Contents

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Good afternoon, everybody. We’ll call the House to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Terry Yung: In the chamber, I’d like to call second reading on Bill 31.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I’d like to call committee on Bill 20.

Point of Order

Peter Milobar: I’m just seeking some clarification or a point of order or something.

Before lunch, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation was the acting Government House Leader. The committee Chair reported out progress and sought leave to sit again on Bill 20. The Chair asked the acting Government House Leader, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, when they shall sit again. He said, “At the next sitting after today,” not at the next sitting.

The opposition assumed, based on a minister of the Crown stating that Bill 20 wouldn’t be up for debate until tomorrow, that it wouldn’t be coming up right after lunch. I’m not sure how we reconcile that. I did check the Hansard. It does not have it in the Blues, but it was verbally said.

I don’t know if we need to take a short recess so that the video and the audio can be reviewed instead. We’re not trying to play games here, but obviously, we do have critics and that, and we would also need to know what the government’s plan was. We weren’t sure if they were just planning on standing down the Douglas Fir for the rest of the afternoon when the acting Government House Leader, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, had stated that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member. Perhaps we’ll do exactly that. We’ll take a three-minute recess. Thank you.

The House recessed from 1:34 p.m. to 1:40 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much for your patience, Members.

We will call this House back to order, and I’ll call on the Government House Leader.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the member opposite’s raising the issue.

I will call committee stage Bill 29 in the Douglas Fir Room.

Peter Milobar: Just to clarify, I know it’s a different chamber, but will there be a few minutes’ grace so we can get the appropriate critics organizing all the…? The minister and their staff must have to get organized too. I’m not even sure which ministers are involved in Bill 29.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The minister for Bill 29 has been informed and will be in there. And if members will get in there, they will start as soon as they get there.

I appreciate your patience, Chair.

Deputy Speaker: We will continue debate on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act of 2025, in this chamber.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Kristina Loewen: As is the case with many policy proposals that this government comes up with, there appears to be potential for unintended consequences in this bill. This bill, Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, is yet another example of an attempt to do one thing while creating more problems.

At first glance, this bill may appear to simply be a technical amendment aimed at streamlining the operation of energy policy. But if we dig deeper, and when we do, there are serious concerns that we need to address. These changes are not just technicalities. They have the potential to drastically reshape the landscape of public utilities in this province, the affordability of energy for families and business and the future of renewable energy projects.

As we know, inexpensive, efficient energy is a cornerstone to providing quality of life and prosperity to British Columbians. It’s key to British Columbians having rather than being have-nots. Beneath the surface, this bill offers a set of sweeping changes to the way in which B.C. Hydro operates, and that will have wide-ranging impacts for B.C. residents and businesses. It has a range of implications to our province’s independence, Indigenous partnerships, and it paves the way to government overreach.

To be clear, the B.C. Conservative caucus supports measures that advance energy innovation. We support First Nations partnerships and the attraction of economically promising infrastructure like hydrogen production facilities and data centres. For context, from 2017 to 2021, so did this government when it came to promotion of energy-intensive industries. Crypto, hydrogen, carbon capture, synthetic fuel production and new mines were all industries that were listed as key load attraction opportunities in the B.C. Hydro 2021 electrification plan.

Today this government has completely reversed course with Bill 31, providing cabinet with the ability to essentially cut those sectors off from the grid. And they want to do so by giving the Premier and his cabinet a host of new powers that equate to blank-cheque authority with impunity.

The most pressing concern I have with this bill is its impact on B.C. Hydro. For years, B.C. Hydro has been a trusted public utility providing affordable, reliable power to B.C. and to British Columbians. The government has long championed the idea of keeping our energy systems in public hands. But with this bill, we see that commitment being questioned. Is this intentional or an oversight? Either way, it is concerning.

Bill 31 proposes allowing B.C. Hydro to enter into ownership agreements with First Nations to build parts of the North Coast transmission line. While the intention of these agreements may be well-meaning, this is a first step in what could lead to privatization or fragmentation of a public asset that British Columbians have relied upon for decades.

[1:45 p.m.]

While this bill might be portrayed as necessary to build the North Coast transmission line, the reality is that B.C. Hydro already has all the authority it needs to build this line. So why rush to change the structure of B.C. Hydro at all? This feels like a backdoor attempt to privatize public assets, to open the door to private ownership and the management of critical infrastructure. And that’s a path we should be wary of.

Let me be clear. It’s one thing to buy power from independent power producers. It’s another entirely for B.C. Hydro to sell off portions of the transmission lines themselves. Once we start fragmenting the ownership and control of such vital infrastructure, it’s only a matter of time before we see prices rise and access become more difficult for ordinary British Columbians. In short, we risk losing control over the very utility we’ve worked so hard to build, and things are a lot easier to dismantle than they are to build.

Most British Columbians cannot afford one more increase to the cost of living. They are already stretched. They are already hurting, never mind what might happen if energy costs were to rise significantly. That would affect everything — heating homes, growing food, operating vehicles.

B.C. Hydro is one of our most valuable public assets that has ultimately been built, over many decades, off the backs of taxpayers. As a result, that means that it shouldn’t and cannot be hidden from public scrutiny by a government that continues to attempt to escape basic accountability.

Bill 31 has two major parts. First, it would authorize B.C. Hydro to enter into limited partnerships with First Nations for the North Coast transmission line, with phases from Prince George to Fraser Lake to Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake. Second, it will expand cabinet’s power to restrict or set rates for electricity used for projects within the realms of cryptocurrency mining, energy production and information technology.

On its face, these seem like pillars for future economic development opportunities, but I don’t believe it is as it seems. First, as I mentioned before, B.C. Hydro already has full legislative authority to construct and operate the North Coast transmission line. In other words, no new legislation is required for Indigenous partnerships to be struck. That is mere smoke and mirrors for this piece of legislation. More concerning is the back door to sweetheart deals it offers should it pass successfully in its current state.

The fact of the matter is that empowering B.C. Hydro, as the government claims, will instead create a secretive mechanism for partial privatization. What are the implications of such measures? Well, by allowing limited partnerships, B.C. Hydro’s control of transmission infrastructure can effectively be sold or have ownership transferred to private or semi-private entities, which is a massive shift away from public utility principles.

Worse yet is the bill’s facilitation of cabinet to designate agreements by order, thereby bypassing public or legislative review. Let’s put this into stark perspective. This would mean public or legislative review could entirely be eliminated for potential agreements worth hundreds of millions of dollars in public assets.

It must be mentioned that when it comes to its record on upholding the public trust, this is a government that continues to favour the interests of politically connected or expedient insiders over British Columbians. Let me summarize just a few of the most egregious examples in recent times.

Former NDP cabinet minister George Heyman received a sweetheart soft landing to advise the government on public sector bargaining, which clearly isn’t working in light of our current state of labour gridlock. A secret contract to former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant, worth up to $300,000 annually, was only cancelled after public outcry. They even doled out an obscene $450,000 contract to a joke writer for the Premier’s speeches.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I might direct you back to Bill 31. Or at least, show me how it’s going to connect to Bill 31, please.

Kristina Loewen: Which begs the question, Mr. Speaker. Why should anyone across the province have faith that these agreements by order will ever favour the collective rather than the governing party’s friends and allies?

But why would they even ask for this power? Why don’t they want the accountability and the transparency, which have always been key components of North American democracies?

[1:50 p.m.]

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve that. They deserve transparency and accountability, and quite frankly, I’m honoured to stand here today to demand that for them.

What is super odd? It’s the government’s consistent rhetoric championing public power for the sake of quality, consistent and reasonably priced energy for everyone. That has now been completely upended with the introduction of a bill that quietly sets a path that entertains and even reinforces selling pieces of the corporation’s ownership off indiscriminately.

The danger lies in the precedent that the first deal that comes as a result of this legislation will set. Once a portion of the transmission line is co-owned, there will be little to no mechanism to prevent future incremental divestment of B.C. Hydro’s entire portfolio of assets.

The Conservative Party of British Columbia has long championed market-based solutions like nuclear energy generation, as well as wind and solar, as a departure from our current monopoly model, always in the name of meeting greater demand at consistent, reasonable pricing. In the context of what is contained in Bill 31, our caucus favours alternative measures that advance the notion of shared property, reined in with clear governance structures rather than vague co-ownership deals.

First, revenue-sharing or benefit agreements should ensure ongoing returns for First Nations, without losing ownership control.

Small modular reactor projects or regional microgrids have proven successful in Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick within transparent provincial-federal frameworks. In B.C.’s case, they could be an alternative to building 500 kVA transmission lines across 700 kilometres of rugged terrain — construction that, as I’ve already mentioned, will have its wheels greased by agreements that advance politics rather than the interests of people.

We are here in this House today to represent all British Columbians and to speak up for their interests. I’m not convinced that this bill represents their concerns at all.

Along those lines, literally and figuratively, is the second major component of this bill, which will repeal and replace section 21.1 of the Utilities Commission Act in order to ban, ration or set special rates for entire industries. This is far beyond the concept of technical regulation that the government is trying so desperately to convince us of.

Rather, in the governing party’s typical “centralized control of the economy” thinking, the government, rather than the marketplace, will be able to pick winners and losers in the energy economy, all through the hidden stroke of a pen.

It isn’t simply the fact that insiders will have a clear path to getting ahead at the expense of average British Columbians. It’s the total and complete carte blanche that this legislation will give to cabinet once again.

They would be able to ban or restrict the use of B.C. Hydro electricity for certain activities. They’d be able to set their own rates without any recourse for reconsideration. They would be able to cap, ration or select recipients for electricity services. But the scariest part about all of this is the fact that Hydro would then be able to recover lost revenue from taxpayers for any money-losing project investments that this government deems viable.

B.C.’s already fragile economy does not need more incompetence from this government. As I detailed earlier, this government picks and chooses champions in this economy as often as the weather forecast predicts rain along B.C.’s coastlines.

AI and data-processing infrastructure is now no longer of interest to this government, but that does not mean that their potential for long-term employment, tax revenues and international technological investment have gone by the wayside. In fact, our fellow partners in confederation in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are actively competing for international investment in these industries that the NDP has suddenly lost interest in.

Ironically, their turn away from hydrogen through potential export bans flies in the face of the government’s own rhetoric on clean fuel production.

I want to mention the huge cost that the North Coast transmission line is slated to cost, without any mention of a full cost-benefit analysis or load justification to back up the government’s plan. British Columbians deserve upfront, transparent disclosure. How much will this cost every home and every citizen?

[1:55 p.m.]

With B.C. Hydro’s capital debt already exceeding $27 billion and this province’s overall debt tripling since this government took power, there are other choices that can be made in the name of B.C. taxpayers. More specifically, politically motivated megaprojects ultimately mean less money available to support greater affordability, local energy security or investment in upgrading aging grid infrastructure.

As the MLA for Kelowna Centre, I know the importance of energy to our local businesses and our families. In the Okanagan, we’re seeing an increasing demand for clean, affordable power, especially as new technologies and industries continue to grow in our region. Our wineries, tech start-ups and tourism-based businesses rely on reliable and affordable energy to thrive. Just as we are working to diversify our local economy, we need to ensure that our energy infrastructure is designed to support that growth.

That’s why I believe we must focus on the long-term sustainability of our public utilities, and that’s why I’m concerned about the direction that Bill 31 seems to be taking us in. We need to be cautious, and we need to make thoughtful decisions and prioritize the needs of British Columbians, not the interests of private corporations looking to profit off our public resources.

I want to make it clear that while I recognize the importance of modernizing our energy systems and addressing the challenges of the future, I have serious concerns about the direction this bill is taking. Bill 31 opens the door to the privatization of B.C. Hydro, undermines previously successful policy initiatives for new industries and raises questions about how we regulate emerging sectors.

As we move forward, I will continue to raise these concerns, seek input from my constituents and work with my colleagues across the aisle to ensure that we make the right decisions for the people of British Columbia and the communities of Kelowna and the Central Okanagan. Together we can ensure that our energy future is sustainable and affordable and controlled by the people of British Columbia. I look forward to engaging in further discussion and hearing answers during the committee stage.

In closing, Bill 31 is unnecessary, overreaching and poorly aligned with B.C.’s potential energy future. It risks privatization of public assets, political interference in electricity markets and dampening international investment in favour of behind-closed-door politics favouring the governing party. Simply put, public power must remain accountable to the public interest, which should always supersede unlimited cabinet orders, political interests or quiet partnerships signed away from scrutiny.

I strongly encourage the government to withdraw this power-grabbing bill entirely. Let’s bring one that is better aligned with the notion of building an independent, equitable and sustainable energy future in B.C. It’s paramount that we commit to bills in this House today that make life better and more affordable for all British Columbians.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair wishes to provide some clarity to the House with respect to business that is being undertaken.

In Section A, we had a little bit of confusion earlier. At the call of orders of the day, the acting Government House Leader called committee on Bill 20 in Section A, and those proceedings got underway before the point of order that was raised by the member for Kamloops Centre was resolved.

It appears that the responsible minister and critic are engaging in debate in Section A without further objection raised. Therefore, the item of business first called by the acting Government House Leader, being committee on Bill 20, is permitted to proceed.

Now, continuing in this chamber with Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, debate, we will recognize our member for Maple Ridge East.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to speak on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. As the member from Maple Ridge and Mission, I represent families, workers and small business owners in the eastern part of Metro Vancouver, people who already face high living costs and rising B.C. Hydro bills.

[2:00 p.m.]

When we talk about major energy projects like the proposed North Coast transmission line, we must be honest about who will be paying the bill. It will not just be the people on the north coast. It will be every ratepayer across British Columbia, including the hard-working families in Maple Ridge, Albion, Kanaka Creek and the communities east of us, like Mission, Abbotsford and Chilliwack.

Bill 31 gives the government new powers to speed up the construction of the North Coast transmission line, a 500-kilovolt, high-voltage line running hundreds of kilometres from near Prince George to Terrace and beyond. The government says that two phases alone will cost about $6 billion, before we even include the full extension towards Bob Quinn Lake.

The government wants to move this project outside the full oversight of the B.C. Utilities Commission, the independent body that normally reviews the need for and the cost of major energy projects. That should worry every British Columbian who pays a hydro bill.

When projects of this mega size go ahead without full review, we risk cost overruns, delays and higher rates. Because B.C. Hydro spreads its costs across all customers, that means every one of us pays, even the families in Maple Ridge and Mission who will never see or use that line.

Let’s be very clear. The people in my riding will not get cheaper power or new, local jobs from this project, yet the hydro bills may rise to help pay for it. I don’t think that is fair.

We have learned from history that large, remote infrastructure projects like the Site C dam can face huge cost overruns, environmental damage and construction delays. The terrain between Prince George and the north coast is rugged and remote. Building and maintaining high-voltage lines through mountains and forests will be very expensive and risky. When storms, landslides or wildfires strike, repair costs will climb. Over time, these costs add up. Again, every hydro customer across the province shares that financial burden.

Before we spend billions more, we should ask a simple question: is there a better, cheaper way to meet the north coast’s power needs? I believe there are smarter, more local solutions that can deliver power where it is needed without forcing all of British Columbia’s ratepayers to foot the bill.

Let me highlight three of these.

First, natural gas generation near the north coast. British Columbia has plentiful natural gas reserves, especially in the North. Building modern, efficient, gas-fired plants near industrial users like mines, ports and LNG terminals would create local jobs, shorten build times and reduce the need for long transmission lines.

Cleaner natural gas technology can provide reliable base power while still moving toward a lower-emission future. It makes economic sense to use energy resources already in the region, rather than spending on costly power lines across half the province.

Second, wood waste and biomass generation. The north coast and Interior have many mills and forestry operations that produce wood waste, such as sawdust, bark and chips, that often end up burned or wasted. That material can fuel biomass power plants to create clean, renewable energy close to where it is needed.

[2:05 p.m.]

B.C. Hydro’s own studies have shown that the province could generate thousands of gigawatt hours per year from wood-based biomass. Using this local resource keeps dollars in the community, reduces waste and creates jobs.

Third, small modular nuclear reactors. Across Canada, new small modular reactors, SMRs for short, are being developed in Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick. These units can provide 10 to 300 megawatts of clean, reliable energy. I’m quite familiar with electrical energy sources. I, myself, am a trained electrical engineer.

Instead of one massive transmission line, an SMR located near the north coast could power major industries directly with less environmental disruption and lower long-term costs. SMRs can be built in factories, shipped to site and installed faster than large hydro or transmission projects.

These local options — gas, biomass and SMRs — offer flexibility, resilience and fairness. They’d serve the north coast needs without putting the entire financial burden on hydro customers from Maple Ridge to Victoria, from Fort St. John to Mackenzie.

The families in Maple Ridge and Mission work hard. They already face higher grocery bills, higher gas prices and higher interest rates. The last thing they need is another jump in their hydro bill to pay for a project hundreds of kilometres away.

Yes, we must support development on the north coast, but we must do it in a responsible, fair way. Every dollar B.C. Hydro spends comes from the pockets of British Columbians, whether through their bills or through the provincial debt that Hydro carries. When government exempts a multi-billion-dollar project from full review, it removes the checks and balances that protect ratepayers. It puts political convenience ahead of fiscal responsibility. That is not acceptable to the people of Maple Ridge, Mission and the rest of the province.

What should we do instead?

First, the government should require a full, transparent cost-benefit analysis comparing this long transmission line to local generation options, including natural gas, biomass and small modular reactors.

Second, any future investment must ensure regional fairness, so that the costs of industrial growth in one part of the province are not unfairly pushed onto households elsewhere.

Third, the government should strengthen the B.C. Utilities Commission’s role, not weaken it, so that independent experts can review major projects and protect ratepayers.

Finally, we must plan our energy future around diversity and resilience — smaller, cleaner, locally controlled generation, not one giant, risky transmission line.

British Columbians deserve affordable, reliable power, not blank cheques for megaprojects. We can and should help the north coast to grow, but we must do it wisely, in a way that protects all B.C. Hydro customers, including the people I represent in Maple Ridge and Mission.

Let us not rush into another multi-billion-dollar gamble that every ratepayer will be forced to cover for decades. Let us pause, review and choose smarter local energy solutions that serve both the North and the South, both industry and families.

The people of Maple Ridge, Mission and all British Columbians deserve nothing less.

[2:10 p.m.]

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise to speak today about Bill 31 intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, and the very similar nature that we’re seeing for bills like this coming from this government in response to, I think, an outcry from British Columbians around the often slow, confusing and arduous processes that have been holding up investment in British Columbia. Not only that; we’ve seen many investors actually give up and have to relocate somewhere else, so we actually lose their business forever.

This government, rather than take a look at those processes and bring forward legislation that is thoughtful to address some of those measures that many sectors, many partners, many Indigenous communities have said could be done in a much better way…. Their answer is to then push forward legislation that, again, is very similar and, what we’ve seen happen in the spring session, that completely goes in the other direction.

By doing so, what we see is a centralized power with cabinet to make regulations. When we read and look into the legislation itself, really, it is an undefined set of decisions that could be made or could not be made for a definite time or an indefinite time, or charges to be paid for some and not for others. The language in here, honestly, is so wide and giving so much leeway to cabinet that we would never know what they are doing, really, if this legislation passes the way that it is written here today.

Not only is that concerning with regards to just the opening pieces when you open it up and read what’s actually written here, but the idea that — as has been pointed out by some of the critics out there looking at this legislation, as well, not just within the House — the fact that a public utility would have the ability to collect costs it incurs, of revenue forecasted to be lost, as a result of a regulation under this section….

Reading into that also says that customers and our constituents, the people that we represent, are also then going to be on the hook if any utility forecasts revenues that, in fact, they don’t get.

Sounding the alarm on just a few things with regards to those pieces, it also seems as though we’ve seen…. Time after time, we’ve pointed out the flaws in the consultation process and the things that are missed as this legislation is rushed forward. We see glacier speed on some things, and then the reaction is to come out like the Flash so that no one can catch what’s actually happening. Neither really seems to be a fit for the sector, for Indigenous partners, communities, leaders and for British Columbians.

When we take a look at some of the other high-level purposes of this legislation in answering to the dire need for the ability for us to power ourselves with electricity, we know that B.C. has been importing electricity for quite some time, at least 25 percent, up to 30 percent. So we’re relying on these external sources, and according to the way we would put this legislation forward, this is an answer to that.

[2:15 p.m.]

Well, that’s all good and well. Except when you look at the timelines and you look at what it purports to be able to deliver, we’ve been outpacing ourselves in electricity for a long time to come. This warning has been the writing on the wall for a long time, for this government to recognize and realize, and this is a drop in the bucket in terms of what’s needed.

By the standards of CleanBC and some other targets that we’re made to believe can be met, we’re not using our own resources to the fullest of our capacity. Because while we’re limiting ourselves on the ability to use our own natural resources, natural gas provided through LNG, it doesn’t really…. Again, the equation doesn’t quite add up to me when I put all of the pieces together. Because as we limit ourselves, we import electricity, while other countries get to benefit from what B.C. has to offer.

I cannot seem to put together exactly how this bill, the way it’s written and put in front of us today, is supposed to be the answer to all of that, especially since we look at some of the questions that have been brought forward and concerns brought forward by members around the consultation process.

We asked again last session which First Nations have been consulted. If we’re going to go by the standards that this government has set out, which again we pointed out are maybe not the best mechanisms to prove consultation, free, prior and informed consent: “Yes, we held a meeting. Yes, we put out a letter.” Who attended the meeting? How many yeses? How many nos?

Then when you reach out to these communities and ask about the consultation process, they either haven’t been consulted meaningfully, as the government states they have, or they have no idea. And then what we find happens after the fact, by the proof that legislation’s already been pulled from this session because of that concern…. Instead of taking the ownership for not consulting properly on a piece of legislation, they tried to put it on the head of the city when that own minister, who had that legislation, had the duty to consult and didn’t.

So we’re scapegoating left, right and centre about how there are other entities out there that should be consulting. But really, the duty to consult and to ensure that the legislation that passes in this House has properly gone through the procedures that they’ve outlined they need to go through, and then we find out they have not….

I point to, again, some very concerning legal challenges that have been brought forth, now at a federal level, concerning projects that B.C. has assured us are green-lit. Then we find out, through publication of APTN News, that in fact, two Indigenous nations are saying they have not been consulted properly on this, although the province said that they were. This is a federal matter now that’s bringing the federal legal system into this.

Why it matters and why it’s related is because Metlakatla clearly states that in all consultations and dealings, the province has grossly understated the strength of the Coast Tsimshian claim, grounded on erroneous analysis and conclusions of provincial employees who lack relevant qualifications. So we see another project supposedly green-lit by this government, only to have nations come forth and say that the consultation was not done up to standard.

[2:20 p.m.]

I would bet…. And I’m not a betting person. Let’s be clear. I did not bet on the game — maybe I should have — last night.

But I would bet that if we took a look at this legislation in its current form and asked critical questions of all of the nations that will be impacted by the change of regulation and the ability for cabinet to make these decisions by their hand alone on who gets power when, by what amount and measure, and which projects they deem to be economically viable, we may not see the consensus that is purported and reported in the promotion of this legislation as it is right now.

So by that measure, and bringing forth those concerns with the legislation as it is right now, we do have questions, some very specific questions that we’d be bringing forward in terms of, again, meaningful consultation and the vast amount of land in kilometres that this transmission line actually will cross and the effects that it’s going to have and where Indigenous communities have been consulted and have been involved. Then, of course, that’s all there.

But it does seem that we tend to gloss over that, again, by this government’s own admission, any legislation brought forward that is going to directly affect Indigenous partners or interests or their free, prior and informed consent…. By that admission, they would have been thoroughly involved in how the legislation was formed and written today. And not just the impact of the transmission line. I mean the legislation — knowing that once it’s passed, decisions will be made and consultation is actually by choice of the government.

It is in the spirit of those points that I have to make and some things that I was able to take a look at, just briefly, in opening up the legislation myself and doing a little bit of research and talking to stakeholders and people who may be affected by this…. Again, looking at the evidence of legislation that we’ve seen come through, which was then reported not to have been consulted…. We heard the outcry of Indigenous leaders across British Columbia in terms of it.

I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 31) intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I think what we’ll do is take a moment to consume the motion, and we’ll call a brief recess to circulate that to our members.

We’ll just go into a quick recess, please.

The committee recessed from 2:24 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll call the chamber back to order.

We are currently circulating, to our members joining us online, the motion introduced by the House Leader for the official opposition: “I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 31, intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence.’” We will now consider debate on that motion.

On the amendment.

Á’a:líya Warbus: In proposing the amendment to this legislation, I just want to make it very clear that this is not about holding our resources, projects, development or partnerships or any kind of undue prosperity for British Columbia hostage. The idea, in coming back to legislation and requesting a very brief stay and a six-month period to thoroughly answer questions that members from this side of the House have, is really about accountability and transparency.

[2:30 p.m.]

My worry and my concern…. Too often what we have in the kind of language that comes through and in the effect of these types of legislation is that it’s seen as the ability — again by cabinet, by this government — to pick and choose, through language that is vague, and to be able to cherry-pick on partnerships or consultations that are successful. While others that are either striving to be competitive, to be noticed by this government, or have been ignored completely in a consultation process, as we’ve seen and as we’ve heard — that those voices get a chance to be, at least, in conversation, in a six-month period that would allow for necessary changes to legislation such as this to be made.

And by that, being accountable to people who may have concerns, such as we’ve brought forward, around the wide parameters that are afforded to a government to make, again, these kinds of decisions today…. But who’s to say, with the language that’s outlined here, that those decisions don’t drastically change in the other direction? There are no guardrails there.

When a line directly from here says “can make regulations respecting provision” and then lists cryptocurrency, electronic data, electronic data used for artificial intelligence or to produce hydrogen for use outside Canada, what you don’t see is provisions for what. To limit? To enhance? To curb? Because it’s so wide, it actually just grants the power to make any provision. Today it could be one thing, and later on it could be another.

That should be concerning for British Columbians. That should be concerning for people. If we just let this type of legislation and decision-making pass, then again…. I point to stakeholders, investors, municipalities, communities that are impacted, and not just Indigenous communities. We’ve seen the record that this government has with municipalities in terms of the conflict on where decision-making starts and ends and the encroachment onto what many mayors and city councillors have said is within their purview. They don’t feel heard.

So this six months, as I said, on the timelines that are outlined by the press release, is really just an additional pause, a slight pause on pushing this forward until it doesn’t see the light of day again, until no one can touch it because now it’s become law. That, to me, again is….

If we don’t push back on that and we don’t provide a mechanism for really, really important stakeholders to have their say in a timeline that, by this press release, I think, says 2032, 2034…. That’s really just going to be so that the checks and balances that we’re saying need to be addressed can be. And then there’s time later to have the necessary steps be re-examined in a proper way.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think it’s only fair that that be heard and considered in this House and that we give enough time to talk about, to debate, to ask the questions, to bring forward the concerns, to speak on behalf of our stakeholders, because we all know, again, as I highlighted before, what can happen if we steamroll ahead. We forget the little guy, and then two months in, they come knocking at the door of government with a court case in hand.

Then nothing’s moving forward. And sadly, that has been the record that we’ve experienced. Not only does it hold up projects that are badly needed, a power supply that’s been vastly underserved, but it hurts our bottom line as British Columbians. It hurts our relationships and the trust. When we don’t do reconciliation properly and we don’t give it the time and the air that it deserves…. And really, as I said, some very simple things. Making sure it’s transparent, making sure communities know and they understand, making sure that there are timelines.

It’s not about slowing down to the point where people are struggling and jobs are leaving and money is flying out the door, but it is about timelines that are realistic within a clear framework that everybody understands. People understand this is the table. This is who needs to be here by when so that we can decide on this set of parameters. And then they understand that if they’re not there or not able to make it…. But again, that effort has to be concerted.

Meaningful consultation. The reason why that word is there…. Meaningful consultation doesn’t mean you send an email and, “Oh, they didn’t respond,” or send a letter, as we’ve seen, like I said, in spring session. Many communities not able to, didn’t have the capacity, weren’t actually meaningfully reached out to. We heard that.

Then things like this legislation could pass. The government is granted these powers to make these decisions. And unfortunately, it’s held up again in a lengthy court case, and the decision does not become ours anymore in this House. The power is actually pulled from the members who are elected to debate and make these decisions in partnership with leadership across British Columbia, equals around a table that is set out clearly with timelines that make sense so that we can make laws that everybody can get behind.

Deputy Speaker: Just a quick reminder that we are, of course, debating the motion to the second reading of Bill 31.

Before we go to Peace River South, I believe we are going to look to our Minister of State for Local Governments.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Today is a very special day. Today my friend Emile turns eight years old. He is so excited for his birthday party.

I just want to say happy birthday, Emile. You are such a fun, funny and wonderful child to my best friends, Clarissa and Sebastian, and their daughter, Ida.

I hope you all have a wonderful time celebrating together. Your Auntie Brittny loves you very, very much. Sending that over to Germany for you.

Thank you very much.

Will the House please give a warm welcome and happy birthday to Emile.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister of State.

Now shall the House give leave for that? Thank you very much.

Leave granted.

[2:40 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: We are, of course, entertaining a motion on second reading of Bill 31. I would encourage members to stay speaking on that topic.

We have had significant conversation about Bill 31 itself, but I would like to hear more about the actual motion and the reason for the encouraged delay. I just want to make sure that that is what we speak about today. We will have an opportunity at some point, I’m sure, to return to Bill 31 debate.

Larry Neufeld: Last time I addressed Bill 31. In this case, I’m obviously addressing the motion that was just introduced. I did suggest to the minister that I would provide a joke. I did not have enough time to do that. My apologies again.

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld: Oh, well, touché.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could get back to the motion, Member.

Larry Neufeld: By leave, we move that the motion for second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, be amended, as already mentioned, by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

This is not a motion for delay for delay’s sake. It is a motion asking for deliberation, a necessary pause to ensure that this legislation, in act, will strengthen our province, not weaken it. Why does six months matter? Six months is not an eternity. It is a single construction season, and it is one review cycle for a public utility and another opportunity to ensure that we get it right.

The government has advanced Bill 31 under the banner of modernization and climate accountability. Yet the legislation raises issues of governance, transparency and executive overreach.

A six-month deferral, as presented in this motion, would allow B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Utilities Commission, Indigenous communities, industrial stakeholders and ratepayers to be meaningfully consulted, not merely notified. It would permit an independent, data-driven review of the fiscal exposure created by the new partnership and regulatory structures embedded in this bill.

I know I did speak to that last time that I rose to Bill 31. One of the things that has occurred to me since that last conversation, or speech perhaps, was that…. We will delve into that in committee stage. I did not have an opportunity to seek these numbers yet, but what I’m hearing colloquially is that we don’t have enough power to put into it. And part of….

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Do we? Okay.

But it begs the question in my mind as to…. With the call for power, we are significantly…. Those generating units are going to be put in the northeast, with the addition of a $6 billion — that we know of to date, without stage 3 costing — power line. Why do we not relocate those not-yet-constructed facilities to the northwest?

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: I can’t hear you.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’d encourage you to speak about the motion, please.

Larry Neufeld: Sorry. Yes. Absolutely.

That’s part of the intent of this motion — thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance: to provide confidence in the oversight of why this is being done. It’s not the first time that we’ve had concerns with oversight — Bill 7, Bill 14, Bill 15 and now Bill 31, each representing a further step toward centralizing decision-making within cabinet, with the potential for diminishing independent oversight.

Again, I’ve already spoken to that, but that is the intent of this motion, to provide confidence to the public and to the stakeholders that oversight will be respected.

Each step that is taken in this direction erodes institutional checks and balances that once gave investors, Indigenous partners and ratepayers confidence in the fairness of our system. Bill 31 appears to grant cabinet authority to determine which industries may receive electricity, to set rates by regulation and to designate projects outside of normal regulatory review.

[2:45 p.m.]

This may represent a shift from transparent regulation to discretionary governance. If the government believes that such powers are justified, then six months is not too much time to publish the empirical and economic rationale to justify those decisions. That is what this motion is asking for.

B.C. Hydro has long been a cornerstone of our provincial economy, a public utility designed to provide reliable power, not designed to be a political instrument. Under Bill 31, Hydro appears to be placed at the intersection of politics and commerce. The proposed Indigenous equity arrangements under section 12.1 are well-intentioned. The potential concern is the induction of long-term fiscal and governance risks that have not as yet been publicly quantified. Again, the purpose for this amendment is to give time for that to occur.

The question would beg itself: who bears the cost if a project overruns or underperforms? Will ratepayers alone be asked to absorb debt on assets on which they no longer have full ownership, or will Indigenous partner groups be asked to shoulder a portion of that cost?

Will Hydro’s credit rating be affected by these contingent liabilities? I would suggest that these are not entirely rhetorical questions. I believe there’s validity here. These are material concerns that deserve a full Treasury Board review before this House votes the bill into law. Again, the rationale behind introducing this motion.

The B.C. Utilities Commission was established precisely to ensure that political priorities do not distort electricity planning and pricing. There is concern that Bill 31 is challenging that principle. Again, the concern is that Bill 31 empowers cabinet to prohibit or restrict the use of electricity for entire sectors. We’ve talked about cryptocurrency. We’ve talked about artificial intelligence. And we’ve talked about hydrogen export. This will occur with minimal public process.

This would suggest that, in effect, we are governing through regulation, by order in council rather than through legislation. This motion intends to provide time for ample consultation with stakeholders, allowing for their input and to avoid that concern.

To my knowledge, no other energy jurisdiction in North America has given this level of authority to cabinet without a requirement for independent review. I would love to be corrected on that if I’m not correct, but it does appear to be the case. A six-month delay would allow comparative analysis with Alberta, Quebec and federal regulatory models to confirm, in fact, that we are not isolating British Columbia from future investment and innovation.

Investors in clean technology and energy-intensive industries make decisions long term — ten-, 20-, 30-year horizons. They need to know that regulatory frameworks are stable, predictable and transparent. When rules can be changed without notice or appeal, as potentially could happen through cabinet, investor confidence evaporates. Already we have seen digital infrastructure and data processing proponents express concern about moving projects out of this jurisdiction to other provinces.

This motion, again, allows the opportunity for those stakeholders to reassess their investments and to provide input to the government. A six-month pause would permit an independent economic impact study by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, an open, transparent evaluation of how those powers might affect jobs, tax revenue and industrial diversification.

I do want to state, as I did previously, that the official opposition does support Indigenous participation in energy development without question.

[2:50 p.m.]

Section 12.1 retroactively deems prior agreements authorized and valid, and I did speak to this last time I was before the House, yet this House has not been shown those agreements. Again, opaque versus transparent would be my concern there. No fiscal model has been presented, no risk disclosure has been presented, and no audit mechanism has been presented or discussed.

Six months, as proposed by this motion, would provide the time to ensure that those partnerships, if not already structured, are structured transparently and that Indigenous communities gain lasting benefit without inheriting disproportionate risk. I will state that reconciliation should not be used as a shield against scrutiny. Accountability is respect.

Bill 31 is presented as part of CleanBC, yet its mechanisms may or may not — I will leave that open to future interpretation — inadvertently hinder decarbonization, potentially restricting access to clean electricity for sectors like hydrogen and data processing. Those restrictions could push industries toward high-emission jurisdictions. Meeting our climate targets by exporting emissions elsewhere is not, in my opinion, the British Columbia way. We can have that discussion.

I would go on to state that public trust, as we all know, is fragile. In fact, I was just responding to an email that would suggest very much that that’s the case. Each time legislation bypasses independent oversight, or appears to, public trust is further eroded.

Bill 31 would potentially allow cabinet to both design and approve regulations that directly affect the cost of electricity for every British Columbian household. I think that’s without question. Many would suggest that that is too much concentration of power to pass and gather into one place without comprehensive public scrutiny. That, again, is the intent of this motion: to provide that opportunity for that scrutiny.

A six-month delay, as provided by this motion, would require the government to return with a transparent plan, including full disclosure of fiscal impacts to B.C. Hydro’s balance sheet, publication of all intended regulations under section 21.1 and confirmation that the B.C. Utilities Commission will retain its mandate to protect ratepayers. I would suggest that this is not obstruction. It is governance.

I would go on to state that we have found ourselves here before. Bill 14 and Bill 15 were advanced as technical adjustments. Again, on their basis, coming from my background, there is merit to those bills. The public perception is such that substantial implications for public accountability could exist.

This motion, as we’ve already stated, is such that we would avoid that potential situation with Bill 31, or hope to. In both cases, of Bills 14 and 15, the House was asked to trust cabinet’s assurances, with details defined later on through regulation. Is that the government that we are looking to establish? Is it through regulation, or is it through legislation?

Again, through the motion, a six-month deferral is our opportunity to learn from that pattern and to reassure the public that things are being done openly and transparently. It invites the government to demonstrate that the intent of Bill 31 can in fact withstand the daylight of technical and fiscal review. If the bill is as sound as it appears to be or that it is claimed, it will emerge stronger six months from now.

[2:55 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, this motion to defer is not an attempt to bury Bill 31. It is a motion, in fact, to strengthen it, to ensure that when we legislate on energy, that we do so with integrity, foresight and full public confidence.

I would suggest very strongly that energy policy in British Columbia is too important to be decided in haste. B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Utilities Commission, Indigenous governments, industry and the public all deserve the opportunity to examine this bill’s implications in detail.

I’d like to welcome Madam Speaker to the chair. I may have referred to you as “Mr. Speaker” in my last address.

Welcome, and I apologize.

I would go on to state that six months hence, as proposed in this motion, this House could return with clarity, with fiscal transparency, environmental modelling and genuine consensus. That is, I would suggest, a responsible course. I would very strongly suggest that that is a democratic course.

I will go on to state that the official opposition will stand firmly in support of this motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

David Williams: This amendment, a six-month hoist motion, is not about delay for the sake of delay. It’s about accountability, about transparency and about sending a clear message to this government that legislation of this magnitude should not be rushed through under the banner of modernization when in truth, this bill will basically ration electricity and centralize power in the hands of the minister.

This six-month hoist motion is not a motion of obstruction but a motion of prudence. It is a safeguard, a pause to reflect and to strengthen a bill that carries far-reaching consequences for our energy system and our economy.

Speed is no substitute for scrutiny. When billions of public dollars and decades of energy policy are at stake, taking just a little bit more time through this motion is an act of respect for the people we serve and for the principles of good governance.

Our caucus supports this six-month hoist motion because Bill 31 raises some concerns. It makes fundamental, structural changes to B.C. Hydro’s governing framework, altering ownership models, oversight mechanisms and ratepayer protections that have underpinned public confidence for generations.

To be clear, this bill is not required to build the North Coast transmission line. B.C. Hydro already has that authority. As for the government that has long championed public utilities, it is deeply concerning to see them now contemplating the sale or co-ownership of core transmission assets.

It is one thing for B.C. Hydro to purchase electricity from independent producers. It is another to divest ownership from its own network. That is why this six-month hoist motion is essential. It gives this Legislature the breathing room to study those implications before we set a precedent that could erode public control of our grid.

Bill 31 goes to the heart of public oversight. Since 1980, the B.C. Utilities Commission, or BCUC, has been an independent guardian of ratepayers’ interests. It was created to make sure that political enthusiasm never outruns fiscal reality. Whenever governments have limited that independence, the public has paid the price. Let’s not have history repeat itself.

We saw it on past projects. We saw it when Hydro was ordered to sign expensive power purchase contracts without commission review. Now, through this bill, the same mistake risks are being repeated, and that is precisely why this six-month hoist motion is needed. My past experience in loss control says: “You know what? Prudence is always a good thing.”

[3:00 p.m.]

Clause 1 allows the cabinet to designate ownership agreements for the North Coast transmission line as valid and binding, notwithstanding any other law. Those five words, “notwithstanding any other law,” effectively silence BCUC. The commission cannot question costs, cannot review risk, cannot ensure ratepayers are protected. That’s not modernization. That’s centralization. The six-month hoist motion gives us a chance to correct that course, to restore independent oversight before it disappears under executive order or to at least have a discussion about it.

The history here explains why this six-month hoist motion is necessary. In 2018, the same government, B.C. Hydro rolled out a campaign to attract cryptocurrency miners. Its business development manager told CBC News: “We need to get in the game.” That was back in 2018. Hydro received 10,000 megawatts in new load inquiries, half of them from crypto mining. Then Hydro’s ’21-26 electrification plan identified cryptocurrency, hydrogen production and data centres as key load attraction opportunities.

Now, a few years later, those same activities are condemned as unacceptable uses of electricity. What changed? Who was consulted? How many commitments were made? Those are questions the public deserves answered before the cabinet is handed the new authority to ration power. That is what this six-month hoist motion provides: time to obtain real evidence.

Bill 31 empowers the cabinet to ban or limit service to entire sectors. That’s a breathtaking concentration of power. The BCUC, which should independently evaluate load proposals, is bypassed. Supporting this motion means saying clearly: “Before we rewrite B.C. Hydro’s mandate, we must understand how we got here and what the consequences will be.” Sounds reasonable to me.

The northwest transmission line, the project at the centre of this legislation and one of the central reasons to back the six-month hoist motion…. This project began as a $3 billion announcement. Now it stands closer to $6 billion, and construction has not yet begun. If there is ever a time for due diligence, it’s now. That is exactly what the hoist motion allows.

This government claims part 1 of Bill 31 is about Indigenous partnerships. That goal is laudable. But the mechanism — cabinet-designed limited partnerships, binding, notwithstanding any other law — undermines transparency. Once designated, these agreements escape BCUC review. No public hearings, no rate-impact study, no independent validation.

Again, this six-month hoist motion ensures that BCUC and the public can still do their job, testing the costs, the governance and the long-term risks before taxpayers are committed.

B.C. Hydro is not a private venture. It is a public trust. The North Coast transmission line may well proceed, but it must proceed under the light of scrutiny, not the shadow of a cabinet order. Supporting the six-month hoist motion is supporting B.C. Hydro’s future integrity. Oversight is not red tape. It’s democracy in practice. We all like democracy.

The BCUC was born out of the 1970s energy scandals precisely to stop governments from cutting private deals behind closed doors. Every time we have ignored that lesson, we’ve paid for it. The Site C exemption in 2010 — costs doubled. It forced IPP contracts billions in above-market obligations.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, through Bill 31, we see another attempt to bypass oversight. That is why the six-month hoist motion exists, to give the Legislature a chance to step back and reaffirm that no government of any party will be able to place a billion-dollar project beyond review. This motion is the Legislature’s alarm bell.

Let’s speak of emerging technologies. A six-month pause is not a setback. It may be an opportunity. During that time, we can assess new technologies that might serve the same goals at lower costs. Across Canada, we see growth in geothermal, biomass, small hydro and small modular reactors, SMRs, now advancing at Darlington, Ontario. Such reactors could power remote communities or industrial corridors for who knows what costs.

This six-month hoist motion would give the province time to weigh those alternatives carefully, to decide whether another massive transmission corridor is the only answer or an expensive one. Innovation moves lightning fast. Legislation should not move blindly.

Clause 1 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act — some concerns there too. Clause 1 creates a new section, section 12.1, allowing B.C. Hydro to enter ownership agreements with First Nations for parts of the North Coast transmission line. Partnership in principle is positive, but the details require the six-month hoist motion pause for proper review.

Cabinet can, by order, designate agreements for construction, ownership or transfer, and those designations apply retroactively. That means cabinet can evaluate deals even if Hydro lacked the authority when signing them.

It also allows payments from Hydro to limited partnerships, potentially shifting the financial risk from government to ratepayers. I’m a ratepayer. Without BCUC scrutiny, that risk goes untested. This six-month hoist motion ensures those agreements are reviewed openly and independently before becoming irreversible.

Let’s speak a little bit about clause 2, the Utilities Commission Act. Clause 2 repeals and replaces section 21.1, giving cabinet power to regulate electricity supply for cryptocurrency mining; data centres, including AI processing; as well as hydrogen production for export. Cabinet may ban service, set special rates, impose bidding processes or even redefine “cryptocurrency” or “mine.” That’s a sweeping delegation of authority.

Under normal circumstances, such matters would go before the BCUC. Through open hearings, the commission would weigh technical evidence and public interest. Bill 31 removes that step. That is exactly why this six-month hoist motion is crucial. It restores the window for legislative oversight that allows us to craft guardrails so that cabinet cannot act without transparency.

In six months, this House could amend the clause to require BCUC review before any cabinet regulation affects rates, publication of cost-impact analysis and automatic sunset provisions on extraordinary powers. That is constructive reform, and that can only happen if we support this motion.

This six-month hoist motion also creates space to align Bill 31 with Hydro’s integrated resource plan and to do it with the realities of rural B.C. Communities like mine in the Shuswap, the northwest and the Interior struggle with basic reliability, yet this bill offers no guarantee that the billion-dollar transmission projects will improve rural service.

[3:10 p.m.]

Historically the BCUC has protected small communities through uniform rate regulation, ensuring fair access and prices. If oversight is removed, those protections weaken. By adopting this hoist motion, we give Hydro time to consult rural governments, First Nations and cooperatives so that any new structure truly serves the people who are living along those corridors. Real inclusion takes consultation. Consultation takes time. That is exactly what this six-month motion provides.

Ratepayers can expect that their hydro dollars keep the lights on, not fund political experiments. Bill 31 claims to empower communities, but it really empowers cabinet. The second part of this bill allows the government to decide who gets electricity and on what terms. That’s a policy of control, not collaboration.

By contrast, this six-month motion empowers accountability. It says that before cabinet takes on any new powers, the Legislature and the public must understand the consequences. CleanBC should be about expanding opportunity, not rationing electricity through ministerial decree. Transparency is not an obstacle. It is the foundation of public trust. This motion restores that foundation.

Allow me to speak directly about the BCUC, because the case for this six-month hoist motion rests largely on defending its independence. The BCUC is a quasi-judicial tribunal, not a department. Commissioners swear an oath to the public interest. They conduct hearings, they cross-examine experts, and they publish reasoned decisions. That independence keeps borrowing costs low and maintains Hydro’s credit ratings, something credit-rating agencies explicitly tie to BCUC oversight. I think that’s a good thing.

When Manitoba bypassed its regulator, costs ballooned. When the Ontario Energy Board was overridden, taxpayers paid a hidden surcharge. We must not walk down that same road. Supporting this six-month hoist motion reaffirms that no government should regulate itself without an independent check. The commission is not a hurdle. It is our insurance policy against expensive mistakes or oversights. It’s not always mistakes. Sometimes there are just oversights.

This motion also safeguards fiscal integrity. Bill 31 could enable Hydro to move liabilities into limited partnerships, off its main balance sheet. That might satisfy short-term accounting goals, but that would expose the ratepayers later. We’ve seen it with past deferrals, billions hidden in debt that re-emerged as rate hikes. A six-month pause would give the Auditor General and the Finance Committee time to review these implications, ensuring that Hydro’s books remain transparent and compliant with accepted accounting standards. That’s good governance, not delay.

Let’s go, a little bit, on democratic principle and precedent. Every Legislature needs precedent. I believe it’s based on precedent. If we allow cabinet to bypass the BCUC today, future governments of any stripe will use that same precedent tomorrow. Today it’s transmission; tomorrow it could be generation; the next time, the rates themselves.

Supporting the six-month hoist motion is about more than Bill 31. It’s about reaffirming that energy decisions must face independent review. This is a line between executive convenience and legislative accountability. Let’s stand on the side of accountability.

Supporting this six-month hoist motion is not just about rejecting progress. It’s about perfecting it. It says that we believe in clean growth, Indigenous partnerships and innovation, but we also believe in consultation, transparency and fiscal discipline.

[3:15 p.m.]

By adopting this motion, we give B.C. Hydro, the ministry and this Legislature time to refine Bill 31, to re-embed the BCUC. We feel it’s a good idea to clarify costs and to ensure the public remains at the heart of our energy system. When this bill returns after six months, it should return ready, reliable and responsible, because progress without prudence is politics without principle.

In closing, let’s take this short pause today through the six-month hoist motion so that we can move forward tomorrow with confidence, building not only new transmission lines but renewed public trust. For those reasons, I support the six-month hoist motion, and I believe that is the right way to go.

Time is not of the essence today, but time to review things and take a look at the big picture and take everything into account is probably a very, very prudent way of doing things, a prudent way of doing business. You wouldn’t run a business and do things haphazardly.

I believe in taking time, taking a little bit of a pause. Then come back, and let’s debate it.

Donegal Wilson: I rise in support of this motion to delay second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, for six months to allow all parties, stakeholders and communities, to fully understand and submit comments on this bill.

In typical NDP fashion, they’re doing another fast, big swing. First, they block development of new dams, and now, after failing to adequately plan for our energy needs, they’re taking a swing all the way to the other side. They’ve gone from obstructing projects to centralizing power to move only the projects and industries they like to the front of the line.

This motion isn’t about delay for the sake of delay. It’s about getting it right. When we legislate in this House, the decisions we make don’t just live on the paper we vote on. They live in communities across this province. They determine whether projects move forward or stall, whether businesses hire or close their doors, whether investors start that project, and whether people in rural British Columbia feel like they’re part of the province’s energy future or left behind by it.

That’s what this amendment is really about — giving government time to listen to those voices, to consult and to make sure that what’s being proposed here actually helps this province instead of hurting it.

Bill 31 makes substantive changes to how B.C. Hydro operates. It gives cabinet powers to decide who can and cannot access power for certain uses. It alters ownership structures in ways that open the door to uncertainty about who controls our grid. It introduces the potential for government to pick economic winners and losers by regulation, all without clear consultation, a transparent framework and understanding how this affects rural British Columbia.

This bill is also unnecessary. B.C. Hydro already has full legal authority to build the North Coast transmission line. There is no legislative gap to fill. B.C. Hydro has the power to plan, finance and construct these projects today. So if we don’t need this bill to build it, then we have to ask what this bill is actually intending to do.

It’s one thing for B.C. Hydro to buy power from independent power producers. It’s quite another for government to start selling off pieces of the public grid to private partnerships. Once that precedent is set, it will be nearly impossible to undo.

This government, which once championed public ownership, is now opening the door to a slow, quiet erosion of it. In my view, that’s reason enough to take a breath and pause this bill for six months. Once these decisions are made, they cannot easily be undone.

[3:20 p.m.]

Energy planning is about decades, not election cycles. The choices we make today will shape the kind of province future generations will inherit. When we rush major structural changes through this chamber, we risk overlooking the details that determine whether a policy actually works on the ground.

For rural communities, that means the difference between being connected to opportunity or being permanently left out of it. The smallest oversight here — a definition, a regulation, a delegated power — can decide whether a new sawmill or greenhouse can open its doors, whether a municipality can approve an industrial subdivision or whether a First Nation partner can realize their economic plan. These are real consequences that deserve more than a few days of debate.

We have to remember what B.C. Hydro represents to British Columbians. It’s one of our greatest public institutions, a backbone that connects our province, quite literally, through the transmission lines that reach nearly every valley, every community and every home. For decades, rural communities have relied on their electricity providers — B.C. Hydro, FortisBC and others — not only for power but for opportunity.

While B.C. Hydro does not directly serve all of the people in my riding, most homes and businesses in the Okanagan and Boundary….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder to reference your remarks to the amendment.

Donegal Wilson: Okay. I believe that I am.

Deputy Speaker: Directly, in terms of the amendment to delete the word “now” and substituting “six months hence” — not to repeat the second committee arguments.

Donegal Wilson: I think all of these tie into the reasons why we need to wait six months on these particular things. I think I have tied that in, but I will try a little harder. Thank you very much.

I think that we need to take six months to really look at why B.C. Hydro didn’t just happen. It was built from a vision of public service. In the 1960s, when this province bought out the private B.C. Electric Co., it did so to bring stability, fairness and access to people who were being left behind. Many rural households were still without electricity, and this bill is looking to change how that ownership is done. I believe that we need six months to look at how that is.

Since then, Hydro has powered farms in the Fraser Valley, mills in the Cariboo and homes in the North. It helped create the prosperity that allows British Columbians to be clean energy leaders today. But when we talk about altering that foundation, we should do so with respect for the history that made it possible and take the time needed to really look at it.

Through Bill 31, that faith is being tested. This bill gives cabinet authority to prohibit electricity being used for entire categories of work, for crypto mining, data processing or hydrogen production for export.

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you. Just a reminder. That’s Bill 31, and now we’re debating the amendment for the motion.

Donegal Wilson: I feel like I am debating it, so could you provide some clarity?

Deputy Speaker: Yeah. Just clarity in terms of we’re now discussing the amendment, deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months” and not debating arguments on Bill 31 itself.

Donegal Wilson: But I believe that these all lead into why we need to take six months to think about what we’re doing here today.

Deputy Speaker: Your remarks now are exclusively on the amendment.

Donegal Wilson: I’m failing to see how they don’t tie together. I believe that my statement is about how we’re fundamentally changing and need six months to think about it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Just continue on the amendment, Member.

Donegal Wilson: I believe that’s why this amendment is so important. It’s not an attempt to derail progress. It’s an attempt to protect it. We can’t have policies that say one thing one year and another the next. We can’t be a province that courts innovation when it’s politically convenient and then shuts the door on it when the winds change.

It wasn’t long ago that this same government and B.C. Hydro were actively trying to attract cryptocurrency and data processing investments in this province. This six months allows us to go and look at those industries and see and hear from them about how this has the potential to impact. I’m hearing from the people in my riding that it has significant potential impacts.

[3:25 p.m.]

To me, this bill demonstrates that this government is not planning for the long term or supporting our economy by creating predictable investment opportunities. Supporting a six-month delay allows us and the rural communities of B.C. to plan for this, to provide input and feedback and to get this right.

In my own riding, we have many businesses that are looking for power. We have development that is delayed. I have investors that are waiting to put in several projects, and some of them will include data centres. I believe that this six months allows those potential investors that may not have been stakeholders at the table when this bill was developed the opportunity to also participate. Now that the bill has been made public, people can review it and provide comments and feedback to this government.

I have a business in Okanagan Falls that has built a 19-lot subdivision and wants to bring industry to our community. He has water. He has sewer. He has pavement. He’s ready to go. He cannot get power, and he’s being told it could be ten years before those jobs are realized in Okanagan Falls. I want to provide him the opportunity to provide some comments and feedback on this bill.

Across Canada and around the world, AI is transforming how we analyze information, manage infrastructure and deliver services to citizens. I want the opportunity for those providers to provide input. This government spent a lot of time providing and attracting those investments, and now it seems like we’re pivoting and saying that this is no longer the industry that we want.

We depend on it. We want to be sovereign. We want to stand alone. We need to do that. That means that we need this data processing and these servers in our province, and we need six months to make sure that we can come up with a plan that supports that.

If we push these industries away, we don’t just make the demand for data disappear; we make ourselves dependent on other countries to process and store. We risk losing both the economic benefits and the technological capacity that would have served British Columbians for decades.

Bill 31 raises legitimate concerns about ownership and control. I believe that six months allows the people in British Columbia to have a look at what that looks like and provide comments and input into what that transfer of public utilities to private ownership looks like and to participate in it.

I want to be clear. Partnership with First Nations is a positive thing, and reconciliation through shared ownership can strengthen communities. But when we do that, we must ensure that the process is transparent, equitable and in the long-term public interest to create the reconciliation that we need for this province. The way this bill is written, those arrangements can be designated by cabinet order without clear legislative oversight. Six months allows the people of B.C. to have a look and participate in this together, to come to a solution together.

B.C. Hydro was made public because rural communities, farms and small towns would never have been connected if left to private markets alone. It took public ownership, collective investment and a belief that every British Columbian deserved lights, heat and opportunity no matter where they lived. We need to provide an opportunity for those people to have input on this bill.

The model has delivered for us. It built the infrastructure that allowed families to start businesses in small towns, allowed mills to operate in the Interior and allowed new industries to grow in places that private utilities would have ignored. It will allow the AI, data processing and crypto businesses to thrive. We have many situations in B.C. where these businesses would actually help us stabilize the grid, and we need to provide them the opportunity and this six months for them to get that opportunity.

If we don’t take the time, we risk unintended consequences, higher costs, slower approvals and an uncertainty that will ripple through the entire economy. We need investment in new generation capacity and regional reliability. This bill, I am being told by industry, signals the opposite. We have communities across this province that want to participate in the data and AI technology. This bill signals that the power may not be there when you need it and don’t invest here.

[3:30 p.m.]

Six months allows the government to fully understand what that means and what potential investment we’re scaring away. This isn’t about ideology. It’s about balance and foresight. Nobody in this chamber wants to see wasted power or environmental harm. Good stewardship also means using the resources we have to create opportunity at home.

If government takes six months, as this motion proposes, to sit down with industry, with local leaders and with citizens who understand both sides of the issue, we will get a better bill and a stronger province overall.

The people in our rural communities are not opposed to clean energy or environmental responsibility. They live it every day. They are the stewards. They do this every day. They want to be part of the conversation and not an afterthought in a Victoria plan. That’s why this amendment to defer second reading for six months is so important. It’s a signal that we value listening over rushing, consultation over control.

I also know that I’m not the only rural MLA hearing those concerns. My colleagues across the province from the North, the Cariboo, the Kootenays and the islands are hearing the same stories of communities that want to grow, that have land zoned and services, that have investors ready to go but are told to wait because the system isn’t ready for them or investors want to see where this bill ends up.

This six months allows everybody to hear those stories. These communities deserve better. They deserve a government that sees them as partners in building B.C.’s future, not as problems to be managed. They deserve energy policy that reflects the full geography of this province, not just the priorities of a few.

For those reasons, I stand with my rural colleagues in supporting this motion. Let’s take the time to listen, to consult and to come back with legislation that truly serves all British Columbians, from our largest cities to our smallest towns. Let’s get this right.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m speaking in opposition to the hoist.

I think it would be useful for members of the House to understand the purpose of a hoist motion. I think it seems pretty clear. Just to read from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, which is our guide in these matters, it says: “The objective of a hoist amendment is to critically postpone the consideration of a bill at second reading or third reading, with the intent that the delay will be fatal to the bill as a result of prorogation or dissolution.” The reason six months were chosen in the B.C. Legislature is that, effectively, six months is fatal to the bill.

The opposition, which opposes the North Coast transmission line…. Let’s be clear. There’s a lot of talk about balancing things. The opposition has decided to oppose it. Why do I say that? Because they said so. They propose to stop work toward a power line from the northeast to the northwest and replace the project. That’s their position.

They’re against delivering a transmission line to members’ ridings. I mean Stikine. I mean Bulkley Valley. I mean the North Coast. I mean Skeena. I mean those ridings. The opposition wants to stop this project, and this six-month hoist is another means to stop the North Coast transmission line, which they oppose.

Now, you may say they’re not opposed to transmission lines, and that’s true. The Leader of the Opposition was part of a government that proposed the Interior–Lower Mainland line that was built, that took power from the member for Peace River South’s community down to Vancouver. That was okay. That wasn’t opposed by the opposition.

They support delivering northern power to Vancouver. I support it too. But they oppose delivering northern power to the northwest. I don’t support that. Let’s be clear. I support the North Coast transmission line, and they oppose it. This is a means of opposing the North Coast transmission line.

I think they are wrong. I think that is not representing the interests of northern B.C. I think people in northern B.C. urgently need the same level of service, and that’s why I oppose this hoist. For their residential customers, as one of the members proposing this motion said, service can be intermittent, for commercial customers and for industrial customers.

I think people in the North deserve better service, and they deserve their projects, their dreams, their aspirations not to be hoisted by an opposition motion. They deserve that, and therefore, I’m opposed to the motion.

The member for Peace River South said: “Well, maybe in six months.” The intent of the motion is to defeat the legislation. “Maybe in six months we can move projects in the northwest.”

[3:35 p.m.]

There are projects in the northwest. There are many projects and more in the northwest, in terms of the call for power, than in the northeast. That is a fact today. And that’s good news for the province. There are projects in the northwest. There are projects in the northeast. There are projects in the central Interior. There are projects on Vancouver Island. That’s because we aren’t delaying.

There is plenty of time to have a legislative debate on this, and I look forward to the clause-by-clause debate. I can’t wait. I genuinely can’t wait. But when you put forward arguments like that….

We had a process that was laid out in advance and was overseen by an ethics adviser, which came to decisions about where EPA should be launched. That then was overseen, as is appropriate, by the BCUC, as this process will. That’s the role of the BCUC. Then that makes sense.

In this case, we have a North Coast transmission line — which they want to stop, which they want to block, which they want to delay; they want to use dilatory tactics in this House to delay — that was announced. The intention to consider this line was announced in 2023.

Every potential industrial ratepayer in the northwest was consulted at that time in 2023, and a determination was made that there was sufficient demand for a new transmission line. My colleague the Minister of Health was Minister of Energy at the time. And then later in 2023, a process of consultation with First Nations was developed, which has been two years long. They don’t mention it, but it’s the case. Two years long.

Then in January 2024, the Premier and B.C. Hydro published their plan to proceed with the North Coast transmission line — 2024.

And now here we are, having signed agreements, term sheet agreements, with many First Nations on the route, not all but many, and really significant nations, in particular in Bulkley Valley, in Stikine and in Skeena and other communities. After two years of effort, they want to delay it more.

There’s another reason we don’t want to delay. I say this: people talk about consultation, the support, for example, of the mining industry and the urgent need to proceed with this “nation-building project that will bring clean electricity” — I’m quoting Michael Goehring of the Mining Association of B.C. — “to mining projects in northwest and central B.C. The North Coast transmission line will strengthen Canada’s position as a leading global supplier of critical minerals and metals and unlock more than $45 billion in near-term economic activity for British Columbians and all Canadians. We are pleased to support the province’s efforts to advance this important transmission line towards construction.”

They support it because they know it serves the North. And I would think representatives of the North should be supporting this legislation, not trying to block it or delay it or undermine it or pretend they support reconciliation when, in fact, they do not. That is something they are on record for as well. They don’t support the kind of reconciliation we put forward.

So they oppose the North Coast transmission line. They oppose it. Clearly, they want to get rid of it. We’ve heard some unusual ideas put forward. I will save my response to the proposals that have been put forward by the opposition in this regard — which are six, seven times more expensive — that they call inexpensive. Proposals made, for example by my friend from Abbotsford West, that would increase the rates for people in Abbotsford dramatically.

Somebody here has to speak for the people of Abbotsford, and I’m going to do that in this debate. They would do that. We’ll save those for when I close debate. I’m also looking forward to that.

I think one of the fundamental things about this project…. We’ve heard from the federal government, the national government, the Prime Minister. We’ve heard from the Premier. We’ve heard from the industry. We’ve heard from First Nations. We’ve heard from communities. It’s a nation-building project that urgently needs to go forward now to unlock mining potential. It has been noted here. I think that this is what we need to do now. There is urgency now.

[3:40 p.m.]

Instead, the Leader of the Opposition says our economy needs urgent action, and then he puts forward, on a critical project, on a national project, one that will unlock jobs, a six-month delay. That’s what we’re proposing here. You bet I’m against it. Talk about saying one thing and doing another, saying you’re in favour of action and then proposing motions like this, which are a six-month delay. This is not what is needed now.

We have, in detail, put forward legislation. I look forward to the debate at committee stage that lays out an allocation framework. There is a framework now, as members will know, and that framework is first come, first served in these areas. And we’ve been specific. The legislation could have said, and this would be an argument that would have been put forward, that it’s general. We give that power to the cabinet, and that’s it. Then the cabinet could decide what areas it was doing….

That’s not what the legislation does. The legislation is specific, at our insistence, that it be done, like legislation in dozens of other jurisdictions that we’ve considered, in artificial intelligence data centres and hydrogen for export. We’ve done it for the good reasons, as I’ve explained, that we’ll debate, I’m sure, at committee stage. We could have said general. We were specific about that. If we want to change that, we’d have to return to the Legislature. That’s what is making legislation specific in this Legislature.

And the opposition’s response to that is, “Let’s delay; let’s create economic uncertainty,” not be clear about what we need to do, which are competitive processes that are overseen by an ethics adviser, where decisions are made by B.C. Hydro and reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission on criteria, yes, set out by the government. I think that that is a transparent and clear process. We do it in the RFP.

Those decisions which favour members in the House’s ridings, because projects in their ridings went ahead…. The decisions in that process went through and, as Minister of Energy, I found out on the day that the projects were announced where they were, because you have an RFP process that’s based on criteria that are set out, and then you proceed.

So there is no need for delay on this five-section bill. There is no need for the opposition, which is against the North Coast transmission line and against clean energy….

They have every right to be against it. They’ve made their position clear and on the record. They are against improving electricity service to the northwest. They oppose it. They’ve made that clear. This is another means of opposing it. They want to delay it. They think their citizens should wait longer. They think that people proposing projects, either in industry or commercial projects in the northwest, should wait longer.

Well, we don’t think so. We have been working on this project for years, and we need to proceed. We need to proceed, in my view, as soon as possible. In this case, shovels on the ground next summer.

So no, we do not support a six-month delay. We do not support it because we believe people in the northwest deserve action — that there is unprecedented economic opportunity in the northwest of B.C., and we need to take action.

We think, at this time when our markets are being threatened by the President of the United States and other jurisdictions, that we need to take action to ensure that our critical minerals can get to other markets. We want action. They want delay. We support major projects of national interest, and they oppose them.

I am not surprised to see this proposal, which has been indicated in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia as a way to stop things you oppose, because they oppose this action. They oppose CleanBC projects.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I welcome the member back.

No, I was just referring to the Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Unfortunately….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, that’s what I’ve been doing. In that reference, I was referring specifically to the discussion of hoist motions in the Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia.

I welcome the member to enter into the debate. It’s always a pleasure to have him here and directly across from me. It’s not bad. It’s a pleasure.

[3:45 p.m.]

In short, we support the legislation. We support the North Coast transmission line. I understand that people who are opposed to it, who favour dramatically more expensive and impossible-to-complete projects, would be opposed to it, and the Conservative opposition has not disappointed me in that regard.

I would suggest to all members of the House that we defeat this amendment and move back to an important debate on this important piece of legislation.

Sharon Hartwell: I rise in strong support of the amendment before this House, an amendment moved by my colleague to change the motion for second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

Although I can appreciate the passion from the member across the floor, he either has a lot of rhetoric across the floor or he’s not really providing the whole picture.

Of course we support energy. Of course we support projects. That short phrase “six months hence” may sound procedural to those listening from home, but in this place, it carries great weight. It is a safeguard built into our parliamentary tradition. It allows the Legislature to pause before enacting a bill that demands deeper scrutiny, fuller consultation and a more careful weighing of the consequences. It is not an act of obstruction. It is an act of responsibility.

When a bill raises questions that government has not adequately answered, when there are gaps in evidence and when there is a legitimate concern that haste will lead to waste, the proper course is to grant the House six months to study the matter further. That is precisely what we were doing here today with Bill 31.

This amendment is not about slowing process. It’s about ensuring that process is real, accountable and in the public interest. Our role as Members of the Legislative Assembly, on both sides of this chamber, is to scrutinize legislation on behalf of the people who sent us here. We are trustees of their confidence and stewards of our dollars.

The six-months-hence motion gives us the breathing space to discharge that duty properly. It acknowledges that the questions raised by Bill 31 are significant enough to warrant more than a few days of debate sandwiched between other government priorities.

This bill touches the structure of B.C. Hydro, the integrity of our energy system and the expenditure of billions of public dollars. Those are not matters to rush through on a political timetable. When government tables complex legislation, it assumes a responsibility to demonstrate why immediate passage is necessary. In this case, that burden has not yet been met.

Ministers have said that this bill is required to build a new transmission line to the north coast, yet B.C. Hydro already possesses full statutory authority to construct transmission infrastructure. So if urgency truly exists, it has not yet been proven. The more likely explanation is that government wishes to embed new ownership and partnership arrangements before the public fully understands their implications. That is precisely why we have the delay mechanism to say: “Stop. Slow down. Show us the evidence before you change the rules.”

The six-month period is not arbitrary. It reflects a principle that the parliament should not legislate in ignorance. Six months allows for public hearings, independent fiscal review and consultation with industry, municipalities and Indigenous nations along the affected corridor. It allows time for ratepayers, unions and environmental groups to assess the long-term consequences of altering B.C. Hydro’s mandate. In other words, it allows democracy to function as it should, openly and deliberately.

I know government members will say that this motion is a delay tactic, that every day we wait and risk missing an economic opportunity. But let’s remember our history. Rushed legislation has seldom saved money or time. More often, it has produced the opposite.

We need only to recall Site C. Announced on time and on budget, it was, years later, billions over budget. That project suffered from inadequate scrutiny at the front end. If ever there was a lesson in why six months could save $6 billion, that was it. To deny ourselves that reflection now would be to repeat the very mistakes we claim to have learned from.

[3:50 p.m.]

The amendment motion also tests government’s confidence in its own proposal. If ministers are certain their case is sound, they should welcome an additional review. If the economics are solid, if the ownership structure is defensible, if the environmental and Indigenous consultations are thorough, then six months will only confirm it. A good policy can withstand sunlight; a weak one cannot. The amendment before us simply invites that sunlight to shine.

Let me also speak to the constitutional and procedural importance of the motion itself. Parliamentary democracy depends on two pillars, the right of government to propose and the right of the Legislature to dispose. When a majority uses its numbers to curtail debate, it risks weakening that second pillar.

This motion restores the balance. It reminds the executive that the Legislature is not a rubber stamp. It ensures that the law-making process remains deliberate, not automatic. Throughout the Commonwealth, from Westminster to Ottawa to Victoria, the six-months-hence amendment has served as a respectful means for opposition members to say: “This matter is too important for haste.” It is part of our inherited safeguard against the tyranny of convenience.

We are dealing here with a bill that would alter how B.C. Hydro can partner, own and regulate within the energy system. That is not a housekeeping amendment. That is restructuring of one of our province’s largest public institutions. If anything merits a cooling-off period, this does.

This motion gives government a chance to return in six months with a clear explanation: why is this bill needed now? What exactly does it authorize that existing statutes do not? How will it protect ratepayers? How will it preserve public ownership? Without those answers, proceeding today would be reckless.

There is another dimension, the matter of trust. Public confidence in large infrastructure spending is fragile. People see project after project exceeding their budgets, and they wonder whether anyone is minding the store. When the government presents a bill tied to a $6 billion transmission line and asks for immediate approval, they are asking for trust that they have not yet earned.

Six months of open review would begin to rebuild that trust. It would demonstrate that this House takes its fiduciary role seriously, that oversight is not an inconvenience but a constitutional obligation.

Some members opposite will argue that deferring this bill sends a signal of uncertainty to investors. I would argue the opposite. Predictability is built on a good process, not on speed. Investors prefer jurisdictions where governments think before they legislate, where rules are clear and consistent, where public agencies operate transparently.

A hurried law passed without full understanding creates more uncertainty than any delay ever could. Six months of scrutiny leads to decades of stability. That is a trade-off worth making. Let me remind colleagues that this motion is not unique to energy policy. It has been used across party lines whenever the House has faced legislation whose implications extend far beyond the immediate political moment.

Members on the government benches, when they once sat in opposition, used the same tool to demand accountability on forestry reforms, on health restructuring and on privatization initiatives. They recognized then, as we do now, that sometimes the wisest course is to stop and think. Surely what was wise in opposition does not become folly in government.

I’ve heard ministers insist that consultation has already taken place. If that is true, then providing documentation of that consultation should be effortless, but so far we have seen no evidence, no transcripts of meetings with northern communities, no environmental impact analysis, no detailed cost-benefit projections. All we have are assurances. “Trust me,” they say.

Assurances are not enough when billions are on the line. Six months will allow the release of those documents, the presentation of independent reviews and the answering of legitimate questions raised by every MLA in this chamber.

It is also worth noting that this motion is one of the few procedural tools available to protect minority voices in a majority Legislature. When the government controls the calendar and committees, the opposition’s ability to secure meaningful review is limited.

The six-months-hence amendment rebalances that power. It ensures that even when a government commands a majority of votes, it cannot command a monopoly on wisdom. It is a reminder that good ideas improve under pressure, and bad ideas collapse under it. If the government’s proposal is truly good, six months of scrutiny will only make it stronger.

Let us be honest. The stakes here extend beyond one transmission line. They touch on how we govern major projects, how we treat Crown corporations and how we safeguard public ownership of critical assets.

[3:55 p.m.]

Once we normalize the practice of rushing complex energy legislation through the House, it will become easier to do the same in other sectors — transportation, health, housing. This motion draws a line and says: “Not this time. Let us do this one properly.”

The government should view the amendment not as an obstacle but as an opportunity. In six months, it could return with detailed fiscal projections vetted by the Auditor General, with completed consultations with Indigenous partners and with clear language protecting public ownership.

If it does those things, the opposition will be in a stronger position to engage constructively, but if it presses ahead today without that foundation, it will own every dollar of cost overrun and every unintended consequence that follows. A wise government would choose the first path.

British Columbians are pragmatic people. They understand that large projects take time, that due diligence costs less than disaster. They expect us, their legislators, to ask hard questions before signing the cheque. That is all the six-months-hence motion does. Let’s press pause, ask those questions and come back when the answers are in. That is not opposition for its own sake; that is accountability for the public’s sake.

In closing, I want to emphasize that this amendment is entirely consistent with our democratic tradition and in our duty to taxpayers. It respects the authority of government to propose legislation while asserting the right of the Legislature to ensure that legislation is sound. It reflects the belief that good governance requires both action and reflection, and it stands on the principle that when billions of dollars and the integrity of the public utility are at stake, time spent in scrutiny is never wasted.

For these reasons, I will be voting in favour of the motion to amend Bill 31 so that its second reading can be postponed for six months hence. Let us take the time to do what British Columbia sent us here to do: to think carefully, to question boldly and to legislate wisely.

Korky Neufeld: I rise to address the motion before the House, the motion for second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting it with “six months hence.”

This is not a motion of delay for delay’s sake. It’s a motion of deliberation and is necessary to pause to ensure what this Legislature enacts will strengthen our province, not weaken it.

I’m a little confused. How does six months stop building the transmission line? Six months is very clear. If I could break it down, six months is 182.5 days, 4,380-plus hours or 262,800-plus minutes, a very clear timeline to pause and to resume.

This bill, while framed as a technical update to modernize B.C. Hydro’s authority, in truth, actually represents a series of profound and troubling policy shifts that deserve careful scrutiny — not a stop but a pause for six months, which is a very clear, definitive timeline.

That’s what it takes to scrutinize something. It takes time. When you rush through things, you miss things. When you rush through things, you break relationships. When you rush things, you have unintended consequences.

Let me begin by saying what we on this side of the House believe in, responsible energy development and responsible reconciliation with Indigenous People through meaningful partnerships. Here is a principle that I think the other side of the House understands. It takes time to build relationships with Indigenous People. You don’t rush things through. In their culture, time is precious. Relationships are precious, not rushing things through.

We believe in responsible and strong public accountability for B.C. Hydro, but this bill raises serious concerns about transparency, about accountability, about long-term integrity of our province’s public energy system.

We need to pause to get it right, and that’s why I support the amendment to delete the word “now” and substitute it with “six months hence.”

[4:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers to the amendment, I’ll call the question.

The question is on the amendment to second reading of Bill 31, intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 — that it be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

Division has been called.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

The Speaker: Members, the question is amendment to the second reading of the bill intituled the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Banman	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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[4:15 p.m.]

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier today, following oral question period, the Leader of the Fourth Party raised a point of order on the application of the rule of anticipation to debate in the House, including oral question period. The Chair thanks the Leader of the Fourth Party for her submission and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.

The rule of anticipation is a parliamentary practice that is designed to prevent discussion or decisions on a topic that has or will be the subject of substantive debate in the House during a parliamentary session. Its aim is to not pre-empt future debate and to not risk duplication or contradiction of decisions of this House through subsequent debate.

With respect to the application of this rule to questions pertaining to bills arising during oral question period, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, notes at page 324: “Questions may be out of order if they deal with the details of a bill which stands on the order paper, or if they address proposed amendments. Such matters should be canvassed at committee stage consideration of the bill.”

However, a question may be canvassed if it is of a general or high-level nature that may relate to the contents of a bill. Furthermore, with respect to a bill that was introduced and subsequently defeated at first reading, the rule of anticipation is not relevant. Questions related to the bill, particularly in the context of its defeat, are not prohibited under this rule.

The Chair appreciates the opportunity to provide this guidance and clarity to the House and regrets any confusion that application of this rule created during oral question period earlier.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 4:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt
Payment Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20 to order.

On clause 1 (continued).

Misty Van Popta: Sorry. We adjourned mid-response.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks to the member for reminding me that I owed an answer.

Just to talk it through, there were three definitions that I think were raised — notice of adjudication, notice of non-payment and proper invoice — and how they’re set out in the definition section.

First of all, the reason that they are noted here in definitions with just a simple reference to the section is because it’s a signpost, as I think the term is, for readers. “When you’re looking for this, refer to that section,” just for clarity and ease of putting it together. There’s no material difference in that method or use of that.

All those three definitions are very detailed things, and they’re pivotal to the process of prompt payment. When you go to the sections referred to, it lays out exactly what is meant by a notice of non-payment, for example.

[1:40 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: When I was reading my notes again last night and I was just going through these two items, I realized that I did make an error, in that notice of adjudication definitely had more requirements on what a notice would look like — names, address of parties, etc.

It was notice of non-payment that was a little bit more vague, in the sense that it says, “specifies the amount and reasons for non-payment,” but it doesn’t talk about what is actually required in terms of a written notice — name of company, things like that — whereas other parts of the bill are very specific as to the exact information required on a notice.

So if the minister could just go back to, more specifically, notice of non-payment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s kind of a balance in terms of how the team looked at it, comparing with other legislation — how much to write in the section it refers to as being clearly required and how much to leave more to industry, with the idea that you could have a regulation if you needed to.

Any time it says prescribed, it gives you the ability to prescribe an actually standard form. I think the comparison that the member is asking about, about proper invoices…. Proper invoices really lays out everything that you definitely need in that proper invoice, because it’s such a kind of pivotal thing in the whole structure of the prompt payment regime.

Then, for notice of non-payment, it says some clear things, right? You need to specify certain things in your notice of non-payment and the clear timelines. It also gives the ability to have, by regulation, a prescribed form. So we can work with industry and understand how it’s going and set up a regulation that, if needed, puts some more clarity in exactly what is needed for a notice of non-payment.

That was the kind of balancing act that was….

Misty Van Popta: Just switching gears a little bit, I really took a lot of time trying to understand two of the definitions in terms of the intent versus the interpretation of them. Most notably is the definition of “owner” and the definition of “person” and understanding where the definition could hold….

A lot of the initial reaction to this bill was whether government and Crown corporations were going to be exempted or possibly exempted from this legislation. Part of me was really honing in on the term “owner,” and then, within the definition of owner, the definition of person and seeing how that could be strengthened by including government or Crown.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now that I’ve kind of digested what I’ve learned, I just want to put on public record in regards to the Interpretation Act, for “person” and then also “owner,” that government entities and also Crown are encapsulated as an owner and/or, alternatively, as a person.

If the minister could just please rise for the record to clarify how that is to be interpreted so that we have it on record. Thank you.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just maybe I’ll give a broad enough answer that covers different sections of the act but also ties into this conversation.

First of all, with respect to the specific question about that definition, “person” is inclusive of many things but also would include government entities. Then “owner” is defined to be a very functional definition to interact with what that person is doing, so who retains a contract to supply services. It’s very broad in the sense of its application.

Just to make it clearer, the Interpretation Act, as the member brings up, contains all the definitions that sometimes you don’t have to redefine in an act.

[1:50 p.m.]

But when we get to section 47(2), which is coming up, what you’ll see in there is…. Because we wanted to make it clear that this act applies to public and private entities, that it just applies to all projects, you’ll see that section 47(2) specifically exempts a section of the Interpretation Act that is for a government exemption.

So we specifically put it in there to make sure that it was clear that this is broad enough to apply to all.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for clarifying that.

Is there any instance in which…? This, in my understanding, does include government, but is there anything within the definition or the Interpretation Act where the government or Crown would be or could be, not necessarily that it is, exempt? Does the minister have that ability to exempt a project or an owner?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in the interest of moving through the legislation, I am really happy to get to the clauses related to applicability. They’re coming, and then we can get into a deep conversation of further down clauses.

I can tell you that the definitions right now, just like you’ll see in other parts of the act, are making it clear that, which is what we heard from all of our round table and all of our work that the team did to dig into it, the broadest application of this, including public and private, is the way that you get at solving prompt payment across the whole sector. Because all these companies are interchangeable. They do projects across the board.

You’ll see that in different sections, and I’m happy to revisit that about how it shows that it’s so broad.

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the Attorney General for that clarity around the inclusion of government.

Recognizing that we may ultimately revisit this significantly later in section 51, but since we’re simply on the topic, I would just like to get a little bit of clarity as to whether there is any intent for the inclusion of government to be subject to phased implementation.

Again, I recognize we’ll likely revisit this in 51, but I do just want to get to the question since we’re just in it now momentarily.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, and it goes into what I was saying before. What we heard from the sector and the point of it is to apply to as broad a range of the whole sector so we can get at the issue, which is making sure prompt payments happen.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’ll go back to definitions. Again, I may explore this particular definition a little further under subsequent sections. But just to lay the frame for that, when it comes to the definition of “contractor,” is the intent of the legislation for a contractor to mean a person or a corporate person, or is the intent for that to mean a consolidated corporate person? For example, in the case of a holdco, opco or a joint venture structure.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it’s broad enough to include entities like the member is referring to.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I may come back to that in more detail at a subsequent time as we’re into sections where that becomes relevant, but I appreciate that initial groundwork.

There are a few items that…. As I read through the bill, there are terms that are not defined, and I am just curious to understand if there is a reason they are not defined. So expect a series of questions related to a couple of items.

Could the Attorney General clarify why the term “prescribed information,” which is used repeatedly, is not defined?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The term “prescribed” is found in the Interpretation Act with, already, a definition.

Gavin Dew: For the sake of convenience, could the Attorney General provide that definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It means, and this is the whole thing, prescribed by regulation.

Gavin Dew: A similar question around prescribed interest rate. I assume that, again, the assumption is that that will be defined by regulation. But as that could become quite material at a commercial level to folks that are affected by this legislation, could the Attorney General provide any initial indications as to how government intends to set about defining the prescribed interest rate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In setting the rate, I think the balance that you want to find is to have it be sufficient enough to incentivize changes of behaviour but not overly onerous on the industry. We will, as we did just to make this bill, be guided by…. We’ve already committed to consulting with industry related to that.

Another guidepost will be what other provinces are doing when they have similar legislation and they’ve set a prescribed interest rate, just to see where it’s sitting. But this will be one of those points that we’ll have a good conversation with industry before we put the regulations in place, to find that spot of incentive to change behaviour but not overly onerous.

[2:00 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Are there any early indications as to whether the intent is for that to be a fixed interest rate or a dynamic interest rate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Because it’s so important to talk to industry about this, we haven’t come to the realization, in kind of a prejudgment way, where we have something in mind.

I just had an interesting discussion about what other jurisdictions do related to that. I think it’s kind of variable, so it could be fixed or variable. I think it’s something that would just depend on our conversations.

Gavin Dew: Very solid answer and appreciated. Certainly, I appreciate hearing that that will be developed in consultation with industry and that it will be suitably refined to try to match market conditions. I certainly appreciate the answer.

Another term that I see used but not defined is “rateably” and “rateable.” I would assume that that references some level of pro rata payment, but I don’t see it defined anywhere. It is a rather obscure term. I’m hoping that I can get some clarity on the intended meaning of that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the question.

We’ll start by the general way that drafters look at it when they define or when they don’t, because maybe it’ll help with the conversation.

First of all, as a little anecdote from the drafting team that I just heard about, everything is defined, right? It’s defined in a dictionary. We don’t start by saying that we have to define everything.

When we’re doing drafting, when you choose something to define, is it because it has a special meaning in accordance with the act, or is it just the ordinary meaning of the word, meaning that you can look it up in a dictionary, it means something, and everybody can understand that?

[2:05 p.m.]

With the words that the member raised, with “rateably” and “rateable,” those are words that have just their ordinary meaning and that essentially mean proportionality, that there’s some kind of proportional analysis related to it. Those follow the wording that’s used in the Ontario statute.

In the judgment of the drafters, it wasn’t a word that needed a special definition, because you would just think of it as the ordinary meaning of the word.

Gavin Dew: In the context of the bill, what is the ordinary meaning of the word “rateable”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: You could think of it as proportional. You could use those interchangeably.

Misty Van Popta: One of the trends that I noticed while being on a jobsite managing projects, before I got elected, was a trend and something that we shouldn’t be surprised at — how technology is starting to be incorporated into building projects, whether it’s software or proprietary building systems and things like that.

When I look at the definitions of “contractor” or “subcontractor,” it specifically says it means “a person who supplies services or materials.” If I look at the definition of “services,” it has the same meaning as in the Builders Lien Act. If I go into the Builders Lien Act, it refers to services as an architect or an engineer, or also in terms of rental of equipment, etc. If I then flip to the bill’s definition of “materials,” it refers specifically to movable property.

Now, in the case of proprietary technologies and software that one might contract for a specific building project, we do have a gap in that definition. It is something that is emerging on the scene, on the ground, and that is not being covered by these definitions.

I was wondering if the Attorney General could go into whether she agrees that there’s a gap or where she would see technology being used and being contracted as being covered in this bill.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to start by what I think the definition of an inclusive definition, which is a funny way of saying it…. But when a definition is inclusive, that gives a legal sentiment of…. It doesn’t list things to the exclusion of others. It gives examples of what’s included in, for example, in this case, services and is broadly meant to capture a certain category of things.

I appreciate the question because it gives me the opportunity to clarify it for the future use of this bill. The intention of all of these definitions is to be inclusive and include things like the member brought up, which is technology. I think that’s a really interesting form of where construction is going, right? There are a whole bunch more innovative and different uses of technology, too, that support the construction sector — front end, back end but also in making the actual buildings of the projects.

We know the definition is broad enough, but I guess what I’ll say is that we talked to JEDI also, the ministry there, when we were doing this, just to make sure we were capturing, and anything in here was capturing, the kind of new and innovative things that were happening in the construction sector. Of course, technology is part of all of our lives now, but we want to make it clear that if it’s something that was a service that was attached to this construction project, if you think of it that way, then it’s included in the prompt payment.

And the kind of fail-safe that we have, if we feel like all of the broad definitions that we’ve applied to this, which we think capture everything…. But let’s say there’s a situation five years from now where we feel like something is being missed or something is trying to carve themselves out of prompt payment wrongfully, then we have a regulatory power under 49 that allows us to clarify that a certain, I don’t know what it would be — who knows? — is included in this regime.

Misty Van Popta: On this side, we don’t like a lot of interpretation being left to regulation. I think, in this case, I would argue that it’s actually pretty prescriptive. It’s not broad. When I look at the definition of “services,” it says: “as an architect or engineer or rental of equipment.” It’s very prescriptive. It’s not broad, saying “and other items,” etc. Same with materials. It only refers to movable property. It’s not inclusive of other types of materials.

For those reasons, I’d actually like to table an amendment.

[CLAUSE 1, in the proposed definitions of “contractor” and “subcontractor”, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

“contractor” means a person who supplies services, or materials or technology for an improvement under contract with the owner for the improvement;

“subcontractor” means a person who supplies services, or materials or technology for an improvement under contract with a contractor or another subcontractor.]

The Chair: We’ll be taking a five-minute recess to make copies of the amendment.

The committee recessed from 2:13 p.m. to 2:21 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members, we’ll call the committee back.

We have an amendment to clause 1, and I will look to the member for Langley–Walnut Grove for comments.

On the amendment.

Misty Van Popta: Yes, so this is important, especially with how the industry and all industries are moving, which is to more technology-based processes. We will never be rid of labour and physical materials in construction, but we are definitely being filled in with new technologies and software. I think it’s really important that anything we do now, moving forward in legislation, captures that and is not relying on items like the Builders Lien Act, which is older.

This is a great opportunity, especially when it specifically pertains to the construction industry — that we capture technology as a type of service and/or materials.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. I appreciate where the amendment is coming from, but I can’t support it. And I just want to, in doing so, make it clear why it would potentially do, I think, the opposite of what the member is intending, so just to say….

I’ll start from the beginning, about what an inclusive definition is. The reason it’s an inclusive definition of “services” is that it is meant to be broad in the sense of what services is, and when you read it, you read it to know that this is not an exclusive list. The broadness of the definition helps to keep it as a sentiment that’s well understood by people to be a broad term. So that’s an important starting point about what an inclusive definition does.

Then I just want to go back to the two things in there. It says “services and materials.” The way you would legally look at that is…. Materials are movable, so anything that is a part of a construction project that you move is a material. Services are, of course, not, right? They are any service related to a construction project. So those two broad definitions are broad enough to capture everything involved in a construction project.

Then just to say, one of the things that we know with the deep work that the teams did is that since 2019 in Ontario, when they passed it, they had a similar broad definition of “service.” And when we talked and saw their review and talked to our industry partners, nobody raised this as an issue. I think the reason is because it’s generally understood that technology is included in services, and it’s part of our life and part of every industry right now.

So it hasn’t actually shown up as an issue. Even all the industry partners that looked at our draft copies of the bill understood services to include that. So we’re also not solving that problem, but we actually could be doing harm because by adding technology….

You have your two things. You have services and materials, which are broad enough to cover movable or not movable, those kind of things, the broad definitions. If you add technology, it actually weakens the definition of “services,” because legally interpreted, you might say: “Why did they single out technology as not being included in services?”

Then you run the risk of having a lot of unforeseeable issues arise out of that one change and also the risk of not being able to keep up with where the industry is going, in whatever direction it is, that might be included in services in the future.

[2:25 p.m.]

The complaint then could be in the future: “Why didn’t they specifically list that? If they didn’t specifically list it and it’s not included in services, then it doesn’t apply to me.” So the construction of this is to keep it as broad as possible.

Hopefully that clarifies why we won’t be supporting this amendment and why the member can be assured that, yes, technology is included in the definition of “services,” and we would expect that that is how it would play out. And the reason we know that’s how it’s going to play out is because we can see what happened in Ontario with a similar broad definition that did have that as part of the prompt payment regime.

The Chair: Okay. The question is the amendment to clause 1.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Gavin Dew: I flagged previously that I would be returning to the question of complex contractor structures in the definitions. I just want to canvass that a little bit because I want to understand whether a certain issue has been thought through and how it will be dealt with.

The reason why I asked about contractor structures and whether a contractor is defined solely as a company or as, for example, a group of companies is to understand what the implications of this particular approach would be.

To use a very simple example, in the case of a holdco-opco structure…. So when we’re talking about a contract position, let’s envision a scenario where there is a company. Let’s call it the master company in this instance, who has a contract with an owner or who has a contract with a contractor that is further up the chain. Now, let’s say for the sake of argument — this would not be an unusual structure — that this master company has a sub-entity, a subordinate entity, that is actually the operating company that is doing the work in this instance.

So in that case, from a strict definitional perspective, we would actually be talking about two companies, two contractors, who hold two positions in the chain of contracts. As such, there could be some uncertainty as to whether a given consolidated entity that actually consists of two or even more entities could actually, again, technically occupy two or even three positions within this question of contract position.

As such, that could actually elongate the eligible time frame for payment such that instead of being seven days, it was 14 days and, again, that could have knock-on implications down the chain, particularly in the case of complex projects and complex organizational structures. So I just wanted to understand whether that had been considered and/or taken into account in the development of the approach.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. I think the heart of the question is about the complexity that exists in the construction sector related to wholly owned companies and subsidiaries and all the subcontracting that might actually exist with companies.

I think it helps to explain this by breaking it down to how we constructed this bill. In this particular section, it says “the owner is zero,” right? Then “the position of the contractor is one,” and then it goes down from there for subcontractors.

To the member’s question, yes, it may be that different organizations on that chain of contracts may be related in some other way. He raised an example of it that may be true that they’re related another way.

[2:35 p.m.]

But when we look at the need for prompt payment, it’s triggered by the owner and the contractor. If a proper invoice was delivered, whoever it was on that chain or whatever related corporate structures they have, that’s the trigger of who is zero, which is the owner, and that contractor is one. Then it goes down from there for subcontractors. So you really have to pin it on the….

If you look at it, who asked for a service, and who delivered the service, or who’s asking to be paid for that service? So the owner has a service and a contract. The person delivered it. They want to be paid on time. They issue the proper invoice. It triggers the zero, one, two, down that cycle. So there may be tons of relationships at play, but that’s the way you simplify it, by making sure the proper invoice triggers the right people down the chain that need to pay.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the explanation. I think it’s a good-faith explanation. I do want to delve into this question a little bit more, because I actually think there are some complexities here that need to be addressed.

I will paint a hypothetical situation. This is obviously just a situation to explain the point I’m trying to make. If the owner is Dew’s Bridge Builders and there is then a contractor who is Sharma’s General Contracting, hypothetically, and Sharma’s General Contracting is part of the Sharma Group…. The Sharma Group is a consolidated entity that does major infrastructure works.

Now, either as a result of existing corporate structure or as a result of an effort to delay payment and to keep cash flow and liquidity within the controlled group, there could be a scenario where, hypothetically, Sharma’s General Contracting actually breaks the value chain up into a series of entities. There could be Sharma’s Contracting One, which is then subcontracted to Sharma’s Contracting Two, down to Sharma’s Contracting Three.

We don’t need to define all the various, different nuts and bolts and things they could be doing in this hypothetical example.

And all the way after we make our way through four layers of Sharma’s Contracting, sitting at the bottom of that is poor little Van Popta Contracting. Van Popta Contracting is all the way down that chain and is now actually sitting on the potential for substantial delay because of the structure of Sharma’s Contracting, whether, again, that structure is just a normal run-of-course situation in industry or whether there is a malign actor who has decided to structure their affairs in such a way that they’re able to functionally marinate invoices for longer than would otherwise be possible.

What I’m trying to understand is whether and how the bill contemplates consolidated entities, contemplates effectively owned subcontractors within that chain of contracts and how those could have unintended consequences or could create market aberrations.

For example, you could be looking at two parallel chains of contracts where the line, the chain of contracts, between the owner and Van Popta Contracting in this situation, could either put them in position 2 or position 5 depending on what the structure is. That, in itself, could then have significant implications for the payment timeline for that subsequent subcontractor further down the chain.

Again, I’m painting a fairly stark and oversimplified example of how that might work, but I’m just trying to understand how that would be approached from a regulatory perspective or from a real-world perspective.

[2:40 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to thank the member for providing this example, because it really helps me to walk through to people listening about the power of this bill, exactly for our poor Van Popta company that’s at the bottom of this chain and, as described, unfortunately, by Sharma company, is at the hands of very shady practices, essentially.

Let’s start with what I think is one of the really powerful provisions, section 47, which we will get to at some point. It really talks about the fact that if there is such a regime that’s set up — purposely being set up, it sounds like, in the description that was provided to me — to circumvent this regime, then they’re running the risk of all of the contracts just being void, so their whole structure being void. I think that’s one of the clearest tools.

Also, if we think about poor Van Popta at the bottom of that chain, that company now has way more remedies in a dispute than they would ever have, if this bill was to be in force. We’ll just start with the timelines and the remedies available to that company. First of all, there’s way more right to information now about the contractors, their chain and what the proper invoice was under this act. And they’re entitled to know, basically, about a lot of things they were maybe not entitled to know about or didn’t have a way to access.

So it’s going to be very hard for the Sharma groups to hide what they’re doing, based on that. That, of course, leaves them open to the section 47 that I just mentioned.

Also, if we think about that chain, timelines for payment and also dispute resolution are next. Most likely, for the Van Popta of this scheme, they would have to figure out how they’re going to hire a lawyer, go to court and enforce their payments. All those things, especially if you’re maybe at the bottom of that chain or aren’t as liquid in your assets and your team as some of the bigger companies, would be kind of an impenetrable barrier to actually figuring out how you’d collect.

With this bill, that company would have a remedy and a resolution to get payment in a quicker way. Those are just some of the ways that the bill would be structured.

I think one of the reasons that all of the sectors came to us to ask for these kinds of things was not only to make prompt payment and all the things we talked about at the beginning go smoothly. If there are bad actors, it actually does shine a light and give a remedy to them in a way that doesn’t exist now.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the explanation from the Attorney General, and I want to be clear that I in no way, shape or form intend to impugn any Sharma in my example. The Attorney General merely was sitting across from me, and I had to come up with a fake name quickly. I want to make that totally clear, and I appreciate the thoughtful answer.

I had, in fact, circled section 47, so I appreciate that being raised in the broad scope of remedies.

[2:50 p.m.]

If you’ll allow me to be just a tiny bit pedantic on this particular section, we have talked about remedies, which I think primarily would be tools to be used after the fact, if there has been malfeasance or abuse of the system. I think the Attorney General summarized a number of those remedies, and that was certainly appreciated.

Up front, particularly in the early days of establishing and normalizing the regime of prompt payment, the expectations, kind of socializing this with industry, how will the government enforce the calculation of contract position in complex chains of subcontractors to ensure prompt payment cascades correctly?

And alongside that enforcement, what are the intentions around communicating and making information available to allow good actors who are simply trying to understand how they should be engaging with this regime?

Again, we talked about a hypothetical company, the Sharma Group, that in this instance was engaging in manipulation of the system. There could easily be another group, the Niki Group, that is a good actor who simply has a standard opco-holdco situation and is just wanting to understand whether that means they’ve got seven days or 14.

Can I just get a little bit more explanation around what the broad intentions are on explaining and socializing the approach to industry?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There were two questions there that the member asked, and I’ll talk through both of them.

The first one, which is, I think, a point we have heard from the industry, is that there are different levels of sophistication and/or staff teams related in the construction chain. Making sure that everybody understands what these rules are and how they apply to them is very important. So there are a couple of things that we did to take that concern that we heard into account.

One is delayed implementation. We have regulations to work through, as we’ve mentioned, that we’ll work through with industry. But also, the time period before it comes into force gives us that proper time to get out there and make sure people understand how invoicing needs to change if they…. You know, all those kinds of things that are part of it.

I just want to give a shout-out to BCCA. They’ve already started with this education of the sector. So they have a question-and-answer that’s already online for people to understand what the new rules are. Just to say that this was something that was done for industry, requested by industry. So it’s about setting clear rules and timelines out there. It’s not about government oversight besides setting up this process and letting it act in the world as it should.

As a result of that, to the second question about how to enforce calculations, it will be, of course, driven by industry. But we think we have the right tools in there to have that happen. For example, if you’re somewhere on the chain, and you feel like something is wrong in that proper invoice, or there’s a calculation that’s wrong, or somebody is mistreating you somehow, you can pull out and do a quick notice of adjudication.

It’s like a fast-tracked thing to get right in there and sort that out. Just one of the tools that are there to kind of intervene at those times when it may be needed.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the great explanation. That’s very helpful.

Certainly in my conversation with industry, it’s clear there has been a lot of good conversation and a lot of good thought around this.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The questions I’m asking are intended at the margin, just to understand whether there are any residual issues that are not clear, any residual implications that could become complex.

I think this is probably a fairly simple question, and it’s been partially covered by the Attorney General’s previous answer, but has the ministry assessed and quantified the administrative burden this new hierarchy system may create for small firms or sole proprietors who are unfamiliar with legal numbering systems and other complexities that are introduced here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I think I mentioned earlier, that was the concern that we heard from some of the discussions. Not that it isn’t good to do this. It’s just that we need to be cognizant of the different levels in the construction chain that might be impacted, that may not have, as I mentioned earlier, the same level of legal team and all those other resources.

So just to say that what we’ve seen when we followed what happened in Ontario…. That round table really dug into it. There was a short-term adjustment period that people needed to do, and they did it.

[3:00 p.m.]

Since then, it’s had the desired effect of actually making it better for those people that are maybe the group that can’t hire the ten lawyers to go after their payment because it gives them faster access to a cheaper remedy. So the net result after that adjustment period is positive for everybody.

Misty Van Popta: In some of my experience, especially at the early stages of a project, you can quite often have the owner directly contract with a subcontractor, somebody who, by definition, would be considered a subcontractor. Could the Attorney General please clarify if they would be renamed as a contractor and treated as position 1? Or how would that work if a subcontractor is being hired directly by an owner, which is position 0?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think in the example provided, the contractor would be the contractor for the purposes of the act.

If we take it back to the service or materials that are under that contract, an owner might have many different contracts with many different either service providers or material providers in a group. You take a look at that particular contract for that material or service. That would be the trigger, so then the owner is zero and then that contractor is one.

If that contractor subcontracts, then they would be the next in line. You wouldn’t have to reshift any of that chain of command. We would start with that contract, right? The original contract and the owner and the contractor would be set out that way.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Misty Van Popta: Clause 3 is one of the clauses that refers to “subject to regulations.” I was wondering if the minister, for the record here, could talk about who could be designated as a substitute owner in this case and what accountability measures ensure that the substitute meets all owner obligations under this act.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This provision is intended to respect what happens in a lot of scenarios in the sector, where you may be the owner but you hire somebody like a project manager or somebody else to conduct the construction project that you’re undertaking. In that sense, it allows that to cover for scenarios like that.

We also have the regulation-making ability to put, kind of, if we see…. I think we had this conversation earlier about if somebody is misusing some of these things to get around payment. Then we have regulatory-making power to put more parameters around that.

Misty Van Popta: What about substitute subcontractors? Quite often you might have a contractor not be able to meet obligations or to be substituted in. Could the Attorney General please describe how this legislation would work in that regard.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason that the bill is structured to make it clear who the owner is and whether or not there’s this idea of this substitute owner is because the owner is pivotal to the whole chain. You need to know who the owner is because they’re the one that’s responsible for that prompt payment to the services. So that’s the focus that it has on clarity for the owner’s sake.

Now, in scenarios down the chain, when it comes to contractors, subcontractors and how that might unroll in the different set-ups that that might occur in, then you would have to go back to the contract. So you go back to the contract of materials and services and what that proper invoice included. If that proper invoice included that service, then the owner is zero, this contractor is one, and then it goes down the subcontractor chain.

Everything that flows through those contracts or whatever for the delivery of that service would be captured, and then you would go down the chain that way.

The Chair: Members of the committee, I will ask that when the minister or the member is speaking, you not be speaking. The rest of the time, quiet conversation is fine.

We are apparently going to take a recess for ten minutes. We are in a ten-minute recess. I have 3:08 on my watch. I expect everybody back here in seats at 3:18, please. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 3:09 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Bringing the committee back to order. We are on clause 3 of the Construction Prompt Payment Act, Bill 20.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Misty Van Popta: Clause 4 would be something that I would like to hear the Attorney General kind of describe a bit better or explain a bit better. It sounds a little bit circulative in the sense that it says, “subject to subsection (2), this act applies in relation to the supply of services and materials for an improvement under a contract,” but then subsection (2) says that this act does not apply in relation to a prescribed improvement, contract, service or material.

[3:20 p.m.]

So just to clarify the intent of this particular clause and the application of it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This type of revision is in line with the work that we did that was cross-jurisdictional that had this idea of this ability to have some flexibility of what it may apply to or not, and the reason behind that is…. Although I’m not sure it’s been used in other jurisdictions, there may be a compelling reason why you would want….

Let’s say there was an emergency situation with a natural disaster or something, where there needed to be a rebuild or something that was very quick. That could be a scenario.

Or I know that some organizations like UDI, and we’ve not made any decisions on this, are making the case that some really small home renovations…. If you’re getting your kitchen redone or something, under a certain amount or with small contractors, there may be a reason that government, at some point, if this bill was in place, might want to say: “Okay, we don’t need to apply these rules to that level of contract.”

It just gives the flexibility, although as we mentioned before, everything we’ve heard about how these have worked in other jurisdictions and how we intend it to is that you need to apply it to the broadest base of the construction sector to make sure that it’s effective for all contractors and subcontractors and workers that are in the sector.

Misty Van Popta: This section specifically doesn’t say subject to regulations. I’m just trying to understand what exemptions or how that process would be determined, what kind of exemptions there could be for a prescribed improvement, contract or service or materials.

How would that criteria for exemption look, and how transparent will this process be to ensure it does not undermine the act’s intent?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason you know it’s by regulation is the word “prescribed” is in there, and I think we mentioned earlier, in our definitions section, that “prescribed” is defined in the Interpretation Act as “prescribed by regulation.” So that’s the reason that you see that it’s triggered.

I guess to the second part of the question, we have endeavoured and committed to industry that in making the regulations moving forward, we would sit down with them and talk through things like…. We talked before about the interest rate and how that would apply and other applications.

I can say that the policy goal of this government, although every government will have decision-making authority in the future, is to have this apply to the broadest spectrum possible in order to get the changes that we want to see in the industry.

Misty Van Popta: Could the Attorney General explain if, in her opinion…? Could exempting specific categories of work result in some subcontractors being left out with prompt payment protections that this act is meant to guarantee? Could you ever anticipate a loophole where this would actually cause somebody to be exempted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can give my opinion on this. Then, of course, it’s up to future governments and decision-makings in the policy.

As I mentioned before, the reason for this legislation and what we’ve heard from the sector is that it needs to apply to the broadest, if not all, of the actors in the construction sector. We’ve seen that in other jurisdictions. I think I mentioned Alberta’s initial legislation just applied to the private sector, and they’re moving now to expand it to the public sector, because I think the general thought is it works better if more is included.

I think the member is right. If there ever was a decision by a cabinet or future cabinet through regulation that they would exempt, they would have to consider exactly what she’s raising, which is: will this run amok of the changes that we actually want to see, which is that all actors are acting in a way that moves payments through in an effective way?

I would imagine that would be at the forefront of the policy decision, if that were to be made.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Misty Van Popta: I don’t have too much on this section. It’s pretty straightforward.

I did want to clarify just in terms of alternative invoicing processes and milestones that don’t fit into the 30-day kind of typical invoicing cycle.

Would legislation in this act allow for, say, bad actors to write all of their contracts using future milestones or different targets? Could bad actors who don’t want to do a 30-day cycle essentially write all of their contracts to be, say, 45 or 60 so that they’re holding on to their funds longer?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a balance between the freedom of contract and the prompt payment regime. Maybe you could look at it as a balance, but you could also look at it as the fact that contractors and owners are free to negotiate terms. Sometimes, even if you’re not a bad actor, it includes milestone payments: “If you do this thing, then I’ll pay you this.”

That’s part of the nature of the industry and the freedom that we want to give people to contract those terms. You could say that an owner might try to negotiate, “I want a 90-day timeline for my payment,” but then they risk that that contractor wouldn’t take the job because it’s not frequent enough.

So there’s the leeway in there of that negotiation, and that’s a thing that we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, too, that put this in place. The key thing about it is that once those have been negotiated, and it’s clear in the contract what the payment regime is, this prompt payment legislation will, once the proper invoice is given, trigger very clear timelines on payment.

You can say that from the contractor’s or subcontractor’s perspective, they can understand and design their businesses appropriately, because under the contract, they understand their payments, and they’ve signed on to whatever frequency of payments. They also know that if it doesn’t hit that timeline that they’ve built into their business and in that contract, they can trigger very certain timelines so they can get that payment or dispute resolution quickly.

Misty Van Popta: There is a possibility — and it is, actually, quite a common thing within the industry — that subcontractors don’t know the contract of the person above them. If a contractor, say, has 60-day terms that they’ve negotiated with the owner, it’s not necessarily known to the subcontractor that the contractor has 60 days.

Is there any type of anticipation, through regulation or policy, that there be an alerting system or information that can be passed down to subs that they’re taking on a contract with an owner who might have extended-milestone-type payment cycles which will also affect the subcontractor’s payment cycles?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, we did consider that. I’m happy to talk about it in section 12 once we get there.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Misty Van Popta: Clause 6 is one of the areas that I heard some concern over, especially from larger contractors and larger projects. If I look at excavation of a project, in a 30-day cycle you could have hundreds of thousands of dollars be on that progress draw for that month on that particular contract. Being off by a percentage or two in terms of their progress draw can result in a large amount of money being paid out ahead of time without….

That’s why those checks and balances from banks are often required, or architects are often required to make sure, if a subcontractor is saying, “I’ve completed 8 percent of my contract this month,” that they’re appropriately billing those 8 percent.

If the work was actually only 6½ percent, and they’re billing for 8, without that certification process, in turn, the owner could be paying out an extra 1½ percent in that monthly draw — which, on some of these larger contracts, results in a large amount of money being paid out.

With that in mind, I was wondering how the act ensures that improper, inaccurate invoices do not lead to overpayment or disputes.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We know that this idea of a payment certification, or some independent verification that the service or material that was meant to be delivered or that a milestone is done to a certain standard, is an important part of the sector and will be used, and we intend it to be used.

What this does is just ensure that it can’t be used as a way to delay stuff. What it says is that you can’t use it to prevent the issuance of the proper invoice. You can’t use it to delay the proper invoice.

The way it would work, maybe, in reality…. Say you’ve issued your proper invoice on time. A person can’t say: “Well, I’m not going to receive it or trigger anything because I’m waiting for this certification.” No, what has to happen is that you can deliver the proper invoice. Of course the person can still do any kind of verification they need to do, but it has to be done in a timely way then, because the proper course of that would be….

For some reason, if you’ve seen that it’s not up to a standard — “I don’t want to pay because of whatever issue that this independent certification has said” — then you can issue a notice of non-payment and explain why that payment hasn’t happened.

What it’s trying to remedy, through this provision, is to make sure that that process isn’t just used as a delay to circumvent any prompt payment.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the explanation. I think that what the Attorney General has just described, from a real-world perspective, sounds quite reasonable. What I do have a little bit of concern around with regard to 6(1) is that that’s not what I’m reading here.

What I’m reading here is: “A provision in a contract that makes the giving of a proper invoice conditional on the certification of a payment certifier or the approval of the owner is void.” What that would appear to do, potentially, is actually make it impossible for two consenting parties to enter into a contract that makes payment conditional on certification by a payment certifier.

I would expect that that might be something that two reasonable parties might want to enter into as an agreement. It would be quite normal for that to be in an agreement in good faith and not be manipulated.

What I’m just a little bit unclear about here is that the scenario outlined by the Attorney General is an abusive situation. It’s apparent that she believes it has the intent of stopping that. But if, for example, a contractor wishes to compete in a marketplace by offering to make payment contingent on the certification of a payment certifier, they are effectively prohibited from using that as a competitive tool in this situation.

Again, I just want to understand whether the intent the Attorney General is describing is matched by the language in the legislation.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think this actually would help provide clarity to what I said. So certification approval can be a condition for payment, which is, I think, what the member was talking about, not for the submission of a proper invoice. There’s a distinction there. So that’s an important one.

I also will just note that we have to remember that in very complicated regimes or processes, you have many subcontractors that also might be reliant on that payment. So making sure that things aren’t delayed isn’t just about the two parties, the owner and the contractor. It’s also about all the other people in the chain.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. Much appreciated. That actually brings me very neatly to the next question here.

We were just discussing on this side what implications that could have around access to capital and to lending. Typically, you would see in situations where draws are dependent on the certification of work completed, there actually is also an additional party that is not in this chain of contracts, whatsoever, and that is financing partners, whether those be financial institutions or others.

What consideration has been given to the implications of this particular section to lender behaviour or to the relationship between owners, contractors and lenders?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These timelines and provisions are the same in other jurisdictions, including Ontario, and there’s been no…. When we dug into it…. We had a whole round table that dug into how it was working in different provinces and what we could do to adapt it to B.C., and there were no concerns raised about any lender behaviour or anything.

[3:45 p.m.]

I just want to say that this legislation will require an adjustment, because it’s putting certainty of payment in the system. So that will require contracts to adjust and more consideration on the timeliness of things, which is the whole point of the bill. So yeah, we would expect that.

Also to the member’s point, a draw from a lending institution would be considered a payment. Since a draw from a lending institution would be considered a payment, you can put certification or approval as a condition for payment. That’s not the issue. The question would be timeliness. You issue your proper invoice, and then it triggers a timeliness. You can have certification through that process. So it’s just a matter of adjusting.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I appreciate the fulsome answer.

Just to confirm, what consultation has been undertaken with financial institutions and other lenders with regard to their understanding of the legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I talked about the pretty extensive consultation that happened with the construction sector. So at that table, they brought their types of loans and types of lending that they undertake in that industry. They were the most important stakeholder when it came to that.

They didn’t raise…. Actually, it was the opposite. They said they wanted this kind of certainty in their prompt payment to make sure that money would flow in a way that made it so they could meet their commitments, whether it’s to the lender or to other institutions. That was the type of consulting that we did.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Gavin Dew: This may be a pedantic question, and I fully recognize that. However, I do just want to understand. In 7(2), what exactly is the definition of “given a proper invoice”? Again, I recognize that I am being pedantic with the question, but I do think it’s important to understand.

When is a contractor deemed to have given an invoice, and what are the available mechanisms by which one can be formally given? Is an invoice given if it is emailed? Is it given if it is texted? Is it given if it is faxed? Is it given if it is handed in person? Is it given if it’s mailed? Is it given if it’s sent by carrier pigeon?

I just want to understand. Are there any specifics around what constitutes “given” as the trigger for the clock to start?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is a very good question because how something is given is so key to what triggers the timeline. So I think it is a very important question, and I appreciate it.

The way that we’ve thought about it is that you will see, under 49 when we get to 49(f), that there is a regulation-making ability to clarify the types of ways. It may be carrier pigeon, if that’s what the industry says. But we will be talking to them about how we should define “given,” because it would be a kind of a pivotal moment in the prompt payment.

Misty Van Popta: Although I appreciate the intent with proper invoicing and what that means, my experience is a lot of smaller subcontractors — we’re talking mom-and-pop shops — don’t necessarily have a lot of administration to be able to handle the new requirements for what is deemed a proper invoice, especially on smaller projects, renovations, etc. I’m a little bit concerned with overburdening trades that have limited office capacity and resources.

[3:50 p.m.]

Could the Attorney General please clarify the type of timelines to come into compliance and ways that we can address the smaller contractors with this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s something that I appreciate is being raised because it is something we’ve thought about, as well, and the industry has talked to us about.

There are a few ways that we’ve addressed this. The first one is, I would say, in the clause itself. What you’ll see there is a list of things that are not overly complicated to do. It’ll say the date of the invoice, the name of the contractor, the period of time. Those are things that…. Some of them may likely be included in an invoice or not, but it also is very clear what information is needed.

One of the things that I think came up in the discussions was that sometimes we don’t pay on time because we don’t have enough information in the invoice and we have to go back and ask. So it also helps with that, because it’s clear what information is needed when you issue what’s termed a proper invoice here.

Then the other thing I think will be really helpful is there are a lot of industry associations that are not only very keen about this prompt payment, but they’re also very keen about educating people in the industry about these new standards, if they’re passed.

One of the things that I know that will be happening is there’ll be a standard form. You could imagine that industry associations could produce a standard form, proper invoice. For people that don’t have the same level of administrative capability, it can be very clear that here’s what you do to do a proper invoice. Those are the ways we’ve thought about it.

Then the next part is, we know there are adjustment periods that are needed for the industry once this comes into force, if it does. That would mean that we’re delaying, and that’s the time to get into implementation by regulation. It’ll be very clear that this is coming and here’s what the changes are, and here’s the way you adapt. Those are the ways we thought about it.

Misty Van Popta: Flipping gears to, say, a larger firm again, when I think of all the different layers that invoice verification happens…. It goes all the way down, really, to boots on the ground, superintendents verifying work that has been done by their subcontractor, going to the project coordinator, then going to the project manager, then going to the accounting department and then going to etc., etc.

If I look at it from that lens, having seven days to correct an invoice is actually really, really tight. I wanted to understand. If there are disputes over whether an invoice meets the proper requirements, or the invoice requirements be resolved quickly, how does that not impact the cash flow to subcontractors? I don’t know if I worded that properly.

If it’s taking up till day 6 to correct an invoice because it’s had to go through so many layers, just even within a contractor, how is that not, in effect, also going to…? That gives one day for a large company to then get their invoicing department or their accounting department to release a payment. I do see a little bit of issue and pushback in that regard, with larger firms having to go through their own internal layers to get invoice requirement verification in check.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just with respect to this, first of all, I’ll start by saying we expect there will be an adjustment period. Like I said, we…. The member was talking about very sophisticated organizations and the layers of approval that may or may not be necessary. They will have to adjust their work through these timelines, and I expect that they would be able to do so, especially since the industry has been asking us for this.

But subsection (2) is related to…. I’ll just explain what would happen. So I’ve received a proper invoice, let’s say, and I notice that it’s actually not a proper invoice because it’s missing some information. Well, then I can notify the entity to say that it doesn’t meet the requirements of this and what information is missing. It just allows that ability for there to be any corrections in the proper invoices that are needed in order for there to be that trigger of payment.

Then we’ll tie it to the next section. It says in the next section that one of two things can happen. The contractor can say, “Here’s the missing information, and I agree that this information doesn’t change our initial timelines for prompt payment,” or the contractor can issue another proper invoice, which is with the correct information. Then the timelines would be kind of retriggered at the point that that’s given to the owner.

Misty Van Popta: Respectfully, I would love every contractor and subcontractor to revise their invoices expediently. But the challenge that we have in the industry is that we are short trades and we are short workers. It’s already a challenge to get revised invoices, verification of work, even administratively.

You know, as a project manager, I’d call up the owner and be like: “Come on. This isn’t actually the item that was supposed to be on this invoice. Let’s correct it.” “Yeah, yeah, yeah. I’ll get back to you.” Two weeks later I’m finally getting a revised invoice.

The other piece that I do caution is that, yes, the industry has asked for these change, but the industry encompasses a lot of different arms. You’ve got the lens of the trade and the subcontractors and the smaller firms, and then you’ve also got the contractors and the general contractors who build a project. But then you also have the lens of the developer, who has to go through even more layers of protection on their project and their invoicing.

Some of the concerns that we have are that, yes, this needs to happen, but we also have to add provisions for protections for the developers who are the ones shouldering the expenses of these projects and the ones that are going through this scrutiny with lending and lending requirements and making sure that time is money. All costs on a project….

Even when I look at my experience on the ground, reaching my superintendent to verify a piece of information, it would be the end of the day when he finally gets to sit at his desk to be able to call me back and go, “Yeah, okay, this happened,” or: “This is not happening.”

[4:00 p.m.]

I do just caution. Throwing it out that the industry wants this is a fair statement, but it’s also a fair statement to say that there is caution within segments of the construction industry, that they have some red flags on how this will be executed in terms of the reality of making this happen.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned for this day.

The committee rose at 4:01 p.m.