Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: I would like to introduce Declan Williams, co-chair of the B.C. Youth Council; Jacqueline Leung; Erin Sweeney; Tish Sera Josep; and Daryn Elizabeth Dolatre.

The B.C. Youth Council is an organization dedicated to bridging the gap between youth and politics. Through regional youth councils, they work to connect youth to the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Recently the B.C. Youth Council has begun their series of MLA interviews. I highly encourage all my fellow MLAs on both sides of the aisle to accept their offer to be interviewed and connect with the youth of your riding.

Please give a very warm welcome to the visiting B.C. Youth Council.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to welcome today members of the Chardikala Brotherhood Welfare Association. We have members Jaswinder Singh Dilawari, who is the founder and president; Harpreet Singh Manktala, who is the vice-president; advocate Avtar Singh Dhanoa, who is a legal adviser; Malkiat Singh, media coordinator; and Damanjit Singh Basi, the IT coordinator.

They do work throughout the community, including blood donations, community cleanups and raising funds for flood relief. I just want to thank them for coming, on behalf of the government side.

Can everyone please make them feel welcome.

John Rustad: From time to time, it’s a great pleasure to be able to have somebody come down and visit, especially when it’s my wife, Kim. She doesn’t get an opportunity to come down very often, and it’s always really appreciated. Her support and her love are so much appreciated.

I love you, Kim. Thank you for coming down and being here today.

Will the House please make her welcome.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I see a constituent of mine, Vinay Sharma, is here in the House today.

Vinay, of course, is head of Times of Canada. I think his greatest gift to Delta, to British Columbia, is actually his children. Both of them are phenomenal, amazing, and he’s got an amazing family.

I want to welcome him and his guests today to the House. I hope the House can make them feel very welcome.

Misty Van Popta: I had to write this down so that I didn’t choke up.

Today in the House is one of my five pillars, my youngest daughter, Amelia.

I’m not really sure how to appropriately speak of my children in the chamber, especially when they have become brave and courageous advocates for their own stories.

She’s fierce. She’s creative. She’s fiercely creative. She’s one of the strongest and coolest people I know, although it is she that steals my clothes, so clearly, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

May the House make her feel welcome.

Janet Routledge: Joining us in the gallery today are members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2278.

CUPE 2278 represents over 4,000 academic workers at the University of British Columbia and the University of Northern British Columbia. Their members teach, support curricular activities, research and run programming and outreach at both universities. Through their work, these members are creating world-class research and knowledge at two of Canada’s top universities.

They are Jessica Wolf, vice-president; Daniel Crook, secretary-treasurer; Sam Connolly, member advocate; and Jessica Orcutt, CUPE communications representative.

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

Steve Kooner: I see a constituent up there, Tusheer Kapila.

I’d like to welcome him, as well as some friends, Vinay Sharma, Shubha Chaudhury, Amrit Pal Dhot, as well as Jaswinder Dilawari.

Please welcome them.

Sunita Dhir: Today I have one of my besties here in the House, and her name is Shubha Chaudhury.

Shubha continues to inspire me with everything she does, along with raising two beautiful daughters. She’s also popularly known as the mortgage queen of the Lower Mainland, as she is the founder of Keyways Mortgage. She’s the managing partner of the Times of Canada, and she’s also a director in the Lakshmi Narayan temple in Surrey.

I also have Mr. Tusheer Kapila, who is a dear friend of mine, a licensed real estate professional as well as a property developer. He is the founder of Kalakar Junction, and he supports a lot of arts and culture initiatives in the Lower Mainland.

Both of them are known throughout the Lower Mainland for their community service.

Can I please request everybody on both sides make them feel welcome here.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang: I would like to give a warm welcome to my two special guests in the gallery today, Komil Mamajanov and Sitora Azimova.

I met these two generous philanthropists at the SUCCESS Gala. They won the live auction bid for an exciting visit to the Legislature with Richard Zussman, Keith Baldrey and myself.

Unfortunately, I’m not able to be there today, but I understand that the Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services had lunch with them on my behalf, stepped in and wonderfully entertained them. They both work at University Canada West. They toured with Richard and Keith today. I understand that they are big fans and watch Keith’s noon hit on Global.

Many thanks to everyone who makes them feel very welcome. Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome today.

Amna Shah: I know that the Minister of Jobs was quick to intro, but I have to as well. I’d like to welcome Vinay Sharma here, founder of Times of Canada and board member of Lakshmi Narayan Mandir in Surrey.

I also want to give a shout-out to Vinay’s daughter Geetanjli Sharma, even though I don’t see her up here. My understanding is that she’s kind of taken over the Times of Canada, which is great. Lots of young energy and spirit.

Hello to Geetanjli, wherever she is.

Bryan Tepper: I’d just like to follow up as well.

First of all, I think I would argue that the mortgage queen is my bestie as well.

To follow up on the Chardikala Brotherhood Welfare Association, they only formed in July. They’ve already had several great fundraising efforts where they donated $5,000 worth of toys to the B.C. Children’s Hospital. They’ve had a community cleanup at Cloverdale with 80 pounds of garbage. They’ve had two blood donation drives and the flood relief in Punjab as well. They’ve managed to raise over $11,000 for that.

Their future plans of tree planting, Christmas toy drives and another food drive are in the works.

Thank you for being here.

A big round for them.

Susie Chant: I would just like to say a big thank-you and a welcome to His Excellency the consul general for the U.K., who was here today and had a luncheon for us. I’m just very glad to support and sustain those relationships with the U.K. that we already have in place and we continue to mutually benefit from.

I’d just like to make him feel very welcome.

Thank you for lunch.

Bruce Banman: Abbotsford is very blessed in the fact that we have, in my opinion, one of the greatest hospices in British Columbia, which includes Dave Holmberg House, the hospice and grief centre.

We are very privileged today to have the executive director, Andrea Critchley, who is here.

Would you please stand?

Would the House please give her a huge round of applause for taking care of loved ones in their last few days here on earth.

Thank you for all the work that you do.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In the House today, we have members from the Belonging Network, Anne Tower and Brianna Brash-Nyberg.

The Belonging Network provides a range of services for adoptive families. As an adoptee myself, I am really grateful for the work that you’re doing in British Columbia to provide support to adoptive families.

Thank you so much.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Members’ Statements

Down Syndrome Awareness Week

George Chow: Today, October 27, to November 2 is Down Syndrome Awareness Week in our province.

This week serves as a dedicated period to enhance knowledge and raise awareness of the rights, capabilities and contributions of individuals with Down syndrome and to recognize the inclusion of people with disabilities like Down syndrome who share their gifts, talents and abilities that make our community stronger, richer and better. They make valuable contributions to B.C.’s community every day.

[1:45 p.m.]

Approximately one in every 800 babies born in Canada has Down syndrome. It affects all races and genders equally. Research and early intervention have dramatically improved the lifespan and potential of those who are affected by Down syndrome, but more research is needed.

Individuals with Down syndrome benefit from loving parents, early medical and educational attention and positive public attitudes. Children with Down syndrome have a full complement of emotions and attitudes, are creative and imaginative and grow up to live independent lives with varying degrees of support and accommodation needed.

Inclusion of individuals with developmental disabilities like Down syndrome, in all aspects of community life — home, school, work and social settings — is seen as empowering for everyone. They deserve to be celebrated and to have the opportunity to be active participants in educational, occupational, social and recreational activities.

On behalf of government, please join me in celebrating the life and successes of people with Down syndrome.

I’m grateful to them and all the family and professionals who make our community more empowering and inclusive.

Mussallem Family

Lawrence Mok: Today I would like to tell the story of the Mussallem family of Maple Ridge.

In 1897, Solomon Mussallem immigrated to Canada from Lebanon after escaping imprisonment by the Turkish authorities. Eight years later he married Annie Besytt, and they had seven children. Solomon started looking for a place where he could bring up the family and where they would have a lot of freedom and a pleasant environment. He finally found Maple Ridge as an ideal place to settle down.

Solomon later founded the Haney Garage, in 1919, which later became a General Motors agency. This business became a significant part of the community for almost 90 years.

Solomon was an active member of the municipal government, serving 23 years on city council, 21 of those years as mayor.

Solomon’s eldest son, George, was involved in the automobile industry and in 1966 was elected to the provincial Legislature, serving four terms as MLA until 1983.

Solomon’s daughter Dr. Helen Mussallem was considered to be one of the top nurses in the world. She was a highly decorated nurse in World War II, earning nine medals, making her Canada’s most decorated World War II nurse. Her list of honours includes the Companion of the Order of Canada.

Solomon’s great-grandson David Mussallem was a pilot for Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Wardair. He was an aeronautical engineer and a mechanical engineer. David loved the Fraser Valley and the mountains that surrounded it. He spent his younger years working in forestry as a surveyor.

David recently passed away after a life well lived, and I give my condolences to his family.

Burnaby Intervention Support Team

Janet Routledge: May I tell you about Frank, an older man who’s been homeless for years, struggling with poor health and addictions. Then he met the Burnaby intervention support team, who patiently built a relationship with him. With their help, he moved into permanent supportive housing, where he continues to thrive today.

The Burnaby intervention support team provides a compassionate and trauma-informed approach to homelessness. They provide voluntary access to necessary supports that break the cycle of homelessness.

The team is deeply familiar with Burnaby’s homeless population. They know that there are 97 unsheltered people in Burnaby today, more than twice as many as there were ten years ago. They know that many of them experienced childhood trauma or abuse, have a mental health or substance use disorder, are alone in the world, lacking spousal or social support, have been underemployed and may have been incarcerated.

[1:50 p.m.]

They know that 34 percent of the youth on the streets experienced homelessness for the first time in 2025. They know that 22 percent of the homeless population are seniors and that 47 percent of the unhoused seniors became homeless for the first time after the age of 50, likely due to a health or financial crisis later in life.

The team refers people to available housing and shelters, helps them obtain ID, refers them to health professionals, helps them apply for income assistance, provides access to detox or drug and alcohol treatment programs and helps them find free or low-cost food, clothes, hygiene items, showers and laundry. They do not forcibly remove people from property or treat homelessness as a criminal matter.

So if you see someone who appears to be living in a park or doorway in Burnaby, don’t be afraid. Be a good neighbour and call 604-294-7944 or email homelessness@burnaby.ca.

Nation2Nation Conference in Kitimat

Claire Rattée: Last week Kitimat had the honour of hosting the ninth annual Nation2Nation conference, an event that continues to grow in importance each year. The theme this year was “Stronger economies,” and it could not have been more fitting.

For three days, leaders, business owners, industry leaders and community members from across the country came together to share ideas, build partnerships and discuss how we can continue strengthening our regional economies. What stood out most was the clear message that real progress doesn’t start in Ottawa or Victoria. It starts locally. It starts when people work together, set politics aside and focus on practical solutions that benefit everyone.

The success stories highlighted at Nation2Nation are proof of that. The Haisla, Gitga’at and Nisg̱a’a Nations are leading the way, showing the province — and, indeed, the country — that true reconciliation isn’t about symbolic gestures. It’s about shared prosperity and decision-making power. It means equity participation, not token consultation.

The success stories that we talked about — LNG Canada, Cedar LNG, HaiSea’s electric tugboats, Ksi Lisims LNG, Rio Tinto B.C. works and the Kemano dam — didn’t happen by accident. They were built through collaboration, vision and years of hard work by people who believed in the region and refused to be told what wasn’t possible. Projects in our region are setting world-class standards for environmental stewardship, resource development and community benefit.

Another strong theme throughout the conference was trust. Trust is the foundation of every successful project — trust between governments, industry and communities. It’s built through transparency, collaboration and accountability. When that trust exists, opportunities follow — better work and training opportunities, local benefits, stronger regional economies and the space for more growth.

The North has the expertise, the innovation and the resilience needed to lead. From LNG to tourism, forestry and small business, our region has shown that when we are empowered to lead our own development, the results speak for themselves.

I want to thank the organizers, local leaders and all the participants who made this year’s Nation2Nation conference such a success.

When the North succeeds, British Columbia succeeds.

Whalley Little League

Amna Shah: I am pleased to recognize a remarkable institution in the heart of Surrey called Whalley Little League, a cornerstone of community spirit, youth development and athletic excellence since 1956.

For 70 years, Whalley Little League has provided children as young as four with an accessible and inclusive environment to learn the game of baseball and, importantly, to develop character, courage and loyalty. These values are not only displayed on the field but carried by players into schools, workplaces and our communities.

Located just two blocks from Surrey city hall, the league’s home, Whalley Athletic Park, features seven groomed diamonds, two indoor training facilities and a senior baseball stadium.

It is a world-class facility, but its true strength lies in the people who bring it to life: the coaches and the parents who volunteer their time, who ferociously cheer through rain or shine, and the young athletes who give it their all every single game — coaches like past president Mark Deshane, who spent 25 years selflessly serving the league and our community; and volunteers like Karen McGregor, with her years of dedication, including holding up the concession stand now known as Karen’s Kitchen.

Whalley Little League’s impact extends well beyond athletic success. Through initiatives like their fall food drive, which has collected thousands of pounds of food and diapers for the Surrey Food Bank, and inclusive programs like the B.C. Girls League and mini division, Whalley Little League ensures that every child, regardless of background or ability, has a chance to grow through sport.

[1:55 p.m.]

Whalley Little League is not just building athletes who will make it to the big leagues. It is building community champions. It is fostering hometown pride, resilience and a sense of belonging.

So here’s to a happy 70th anniversary and many, many more years of excellence to come.

Student Leadership and
Achievements of Suhana Gill

Bryan Tepper: Ladies and gentlemen, trailblazers and changemakers, get ready for the future walking in today, or more appropriately tomorrow, when she will be in this building, Suhana Gill. Born and raised in Surrey, B.C., Suhana graduated at 15 and stormed into university. Now she’s powering through her political science degree at Kwantlen Polytechnic.

While most teens were picking prom themes, she became the youngest-ever elected women’s representative for 22,000 students across all five KPU campuses, chairing the student governance and university affairs committees with fire and focus. Suhana lights up CBC panels, amplifying youth voices on Canadian politics and elections. She sparks radio hits, social media surges and campus drives to rocket youth voter turnout. She founded Bluer and Greener, a youth-led movement for action and impact.

As deputy director to Climate Cardinals, she rallies 16,000 volunteers across 134 countries, reaching 11 million people with one clear call: get in the game. Her Instagram has 22,000 followers, millions of impressions, every post a megaphone for what matters. Crowned Miss Southern B.C. and Miss Fundraiser Canada in 2023, she raised big funds and bigger hope for Make-A-Wish Canada.

In 2025, she joined Surrey’s environment and climate change committee as its youngest member, bringing sharp ideas to Canada’s fastest-growing city. As ambassador for One Tree Planted, she’s growing solutions. She mentors elementary students, building confidence in kids who will one day change the world.

Selected for the prestigious Bill Lewarne Memorial Scholarship in political science, her leadership is already award-winning. The honours roll in: Drishti Magazine’s Influential Woman of the Year 2025, Soroptimist International Ruby Award, Surrey’s Top 25 under 25, youngest recipient of the top 15 Women of Influence Breaking Barriers award.

That is Suhana Gill, Surrey’s rising star, youth’s fearless voice. She’s not waiting for permission.

Oral Questions

Obstetric and Gynecological
Services in Kamloops
and Government Action on Issues

Peter Milobar: On the weekend, hundreds of Kamloops residents — women, men and children — all rose up and made their voices heard about the critical shortage and crisis in ob-gyn services in Kamloops, looming with the resignation of seven ob-gyns, the whole complement, in Kamloops over the next few months.

Can the minister please explain to this House and, most importantly, to those residents of Kamloops what exactly the plan and the timeline is to solve this crisis?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and his continued advocacy for people in his riding and in the surrounding region.

We know that these ob-gyns have submitted their resignation letter and that Interior Health is working closely with them on a transition plan. To be clear, anybody who is expecting a child, has an imminent birth coming, is facing an at-risk pregnancy, should always present at the Kamloops hospital, at the Royal Inland Hospital, to receive care there.

Interior Health continues to work with this group of physicians on a transition plan. They have 90 days to undertake that work, but they are at the table. They are listening. They are talking to each other. At the same time, Interior Health continues to recruit and is talking with up to 12 physicians who may choose to move to the Kamloops region, because we know that women and their families need the security of the care, the services they need.

We are determined to support Interior Health and these physicians as they work together to resolve these issues so that we can provide that secure, long-term continuity of care for people in the region.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s not just myself that keeps saying this has been going on for years. It’s not just the seven ob-gyns from Kamloops that say this has been going on for years. It’s actually now a letter that the minister has in hand of 130 ob-gyns as a signatory to the letter saying that they support the seven ob-gyns in Kamloops because they have been prompted by untenable and unsafe working conditions and a lack of meaningful response from the health authority and government.

We have also raised alarms about this looming maternity crisis only to be similarly dismissed, say the 130 ob-gyns. Surgical wait times will grow. Care for high-risk pregnancies will be disrupted and existing providers, including those outside of Kamloops, will be stretched even further. When ob-gyns are undervalued, so, too, are women and their health across B.C.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’ll ask the minister, again: what is their plan for ob-gyn services not just in Kamloops but the whole province?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, this is why the work that Interior Health is doing with this group of physicians and more broadly is so important — to hear the concerns, to listen to them. My message to those doctors and to Interior Health is that I expect them to be together, to work at the table to work through some of these issues.

It also speaks to some of the bigger issues we are seeing in the strain of the health care system and facing a shortage of physicians in this province. That is why we have taken such extraordinary steps, like opening up a brand-new medical school in Surrey, like continuing to streamline the credentialing of physicians who come from other jurisdictions, who choose to work here in British Columbia.

This is the work we have to do to continue to strengthen and bolster not just ob-gyn services but other specialty services — family practice, primary care — because that is what British Columbians need and deserve, and that is what this government will continue to prioritize and work on every single day.

The Speaker: Member, second supplemental.

Peter Milobar: It’s almost like the ob-gyns never get listened to by this minister. We raised concerns about the 12 phantom new ob-gyns last week. The letter raises concerns, yet in her first answer today, the minister clung to these 12 ob-gyns coming in as new recruits.

Here is what the letter says from 130 ob-gyns, including the vice-president and the past president of the Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology of B.C. It says:

“The provincial ob-gyn community is small and closely connected. We are alarmed by the short-sighted reliance on locum physicians as stopgaps and an unrealistic plan to recruit 12 new ob-gyns to a community where current staff have been unsupported and exposed to unsafe working conditions.

“The use of these short-sighted stopgaps rather than negotiating fairly with the current ob-gyn group has not gone unnoticed. We will not be participating in these temporary coverage plans or in the supervision of new hires under these conditions.”

That’s 130 ob-gyns, not a politician speaking. What does the minister have to say to that?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Those negotiations take place at a table, not here in this House, not during question period. That is why it is so important that Interior Health continues to sit down with these ob-gyns, with other ob-gyns.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Because….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh.

Minister will continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne: First and foremost, the priority must always be the patients, the families, the people. It is my expectation of these physicians and my expectation of Interior Health that they will come together to talk through these issues, to undertake the negotiations that are underway right now, holding the patient at the centre of the work they do. I am confident that if they do that, they can come together.

My commitment to them and to Interior Health is to listen to them, to support them and to do everything that we can to support maternity services, not just in Kamloops but in every community across this province.

Interior Health Authority Staffing
Issues and Call for Review

Kristina Loewen: Kamloops is not the only region driving out B.C.’s health care practitioners.

Four psychiatrists resigned from Vernon Jubilee Hospital on Thursday, citing overwhelming workloads and a lack of support.

Will the minister order an independent public review of Interior Health and deploy emergency recruitment and retention measures today, yes or no?

[2:05 p.m.]

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

First, I just want to say thank you to the psychiatrists in Vernon who have provided exceptional service for years. Now, we know that four of them are changing their work. One is stepping down completely. The other three are changing the type of work that they do for various professional and personal reasons. Interior Health is actively working with those psychiatrists, again, to finalize their transition plans.

At the same time, there are an additional six psychiatrists in Vernon who are ensuring that those services are there for people. It’s vitally important that people know that that care is there for them and that they should present at the hospital should they need it.

Interior Health will shortly be undertaking a recruitment campaign specifically for new psychiatrists in Vernon. That work will be announced soon. That will be part of building the team, again, so we can continue to see the building, the bolstering, the strengthening of our health care workforce here not just in Vernon but across B.C.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kristina Loewen: We have a retention problem. They are citing workload and lack of support.

First the pediatric ward in Kelowna, next the ob-gyns in Kamloops and now the psychiatrists in Vernon. Families are losing access to care, front-line workers are burning out, and the Minister of Health is still pretending it’s under control.

Will this minister immediately launch an independent review of management and oversight within this health authority, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is no secret, I know, that the health care system is under strain, that things are hard. That’s why we need to do everything we can to support every single physician, nurse, nurse practitioner and allied health professional out there who is working their heart out to support the people of this province. We’re going to continue that work to support those health care workers and to continue to build and strengthen the system.

I know the member understands that we have undertaken a review of all health authorities, looking at administrative spending, looking to redirect resources to the front line to support the work that people are doing so that British Columbians get the care when they need it and where they need it.

We will continue that work. It will not end.

Impact of Public Service Labour
Dispute and Government Action
on Services Backlog

Jeremy Valeriote: I want to start by wishing all BCGEU employees the best on their first day back after eight long weeks and also acknowledge the damage done by the longest public service strike in B.C.’s history.

This government wants us to be the economic engine of Canada. Well, in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, our engine is tourism. Whistler-Blackcomb is facing two critical delays: recruiters’ licence renewal needed to hire 60 foreign workers and essential equipment stuck in the Port of Tacoma.

Across B.C., prospective parents are at risk of missing the window for IVF treatment. Single moms didn’t receive their affordable child care benefit. Restaurants and bars are reporting $250 million in loss of sales. The length of this strike means that BCGEU and PEA employees will now be buried under an avalanche of backlogged work.

To the minister, what is this government’s plan to address the backlog created by the strike, not just putting liquor back on the shelves but making sure that people can access the essential services they’ve been denied for over eight weeks?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We are, of course, pleased that we have a tentative agreement reached between the BCGEU and the PSA and, also, that things are looking positive with the PEA and that folks are back to work.

Our government respects the next stage of the process, which is the opportunity for ratification and the democratic process that this union must now go through. I’ll hold back any comments that I may have until after that process is complete.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Government Handling of
Public Service Labour Dispute

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s integrity week in the Third Party caucus, and the damage this strike has done will be felt for months. And for what? Beyond the headlines and negotiations, this strike exposed something deeper, how fragile British Columbians are when the government forgets who it’s here to serve.

With a leadership review imminent, I wonder about the governing party’s political motivations in ending this strike. That mediation was required has cast doubts on this government’s ability to lead.

I’ll ask the government: was it the need to bring the labour movement back onside before the B.C. NDP’s convention in November that finally broke the logjam on this strike?

Interjections.

[2:10 p.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: From the beginning of this labour action, our government has been clear that there have been two objectives: to ensure a fair agreement for these workers that deliver really important services to British Columbians and, at the same time, to protect the bottom line and to ensure that we’re being fair to all taxpayers.

We are very pleased that we have reached a tentative agreement, and I’ll hold back any further comments until after the space has been created for the unions to go through the democratic process and make their decision about the agreement.

Government Advertising and
Economic Relations with U.S.

Dallas Brodie: He threw a rock at Donald Trump and got bulldozed. Ontario Premier Doug Ford antagonized President Trump by running attack ads against him in the United States. As a result, Trump raised tariffs by 10 percent and ended all trade talks with Canada.

Having humiliated himself, Ford pulled the ads, but the damage was done. It was a reckless move. Unfortunately, not to be outdone by Mr. Ford, our Premier is even more reckless. He’s now launching his own anti-Trump attack ads in the U.S. These ads give Trump an excuse to retaliate with even more tariffs against B.C., when we’re already hurting.

Is the Premier’s personal hatred for Donald Trump more important than our economic safety?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s vitally important that all provinces make the case to Americans when there are tariffs and duties put in place that are unjustified and that impact workers and families in our communities. It’s vitally important that we make sure that all Americans, our friends across the border, understand that right now the tariffs on British Columbia and Canada are higher than they are in Russia.

It’s vitally important for our friends in the U.S. to understand that every time they raise tariffs on British Columbia and Canada, it’s going to increase the cost of housing for them in their communities. We’re going to continue to do that advocacy. We’re going to continue to raise the noise to the federal government that we need strong action and that we need it immediately.

Of course, we welcome any supports that will help workers transition, but our number one priority is to keep people working in our communities. We will not apologize for raising our voice to fight for workers and fight for families here in British Columbia. I welcome all sides, all members in this House to join us in that fight.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Government Position on
Trade with China

Dallas Brodie: The Premier is not defending B.C. businesses through this move. B.C. exports rely on American markets, and 75 percent of all trade from Canada is with the United States. His petty ads will impede efforts to repair our relations, thus hurting B.C.’s economy.

He criticizes Trump, but you know who the Premier will never criticize? The dictator of communist China, Xi Jinping. China interferes in our elections, holds our citizens as hostages and has even imposed 100 percent tariffs on our canola and seafood sectors. Chinese tariffs have decimated B.C. businesses. Instead of retaliating and railing against China, like he does with Trump, the Premier rewarded our economic enemies in China with a multi-billion-dollar B.C. Ferries contract.

My question is for the Premier. Since he’s denouncing our biggest trade partner, the United States, will the Premier also denounce communist China and its dictator, Xi Jinping?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We continue to make the case to our friends in the U.S. that the tariffs on our forest sector are having a disproportionate impact not only on workers and families on our side of the border but also across the border.

I don’t know why this member continues to deny that that impact is hurting families in our communities. It continues to hurt families in our communities. I think all of us should be standing up for forestry.

I know, because when I look across the way and I talk to colleagues across the way, they understand how important these jobs are to our communities. We continue to make the case for all communities to lower trade barriers. The Premier has made several trips to Asia to make sure that we can strengthen our trade opportunities.

[2:15 p.m.]

On top of that, we have committed to all of our partners across the country that we will do our part to make sure, when their goods are coming to British Columbia, that we help them find new markets as well. We’re not going to apologize for fighting out for workers in British Columbia.

I certainly hope that the members can turn their heads away from being so pro-Trump so they realize that they also represent people in this community and this province.

Interior Health Authority
Management and Staffing Issues

Gavin Dew: We gave the new CEO of Interior Health the benefit of the doubt, but nothing has changed.

It’s still the same regime, the same broken trust, the same service interruptions, as doctors walk away. It’s clear there has been a failure to reset the system.

What is the Minister of Health going to do today to start actually rebuilding confidence and trust for the doctors, nurses and health care professionals who work in Interior Health and for the people and families who depend on it?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Interior Health continues to work hard each and every single day at the work of strengthening the health care system, of delivering care — excellent, exceptional care — in our publicly funded universal health care system here in British Columbia. The leadership team at Interior Health has my confidence, and I know that the new CEO is working hard each and every single day, as is every health care worker in the Interior Health system.

Over the past months and years, Interior Health has made some extraordinary strides in physician recruitment. They have hired 1,165 net new regular positions into all of the occupations in one year alone — just this year, 2025. They continue to hire regular, active and casual staff. They have 94 signed offer letters from physicians who are choosing to provide care in Interior Health, four signed offer letters from psychiatrists and three signed offer letters for ob-gyns.

This is a health authority that continues to do the work, and I will continue to support them in the work that they are doing.

Psychiatric Care Staffing and
Access to Services

Anna Kindy: Burnout is driving resignations across health care, from ob-gyns in Kamloops to psychiatrists in Vernon. Front-line health care workers are simply becoming demoralized.

There are 147 psychiatrist postings listed on the government’s own website, ten pages of vacancies, proof that this isn’t isolated. It’s everywhere. Now we’re up to 151. The reality of not having psychiatric care means more suicides, more deaths on the streets, more encampments and more safety issues for everyone, from streets to homes. All these issues will spill over, from Vernon to Kelowna to the Downtown Eastside.

When will the Premier, the leader of the so-called universal health care, take access to psychiatric care seriously?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Psychiatrists are an incredibly important part of the health care system here, providing care unlike any other specialist that people need. That is why we continue to take every step that we can to recruit more psychiatrists, other specialists and family practitioners into our health care system here in British Columbia.

From the U.S. recruitment campaign to streamlining credentialing and reducing the administrative burden that psychiatrists and all other physicians face, this government is going to continue to take steps.

When it comes to the U.S. recruitment campaign, we are seeing enormous successes. We’ve had over 1,800 job applications. This includes 163 applications from doctors, from nurses, from allied health professionals, and it includes psychiatrists too.

We’re going to continue to do this work to build out the system, and we are making progress. We are hiring physicians and nurses at unprecedented rates. We are seeing new family physicians, over 1,000 new family physicians. We have tripled the number of nurse practitioners. This is a sign of the progress that we need to continue to make, and we will not let up.

[2:20 p.m.]

Funding for Youth Mental Health
Services in Northern B.C.

Rosalyn Bird: A local mother, Leanne, a former nurse whose 17-year-old daughter’s life was saved by Saplings, gave a simple warning: “We are going backwards, not forwards.”

Saplings Mental Health in Fort St. John has been credited for saving young lives, yet this government is cutting its funding. Those cuts mean that after a youth is discharged from hospital, there will be no immediate in-person mental health support left in this community.

Will the minister restore this funding or admit that under this government, in the North, youth do not deserve access to suicide prevention?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member brings up an incredibly serious topic, and that is the work of suicide prevention for all people but particularly, in this case, youth.

The loss of any young person is deeply tragic, and that is why this government has been so focused on the work that we will be undertaking to develop a young adult suicide prevention framework. The supports that children and youth need are absolutely vital, and that is why, again, we have put so much into building out a system of care, of mental health and substance use supports, of primary health care for youth in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We’re going to continue to do that work — expanding the Foundry system, expanding the integrated child and youth care teams, expanding PreVenture funding in schools — to help young people identify the issues that they face and appropriate ways to be able to deal with those.

We’re going to continue this work because we know just how important it is.

Access to Mental Health Supports
in Northern B.C.

Claire Rattée: It’s really not good enough is the problem. People can’t access mental health care anymore in this province, especially in the North. I don’t understand why this government can’t see that.

One of my constituents, Cliff, suffered from a botched surgery that left him permanently injured. As a result, he lost his livelihood, his hope and his dignity. He has tried for years to get physical and mental health support from Northern Health in vain. He has tried everything he can think of.

I have had other health professionals that have worked on him come into my office and tell me that his surgery was severely botched. He can’t get any kind of compensation. He can’t get any serious help. Nothing is being done for this man.

Frustrated and defeated, he came into my office recently with a suicide note in his hand. It was addressed to the Minister of Health and Northern Health.

Nobody should feel like they have to resort to that. My staff shouldn’t have to be doing that. They shouldn’t have to be counselling people that are ready to commit suicide because they can’t get access to basic health care in this province. The response that my office got from Northern Health? “Nothing we can do about it.”

Do people in B.C. now need to resort to dying by suicide to get this government to pay attention to them?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The subject of suicide is a highly sensitive and deeply personal thing, and it impacts families and communities across this province. I think we need to be extremely careful about the way we speak and the way, of course, that we support people.

To the member, the situation she describes for her constituent sounds absolutely terrible. I want to assure her that I would be very willing to work with her to determine what supports are available for this constituent and also ensure that he knows what avenues are available to him. If he needs to talk to someone about the quality of care that he is receiving, there are processes for that, and it’s important that the member knows, as an MLA, and important that people know.

This is why our government continues to invest in community counselling, bringing down the cost and making it easier to access mental health supports. That’s why we continue to build out the mental health and substance use continuum of care.

I know that the member has had the opportunity to visit some of these facilities and tour this. I look forward, in just a couple of weeks from now, to spending time with her in her riding up North so that we can discuss in more detail these very issues and be able to visit some of the facilities and programs that she raises.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s incredibly important that we support people at that time, and that is why our government will continue to invest in mental health supports for people of all ages across this province.

The Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: Northern Health has been aware of this case for almost two months. I brought this note to their attention and tried to get follow-up and tried to get some kind of resolution for this man.

As the Health Minister, you should have been aware of it. Northern Health should have brought that to your attention. I was waiting to see if they would. It’s like pulling teeth to get responses from them on stuff.

I just need to understand how on earth he is supposed to access care when he gets turned away every single time that he goes to the hospital. There are no mental health supports in my region.

I know the minister is coming up to visit. I can’t wait to show her that there are no mental health supports. People can’t access them.

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is the responsibility of health authorities to undertake these conversations and to ensure that any patient or person who contacts them is aware of the avenues that are available to them, like the patient care quality office, should a person want to make a complaint or ask a question about the care that they have received.

I am committed to working with the member to ensure that she knows about those avenues and that she can help direct this person and any person that approaches her office about that channel.

Funding for Mental Health Programs

Trevor Halford: Interior Health is in crisis. We have seen seven ob-gyns walk out in Kamloops. Now we’re seeing psychiatrists leave in Vernon.

Fraser Health — well, we know the stories there. They’re horrific. It’s 12- to 14-hour wait times at Surrey Memorial; Delta emergency, closed numerous times; Langley, eight- to 14-hour wait times. Now we hear the stories about Northern Health.

I fully agree with the minister when she talks about the seriousness of suicide, and I believe she’s very genuine in that. The problem, on this side of the House, is that when it comes to making commitments on programs such as Saplings, that have been proven to save lives, this government, this minister, has made a choice to cut those programs that are saving lives.

How can the minister justify her comments when we are seeing a program that has worked and her government, her ministry, her Premier, have chosen to close the doors and cut this vital program? Will the minister step in and provide that funding today, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We will choose to invest in our public universal health care system every single day. We will choose to continue to build more hospitals, more urgent and primary care clinics. We will choose to build more cancer centres.

We will choose to build the Road to Recovery. We will choose to expand that out across every health authority in this area. We will choose to add more family physicians into our rosters. We will choose to add more specialists.

We will choose to go to the U.S. and…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …invite physicians, nurses and health care workers to come and practise here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it’s a very…. Members, shhh.

The member asked a very serious question — shhh — and he deserves an answer.

The minister is going to continue, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: What we will never choose to do is build a two-tier private system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Members, let the minister finish.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Those are the choices that British Columbians have to make when they choose their representatives. This government stands up for public universal health care. We will do that every single day. We will continue to build out mental health supports for children and adults.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Amendment to Standing Orders
for October 28 Sitting Hours

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1), the adjournment time of the sitting of the House commencing at 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, be modified to 4.15 p.m.; and,

That this modified time of adjournment extend to the application of Standing Order 3 and to the interpretation of the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House in Motion 20, adopted by the House on April 30, 2025, establishing the Sessional Order for certain proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call third reading, Bill 17.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move third reading.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 19, School Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call this House back to order and ask people to move outside to continue their conversations.

We are going to continue debate on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Pete Davis: I rise today to speak on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

I have to be honest. Every time I think about what this government is trying to do with our power system, I get concerned. The reality is that we keep hearing grand promises, but the hard truth is that their actions don’t match their words.

Every time the Premier or any of his ministers stand in this House, or in front of cameras, saying they support the mining industry, about building a clean energy future, about all these projects and initiatives, it sounds great. It sounds inspiring. It sounds like vision. But words don’t keep our lights on. Actions do.

[2:35 p.m.]

Let’s talk about action, because this is where it gets serious. The Minister of Mining stood in this House talking about 17 mining projects in B.C., projects that could create jobs, fuel communities and build this province for decades. They talk about these projects like trophies, proof that B.C. is leading the world. And as the opposition Mining critic, I want to see these projects move forward, and I want to see our B.C. mines thrive.

But here’s the problem. This government is piling on more demands all the time. They’ve demanded that every new vehicle sold must be electric by 2030. They’re pushing heat pumps in every new home. They want it all.

Here’s the reality. Every one of these things needs electricity — every mine, every heat pump, every electric vehicle. They all need power. Yet while this government talks about the future, they haven’t told the people of British Columbia where that electricity is going to come from. That’s the question.

They talk about windmills and solar panels like they’re a solution. Don’t get me wrong. These things have a role, but they’re a side-add to the grid. They’re a nice headline for a photo op, but they don’t provide the steady, reliable electricity that families, communities and industries depend on every day. That’s the truth.

We’re already importing 25 percent of our electricity today. That’s right. We’re buying power from outside our borders just to keep the lights on. Yet this government wants to pile on even more mandates, more demand, on our already stretched power grid. The scary thing is they haven’t put forward a credible plan to actually generate the power needed to make all this possible.

Now, that should concern every single person in this province, and here’s the proof. They’re already feeling the pressure. With Bill 31, this government gives them authority to decide who gets power and who doesn’t. That’s right, because they know the supply isn’t enough. They know it.

Their solution? They are moving toward picking and choosing who gets electricity and who doesn’t. Today it’s cryptocurrency mines, hydrogen producers and data centres. But what happens next year, or the next year after that? Once you start picking winners and losers in electricity, there’s no limit to who can be left in the dark. No pun intended. Who’s next? Mining projects? Forestry? Manufacturing? The odds are endless.

This is the same government that claims to support fairness and opportunity, but what we see here is the exact opposite. This is a government choosing which industries get to succeed and which do not. This is a government taking control over something that should be impartial, something that should be public, something that everyone depends on and turning it into a tool for influence. That’s not leadership. That’s not vision. That’s control, as far as I can see.

Make no mistake. If we don’t address this, if we allow this to become the norm, it’s going to get worse with every mandate this government introduces, with every new demand they pile on and with every promise that they make.

This is the turning point for our province, I think. Bill 31 isn’t just about minor technical changes. It’s about who decides the future of electricity in British Columbia. And right now with this government’s approach, we’re heading into uncertainty and, frankly, some scary times.

This government keeps talking about the North Coast transmission line. First, they told us the estimate was going to be about $3 billion. Well, surprise, they were wrong. Then it jumped to $6 billion.

Mark my words. This will cost even more before it’s done, all to move electricity hundreds of kilometres through remote, rugged and difficult terrain. Old, inefficient technology that is extremely expensive for the people of British Columbia. That’s money we could have spent on smarter, faster, other ways and used this money to actually deliver results for British Columbians in different areas.

[2:40 p.m.]

So why not do something that actually makes sense? Why not build small natural gas plants right here, where the electricity is needed, in the communities, industries and regions that will actually use it? Natural gas is abundant here in B.C. It’s clean, it’s reliable, and it’s ready to go. By generating electricity locally, we create power. We’re not just moving our power around with the power that we have — or should I say, we don’t have.

This is a safer, cheaper and more efficient way than massive transmission projects. It produces real reliable electricity that grows with our province and supports homes, businesses, mines and industries. This is practical. It’s cost-efficient. It’s common sense. Yet under Bill 31, this option is ignored, and the people of B.C. are paying the price.

It reminds me of the Site C dam situation. This same government fought it every step of the way, called it unnecessary, called it wasteful, opposed it relentlessly. Now, suddenly, they praise it. Let’s be honest. Where would we be today without Site C? How much more electricity would we have to import from outside our borders? How many more families and communities and industries would struggle without the power?

This lesson is clear. Ignoring of practical solutions comes at real cost. We have to stay ahead of this stuff.

Now let’s talk about B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro itself. This is a public utility built by the people for the people, and Bill 31 quietly moves the province closer to selling pieces of it off. This is not just about ownership. This is about control. Once you start selling transmission lines or other parts of our public electricity system, you lose control. You lose accountability. Most importantly, you put the reliability of this service at risk.

Reliability is not a small concern. It’s the foundation of daily life. People need to be able to turn on their lights, heat their homes, run their businesses and power their communities without having to question whether the electricity will be there when they need it or not. That is the last thing British Columbians should ever have to worry about.

Selling off pieces of B.C. Hydro or moving towards privatization puts all of this at risk. It turns a public service into a commodity, and it puts people and communities in danger. That’s the realness of this.

Now, I’m going to say it here. You know what? If this government isn’t willing to act with common sense, with practical solutions, then maybe they need to step aside and let those of us who will get these things done lead. The people of this province deserve real action. They deserve real results and a real plan for a secure, affordable and reliable energy future, because without electricity, everything else is going to stop.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I rise to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

I’d like to start with a quote from our Premier: “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 legislation will help us move faster on the North Coast transmission line, a nation-building project that will deliver clean electricity to responsibly power industrial growth and job creation and to increase prosperity for families, communities, our province and country.” What a vision.

[2:45 p.m.]

This is what this bill does. It advances British Columbia’s economy, which is about using and leveraging our clean electricity to drive economic growth, to drive diversification in our economy, to unlock the potential of the northwest of our province and support the growth of key sectors that benefit all of British Columbia.

The need to drive clean energy in our province, in our world, at a time when clean electricity is becoming more affordable, not less, is what this is about — the role that it can play, the role that B.C. Hydro can play, the role that B.C. Hydro has played, particularly in the 1960s, to drive the next generation of economic growth right here in British Columbia.

We do believe that we can become the economic driver. Clean energy is key to this. It’s our competitive advantage to support the next generation of clean growth. The North Coast transmission line, which is dealt with in the first section of this legislation, will enable us to unlock the growth potential of the electricity-constrained northwest.

Now, I had the privilege, just ten days ago, of being in the northwest. I was able to visit the north coast, to visit Terrace and Kitimat and Prince Rupert. There is so much going on in this area. There’s so much economic activity, and there’s so much room for more.

I visited LNG Canada. I visited the Haisla Nation and learned more about Cedar LNG, which is such a wonderful example of how we can unleash future prosperity to the benefit of nations, creating jobs, creating clean energy and doing it in a way that benefits the region and benefits nations.

I visited the Prince Rupert port. It’s the third time I’ve been up to the port since being elected. It’s incredible. Every single time I go there, it’s bigger and there’s more going on. It’s driving prosperity, and it will continue to do so. It’s extraordinary to see what’s happening there, the jobs that are available in Prince Rupert and the economic value that they continue to drive, not just for British Columbia but truly across Canada.

I met with the members of the chamber. I met with the Gitxaała as well. I got to do a couple other things. I saw the expansion of the Prince Rupert emergency department and gave out a Medal of Good Citizenship. I just got to have a bit of positive stuff while I was there. But really, what stood out for me, even more than those two enjoyable pieces, was all of the economic activity and opportunity for continued growth and jobs for British Columbians.

You know, it’s important that when we’re driving economic growth, it also benefits the places where these resources are being pulled from. That is also part of the design of the work that we’re doing, benefiting the communities in the North. But it’s also true that when the northwest is successful, British Columbia is successful.

The North Coast transmission line is a generational opportunity — it’s nothing less — to unlock a golden triangle of mining opportunities; expanding our world-leading and cleanest LNG sector with Indigenous-led projects like Cedar, featuring the northwest; ensuring, in fact, that we are, consistent with government policy, electrifying our LNG, something that the world wants.

It’s showing its benefits everywhere. It’s electrifying future port expansions to increase and diversify trade, not just in communities such as Prince Rupert but also in Stewart. The North Coast transmission line is truly a nation-building project that will unlock this potential. That’s in this bill.

We also must ensure that B.C. Hydro continues to adapt to evolving market conditions, including new sources of electricity demand that can scale quickly. This is not new. Jurisdictions across North America and across the world are dealing with the challenge of providing more electricity.

Here in B.C., we’ve taken action to protect our grid. We’ve done this historically. We took action to protect our grid in regard to cryptocurrency mining, instead choosing to allow energy to be available for industries that drive more economic growth and that are driving jobs here in British Columbia. That type of protection is strategic and smart.

[2:50 p.m.]

You see this similar protection here in Bill 31. Bill 31 will enable a new, unique and innovative approach to enable data and AI centres to proceed in a way that’s pragmatic, in a way that supports the projects that provide the greatest benefit to our province in terms of data sovereignty, in terms of job creation, in terms of support for our economy. This is how we become the economic engine of Canada.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks for the opportunity to speak to Bill 31. I’ll note that I’ll be the designated speaker for this. I don’t expect to speak for 90 minutes, but I might go a touch over 30, depending on how much I rush.

Before diving into the details of this bill, I want to take a step back and talk about what’s at stake in this debate. At its heart, this is not just a conversation about transmission lines, megaprojects or technical amendments to the Utilities Commission Act. It’s about how we make decisions in a time of profound change, decisions that will help shape British Columbia’s energy system, our economy and our climate legacy for years to come.

British Columbians expect that when governments make multi-billion-dollar investments, those decisions are grounded in evidence, transparency and fairness. They expect that public oversight, Indigenous rights and environmental stewardship are not afterthoughts but essential parts of responsible governance. They expect that when we talk about building a clean energy future, we actually mean it.

What we have before us today raises serious questions about whether those principles are being upheld, because the technical language of this legislation belies a major shift, one that changes who gets to make critical energy decisions, how those decisions are reviewed and whose voices are heard in the process. It’s a shift that moves authority away from independent regulators and public scrutiny and concentrates more powers in the hands of cabinet, which operates in confidence. It’s a shift that comes at a moment when British Columbia urgently needs clarity, accountability and vision in our energy planning, not more uncertainty or political discretion.

I’ll speak first about the North Coast transmission line. The main impetus for this bill is the desire to twin the North Coast transmission line, a proposed 450-kilometre, $6 billion megaproject being framed by the government as a catalyst for clean energy, reconciliation and economic development. But when we look more closely at the process being used, at the legislation surrounding it and at who truly benefits, the picture becomes far more complex.

The North Coast transmission line would cut across over 100 private properties, including agricultural land, traplines and woodlots. It would cross rivers and creeks that serve as habitat for at-risk white sturgeon, pass within 200 metres of archaeological sites and impact critical winter habitat for moose.

Normally a project of this magnitude would undergo public review through the B.C. Utilities Commission under the Utilities Commission Act. That review, called the certificate of public convenience and necessity, exists to determine whether a project is truly needed, is in the public interest and is consistent with broader energy system goals. It’s also a process where Indigenous nations, local communities and stakeholders can present their perspective.

For this project, the government is choosing to bypass that process. Rather than allow the B.C. Utilities Commission to assess the evidence and evaluate public interest, the government will use legislative authority to simply direct the commission to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity. A process that would normally take 12 to 18 months, bringing transparency and public accountability, will be replaced by a directive from cabinet.

True reconciliation is not simply about co-ownership opportunities or economic partnerships. It’s about respecting Indigenous law, title and decision-making authority.

I want to speak for a moment specifically to phase 3 of this project, because it seems to have been added in haste. It isn’t shown on the official infographic map of the project. Our red flags have gone up because it doesn’t seem like proper consultation has been done.

The Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, whose territory would be directly impacted by phase 3 of this project, stated clearly: “Gitanyow has not been properly consulted under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and has made it clear that without proper assessment, these projects will not be recognized in Gitanyow territory.”

Gitanyow has unceded title to their lax’yip along a portion of phase 3 of the North Coast transmission line. Gitanyow voiced concerns in opposition to Bills 14 and 15 prior to their passing in the Legislature and informed Premier Eby that because of the failure to invoke and uphold DRIPA in this legislation, they will not apply in Gitanyow territory.

Gitanyow is not in any discussion for equity or ownership on phase 3, and before this can occur, a full assessment of the project in Gitanyow lax’yip is needed under the Gitanyow wilp sustainability assessment process.

[2:55 p.m.]

In summary, Gitanyow was not consulted in accordance with DRIPA on Bill 31. True reconciliation must go beyond joint ventures. It must respect sovereignty law and stewardship.

I’m going to speak about the BCUC role in all this. Because B.C. Hydro has no competitors, it is overseen by the BCUC under the Utilities Commission Act, which Bill 31 seeks to amend. Bill 31 doesn’t just facilitate a transmission line. It has consequences for how electricity is allocated in B.C.

Under our current system, new industrial customers apply through B.C. Hydro’s interconnection queue, and they’re assessed on a first-come, first-served basis. Projects that require new infrastructure are expected to pay for it through a long-standing policy known as tariff supplement 6. This protects existing ratepayers by ensuring that new users cover the full cost of the expansion they trigger.

The government now says industrial users served by the North Coast transmission line will pay “the same electricity rates as other large customers.” But that phrase suggests something different, that they may not be required to pay the full incremental cost of new infrastructure. That’s a big departure from existing rules, and it could leave everyday ratepayers footing part of the bill.

It’s my understanding that ordering the BCUC to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity opens the door for an amendment to tariff supplement 6 that could see ratepayers pick up some of the cost, which sounds like a subsidy to me. I’m open to other interpretations, but we’ll be asking some hard questions about this in committee.

The BCUC’s role is published on their website: “We make objective, well-reasoned, evidence-based decisions that are legally binding. We facilitate fair, transparent and inclusive processes, and we value input from all British Columbian ratepayers.” Now, I’m not saying that politicians, ministers and cabinet can’t make objective, well-reasoned, evidence-based decisions with fair, transparent and inclusive processes, but when these all unfold behind the cabinet doors, how do we know?

We all know the risk. Without impugning this government or this minister, we all know the risk that these decisions can be made subjectively without proper evidence and without being fair, transparent and inclusive.

Instead, this government is proposing a different model, one that gives cabinet the authority to decide who gets access to scarce electricity, what rates they’ll pay and which industries are excluded from access altogether or have access limited to just a few megawatts of electricity.

This is a significant shift in regulatory power, moving decisions from the independent body of the BCUC to the cabinet table, where political priorities can override technical and financial considerations. The fact that former Premier Horgan restored the power to set rates to the BCUC after the B.C. Liberal government’s interference speaks volumes and adds more credence to the question I’ve been asked more and more. Have the B.C. NDP become the B.C. Liberals? It raises important questions about fairness, transparency and long-term planning.

The process to decide who gets rationed electricity will also no longer follow a regulated, queue-based model. Instead, B.C. Hydro will design a new allocation system, possibly involving an auction, but again, this will be developed by cabinet instead of by B.C. Hydro or the BCUC, without oversight.

The minister, in his comments, pointed to Quebec, Oregon, Utah, New Jersey and Ontario but did not mention analogies much closer to home: central Washington public utility districts of Chelan and Grant, which have abundant capacity and have had to address demands from cryptocurrency and data centres while protecting existing ratepayers.

These public utility districts have had no problem empowering their commissioners to set distinct rate schedules by customer and industry type, negotiate special contracts with some industries and balance needs without government intervention. Because the commissioners’ sole job is to oversee long-term sustainability of the utility, they are nowhere near as likely to be buffeted by political considerations outside of the narrow focus of the utility.

Who will ensure that the public interest is protected in these agreements? As we know, this government has a poor track record of being transparent when it comes to First Nations matters. The BCUC appears to have no oversight role here, as it will not be reviewing the proposed project, which would have looked at whether the proponent in the joint venture was suitable.

In the spirit of true debate — and I miss that about municipal politics, in terms of the give-and-take of listening and receiving — I have listened carefully and reviewed Hansard, and I’m grateful for the respectful and thoughtful commentary provided thus far. I’ll outline some of the comments I’ve heard.

The member for Peace River South fears we are “drifting from responsible energy planning to politicized energy control” and says that technical challenges need technical solutions, not political ones. I agree.

[3:00 p.m.]

He also says he believes in decarbonization but wants to supply AI and data centres by turbines generating electricity from “the cleanest natural gas on the planet.” I agree with the member on transparency and efficiency but not on economic growth at all costs, doing everything we can to produce prosperity. If we did this with only a short-term view, we could all be tremendously wealthy for five to ten years before the economy and the environment collapse. The mantra that they will go somewhere else is not justification for abandoning our principles to attract investment.

The member for Peace River North also wants to use gas turbines for power because everything is dirty. Well, I would argue that it’s all a matter of degree. Different energy sources have different levels of cleanliness.

Since we’re talking about scale and scalable industries, the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap wants to know who gets swept into the same regulatory class with vague definitions that would later require legislative change to fix unintended consequences.

Making decisions from Victoria on who protects ratepayers, the risk of innovation moving to other jurisdictions…. The BCUC is a safeguard against arbitrary decisions. Putting this into cabinet confidence replaces open hearings with confidential discussions. “Trust us,” rather than “show me the evidence.” This has the unwanted consequence of reducing investor confidence.

I agree with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, who says cabinet directives should be published with rationale, criteria and impacts to ratepayers, and with the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who says industries we want could be scared to invest if we prejudge industries like AI and data centres. We need to build an innovation economy with certainty, not flipping the switch on and off at cabinet discretion.

Flexibility can be achieved without secrecy. BCUC already has tools to fast-track. At minimum, annual public reporting is needed on regulations, including fiscal summaries and rationale.

As discussed, to protect ratepayers, large industrial customers that require new infrastructure are expected to pay their fair share through tariff supplement 6. However, industries are already being offered subsidies. Cedar LNG gets $200 million from B.C., matched by another $200 million from Ottawa.

With the North Coast transmission line, the government wants the public, not industry, to shoulder the $6 billion price tag. That’s $6 billion or more on top of the $16 billion we’ve already spent on Site C, all to enable electrification of LNG and mining projects.

This isn’t about clean energy. This is about state-sponsored fossil fuel expansion, greenwashed and fast-tracked under the banner of economic reconciliation. From a climate standpoint, the implication of Bill 31 raises further concerns. Liquefied natural gas is extremely energy-intensive. It takes massive amounts of power to chill gas to minus 162 degrees and ship it overseas.

All new LNG terminals in B.C. were required to be net zero by 2030, but earlier this year the rule was weakened. LNG facilities now only need to have a plan to be net-zero-ready by the end of the decade if electrical grid supports aren’t in place. It isn’t the responsibility of taxpayers to ensure fossil fuel companies have the electrical resources needed to decarbonize. Yet the province has said LNG proponents will not be penalized for factors beyond their control.

The first phase of LNG Canada will use natural gas turbines for compression. But the rest, every LNG facility currently in planning or under construction, is expected to rely on electricity from the grid. This is how it is expected to be low-emission or net-zero LNG, at least before it’s burned in Asia.

A 2023 report from the Pembina Institute found that electrifying B.C.’s oil and gas sector would require 42,700 gigawatt, or 43 terawatt, hours per year, the equivalent of 8.4 Site C dams. Even just LNG Canada phase 1 and Woodfibre would double B.C.’s 2030 emissions target for the oil and gas sector. If all proposed projects proceed, emissions could triple the target.

Jurisdictions who extract and sell fossil fuels are facing increasing liability for the serious and irreversible harm these products cause. This was highlighted by a recent ruling by the International Court of Justice, a ruling that British Columbians would be wise to pay attention to. Quote: “Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions, including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies, may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state.”

[3:05 p.m.]

British Columbians are one of the world’s most aggressive extractors of climate-polluting fossil fuels per capita. Under current policies, B.C.’s fossil gas extraction is projected to jump 50 percent by 2035. Under this government, B.C. is deeply entrenched in a frenzied LNG boom, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

Despite this government’s best efforts, labelling B.C. LNG as “the cleanest in the world” is nothing more than a desperate attempt at greenwashing. Natural gas is methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, up to 80 times over the short term and still much worse over the long term. From the upstream emissions to methane leaks along the pipeline to powering the liquefaction of fossil fuels, there is nothing clean about fossil gas or liquefied fossil gas, LNG.

Fracking is highly destructive, uses billions of litres of fresh water when communities cross the province are in drought, and it leads to earthquakes and poisons communities. Yet the fracking industries are allowed to take billions of litres each year, and they’re paying pennies for it.

We need to look at the full picture. That includes examining the health impacts of fracking, plus the impacts of LNG flaring and venting. Moreover, the affordability and economic impacts of developing LNG are worrisome, and the public needs to be informed of the unstable future this province is driving us towards.

LNG exports will worsen affordability for individuals and businesses by exposing us to global gas markets, whereby consumer prices will go up. To date, the federal government supports the LNG industry with an estimated $1.8 billion per year in public financing and infrastructure funding, while B.C. alone has tabled a total of $2.16 billion to back LNG through direct subsidies, favourable tax rules, reduced electricity rates, electrical infrastructure development and carbon tax exemptions, according to a new report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

The LNG sector is being pitched as one way to diversify exports beyond the United States and to boost Canada’s economic resilience to U.S. tariffs. Developing the sector will cost billions, but demand in Europe and Asia, the target markets for Canadian LNG, is not as strong as advertised. Additionally, most Canadian LNG projects likely won’t come online until after the end of the decade, arriving late to the party in a saturated market. This could leave taxpayers holding the bag with significant stranded assets and unmet climate targets.

By pledging public funding for LNG, it makes private investors more likely to follow through with projects that would otherwise be abandoned due to risk. This is irresponsible for countless reasons, least of all the climate-altered future our children will inherit if this government keeps gambling on LNG.

We have to ask: how does expanding LNG and fracked gas production align with CleanBC, with our net-zero targets, with our broader commitments to decarbonization, with the province’s liability, with a healthy future for British Columbians and with fiscally responsible governance? In 2024, British Columbia imported 25 percent of its electricity, a significant share of it from fossil fuel–based sources in Alberta and the United States. We could be living in an upside-down energy world where we use gas-fired electricity to liquefy gas for export by tanker to produce electricity on the other side of the world.

In what kind of perverse economy does this make any sense? Only an economy with subsidies for an entrenched industry and only one that ignores the true externalized costs of fossil fuels. That’s the only way this works, and at that, it’s a balance sheet built on a house of cards.

Even in the best-case scenario, we’re using renewable energy to liquefy gas when there might be dozens of higher and better uses for that clean energy that we haven’t considered or even contemplated yet. Yet we are locking in cheap, subsidized electricity to climate-warming activities for generations to come. Short-sighted doesn’t even begin to describe the scenario we are setting up for ourselves.

To try to address the growing shortfall, B.C. Hydro issued two separate calls for new power in 2024 and 2025. Let’s be clear. This isn’t a problem that will be fixed overnight, and we’ve lost a decade already. It will take years to close the gap between our rising demand and available clean supply. While the gap grows, the government continues to approve new industrial loads, further straining the system. The government continues to promote the North Coast transmission line as the key to unlocking an economic boom, promising it will usher in billions in new investment for LNG mining, port expansion and more.

We’ve heard this before. We love to point to theoretical billions in investment in jobs, GDP and prosperity to justify massive public investment in resource infrastructure. The question we must ask is: billions for whom? Who benefits, and who pays, and how does this fit into a serious long-term climate and energy plan?

Projects like Ksi Lisims LNG are being sold to the public as job creators. Yet compared to LNG Canada, which had more than 9,000 workers employed during construction, the number of long-term jobs at Ksi Lisims will be minimal. It is only expected to employ 450 workers for construction, because all of the fabrication and most of the assembly work will be done in South Korea using Korean steel.

[3:10 p.m.]

Woodfibre LNG will result in only 100 permanent jobs. While British Columbians fund the infrastructure, the profits are set to flow to international investment firms, including many with direct ties to Wall Street investors and Trump-era financiers. This province earns more revenue from liquor and gambling sales than it does from oil, gas and mining combined, so when this government frames LNG’s expansion as an economic necessity, they’re selling a fantasy, one that benefits corporations far more than communities.

This isn’t a long-term climate strategy; it’s a short-term push for resource expansion. The rhetoric of nation-building projects as economic engines frames large-scale developments as essential to national progress and economic growth, yet critics remind us that this narrative proliferates colonial logic and reproduces historical patterns of dispossession and ecological harm under the guise of modernization and progress.

If being the economic engine of Canada means subsidizing large transmission projects, sidelining independent review and prioritizing fossil fuel exports over ecological resilience and Indigenous rights, then we need to rethink the direction we’re heading, because the economy of northern British Columbia doesn’t run on LNG alone. It depends on healthy lands, clean water and thriving salmon populations. It depends on ecosystems that are already under immense pressure from droughts, warming rivers and industrial activity. You can’t put salmon back in the river once their habitat is gone. You can’t rebuild trust with communities once you’ve ignored their rights and voices.

We can do better. I want to speak about the part of this bill that has, I believe, some potential to right the ship: the allocation framework and the criteria that would go around it.

We need robust, evidence-based planning that looks ahead, not just one or two years but decades into the future. The government is rushing ahead with massive, irreversible infrastructure investments without a clear sense of how we’ll meet future energy demand, how we’ll reduce emissions or how we’ll prioritize limited electricity in a fair and transparent way.

That’s why we’re calling for a pathway assessment. A pathway assessment is not a new idea. It’s a comprehensive study of all credible energy pathways to achieve net-zero objectives at a given point in time. It helps to evaluate choices and trade-offs, understand costs and bring key stakeholders together for an evidence-based discussion about a jurisdiction’s future energy mix.

It brings together utilities, governments, Indigenous nations, regulators and the public in a transparent way. Pathways assessments are independent from political influence, transparent in their assumptions and process, inclusive and evergreen to ensure new information is incorporated. They are current, relevant and robust.

This is how we build an affordable, orderly transition, not by patching together policies that cater to the loudest lobbyists in the room. Other provinces are doing this. Quebec and New Brunswick have already completed theirs. Ontario has one underway. But British Columbia, when we claim to be an energy leader, has none.

An electricity allocation framework is a start. I support getting ahead of the potentially disruptive AI and data centre boom. But we need to be making long-term decisions, not reactively picking and choosing industries on subjective information and adding piecemeal to the legislation every time an emerging industry poses a threat. We need to be more nimble than this. After all, we only sit six months of the year, so there are times when we won’t be able to react quickly.

This government’s failure to meet climate targets or plan a path to doing so, failure to see LNG for what it is, a climate bomb, is why this caucus ensured a review of CleanBC in our cooperation agreement with the government. So how can we be assured that CleanBC review recommendations will be incorporated into electricity allocation criteria?

The minister said in his remarks that he would like to involve the opposition in developing the criteria that would be used to make electricity allocation decisions, prohibiting some industries setting rates, limits and schedules. Some of the criteria mentioned so far: local employment, government revenue, climate, Indigenous reconciliation, data sovereignty. I’m heartened to hear the minister mention all these criteria, but particularly climate, more than once. I think we see it differently, but it’s certainly a platform for discussion.

Rather than using electricity to liquefy methane, we see a future where, if the criteria is set objectively and takes climate costs and benefit into account, it will become very clear that gas production and liquefaction is not the most beneficial use of our limited electricity supply.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would be excited for the opportunity to contribute to these criteria, but it feels like an empty promise. What mechanism does the minister see for the Legislature to contribute meaningful input to these decisions? Isn’t the government already down this path by specifying limits to AI data centres and hydrogen export? Where’s the objective criteria that justifies this and a process to back it up?

If there is a willingness to take input from outside of the cabinet table, how about one of these options? Either let a committee of the Legislature set these all-important criteria under public scrutiny, or let the BCUC do it in a publicly transparent process.

Cabinet is the only place where the reasons for these criteria will be discussed in secret with no provision for a public conversation. This is why the CleanBC review needs to be incorporated into the criteria, but the way this legislation is written, there is no way of assuring this unless the minister wants to invite us, on the opposition side, into the cabinet room for this discussion.

In closing, the North Coast transmission line is a huge investment, financially and otherwise. I want to be very clear that we support Indigenous co-ownership of this infrastructure project and others.

However, this legislation reshapes how electricity is allocated, how costs are distributed and how decisions are made. Yet instead of subjecting it to independent review, this government has taken the extraordinary step of ordering approval, bypassing the BCUC entirely. It’s not how a responsible government works, and it’s not how climate leadership works. If that engine is powered by unchecked extraction, corporate giveaways and regulatory shortcuts, then it’s not the one we should be proud to drive.

This isn’t an economic strategy rooted in local prosperity, sustainability or long-term resilience. It’s a short-term industrial push, one that puts B.C.’s climate targets, Indigenous rights and ecological integrity on the line.

Northern B.C. already powers this province through salmon-bearing rivers, rich ecosystems and the stewardship of Indigenous communities whose lands are too often treated as sacrifice zones. True economic strength comes from long-term vision, from protecting what makes our regions resilient, from investing in people and from ensuring our energy future is grounded in justice, sustainability and public accountability. Let’s stop gambling on short-term extraction and start investing in the long-term public good.

We in the Third Party are happy to support the electrification of our province and, as I said, the construction and co-ownership of the North Coast transmission line. But my goal is to make sure the electricity we produce and consume is for the greatest benefit of British Columbians, and I don’t see how I or anybody in this Legislature can do that the way this bill is currently written.

I’m very interested in working with the minister to make changes to the legislation that provide this transparency to the members of this House and for all British Columbians.

This caucus will support moving this to the committee stage on the assumption of good faith and the possibility that there is a path forward here that allows transparency, commission oversight on behalf of the public and a common understanding of where our public clean power is best directed for future generations.

Elenore Sturko: I rise today also to speak about Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, which is legislation that aims to expedite construction of a new power transmission line to help develop future LNG and critical mineral projects.

Bill 31 also seeks to prioritize and power natural resource projects and limit the expansion of AI data centres and hydrogen for export. Those industries will now be forced to go through a competitive process for accessing power.

This legislation is specifically meant to expedite construction of B.C. Hydro’s North Coast transmission line, NCTL. So it’s a lot like many other NDP government projects, with the cost of the NCTL already skyrocketing. The cost of the transmission line’s first two stages has ballooned from $3 billion to $6 billion.

The Energy Minister said that the province is seeking financial support from the federal government. However, we don’t know if it will receive that funding and what portion of that funding that might represent. And at the end of the day, whether it’s federal cash or provincial, these contributions are coming out of taxpayer pockets.

First Nations that take an equity stake in the project are also expected to put up capital for the transmission line, but what that will look like is still being determined. So it appears once again that the provincial government is giving itself a blank cheque, legislating a project built on assumptions about cost-sharing.

There are also concerns that the NCTL, being fast-tracked by Bill 31, won’t have enough power for projects that it means to energize. University of B.C. economist Werner Antweiler said the problem for this province might be that there’s not enough electricity available to power the projects through this transmission line.

[3:20 p.m.]

Mr. Antweiler told the Vancouver Sun in a recent interview: “B.C. Hydro has been trying to bring on more power over the next decade with calls for wind power projects, but even when combined with the electricity brought online by the Site C dam, B.C. might fall short.”

He said: “LNG is extremely power-hungry. An LNG plant that produces 13 million tonnes per year would need about 600 to 700 megawatts of constant power. If the capacity on the new transmission line is something like 2,200 megawatts, it fills up pretty quickly.”

B.C. has been a net importer of power for the last several years and is having trouble meeting current demand, let alone future demand.

Bill 31 also exempts the North Coast transmission line from the rigorous oversight of the B.C. Utilities Commission. This strips away independent reviews that ensure projects like the NCTL truly serve the public interest and not just special interests.

In a media interview, former B.C. Utilities Commissioner Richard Mason said: “The public would have been well-served to have the BCUC go through the process to determine whether projects like this have the right to move forward.”

Mr. Mason said: “The BCUC will not have any say in things like the route that it would take, whether it’s even necessary, whether there would be better alternatives, in a public process where people can air their views and potentially be heard on issues that this government is never going to hear about now.”

The exemption legislated in Bill 31 builds on a troubling pattern of NDP government fast-tracking that silences voices from communities, farmers and environmental stewards who deserve a say and that will keep the power in check. Once again, the government is legislating away the accountability that we owe to every resident in this province.

Then there is also the shift on how we allocate electricity, with Bill 31 handing sweeping powers to the NDP to decide who gets to keep the lights on. We’re talking about a system where the NDP, not markets or merit, pick winners and losers. Traditional resource projects are getting a green light, while innovative sectors like artificial intelligence and data centres are shackled with caps, and 300 megawatts every two years is far from enough to fuel the jobs of tomorrow.

I do believe most British Columbians want to see electricity flowing to natural resource projects, but this government’s absolute mismanagement of energy in this province over the last eight years is putting us at a disadvantage, forced to limit the technology sector when instead we should be able to grow it.

In Bill 31’s efforts to create certainty for the natural resources sector, it creates uncertainty for another, giving the government the ability not only to restrict the use of public-utility electricity for data centres, including AI, but to prohibit it indefinitely.

These choices don’t just stifle innovation. They betray our economic promise by favouring a few at the expense of high-growth tech and diverse opportunities. Bill 31 risks the very advancement that could create thousands of good-paying jobs for British Columbians.

We’re capping potential, not harnessing it — all while ignoring real solutions like diversified energy sources, including nuclear, to deliver affordable, reliable power for all.

Instead, this bill locks us into a fragile grid, vulnerable to blackouts and imports that drive up costs for everyday ratepayers. Worse still, it’s residential users who are going to foot the bill. With exemptions from proper scrutiny and vague cost-sharing assumptions, we’re only one cost overrun away from seeing billions in additional costs dumped onto household bills.

Without ironclad safeguards, this $6 billion project might become a ticking time bomb for taxpayers, confirming once and for all that we do truly lack the clean electricity abundance that we’ve been promised.

I look forward to seeing this bill advance and having questions to ask for committee stage.

Tara Armstrong: Bill 31 is a Soviet-style bill that centralizes power over the energy supply, picking industry winners and losers. The winners? NDP allies. The losers? Everyone else. Let me explain.

[3:25 p.m.]

Energy is the base layer. It is the foundation of how you build prosperity. At the dawn of civilization, the mastery of fire and simple heat power freed humans from the constraints of cold winters, raw food and primitive tools.

Then the shift to coal made possible the Industrial Revolution in Britain, massively expanding energy available for work, heat motion and manufacture.

Next the ascendancy of oil, and fossil fuels more broadly, powered the postwar American-led boom and transformed global society.

In each era, what really drove human flourishing was the jump in accessible, affordable energy that enabled innovation, trade and the advancement of civilization. In short, the harnessing of abundant, reliable and affordable energy is what drives civilizational progress, but here in B.C., we are heading backwards.

After decades of mismanagement, British Columbia now needs six more Site C dams just to meet the current demand. Rather than fixing the underlying issue by generating more cheap and reliable power — more dams, more natural gas plants and even nuclear power — it amends the Utilities Commission Act and other statutes, allowing the provincial government to control who gets what’s left of B.C. power and who doesn’t.

Bill 31 has taken direct aim at two of the fastest-growing industries in the world, artificial intelligence and crypto. While the NDP are shutting down these booming industries, Danielle Smith and Alberta are aiming to have $100 billion worth of AI data centres under construction within the next five years.

Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix said we need to “avoid the mistakes of other jurisdictions by rationing power.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’ll refrain from using members’ names.

Tara Armstrong: Okay, my apologies.

That’s harebrained. We don’t need to ration scarce power. We need to generate abundance, something this government has no idea how to do.

The entire clean energy initiative is an ideological pet project that is crippling our energy productivity. All it does is make it more expensive and more time-consuming to produce our own natural gas resources.

This self-imposed energy shortage threatens the security and the sovereignty of our province. Unbelievably, the Premier of this province wants to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on ads to dunk on our southern neighbour, while he simultaneously makes us dangerously dependent on U.S. power.

Energy abundance and energy independence is the path forward. Bill 31 is a disaster for British Columbia, and I’ll be voting no to this bill.

Tony Luck: I appreciate the opportunity to stand today and talk to the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 31. It’s a real privilege to be able to do that. I don’t want to say I’m speaking for my constituents, but if I were to poll them, they probably would have some concerns about it. So I appreciate the opportunity to stand for them.

This bill has been recently introduced into the Legislature of British Columbia. I want to emphasize one recurring theme throughout this bill — the erosion of accountability of elected officials and how oversight by this Legislature is being systematically reduced.

I would like to thank previous colleagues that have sat and spoken about some of the nuances of this bill. I really appreciate it. There is an ongoing theme through all these bills that have been introduced this year in the House. It seems like we’re going to be beating a dead horse, but if there’s smoke, there’s usually fire for some of the things that we’re looking at.

Let us begin with a short overview of what Bill 31 does and why it matters so much. The legislation is aimed at accelerating energy infrastructure projects — in particular, the North Coast transmission line in northwestern British Columbia — but also at revising how industrial electricity is allocated across the province. I thought that was B.C. Hydro’s job. Now we’re getting somebody within government here, our bureaucrats, to do that. It doesn’t make sense.

[3:30 p.m.]

On its surface, speeding up infrastructure makes it easier for industry to access power, access on offering ownership stakes for First Nations — all objectives that sound reasonable on the surface. Yet as usual, the devil is in the details. Those details reveal a legislative design that concentrates power, limits transparency and weakens the checks and balances that we rely on for democratic accountability.

My argument today is that Bill 31 cuts out key oversight responsibility of our Legislature and of elected officials, thereby reducing democratic accountability, and we must interrogate the implications of that radical shift.

Let’s begin with the first point, which is the centralization of power in the executive and the attendant loss of independent oversight.

Bill 25 significantly strengthened the authority of the provincial government, via the cabinet or minister, over how B.C. Hydro allocates electricity, how ownership arrangements for transmission are made and how major projects proceed. For example, under clause 2 of part 1, cabinet may, by order, designate an agreement by which B.C. Hydro and a First Nation hold an ownership interest in part of the NCTL.

What that means is that key decisions about project ownership, structuring, management and service delivery are being moved to discretionary orders by the cabinet, rather than subject to the kind of public scrutiny and legislative oversight that one might expect. The process becomes less transparent and less accountable to the Legislature.

The bill also alters the role of the British Columbia Utilities Commission, which we’ve always believed is sacrosanct — that it is the commission that is looking after the interests of the Legislature, the interests of the public and interests of business, quite frankly. Under the Utilities Commission Act amendment, the cabinet can set or require special electricity rates, establish limits, select an eligible person for service and delegate matters to the commission or public utility.

More importantly, Bill 31, as reported by independent media, removes or sidesteps the requirement that BCUC conduct a full public review of project necessity and public interest in certain cases. The government says the initiative is in the public interest, so the standard process isn’t needed. Really? Then ask the public.

What does that mean for oversight? It means that decisions which historically would undergo public hearings, stakeholder input or review of cost benefit and public interest are now being pushed through with lesser scrutiny. The accountability of decision-making to the Legislature and the public is, once again, in this bill, like other bills, diminished.

In another worrying dimension, the bill allows retroactive powers and board definitions under clause 1, and agreements under subsection (2) are cemented by retroactively granting legal power to Hydro or the authority to enter into ownership agreements. When retrospective powers are granted, when the criteria for decision-making are vague or delegated and when oversight mechanisms are weakened, the result is a weaker accountability framework overall.

In summary, these features reflect a pattern where major decisions about industry infrastructure are being shifted away from the transparent, deliberative oversight of elected representatives and the regulatory bodies towards executive discretion. That shift inherently reduces accountability. But you know what? Somehow we knew this. When Bill 15 was passed in this House this last spring, many of us knew exactly where we were headed, and it continues with this bill.

Let us explore how these design features translate into specific accountability gaps. One is environmental oversight and consultation process. While the bill includes First Nations equity participation, critics note that genuine free, prior and informed consent may not be fully secured. Likewise, by fast-tracking infrastructure and moving away from full environmental assessment review, the bill replicates a pattern of reduced oversight seen under earlier legislation, like Bill 14.

The risk is that decisions about major transmission lines — which cross Indigenous lands, ecologically sensitive zones, traplines, waterways and agricultural land — may be made without full public scrutiny. The ability of communities to hold decision-makers accountable is much lessened.

The bill prioritized electricity access for sectors like mining, LNG, ports and resource extraction over emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence, clean technology and other future-oriented industries, just as some of my other colleagues have mentioned here.

[3:35 p.m.]

It kind of doesn’t make sense. If these are the industries of the future, why are we limiting them coming onto the power line? We must not be able to fully implement the amount of power that we need if that’s what’s happening here.

While economic growth is important, the shift raises questions about whether long-term, sustainable development and community benefits are being sufficiently weighed. Accountability demands that elected officials justify why some sectors are favoured and others are not. The bill provides less room for such public inquiry.

The government projects large numbers. The numbers are overwhelming. I can’t even fathom some of the numbers here. As one of my colleagues already mentioned here, it starts out at $3 billion, then it’s $6 billion, and I will take bets that it will probably wind up being closer to $8 billion or $9 billion by the time this is done. Will it be on time? That’s something we’re forgetting as well.

Nearly $10 billion annual GDP contribution and 10,000 direct jobs for the NCTL project. However, details of how these benefits will be distributed, how risk and financing are shared and how communities will be protected are unspecified.

Here are some metrics and processes we might want to look at to assess value for money and check whether they are actually present in this project.

One of the things we try to look for, and I tried to do some quick reviewing on, is trying to find a cost-benefit analysis, a full cost-benefit analysis, showing capital costs, operating costs, decommissioning, benefits. Are the jobs there? Is the GDP there? Is the revenue there — environmental savings, avoided costs — compared to a do-nothing or alternative baseline? We could not find any real, hard data on that. It would be nice to see some of that.

But I want to quote somebody from a long time ago. You know, the government wants to trust us here. Somebody once mentioned…. I think it was Ronald Reagan who once said: “I trust, but I want to verify it.” It needs to be verified, and it’s time we got more verification on a project like this.

Transparent assumptions. What load is expected? What projects will connect? What timeline? What happens if uptake is lower than expected? What if we put $9 billion, $8 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion into this and the uptake is a lot lower? We need independent regulatory review. A body like the B.C. Utilities Commission should review all of these projects.

We need cost-benefit public interest. If that is bypassed, our truncated accountability is much reduced. Risk management and contingency plans are important. How will cost overruns be managed? Who bears the risk? What happens if the industrial demand falls short?

We need a clear framework of how benefits flow to communities, how Indigenous equity stakes are governed, how jobs and local procurement are delivered. We need after-construction reports. There should be performance audits. Are costs on budget? Is utilization as expected?

We have a history in this province with this government that, well…. Do we know any project that has been on time or on budget? It makes sense that we have all those reports in place so the public knows. These are big numbers that are being thrown around, lots of nice headline-grabbing information, but we really need to have that.

The other one is transparency in ratepayer and taxpayer impact. If public money or public utility is involved, customers need to know how this affects their bills or how taxpayers’ exposure will be managed.

So given the evidence, the project has a plausible rationale. The transmission system on the north coast is nearing capacity. We know that. There is industrial interest. Economic benefit is claimed. However, because a full, independent cost analysis is not publicly available, or at least not easy to find, and because oversight mechanisms appear to be reduced, the level of confidence we can have that the public is truly getting full value for money is moderate at best.

Without transparency, it is hard for the public to hold officials to account for whether promised benefits are delivered or whether risks and costs are borne disproportionately by local communities or taxpayers.

Concentrating investment in power infrastructure in the northwest of British Columbia, while seemingly beneficial for that region, may widen economic disparities with other parts of the province if not managed properly. The Legislature and public deserve scrutiny of whether those trade-offs are justified or how regional equity is being addressed. With further formal oversight processes, that scrutiny is diminished.

[3:40 p.m.]

Because the bill allows regulation to override other provisions of the act and mandate compliance by public utilities, even where previous decisions exist, the legal certainty of affected parties is much reduced. For example, a public utility or the commission must comply with a regulation made under this section, despite a previous decision by the commission.

Fewer opportunities for public hearings, appeals or independent review mean elected officials and regulators are less answerable to the public and less subject to checks and balances, which again undermines accountability and destroys the trust of the general public and the taxpayers and the voters and the ratepayers in that group.

I want to bring this back to the core theme though. What does this mean for accountability of our elected officials? What happens when large-scale decisions are handed off to executive discretion with limited legislative scrutiny? When cabinet powers expand and regulatory oversight is reduced, the role of elected representatives — the MLAs, the committees — and the public hearings become less central. The voters may still hold an MLA or elected representative accountable, but the decision-making path is less transparent, making accountability more diffuse.

The Legislature traditionally holds the executive to account via debate, question period, committee review and requirements for public interest justification and oversight of statutes and regulations. When a bill reduces or bypasses these mechanisms, the legislators’ ability to supervise is much weakened.

An infrastructure project like Bill 31, of this magnitude, affects land use, environment, Indigenous rights, public financing and regional economies. If the public sees major decisions taken without visible checks and processes, trust in governments declines, and when trust declines, so does the legitimacy of both process and outcomes.

Bill 31 does not exist in isolation. It follows earlier legislation, as I mentioned before. Renewable energy projects like Bill 14, which gave board powers to cabinet and reduced environmental regulatory assessments…. If this becomes the norm — faster infrastructure, fewer checks, more discretion — then our democratic safeguards gradually erode. That is a systematic risk to accountability and good governance.

Supporters of the bill will make important points. B.C. needs to get ahead of industrial demand for electricity. The NCTL could unlock jobs and growth. First Nations participation is a positive step. The world is moving fast, and we must act. Many of these arguments have merit, but they do not excuse weakening oversight mechanisms. A robust democracy can do both, move quickly and maintain accountability.

For example, the government argues that existing regulatory processes would take up to 18 months and delay nation-building infrastructure. They argue that access to clean electricity will unlock tens of billions in GDP, thousands of jobs and reduce emissions. Once again, a cost-benefit analysis would be able to lay that out, and we would really know all the numbers and facts.

My point is the why doesn’t justify the how. When full review and consultation are what slow things down, the solution is to reduce and reform those processes, not to bypass them completely. Our concern is not just about speed but about ensuring that when decisions are made, they have been properly reviewed, publicly debated and that elected officials remain accountable.

What should we demand? This is a call to action. Given the concerns, what should we as citizens and civic actors demand for our Legislature, our MLAs and our government? Here are a few things to consider about this bill, and maybe we can look at some amendments.

B.C. Hydro is given discretion, but there must be published criteria, transparent processes and documentation of how decisions are made. Voters need to know how decisions were arrived at, not just the outcomes. Given the scale of this project and its context, First Nations’ rights, land use and environmental risks, the process must allow meaningful input and consent, not simple token participation.

Effective oversight mechanisms — whether through the Legislature, standing committee, independent regulators, like the BCUC or others — must be able to review the capacity to challenge decisions and accountability measures if promises are not kept.

[3:45 p.m.]

Information on project jobs, GDP contributions, risk allocations, financing costs to taxpayers, how First Nation equity stakes will work all should be disclosed and subject to oversight.

Regional equity and balanced decision-making. The province must ensure that benefits and risks are fairly distributed across regions and sectors. One region receiving big infrastructure should not mean others are left behind.

Having spoken about the amount of money that’s being put in, what other infrastructure is going be put to the side because this one is going to gobble up so much cash? We have municipalities and cities around this province that have huge infrastructure deficits. I think the last number we saw was around $100 billion in infrastructure. How will this crowd out some real work that needs to be done, as well, within our small communities? Speed is important but not at the expense of democratic norms. Elected officials must remain visible, accountable and subject to public and legislative scrutiny.

In closing, Bill 31 represents an important moment for British Columbia. I don’t think any of us want to doubt that at all for a minute. I think it’s really important that we improve our infrastructure. One of my colleagues earlier today talked about smaller-footprint power generations. I think that’s the way to go. We should be thinking outside the box, looking at more alternatives rather than this very, very expensive power line here that may not be as robust as it could be compared to some smaller units that are more regionally built.

In closing, though, Bill 31 represents an important moment for British Columbia, a chance to build large infrastructure, to modernize energy policy, to partner with First Nations and to make the province a cleaner, stronger economic actor. But it also represents a serious challenge to how our democracy works.

By reducing the role of the Legislature and shifting major decisions into executive discretion and regulatory bypass, the accountability of our elected officials is weakened. When oversight is diminished, so too is public trust. When decisions are made behind closed doors or under orders rather than a public hearing, communities lose their ability to hold decision-makers to account. That is not just a policy issue; it is a governance issue, a democratic issue.

We must not conflate urgency with exemption from accountability. We can act quickly, but we must not act without transparency, without public review, without the Legislature’s oversight and without ensuring that elected officials remain answerable.

Let us remember that infrastructure is not just about steel and cables. It’s about people. It’s about communities, about land, rights and future generations. Decisions we take now will shape who we are as a province for decades to come. If we cut corners on accountability, we may build fast, but we may build poorly.

I urge all members of the Legislative Assembly, the government, the opposition, Indigenous partners and public to use committee stage of Bill 313 to ask hard questions, to require clear rules, demand transparency, insist on oversight and ensure that the voices of affected communities are heard and respected.

Let us build B.C.’s future, but let us build in a way that honours our democratic values, respects our Indigenous partners, protects our environment and ensures that our elected officials remain really accountable to the people who elected.

Hon. Randene Neill: I am more than happy to stand up and speak about Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act — which, in a nutshell, is a bold set of actions designed to drive investment in major projects in this province that will grow our economy, diversify our markets and create new jobs, all using clean energy.

The Energy Statutes Amendment Act, tabled last week, will expedite the construction of the North Coast transmission line in partnership with First Nations, advancing economic growth and reconciliation. It will ensure electricity is available for sectors that produce jobs, generate public revenues and have the greatest opportunity to decarbonize as well. It will enable a process for emerging sectors such as data centres, AI and hydrogen to grow in a manner that results in the greatest benefit to people in British Columbia and our economy.

[3:50 p.m.]

I want to talk a bit about what it’ll actually look like because I think this is the most amazing part. I know the Minister of Finance spoke earlier about visiting the northwest. I was up there, as well, in June. It’s really extraordinary to think about how this will transform the lives of people, of industry, of reconciliation, of our conservation and our entire economy in British Columbia.

Twinning the existing line from Prince George to Terrace and out to Bob Quinn Lake will unlock tens of billions of dollars in real shovel-ready industrial projects across northwest B.C., including the north coast.

Once operational, the NCTL project is expected to create approximately 9,700 direct full-time jobs, contribute nearly $10 billion every single year to GDP and generate approximately $950 million annually in public revenue for B.C. and municipal governments. It will also help prevent two million to three million tonnes of carbon emissions every single year, supporting our climate goals while powering economic growth.

Phase 1 will run from Prince George to Fraser Lake. That’s a length of about 164 kilometres. Phase 2 will run from Fraser Lake to Terrace, about 275 kilometres. Phase 3 includes new transmission infrastructure north of Terrace to New Aiyansh and Bob Quinn Lake. That is about 350 kilometres. Planning is underway for additional improvements to connect customers located beyond Terrace.

This is really a nation-building opportunity for B.C. and the country that will unleash the economic potential of the north coast, powering growing communities. This project will enable the generation of thousands, as I mentioned, of good-paying jobs and billions of private investment and historic First Nations partnerships while enabling the avoidance of significant greenhouse gas emissions.

Talking about getting it built. To streamline the approvals and permitting process and accelerate the development and construction of the North Coast transmission line, the province passed the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act in spring of 2025. That act simplified the decision-making process for renewable energy projects and transmission lines by ending the need for cross-ministry and -agency permitting. That act delegates authority to the B.C. Energy Regulator, the one-window approach, to lead the permitting and authorizations related to the North Coast transmission line, to provide regulatory oversight of the construction and operation of the project.

The need for this project was established back in 2023, when a B.C. Hydro expression of interest to process, to assess, customer interest and electricity requirements in the northwest resulted in submissions from a range of industry. It identified about 5,000 megawatts of potential industrial load. That’s about five times the capacity of Site C.

Based on this clear, clear demonstration of need, the province will exempt B.C. Hydro from the requirement to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the B.C. Utilities Commission. The CPCN is a determination that a proposed project is needed in the public interest and is required for projects over $250 million. The preparation of the CPCN, resulting in delays to the start of the North Coast transmission line construction and increasing investment uncertainty for important industrial projects that will drive new jobs and economic growth at a critical time for this province….

This transmission line provides the opportunity to also expand First Nations ownership and economic development opportunities in the clean energy sector. This is huge.

Since early 2023, the province and B.C. Hydro have been discussing potential co-ownership arrangements with First Nations around the North Coast transmission line. In July 2025, six First Nations, including hereditary leaders of the Wet’suwet’en, along with the province and B.C. Hydro, signed term sheet agreements for phase 2 of that line.

Those term sheets lay the groundwork for comprehensive legal partnerships, providing First Nations the opportunity to earn returns on their investment over the economic life of the project. Negotiations continue with First Nations along phase 1 of the proposed route to finalize similar agreements.

[3:55 p.m.]

I could go on and on, but I’m going to end it with this, a quote from our Premier, saying: “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 hard work of British Columbians. This legislation will help us move faster on the North Coast transmission line, a nation-building project that will deliver clean electricity to responsibly power industrial growth and job creation to increase prosperity for families, communities, our province and the entire country.”

Brennan Day: Thank you to the Minister of Water and Land. I’m sure she’s extremely busy catching up on the 3,700 water permits that are backlogged currently in B.C.

Deputy Speaker: If we could concentrate on this bill, Member. Thank you.

Brennan Day: It is refreshing to see this government finally acknowledging the wealth generation and tax generation powerhouse of B.C.’s rural and northern communities. I hope they continue to travel past Whistler and wine country to where hard-working British Columbians continue to subsidize the Lower Mainland and the capital region with real job creation, wealth creation and tax generation.

Bill 31 looks like a short administrative bill. It is not. It is the third act in a familiar play this session, a trilogy, if you will. I’m just not sure if it’s The Godfather or Back to the Future. We saw it in Bill 14, and we saw it in Bill 15: concentrate more power in cabinet, shrink the role of the Legislature, step around the BCUC, and then call it modernization and progress.

Let’s just be clear with who B.C. Hydro is represented by here in B.C., under this NDP government, and who will be overseeing these ownership agreements. Former Premier Glen Clark is the chair of B.C. Hydro. William Duvall is the former aide to Premier Glen Clark. Opreet Kang is the current business partner of the former Minister of Housing’s sister. So we just need to understand what independence looks like to this government. I certainly don’t question this government’s stance on recycling, very solid on that.

Bill 31 keeps the same tune, however. This time the instrument is B.C. Hydro. It changes who can own critical transmission. It gives cabinet the pen to decide who gets power and who does not. It does this by regulation and not by debate on this floor. That’s the pattern, and British Columbians can see it.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues. The member for Peace River South put hard truths on the record about cost risk, ratepayers and the danger of governments picking winners and losers. The member from Shuswap hit the same notes on investor certainty, the need for BCUC oversight and the problem with retroactive law-making. I certainly share those concerns.

Twenty-three years ago, when I graduated high school, British Columbia was a clean energy powerhouse. We exported power to the United States and filled our coffers. Hydroelectric power made us the most enviable, cost-effective producer in the world.

Since then, we have slowly and quietly fallen behind. The push for electrification drove demand up. Municipal rules pushed natural gas out of new builds, but generation and transmission simply did not keep pace. Now British Columbians plug in their vehicles at night without knowing if the electrons are coming from our dams or from coal and gas south of the border. Some days we import. Some years we net import.

That’s not independence. That is dependency. It makes our bills and our economy vulnerable to someone else’s grid and someone else’s politics, certainly something that we are seeing across our economy today.

This government says we are elbows up on energy. We haven’t been that in over a decade. Let’s be honest. We are another body part up entirely, and everybody in British Columbia knows it.

If this House is serious about climate and competitiveness, the north star has to be energy independence. Make what we use. Export the surplus. Keep decisions and data on our side of the border. Control the emissions, whether those are from hydro, solar, wind or natural gas. That’s where we started, and that’s what we need to get back to: independence, export, transparency and oversight.

Part 1 of this bill lets B.C. Hydro enter ownership agreements on the North Coast transmission line, from around Prince George to Fraser Lake to Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake. On paper, it sounds simple. In practice, it opens up the door to co-ownership structures, transfer of assets and service agreements that can shift control of the public grid.

Let me say this plainly. B.C. Hydro already has the authority to build transmission in this province. We do not need Bill 31 to string a single tower. So this isn’t necessarily just about building. This is about dealing. It is about who owns, who controls and who gets paid.

[4:00 p.m.]

I support unlocking the North. I support power for new mines, for ports, for LNG with the best emissions record in the world. I support First Nations partnerships. I come from a community that knows exactly what reliable energy means for jobs. But support is not the same as a blank cheque.

As the member for Peace River South said, cost control matters. He watched Site C costs climb. He also noted the public line on this transmission project, marching from hundreds of millions to billions. That just set off alarms for every ratepayer because this line shows up on your hydro bill. If we are committing billions, we need to know what generation will actually flow through it, what the alternatives are, and how that risk is shared, not after the fact through regulation and the stroke of a pen but now.

There is another path, if independence is the goal. Build generation where it’s needed. Small modular reactors are a serious option for the northwest. Reliable zero-emission baseload close to where it’s required. Lower line losses, shorter timelines, fewer right-of-way surprises that are getting more and more complicated as this government proceeds down its mandate. Technical jobs in the very communities that need them. Pair that with near-site, gas-fired bridge capacity at existing pipelines to stabilize the ramp. That’s how you get the North off of imports and back to exporting.

If we’re going to import natural gas, coal or other fossil fuel–derived power, perhaps we should do it right here at home with made-in-B.C. natural gas. The peaking plant just north of me in Campbell River is seeing increased demand and not just at peak anymore. We need reliability in our grid, and that means localized solutions that meet the energy realities of B.C. If the goal is prosperity in the North and sovereignty for the province, put the generation in the North. Do not just run ever-longer extension cords and hope for the best.

Part 2 of this bill is the allocation framework. Cabinet can restrict or ban power for three listed purposes: cryptocurrency mining, data and AI, hydrogen for export. Cabinet can set special rates, set caps, control timing, order competitive processes, deem costs recoverable from other customers. Cabinet can delegate the decision back to Hydro, and we’ve discussed who that represents, or the commission, but the marching orders start in cabinet.

I understand the pressure. Large loads can arrive fast and, quite frankly, not fast enough in British Columbia to dig us out of the hole that this government has created.

But let’s be honest about what this is. Bill 31 lets cabinet pick winners by regulation. It gives them the power to tell one proponent yes and another no. It lets them change course midstream or mid-government. Energy affordability and abundance are the single strongest indicators of national prosperity. You can’t have a high standard of living or a low level of poverty when energy costs more than people can afford to pay.

Every major economy that has thrived in the world, from post-war America to modern-day South Korea, has done so on the back of affordable, reliable energy. When power is cheap, everything else follows — food, housing, manufacturing and transportation. But when governments make it expensive or scarce, the opposite happens. Putting more control in the hands of this government isn’t necessarily an indicator for success.

Look at Germany just recently. After shutting down its nuclear power plants and over-relying on imported natural gas, primarily from Russia, it saw household energy bills triple, factories shutter and its manufacturing sector, once the envy of Europe and the world, begin to collapse.

Or take California, where sky-high energy prices and unreliable grids are driving people and businesses out of the States as they look for more cost-effective jurisdictions, one of which used to be British Columbia.

Meanwhile, nations that treat energy as the foundation of prosperity — like Norway with hydro; or the United States, in most cases, with natural gas — continue to grow, attract investment and lift their citizens’ quality of life through energy affordability. Energy policy is economic policy. Economic policy is social policy. If you can’t keep the lights on affordably, you can’t grow an economy. If you can’t grow the economy, you can’t lift people out of poverty.

The member from Shuswap raised a good point. Investors need certainty. If government can change the rules with the stroke of a pen, capital goes elsewhere. Where capital goes, paycheques follow. When paycheques go, taxes rise. And we get what we have today under this NDP government — unaffordability, hopelessness and a bleak future for our children here in British Columbia.

[4:05 p.m.]

Only a few years ago B.C. Hydro was outselling British Columbia to crypto miners and data centres. Hydro’s own plan named these as load attraction opportunities. Government cheered those lines. Now government proposes to lock those down. That is policy whiplash.

The bill asks us to trust that the new process will always be fair, always be transparent and always land on the right side of public interest. That is a lot to ask when the bill also lets cabinet overrule past decisions and treat similar customers differently by regulation.

Transparency is not high on this government’s agenda. Don’t take my word for it. Nearly every independent source rates them at the bottom of the barrel in this country. So the opposition is right to be skeptical, and we are. This NDP government has not proved that they can be trusted when it comes to transparency.

The minister says the North Coast line is a nation-building project. I respect the ambition. We need more of that in this province. The North deserves the same opportunity other regions have enjoyed. I agree that clean power was our advantage, but there are three tests.

First, cost discipline. The member for Peace River South put the numbers in front of us. A project that starts at six can finish at 16, and we’re talking billions. Ratepayers wear the risk, and we cannot pretend that away.

Second, generation credibility. A line without firm supply is a ribbon without scissors, something this government is all too familiar with. Calls for power might help, or they might not land in time. SMRs in the northwest and quick-to-build gas turbines next to existing pipelines are credible backstops for those peaks.

Use technical solutions to technical problems, not political rationing. That was the point from the member from Shuswap.

Third, governance. When the BCUC is a spectator and cabinet is the referee, the public loses the independent umpire that protects them from politics. That’s not a swipe at any particular minister. It is a defence of the institution that keeps prices honest and independence real.

Bill 31 validates agreements retroactively. The public hears and asks a fair question. If everything was done properly, why do we need retroactivity cover now? The member for Shuswap pushed on that. I will as well. Retroactivity should be rare, founded and justified on the record, not a habit to paper over broken promises from the last eight years.

The minister also spoke about data sovereignty. He’s right to be concerned. If we want sovereignty over data, we first need sovereignty over power. You cannot have Canadian control of AI infrastructure if you are depending on U.S. electrons at peak and U.S. policy on interties. If your load is balanced by a different country’s grid, your leverage is severely limited, something we’ve seen multiple times and very recently in our negotiations with the United States.

When we are net importers, we are price-takers. When we are net exporters, again, we are price-makers. LNG Canada exemplified this problem, and this discussion on electricity is no different. Energy is measured in joules, whether it’s natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear or hydro.

Energy independence is not a slogan. It lowers bills over time. It is leverage in trade. It is the ability to say yes to industry on our terms because we actually have the power and capacity to sell.

The minister warns of data centre booms raising rates elsewhere. True, but the answer is not a permanent red light on entire sectors. The answer is published criteria and real price signals, capacity reservation charges, time of use, heat recovery standards, local job and tax commitments, interconnection queues that are transparent and scored, competitive processes run by Hydro and tested by the BCUC in broad daylight, with the full transparency and engagement of British Columbians.

As the member for Peace River South said, efficiency without oversight is a danger. We can pace growth without politicizing the meter.

This is not academic. In the Comox Valley and across the Island, seniors, small businesses and working families are already being pressed by rising housing, food and fuel prices.

If we get this wrong, residential customers will pay for megaloads that deliver minimal local benefit. If we get this wrong, projects that would bring skilled jobs to the Interior and the North go to Alberta or Washington because the rules here look like a moving target. If we get this wrong, British Columbia trades its competitive advantage for a mood ring.

Our province cannot afford another round of uncertainty under this government, definitely not on power and definitely not now, with the challenges we are facing from south of the border.

[4:10 p.m.]

I support equity partnerships with First Nations. Equity is better than the benefit agreements of the last century, but partnership should not mean the Legislature surrenders its duty to scrutinize terms, protect ratepayers and ensure value for the province as a whole. We can respect rights, share equity and maintain oversight here in this House.

Here is the path I will support.

One, publish the business case for each phase of the North Coast line — customers, timing, firm supply, cost share. Show the math before the shovel.

Two, keep ownership of backbone transmission in Hydro. If there are co-ownership models, bring them here for approval — no quiet sell-offs of public wire.

Three, build where we use. Stand up SMRs in near-site generation in the northwest. Start the regulatory work now with willing First Nations and industry.

Four, restore the BCUC to its proper role. Cabinet sets high-level policy. The BCUC tests evidence, sets the terms and protects ratepayers. That is the guardrail that has worked to keep British Columbian energy affordable.

Five, replace blanket bans with clear, objective, published criteria. Let data and AI compete on the same field. Tie interconnection to jobs, heat reuse, local tax base, resiliency and data sovereignty. Score it, publish it, and live by it. Make it equal for all businesses accessing our grid.

Six, end the habit of retroactive fixes. If process went offside, own it and correct it, going forward. Do not rewrite yesterday in the dark.

Seven, put independence in law. Set a statutory target to return B.C. to its sustained net export position by a certain date, with annual reporting to the House. Make independence of our province a commitment, not just a press release.

Bills 14 and 15 taught us what happens when power moves from independent institutions to cabinet. It creates uncertainty. It incentivizes politicized case-by-case decisions. It weakens trust, lowers competition. Bill 31 repeats the mistake on our most critical utility.

We can build the North. We can do it faster, with better tools. We do not need to centralize everything in Victoria to get there. We need to build what we use, export the surplus and put British Columbia back in charge of British Columbia.

This province did not become an energy leader because cabinet always knew best. We led because we built big, told the truth about costs and protected the public interest with real oversight. People trusted the system. Investors trusted the rules. Communities trusted that the lights would come on and the bill would be fair. That trust is what is at stake here with Bill 31.

This bill asks us to trade accountability for authority. It asks us to accept retroactive law as normal. It asks us to let cabinet turn the switch for some and keep others in the dark. That is not leadership. That is excessive control.

I want a British Columbia that stands on its own feet again, where the North does not have to beg for power, where First Nations are true partners, where innovators build here because the rules are clear, where our kids grow up in a province that makes more power than it needs and sells the surplus on our terms to pay for our taxes that pay for our schools and our hospitals.

I will fight for that in British Columbia. I will work with anyone in the House to deliver it, but I will not rubber-stamp another step in this slow bleed of oversight, not after Bill 14, not after Bill 15 and, certainly, not now with Bill 31.

Our power belongs to the people who built it, paid for it and depend on it. Let us honour them with transparency, prudence and the courage to be independent once again.

Gavin Dew: Many of my colleagues have already spoken thoughtfully about Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. They’ve covered many of the key points, and I share their thoughts, ideas and concerns. But I want to emphasize another perspective, one grounded in the serious concerns we’re hearing from industry stakeholders, energy analysts and investors right across British Columbia and Canada.

This bill isn’t just about electricity. It’s about how we think about growth, investment and the role of government in a modern economy. It’s about whether we want to build abundance or ration it.

[4:15 p.m.]

At its core, Bill 31 reflects a government that sees our economy as a shrinking pie. Instead of asking how to grow that pie, they spend their time deciding who gets which slice and who gets left out.

The government says 200 megawatts, maybe 400, will be enough for B.C.’s data and AI compute needs. That’s thinking small. Around the world, jurisdictions are preparing for gigawatt-scale growth because they understand that compute power is the new oil and gas of the digital age. Meanwhile, in B.C., we’re drafting laws to ration electricity like it’s wartime butter. That’s not a growth strategy; it’s a ration card.

We have serious concerns with this legislation. It makes….

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Peace River South.

Larry Neufeld: I apologize to my colleague, but I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

Introductions by Members

Larry Neufeld: It almost seems embarrassing to mention this because, as I admitted last week, it warms my heart to know that every person in this House does not go to sleep without reviewing my social media each evening. So you’re already aware of who I’m going to announce, but I will do it regardless.

I’m going to ask the student troupe of Parliamentary Players — are you in the House? — to please stand.

As everyone that beautifully and faithfully looks at my social media every evening will know, I spent Friday evening taking part in The Haunted Life of Francis Rattenbury. It’s an hour-long theatrical tour that introduces visitors to the most notorious ghosts of the Parliament Buildings, brought back to life by the award-winning Parliamentary Players. I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I would encourage everyone here to take part as well.

I can’t recall who was who because they did such a great job of staying in character. Actually, I do recall one character there for sure. I’d like to introduce to the House Rodel Frazer, Annalyn Kind, Makayla Madill and Nicholas Guerreiro.

Again, I’d like the House to make them feel welcome. They are students, and they did a fantastic job.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not going to jump up to speak to the bill, if the member was worried. I’d seek leave to make an introduction as well.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please carry on.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I see that Amrit Dhot is here. He’s a constituent in my community, a respected business leader. He’s brought guests with him. His friends are here.

Welcome, all of you, to the Legislature for the debate. I hope you have a wonderful visit.

I hope the House can make them please feel welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Indeed, welcome, everyone.

We are continuing debate on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act of 2025.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: I will now return to my riveting speech after being so cruelly interrupted by my colleagues.

I will also express my appreciation to the member opposite for the procedural pointer. Thank you.

We have serious concerns with this legislation. It makes fundamental changes to how B.C. Hydro operates, concentrating more power in cabinet, reducing independent oversight and opening the door to partial privatization.

Let’s be clear. This bill is not required to build the northwest transmission line. B.C. Hydro already has all the legislative authority it needs. What the bill actually does is politicize the process and allow government to dictate ownership structures that could see parts of our public grid sold off to other entities.

Now, it’s one thing for B.C. Hydro to buy power from independent producers. It’s quite another to sell off transmission assets, the very backbone of our public utility. This is a government that once championed public ownership now quietly flirting with selling it off piece by piece. That should concern every ratepayer and every community that depends on a stable, publicly accountable grid.

[4:20 p.m.]

The second part of this bill gives B.C. Hydro sweeping authority to decide which industries and customers can receive power and which cannot. That includes cryptocurrency mining, data centres and AI computing and hydrogen production for export. That means politicians and bureaucrats, not engineers or entrepreneurs, will decide who gets to grow and who gets shut out. Once again, it’s government picking winners and losers instead of creating fair, predictable rules for everyone.

Time and again we see the same pattern from this government. They love big megaprojects, the ones where they can cut the ribbon and dictate terms from the centre. They like projects they can control, finance and message. We all like megaprojects. Megaprojects have positive economic impacts and, in fact, have propped up our economy at a time when we otherwise would have seen negative growth. But there is more to our economy than only megaprojects.

This government does not seem to understand the fundamental principles of a market economy, things like stability, predictability and a hospitable environment for private investment. They treat economic growth like something that must be commanded, not cultivated.

Yes, megaprojects have been and will always be part of B.C.’s economy, from dams to LNG to transit lines, but prosperity cannot rely on political choreography alone. It also depends on thousands of smaller, market-driven initiatives, innovators and builders who can plan with confidence because the rules don’t change with the politics.

When government keeps rewriting the rules, investors stop showing up. That’s exactly what this bill signals — uncertainty, politicization and risk. This is the same government that not long ago was courting bitcoin miners and hydrogen exporters, bragging about how cheap and clean our electricity was. Now those same industries could very well end up on the restricted list as this government changes its mind.

If you’re an investor, what conclusion do you draw? That in British Columbia, your access to power and your ability to build depend not on merit or efficiency but on political favour. For example, has the Minister of Energy changed his mind on the nature of your industry lately? Has he flip-flopped again on where he stands on dredging or the expansion of pipelines relative to his many years of using every tool in the toolkit to block the very project he now actively supports expanding?

That kind of uncertainty, unpredictability and flip-flopping from the government creates significant uncertainty when investors think about what kind of province this is to invest in.

I know it’s very embarrassing for the Minister of Energy and it makes him very cross when he has to acknowledge that he now actively supports dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers to get Canadian oil to foreign markets. But at some stage, he will have to realize that the dramatic contradictions between his former position and his current position have created significant uncertainty in the marketplace as to whether people think they should invest in British Columbia.

They never know when he’ll change his mind or the next Minister of Energy will change his mind or, when this Premier gives way to the next Premier, what position they might have on pipelines or any other project. That’s the kind of uncertainty that is sitting across the aisle from us, and it’s not just frustrating. It’s fatal for investor confidence.

Every government adjusts policy from time to time. Investors can handle that. They can price in a carbon rule or a tax change, but what they can’t price in is total reversal. That’s what we’ve seen here, complete flip-flops within the life of a single government.

One year they’re promoting bitcoin mining and hydrogen exports. The next they’re banning, restricting or delaying them. One year they’re touting data centres and digital infrastructure as the future. The next they’re capping power and shutting the door. One year they’re defending public ownership. The next they’re carving off Hydro’s assets for special partnerships with special friends.

For investors, that’s not just policy evolution. It’s policy whiplash. It tells global markets that B.C. is not a predictable, stable, rules-based jurisdiction. Once that reputation sticks, it’s hard to shake, no matter how many times the Minister of Energy reverses his position and repudiates his past stance against things like oil pipelines.

Capital is mobile. It doesn’t have to stay here. If the rules reverse midstream, investors will simply go elsewhere. That’s why major players in clean tech, computing and energy are now looking to Alberta, Washington and Ontario. They’re not chasing subsidies. They’re chasing stability. That is what we’ve lost in British Columbia — stability, predictability and trust.

[4:25 p.m.]

When businesses can’t predict what this government will do next, they stop planning ten years ahead. They start planning their exit. That’s how you take a province with enormous potential and make it uninvestable.

The government insists that 200 megawatts for data centres and 300 for AI will be enough, but in the global race for compute power, that’s barely a rounding error. While other regions are building gigawatts of new clean generation, we’re drawing lines on a spreadsheet and calling it leadership. That’s what happens when you think small and plan for scarcity. You start believing your own rationing memos.

British Columbia doesn’t have an energy shortage. It has an imagination shortage. We could double our clean power generation within 15 years through upgrades to existing dams, new wind and solar in the Peace and Interior, geothermal development and small modular reactors in the northwest, providing power at a fraction of the cost of this transmission line. That’s innovation. That’s forward-thinking. But instead of embracing the future, this government is tying itself to yesterday’s infrastructure and calling it progress.

Now, inside B.C. Hydro, there are professionals who understand that load growth means opportunity, that new industries mean revenue, investment and jobs. But they’re stuck between engineers who want to build and ministers who want to ration. That’s not leadership; that’s paralysis. Hydro could be building ahead of demand, partnering with Indigenous nations and powering new industries. Instead, it’s being used as a tool for political gatekeeping.

Across Canada, the Council of Canadian Innovators has warned that our country risks falling behind because companies lack affordable, predictable access to compute. They’re calling for sovereign digital infrastructure — Canadian power, Canadian data, Canadian jobs. B.C. should be and could be leading that charge. We have the cleanest electricity in North America and the people to build on it.

This bill sends the opposite message, that B.C. is closed for business unless you’re a government-approved winner.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

This uncertainty doesn’t just scare away billion-dollar investors. It hurts small businesses, contractors and skilled tradespeople who depend on a steady flow of projects to stay in business and to build a life for themselves and their families. When you politicize power allocation, you politicize paycheques. Every time the rules change, another project gets shelved, another entrepreneur walks away, another opportunity leaves the province and the stack of potential projects at the top of the funnel gets smaller and smaller and leaves us with less and less opportunity in years ahead.

We could do this differently. We could mandate B.C. Hydro to build ahead of demand, not behind it. We could reopen the independent power producer market under transparent, market-based contracts. We could fast-track new transmission corridors with Indigenous equity partnerships. We could provide clear, non-political connection criteria so businesses know what to expect. We could invest in innovation like small modular reactors instead of doubling down on 20th-century megaprojects. And we could think seriously about a broad and innovative strategy to export compute like we’re exporting LNG.

That’s how you create confidence, investment and growth. This bill is about more than wires and megawatts. It’s about the kind of province we want to be. Do we want to be a place where politicians pick winners and losers or a place where entrepreneurs and engineers can all win by building more? Do we want to ration abundance or unleash it? British Columbia can lead in clean energy, data, hydrogen and AI, but only if we stop managing decline and cutting the pie into smaller and smaller pieces and start building for growth.

Let’s grow the pie. Let’s trust our innovators. Let’s give B.C. Hydro the freedom to build. And let’s make B.C. the province that powers the future, not the one that sits in the dark while others pass us by.

Claire Rattée: At first glance, this bill appears to be a routine housekeeping measure, a technical update to allow B.C. Hydro to move forward on the North Coast transmission line and to give cabinet new powers over the regulation of electricity use in certain industries.

On closer examination, this bill represents a substantial and concerning shift in how our province governs and manages its most critical public utility. It also raises serious questions about transparency, accountability and the government’s long-term energy strategy, or lack thereof.

[4:30 p.m.]

Bill 31 makes two major changes.

First, it amends the Hydro and Power Authority Act to allow B.C. Hydro to enter into ownership agreements with First Nations on parts of the proposed North Coast transmission line.

Second, it amends the Utilities Commission Act to give cabinets sweeping new powers to regulate the supply and pricing of electricity for activities such as cryptocurrency mining, artificial intelligence, data processing and hydrogen production for export.

At face value, those may sound like reasonable updates, but when you look closely, it’s clear this legislation goes far beyond enabling new partnerships or managing demand. It fundamentally changes the operational framework of B.C. Hydro, opening the door to partial divestment of assets, increased political interference in electricity markets and further uncertainty for industries trying to invest in this province.

Perhaps most importantly, it does nothing to address the fundamental issue that continues to hold back development in northern British Columbia — a lack of affordable, reliable, locally generated power.

Let’s start with part 1, the section dealing with the North Coast transmission line. The bill defines three phases of the project. Phase 1 runs from Prince George to Fraser Lake, phase 2 from Fraser Lake to Terrace and phase 3 from Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake. Together these represent a massive infrastructure undertaking.

But here’s the key point. B.C. Hydro already has all the authority it needs to build this line. Nothing in current legislation prevents Hydro from constructing it, partnering with First Nations or entering into benefit-sharing agreements.

So why this bill, and why now? Because the government isn’t just authorizing partnerships; it’s creating a framework to sell off ownership interests and transmission infrastructure to limited partnerships. In other words, this is about changing who owns the grid, not simply who benefits from it, and that’s a major departure from decades of energy policy in this province.

For years, this government has loudly championed the idea of public utilities, arguing against privatization, criticizing the independent power producers that flourished under previous governments and insisting that energy assets must remain in public hands. Yet here they are quietly introducing legislation that would allow B.C. Hydro to sell off parts of its transmission system to other entities, even if those entities are structured through limited partnerships.

It’s one thing for Hydro to purchase electricity from independent producers; it’s another entirely for Hydro to transfer ownership of physical transmission assets. That’s not partnership. That’s divestment. And once that door is opened, it’s very difficult to close again.

The North Coast transmission line is a massive undertaking. Whoever controls that infrastructure will wield enormous economic and political influence over northern development. British Columbians deserve to know exactly what this bill allows and what commitments the government has already made behind the scenes.

Let me be clear. I fully support meaningful Indigenous participation in major energy projects. The success of partnerships like Cedar LNG demonstrates that Indigenous ownership can be transformative when it’s done transparently and built on genuine collaboration.

But this bill does not actually guarantee that. It creates a framework for north coast limited partnerships but gives cabinet the power to designate agreements retroactively. That means the government can ratify deals that were already made, without legislative oversight, and Hydro is deemed to have always had the power to make them, even if those powers didn’t exist at the time. That’s not reconciliation through partnership; that’s reconciliation by regulation.

True reconciliation means sharing decision-making and ensuring long-term benefits for communities, not simply granting partial ownership after the fact to validate a predetermined plan. If the goal is to advance economic reconciliation, then let’s do it through transparent agreements that strengthen both Indigenous and public ownership, not through clauses that legalize retroactive authority and obscure the details from public scrutiny.

Even beyond the question of ownership, the North Coast transmission line raises a bigger question. Why is this government still treating northern power needs as an afterthought? For years, communities and industries across Skeena and the broader northwest have been calling for local generation, not just bigger lines to ship electricity north from the Lower Mainland.

The answer isn’t always to build longer, more expensive transmission corridors. Sometimes it’s to invest in small modular reactors and other innovative technologies that can provide clean, stable, locally generated power at a fraction of the cost.

Small modular reactors could unlock the potential of remote and industrial communities across the North, powering LNG facilities, mines, hydrogen production and local grids while reducing dependence on diesel and long-distance transmission. But rather than exploring these opportunities seriously, the government continues to double-down on megaprojects that may take decades and billions of dollars to complete.

[4:35 p.m.]

If we truly want to empower the North, we should be investing in decentralized generation, not centralized control. I know for a fact that quite a few projects have already been passed along to B.C. Hydro from my region that have Indigenous participation that haven’t received responses to address this very issue. I would hope that before moving forward on this, that would be looked at seriously.

The second part of Bill 31 deals with the Utilities Commission Act, specifically section 21.1. This section gives cabinet the power to regulate, limit or prohibit the supply of electricity for three specific purposes: cryptocurrency mining; data processing or storage, including artificial intelligence; and hydrogen production for export.

Let’s start with the obvious irony. It was this very government that in 2018 actively promoted cryptocurrency mining in British Columbia. B.C. Hydro officials publicly stated that they wanted to attract crypto operations to the province, offering discounted electricity rates to make B.C. more competitive with other clean energy jurisdictions. As Hydro’s own business development manager said at the time: “We need to get in the game.”

By 2018, crypto mining represented about half of the 10,000 megawatts in new load inquiries Hydro was reviewing. The government courted these industries aggressively. Then just a few years later, they did a complete 180, abandoning those discounts, halting new connections and now introducing legislation that allows them to ban or price out these same industries entirely.

This is yet another example of a government governing by whim instead of by principle. Rather than setting clear, stable energy policies that encourage innovation and investment, they make abrupt, politically motivated shifts, chasing headlines one year and disowning their own policies the next.

B.C. Hydro’s 2021 electrification plan explicitly listed cryptocurrency, data centres, hydrogen production and mining as key load attraction opportunities. The program aims to attract new load to B.C. Hydro’s system with a focus on industries such as mining, data centres, cryptocurrency, carbon capture, synthetic fuel production and hydrogen. That’s straight from Hydro’s own report.

Now three years later those same activities are being regulated out of existence. That’s not energy planning. That’s energy whiplash. It sends a very clear message to investors. British Columbia is not a reliable place to do business.

The industries targeted by this bill — cryptocurrency, AI data processing and hydrogen production — are not fringe experiments. They represent some of the most significant technological and industrial opportunities of our time. Each comes with challenges, yes, but also immense potential for innovation, job creation and diversification of our economy.

If B.C. is serious about being a clean energy leader, we can’t simply ban our way out of complexity. Instead of blanket prohibitions, we should be setting clear environmental and performance standards, encouraging energy efficiency and ensuring that new industries contribute fairly to the grid and to local communities. A government that truly believes in innovation doesn’t respond to new technologies with regulation and restriction. It responds with vision and strategy.

Another major concern with this section is how much power it hands to cabinet. Under Bill 31, cabinet — not the B.C. Utilities Commission, not Hydro’s independent board, but cabinet — can set or require electricity rates, limit how much power can be supplied for certain purposes, decide who is eligible to receive electricity, impose conditions on when and how electricity can be provided and even retroactively override previous BCUC decisions. That’s an extraordinary concentration of authority.

I don’t know what it is with this government trying to centralize power within cabinet control, but haven’t we already seen this song and dance in the spring? The new sweeping powers from this bill continue a pattern of assigning increases in cabinet powers without thorough oversight, as we have seen in Bills 7, 14 and 15.

The B.C. Utilities Commission exists to ensure that electricity policy is guided by evidence, transparency and public interest, not political expediency. Yet this bill effectively sidelines the commission and gives cabinet the ability to pick winners and losers at will. Why even have a utilities commission if cabinet is capable of making these decisions?

This government loves hiring special advisers and liaisons for every social policy under the sun, but when it comes to the economy, suddenly they have all the answers. Once again, this government talks endlessly about transparency and then quietly passes legislation that does the opposite.

The question we have to ask is: what’s really motivating this legislation? It certainly isn’t efficiency. B.C. Hydro already has the tools to manage load and enter partnerships. It’s not reconciliation either. Genuine reconciliation doesn’t require retroactive clauses or secret agreements. And it’s certainly not innovation, given how aggressively this bill clamps down on emerging technologies.

No, what this bill really does is give the government more control and more cover — control over how and where electricity is used, control over who gets access to the grid and cover for decisions they’ve already made without consultation or transparency.

[4:40 p.m.]

The irony, of course, is that while this government is focused on regulating out cryptocurrency or hydrogen projects, many northern communities still struggle to secure basic power reliability. In Skeena and throughout the northwest, small businesses, industrial operators and even municipalities continue to face constraints because of inadequate infrastructure and high costs.

If the government put half as much effort into improving local energy reliability as it does into legislating new restrictions, we might actually start to see economic growth where it’s needed most. Instead, we get bill after bill that expands bureaucracy and consolidates authority in Victoria. That’s not how you build a strong, self-sufficient northern economy.

We must address the elephant in the room. We can debate ownership models, partnership structures and cabinet authority all day, but none of it changes the fundamental reality staring us in the face. We don’t have enough power to put into this transmission line in the first place.

This government can keep drawing new lines on maps and passing legislation that centralizes control in Victoria, but the fact remains that British Columbia is facing a generation crisis. Our existing hydroelectric capacity is stretched thin, new renewable projects are stalled by red tape, and industrial users are being told to wait, or worse, to relocate because there simply isn’t enough electricity available to meet growing demand.

This is a problem of this government’s own making because they set the targets and the requirement to use electricity, knowing full well we didn’t have the electrical capacity to meet those targets or that demand.

In the northwest, that problem is even more acute. Communities like Terrace, Kitimat and the surrounding industrial corridor are already struggling with power constraints. Projects that could create hundreds of good jobs are being delayed or downsized, not because of lack of interest or investment but because B.C. Hydro cannot guarantee the power supply they need to operate.

This bill does absolutely nothing to change that. It builds a bigger pipe, but the tap is still dry. There is no plan here to expand generation capacity, no commitment to new projects and no acknowledgement that the demand curve is outpacing supply.

If this government were serious about meeting our future energy needs, it would be talking about new generation, not just new transmission. It would be fast-tracking investments in small modular reactors, biomass and gas-powered energy plants, renewable hybrids and localized power systems that can actually meet the demands of a modern industrial economy.

Instead, we get another legislative exercise that looks good on paper but ignores the hard truth. Until we address the shortage of generation, not transmission, we are not powering opportunity. We’re just moving empty electrons up and down the map.

If this government were serious about energy leadership, here’s what it would be doing instead.

Investing in small modular reactors to power northern industry in remote communities, creating jobs, cutting emissions and improving grid resilience.

Developing clear, consistent energy policy that supports innovation, rather than chasing or banning trends.

Ensuring that Indigenous partnerships are equitable, transparent and co-governed, not retroactively designated.

Empowering the B.C. Utilities Commission to make independent, evidence-based decisions, not sidelining it through cabinet regulation.

Expanding local generation and transmission reliability so that communities like Terrace and Kitimat can grow without depending entirely on distant infrastructure.

That’s the vision that northern British Columbia needs.

At the end of the day, Bill 31 is about more than just the North Coast transmission line or electricity regulation. It’s about how we govern our energy future, who holds the power, who benefits and who gets left out of the conversation.

We all want to see economic reconciliation, clean energy and a stronger provincial grid, but those goals can’t be achieved through legislation that concentrates power in cabinet, erodes transparency and treats public infrastructure like a private asset.

This government has an unfortunate habit of creating problems in order to take credit for fixing them later. They lured cryptocurrency and hydrogen producers here only to legislate them out. They claim to defend public utilities while quietly creating pathways for partial privatization.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve honesty, consistency and a real plan for the future of our energy system, one that empowers communities rather than centralizes control.

For these reasons, our caucus will be raising significant questions at committee stage, and we will be holding this government accountable for every clause and every consequence of this bill. When it comes to B.C.’s energy future, the stakes are too high for half measures, backroom deals and political spin.

Hon Chan: I rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. This is an important and far-reaching bill, one that will shape not only how we generate but deliver power in this province and also how we define the very role of our public utility, B.C. Hydro.

At first glance, the government frames this bill as a necessary modernization measure, one that enables Indigenous participation, strengthens our energy security and supports industrial growth in the North.

[4:45 p.m.]

These are great goals. But when you read the fine print, when you look at what this legislation actually does, you start to see something much deeper and, frankly, quite concerning.

This bill is not simply about building a transmission line. It’s about altering the foundation of how B.C. Hydro operates, who it serves and….

Deputy Speaker: Just one second.

Member for Surrey North.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Today we are honoured to have the entire C Face team present with us in the gallery.

Their dedication and commitment to providing culture, unity and diversity in Canada deserve our highest recognition: Kanwaljt Singh Manawala, CEO and founder; Srikanth Mogulala, president; Bhupinder Ladher; Amrit Pal Singh Dhot; Palakdeep Kaur; Tanveer Singh.

Please welcome them. Thank you so much.

Debate Continued

Hon Chan: Welcome to the chamber.

Who it serves and who ultimately controls the public infrastructure that generations of British Columbians built and paid for.

Let’s talk about what the bill does. Bill 31 has two main components.

Part 1 amends the Hydro and Power Authority Act to allow B.C. Hydro to enter into ownership agreements with the First Nations for the proposed North Coast transmission line.

Part 2 gives B.C. Hydro new authority to regulate or restrict electricity supply to certain industrial users — for example, those who mine cryptocurrency; store and process electronic data, including for AI; and produce hydrogen for export outside of Canada.

In other words, one part enables shared ownership of new transmission infrastructure, and the other parts enable selective limitation of who can access B.C. Hydro’s electricity grid.

Let me begin by saying that the principle of Indigenous participation is certainly welcome. Empowering First Nations to share in our economic benefits for major infrastructure projects is a positive and long overdue step. But acknowledgement does not mean giving this government a blank cheque to redefine public ownership. Partnership must never become a disguise for privatization by another name.

The way this bill is drafted gives B.C. Hydro new authority to enter ownership agreements that could, in effect, transfer or divide parts of our public transmission network. That may sound harmless on paper, but, in reality, it could fragment the grid and create long-term complications for oversight, accountability and reliability. Once we start dividing ownership of transmission assets, even with good intentions, we open the door to multiple jurisdictions, different liability frameworks and competing interests that could make the system less efficient and more difficult to manage.

Now, I want to be very clear. I support the idea of equity participation and benefit-sharing. There are many ways to accomplish that through revenue sharing, procurement opportunities, employment guarantees, partnership agreements without altering the ownership of our critical infrastructure. So the real question before us is: does B.C. Hydro actually need new legislative authority to do any of these?

Under existing legislation, B.C. Hydro already has broad power to build transmission lines, enter into joint ventures and negotiate benefit agreements with Indigenous communities. Those provisions have been used many times before — for example, the northwest transmission line, Site C and many other regional partnerships.

So if Hydro already has that authority, why is this government introducing a brand-new law? Why the lack of clarity? Why is the NDP wanting exclusive power, like a dictatorship? If this is truly about cooperation and inclusion, then the process should be transparent — open consultation, clear explanation of ownership terms and detailed cost implications.

Instead, we’re told that this legislation is necessary to expedite the North Coast transmission line. But expediency does not justify secrecy. Moving quickly cannot mean cutting corners on transparency.

[4:50 p.m.]

The people of British Columbia deserve to know what exactly is being negotiated, what is being transferred and who ultimately benefits. Once ownership of public infrastructure begins to shift, even partially, it is difficult to reverse. We cannot claim to uphold the principle of public power while simultaneously creating a back door for the government that allows segments of our grids to be sold, transferred or otherwise controlled by outside interests. At the end of the day, Indigenous participation must strengthen our public system, not weaken it. We should complement public ownership, not compromise it.

Let’s talk about the transmission line. The government tells us that the project will deliver clean power to the northwest to fuel industrial development, including LNG facilities, mining operations and resource-processing plants. On the surface, that sounds good — ambitious, even visionary — but we need to look carefully at what this legislation actually does and why it’s being introduced now.

The truth is that B.C. Hydro has the authority to build such a line. The power to plan, construct and operate transmission infrastructure is well established in existing law. Nothing in the Hydro and Power Authority Act prevents B.C. Hydro from undertaking this project today if it deems it to be necessary for the province’s energy supply.

Now we must ask: what’s new here? What problem is this bill really trying to solve? This legislation gives B.C. Hydro the explicit ability to enter into ownership arrangements for the line itself. In other words, portions of this major public asset, the transmission line, could be owned by parties other than B.C. Hydro. This could include Indigenous entities but potentially also corporate partners or investment funds.

Some questions, questions that deserve clear and honest answers before this House gives its approval. Who will be responsible for maintaining the segment of the line once construction is complete? Who will bear the liability if there are outages, cost overruns, performance issues? Will these new ownership partners earn the regulated rate of return, similar to private utilities? Perhaps, also, who will protect the public interest when ownership and therefore accountability become fragmented?

Electricity transmission is not just another infrastructure asset. It is the backbone of our entire energy system. Once a segment of it is sold or controlled by other entities, even partially, we might lose the ability to ensure that every decision is made in the interests of British Columbians. Maintenance priorities, upgrade schedules and future expansions could all be influenced by contractual terms rather than by public need.

The government may claim that this is simply about enabling partnerships. But when we look at the wording of this bill, it goes far beyond cooperation. It opens the door to share and divide ownership of a core public utility, and when you start dividing public utilities, you start diluting public accountabilities.

B.C. Hydro has always been guided by one fundamental principle: electricity is a public good, a shared resource meant to be delivered affordably, reliably and to all British Columbians. That principle has served our province well for generations. It is the reason families in urban apartments, small businesses and remote communities in the North all receive power under one unified system. It is the foundation on which B.C. Hydro’s reputation was built — stability; universal ability; and accountability to the people, British Columbians.

But this bill blurs that line. British Columbians have every single right to be concerned about where this path leads. We have seen what has happened when this government starts chipping away public ownership, bits by bits. Promises of efficiency and flexibility often give way to higher long-term costs, fragmented oversight and diminished accountability.

We have seen the cost of the North Coast transmission line already estimated for over billions of dollars for the first two phases. Who bears the risk if costs rise? If Hydro enters into ownership arrangements, are we transferring some of that risk or even some of the profits to other partners? If the cost goes up, will the ratepayers be left holding the bill? That question matters because B.C. Hydro’s debt is ultimately the public debt.

[4:55 p.m.]

Another concern is oversight. This government has used the term “public interest” to justify fast-tracking certain projects. But public interest is not a magic phrase that suspends accountability. When a government invokes the public interest to bypass, it erodes transparency. If the North Coast transmission line truly serves the public interest, then it should easily withstand the scrutiny of an open, transparent regulatory review.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: One more time seeking leave — sorry for that — for introductions.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Today I want to recognize my first friend in Canada. His name is Sinder Heed. He is a well-known businessman in the trucking industry and a dedicated community leader.

Joining him in the gallery today are Joti Kanth, Manakshi Kalia, Suman Heed and Shadon Heed.

I ask all members to join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

Hon Chan: Now let’s turn to the second major part of the bill, the new authority for B.C. Hydro to regulate and restrict electricity use for specific industries. The bill named three sectors: cryptocurrency mining; data storage and processing, including AI; and hydrogen production for export. In effect, Hydro is being told: “You can deny new load connections for these purposes.”

This is a remarkable shift in philosophy. Just a few years ago, this very government was actively encouraging these industries to come to British Columbia. In 2018, B.C. Hydro’s business development manager told CBC News: “The rate would help B.C. Hydro compete with clean jurisdictions that have lower power rates than us. We need to get in the game.”

At that time, the NDP government said that B.C. Hydro’s low-cost, clean energy, clean electricity, is a competitive advantage. They offered discount rates to attract cryptocurrency miners. Crypto miners accounted for almost half of the 10,000 megawatts of new load inquiries. They wanted these companies to be here.

Fast forward to 2025. Suddenly, the government wants to control them outright.

Now, I’m not standing here to defend the cryptocurrency industry. These are legitimate concerns about the energy intensity. But what we are seeing is not just strategic planning. It’s reactionary policy-making. One year the government rolls out the red carpet. The next year they now want to control it. This flip-flopping sends a terrible message to investors that B.C.’s energy policy is unpredictable and subject to ideology swings rather than sound economics.

It’s not just cryptocurrency. The same contradiction exists in hydrogen policy. This government has spent years championing the hydrogen economy, funding pilot projects, issuing strategy papers and promising that B.C. will become the global leader in clean hydrogen production. Yet this bill now empowers Hydro to restrict electricity supply for hydrogen production if the end product is exported outside Canada.

Which is it? Are we trying to build a hydrogen economy, or are we trying to strangle it at birth? If the concern is grid capacity, let’s talk honestly about that.

This same inconsistency applies to data centres and artificial intelligence. On one hand, the government celebrates AI as a growth sector, and now they even have an AI minister. On the other hand, it introduced a quota system, limiting how much power it can reallocate to it.

Allow me to quote directly from that plan: “Key load attraction opportunities are in data centres, cryptocurrency, hydrogen production, carbon capture, synthetic fuel production and new mines.” Which version of B.C. Hydro’s policy are we supposed to believe — the 2021 version or the 2025 version that seeks to restrict them?

I reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

Hon Chan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[5:00 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Darlene Rotchford: Section A reports Bill 19 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Now, hon. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 19, intituled School Amendment Act, 2025.

Division has been called.

[5:05 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question before the House is third reading of Bill 19, intituled School Amendment Act, 2025.

Before we conduct the vote, I want to remind those participating remotely that the Clerk will be contacting you shortly. Those who are voting “aye,” please say it clearly, or you can say “yes.” If you are saying “nay,” you can say “no.” But nobody is to say “yea.”

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

The Speaker: Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 31.

Then in the Douglas Fir Room, Bill 20, Construction Prompt Payment Act.

[5:15 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon Chan: I will continue. The bill essentially creates a system where the government decides which industries are worthy of electricity or which are not. This might sound fair, but we must ask who sets the rules for that competition.

What criteria will be used? Will it be job creation, local content, Indigenous partnership, environmental performance or political preference? The bill doesn’t say. It simply gives cabinet and B.C. Hydro broad discretion to decide who gets power or who doesn’t. That is an extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of a few bureaucrats, and it is a recipe for politicization and uncertainty.

Every megawatt we allocate to a new industrial customer is a megawatt that must be generated, transmitted and paid for. When government policy keeps shifting — enticing one type of industry, banning or controlling another and then reviving it later — it creates inefficiency and drives up costs. Ultimately, those costs flow back to ratepayers.

When I look at this bill, I see a government that is trying to do so many things at once and, in doing so, risks achieving none of them. They say they want to empower Indigenous partnerships, yet they are doing so through a mechanism that may fragment our public utility. They say they want to attract new industries, yet they’re introducing bans or quotas that deter investment.

Things here are not coherent. It’s confusion wrapped in legislation. A bill of this scale demands clear accountability, but instead, most of the real decision-making is being diverted to regulation. That means cabinet can make major policy decisions behind closed doors, without legislative debate. The allocation rules, the ownership terms, the restrictions on certain industries, all of these will be determined later through regulations. That is not accountability. That is delegation without transparency.

British Columbians deserve to know, before this bill passes, how this power will be exercised, who will benefit and who will pay.

Peter Milobar: I rise to speak to Bill 31, also known as the “Oops, we just realized we don’t have enough electricity in B.C., so we have to pick who gets to have it” bill.

I say that because this seems to be a troubling pattern with this government over this fall session, in the legislation we’ve seen brought forward. In this case, with Bill 31, it seems to be a mad scramble to once again acknowledge what they’ve been warned about for years — failed policies and inaction leading to a constriction of electrical supply.

We’ve seen that in just about all the legislation we have here. Even the private member’s bill today around professional reliance is trying to correct George Heyman’s legislation from 2018.

This really does feel like a session where the government is saying: “Oops, we were warned about all this stuff — child care, other things — that has been failing. I guess we should start trying to scramble and bring in legislation to try to correct all the things that we thought we were doing well. We ignored what everyone was saying when it was first introduced. We’ve ignored what was being said about electrical supply over the last few years, so we’d better hurry up and bring in Bill 31 around that.”

You think of the constraints we have around electrical supply in this province. Especially if you look at EV mandates and things of that nature and their draw on our overall grid, it’s no wonder that the government is now changing its tune on things like hydrogen generation within this province.

Cryptocurrency. The government is not wrong on that. It consumes a huge amount of power for very few jobs on cryptocurrency mining, so I can understand that perspective on it.

[5:20 p.m.]

The bigger concern I have is around other areas that this bill is trying to constrain while picking winners and losers, with no real, definable decision-making matrix attached to this from government.

When I reference things like hydrogen…. Why that’s important is because it wasn’t that long ago, in fact, before the last election, where the Premier was wrapping himself in a hydrogen project that was going to happen up in Prince George and what that would mean for the B.C. economy and how massive that investment would be. And you know what killed it? Access to power and the cost of access to power.

But that didn’t stop the government ahead of the election from touting this as this great megaproject hydrogen project. And why? It’s important to note that the government is saying, “Well, we don’t want to allow hydrogen production that will be sold offshore to be done in British Columbia,” with Bill 31.

They have no problem for an environmental footprint of scaling down coal consumption around the world to enable LNG expansion in this province if it uses electric drives. But that LNG production is not for domestic consumption; it’s for international consumption.

Once again, the government, with Bill 31, is picking and choosing what type of energy export we’re going to have on a whim. They keep changing their minds. One second hydrogen is our investment of the future. The next second Bill 31 comes in, and it’s no longer relevant. We don’t need it. One second we’re constrained on power. The next second we’re not.

This government took office, and they were going to stop Site C, at least slow it down and try to review it, out of an agreement with the Greens, slow-walk it. Delayed it and delayed it and added huge cost to it.

Their energy policy keeps shifting. It shifts to whatever the political winds are saying. This isn’t the government chasing what their own internal caucus and their own supporters are directing them to do. They’re chasing public opinion polls. That’s what they’re doing.

Look how quick they changed their tune on LNG and how future expansion may or may not actually need to be electric drive anymore. Look at what they’re saying about dredging the Burrard Inlet so that TMX could load up the tanker bigger. TMX, the project they were going to use every tool in the toolbox on. The Energy Minister actually lost an election, where he was supposed to become the Premier, on his changing stance on TMX, which he’s now back to fully supporting again.

That’s the energy direction that this government keeps coming up with, and Bill 31 is a shining example of that. It will enable the government, yes, to have some more capacity into the system, but they will be able to pick and choose who that goes to. What we’re not hearing from this government is an overall provincial strategy with Bill 31 around energy in general in B.C. It’s all piecemeal — Bill 14, Bill 31 — all about centralizing power in the Premier’s office to pick winners and losers.

Energy in B.C. is more than just hydroelectric, and I know the Energy Minister knows this. It’s wind, it’s solar, and it’s natural gas. It’s about energy consumption. Why I bring that up is I don’t see the government moving to restrict municipalities from sticking their foot into the whole energy mix within B.C. You have a city like Vancouver that decides to ban natural gas, that disrupts the overall planning for B.C. Hydro on energy in this province.

[5:25 p.m.]

Now, I’m not saying that we’re not going to eventually, over time, phase away from natural gas, especially in urbanized centres. That totally makes sense. But it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t jeopardize industrial growth in other areas of this province, where it doesn’t leapfrog transmission and generation of power by B.C. Hydro and other energy companies on where that energy is going to go because one municipality here or one municipality there, on a whim of a mayor and a council, decides they’re going to ban natural gas and all the energy that comes with that. That’s what then precipitates things like a Bill 31 coming forward.

You do have to have…. When there was the cold snap — was it two years ago now? — in Vancouver, two-thirds of the energy consumed during that cold snap was natural gas, not electricity. They’re not ready for a cold snap and to be solely electric in the Lower Mainland. They just simply aren’t.

How does Hydro create that capacity when you’ve got capacity needs in the northwest for large, industrial-scale projects that will employ thousands of British Columbians, working hard and paying taxes into our overall economy?

How do you grow the economy with Bill 31 if you as a government are not prepared to step in and tell municipalities that they actually don’t have the ability — nor should they have the ability, more importantly — to actually impact the overall power system, the energy needs of British Columbia?

What that does is it forces us to start buying electricity from other jurisdictions, from the U.S., from Alberta, from coal-fired jurisdictions. On the one hand, we can pat ourselves on the back that we’re not consuming as much natural gas. On the other hand, we’re firing up coal-fired plants and natural gas plants to import electricity into B.C.

Bill 31 is a shining example of the government under crisis management situations with our energy policy over the last eight years, because they have changed their position multiple times. I understand what the minister is driving at with Bill 31, but I also understand the multiple times over the last eight years, as some of us have been here, where this government has completely changed, a 180-degree change on energy policy.

When we get to committee stage on Bill 31, we’re going to have a lot of questions, just as we did on Bill 14.

Once again, there does not seem to be a sustained or cohesive plan coming out of this government as to how we’re actually going to meet the energy demands, not just of British Columbia. If we’re truly insistent that we are going to do our global part for global emission profiles, last I checked, our emissions in B.C. don’t stop in our airshed. In fact, a lot of the stuff that impacts our environment is coming from pollution from offshore. I think that is something this House can all agree on.

If we’re really going to try to leverage our advantages here, Bill 31, which bans hydrogen production for export…. It doesn’t really seem like we’re being a global citizen all of a sudden. I guess it will free up energy, though, for LNG electric drives so this government can make sure that we continue to send LNG overseas, which I support. But again, it’s an energy product for export.

If nothing else highlights the hypocrisy of this government of how they’d like to try to pick winners and losers, it’s the fact that with Bill 31, they’re essentially saying: “Hydrogen for export, bad; LNG for export, good.” At that point, it’s no longer about whether it’s clean energy or not. Many would argue hydrogen is much cleaner than LNG. It’s just about what this government chooses to want to attract investment around or not.

They seem to be making it very clear. They’re welcoming with open arms, which is a massive change from where they were at in 2017-2018 about LNG…. They’re welcoming with open arms LNG expansion, which, of course, the B.C. Conservatives fully support. Bill 31 will free up some transmission capacity and some generation capacity, one would assume, especially while it’s making sure that hydrogen, another what-would-be clean energy export, is prohibited for all intents and purposes.

[5:30 p.m.]

We’ll have a lot of questions around that. We’ll want to dig into that. We’re going to try to figure out if this NDP government now is a full-throated, full-on champion of oil and gas, of pipelines, of dredging the Burrard Inlet, of maximizing our energy. But they’ll also have to answer why hydrogen is not part of that mix while still trying to tout that we’re supposed to be a green jurisdiction.

That’ll be the main focus of some of the issues that we bring up on Bill 31. I know others have spoken to other parts of this bill, and I’ll let them cover that off in other debate as well.

I thank the Chair for this time, and I look forward to committee stage as we fully dive into Bill 31.

Sunita Dhir: Can I seek leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

Introductions by Members

Sunita Dhir: Today on the precinct, we have some very valuable members of our community visiting us.

May we welcome Mr. Shinda Aheer. He is a very strong community leader, a strong voice for anti-racism and equal treatment for everybody. He’s also the president and CEO of Aheer Transport Ltd.

We also have board members of the Folk Art and Cultural Exchange Society, also known as the C Face Society.

May we welcome Mr. Kanwaljt Singh Manawala, Amrit Pal Singh Dhot, Srikanth Mogulala, Bhupinder Ladher, Palakdeep Kaur and Tanveer Singh to the precinct, please.

Debate Continued

Bryan Tepper: Hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly and all British Columbians watching across this great province — parents pacing hospital corridors at midnight clutching a feverish child’s hand while the clock ticks mercilessly; single mothers whispering bedtime stories to wide-eyed kids in a home that feels less safe each night; grandparents staring at eviction notices, wondering how they’ll afford the meds they need without a doctor to prescribe them; and foster parents, exhausted but unyielding, fighting a system that steals more children than it saves: I rise today in this honourable House as the member for Surrey-Panorama to thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I’m not just a voice from the opposition benches. I’m a Conservative fighting for the families of Surrey, the workers of Panorama and every corner of British Columbia that has been left behind by eight years of fiscal folly.

Today we’re not just debating Bill 31, the so-called Energy Statutes Amendment Act of 2025. We’re confronting a deeper rot, choices made in these very halls that prioritize distant wires and corporate whims over the beating hearts of our families, our streets and our future.

This isn’t about abstract numbers or partisan jabs, but god knows there are plenty. This is about the human toll, the stories etched in the faces of my constituents in Surrey-Panorama, where the pressures of growth meet the pains of neglect.

Bill 31 pretends to unlock economic potential with its $6 billion North Coast transmission line, a sprawling 450-kilometre snake of steel and cable from Prince George to Terrace, co-owned with select First Nations and foisted upon ratepayers, like the hard-working families I represent. But peel back the glossy press releases from the other side, and you’ll find a bill that’s unnecessary, unaffordable and unjust.

B.C. Hydro already holds the authority to build this line. No new legislation is required. This is a power grab mirroring the NDP’s earlier signs in Bills 14 and 15, where cabinet became kingmaker, fast-tracking significant projects while bypassing Indigenous consent, environmental safeguards and democratic debate.

Former NDP MLA Melanie Mark called these bills a step backwards on reconciliation.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs decried the overreach as colonial echoes.

[5:35 p.m.]

Now with Bill 31, they’re at it again, deeming rates as orders to sidestep BCUC scrutiny, forcing utilities to pass billions in costs to everyday households, all while section 3’s public interest mandate gathers dust. It’s not stewardship. It’s favouritism, picking winners and leaving losers, like rural families and Indigenous communities, to foot the bill.

Let’s start where it hurts most, the lives unravelling right now because of this fiscal free fall.

Our health care system isn’t strained; it’s shattered, a graveyard of good intentions buried under NDP neglect. In 2024, 141,961 British Columbians walked out of emergency rooms without seeing a doctor, an 86 percent surge.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just to remind you, we’re on second reading for Bill 31.

Bryan Tepper: Yes. I will get there as I’m talking about it.

An 86 percent surge. That’s not a statistic; it’s a parade of despair. We have real-life examples of Mr. Patel in Surrey, hip replacement delayed until a fatal fall; Emily in Vancouver, breast cancer screening postponed six months too late. These aren’t anomalies. They’re the norm.

Nearly one in five people have no family doctor. Rural clinics shutter weekly. ERs closed 250 times this year.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Bryan Tepper: I’m on it now.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder on Bill 31.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah. Every dollar diverted is Bill 31’s $6 billion transmission line. When private industry stands ready to build power plants in the northwest for half the cost, is a nurse not hired, a bed not filled, a life not saved? In Surrey-Panorama, families beg for basics while billions vanish into the ether. These aren’t anomalies. They’re the norm in a province where specialists’ waiting lists stretch over a year, turning terrible ills into coffins.

Emergency rooms, once sanctuaries, now resemble war zones. In Victoria, waits average in hours at walk-ins the longest in Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Member. We’re on….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Yeah.

Bill 31, please.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. I’ll skip ahead. That isn’t care. It’s cruelty, rationed by exhaustion and error. Every diverted dollar from a $6 billion transmission boondoggle means one fewer nurse, one less bed, one more needless grave. And I don’t think anybody actually believes it’s going to be $6 billion. It has already doubled.

In Surrey-Panorama, I’ve heard these stories at every door, families begging for basics while billions vanish into the ether.

Now I turn to our streets, where fear walks taller than any of us. Violent crime is up 21 percent in Vancouver alone.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 31, please.

Bryan Tepper: Can I draw the parallel and the reasons for that together, or is that…?

Deputy Speaker: The Energy Statutes Amendment Act. If you could keep your remarks to the content of the bill, please.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. The content of the bill is the spending of the money, and that’s what I’m drawing this to. If you wish, I will move past that, but that is what I’m drawing the parallel to in this case. Is that…?

Deputy Speaker: If you could direct your remarks with respect to the contents of Bill 31, please.

Bryan Tepper: I am going to talk a bit more around crime as I move into the $6 billion. StatsCan logs a five-year high in incidents, and bail reforms release repeat offenders within 24 hours. That’s not safety.

With Bill 31 sluicing $6 billion into a transmission line we don’t need while private power producers offer to build local plants at a fraction of the cost, that’s $6 billion not funding police, not lighting streets, not protecting our kids.

I stand for Panorama families who now lock doors twice, demanding the resources they’ve been robbed of.

Repeat offenders are back on the streets within 24 hours, per Fraser Institute tallies, cycling violence like a wheel of misfortune….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

[5:40 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Again, I’m getting right to the $6 billion. This isn’t safety; it’s surrender, again. And with $6 billion sluiced to wires in the wilds, that’s again $6 billion not patrolling our parks, not lighting our lanes. That’s investment into our communities.

I stand here for the families of Panorama. With that $6 billion, the deepest wound is our children. The Ministry of Children and Family Development….

Deputy Speaker: If the member does not wish to speak to the principles and merits of Bill 31, then I would invite the member to resume his seat, and the Chair will recognize another member who wishes to participate in the debate.

Bryan Tepper: I will continue with the debate. Thank you.

Every $1 billion borrowed for Bill 31’s $6 billion line, when private industry begs to build power where it’s needed, is a social worker not hired. Every data centre is a foster home not funded, a child not saved. Every $1 billion borrowed for boondoggles like the NCTL is $1 billion not rebuilding homes, not hiring healers for these broken communities.

These aren’t distant tragedies. They are directly related to Bill 31. The fiscal incompetence, a $10.9 billion projected deficit originally, which has gone up in ’25-26 from $7.9 billion last year….

Deputy Speaker: I will ask the member for Surrey-Panorama to resume his seat and ask if any other member wishes to participate in the debate.

Bruce Banman: As always, it is a pleasure and honour to speak in this House. I rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

On this side of the House, we do have some concerns with this legislation. The government’s Bill 31 makes substantial changes to the operations and governance of B.C. Hydro that are potentially neither necessary nor wise.

The NDP are selling this legislation to British Columbians as a measure to modernize our province’s energy system and enable new transmission capacity in the northwest. But in reality, Bill 31 is about surrendering public control and picking government-approved political winners and losers who get priority access to electricity. Let me say that again because it’s worth repeating. In reality, Bill 31 is about surrendering public control and picking government-approved political winners and losers who will get priority access to electricity.

For decades, successive governments in British Columbia, including the NDP, have stood on the principle that B.C. Hydro is a public utility owned and operated by and for the people of our province. Yet this same NDP government, which claims to be the champion of the public sector, is now entertaining the very idea of selling off portions of British Columbia’s transmission network to different entities through so-called co-ownership agreements.

[5:45 p.m.]

Let me be crystal clear. It is one thing for B.C. Hydro to purchase power from independent producers. It is another thing entirely for B.C. Hydro to sell off parts of its transmission system. That is critical infrastructure that’s the backbone of our provincial energy grid. Now more than ever we need to protect that grid. It is owned by the people of British Columbia, and it should remain so.

This bill allows the cabinet to designate agreements without necessarily coming onto the floor of this Legislature to be debated. It allows the cabinet to designate agreements that would transfer or assign B.C. Hydro assets or rights to a North Coast limited partnership, whatever the heck that may be, entities that may include private or quasi-private ownership.

That should cause British Columbians to halt and think about what that truly means, especially when it is the cabinet which could make agreements through back doors and behind closed rooms without the scrutiny of this House. This is a fundamental, major policy shift, and once that legal door is open to assign transfers, we know from experience that it’s virtually impossible to close that Pandora’s box in the future. It is a dangerous, reckless move, in my opinion.

The NDP government says this bill is about enabling the northwest transmission line, but B.C. Hydro already has all the authority it needs to build that project. So we have to ask: why bother legislating what’s already possible? Why take the risk of opening up Pandora’s box when the current legislation already allows for this project to be built?

The reality is that this bill is not required to build a power line from Prince George to Bob Quinn Lake, but it is required for NDP press releases and photo ops. The NDP government wants to be seen cutting ribbon deals rather than ensuring transparent, accountable and serious management of critical public infrastructure, which is owned by the people of this province now. They’d rather be seen cutting ribbon deals than ensuring transparent, accountable and serious management of our critical public infrastructure.

There’s a better, more innovative path to reliable power in northwest B.C., one that aligns with our province’s future, not stepping backward into the past. The Conservatives have a plan to use small modular reactors as a clean, reliable and locally deployable source of abundant power for our northern B.C. communities and industries.

Rather than spending billions on new transmission lines across hundreds of kilometres of remote terrain, a project that will cost taxpayers enormously and deliver power remarkably inefficiently, the province should, in our opinion, deploy small modular reactor technology to generate electricity locally, safely and at a fraction of the cost for consumers, as is already being done in other parts of the world.

Small modular reactors are a critical part of energy plans in provinces like Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, and they’re a 21st-century energy solution to our 21st-century energy needs. But this NDP government refuses to even entertain the conversation. As a matter of fact, if you look across the aisle, I’m being mocked for even bringing this up. I can tell by the looks and the jeers that they think that this is a laughable idea.

[5:50 p.m.]

It’s shameful that they do not even want to entertain the very conversation. This NDP government remains obsessed with 20th-century infrastructure because it keeps power centralized in Victoria and Vancouver, rather than empowering rural areas that actually produce our resources and contribute to our economy. Victoria and Vancouver’s wealth is actually built on the rest of the province, in a very large percentage.

Now I wish to turn our attention to the second part of this bill, which is actually just as troubling. It amends the Utilities Commission Act to give cabinet sweeping powers to regulate who may receive electricity. Let me boil that down. That means that in closed rooms, with no scrutiny, no transparency, somebody gets to pick who gets and who does not get electricity. If that doesn’t make you lie awake at night, it very well should.

What purpose does this serve? What purpose will the electricity be used for? Who gets to decide? The way this is now written, the sweeping powers, this government gets to decide. I don’t think any government should have that sweeping, unregulated power, especially when it lacks transparency.

Let’s go over a few of the things. Under these new, magical powers, cabinet can ban or restrict power for three activities: cryptocurrency mining; data storage or processing, including artificial intelligence; and the production of hydrogen for export. Okay. It can even set special rates, limits or conditions for anyone engaged in these sectors. That is troubling indeed. Let’s consider that for a moment.

This government not long ago was bragging about its hydrogen strategy and its plan to attract the digital economy and the investment from that, from data centres to blockchain technology. This was on their bandwagon. They thought these were, all three, fantastic ideas. All of a sudden, now they want to punish those very industries.

They went out of their way to entice cryptocurrency mines to B.C. They issued press releases, and B.C. Hydro staff spoke publicly about offering discounted electrical rates to attract bitcoin miners to our province. Back in 2018, B.C. Hydro’s own business development manager, Dina Matterson, told CBC News: “This rate would help B.C. Hydro companies compete with clean jurisdictions that have lower power rates than us. We need to get in this game.”

At that time, crypto mining made up nearly half of the 10,000 megawatts in new load inquiries. It was the NDP government’s big bet on innovation. Now a mere seven years later this very same government that once promoted, bragged and wanted this opportunity is legislating a power ban against the very same sectors it once courted, like that makes any sense.

Talk about a major flip-flop. Conservatives will call it what it is, hypocrisy and policy whiplash. It’s shameful. First, they dangle incentives — “come, come, please come to B.C. and invest your money”; then they slam the door shut.

[5:55 p.m.]

First, they celebrate hydrogen exports. Oh, fantastic, hydrogen. Here it comes. Then they prohibit the electricity needed to actually produce the hydrogen. First, they announce digital innovation hubs. Surprise, surprise. Now they’re banning the data centres that process that innovation as well.

Here we are. Blue Jays are playing. Talk about strike one, two, three and you’re out.

Go, Jays, go!

You know what? British Columbians deserve a stable, predictable energy policy, not whatever the short-term NDP political fashion of the day just happens to be. We’ve seen this pattern before. The NDP tell one story when the cameras are rolling and then quietly reverse course when the political winds shift. This is not how you attract and keep innovation and investment in your province.

Moreover, even B.C. Hydro’s own documents contradict what this government is now doing. In B.C. Hydro’s 2021 electrification plan, tabled under this very NDP government, the utility identified “key load-attraction opportunities in data centres, cryptocurrency, hydrogen production, carbon capture, synthetic fuel production and new mines.”

B.C. Hydro said it needed to be “more proactive and customer-facing” to attract and secure investment from emerging energy-intensive industries, specifically naming cryptocurrency, hydrogen and data processing. You can add in there artificial intelligence as well now.

These are all great opportunities for British Columbians, and if they don’t put it here, they’re going to go somewhere else in the world. Those very same industries that were once courted and encouraged to come are being regulated by this NDP government out of existence. They’re being regulated out of existence in B.C. by this government in this very bill.

It makes zero sense. It’s incoherent energy planning, and it sends negative messages once again to investors that think B.C. is a safe place. Bad enough that British Columbians don’t know if they currently own their homes anymore because this government sat on its hands. Now they’re saying to investors in the emerging areas of technology: “Yes. We wanted you yesterday but not now. Thanks for investing money, but we don’t want you now.”

In B.C., what’s legal today may be banned tomorrow if it no longer fits the Premier’s political narrative. If the Premier wakes up one morning and says, “We want it,” you have no confidence whatsoever, if you’re an investor around the world, that this Premier won’t wake up the next morning and say: “You know what? I changed my mind. I don’t think this is a good idea after all. Thanks for investing thousands and thousands and millions and millions of dollars, but you’re not welcome here anymore.” That is not how you secure the future for British Columbians.

The NDP’s new energy restrictions will do much more than hurt investors. They’re going to hurt jobs and undermine regional diversification in this province that we love so much.

The North and Interior have been seeking new clean industries that can make use of surplus power capacity. Those would be data centres and hydrogen facilities. We all heard about how hydrogen….

[6:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, it’s six o’clock. Can I ask you to reserve your place and to move a motion to adjourn.

Bruce Banman: Absolutely.

Noting the hour, I would move that we adjourn debate, and I reserve my right to continue tomorrow.

Bruce Banman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M213 — Drug Use Prevention
Education in Schools Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Members, earlier today during private members’ time, a division was requested on second reading of Bill M213, intituled Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the deferred division will take place now.

[6:05 p.m. - 6:10 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, those who are participating remotely, please make sure your audio and video are on.

The motion before the House is second reading of Bill M213 intituled Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 43
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Brodie	Armstrong	Bhangu
Paton	Gasper	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Day	Tepper	Mok
Maahs	Kealy	Sturko
Boultbee	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Luck
	Block
NAYS — 48
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir	Valeriote	Botterell

[6:15 p.m.]

The Speaker: Bill M213, intituled Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act, is defeated and will be removed from the order paper.

Darlene Rotchford: Section A reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:16 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

Recognizing the Minister of Education and Child Care for any opening comments.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: I’m very excited to be here today. I’ll introduce my staff from the ministry. We have Emily Arthur, executive lead; Kiersten Fisher, executive director; and Kristen Barnes, executive director. I’d like to thank them for their support during this process.

I also want to thank the members opposite for what is sure to be a productive conversation, because I am very excited to review this bill through legislation today in the committee process.

It is a demonstration of our government’s commitment to child care in our province, which is why our bill amends the School Act to allow boards of education more flexibility for types of child care on school grounds. These amendments give boards the authority to provide child care throughout the year on pro-D days and during school breaks like spring, winter and summer breaks.

We know that child care doesn’t just end because the school year ends or because a Christmas break happens, and that’s why we’re recommending changes to allow schools to operate child care year-round. We also know public schools are trusted community hubs which are designed as places for children to learn, to grow and to play, and they hold incredible potential to deliver the kinds of care and services families need that are above and beyond the critical role they play during school hours.

These amendments will also authorize school districts to provide child care directly for children of all ages, including infants and toddlers. These are amendments that families, school boards, child care advocates and education partners have been asking for.

We’ve also heard from boards that they’re eager to work with the child care sector and my ministry to expand their ability to offer care on school grounds, but to do that, they need to be able to operate it sustainably. With these changes that we’re discussing today, districts will be able to recoup reasonable fees to recover costs for providing child care services, like administration and maintenance, just as non-profit centres currently go about their business operations.

This is not just good news for families. It’s an opportunity to create new jobs, to open up new opportunities for people entering the workforce, for those already working in education and child care. It also means that districts and rural and remote communities that face their own unique challenges to providing child care will have new opportunities and new avenues to fill that gap so that families can have access to care no matter where they live.

I also want to clearly state again that we’re not requiring districts to do this. They know their communities best, and each district is going to determine whether and how to offer child care on school grounds in collaboration with their local communities, with First Nations and to meet local needs.

Many districts are ready to dive into these changes right away. Others are going to take time to assess and plan. My ministry is here to support districts every step of the way. We’re here to answer questions, provide guidance and help with implementation.

These amendments align the School Act with all the important work that we’re doing to help us continue building on a sustainable child care system families can rely on. Our government remains focused on delivering affordable, quality, inclusive child care that meets the needs of B.C. families.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Chilliwack North on clause 1, unless you have some opening comments.

On clause 1.

Heather Maahs: Well, I guess I would say it’s a pleasure to be here and to have the opportunity to ask questions around the amendments to this bill.

I would start out by saying that a government-run child care monopoly as such is not a made-in-B.C. solution. Of course we support solutions for families and their child care needs. We’re also concerned about the fact that we know that families are the cornerstones of society and should be prioritized in every aspect of our society.

Directly to clause 1(a), I guess the first question I’ll ask is: what kinds of parameters are there for school districts? Because space is so limited in so many school districts, what kind of parameters are there if they decide to devote a space in a community school?

As you’re aware, community schools function, in some cases, for profit, renting spaces out — revenue such as $15,000 a month for one spot in a community school.

Is this government deciding that charging parents a reasonable amount could incur high costs to parents? That is the concern.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question.

We as a government have been very, very clear in our commitment to child care that it needs to be affordable for families. That’s laid out in our ChildCareBC plan. It’s in everything we do and everything we talk about.

The word “reasonable” indicates that the intent is to keep costs sensible. Importantly, the phrase in the proposed bill is: “reasonable costs incurred and to be incurred by the board in providing that child care program to the child.” Practically speaking, this means that costs are limited to those costs which are (a) reasonable and (b) incurred or to be incurred by the board and that relate specifically to providing the child care program to that child.

Again, that has to be directly related to providing child care for the child. In addition to that, if the school districts are accessing our fee reduction programs, there is an overlying funding agreement that has further limitations on the fees that they can charge. The fees must be related to reasonable costs incurred or to be incurred in providing that child care program to the child and cannot exceed the fee maximum set out in the agreement.

The intent is to limit fees for parents while also enabling boards to recover their costs. Boards are required to adhere to the legislative requirements; in which case, fees for child care cannot be more than the reasonable costs incurred by the board. Those are exactly the safeguards put in. Hopefully, that covers that for the member.

I’ll just give a short answer now, because I know the member is going to come back with some more questions. In reality, boards have the authority to determine the use of their facilities. This is exactly what they do.

Local boards have that autonomy. They are well versed in navigating variable uses throughout the day and before and after school hours. That is the local autonomy they’re going to be able to preserve.

Heather Maahs: What are the actual parameters on this? “Reasonable” and “sensible” are subjective terms. What kind of accountability and assurance do we have? What boards consider reasonable might not seem reasonable to the parents that they’re charging the fees to.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Again, our commitment to the public is to ensure that there is affordable child care, and it is limiting it to reasonable costs incurred by the board. There is a precedent for the term “reasonable costs” in other pieces of provincial legislation.

It exists, for example, in the Forest Service Road Use Regulation, Strata Property Act, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, so this isn’t a random set of words that we’ve chosen. This is standard drafting for government in that process.

It limits it to reasonable costs incurred by the board for providing child care to that child, and it indicates our intent to keep costs sensible.

Korky Neufeld: The minister mentioned a fee reduction program. Can you explain what that means? Are you subsidizing boards when they are not allowed to charge the end-user because it’s costing them more to have these programs in, and if so, where is that money coming from?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Just a reminder to the members that this bill is about amending sections 85.2 and 85.3, which talk about the flexibility for types of child care and the ability to provide care throughout the year for boards. This isn’t a bill about funding.

That being said, I will just briefly say for the members that the amendments will allow school boards to access the same subsidy programs as third-party providers. But that’s a conversation for outside this bill debate because this bill, again, is not about funding. It’s about the physical access and space and permission.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate the minister and the staff, the opportunity to ask a few questions.

I think, generally speaking, as opposition we want to get behind this bill. We obviously know that there are challenges in the number of spaces available for child care, and this is a potential solution to some of that. Especially in the off-season, where we know that just because school is out…. Parents do still need care.

I’m going to highlight a few questions here this afternoon, directly related to my debate speech around some of the specifics here.

For clause 1, my first question is around capital upgrades to facilities. Not necessarily every school…. Even though they may have a desire and a market for additional child care, their facilities may not be ready to take in children, especially preschool-aged children. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide us any details as far as…. Is there a budget allocated for capital upgrades to some of these buildings that do need the child care?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. I am really glad to hear that members across the way want to get behind this bill. This is a great bill that is going to provide child care spaces all across this province, in every region, so that’s something we all should be able to get behind.

I thank you for the, albeit tentative, support. I know there are more questions to come, but truly it’s a place we can all get to.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is one of those good-news bills in the House that don’t come all the time. A lot of the work we get to do is transformational, and this is one of those pieces, so I’m really glad we get to do that.

Funding considerations are dealt with outside this bill, outside of any bill debate, really, on this, but we have opportunities now to work with districts. By removing the existing barriers that existed in the legislation through this new piece of legislation, these amendments, now we can work with districts to do planning on what their needs are and what spaces they have available to support that. School districts now will have the ability to engage in that planning work, including space planning. Those are all future conversations.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Just to reiterate, generally, we do want to get behind this bill. It’s just our job to ask some of the questions around the implementation and how this will look, so I do appreciate that.

The minister just briefly mentioned some of the barriers that school districts will face. Could she provide on the record, either through some of the conversations that have already taken place or through potential future conversations, specifically what some of those barriers are going to be for school districts?

Hon. Lisa Beare: My apologies if it wasn’t clear. It was the barriers they faced previous to the legislation, which is why we implemented the legislation — to remove those barriers. That now allows them, for example, to operate care on non-instructional days during break weeks and all of that. It was the barriers that existed that we are removing, not future barriers.

Scott McInnis: I thank the minister for that clarification. I think the minister sort of answered this in her previous answer, but we could just solidify that a little bit here for the record.

Are school districts to provide the ministry with a facilities readiness plan as far as each school district is concerned, as far as physical spaces that are ready to be transferred into accepting specifically, again, underage children into some of those buildings? Will that be reported to the public as well, via the school board and then into the communities?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: For anyone who’s listening online or at home, this bill has three lines — literally, three lines.

The first line does two things.

It removes the restrictions that are providing child care programs to enrolled students only, in the district, and only before- and after-school care — as we said, not on days of pro-D or school breaks or those things.

The second line permits boards to recoup reasonable costs incurred in providing care to that child.

The third line, the final line, is royal assent.

That is it. That is all this bill is. It is an enabling piece of legislation that allows boards to engage in this planning work and to do this work.

You know, the member is asking about future work and future implementation, which can be another conversation at a future date, but for this conversation, these are the enabling pieces of the legislation, and there’s work to do in community.

Scott McInnis: I understand that. I understand it’s a brief amendment and that there’ll be some work to do, probably with child care licensing regulations and additional regulations to implement that, but, I think, it’s also fair and reasonable to ask questions about it. I think, it’s our job to at least get on record that some of the questions directly related to the clauses in this bill are addressed by the ministry.

I guess it’s up to you, Mr. Chair, if you rule them out of order, but I’m going to keep asking.

One issue I brought forward in my speech was around some of the staffing. I think, when we’re looking at clause 1 here and adding additional time that children would be provided care, we have to look not only at the staffing in the rooms for those children. There are also supplemental costs with things like custodial staffing.

[3:20 p.m.]

I wonder if the ministry does have a plan around that, which they could share on the record, as far as how they are going to address having adults in the room and also the additional pressures to be put on custodial staff, which do a great, fantastic job in our schools to keep them clean and safe, and how some of that extra time is going to be spoken for as far as a budget line item.

Hon. Lisa Beare: For the member, as I said earlier in one of my previous answers, boards have the authority to determine the use of their facilities, and they’re well versed in navigating this in their districts. This is what they do. This is the enabling piece of legislation that allows them to start planning processes.

Much of the question is about future state and future implementation.

Scott McInnis: I’ll ask the question in a different way. Is there a specific budget allocation given to the Ministry of Education for additional staffing measures through this legislation?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Bills aren’t where we have budget discussions.

Scott McInnis: Is it fair to say on record, then, that we’re debating legislation here which we’re assuming will pass this afternoon, and we really have no idea what it’s going to cost the taxpayers in B.C. The minister insinuated that we should just whip through these and not ask the questions and pass it….

The Chair: Member, the minister did not insinuate that we should rush through this legislation.

Scott McInnis: No, the minister did insinuate that it’s very short, three lines.

The Chair: Yes, and I’d ask that you just retract the statement, because the minister did not say that we should rush through the legislation.

Scott McInnis: I’ll retract, absolutely.

Having said that, I still think it’s fair to ask questions on the public record related to funding that’s going to change how we operate child care publicly in the province. But I’ll move on, I suppose.

Did the ministry have meaningful consultation on this School Amendment Act, 2025, with the B.C. Teachers Federation?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: The short answer is yes, to the member.

I’m sure he’s got some more follow-up questions on that.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Minister, for that.

In relation to the consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation, would the minister be willing to share what some of the concerns brought forward by the BCTF around this amendment would be?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Conversations with CUPE and the B.C. Teachers Federation expressed support for the expansion of child care on school grounds. They expressed looking forward to being involved in district-level discussions moving forward. Both teachers and education staff are parents too, so this is good news for everyone.

[3:30 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I’m just wondering about some accountability measures here. Within clause 1, specifically, does the ministry plan on publishing some sort of annual report after this bill moves forward, as far as the successes and challenges of the implementation of this bill once it’s on the ground in school districts?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: Once again, this bill focuses on removing barriers so that districts can continue the good work of expanding child care across the province. Once these amendments are made, if they pass, our team will be working closely with districts and partners on implementation. These are all future-state conversations.

Heather Maahs: Because this government is opting to discontinue for-profit eligibility for the new spaces fund, this, of course, raises another issue. Collective agreement–mandated systems impact the bottom line for end-users, who are parents.

What will parents do if and when these government-run facilities are unhappy with their contracts and they go out on strike?

The Chair: Member, I’d just remind all members that this piece of legislation, as the minister mentioned, is enabling legislation. This is not a new piece of legislation talking about implementing child care programs.

I’d ask that your questions be very, very succinct and close to the clauses, as described, and the amendment as such. Thank you.

Heather Maahs: I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

I’m actually partially referring to the briefing that we received prior to this bill being introduced. That’s why I’m curious as to what the intentions of the government are should the private daycares all be replaced with government-run daycares, which is an intention here.

Hon. Lisa Beare: This bill has three lines.

The first line does two things. It removes the restrictions to provide child care programs to enrolled students only within the district, and it removes the restriction to only providing before- and after-school care.

The second line permits boards to recoup reasonable costs to be incurred in providing child care to that child.

The third line is royal assent.

Heather Maahs: I’m going to ask a general comment in regard to what appears to be opposition to allowing for choice for parents to decide whether or not they believe their child’s needs would best be met in a private daycare or in a government daycare.

The Chair: Member, I, unfortunately, am going to rule that question out of order.

Again, clause 1 speaks to the expansion of the authority of boards of education to provide child care programs on board properties. As such, the question should remain as close as possible to what the clause at hand is. Thank you.

Heather Maahs: How about this one? This appears to be an ideological, partisan agenda that will close private businesses and instead award contracts, thereby punishing small business owners.

The Chair: Member.

Heather Maahs: What assurances can this government put in place that will protect and respect small business and entrepreneurs?

[3:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, unfortunately, this question is also out of order. Clause 1 is talking about the authority of school boards to provide child care. It’s solely that.

If you’d like to rephrase your question so it fits within clause 1 of this particular bill, that would be appreciated.

Heather Maahs: All right. How about I just ask this question. Will this government declare child care workers an essential service?

The Chair: Member for Chilliwack North, I’ve given a lot of latitude to this point.

Clause 1: “A board may provide a child care program on board property if the board is a licensee.” If we can make sure that the questions that you ask are framed within section 1, that would be appreciated.

Heather Maahs: As this committee may or may not be aware, I was a school board chair for 16 years, and Chilliwack was one of the pilot projects that took part in this.

The Chair: One second. I’d ask all members to be respectful and to ensure that individuals who are trying to ask questions are able to do so. Thank you.

Member, continue.

Heather Maahs: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the pilot project, which we don’t have any of the results from, unfortunately, I witnessed a situation where a private daycare across the road from a school was affected by this pilot project — hence, my line of questioning.

The Chair: I understand that you have a lived experience as a past school board trustee, but the questions that have to be asked, as we are in clause-by-clause review, have to relate to the clauses. I ask that the questions relate specifically to what is in the bill. Thank you.

Heather Maahs: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would vehemently disagree.

Just for the record, I do believe that it is pertinent information that is important for the public to know and understand.

I will let my colleague go ahead and ask some questions.

Lynne Block: On a positive note, I believe this amendment would certainly address the high percentage of families experiencing difficulty finding care, which was, in 2023, nearly 60 percent of people. It does have positives — increased access and scope, convenience for families and efficient use of existing infrastructure.

I’m hoping that the line that I would like to know about is a part of this. With the child care, there was the beginning…. It was September 2020 that the priorities and accountability cabinet committee approved the recommendation that by year 10 of the ChildCareBC plan, space creation funding eligibility would be limited to public organizations, Indigenous governments and non-profits.

June 17, 2021, a decision note was signed opting to discontinue for-profit eligibility for the new spaces fund.

In 2024, the B.C. NDP government provided $2 million in funding over two years to three school districts — Nechako Lakes, Chilliwack and Nanaimo-Ladysmith — as an initiative to create 180 new licensed child care spaces. When the 2024 program was announced, it included the commitment to gather information on implementing daycare spaces in schools.

I was wondering. Is there a report from that 2024…? If so, where is it, and what were the recommendations? Would this be provided to interested school districts who want to have their daycare or child care in their school district?

The Chair: Members, we are on Bill 19, the School Amendment Act, 2025. It’s an enabling piece of legislation. Clause 1 is speaking about whether or not a board is able to provide child care. The questions that one is asking have to relate as close as possible to the amendments that are here.

[3:45 p.m.]

If you would like to rephrase your question, and then the minister would be able to answer the question, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Lynne Block: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m just curious if there was any way that we could see what was happening in those districts that we can provide a child care program on board property moving forward. That’s my basic question. Would it be different? Were they all the same?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: We engage regularly with every single district in this province, all 60 of them. These amendments that we have before us today are reflective of common barriers experienced and expressed by all districts across this province.

The Chair: The committee is going to take a ten-minute break and return at 4:01 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:51 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 2025, back to order. We are on clause 1.

Heather Maahs: My colleague is going to ask a question.

The Chair: We’ll now recognize the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the enthusiasm with which you welcome me.

My question is on clause 1. It’s a question about the establishment of clause 1 and how it came to be. My question is really quite simple. What research has the minister conducted regarding a business case and cost-benefit analysis for this specific amendment?

Hon. Lisa Beare: We engage regularly with every single board across the province. The amendments we have before us reflect common barriers experienced by boards across this province. That’s what we’re doing, just removing those barriers.

Sheldon Clare: With respect to the minister’s response, that actually does not answer the question at all. What I’m asking about is regarding a business case and cost-benefit analysis, because it is clear that such a change has a great deal of effect on a number of aspects with regard to the operations of schools and the operation of daycare.

Having had some experience with this myself, I’m very interested in the government’s research and background beyond merely consulting with school districts. What have they done with stakeholder groups? What have they done with the various elements of the communities affected in regard to developing this proposal? Have they looked at the effect that this would have on broad aspects of the government’s budget, for example?

There are a number of issues here that I think are affecting this specific amendment.

The Chair: However, the minister did answer that question earlier about the various stakeholder groups that the minister and the ministry have interacted with, so move on to the next question.

Sheldon Clare: Removing that aspect of my question, again, what does the business case look like for this particular amendment?

Hon. Lisa Beare: Budgeting isn’t part of bill discussions. The bill we have before us reflects the conversations that we’ve had about the barriers that boards are experiencing in every single corner of the province.

Sheldon Clare: My question was not about budgeting. It was about the business case.

The Chair: Again, the minister has answered this question, and we are not in estimates. Next question.

[4:05 p.m.]

Lynne Block: I’d like to go back, if I may, to the 2024 successful program. Obviously the 2024 program in those three school districts proved successful so that….

I’m curious in terms of child development, and I’m curious about family support and community impact. Did that inform the changes in this bill for this particular clause 1?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Lisa Beare: The member asked about impact and about need for increased child care on school grounds. These amendments reflect the conversations and input we’ve had from all districts across the province and our stakeholder groups.

It’s an easy set of amendments for me to bring. This was an easy piece of legislation for me to get going because we all know the impact it’s going to have for families and what a difference it’s going to make for children and families in every corner of the province. It’s simple to bring this piece of legislation with these amendments because it’s the right thing to do.

Lynne Block: I want to thank you for your patience with the convoluted question.

It was looking…. I’ve got a…. I think what it is, is transparency and consistency across the province, right? That was what I’m aiming for, but it’s not right in that little clause. It’s like underneath, so looking at quality measurement metrics, PLOs, those sort of things.

I would love to have a coffee with you someday and have a chit-chat and talk about that.

Thank you very much for your time.

Heather Maahs: I would like to bring forward a motion to make an amendment.

The Chair: If you would like to speak to your motion, then we’ll take a look to determine if it’s in order, and if so, we’ll circulate it.

Heather Maahs: Thank you. So in order to move forward with this amendment, which the minister has said is easy to do because it’s going to benefit everybody…. I would further like to see that it actually does benefit everybody and enable parents to be able to access this in a meaningful way.

My motion is:

[CLAUSE 1 (b) by striking out “to the child” and substituting “to the child, provided that the fees do not exceed a cost of ten dollars per child for each day that the child care program is provided”]

The Chair: Thank you for your comments. We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:14 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 19, School Amendment Act, 2025, back to order.

I’ve received the amendment, moved by the member for Chilliwack North. The motion is to strike out “to the child” and substitute “to the child, provided that the fees do not exceed a cost of $10 per child for each day that the child care program is provided.”

I’ve deemed that the motion is out of order, as a result of there being expenditure.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Heather Maahs: I would just like to comment.

The Chair: On the amendment or something else?

Heather Maahs: On the amendment, if I may.

The Chair: No, you may not.

Heather Maahs: I may not? All right. Well, then, I have additional questions for clause 1.

The Chair: Take your time. You have 14 minutes.

Heather Maahs: Excellent.

Because clause 1 expands both who can deliver child care programs on school grounds and the types of care that may be provided, it’s important to understand the past commitments that the province has already made under its federal agreements.

Each Canada-B.C. action plan sets annual space creation targets for how many new child care spaces will be funded with federal dollars. Can the minister indicate what those overall targets were for ’23, ’24 and ’25?

[4:25 p.m.]

Having those figures on hand will help the committee track the change of pace in growth after these legislative changes take effect.

The Chair: Member, I’d ask that you clarify the question, because I’m not sure how that ties to clause 1.

Heather Maahs: Well, in clause 1, we’re discussing providing child care programs. If the board is a licensee, this would all be pertinent to it.

The Chair: You’re talking about federal spaces, and clause 1 speaks to providing a child care program.

Heather Maahs: Federal spaces awarded to B.C., British Columbia.

Okay, let me try another one.

Can the minister state how many new child care spaces on school grounds are expected to be created by the end of the ’25-26 fiscal year, and of those, how many are projected to be school-age spaces?

Hon. Lisa Beare: The bill has three lines.

The first line does two things. It removes restrictions to providing child care programs to enrolled students only in the district and removes the barrier that restricts to only before- and after-school care, so permitting for pro-D and breaks, for example.

The second line permits boards to recoup reasonable costs incurred in providing that child care, and the third line is to royal assent.

The member is talking about a future state and future work that will have to be done with districts across the province.

Heather Maahs: It’s a fair question. With the changes being made, the provisions to boards to expand, I don’t understand why this is not a fair question.

Can the minister provide the committee with the number of school-aged child care spaces funded through the ChildCareBC new spaces fund in ’23-24 and separately in ’24-25? Having those year-specific results will help establish a clear baseline for understanding the ministry’s pace of delivery before expanding board authority under clause 1.

The Chair: Unfortunately, that question is also out of order.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Scott McInnis: I would like to have a motion here to bring forward an amendment adding clause 2.1

The Chair: Member, we’ll have to deal with clause 2 first, and then you can do 2.1.

Scott McInnis: I was just testing you, Mr. Chair. I knew that’s what you would say.

Clause 2 approved.

Scott McInnis: Déjà vu here, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move a motion to bring forward an amendment to clause 2, adding subsection 2.1, which I will read now.

[CLAUSE 2.1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Reporting

2.1 (1) The minister must

(a) table an annual report in respect of the operation of the provisions of the School Act that are amended by this Act in the Legislative Assembly or deposit the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly if the Legislative Assembly is not then sitting, and

(b) publish the report on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the ministry.

(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) must provide detailed information on the following:

(a) capital costs related to the upgrading of school property and equipment;

(b) costs arising from infrastructure pressures;

(c) labour costs;

(d) costs related to consultation with the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation in respect of implementation;

(e) administration costs;

(f) general expenses.]

[4:30 p.m.]

If I just may add a couple of words, it’s just totally reasonable that there be some public accountability in moving forward with this amendment, so that the public, specifically families, are aware of what the general costs are going to be for this and communities know, taxpayers know, what we’re getting into here with this amendment. I think it’s just something that’s more of a housekeeping item more than anything.

Interjections.

The Chair: Hold on.

Members, there’s committee going on. There are committees going on right now, and you’re speaking very loudly. I’d ask that everyone please reduce their volume so that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke can make his question or explain his motion. Thank you.

Continue.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It’s just a simple accountability measure. I know there are some pilot projects, which I think are a great idea, around the province to sort of test the waters as far as how this is going to work around the province. We haven’t received any follow-up reports on those pilot projects yet. I’m sure they’ll be coming.

As we institute this legislation, I think this is a very fair and reasonable amendment to bring forward so that there is public accountability as to what we’re undertaking here today.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess, and we’ll come back at 4:36 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I’m going to call the committee back to order. If everyone can have their seats.

I have confirmed this amendment is in order. Members, we have an amendment to clause 2.1 in front of us.

On the amendment.

Hon. Lisa Beare: We will not be supporting this amendment for a few reasons, but I thank the member for bringing it forward, and I understand what the member was trying to accomplish.

The main reason is that the sections of the School Act that we’re talking about, and I’ve said it a number of times here, are all about the authority for boards to operate child care programs. It’s about removing the barriers for boards in operating child care on school grounds. Very specifically, that is what this section of the act does.

This amendment does not fit in this section of the act. The wording does not make sense, and it doesn’t have relevance to the section or to any of the sections we have before us. We will not be supporting the amendment.

The Chair: Division has been called.

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question i: shall amendment to clause 2.1 pass.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3
Kooner	Mok	Williams
NAYS — 6
Routledge	Osborne	Sunner
Beare	Phillip	Valeriote

[4:55 p.m.]

The Chair: I will just confirm for the record that it is noted that it was Valeriote who voted, not Botterell.

Clause 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:56 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 5:21 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20 to order.

I will look to the minister.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you. I just want to make sure I introduce the team that’s with me today and thank them for their work and for accompanying me through this committee stage.

We have Katie Armitage, JSB legal counsel; and we have Maria D’Archangelo, LSB senior legal counsel.

Thank you for coming.

On clause 1.

Donegal Wilson: I was wondering if the minister could just give us a high-level overview of this clause and what we’re trying to achieve with it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This clause sets out the definitions. Every time you want to have a defined term so it’s clear in the rest of the act what that term means, it’s set out in this definition clause.

Donegal Wilson: Is everything in the definitions a new definition, or are we adding anything specific? Is the whole clause new, or is it a couple things you’re adding?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The whole piece of legislation this time is brand-new. It’s introducing a whole new regime of prompt payment in the province. That includes these definitions.

Steve Kooner: I would ask: what brought this bill forward? Going to the general intent of this bill and the general latitude allowed on clause 1, I’d like to ask the question: what was the purpose and intent that the Attorney General’s department dealt with in order to bring this bill forward?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to say thanks for the question about the purpose of this legislation. It gives me an opportunity to talk about the advocacy and the great work that we did with a range of organizations from across the sector.

The general premise and idea of this bill is to fix what is a chronic problem in the construction sector. There are many different actors that go into building in the province, whether it’s a school or a hospital or just homes in communities. A chronic problem that was coming to us was lack of prompt payment.

That means that when you’re not paid on time, it affects not only workers on the front line. It affects the small businesses. It affects the pyramid or chain of payments that go through the sector at each level. So it means people have to carry on more debt. Potentially, it could lead to the rise in costs of projects. They could take longer, and workers on the front line suffer.

Just to say that we’re really grateful for a group of people that sat down with us to set up a working group.

I’ll give you an idea of who they were: B.C. Construction Association; B.C. Electrical Association; B.C. Insulation Contractors Association; British Columbia Sheet Metal Association; Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C.; Concrete B.C., Electrical Contractors Association; Fenestration and Glazing Industry Alliance; Ferro Building Systems; Contractors Alliance Canada; Mechanical Contractors Association of B.C.; Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada; Roofing Contractors Association of B.C.; B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association; the Urban Development Institute and the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies, British Columbia; along with others.

So just the breadth of people that offered their expertise and perspectives and sat down with us a couple years ago to first look at other provinces and what was happening with prompt payment and also help us work towards what we have before us today.

I want to extend my gratitude to those groups and the many more that worked with us.

Steve Kooner: Was this an exhaustive list of the parties that were consulted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not an exhaustive list. I just wanted to note that this was a round table that we held in 2023 and 2024. The members that I listed were the organizations that participated in that round table with us.

Steve Kooner: There is another organization that is a very, very large organization, the ICBA. Did the Attorney General’s department get a chance to consult with them in regards to this bill and the preparation of this bill?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This conversation and discussion have been going on for a very long time. We took some time to go through all the different opportunities or times that we consulted with the sector. It may not be exhaustive. But just for the particular ICBA that the member raised, there was a round table on August 27 with the BCBC, and I think a member was there.

Also, we’ve had a lot of really public…. Every time we did a round table…. I know because in the ones that I was a part of, we always invited people that were present to give feedback on anything that was happening or give us their ideas. Katie and her team were very good about meeting with everybody. So all the opportunities would have started probably when we struck the round table in 2023 for sectors and industry organizations to come forward and meet with us.

[5:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Why I bring up the name of ICBA…. ICBA, like I mentioned earlier, is probably one of the larger organizations or maybe even the largest organization involving independent contractors in this province, representing a lot of contractors.

It’s important to know what they had to say. I understand there may have been a meeting done or there may have been a round table done, but I would like to know what they actually said, and I would like to know what was said to them.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We just had to dig to see, because it has been going on for so long, how to answer the member’s question. It’s a pretty broad question, but I’ll just say that maybe it helps by giving the opportunities that we’ve had for ICBA to participate.

The first one would have been…. I talked about the round table a long time ago, like 2023, where we had set up a table and sought input. In April 2025, we confirmed that we would be moving forward with the legislation.

We didn’t receive anything in writing or a request for a meeting from ICBA, but they did attend, on August 27, a round table that was held by BCBC. Then, I’m told that my ADM, Paul, called Chris, who’s the head of the association, just to talk it through.

To go back to the round table at that time, at the round table there was a walk-through of the legislation, a walk-through of what we were including and a request for any further feedback. I’ve never received, directly from them, correspondence or anything to say that they had a problem with the content of what we were putting forward, even before it was a bill.

[5:45 p.m.]

Then I’ll just confirm that in January of 2025, ICBA did a survey of all of their members, and 31 percent said that prompt payment was a big issue. So I think it was supported by the work they did with their own members.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General aware that ICBA put out a press release on October 7 demanding immediate clarity in terms of this prompt payment legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. I was, and I’ll note that these concerns were not communicated to me before the bill or at any other opportunities that they might have had to raise that.

I’m actually really looking forward to getting into the other clauses of the bill so we can get into details of what’s contained in the bill, just to show that the concerns that they raised in that October 7 release are completely unfounded. It would have been helpful for them to raise it earlier so we could have clarified that they were unfounded.

Steve Kooner: For the record, can the Attorney General, in her own words, let this chamber know what the concerns of ICBA are that the Attorney General finds unfounded?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we both know, but I’ll just say it for the record. The public statement was that the prompt payment wouldn’t apply to public projects which, like I said, is completely unfounded. I’m happy, once we get to those clauses in the bill, to talk through that.

Steve Kooner: One thing I missed earlier when I said ICBA, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association…. I said that they’re the largest independent contractor in B.C. They’re actually one of the largest, probably the largest, in Canada. That’s how big they are. They’re a very large organization comprised of a lot of independent contractors.

This organization represents a very significant amount of people that engage in this type of work, the subject matter of this particular bill, so it’s very important that we do touch upon what their concerns are in order to make sure this bill fulfills what it’s meant to fulfil. It should equally apply to everyone, whether they’re private bodies or public bodies.

If one of the most significant independent contractor organizations has an issue, that needs to be debated and that needs to be mentioned. We need to probe whether there are actual, in fact, solutions to their problems or their issues actually within this bill. That’s an important point.

Like the Attorney General said, we are going to go through the bill further, and I will probe the bill as we get to those sections and clauses in regards to this. I just want to put that on the record so that issue is still a live issue.

In addition to the ICBA…. The Attorney General mentioned that this was in the works, I think, since 2023. I think in second reading, the Attorney General also mentioned that there may have been samples from other provinces that have adopted similar legislation.

The question here is: which provinces did the Attorney General’s department look at, and what was the feedback there? Was this legislation exactly similar to the other legislation, or was it tweaked up in any way? Was it watered down in any way? Maybe give explanation in that regard.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to follow what the member raised, because of the prominence that, the member says, ICBA has in the sector, it is unfortunate that they didn’t engage us at all during the development of it, despite our attempts to do that over a few years, or give written submissions about what they thought. It is unfortunate. The only public thing that they have said is after the bill has been released. I’ll just keep that and then move on to the question.

Every time we draft legislation, I have a really good team here that looks across every province, because there may be different versions of legislation or different versions of how they do collections that we need to look at. In this case, Ontario introduced prompt payment legislation in 2019. They also put amendments in, in 2024. They were the first province to do that.

I think in many respects we had the benefit of…. First of all, how has it worked since 2019 in Ontario’s putting it in place? Did it do what it was supposed to do? Is it providing for prompter payments and better culture in the sector? And the amendments of 2024…. We really had the benefit of looking at both of those to model legislation in B.C. that would fit B.C.’s circumstances, in particular, but also to go for what we know would work.

Gavin Dew: I just wanted to make sure I fully understand what the Attorney General just said. I think what I heard the Attorney General say was that there had been no engagement with groups like the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. Is that what the Attorney General said?

Would you like to clarify what you meant with regard to engagement with the ICBA on this particular bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know the member just got here, but we were talking extensively about all of the engagement that we’ve had, including with the ICBA. We’ve gone over all the different organizations, including that organization, that we have met with.

Gavin Dew: The reason I raised the concern is that I have spent considerable time canvassing a number of different bills with the Attorney General, in which it has been rather evident that the government is disinterested in hearing from the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, which has been the most vocal critic of the risk of government excluding public sector procurement from this particular bill.

I am just trying to get to the bottom of whether there is a specific disinterest in hearing that feedback that was perhaps evident in the consultation process or in the lack of engagement. I’d really like to understand how government has gone about engaging ICBA and in particular whether, to what extent and by whom they have gone about engaging with that particular stakeholder.

There has been quite a substantial amount of commentary in the media about the issue of public sector procurement. Has there been any effort to reach out and engage with that particular stakeholder since they have made their extensive commentary in the media about the issue of public sector procurement?

The Chair: I’m just going to remind everybody that we are on clause 1, on definitions. I have given some latitude, but I will go back to the definitions and clause 1 specifically.

Steve Kooner: I think it’s a general latitude to talk about the consultation on the bill when we’re talking about clause 1. I guess I’ve debated about six, seven bills already, and that has always been my experience here at the Legislative Assembly. It’s really difficult to ask general consultation questions on different clauses. That’s why we set it up in clause 1.

The Chair: Member, you have referenced other ones as well. I will give some leeway, but we are on clause 1, on definitions. Some of these questions are becoming repetitive. I just ask that you change your framing of your questions.

[5:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Sure. We were referring to Ontario earlier and references were mentioned with Ontario. Were there any other provinces that were consulted — for example, Alberta?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Along with Ontario, my team met with Alberta, New Brunswick and Canada. Those are some of the conversations that were had. Also, like I mentioned earlier, they’re following all the pieces of legislation, or legislation that could cover this, in other provinces.

Steve Kooner: The main example that was mentioned earlier was Ontario, and now we’ve been told that Alberta and New Brunswick and a couple of other provinces were looked at as well.

What was the experience that was learned upon? Was that legislation essentially following what Ontario had produced, or did that legislation have some differences?

The references…. When we’re looking at this particular legislation, I know the Attorney General went at length to talk about Ontario and what Ontario had done back in 2019 and then how they did an amendment in 2024, but there weren’t any references specifically to any other provinces.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s too hard to answer this in the abstract because each clause is different, and we can’t generalize. What my team was tasked with, and did do, was to look at all of the examples out there and come up with something that applies to B.C., through the discussions with B.C. organizations that we mentioned.

I’m happy to go through it clause by clause, but just generally speaking, I’ll give you one example. With Alberta, they had initially put legislation forward that only covered private projects. Then, more recently, because of their experience, they’re expanding it to public. That’s why ours is broad, and it includes private and public because it’s one of the lessons that we learned from looking at Alberta.

Misty Van Popta: Looking at some of the definitions — for instance, “notice of adjudication” and “notice of non-payment” — it refers to a section which describes the process for those two items, whereas “proper invoice” has a meaning given to it in section 7.

Now, if I look at section 7 and the proper invoice, it actually specifies what details need to be included. But I notice, in this bill, especially as it comes to notice of adjudication and notice of non-payment, there are not parameters on those details, as to what a proper notice of adjudication is or a notice of non-payment.

Could the minister please explain why it’s not included in the definition section?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a drafting convention that I’m told by the team here is a way to really…. I think that….

[The bells were rung.]

Seems like a little…. Okay. Well, stay tuned for the rest of that answer.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands down.

The committee rose at 6:01 p.m.