous child and family services” and “Indigenous law.”

The Attorney General discussed earlier that there was consultation with Indigenous groups in regard to this particular legislation. will Indigenous authorities receive any training or resourcing to engage with these changes to make sure they’re carried out properly?

If, in part, it codifies how property guardianship is going to be treated and handled, and if an Indigenous authority has some authority under these legislative sections, will they be getting some training or resourcing to handle these changes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve had a chance to meet with our Public Guardian and Trustee, Dana Kingsbury, about this particular issue. I know that she and her office are very interested in doing active outreach and relationship-building with the different Indigenous governing authorities out there, to help facilitate these kind of agreements. I think I mentioned they have one with the Quw’utsun at this point.

Certainly, it’s already happening. Those conversations are out there and the understanding of what these provisions, if getting to royal assent, will do. That kind of outreach and engagement and learning is happening.

Steve Kooner: When it comes to children, regardless of background, it’s very important to protect children and look at the best interests of children. I know family law refers to that term all the time: “best interests of the child.”

When this is being implemented, what safeguards are there to make sure that children are properly taken care of and that they’ll be in the best situation possible?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to have that discussion, but I know that there are clauses coming up that will better encapsulate that discussion about the best interests of the child and how the amendments or the bill itself…. Later on, in clause 6, I’m happy to answer that.

[4:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: We also do see another definition here, “property guardian.” In respect of a child, it means “the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee with respect to the management and protection of a child’s legal and financial interests.” Now we know there’s the personal guardian, and now we’ve got the property guardian, but sometimes they may overlap in certain respects.

Do we have an accountability mechanism to make sure they are now separate? The PGT can handle a property guardianship, while personal guardianship is under somebody else’s responsibility. What safeguards are there, and what accountability mechanisms are there to make sure they are actually separate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s obviously a very important issue about property and personal guardianship of a child, when they’re separated and when they aren’t. The first way to do that is by legislation. You’ll see, in the definition itself, that it makes clear what the definition of a “property guardian” is, and it’s with respect to the legal and financial interests of the child.

It would be really hard for me to talk about all the places, I’m sure, in the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which is MCFD’s main act. There are many examples of how the law, in itself and how it’s written, talks about personal and property guardianship of a child and who goes where. But the main point of oversight is exactly why we have a PGT in the province, as an independent body that’s there to act on behalf of the child.

That really gives a lot of tools for oversight. You can look at the body of the act, not just these amendments, which talks a lot about it. You can see it demonstrated through the work of the PGT. PGT has a clear agreement with MCFD and the Indigenous governing bodies with those roles and responsibilities in it.

Steve Kooner: Just as a real-life example, probably, of how they could overlap, there could be a personal guardian and a property guardian.

For example, when there are children involved, say if they’re attending school — it doesn’t matter what grade — maybe they’re going on field trips, or they have extracurricular activities. That involves money. The parents get involved, and they give some money to the child. There might be some reimbursement of that money.

Now it becomes an issue: is that just personal guardianship and the guardian just takes it, although that money was coming back to the child? A teacher or administrator in the school may have given it to the child. Is that now an issue for property guardianship? It’s because at the same time, it is a legal and financial interest.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s also another thing that we could talk about in later clauses.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Steve Kooner: I have a simple question on this clause. We don’t see any really substantive stuff under this clause. All we see is the title. Usually titles are pretty descriptive.

[4:55 p.m.]

We see here that it states division 1, “General and Specific Powers, Duties and Functions.” That’s what clause 4 refers to. Why a clause just to add a title?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a requirement of drafting, and it’s for creating division 1, to separate the sections included in this division from those in the new division 2. It’s a necessary thing.

We have the drafter right here with us, or one of them — a drafter, sorry.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Steve Kooner: Similarly, all we have here is a title again. Is that the same reason, a drafting issue?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Steve Kooner: I believe we’re on clause 6 now, and I’m owed some explanations. Maybe the Attorney General can answer some of those.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The question that was owed an answer was about how the PGT ensures the best interests of the child and that there are protections built in for the child.

The amendments establish a statutory obligation for the PGT to consider the child’s best interests in all circumstances where the PGT is the property guardian for the child. It also adds provisions to enhance transparency related to that, and you can see them just in the body of the different subsections that are related in this section. So a very important addition.

Steve Kooner: In regard to this particular clause, under section 6.3, we’re talking about the best interests of the child. My question is…. It refers to a child’s views and preferences. How will the PGT operationalize consideration of a child’s views…? I’m referring to, under clause 6, subsection 6.3(1)(c), “child’s views and preferences, unless it is inappropriate to consider them.”

How will the PGT operationalize consideration of the…? How will it work with this part of it — child’s views and preferences? How would that work? What’s the guidance coming?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. I think it’s just important, when we talk about this, to explain it in terms of what would be more like a personal guardian decision and what would be the PGT, the property guardian decision. In the personal guardian situation, we’re not really talking about things like money to go on a field trip or that kind of thing.

[5:05 p.m.]

The PGT is about bigger financial assets and that kind of management of it. The PGT steps in to get benefits that that child might be entitled to that aren’t…. They act as this kind of financial and property guardian. We’re starting with that.

Then the question was: when you talk about the child’s views — it’s a good question — how do they do that? Well, first of all, they have the discretion, and of course, that discretion would be dependent on the age and capacity of the child and the type of decision that is there.

I’m told a good example of when this would come into place is if there’s a settlement that that child has that came from, obviously, a lawsuit, and they want to go to university. That would be something where you could see the PGT would elicit the views of the child on the next steps and how that financial property would be assigned to something like that.

Steve Kooner: The next part of section 6.3 under clause 6 goes into subsection (2), and it really gets specialized here.

It states: “If a child is an Indigenous child, in addition to the factors that the Public Guardian and Trustee must consider under subsection (1), the Public Guardian and Trustee must also consider the following factors: (a) the customs, culture and traditions of the child’s Indigenous community; (b) the importance of the child belonging to the child’s Indigenous community; (c) any applicable Indigenous laws.”

Now, in regards to this part of it, I believe I’ve got a question. Say the PGT needs to assess these criteria. There’s a whole indicia list here that needs to be…. So it’s put in here. But you don’t want to simply have the formality of a list. You tick the boxes, and you’re done.

How will there be a more meaningful assessment when it comes to these indicia? Are there some assurances there that the child’s interests will properly be accounted for, looking at all these factors, and it simply won’t be just a checklist?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is actually very impressive in terms of how this will be implemented and what the goals of the PGT are related to this.

First of all, I think it is clear, in terms of accountability and how we do that. This section creates a statutory obligation for the best interests of the child, which is a good legal authority to rest accountability to.

The next part of it was with the Indigenous sections. All the individuals that work on it are, of course, trauma-informed — they understand the background of the people when they’re dealing with them; and all the highly skilled team at PGT. I’m told that one of the things that they’re engaging with Indigenous governing bodies to do is thinking about a circle of care around a child, related to when they enter this kind of guardianship, and that the PGT would be involved in that.

Also, there’s the idea that for some Indigenous communities, in the discussions they have, their restoration of the relationship may be more important than pursuing damages. You might actually have the PGT come and play a different role with respect to that Indigenous governing body and that child, to respect the cultural ideas and the cultural significance of the way that they resolve disputes or build relationships in their community.

So it actually leaves open many different versions of how this might land. Of course, that would be with the PGT speaking with the Indigenous governing body, talking through that agreement about how that works.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:13 p.m.