Hansard — Thursday, October 30, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 95

First, I would like to introduce the Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell. Ms. Campbell was the first and remains the only woman to serve as Canada’s Prime Minister. She also broke ground as the first woman to hold the positions of Minister of Justice and Attorney General, as well as Minister of National Defence.

Beyond Canadian politics, she built a distinguished post-political career. This included serving as the Canadian consul general in Los Angeles, teaching at Harvard University and becoming the founding principal of the Peter Lougheed Leadership College at the University of Alberta. She continues to be a vocal advocate for the rule of law and democratic values, and continues to advance women in leadership roles.

Also, I have the privilege to introduce a man whose life embodies vision, integrity and service, Nasser Kazeminy. Born in Iran and educated in England, from humble beginnings with zero dollars, he has grown a company into a global investment enterprise spanning technology, health care, digital media and e-commerce, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs worldwide.

Beyond his achievements in business, his legacy lies in his humanitarian spirit. He champions education, opportunity and dignity for peoples across the globe, supporting hundreds of charitable causes, funding scholarships and aiding countless families seeking a better life.

As chairman of the Ellis Island Honors Society, he continues to celebrate and elevate the values of diversity, compassion and contribution that define the human spirit. He is in British Columbia today honouring Nobel peace laureate, the former president of Poland, Lech Wałęsa.

Please join me in welcoming Ms. Campbell and a true global citizen, Mr. Nasser Kazeminy.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M220 — Municipal Affairs
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Peter Milobar presented a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Peter Milobar: I move the first reading of a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, of which notice has been given under my name on the order paper.

The Speaker: Continue.

Peter Milobar: This Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, would enable municipalities to keep what they collect from pipeline utilities at the same rate they are currently collecting.

It is our understanding that B.C. Assessment will be bringing forward a recommendation to the Finance Minister to reduce the assessed value of pipelines by 30 percent. Why that is critical is, unlike other rate classes in the Assessment Act, like a homeowner in class 1, if there was a large assessment drop in that class, municipalities could simply adjust the mill rate to collect the same amount of dollars off of that rate class of homeowners.

When it comes to pipelines in the utility rate class and class 2, the mill rates that municipalities can charge is actually capped under legislation at $40 per $1,000 of value. So when there’s a 30 percent drop in that assessed value, that means municipalities that are not allowed to run a deficit will be forced to find hundreds of thousands of dollars, moving forward, because they can no longer collect the same amount of actual dollars off of the pipeline that they otherwise are right now.

I was the mayor of Kamloops when we negotiated the deal for a community benefit agreement, and a lot of that for TMX was around the increase in property taxation that we then used to lower the mill rates for our pulp mills and our sawmills to shore up heavy industry.

This bill would simply enable the cap to go up to $46.15 from $40, enabling municipalities to continue to collect the same amount of money they are currently collecting. It would not add a cost to the pipeline. It would simply say that they are going to be charged the same amount of taxation they were already planning and telling communities that they were willing to pay in the first place, thus relieving pressure on heavy industry and small businesses across British Columbia by municipalities faced with hard decisions to make otherwise.

[1:10 p.m.]

I do hope that the House does support this bill and the government calls it for further debate.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Peter Milobar: I move the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, be added to the orders of the day at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Josie Osborne: Here in the main chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 30.

In the Douglas Fir Room, committee stage on Bill 31.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Employment Standards
(Serious Illness or Injury Leave)
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Everyone deserves to live a life of dignity, with the services and supports that they need to thrive. We all want a British Columbia where everyone can build a good life, a province where services and supports are available, equitable and accessible; and where people feel connected and included in community. That’s the foundation of our poverty reduction strategy.

People tell me they feel better off when they have a job and the feeling of belonging and community connection they get from work. In turn, workers build B.C. and build the projects that fund the services that people count on.

These are the actions that our government is taking now, the ones that are being developed to meet emerging challenges, to aim to make government work better for people. They’re designed to create a province where accidents, illnesses and unexpected financial losses don’t lead to lifelong and intergenerational poverty.

It’s hard to imagine anything more catastrophic or awful than facing the diagnosis of a major health issue. At this crucial time in their lives, people need to know that their job is safe, that they can take needed time off to receive medical treatment and recover.

That’s why Bill 30 is so important. Job-protected medical leave will give B.C.’s workers peace of mind when they need to focus on recovery or treatment, but currently there are no provisions under B.C.’s Employment Standards Act that provide long-term, job-protected leave for employees who are unable to work due to their own serious illness or injury.

Now, we know that many employers already welcome employees back to work after taking an extended leave to recover from an illness or injury without that being a legal requirement under the Employment Standards Act. They already meet and exceed Bill 30. They do this because it’s the right thing to do, and we are grateful for that.

Also, workers who experience long-term illness or disability have got existing legal protections under the B.C. human rights code. Our government made changes previously to the WorkSafe act to require rehab and return to work, and that this be supported. Many workers and unions have bargained such provisions into their collective agreements, but not everyone has these protections, so we are taking action again.

While developing this piece of legislation, we heard from businesses, industry and employer associations, the Tourism Industry Association, the B.C. Hotel Association, Restaurants Canada, association of Business Improvement Areas, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the Retail Council of Canada, Business Council of B.C. There was a shared recognition of the importance of supporting workers who suffer from a life-altering diagnosis and also broad agreement that workers deserve to be able to return to their jobs when they and their health care providers say that they are ready.

Now, this is an unpaid leave that is proposed in Bill 30, so employers are not required to incur the cost of an employee’s wage during the leave. But we want people to have a job to return to and to be able to have the flexibility within their work relationship that they can get the help that that they need. We have been hearing this from patient advocate groups for some time.

[1:15 p.m.]

In B.C., there are 245,000 people living with cancer. In B.C., more than 31,000 people are diagnosed with cancer each year. We’re thinking of, especially in Nanaimo, as we are beginning construction of a cancer centre in Nanaimo, the importance of people being able to be close to home for treatment, where they have their community of care that supports them on their path to wellness, that they won’t have to travel for treatment.

We know that across the province, because the Canadian Cancer Society has told us, there are cases out there in which employees were terminated because they needed an extended absence to recover from cancer. We’re proposing this legislation that will allow up to 27 weeks of unpaid leave if you’re facing a catastrophic illness.

It doesn’t need to be taken all in one lump, but it ensures that if you’re doing chemotherapy, for example, you’d be able to take the time off that you need for work and return to your job. It’s vital that we provide this important insurance to workers and their families, and I hear that, for them, the guarantee of job protection may help invite survivors to feel safe in seeking those services for their recovery.

This legislation will align B.C. with other provinces and will also align us with the federal EI sickness benefits.

In closing, we are building a province where everyone feels safe, welcome and included in their communities and where people can get the help that they need. We are building that better province together. We are so reliant on workers to do that work. For us to be able to ensure that British Columbia workers are looked after is a key part of that. Working together, we are building a province and an economy that works for everyone.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to voice my support for Bill 30.

Dallas Brodie: I cannot support this bill as drafted. I listen to this…. I’ve run a small business myself. I still run a small business. And while I empathize very much with people who are undergoing health issues — I’ve been through that myself — 27 weeks consecutively of time off would be bad enough, but then to say that 27 weeks is non-consecutive is even worse. This amounts to more than half a year of time off.

It’s very difficult to run a business, particularly a small business, when you are already weighed down by the mountain of regulations and taxes that already exist in this province, and the never-ending additions to the list of statutory holidays that are also a massive burden on businesses.

Anyone who has run a small business understands how difficult it will be to have an employee gone for 27 weeks. You’d have to hold that spot, training someone else and not even knowing if that other employee will ever be coming back.

The comments I just heard are that most companies are already supporting their employees who are going through difficult times. What concerns me is that we are now going to add sort of the forcing mechanism here, saying that it’s not good enough that you’re just basically all doing a good job of this. We’re going to now make you do this, which sort of turns this into an entitlement, if you will.

We need to move away from this type of direction in our economy, particularly now when businesses are struggling so much. Our GDP is way down, and we need to give businesses the signal that we’re going to get off their backs, not on their backs more.

I would like to say that I believe that we need to help the small businesses. I don’t think this is going to do that. I think it will make them very nervous.

This is not to say that I’m not empathetic or have sympathy with people who have been sick. I have been there. But I think it’s much better to rely on the goodwill of businesses rather than force them into a corner with more and more regulations.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll ask the minister to close debate.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I want to express gratitude to my colleagues on all sides of the House who engaged in this debate and who, in some cases, shared very difficult stories, very personal stories of individuals that they know or experiences that they’ve had of people in their circles struggling with difficult health diagnoses, and speaking to the benefit of job-protected leave in those circumstances.

[1:20 p.m.]

I guess I would just make the point again that working people in this province and in this country have rights. Not only do they have just a general right to experience dignity and safety in their work. They have rights under human rights law, and they have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of disability. That is something that we should all bear in mind as we move through this discussion.

Of course, what we are seeking to do in this bill is to codify what is, in many cases, I understand, practice on the part of many employers. But we have heard very important and compelling experiences, life experiences, of people who not only have had their lives dramatically, drastically impacted by health diagnoses but who have also then actually lost their job. It is kind of inconceivable, frankly, to imagine a circumstance in which somebody further experiences that further catastrophe in a circumstance where they are already fighting for their lives.

I look forward to the discussion that we will be having in committee stage on this bill.

With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 30, intituled Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025.

Division has been called.

[1:25 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Members, the question is second reading of Bill 30, Employment Standards (Serious Illness or Injury Leave) Amendment Act, 2025.

[1:35 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 81
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	Wilson	Kindy
Milobar	Rustad	Banman
Kooner	Halford	Hartwell
L. Neufeld	Van Popta	Clare
K. Neufeld	Valeriote	Botterell
Bhangu	Gasper	Toor
Hepner	Davis	McInnis
Bird	McCall	Stamer
Day	Tepper	Mok
Chapman	Maahs	Kealy
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Doerkson	Luck	Block
NAYS — 2
Brodie		Armstrong

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 25.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that Bill 25 now be read a second time.

I am here today to present proposed changes to the Vancouver Charter, the Local Government Act and the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act. Proposed changes to the local government legislation are intended to remove barriers to the development of small-scale multi-unit housing by clarifying and expanding where it must be allowed.

If passed, this bill will amend the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter to clarify and expand the zones where local governments must permit small-scale multifamily housing, to expand the existing framework for granting extensions and issuing ministerial orders to support these changes and to expand the regulation-making authority to include housing unit form and density for off-street parking and exemptions.

Let me provide a little bit of context. In fall 2023, we as a government brought in small-scale multi-unit housing legislation to remove outdated rules, to allow more types of homes to be built in areas limited to single, detached and duplex housing throughout B.C. to help address the housing crisis. I’m pleased to report that almost all local governments have met or exceeded the requirements.

We’re now starting to see meaningful outcomes, with this type of housing now being built in many communities throughout the province — more housing choices, more housing options for young families, for downsizing seniors and so many more to stay in the communities they love all across this province.

However, a review of implementation and engagement with the local governments and homebuilders has highlighted that barriers to the delivery of this essential form of housing still exist in some communities.

Many local governments have done an exceptional job of enabling this type of housing, and I want to recognize the incredible work of Burnaby, Surrey, Kelowna, Kamloops and Port Moody, in particular, to make these family-supporting homes work in their communities.

[1:40 p.m.]

The proposed changes before us build on this work by removing barriers to create consistent frameworks across the province for small-scale multi-unit housing to be built.

The first change is to clarify that a zone that has any parcel of land that is restricted to duplexes or single detached homes, including a single detached home with a secondary suite and accessory dwelling unit, must allow small-scale multi-unit housing. If passed, local governments impacted by the changes will need to comply by June 30, 2026. An extension process will be established for communities that are in the process of upgrading infrastructure, that lack sufficient infrastructure to support additional housing in specific areas, or for extraordinary circumstances.

The second change is to ensure that there is clear authority to put certain site standards into regulations, specifically for setting upper limits for off-street parking requirements and housing unit form and density. This change will not have any immediate impact on local governments but will allow the province to make regulations for minimum standards only if they are needed in the future. The legislation will also ensure that any new requirements, including new or amended regulations, can be supported through the existing ministerial order compliance mechanism.

The changes are expected to impact fewer than 25 percent of municipalities, and in most of those communities, only a small number of zones or lots would be impacted. In a small number of communities, the changes will have more significant impacts to ensure that neighbourhood-friendly homes for families and downsizing seniors, like townhomes and multiplexes, are allowed consistently throughout B.C.

Through these changes, we will continue to pave the way for the housing we need to ensure that young families can continue to call British Columbia home.

This bill also proposes amendments to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. These changes are designed to promote operational efficiency and enhance the overall effectiveness of this regulatory framework.

We all know that finding a home in B.C. can be challenging. Even with the improvements we’re starting to see, too many people are still struggling to find an affordable place to live.

One of the contributing factors has been the thousands of homes used exclusively as short-term rentals, which could be providing long-term homes for people here in B.C. That’s why, in 2023, we introduced the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act to help communities across B.C. respond to the impact of short-term rentals on our housing market.

Before this act, local governments were trying to tackle the issue on their own, using local bylaws, but they were telling us that enforcement was difficult and that their tools weren’t enough. The act changed that. It gave local governments stronger tools and established a new provincial role in regulation.

One of the key measures was the principal residence requirement in designated communities. This limits short-term rentals to a host’s principal residence plus one additional suite on that property. It’s a critical measure that has helped return more homes to the long-term housing market.

As of this year, all short-term rental listings and platforms must also be registered in the provincial registration system. We’ve established a provincial compliance and enforcement function to monitor, investigate and ensure that both hosts and platforms are following the rules. These changes are already making a difference. Thousands of homes are returning to the long-term market, and rental vacancy rates are improving in many communities across the province.

As with any new law, we’ve learned a lot through implementation, so now we’re making amendments to the act to make it clearer, more efficient and more effective. The bill we’re bringing forward today includes three sets of amendments based on what we’ve learned so far.

The first set of amendments focuses on improving clarity in the act to support better compliance and enforcement. This includes a change to the definition of “principal residence.”

[1:45 p.m.]

We’re also clarifying the review process for registration and administrative penalty decisions to make sure it’s clear who can conduct reviews and aligning the grounds for review across both types of decisions to ensure consistency. Another amendment clarifies the information-sharing provisions to ensure consistent interpretation of the requirements.

The second set of amendments ensures that modern treaty Nations that enter into a coordination agreement can access all relevant sections of the act. These agreements allow modern treaty Nations to use the act’s provisions to enforce their own short-term-rental laws. These changes support government’s reconciliation objectives and respond directly to feedback from the Tsawwassen First Nation when drafting their coordination agreement last summer.

The third set of amendments introduces new tools to strengthen compliance with the act.

First, we’re identifying that providing false or misleading information during the registration process is a contravention of the act. This means that compliance actions, such as compliance orders or administrative penalties, can be issued in response to misrepresentation.

We’re also introducing a provision that allows administrative penalties to be reduced or cancelled by agreement with the director when conditions are met. This tool, already used under the Residential Tenancy Act, helps achieve compliance faster. If the agreement’s conditions are not met by the deadline, the administrative penalty remains payable.

Finally, we’re enabling the publication of compliance decisions that include personal information. This is common practice in other regulatory regimes, including the Residential Tenancy Act, the Employment Standards Act and the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. In many of these contexts, publication is often cited as the most effective compliance tool, and these changes will support improved compliance here as well.

Taken all together, these amendments will improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, in line with the original policy intent. These amendments will provide greater clarity and certainty for everyone who interacts with the act’s regulatory framework, including hosts, platforms, modern treaty Nations, local governments and federal entities.

I welcome the questions and feedback.

Tony Luck: As usual, it’s a real privilege to stand in this House today and debate Bill 25 this day.

When the NDP formed government in 2017, British Columbians were promised a new era, one of affordability, cooperation and accountability. The Premier at the time pledged: “We will work with local communities, not against them.” The Housing Minister at the time also promised to empower local governments to shape growth that works for people.

Eight years later those promises lie in ruin. Instead of affordability, we have a crisis. Instead of cooperation, we have a confrontation. Instead of transparency, we have Bill 25, yet another heavy-handed law in a series of top-down impositions.

Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, is not a housing bill. It’s a governance bill, one that tells —or, rather, forces — local governments what to build, where to build and when to build, whether they have the capacity or not. It silences public hearings, it curtails local debate, and it transfers democratic authority from councils elected by the people in communities to bureaucrats appointed by cabinet.

As one Brentwood north resident said: “This legislation has come too fast, too heavy-handed, too top-down, for it to be without mistakes.” We, on the other side of the House, agree with that observation.

In West Vancouver, council reluctantly changed its bylaw to meet the multiplex zoning mandate under the threat of ministerial order. That is not consultation; it is coercion.

Former Premier Ujjal Dosanjh once said: “Democracy is strongest when power is shared, not hoarded.”

[1:50 p.m.]

Housing was the moral banner under which this government marched into power. They blamed the previous administration, promised to tax speculation out of existence and swore that affordability would be their north star.

Yet, since 2017, home prices have risen by almost 30 percent, average rents by more than 40 percent. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. tells us that British Columbia must build 570,000 additional homes beyond the current projections by 2030 just to regain affordability. That’s about 70,000 new units each year. Will Bill 25 accomplish that? I’m not sure. It’s far beyond what our construction sector can deliver, given labour shortages, permitting delays and material costs. What is the government’s answer? Bill 25, a one-size-fits-all hammer dropped onto every municipality, big or small, regardless of land, labour or infrastructure.

The Real Estate Association of British Columbia has warned: “Housing affordability cannot be legislated into existence. Governments must tackle the cost and land supply constraints, not simply issue quotas.” Yet quotas are precisely what Bill 25 imposes. Municipalities are told to meet targets dictated by Victoria. Fail, and the ministry may appoint a development representative to take over local zoning decisions. That is not partnership; that’s receivership.

For more than a century, municipalities have been the foundation for local democracy in British Columbia. They manage land, policing, water, waste and transit — the services close to the people’s daily lives. Bill 25 shreds those traditions. It gives cabinet power to override municipal community plans, impose minimum densities and now decides to dictate parking requirements.

The Housing Minister recently admitted, in plain language, that many of the minister’s changes will prevent local governments defending themselves, “putting in restrictions to make it more difficult for those communities to build anything other than single-family homes or duplex housing for communities with over 5,000 people.”

Wow. Let that sink in for a minute. This is not consultation. It’s compulsion wrapped in policy language.

This clause effectively tells every community in British Columbia: “You no longer have the right to determine the character of your neighbourhood.” It declares open season on local zoning autonomy.

Think about what that means for small and mid-sized towns like Merritt, Trail or Creston — places with limited land, aging infrastructure and tight budgets. Under this amendment, they could be forced to accept higher-density infill, multiplex conversion or multi-storey development without even the ability to set basic guardrails or timelines to match their community capacity. This is not streamlining. It’s stripping away local authority, community consultation and democratic balance.

It is as though the province has decided under Bill 25 that every barrier to development, including local democracy itself, must be bulldozed in the name of speed. But speed without process creates chaos. It creates resentment, mistrust and, ironically, delays as communities push back through appeals, litigation and lost public confidence.

Local governments are not the enemy of housing. They are the ones who plan the roads, manage the water and provide the fire protection that makes those homes possible in the first place, yet this amendment treats them as obstacles to be neutralized, not as partners to be supported.

Even more troubling, this approach homogenizes every community in the province, cookie-cutter communities all over the province. It imposes the same density expectations on Whistler as on Williams Lake, the same parking rules on Kelowna as on Kaslo, as if geography, infrastructure and culture no longer matter.

Municipal planners across the province are warning that this one clause, this one ministerial override, represents one of the most aggressive erosions of local autonomy in modern provincial history. As one senior planner in the Lower Mainland put it recently: “We are no longer guiding our communities. We are merely implementing Victoria’s spreadsheet.”

This is not democracy; this is directive governance. It tells every mayor, every councillor and every resident: “Your input is optional; your compliance is mandatory.”

[1:55 p.m.]

Also buried within these reforms is what many are calling a war on cars. Cities that once required a reasonable number of parking spaces per unit are now being told, “Stand down; don’t worry about it,” as if forcing people out of their vehicles will somehow make housing more affordable.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities responded bluntly. “Local government must remain the primary decision-makers for local land use. The provincial government should not replace community planning with provincial mandates.” Yet this is exactly what this bill does. It pretends that democracy is an obstacle, that citizens’ input is a delay, that public hearings are a nuisance.

Democracy is not an inconvenience. It’s a constitutional right. The erosion of that right is not theoretical.

Here is a reality check for this government.

Coquitlam mayor Richard Stewart, after 18-plus years of service, announced that he will not be seeking re-election next year, citing deep frustration with the province’s overreach and lack of consultation. His decision wasn’t made lightly. He has been long recognized as one of the most experienced, balanced and collaborative voices in local government.

When a mayor of his stature says publicly that he no longer feels his council has meaningful input into housing decisions — that they are being managed, not consulted — it should send a chill through this Legislature and all throughout the province.

View Royal mayor David Screech echoed that same sentiment when he announced he, too, would not be seeking another term. He said plainly that he is tired of being dictated to by Victoria instead of working together.

Those words “dictated to” reflect not just fatigue but a profound sense of loss — loss of agency, loss of respect and loss of partnership.

They are not alone. Oak Bay mayor Kevin Murdoch told reporters this spring: “We’ve gone from being partners in planning to being order-takers.” “That’s not how local democracy works,” he said.

Similarly, Langley township mayor Eric Woodward warned that top-down housing mandates are destabilizing local budgets, pushing communities to approve density without the infrastructure to sustain it.

From the North Shore to the Kootenays, local leaders are saying the same thing. This government has replaced collaboration with command.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities once again in its 2024 report responded to provincial housing legislation and cautioned: “While the goal in increasing housing supply is shared by all levels of government, the approach must be cooperative, not coercive.”

Even former UBCM president Trish Mandewo warned that the government’s pattern of bypassing council undermines the very foundation of public trust. She stated: “Local governments are on the front line of the housing crisis. If they are not engaged meaningfully in the process and in the solutions, implementation will fail.”

As the province…. Councils have expressed frustration as they are being forced to meet housing quotas and zoning mandates without the tools or the funding to do so.

The city of Kamloops recently reported that it faces $300 million infrastructure backlog, yet it is still expected to meet density targets set in Victoria. One councillor put it: “We’re being told to build faster on pipes and roads that are already failing.”

When respected mayors, people who have devoted decades to public service, are walking away because provincial mandates make municipal leadership untenable, that should alarm every member of this House. When those with the greatest local knowledge feel silenced and sidelined, it is not just a personal problem. It is a governance crisis within the province. When the mayors stop running, when councillors stop believing their voices matter, when local governments feel they are governed by order rather than by consent, democracy itself begins to erode.

This isn’t merely frustrating. It’s a warning sign from the very front lines of our civic system. As former Premier Gordon Campbell once said: “Good governance comes with empowering people closest to the problem, not stripping them of authority.”

Bill 25 does the exact opposite. It centralizes power in Victoria and drains the will to serve out of those who have spent their lives building up their communities. When respected mayors walk away because provincial mandates make municipal services impossible, that should alarm everyone.

[2:00 p.m.]

Municipalities already bear the lion’s share of responsibilities of core services: policing, fire, road, sewers, waste collection, transit. Canadian municipalities collectively manage about 60 percent of the nation’s public infrastructure. Yet they collect only ten to 12 cents of every tax dollar collected in this country, a fact confirmed by not only the Canadian Union of Public Employees but also the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

How are they expected to do more with less? That means that governments most responsible for roads, bridges, water systems, waste management, parks, recreation — I could go on and on — must stretch a dime to cover a dollar’s worth of obligation. Over 80 percent of municipal budgets go towards maintaining essential services just to keep those municipalities functioning. Less than 20 percent of the dollar they collect then remains for new investment for the kind of capital projects, housing infrastructure and transportation upgrades that provincial mandates now require.

As the FCM has warned repeatedly, this structural imbalance has created an unsustainable situation where local governments shoulder national priorities with local dollars. In the 2024 report Building Better Lives, FCM stated that municipalities are doing more than ever before with revenue tools designed for the 19th century.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities echoed this reality, noting that local governments are the only order of government without access to growth revenue. Property taxes, their primary source of income, grow slowly, even as infrastructure costs soar with inflation, material shortages and climate-driven disasters.

The parliamentary budget office reinforced this warning in 2023. Their fiscal sustainability report concluded that without new revenue-sharing models or long-term infrastructure funding, municipalities will face a fiscal gap averaging 2 percent of GDP annually over the next two decades, a shortfall that will directly impact water systems, roads, housing…. You know the list.

Even the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has cautioned that this mismatch is eroding the competitiveness of communities and discouraging investment in the very infrastructure needed for growth.

Bill 25, however, ignores all of this. It demands more from municipalities that are already having less to work with, and it’s forcing them to absorb the cost of provincial housing targets without providing the predictable revenue, workforce or planning support to make these targets possible.

As UBCM president Trish Mandewo summarized, you cannot legislate housing supply without legislating the resources to support it. Yet that is precisely what Bill 25 attempts to do, turning every municipal council into a provincial service arm, expected to deliver on Victoria’s promise with no new tools, no new funding.

When a government asks local councils to build more, faster and higher but refuses to share the fiscal means to do so, it is not partnership. It’s imposition. And that is the central failure of Bill 25. It pushes responsibility down while pulling authority upwards, a recipe for burnout, budget shortfalls and broken trust at the community level.

That is where the fundamental contradictions of government’s housing policy become clear. Bill 25 demands that municipalities absorb more, approve more density and deliver more infrastructure, yet it gives them neither the money nor the means to do that.

The government treats density as a substitute for affordability. We want more density, more density. It seems like it’s substituting for that affordability, when in reality, new research is showing it is only one small piece of a much larger economic puzzle. Without proper financing, land supply, labour capacity and infrastructure investments to support it, forced density becomes little more than a planning slogan.

As the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has pointed out, the affordability crisis cannot be solved by zoning alone. It requires sustained, predictable investments in the services and infrastructure that make housing livable in our communities. Yet Bill 25 proceeds as if local government can stretch a shrinking property tax base to meet the provincial mandates that seem every year to become more onerous.

The government insists that Bill 25 will solve affordability through density, but the facts tell a very different story. According to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Canadian, housing affordability has deteriorated most in jurisdictions with restrictive land use policies. Density mandates without expanding land availability often drive prices higher.

[2:05 p.m.]

That conclusion is echoed by numerous economists across Canada. Building higher does not automatically mean building cheaper, especially when the land beneath those towers remains scarce and costly.

Vancouver now ranks as the fourth least affordable housing market in the world — not in Canada, not in B.C. but in the world, behind only Hong Kong, Sydney and San Jose — with a median home price of 11.1 times the average household income. That’s nearly four times the benchmark of affordability established by Demographia and the OECD, which defines a healthy ratio, affordability ratio, of three. We’re four times what the ratio should be for affordability.

The B.C. Real Estate Association has been unequivocal. B.C.’s lack of service land is the single largest barrier to affordability. We can build density, but we cannot escape geography, and we cannot legislate away the cost of land and infrastructure.

Let’s remember that only 5 percent of British Columbia’s total land area is available for private ownership and available for convention development. The rest is Crown land, agricultural land reserve or terrain constrained by mountains, forests and floodplain. You cannot build on land that doesn’t exist or is not available or on land locked behind a labyrinth of overlapping provincial regulations, permitting delays and infrastructure deficits.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. has confirmed that most of B.C.’s housing shortages lies not in zoning but insufficient serviced land, and sites where water, sewer and transit capacity can actually support new homes. Without these essentials, density is just a number on paper.

Bill 25 dictates density but never asks where the pipes, the people or the public chances exist to sustain it. It assumes that more units automatically mean lower prices, when basic economics tells us that cost depends on both quantity and capacity.

Urban economist William Strange put it perfectly: “Density without affordability mechanisms simply changes who lives in a neighbourhood. It doesn’t make it cheaper to live there.”

That is exactly what we have been seeing across British Columbia. New developments have been increasingly aimed at investors, not families. In Vancouver alone, right now roughly 2,500 to 3,000 housing units are sitting empty, even as our young workers and families are priced out. When the only people who can afford to buy are investors or high-income earners, density becomes a filter for exclusivity, not a pathway to affordability.

The data from StatsCan reinforces this contradiction. Between 2016 and 2024, Vancouver’s population grew by 10 percent while its housing stock grew by nearly 12 percent. Yet prices rose by more than 35 percent in the same period. Clearly, the issue is not simply not enough buildings but what kind of buildings, where and for whom.

Bill 25 fails to address those deeper questions. It doubles down on simplistic density doctrine while ignoring the structural constraints of land supply, infrastructure capacity and construction costs that actually determine whether new housing can be built affordably or sustainably.

So that’s exactly why we see the luxury micro units instead of family homes, investor condos instead of attainable ownership. If density alone solved affordability, Vancouver would be the cheapest city in Canada because Vancouver is the densest city in Canada.

This government and its bull-in-a-china-shop haste ignores those fundamentals. The result? A fury of legislation, little consultation and rising frustration across the province.

Bill 25 comes with mandates, not money. The Municipal Finance Authority pegs B.C.’s local infrastructure deficit between $100 billion and $150 billion. Yet the province offers no predictable revenue streams to help municipalities expand water, sewer or roads.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has warned repeatedly that the province’s approach is fiscally unsustainable. The continued reliance on deficit spending means we are transferring responsibility for paying for today’s services onto the future generations. They also noted that restrictive labour and procurement rules increase project costs by 20 to 30 percent.

[2:10 p.m.]

Municipalities already struggle to maintain basic infrastructure. Bill 25 forces them to do more with less and to deliver provincial priorities on municipal budgets.

And then there’s the one-size-fits-all problem. Bill 25 treats Surrey like Smithers, Vancouver like Vanderhoof. It assumes density targets and housing timings that might work in Metro Vancouver can simply be copied across the province. That’s not planning. That’s arrogance. And it’s a misunderstanding of what’s really going on out there in their province — not understanding how the housing market works, supply and demand.

Urban centres with constrained land and strong demand face one reality. Rural communities with limited growth face another. Yet both are subject to identical mandates, identical reporting, identical penalties under this bill.

As urbanist Richard Florida reminded us, successful housing policy depends on alignment between governance, infrastructure and investment. Break the alignment and you break the system.

This bill is not an isolated overreach. It’s part of a pattern. We see it in Bill 14, when the government gave sweeping authority to the B.C. Energy Regulator. We saw it again in Bill 15, which centralized infrastructure procurement under the Infrastructure Projects Act. We saw it in Bill 44 and Bill 45. And now with Bill 25, land use, zoning and housing approvals follow the same path from local councils to Victoria control.

Bill 25 proves them right. It converts mayors and councils into provincial administrators, silences public hearings and reduces citizen engagement to a checkpoint. Former UBCM president Laurey-Anne Roodenberg said: “Local governments are where democracy meets daily life.” Bill 25 pushes that meeting behind closed doors. And history teaches us something else. Once such powers are centralized, they are rarely returned. Today it’s housing. Tomorrow who knows?

Every time this government faces failure, its flex is to seize more control. That’s not leadership; that’s panic with a pen. The empirical record is very clear and troubling. The numbers tell the story. Let me just reiterate a bit, and then I’ll close.

Housing starts down 14.9 percent year over year. Private investment has fallen three straight years. Confidence is eroded, capital is fleeing, and jobs are following. Interprovincial migration is negative. For the first time in decades, people are actually making a choice to leave this province.

Affordability ratios. Vancouver — I think I mentioned already — 12 times income. Victoria, 8.9. Kelowna, 8.1. There isn’t any city, basically, in this province that’s at the ratio of three, where it should be for affordable housing. Average rents are $2,320 a month in Metro Vancouver, up 40 percent since 2017. That’s not a statistic. It’s a monthly reminder of broken promises.

Taken together these numbers reveal a province increasingly unlivable for working families, unattractive for investors and unsustainable for future generations. Sometimes we like to think this is the work of global forces and somebody with orange hair in the south. It is the direct consequence of choices made in this Legislature. British Columbia has gone from being the province of opportunity to the province of exit, and Bill 25 accelerates that decline.

It’s easy to stand up here and be a critic. It always is. And it’s very helpful for somebody like myself to stand here and have a bit of a vision, so let me offer some constructive solutions. I’m sure we’re going to support this bill and move it to committee. We’ll even articulate some more positive solutions to help this bill out and help the minister here see if we can fix some of these things, but we’ll do it in a path rooted in partnership, practicality and respect.

One of the things we could look at is…. Let’s table Bill 25 for now. Let’s get back to some collaboration. Let’s go talk to some of the municipalities. Let’s go talk to some of the subject-matter experts and ask them what they can do to fix this bill, clean up some of the things that we need to do. There is a ton of ideas out there. Let’s stop the exit of the citizens of this province. Let’s stop the exit of our mayors and councillors who have the knowledge to help work with this thing.

BCREA, British Columbia Real Estate Association, had a bill passed at this last UBCM and proposed a housing round table. They’ve been at this battle, I think, for four or five years, and this government refuses to sit at that table. So are they the experts in housing, or is it somebody like — oh, wait a minute — BCREA, which deals with housing on a daily basis?

[2:15 p.m.]

Maybe this government needs to stop the arrogance and start finding solutions, helping to find solutions to some of these issues through some of these professional boards. They are willing to step in and help.

Let’s address some of the real barriers like land, labour and infrastructure, not ideology. Without serviced land and a skilled workforce, mandates are meaningless.

Adopt place-based policy. What works in Burnaby doesn’t work in Barriere, B.C. It doesn’t work in Merritt. It doesn’t even probably work in Kelowna.

We need to find different ways to do this. Let’s build a true fiscal partnership. Let’s provide predictable infrastructure funding and a grant lottery where communities compete, not for short-term photo ops. Municipalities need stable revenue to plan long-term growth. We’re living in the 21st century. We’ve got to find better ways of doing some of these things, because the past hasn’t been working, and you know what they say about that.

We need to reform the regulatory framework as well. The B.C. chamber’s data shows project costs can fall by 20 percent with open procurement and reduced red tape. Why aren’t we looking at that?

Restore local democracies, reinstate public hearings, empower councils, and trust citizens. Democracy takes time, but trust takes longer, and without it, no policy will succeed with success.

We are not alone in calling for change. Urban planner Brent Toderian, once Vancouver’s director of planning, recently warned: “Provincial housing legislation that ignores local context risks creating bad urbanism and public backlash that sets us back years.”

Economist Benjamin Tal of CIBC notes that housing policy built on ideology rather than data — there’s a word; it’s a four-letter word — is destined to fail, no matter how noble its intent.

The BCREA round table would be a great place to start, comprising of mayors, developers and housing advocates alike. They’ve all emphasized that real progress will come only through collaboration, real evidence and shared accountability.

In closing, at its heart, Bill 25 asks a dangerous question: does the province trust its own citizens? In 2017, this government promised partnerships; in 2025, it delivered paternalism. It promised affordability; it delivered bureaucracy. It promised collaboration; it delivered coercion.

In the end, elected officials across this province, like the mayors of Coquitlam and View Royal, are walking away exhausted by mandate after mandate that ignores local realities. We must choose differently.

A last comment. The Frontier Centre warns that Canada is rapidly transitioning from a nation of homebuilders to a nation of permanent renters. That will be the legacy of Bill 25 that will leave us with nothing.

It doesn’t have to be that way. We can move forward. Let us restore the balance between province and community, rebuild trust between governments and citizens and reject the arrogance of one-size-fits-all.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the opportunity. I wasn’t going to speak to this bill, but my friend across the way inspired me. I appreciate his words.

I stand in support of this bill. I’ll start by saying that I was in Ottawa a few weeks ago and showed up. Of course, when you show up, the building is stunning, and when you walk in there, you’re in a bit of awe.

There were three people walking. One of them said: “Weren’t you the Housing Minister for British Columbia?” I said: “Oh, yeah. Did they send a memo around or something that we were coming?” And he said: “No, we’re Conservative staffers, and we wanted you to know that there are a lot of fans of the policies that you’ve brought in British Columbia amongst young Conservative activists.”

I just say that because here are these young Conservative activists who understand that their generation is not going to get the same opportunities for housing as other generations, who want bold reforms to enable more housing to be built. And here we have a Conservative Party in British Columbia who is campaigning to be the NIMBY Party of British Columbia, who is doing everything they can to block the ability for housing to be built, to slow housing to be built.

[2:20 p.m.]

I think it’s important to state the facts of the changes that we’ve made. The changes we’ve made are to enable a more clear, concise way of getting housing built. It’s very simple in its foundation. What it says is that people should have the right to be able to build housing on their property, and they should be able to know the rules and make sure that the rules are transparent so that when they go to build, they understand what that is.

It’s to ensure that communities have official community plans. When they have the plans, they work the plans. It’s not: “Go and engage the community and make an official community plan.” And then: “By the way, when your neighbour’s house is being built and you don’t like your neighbour or you don’t like what they’re building, then we’re going to put up a block and stop it.” What was the point of having an official community plan if you’re going to do that?

The changes we brought in place essentially say: “Go and engage the community. Go and understand where they want the housing, where they want the parks. Have land available for schools, for health care. Identify where you want all these important pieces that build healthy communities.” But when you have that, then step out of the way and let the private sector and not-for-profits build that housing.

Now, the member kept referring to “building ideology,” that this government has a building ideology. I assume he means the ideology is: “Let’s get building housing.” I assume that’s what he means by it. He didn’t define what he means by building ideology, but I assume that, because that’s what we’re doing. It actually is a pro-market, pro-not-for-profit housing policy that we’ve put in place.

It’s about creating certainty. It’s about saying that when we invest billions of dollars in transit, we also build housing around it.

I was thinking about this policy, and I thought: “Who else has policy like this?” Well, the federal Conservative leader. He was also advocating for these policies. He was also advocating for housing to be built around transit, because he understood that when billions of dollars are invested, we should be building housing around it, getting people access to that transit.

It was the federal Conservative leader who also said we need more certainty in getting government out of the way. Now I hear from the opposition: “No, no. That policy is bad. We need to get government more involved.” I just don’t understand how the messaging changes from day to day.

The reality is the public knows where we stand. We stand on the side of young people who want housing in their community, who are worried that they’re not going to get the same opportunities. We stand on the side of renters who know that when there’s more housing supply available, they have more power in the marketplace. We are standing on the side of people who understand that housing is fundamental, and it shouldn’t be bought up and run like hotel rooms when people in the community can’t even get access to the housing.

That’s what our policies are about. Our position is pretty clear. There’s no flip-flopping. We’ve been pretty clear from the beginning. What I don’t understand is what the opposition’s position is. Do they believe in housing?

The member mentioned B.C. Real Estate Association. They are, by the way, supportive of the changes we made. If we had a round table with them, they would be saying: “This is good. We need more certainty. We need more clarity. We need to ensure that everybody understands that these are the rules.”

It’s the same when we try to encourage large investments in this province. What do you need to do? You need to make sure that there are rules and people understand that there’s certainty. That’s what we’re trying to do with housing.

This should be supportable amongst everyone in this House. Everyone in this House should be able to support that.

Go back to the main points. Our changes that we’ve made around housing are significant. They’re important — in fact, I would say fundamental — to ensure that builders and not-for-profits can build housing.

Then you’ll hear from our friends on the other side of the spectrum who will say: “Well, it shouldn’t just be the private sector.” Well, guess what. We also have expanded not-for-profit housing at a scale not seen in the history of this province. We have more not-for-profit housing right now than any time before. Why? Because of historic investments in affordable housing, historic investments in building housing on reserve — which, by the way, the federal government has a responsibility to do, and they don’t do it to the level they need to. So the province stepped in to say: “It’s unacceptable. We need to do a better job.”

The rental protection fund, which allows not-for-profits to be able to go and purchase buildings when they go on sale, keeps them in the hands of not-for-profits. I know members across the way appreciate the not-for-profits that run affordable housing projects in their communities. I know they do. Many of them go to their events. Many of them celebrate that. It’s good. I’m glad. We all should be doing that, because we know that that housing is more likely to stay affordable for the long run than even the private sector housing.

Our policies are about supporting both. I always have said, my colleagues have said and the Premier has said: “This is not about pitting private sector housing versus not-for-profit housing.”

[2:25 p.m.]

When you are in a shortage of housing because of decades of underinvestment, you need everybody working. Our policies are about creating certainty. It’s fundamental to create certainty, not only on decision-making but also involving innovation, technology and to address speculation in the marketplace. We’ve addressed all those buckets.

Now, the bill is an important piece of that. It’s an important piece. It’s an important next step of the work we have to do. It’s challenging for me to hear the folks on the opposition say: “Our view is to get out of the way of building housing.” Their platform says: “Get government out of the way.” Then they come in the House, and the only arguments they make are about getting government more involved and getting more regulations and more blockages of housing being built — the contradiction.

Now, there’s a member across the way who says it’s not true. I look forward to hearing the speech where they say: “We support more standardizing. We support more clarity of rules so local governments make it clear where housing can be built and how it can be built.”

That’s what we’ve introduced. But every single day we hear: “Block this. Stop this. Slow that down.” We need to get building. That’s the urgency we feel in government. We need to get things built. Every day we hear: “Slow down.” North Coast transmission line? “Let’s delay it for six months. Let’s slow it down.” For what reason? Well, no reason. Six months just sounds like a good number. It makes no sense.

Housing. Let’s put clarity so we can get housing built, we can get young families to be able to get into home ownership. “No, we should do more consultation. We should do this. We should do that.” That is not where the public is right now. The public wants to see action. And that’s what this is about. This is what the Minister of Housing has brought forward. It’s just another step for allowing us to do that. And small-scale multi-unit housing is fundamental in that.

Now, it’s not that we have a vendetta against single-family homes. They’re amazing. If you can afford a single-family home in a community, good. I’m happy for you. That’s fantastic. But young people right now in many communities can’t afford that. If you could build a triplex, a fourplex, and give four families an opportunity to have home ownership and stay in the community that perhaps they grew up in or that their friends are living in or where their employment is, what is wrong with that? How did that become such a political hot potato that we have to debate the fundamental pieces of that?

I appreciate that some staff person downstairs probably handed folks a couple of message box items that say: “Here. This is what you need to say.” I know many of my colleagues across the way don’t believe all this. They cannot. I have had the opportunity to meet with so many young people who are so proud of the changes we’re making here — so many young people. They finally see hope.

It’s, again, shocking to me to see how things are different. It’s shocking to hear the federal Conservative leader advocating for policies like this, a B.C. NDP government delivering these changes, a Green Party in Ontario advocating for the same thing. It shows you that this type of policy crosses political lines.

People shouldn’t just believe, because of a party brand, in one single thing or another. They should look at their policies. I think people at home who are pro-housing, who want to see certainty, whether it is around the rules or more certainty around the cost structures, should really pay attention to see who is advocating for what in their community.

I know builders understand what we’re doing. I know young families that are trying to get into the housing market understand what we’re doing. I know not-for-profits understand what we’re doing because they are seeing the benefits of it. I know First Nations communities understand what we’re doing because they are seeing housing that they haven’t seen in decades.

Whether it’s the changes around ensuring that we can continue to do this work and making sure that all communities are aligned…. Nothing is more frustrating for communities who say: “We’re doing the right thing by approving housing, and why is the neighbouring community not doing it? Why are we taking housing on in our community when our neighbouring community is not doing it?” It is everyone’s responsibility to do that, and that’s why this work is important.

[2:30 p.m.]

Short-term rentals comes up a lot. The vacancy rate in communities after we brought that in went from, in some cases — in Kelowna, I believe it was — under 1 percent to almost 3 percent. That means there was all this housing that came online. Now people will say: “Well, we need more hotel rooms.” Yeah, we should build out hotel rooms. We should definitely do that. And it’s happening. There are applications everywhere.

If you have a home and you want to put a rental unit out, good for you. You can. Short-term rentals are available in British Columbia. We didn’t go by the New York model, which was just to say: “We’re shutting it all down.” We said that we want to find a balance, but fundamentally, we want to prioritize housing for people in our communities.

I’m proud of this legislation. I felt I needed to correct the record of the doom and gloom that was told by my friend across the way. We’re going to continue to fight every single day to ensure that young people have hope, that young people have the ability to have home ownership here in British Columbia, and that they see the opportunity to raise their families. This is the way I was fortunate enough to grow up in these communities as well.

I want to thank you, hon. Speaker, for the time.

I want to thank the minister for her excellent work. She’s doing a fantastic job, and I never had a doubt.

This is just another step in the progression of the important work we have to do.

Linda Hepner: I rise today as the Conservative opposition critic for Housing to speak to Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, on its second reading. This is a pivotal moment for British Columbia, as the decisions we make will shape the future of our communities urban, rural, large and small for generations.

Let me be unequivocal. This bill, as it stands, is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It represents an overreach by this NDP government, undermining local democracy, ignoring the diverse and varying needs of our province, and it does risk unintended consequences that could harm the very families that it claims to help. I intend to lay out why we in the Conservative Party are concerned about this bill, why it fails British Columbians and why it must be amended or rejected outright.

Let’s start with the bill’s core purpose. Bill 25 amends the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter and the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Its stated goal is to remove barriers to small-scale multi-unit housing — duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes — by forcing municipalities with populations over 5,000 and within urban containment boundaries to allow these developments in areas previously zoned for single-family homes. It redefines restricted zones to target any area where residential use is limited to detached single-family dwellings, with exceptions only to manufactured home zones.

Municipalities face a hard deadline of June 30, 2026, to update their zoning bylaws to permit these uses and density levels. If they fail, the minister, with cabinet approval, can step in and enact or amend bylaws to impose the required changes, a provincial override that strips away local control.

Think about the timing of the force-fed ultimatum — four months before provincewide local elections, with candidates all over this province trying to explain to the public that they fundamentally have zero control over land density in formerly single-family homes. I think that uproar is going to reach peak performance at just about the obligatory halfway mark of this government.

The bill also expands cabinet’s authority to regulate housing unit form density and, critically, off-street parking requirements. As of June 30, 2026, municipalities are barred from requiring off-street parking or loading spaces, commonly called driveways, for these mandated multi-unit homes.

[2:35 p.m.]

Until June 30, 2027, or one year after future regulation deadlines, cities must rezone land to meet these requirements, even if it contradicts their official community plans.

On short-term rentals, the bill extends tools to modern treaty Nations through coordination agreements, allowing them to enforce their own laws, with geographic flexibility. It redefines “principal residence” from the place where someone resides longest to “the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home.” What does this even mean? On the face of it, there could be an argument that it favours First Nations’ flexibility over the broader community.

These changes sound technical, but their real-world impacts are profound and troubling. Let’s begin with one of the most egregious provisions, the elimination of off-street parking requirements, a driveway to park your car. This bill effectively declares war on vehicle owners in British Columbia by prohibiting municipalities from mandating parking spaces for these brand-new duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes.

The government is forcing increased density without addressing the inevitable fallout. In urban areas like Surrey, Burnaby or Vancouver, where streets are already choked with traffic, this will lead to a parking crisis.

Picture a family in a dense suburb like Fleetwood or Guildford, where every curb is now lined with cars from neighbouring fourplexes. Any existing driveway gets blocked. Emergency vehicles struggle to navigate, and tradespeople — plumbers and electricians — can’t find a spot to serve residents.

For seniors or people with disabilities, this is more than an inconvenience. It’s a barrier to accessibility. A wheelchair van or a mobility scooter needs space to manoeuvre, but this bill assumes everyone can just walk or bike. That’s not just impractical; it’s discriminatory. It’s an advisory design panel’s nightmare. A local government’s authority is now fundamentally non-existent regarding these very important elements that constitute a neighbourhood.

Now let’s consider rural British Columbia, where the impacts are equally severe. In communities like Prince George or Fort St. John, public transit is often limited or non-existent. Residents rely on vehicles for everything — grocery runs, doctors’ appointments, school drop-offs — yet this bill imposes the same no-parking rules on small towns and rural areas as it does on urban cores.

In a place like Dawson Creek or Quesnel, where lots are larger and infrastructure is stretched thin, forcing multi-unit housing without parking provisions is another recipe for chaos. Streets will be de facto parking lots, creating congestion and safety hazards.

In wildfire interface zones, like those in the Cariboo or the Thompson-Okanagan, cramming in denser housing without parking plans could impede evacuation routes, putting lives at risk. This bill’s urban-centric approach betrays a complete disregard for rural realities, where distances are vast, services are sparse and vehicles are a lifeline.

This brings me to the bill’s assault on local autonomy. If a municipality misses the June 30, 2026, zoning deadline or fails to comply with parking regulations, the minister, backed by cabinet, can dictate everything from form, height and density to parking rules.

This isn’t a partnership. It’s Victoria imposing its will on communities that know their needs best. I quote from just today in this House, when the Minister of Health said, regarding local governments: “They know their communities best.”

[2:40 p.m.]

Municipal councils are elected to represent their residents, to balance growth with livability, to account for local geography and infrastructure. In rural areas like the Kootenays, where sewer and water systems are often at capacity, and in other places that rely on wells, forcing triplexes or duplexes or fourplexes could overwhelm utilities, leading to costly upgrades that taxpayers will foot. In urban areas like Coquitlam or North Vancouver, where lot sizes vary and traffic is already a nightmare, blanket density mandates risk turning stable neighbourhoods into overcrowded zones with no regard for community character.

The bill’s treatment of official community plans, OCPs, is equally alarming. OCPs are the backbone of municipal planning, crafted through years of consultation with residents, with businesses and with stakeholders. They reflect a community’s vision, whether it’s preserving heritage in Vancouver’s Shaughnessy, protecting green spaces in Saanich or managing growth in a small town like Smithers.

Yet Bill 25 allows municipalities…. No, it demands municipalities bypass their OCPs to comply with these mandates. Worse, it gives the province the power to override local bylaws if councils don’t comply fast enough. This undermines the democratic process, sidelining the voices of the residents who shaped those very plans. It’s a top-down power grab that treats mayors and councils as mere administrators of provincial edicts rather than partners in governance.

During the second reading of Bill 27, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, just last week in this House, the Minister of Housing said that act was “respecting government-to-government relations.” First Nations and local governments…. How can respecting government-to-government relations be a priority in drafting that particular piece of legislation and be so incredibly absent in this bill?

In a recent statement last week, the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville acknowledged that success comes “when we empower local people to lead.” This is not that.

Bill 25 is nothing short of an authoritarian power grab by the NDP, forcing every municipality to adopt the one-size-fits-all zoning, regardless of community needs. We know there are community needs. We know we need housing, but it removes them from their own input that they have been elected to administer. This strips away local control and treats elected councils like puppets. It is a band-aid on a bullet wound they inflicted themselves.

We’ve got overlapping ministry approvals, endless red tape, costly changes to the building code, all of which has blocked units from being built. It is social engineering and forced, unwanted changes on communities.

Let’s talk about the rural-urban divide, which this bill exacerbates. In urban centres, the push for density without parking will fuel, in fact, gentrification. Developers will exploit the no-parking loophole to maximize profits, building multi-unit homes with minimal overhead, driving up land costs — it’s not going to help — and pushing out longtime residents.

In neighbourhoods like East Vancouver or New Westminster, where affordability is already a crisis, it could accelerate displacement, not alleviate it. Meanwhile, in rural communities, the bill risks transforming the character of small towns.

[2:45 p.m.]

Single-family neighbourhoods could be replaced with de facto overreach for these triplexes, duplexes, multiplexes. There is a place and a time for that construction. The timing is when we build outside of the existing small community neighbourhoods. In places like Cranbrook and Terrace, where lot sizes and infrastructure aren’t built for density, this is going to strain services, degrade livability and erode the very sense of community that draws people to rural life.

The bill’s carve-out for manufactured homes is another point of concern. These zones, often mobile home parks, are critical affordable housing options, especially in rural areas. Yet the bill excludes them from its density mandates with minimal protections, despite federal funding flowing to the manufactured homes.

In communities like Parksville or Salmon Arm, where mobile home residents are often seniors or low-income families, this oversight risks displacement when developers target those zones for rezoning under other pressures. The government needs to clarify how it will protect these vulnerable communities and not leave them as an afterthought.

On short-term rentals, the bill’s provisions for modern treaty Nations are a step forward, granting them tools to enforce their own laws through coordination agreements. This respects Indigenous governance, which we support. However, the bill creates potential for overlap and confusion. By allowing different provisions across treaty lands, it risks inconsistent rules that could burden hosts and renters.

Imagine a small business owner on Nisg̱a’a lands trying to navigate conflicting regulations between the nation’s laws and provincial ones. Without a clear coordination agreement, this could lead to compliance headaches, platform disputes and enforcement gaps. The government must ensure these agreements are transparent and streamlined to avoid bureaucratic chaos.

The redefinition of “principal residence” is a red flag. Previously it was a place where someone resided for the longest period in a year, a clear and enforceable standard. Now it’s vaguely defined as the usual place where an individual makes their home. What does that mean? A vacation property used a few months a year? A rental unit that somebody visits occasionally but considers home? This ambiguity opens loopholes for short-term rental operators to skirt rules.

It seems to only advantage First Nations. Does the definition help tourist-heavy areas like Tofino, Whistler and Kelowna, where short-term rentals were severely affected? Are we to interpret this as a welcome watering-down of STR legislation? That would be welcoming.

The bill’s transitional….

Interjection.

Linda Hepner: You’ll get your chance in committee.

The bill’s transitional provisions offer little relief. Heritage designations and revitalization agreements in progress are grandfathered, but new ones face restrictions. Extensions for compliance are only granted in extraordinary circumstances, leaving municipalities scrambling to meet arbitrary deadlines.

The extended powers for the registrar and the director under the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, limiting registration reviews to new evidence or prescribed grounds and allowing public disclosure of personal information, raise privacy concerns. British Columbians deserve clarity on how their data will be handled, not vague assurances.

[2:50 p.m.]

Let’s talk about the broader context. British Columbia’s housing crisis is real. I acknowledge that to the other side of the House, in case they don’t understand that we are in favour of more housing, just in the right context and with the right consultation.

Families are struggling. Renters are facing higher costs, but this bill is not the answer. It prioritizes density over livability. It overrides local democracy, and it ignores the infrastructure needed to support growth. It’s Bill 44 on steroids.

Where are the investments in transit, bridges, highways, hospitals or schools to handle these new units? Where is the consultation with municipalities to ensure these changes fit their unique needs? In urban areas, we need transit-oriented development, not parking chaos. In rural areas, we need tailored solutions that respect local realities, not blanket mandates from Victoria.

We have just seen on the news recently another mayor, View Royal, announced he’s not running again based on the interference, the overreach of this government. That’s after long-term mayor Richard Stewart from Coquitlam. Saying here today that that should give you pause is an enormous understatement.

Illustrative of how far down this heavy-handed road we have gone is a comment from West Vancouver mayor Mark Sager, who described a recent letter from the Housing Minister regarding density in his city as insulting. He goes on to say that municipalities across B.C. are deeply offended by the province’s approach, which undermines proper land use planning.

The bill does assume a one-size-fits-all approach and thinks that that will solve a complex problem. But it risks creating new ones.

In flood-prone areas like the Fraser Valley, denser housing without proper planning could exacerbate risks. In wildfire zones like Kamloops, it could complicate evacuations. For families, seniors and people with disabilities, the loss of parking and increased congestion will make daily life harder. For small towns, it threatens the community character that defines them. And for municipalities, it’s a slap in the face to their authority and expertise.

We in the Conservative Party believe in housing solutions that empower communities, not dictate to them. We need a collaborative approach, working with mayors, councils and residents to build affordable housing that fits local needs. We need infrastructure investments to support growth, not mandates that leave taxpayers footing the bill for upgrades. We need to protect vulnerable communities like mobile home residents and ensure First Nations powers are clear and effective, not mired in any red tape.

I urge this House to reject Bill 25 in its current form or demand substantial amendments. Listen to the mayors who are already raising alarms. Surrey mayor Brenda Locke recently defined that it would cost $1 billion in infrastructure upgrades to do all of the mandates that are coming from this provincial government. Kelowna’s mayor, Tom Dyas, and others who know their communities best…. Listen to the residents who fear losing their neighbourhood’s character or their access to parking. Listen to rural British Columbians who feel ignored by this urban-centric bill.

Affordable housing is indeed critical, but it must not come at the cost of democracy, safety or livability. I call on the government to withdraw the bill or rework it with genuine, rigorous consultation. Our province really does deserve better.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It is my pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act. It proposes amendments to two very important policies. One area of policy is around the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, and the other component of the bill is to make amendments to the small-scale multi-unit housing policies that our government brought in.

In both cases, the intention behind the revisions really is to reinforce the effectiveness of the changes that we previously brought into force through this House and, in doing so, support British Columbians in improving their access to long-term, stable, secure housing, housing that everybody who lives in British Columbia deserves to be able to afford.

When talking about the small-scale multi-unit housing amendments, these changes are a part of our ongoing work to fix outdated zoning rules in order to help deliver the types of homes that people really need. These amendments are being tabled in response to what we have observed in some communities, which is the inconsistent implementation of our intended small-scale multi-unit housing policies.

We are clarifying that all lots zoned for single detached and/or duplex homes in communities over 5,000 and within urban containment boundaries are subject to the small-scale multi-unit housing law. Through this update, all local governments must allow for three to six housing units on a single-family lot, depending on the lot size and proximity to frequent transit.

We’re also expanding the list of provincial standards for small-scale multi-unit housing and include for standards to potentially be made mandatory in future regulations to increase density, allow more housing forms and reduce parking requirements.

I have actually had a surprising number of community members approach me over the last year or so, concerned about the way that local governments were implementing the small-scale multi-unit housing policies. When I first learned about this new policy, when we first brought it into force, my expectation was that I would hear a lot from community members who were opposed to the small-scale multi-unit housing approach that we were taking.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Instead, what I heard from these community members who came to see me was, actually, disappointment that the small-scale multi-unit housing policies weren’t being followed by their local governments. They had actually approached me advocating for stronger enforcement of what they believed was a very good policy by the provincial government and better implementation, more consistent implementation, at the local government level.

I’ll tell you who these community members are, because I think a lot of people will hear this, and they’ll think: “Oh, it’s just a bunch of developers doing a whole bunch of lobbying.” Actually, the people who came to me were young working people who were looking to get into a property and purchase a property with the help of their more elderly parents and find ways to keep multigenerational families together on the same property without necessarily putting them in the same home.

[3:00 p.m.]

Now, I know a lot of us love our parents and our grandparents, yet not all of us would appreciate being able to live 24-7 in the exact same space as our parents or grandparents. Many of these families, however, do want to keep their families close.

They see an opportunity to keep multiple generations of families in one place. They work together, pool resources, and they’re able to purchase a plot of land. They see that this plot of land is a good plot of land, and there’s sufficient space for them to build a secondary suite and a coach house and maybe a second secondary suite.

They imagine: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we kept our family with two kids in the main house and our in-laws in a two-bedroom suite or one-bedroom suite below us and another set of in-laws below us, because they’re getting older and we know that they’re probably going to need a little bit of assistance in continuing to be able to live a dignified life? And on top of that, we have a younger brother who is looking to gain some increased independence. Wouldn’t it be great if we could build a coach house on the same property and have him live there as well?”

In the absence of the ability to have multiple units on one lot, another option might be to buy a big old house and cram everyone in. I think it works for a lot of families to have all of these different families in one home, yet it doesn’t work for so many others.

I ask, for those members who are opposed to the ability to build small-scale, multi-unit housing and the concerns that they raise about parking or all the other concerns that I’ve heard, what’s the difference when you have the same number of people on the same plot of land? When it comes to some of those concerns, it seems like the real difference is how it impacts the quality of life of the people living on that land.

I felt like I learned a lot from these young families and these multigenerational families who came to me to describe what their vision was and how hopeful they were when we brought in our small-scale multi-unit housing legislation, only to be quite disappointed that it wasn’t being implemented consistently, and what they felt was fairly, in communities across the province.

These changes being brought forward through Bill 25 intend to provide that greater clarity and provide that opportunity for more innovative forms of housing to be built for those residents in our communities looking for this housing.

I will tell a more personal story. I serve as the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale. I am a cabinet minister, and I am very grateful to be able to serve as a cabinet minister. I and my family live in a two-bedroom condo. It would not have been possible to purchase this two-bedroom condo without support from my father, who helped me with the down payment.

We live next to a family with two children, also in a very similar-sized home. I know from my past interactions with neighbours in our condo building that we have had families raise children in these one- or two-bedroom apartments for many years.

I knew a family in our condo that had two parents, a teenage boy and a teenage girl, slightly younger than the boy. They lived in a two-bedroom condo until the son went to university, the four of them. They made it work. It was difficult, but they made it work, and eventually they needed to upsize.

This family beside me — their children were still young, and they were thinking of upsizing. We were quite close as families. We talked about it a lot, and we thought: “My goodness, wouldn’t it be great if we actually pooled our resources, and maybe we could buy a house together?” I don’t know how many of you are familiar with real estate on the North Shore. It is very, very expensive. But we thought surely with two families’ worth of incomes, we could come together and be able to afford a modest house that could fit all of us.

[3:05 p.m.]

We could not make it work. My household income, my salary as a cabinet minister, theirs as two professionals working together…. You would think that with the combined gross incomes of two households, we might be able to make it work to purchase a modest house. We could not make it work.

It is such a real, serious situation in North Vancouver and in so many other communities, where even two families together can’t get the math, get the financials to work out to purchase a home. The opportunity to potentially bring in a third family or fourth family on a single piece of land is a game-changer for a lot of people.

When we think about the kinds of people who approach me to talk about how expensive it is and how difficult it is for them to maintain housing in our communities, it’s health care workers. It’s teachers. It’s construction workers. They’re firefighters and first responders, people who we desperately want and need to stay in our communities long term, that contribute to the health and wellness of our communities every single day.

Through the actions of our government on housing, we have made a substantial difference. This small-scale multi-unit housing approach that we have been championing is one of those actions, and there absolutely are lots of people and families who have a vision for how they can make this work for their families and other families who might join them in that work.

The other component of Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, revolves around changes or amendments to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. These were changes that we brought in a few years ago that helped to return so many rental accommodations back into the housing market. It is based on the fundamental belief that homes need to be used to house people. They’re not there to speculate with. That is part of the reason why we put rules in to help rein in short-term rental homes, thereby opening more of these homes to long-term housing that people and families need.

In order to support this ongoing work, through Bill 25, we are proposing amendments to better support clarity and fairness and making changes to help deter people from breaking the rules. Some of the proposed amendments will improve clarity by amending the definition of a principal resident to help existing or prospective short-term rental hosts more easily understand and comply with the act.

I know that the vast majority of British Columbians, of business owners, of property owners want to comply with the rules, if only they could have a clear understanding of what they are. So that’s what…. Some of these proposed amendments will help provide that clarity and help ensure enforcement actions are more timely and effective.

We are also revising the process for reviews of registration and administrative penalty decisions, and this will help ensure consistency and fairness. I know that is also a fundamental value of all British Columbians, that rules be applied consistently and that we approach all matters with fairness.

Improving access to information between government entities in order to make sure involved parties understand and are able to help with the consistent application of rules…. I think that is also important for enforcement and compliance.

[3:10 p.m.]

When we first brought in a lot of these short-term rental accommodation rules, I know that there was actually a lot of interest in them in my community. My community of North Vancouver–Lonsdale primarily includes residents of the city of North Vancouver.

Now, my riding also includes some residents of the district of North Vancouver, but mostly it’s the city of North Vancouver. The city of North Vancouver, unlike what people might think of as the North Shore of Vancouver, actually has a median household income that is below the provincial average and has a significant renter population. I think just around or just slightly over 50 percent of the population are renters.

When the rental market is really tight and there are no options for people to stay in North Vancouver, what ends up happening, of course, is that they leave North Vancouver. I spoke earlier to the fact that so many of these residents who are being pressured, like many other residents, are our teachers, first responders and health care workers that we desperately need in the community.

Lions Gate Hospital is a regional hospital that serves not only North Vancouver but communities up the Sea to Sky. Of course, we are quite separated from the rest of the Lower Mainland because of the Burrard Inlet.

People often speak to me about their concerns around emergency management. What happens to our ability to staff the hospital if the bridges go down in a catastrophic emergency? The truth is that a lot of those staff members who work at Lions Gate Hospital and fill the front-line positions that we desperately need do live off the North Shore.

I don’t remember now the exact year that it happened, but it was a few years ago. There was a terrible snowstorm. The snowstorm was so terrible that workers had difficulty travelling over the bridges to get to their shifts.

If I remember correctly, it was one of the only instances of the staffing situation at Lions Gate Hospital becoming so dire that they recalled workers who had just left their single, double or quadruple, however many shifts that they had done. They could not let their staff go because their replacements were stuck on the other side of the bridge.

Those are the kinds of situations that happen when you rely on workers that can’t afford to live in your communities. The actions that we have taken to increase the availability of housing in the rental market have now started to bear success in actually decreasing the rental prices in the market, which are so critical to the health and wellness of our communities.

I know the housing actions we are taking are working. I was speaking with the executive director of one of our non-profit organizations that support vulnerable people in our communities. They were describing to me situations where some of their clients who had recently signed leases for their rental homes were actually able to go back to their landlord to negotiate a decrease on their lease. They were able to demonstrate that the unit right next to them was coming onto the market for a substantially lower monthly rent than they had signed their lease for.

Of course, there are costs to landlords for a transition of tenancy, that landlord actually agreed to drop their rental rate, after the tenant had already signed their lease, in order to keep their renter from leaving their unit and moving next door. So we know that these policies are having an effect. Now is not the time to take our foot off the gas, because we also know that despite the successes, housing is still far too high.

[3:15 p.m.]

It is really a pleasure for me to be able to provide support to Bill 25. I know that other speakers are looking to add their voices and perspectives on the changes being proposed. I look forward to monitoring the progression of the bill through committee stage, when we can hear the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs provide some detailed responses to the questions and concerns that have been raised.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 25 and certainly appreciate all of the perspectives shared by members in the House today. I’ll try to focus my comments on some broad commentary on the bill itself, as well as some specific opportunities for improvement and unaddressed issues that could be addressed as we make these changes.

As several of my colleagues have pointed out, at its heart, Bill 25 reflects a broader pattern we’ve seen from this government, a centralizing, heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all approach that risks overriding local decision-making and diminishing the role of municipalities.

British Columbia’s communities and neighbourhoods are not uniform. They differ in geography, infrastructure, housing markets and local priorities. When legislation treats them as though they are all the same, it invites unintended consequences. Crucially, it erodes public trust in both levels of government, even where there are good intentions.

Local leaders across British Columbia are voicing serious concerns about this government’s approach about provincial overreach and a one-size-fits-all approach. Take the mayor of View Royal, who recently said of the provincial government’s housing legislation: “One of the interesting observations I have is that I think we are starting to lose our grip on how fragile democracies really are.” He went on to warn that the province “should not apply a one-size-fits-all approach to certain policies” and that cabinet has increasingly “isolated itself from local input.”

Those are damning comments, but they’re not partisan complaints. They are cries of frustration from people on the front lines of local governance. They echo what I, and we, have heard from mayors, councillors and community leaders right across British Columbia. We all want to improve housing affordability, but we are growing deeply frustrated with this government’s heavy-handed, top-down approach.

Everywhere I go, from city councillors to neighbourhood associations to heritage groups, I hear the same thing. Local governments are willing partners in tackling the housing crisis, but they’re being treated like subcontractors, not stakeholders. Municipalities are being ordered to meet targets without being trusted to design solutions. Provincial edicts are replacing local planning, and the result is a growing sense that Victoria doesn’t just want to coordinate; it wants to control.

That’s why it’s worth taking a moment to talk about the principle of subsidiarity, a word that may not appear in the bill but should be at the heart of debate around it. “Subsidiarity” means that decisions should be made at the lowest, most local level capable of making them well. It’s not an abstract political science theory. It’s a democratic safeguard. It recognizes that communities understand their own geography, infrastructure and social fabric better than anyone sitting in a government office or a cabinet chair in Victoria.

When you strip subsidiarity away, when you override local land use decisions and dictate zoning or density from the capital, you don’t just risk poor outcomes; you risk eroding the very trust and consent that make good policy possible.

Municipalities aren’t the problem. They are the partners. They are the ones who deliver the infrastructure, manage the water and sewer systems, run the fire halls and recreation centres and hold the public hearings where people actually show up. They are the level of government closest to the people, and they hear those people expressing their concerns more than we ever can from Victoria.

[3:20 p.m.]

To disregard that and to treat every community from Coquitlam to Kelowna to Kitimat as if it were interchangeable is not efficiency. It’s arrogance. Let’s be clear. We all share the same goal, to make housing more affordable and available for the next generation of British Columbians, but how we get there matters.

The choice is between collaboration and command, between partnership and provincial overreach. The government’s current trajectory tilts hard toward the latter, and the mayors, councils and neighbourhood leaders who have to implement these policies and bear the consequences are increasingly, and rightly, losing patience.

Good housing policy is built together, not imposed from on high. It must be grounded in trust, transparency and the understanding that local voices matter. That’s the foundation this government is eroding, and it’s why Bill 25, despite its intentions, represents a step in the wrong direction.

That brings me to my second concern, the missed opportunity to fix the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act in a way that actually works for communities. If we’re opening up this act and if we’re tinkering around the margins, why not actually fix it? When this government first brought in the short-term-rental restrictions, it argued they were necessary to free up housing supply, but it also promised that local conditions on the ground would be respected, that there would be room for made-in-community approaches.

In Kelowna, that promise was crystal-clear. During the last election, every NDP candidate in the region said that they supported a “made-in-Kelowna approach to short-term rentals. They didn’t just say it once. They said it over and over again. They said it at events. They said it in debates. They said it in the media. And I’m pretty sure they meant it.

Loyal Wooldridge, the NDP candidate for Kelowna Centre, said: “What I would say is it’s reflecting a local sentiment for a made-in-Kelowna solution.” He said: “Kelowna is also unique. It’s a resort community.” He said: “After listening to visitors, small business owners and students this summer, it is clear Kelowna-specific changes to the provincial short-term-rental legislation are warranted.”

Those statements could not have been more explicit, and again, I think they were probably made in good faith. But then the Premier himself publicly contradicted that local message. He said: “I don’t want anyone to get the impression that if we’re elected in the city of Kelowna that there would be a lifting of the Airbnb restrictions that we put in place. That’s simply not the case.”

Which is it? Were local NDP candidates misleading the public, or were they themselves misled by the Premier and the Minister of Housing? I think that’s a fair question, because what we see in Bill 25 does not enable a made-in-Kelowna approach. It continues a made-in-Victoria approach.

Here we are a year after the election, a year in which my constituents, people in my community, were promised a made-in-Kelowna approach, were promised flexibility, were promised that we would be heard by this government and by the people they handpicked to run for them, respected people they handpicked to run for them — people who put their reputations and their earnestness and their credibility on the line, committing to a made-in-Kelowna approach this government has not followed through on.

This government had the opportunity to fix the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. In fact, the present bill is exactly that opportunity. They had the opportunity to return a measure of control to municipalities, to recognize local context and to make implementation workable. Instead, the government missed that chance.

Rather than empowering communities to tailor their own short-term-rental policies, the government has chosen to maintain centralized top-down rules that don’t fit the diversity of every community, the needs of their local housing and, indeed, tourism markets and the realities on the ground that are being wrestled through every day by municipal government and by local leaders and by local people. That is not collaboration. That is command and control.

[3:25 p.m.]

Bill 25 is a missed opportunity to return to the principle of subsidiarity and to give municipalities back even a few crumbs of control over their own communities.

But I am not just here to criticize. I’m here to contribute. At committee stage, I will be putting forward two reasonable, incremental amendments that I hope the government will support, because they’re practical, balanced and fully consistent with the stated goals of this legislation.

I want to use debate on Bill 25 to draw attention to what this bill could have been and to highlight simple improvements that would make a real difference to municipalities like mine that need a made-in-Kelowna solution or a made-in-Vancouver solution or a made-in-anywhere solution, that need responsiveness to the local market conditions in our communities. There is no reason for government not to enable that other than sheer stubbornness.

The first amendment that I will be moving is….

Under part 3, division 2 of the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, eligible municipalities can opt out of the principal residence requirement if their rental vacancy rate is 3 percent or higher for two consecutive years. As it stands, a council resolution must currently be submitted to the province by March 31 each year, and as the act is currently written, an approved opt-out takes effect on November 1 of that same year.

My amendment will make a simple but important and very practical change. It would keep the March 31 submission deadline but move the effective date for approved opt-outs from November 1 to May 1 of the same year. It’s a minor change. But this isn’t a trivial calendar tweak. It makes a huge difference for tourism-based communities.

In places like Kelowna, Penticton, Tofino and Whistler, the busiest months are May through September. Whether a community can open its short-term rental market for that season can mean the difference between a successful summer and an empty one, a summer where you could shoot a cannon through a winery and where nine of the ten boats that would normally be rented are not on the lake in a community like Kelowna and where we are missing out on all of the opportunity in a very, very substantial local tourism market.

Local economies depend on being able to plan ahead. Staffing, bookings, marketing and coordination with festivals, wineries and sporting events all hinge on the summer window. When an opt-out doesn’t take effect until November, it effectively pushes any local decision back an entire year.

A May 1 start date restores that seasonal alignment. It allows communities that truly meet the 3 percent vacancy threshold to operate under locally appropriate rules in time for the peak tourism season, not long after it ends. It still preserves all the checks and balances. The March 31 deadline ensures municipalities act on fresh….

Deputy Speaker: Member, apologies to interrupt you for a moment. I have to recognize the Minister of Emergency Management.

Point of Order

Hon. Kelly Greene: My request is a point of order. My request is that the member withdraw his comments about a member of the public misleading the public.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission, there was a comment made a few moments ago with respect to potentially the Premier and potentially a candidate misleading. The Minister of Emergency Management has requested that you withdraw. I’m wondering if you’d like to comment on that.

Gavin Dew: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t intend to withdraw that comment whatsoever. In numerous public forums, as recorded and reported widely in the media, on video, in print and witnessed by dozens, if not hundreds, of people, local NDP candidates pledged that there would be a made-in-Kelowna solution for short-term rental brought forward under this government.

That didn’t happen, so I can’t really see how that could be interpreted as anything other than misleading. So no, I certainly don’t intend to withdraw those remarks.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you kindly. The honour of this House is not typically used to impugn members of the public who don’t have the opportunity to be here to defend their honour.

[3:30 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Members, I appreciate the comments made by the member for Kelowna-Mission. I certainly am aware of the point of order by the minister, and I will suggest that it would be great if we all choose to not use that term of “misleading.” But in this case, this is a disagreement between two members, and I think the Chair will not rule on this.

Member for Kelowna-Mission, if you would carry on, please. Sorry to interrupt.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: No problem at all, Mr. Chair. I will carry on.

As I was saying, a May 1 start date restores the seasonal alignment. It allows communities that truly meet the 3 percent vacancy threshold to operate under locally appropriate rules in time for the peak tourism season, not long after it ends. It still preserves all the checks and balances.

The March 31 deadline ensures municipalities act on fresh CMHC vacancy data, typically released in February. It allows adequate time for councils to consult, debate and pass a resolution. And it applies only to opt-out communities, not those opting in.

This change doesn’t weaken the legislation. It makes it functional and more responsive to market realities, based on evidence.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Kelowna-Mission has the floor. I would appreciate it if I could hear his debate.

Sorry, Kelowna-Mission. Carry on.

Gavin Dew: This change doesn’t weaken the legislation. It makes it functional. It respects the diversity of British Columbia’s communities from resort towns to university cities where timing truly matters. I hope that the minister and the government will support this amendment, because it is narrow, administratively sound and clearly in the public interest.

In fact, this was exactly the sort of change that I hoped we might see from this government last year, after the election. It appeared that the government was entrenched and unwilling to consider evidence that was plain as day of the negative effects that their legislation was having on tourism-driven communities like mine.

I assumed they were merely being stubborn because there was an election on. And most people in my community hoped that…. Based on the clear commitments made by local NDP candidates, we thought that some kind of reasonable change along these lines might well be made after the election, with the benefit of the opportunity for further discussion.

That’s exactly why many people in Kelowna felt as if they were misled by this government and by local NDP candidates who, again, very clearly committed to a made-in-Kelowna solution that would enable us to have a balanced approach to short-term rentals that was in line with the commercial realities and the housing realities on the ground in Kelowna.

That’s exactly why I’m bringing forward this very incremental, simple amendment, which I’ll be bringing forward during committee stage.

I certainly hope that the members opposite will keenly support this amendment, make sure that it is brought forward without any concern and make sure that it is passed, because it is a simple, eminently practical amendment that would make this legislation more workable and more practical. It would be one step closer to the kind of made-in-community, practical, balanced solutions that this government talked about when it first brought forward this legislation.

I will also be bringing forward another amendment during committee stage, which I hope will similarly be greeted with a positive reception by government, because it is eminently practical, in particular for the needs of the community that the Minister of Housing serves and previously served on city council in.

My second proposed amendment to be brought forward would create a municipal event exemption under part 3 of the STRAA. This would empower municipalities to temporarily relax or adjust short-term-rental rules during major events, events that create short, predictable spikes in accommodation demand.

I’m talking about FIFA-level tournaments, international concerts or large cultural festivals, events where existing hotel capacity simply cannot meet demand and where there is no market case for a permanent expansion, when what is needed is, in fact, surge capacity to meet tent-pole high-level demand for major events.

[3:35 p.m.]

To put that in context, a Deloitte report commissioned by Airbnb estimates a 70,000-night shortfall for seven FIFA matches upcoming next year.

The idea of the amendment I will be bringing forward is to allow municipalities, by resolution, to apply for a temporary exemption so they can issue short-term-rental permits for the duration of those events.

This means delegating authority to municipalities so that they can define their own event windows and regulate them appropriately. In practice, municipalities would cap the total exemption period to no more than 45 days per year.

They would define how many days before and after a major event an exemption applies, in order to make sure that the opportunity for knock-on tourism is able to be captured not only by hosts but also by the broader tourism market in the subject community. They would identify eligible events or event categories, and they would report to the province, which would accept temporary permits as valid STR registrations under the act, subject to a nominal processing fee.

In my view, this proposal is practical, time-limited and locally accountable. In fact, it exemplifies the kind of made-in-community solution that would make a tremendous difference for communities that do have these kinds of tourism surges.

This is exactly the kind of made-in-community solution that folks in Kelowna thought they were being offered by this NDP government during the last election, only to be misled or confused because, again, either local candidates had been given wrong information or they were giving wrong information to the public.

Again, just to reiterate one more time, this is why people felt misled, because practical, sensible ideas that make sense in community…. We all thought those would be brought forward. The community seemed to be promised that there would be a mechanism for that to happen, and a lot of people felt very burned, very confused and very misled by this government and by people that spoke for it during the election last October.

This proposal is practical, time-limited and locally accountable. It lets cities like Vancouver, Kelowna, Penticton or Whistler manage short-term-rental demand during major events, without undermining housing affordability year-round. It’s the kind of smart flexibility that respects both the housing market and the tourism economy.

That is, again, why I hope what we will see from this government is a willingness to work constructively and to use Bill 25 as a mechanism to bring forward some very simple changes that would make a really big difference for communities like mine.

These two amendments are not radical. They’re reasonable, administrative and community-driven. They do not weaken this government’s housing framework. In fact, they strengthen it, and they make it more practical and more workable for local communities. They do not erode provincial oversight; they make it more effective. They do not pick political fights; they build bridges between provincial and municipal government.

Adopting even one of these changes would signal that this government is, in fact, willing to listen, to collaborate, to adjust and to work with local governments and local stakeholders rather than over them. That is how we rebuild trust, that is how we strengthen democracy, and that’s how we ensure housing and community policy truly work for the people we all serve.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. I’m going to once again make a warning with respect to the language around “misleading.” I can appreciate that we are having a conversation this afternoon about, potentially, individuals that are not members of this House. The allegation that any member of this place is misleading anyone is obviously not appropriate and not welcome here, but I would suggest that the language itself….

I’m going to contemplate it a little bit and potentially come back with some more conversation on this, but I would encourage members to steer away from that kind of language. Thank you very much.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I was going to welcome some visitors in the gallery, but they appear to have had their fill of this chamber at the moment and have probably moved on in their very excellent tour today.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m so pleased to be here on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, to be able to voice my support for this really important bill.

Housing is so foundational to all of our societies’ wellness. The roof over your head….

[The bells were rung.]

Oh, and there are bells. I’m going to pause just a moment and let the bells clear through.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, just hold on for those bells.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Bells, bells, the tolling of the bells….

Just to continue, I’m very pleased to be able to support this bill. I think that Bill 25 is an important piece on securing housing for people. When people have security of housing, they have security, they have peace of mind, and they have wellness. We know that shelter is the foundational piece to people and families being productive and safe in their communities, and this is another important piece.

In particular, the amendments to the short-term rental accommodations, I think, are really important. To set the context for the importance of this, my community is the community of Richmond. With the proximity to the airport and a number of different modes of transportation, you can imagine that there’s quite a lot of interest in setting up homes as investment properties and using them like hotels.

That had been very devastating for our community for a number of years. It led to the feelings of being unsafe in their community because there were people transiting in and out all the time. People in condos were finding it very disruptive because you would have people coming in twice a day. There would be cleaners coming and going. It was just quite disruptive and not healthy for our community.

We need housing for our teachers. We need housing for our city workers. We need housing for the people that work in our medical offices to make sure that our appointments all run on time. That housing was being used up in a way that wasn’t healthy for our communities. It was being used as hotels. And homes should be for people. These amendments are really important. We’re putting the focus on homes for people and saying that speculation does not belong in our housing stock.

We want visitors. In fact, Richmond is building more hotels, has new hotels with a really healthy vacancy rate for the Hotel Association. They’re quite happy with the number of visitors that we’re getting.

But we need to support the ongoing short-term-rental accommodations — that are clear to understand, and that when there are bad actors, we can take action to make sure that we’re moving them along and saying that you can have an investment, but the investment vehicle isn’t going to be a home that people can live in.

We are also making sure that this amendment makes all sections of the act available to modern treaty Nations so that treaty First Nations can also have the benefit of being able to apply the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act on their lands.

That’s going to really help communities protect that long-term housing, whether it’s for rent or for purchase. It’s going to improve the enforcement of rental rules. I know that that’s definitely been a struggle for some local governments, because it takes such a lot of resources to be able to investigate and prosecute these egregious, at times, uses of homes for short-term rentals.

This is also going to support Indigenous self-governance, a very important principle here in British Columbia, that we work in partnership, and these tools that are available to local governments across B.C. being available to treaty First Nations is really important.

It helps people be able to find a home that they love in their community, to be able to put roots down, to grow that community. I know that we’re all very proud here. Everybody is proud here of their community.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s home, right? It’s the best place on earth for us, and everybody should have that opportunity to put down roots, to volunteer, to have a job, to be connected to our family and our friends. Making sure we’re protecting our rental stock is part of that.

The proposed amendments are going to improve the clarity for existing and prospective short-term-rental hosts, and it’s also going to provide new tools for deterring people from wanting to break those rules.

The compliance and enforcement actions that are in legislation already are for during an investigation process. We’re finding that what would be really helpful is if those compliance and enforcement provisions would be for people that are registering so that the registration process, the integrity of that process, is from the very beginning to help have less conflict within the system, reduce the amount of compliance and enforcement that has to happen. You’re working really strongly up front to make sure that that integrity of process is there.

I did touch briefly on tourism. Richmond is very much a tourist destination. I’m sure that everybody here has travelled through Richmond. I’m seeing nods, right? We’ve got the Dumpling Trail. We’ve got Steveston heritage sites, lots of really good things to do and to eat. Tourism is very important for our community and many other communities in B.C.

These amendments will not have an impact on the tourism sector. This is part of enforcement and regulation of existing laws. We already see, to date, 23,000 short-term-rental listings. They’re legally operating in the province. It’s really important to know that. This is still part of our rental accommodations for visitors in our province, a significant number of them, 23,000 short-term rental units.

We want to help people operate legally and in a way that doesn’t cause detriment to our ability to have integral communities, communities that are supportive for people and families. We already have an exemption in the legislation for strata hotels, because we know that strata hotels are part of how visitors come into B.C.

I know that my family…. Because we’re a family of five, we’re a little bit big for a hotel room. It gets a little tight. These strata hotels have a little bit bigger accommodation, often kitchens in them, and it is an important part for tourists in B.C., particularly those of us with a little bit bigger families.

Some of the amendments that are going to, if this bill is passed, come into effect…. It’s the definition of “principal residence.” I think that it’s important that, wherever possible, we have alignment between different acts. The proposed amendment definition is going to be the same as that used in the Land Owner Transparency Act, the Home Owner Grant Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act. That consistency and clarity will really help people that are considering or applying for short-term rental on their principal residence to understand exactly what it is.

Life circumstances change. Your principal residence in a calendar year could change. You could move. You could get married or divorced. So that principal residence needs to be consistent across many acts so that it reflects the lived reality of people.

I’m sure, as everybody knows, life can come at you pretty hard and fast. Not having any unclarity…. We want to have as much clarity as possible. It’s really, really important for folks.

This change is going to make the act easier to follow for current and new short-term-rental hosts, and it will make it easier to assess and verify if any contraventions of the act have taken place. I think that’s really important. By and large, people are really good and responsible, and they’re doing the right thing.

[3:50 p.m.]

There are bad apples. There are bad apples out there. I know there are quite a lot of resources that are put in from municipalities to try to deal with that, but this helps us as a province support municipalities, support that enforcement to make sure that everybody is being treated fairly, that those bad apples are dealt with appropriately. If that wasn’t the case, it would be really unfair for the people who are, by and large, following the rules and doing a really good job of providing short-term rental accommodation in compliance with all of the rules that have to happen.

I think it’s important that the act is amended, because that administrative penalty needs to be consistent across the acts and have consistent definitions. It really helps for everything. I know, in Richmond, it has been very important for us. When I was in local government, there was significant consternation before this act was passed originally about how you manage what feels like such an overwhelming onslaught of short-term rentals hollowing out neighbourhoods.

The short-term-rental rules have really helped housing availability and affordability. The number of short-term-rental listings has dropped. We’re really seeing that drop in whole-home short-term rentals. I think that when short-term rentals first came out, the intention had always been that…. I think it came out, actually, as couch-surfing. You know, you’ve got a spare room in your house, and then it turned into that you’ve bought an entire home. Maybe it’s got a hot tub. Maybe you’re listing it across multiple platforms. And then it really is not the spirit of what our communities need.

Our communities need people that live in them, day in and day out, contribute to our society, have jobs and families and go to school. That’s what we need. These amendments are going to help make sure that is applied fairly and consistently and really supports that benefit.

I’d also like to talk about small-scale multi-unit housing, because we’re really seeing an unwillingness from some communities. By and large, communities are supportive. They’re making the changes. They’re doing what they can to increase the housing stock. But we’re seeing a couple holdouts. It’s just not fair for the communities that are doing the heavy lifting to have a community right next door say: “I don’t feel like it.” It’s unfair.

We all need to do our part to make sure that there are homes in communities that people can afford. Kids…. You know, how do I say…? I mean, young adults that are moving out for the first time. Seniors who are downsizing somewhere that’s not a detached house. They’re looking for opportunities. I think that small-scale multi-unit housing is an opportunity there.

I think that we’ve seen a lot of progress. We’ve seen a lot of improvement in the old zoning rules so that people can get the housing that they need, that home that they love in the community they love so that they can put down roots, like I have talked about before.

It’s really important that we’re removing those barriers to small-scale multi-unit housing. We’ve embarked on quite a lot of work on that. It’s not done yet. We’re ensuring that we are creating the space for multi-unit housing to be developed because we are finding that some communities have really entrenched single-family home areas and are not considering the impacts to those communities.

[3:55 p.m.]

I have seen areas where it’s single-family housing, and they’re becoming — I don’t want to use the word desert — a bit lonely. There are less people in them. There are less kids in the neighbourhood making it lively. Having that middle-size housing is really important for the young people starting out, for the young families, for seniors that don’t need a giant space anymore. This is opportunity.

These amendments are going to help ensure that there is consistency across municipalities so that all lots that are zoned for single detached or duplex houses in communities that are over 5,000 people or within an urban containment boundary — that we are seeing these small-scale, multi-unit houses in a variety of areas. Because it’s important. It’s important that we have a diversity of housing in every neighbourhood.

In Richmond, when neighbourhoods were first going in, that was one of the things that they were thinking about. The old neighbourhoods in Richmond would have ranchers. They’d have duplexes. They’d have fourplexes. They’d have bigger detached houses and smaller detached houses.

That principle, somewhere along the way, has been a bit lost. So making sure that we are having consistency across communities is going to really help that, understanding that people have different backgrounds. They have different needs, different needs for spaces, different affordability levels. They might want to live near their job or their school or near grandma and grandpa.

I know that I really appreciate living near grandma and grandpa. My mom and dad help with the kids quite a bit.

Having that opportunity for intergenerational connection is really important for many, many families. Allowing more diverse housing forms is going to be really helpful. It’ll end restrictions on the kinds of housing or limitations on the number of housing units on a single lot.

It’s also going to reduce parking requirements. And I think that this is important, because developers are going to want to supply what people want. Depending on where you are in a city or town, you might have a different need. I know many people that live near rapid transit, near SkyTrain, and they don’t even own a car. And then I know people that are much farther out, and they do.

So I think developers are really sensitive to the fact that if they provide a housing unit in a place where you have to have a car with no parking, it’s not going to be a very popular unit, and they might not sell it for the price that they’re hoping for. So I think that there’s definitely a lot of recognition that flexibility is important and that developers aren’t going to build a product that’s not going to sell. So making sure that the parking requirements are flexible is important.

Then, as I said before, the continuity between all municipalities…. Make sure that it’s a level playing field for all local governments and that all people in different areas have the same opportunity so that if you’re living in Richmond or Burnaby, you have the same opportunity as somebody in any other community to have that opportunity for small-scale, multi-unit housing.

I really have to compliment. Most local governments have really undertaken these changes. They’ve been good partners. They recognize the housing crisis in their community. They’re willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work that’s necessary to have healthy communities — communities where people can live and work and play and ensure that they’re putting down roots and contributing, the way that we all do when we’re in the place we love best.

Not all communities did that though. Some local governments really interpreted our requirements quite narrowly and did not allow small-scale multi-unit housing on all lots where they have single-family or duplex lots.

We want to make sure we’re having these neighbourhood-friendly houses. It’s really important that townhomes and home-plexes are consistently allowed throughout British Columbia. People need homes to live in, and we want to support the development of those homes with local government.

We provided a number of resources to local government to make sure that this is moving forward in a way that’s supportive of that growth. We provided $51 million to 188 local governments in B.C. in January 2024 to do planning work, researching and engaging with their communities.

[4:00 p.m.]

We wanted to support that work, make sure that it’s done in good time and make sure that we can move forward together on these necessary changes. That is building on the already supported $1 billion through the growing communities fund to local governments so that we can support communities in the way that they know best, supporting them in the choices that they know that they need to build infrastructure or get equipment or whatever it is that they need to support the additional people that are coming to British Columbia.

They’re coming to British Columbia. That’s the thing. They are coming to British Columbia, and if we fail to address the changes that we’re seeing, it’s just going to get worse. We are already seeing an improvement with many of the changes that have been made with small-scale multi-unit housing, with short-term rentals and other important work.

Making sure that we’re not taking our foot off the gas, that we’re continuing to make progress to deliver homes that people need, is so important. I know that that really strikes to the heart of many people that want to work in their community. They don’t want a long commute.

At one point I was working in downtown Vancouver, and I was working with somebody who was commuting from Mission. His commute was not what I would call a favourable commute. But people do that because that’s the passion that they have for their job, or that’s the job that sustains their family. So making sure that people can have opportunities to live in the communities they work in or to be close to their family, their loved ones and have the supports that they need…. Our communities sustain us. Our network of support is so important. It is a predictor of health. It’s a predictor of mental wellness. Housing is foundational to that.

I think that it’s really important that we all support Bill 25. It’s important work to continue to make progress on the challenges that we’re facing. We are turning a corner. We’re making progress. We’re seeing vacancy rates improve. We are seeing rents slowly coming down. I think it would be a real challenge if we were to let our foot off the gas at this point.

We continue to do this really important work with these amendments in Bill 25. I’m very supportive. I’m hopeful that the entire House is supportive, because of the importance it has for each one of us. Each one of us in this House knows how important housing is in their communities. This bill is going to keep making progress, and I’m very much looking forward to that.

Sharon Hartwell: I guess my remarks are going to be largely in rural British Columbia for my community, but I would just like to listen to the words that the former member had talked about earlier when he was talking about young Conservatives wanting to live next to transit. I think that that’s probably great, and it’s probably true, but let me tell you about transit in the village of Telkwa.

Transit in the village of Telkwa is in the parking lot next to the post office. On one side is the old school, which is now the museum. So there’s not going to be housing built next to transit in the village of Telkwa or in rural communities in northwest British Columbia.

This act is changing the rules for municipalities. It is not just concerning. It’s deeply troubling. It doesn’t just add a few planning rules. It completely undermines the voice of the people who live in our towns, our villages and our cities. It takes decisions that should belong to local councils and local taxpayers and hands them to the province.

People live in or move to a community because they like what the community offers. They choose it. They build their lives there. Maybe it’s because of schools, the community spirit, the sense of safety or the outdoor space. Maybe it’s the slower pace or the pride that comes from knowing your neighbourhoods and helping them out when they need it. That’s what makes small communities special.

[4:05 p.m.]

A person who chooses to live in downtown Vancouver or Burnaby is looking for a different experience than someone who settles in Telkwa or Houston or Vanderhoof. That’s part of the richness of British Columbia. We’re not all the same, yet this bill treats us like we are. It tells local governments that Victoria knows better than they do what kind of housing density and parking is right for their towns and communities. That’s not just wrong. It’s dangerous.

I spent 20 years on my local council in Telkwa and most of that time as the mayor. I saw firsthand how decisions made from far from home can have huge impacts on the people who live closest to them. The best decisions, the ones that really worked, came from local people, through local discussions in council chambers, at open houses and, yes, even over coffee at the local diner.

When government starts to govern from a distance, from a warm and comfortable office in Victoria, it loses sight of the people who actually live with the consequences. It becomes abstract. It becomes policy instead of community, policy and bureaucracy that should never take precedence over the needs, desires and expectations of the communities and the people we represent. That’s exactly what this bill does.

What I hear, again and again, from mayors and councillors and residents across the North is the same thing. The province isn’t listening. They’re making decisions without being in the room. They’re legislating through a screen. They become virtual armchair decision-makers deciding what’s best for communities they don’t live in and don’t fully understand.

I’ll give you an example. Imagine a senior — someone’s mother, grandmother — moving to a small home that, under these new rules, has no parking space. In the Lower Mainland, maybe that’s fine. There’s transit. There are buses, trains, bike lanes. But in the North, we have snow and ice and long distances.

The previous member talked about commutes. We don’t have buses coming every ten minutes. That senior still needs to drive or at least have someone pick them up. Do we really want our parents or grandparents walking across an icy street in January carrying groceries because the government decided we don’t need off-street parking anymore? That’s not thoughtful planning. That’s not safety. That’s ideology over reality.

This bill sets a deadline — June 30, 2026, not so far away — for every municipality to change its zoning bylaws to allow more dense housing on single-family lots, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes. If the municipality doesn’t do it, the minister can step in and rewrite the bylaws themselves. So does that mean they’re actually going to give them a planning grant so that they can redo their bylaws and their OCPs?

Just think about that for a moment. Local governments elected by local people after consulting with their residents can have their decisions erased by a cabinet order. That’s not partnership; that’s a provincial takeover.

What’s even more concerning is that the government can do this without returning to the Legislature, without debate and without local consultation. The minister can simply decide that a bylaw needs to be changed, and it’s done. Local democracy gone.

I have serious concerns about the direction this government is taking. This is another example of one-size-fits-all policy that might work in Vancouver but simply does not fit the North, the Interior or smaller communities.

In my time as mayor, I learned that a lot of local councils understand their communities better than anyone. They know where the water lines are. They know which roads flood, where the traffic backs up and where the infrastructure just isn’t ready for development. They know which neighbourhoods are struggling and which ones can grow.

This government, sitting hundreds of kilometres away, doesn’t know that. They see maps, spreadsheets and averages. They don’t see the frost heaves, the gravel roads or the lack of bus stops. Yet they’re the ones writing the rules.

Under this bill, cabinet can set regulations for how much density must be allowed, what form the housing must take and even how much parking or how little a development can have. Starting in June 2026, municipalities won’t be able to require off-street parking for the new small multi-unit homes.

That might not sound like a big deal in Victoria, but in the northern communities, it’s massive. We rely on vehicles for everything — to get to work, to take kids to school, to buy groceries, to see a doctor — and our winters are long and harsh. Snow, ice and freezing rain are facts of life, and long distances are involved. This is not just a war on cars. It’s literally a war on how we live in the northern and rural communities of B.C.

What happens when every street fills up with parked cars because there’s nowhere else to put them? Snowplows can’t clear the roads. Ambulances can’t get through. Seniors can’t walk safely. And the frustration will land right on the doorstep of mayors and councils who no longer have the authority to fix it. That’s what happens when you take power away from the people closest to the problem.

[4:10 p.m.]

I also want to talk about the financial side of this. Every new housing unit, every new fourplex or triplex requires infrastructure, water, sewer power, road access. In some small communities, those systems are already stretched thin. We don’t have billions in surplus to expand them, not even thousands. Local councils are already struggling to maintain what they have.

So who pays for all this new density? Not the province but the local taxpayers. That’s what makes this bill so unfair. It forces local governments to take on the responsibility of new growth but strips away their ability to plan for it on their own terms. It’s like being told to drive faster while someone else takes the steering wheel. Let’s be clear. We do want housing. We do support housing, but it has to meet the needs of the communities that we live in.

We’re also seeing how this bill pushes small communities towards higher density and, in some cases, manufactured home zones, what people call trailer parks. Now, there’s nothing wrong with manufactured homes. They provide affordable housing options. But forcing that model on communities as a replacement for thoughtful planning just isn’t the answer. It changes the look and feel of towns that people have spent generations building.

When I was the mayor, we worked hard to make sure that growth fit our community. We made sure that new development didn’t overwhelm our roads or our water systems. We made sure that it respected the people who were already there. This bill takes that balance away. It tells communities: “You don’t get to decide what fits anymore. We’ll decide for you.” Our community is split by a river, so we have bridges to consider, congestion and a train track as well.

It’s frustrating, because this government talks about local collaboration all the time. They talk about reconciliation, about partnership, about consultation. But where is it here? I’ve spoken with mayors and councillors who found out about these changes only after the bill was tabled. There was no conversation, no warning, no opportunity to raise concerns before the legislation was introduced. That’s not consultation; that’s dictation.

What happens if a municipality can’t meet the 2026 deadline? Maybe they’re short on staff. Maybe they’re dealing with wildfires, flooding or rebuilding critical infrastructure. The bill says they can apply for an extension, but that’s only if the minister allows it. Once again, it’s Victoria holding the power, not the people doing the work.

This is not the first time we’ve seen the province interfere with municipal planning, but it’s one of the most aggressive examples yet. Councils are elected to represent their residents, not to serve as a middle manager for government policy.

I keep coming back to the same point. One size does not fit all. We cannot treat Prince George, Burns Lake, Telkwa and Fort St. John the same way we would treat Burnaby or Vancouver. Our challenges are different, our geography is different, our weather is different, and our communities are different.

It might make some sense to limit parking in downtown Vancouver, where transit is abundant, but in my community, that’s not realistic. It’s not safe, it’s not fair, and it doesn’t even reflect how people live their daily lives. When local councils push back, when they say, “This won’t work for us,” they shouldn’t be overruled. They should be heard. Transit at home is Monday to Friday, from eight until four o’clock, nothing on the weekends, nothing for seniors on the weekends. That’s what we have for transit.

This bill also creates a worrying precedent for future legislation. If the province can override local governments on zoning and density, what’s next? Will they start dictating where schools go, how emergency services are delivered, where businesses can operate? Local autonomy matters. It’s not just a principle; it’s a protection for democracy. It ensures that people making the decisions are the ones who have the answers for them.

When I was the mayor, I knew that if a decision I made didn’t sit right with people, they’d tell me fast. Sometimes they’d stop me in the grocery store or on the street. That’s accountability. That’s real. It’s personal, and it’s effective. You don’t get that when decisions are made hundreds of kilometres away by people who never face the public that they’re affecting.

Rural and northern communities are not against growth. We want new housing. We want young families to move in, businesses to expand and communities to thrive, but it has to be done thoughtfully, with input from the people who actually live there.

Housing isn’t just about numbers. It’s about people, neighbourhoods and community character. It’s about making sure that growth strengthens a community instead of eroding it. This bill does the opposite. It erodes trust, it erodes autonomy, and it erodes a connection between people and the governments closest to them.

We don’t need more bureaucracy; we need more partnership. We don’t need more rules from Victoria; we need more respect for local knowledge. We don’t need deadlines and threats; we need collaboration and understanding.

[4:15 p.m.]

If this government truly wants to solve the housing crisis, it should start by listening, not dictating. It should provide funding for infrastructure, not unfunded mandates. It should strengthen councils, not strip away their authority.

We in the North want to be part of the solution. We have ideas, experience and a willingness to build, but we want to do it in a way that fits our land, our people and our way of life. Our communities are strong because they are self-reliant. They work together. They solve problems. They don’t need Victoria telling them who they are or how they should look.

I say again that this bill is deeply concerning. It takes too much power away from local governments and concentrates it in the hands of the province. It risks turning small-town councils into bystanders in their own communities. It forgets that the best decisions come from the ground up, not from the top down.

We need housing, yes, but we also need balance, fairness and common sense. We need a government that respects the people it serves and the communities they’ve built.

I hope that as this bill moves forward, the government takes a step back and really listens to those on the ground — to the mayors, the councillors, the planners and the residents who know what their communities need. If we lose the local voice, we lose something far greater than just planning authority. We lose part of what makes our province strong: the connection between people and place.

Misty Van Popta: I rise in the House today to speak on Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, a bill that, while presented as a technical measure to accelerate housing development, represents, in its first five clauses, which is the extent of what I’m going to speak about today, a serious and troubling example of provincial overreach, something that is unfortunately not new to this government.

I’ll preface this speech by saying I live in a multigenerational home. I co-own my home with my parents, who are aging in place on the first floor. My adult children and I live upstairs. I understand the constraints of home ownership within the Lower Mainland.

As elected officials, we have the duty to not only examine what a bill claims to do but to scrutinize how it does it, to consider whether it respects the principles of good governance, local accountability and democratic restraint.

Clauses 1 through 5 of Bill 25 fail that test. They expand provincial power in ways that undermine the autonomy of our municipalities and concentrate decision-making in the hands of a few ministers and the provincial cabinet. That is not modernization. That is centralization, and it should give every member of this House reason for pause.

Let me begin with clause 1. This clause amends section 481.3 of the Local Government Act and rewrites the framework for small-scale multi-unit housing, or what the government has dubbed the missing middle. In doing so, the province assumes authority over definitions and classifications that have always been the domain of local governments. It redefines what constitutes a restricted zone and how such zones are to be interpreted, effectively telling every community in this province how to zone their land.

Now, no one denies that the province has the legal authority to amend the Local Government Act, but legal authority is not the same as legitimate authority. Municipalities are the level of government closest to the people. They deliberate in open chambers. They are directly accountable to residents, who live with the consequences of their decisions.

When this government dictates, from Victoria, what types of housing must be permitted and where, it strips local councils of their most essential function: the ability to plan for their communities in a way that reflects local conditions, infrastructure capacity and public input. Efficiency is no substitute for democracy, and clause 1 replaces local judgment with centralized prescription.

[4:20 p.m.]

Clause 2 deepens this problem. It extends the regulatory powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council — in other words, cabinet — over this entire part of the act. It adds the ability for cabinet to grant exemptions to those very regulations. With the stroke of a pen, cabinet could decide, behind closed doors, the siting, size and density of housing across British Columbia and then decide who must comply and who may be exempt.

That is an extraordinary concentration of discretionary power. Not only is it discretionary power, but it is power that can give legs to lobbying and with mayors and councils that are in favour with this government. Members opposite often speak of transparency and accountability, yet this clause moves decision-making away from this Legislature and into the opaque realm of regulation. Regulations do not undergo the same scrutiny, debate or amendment as statutes.

I stood just last week and spoke on another bill with those same challenges. They are made by executive order, not by the elected representatives of the people. Conservatives have long warned against government by regulation, the slow erosion of legislative oversight in favour of bureaucratic efficiency. Clause 2 is a textbook case of that danger.

Clause 3 may appear technical, a cleanup of redundant provisions, but we must recognize that such housekeeping is not neutral. It clears the way for broader regulatory control. It is scaffolding for more intervention down the line.

Clause 4, however, leaves no ambiguity. It adds a new section, 525.2, empowering the provincial cabinet to regulate off-street parking and loading spaces for residential uses. Moreover, it explicitly prohibits municipalities from requiring off-street parking except in accordance with those provincial regulations.

That is a direct pre-emption of local bylaws, a deliberate removal of a fundamental local planning tool. Parking requirements may sound trivial to some, but they are among the most important levers local councils have to manage traffic flow, neighbourhood character and development impacts.

For decades, councils have balanced the needs of residents, businesses and developers to set appropriate standards. This clause wipes that slate clean and replaces it with a one-size-fits-all rule made here in Victoria. Does anyone in the Ministry of Housing grasp the differences and makeup of the rest of British Columbia outside of their ridings? How can anyone from this government believe that one size fits all?

Let’s take my riding, for example. And I’m even in Metro Vancouver. Much of my riding was built out in the ’90s up until now. I’m talking the north end of Langley township. It’s highly densified already. We have grown 70 percent since 2014. However, Langley is one of the most underfunded and underserved municipalities for transit, and we are 75 percent ALR.

We are, by necessity, an auto-centric community that spans from the Fraser River to the border. In fact, it was even the Minister of Finance, while at a Langley Chamber of Commerce meeting this spring, that identified that the only thing for Langley in the 2025 budget was saving our bus system. So any restrictions to parking requirements, while also mandating multi-unit density in existing areas, is not only unreasonable but a complete lack of understanding of my community’s logistics.

What about rural communities? If we want to encourage mixed-use buildings that encompass commercial and residential, which is not only good urban planning but good for growth, how does this government expect rural residents to get to their commercial cores with restrictions on parking requirements?

[4:25 p.m.]

It is tone-deaf to the needs of anyone outside of the Burnabys, the Vancouvers, the Victorias, where transit is highly accessible.

The government justifies centralized control as a way to reduce costs and encourage more housing. But it rests on a false premise, the belief that the province always knows better than the people who actually live and work in their communities. That is not a partnership. That is paternalism.

We, over here, believe in empowering local decision-making, not neutering it. We believe that governments closest to the people are best able to serve those people. We believe in the democratic process, that those elected to serve municipalities are the ones responsible for their municipalities.

Clause 5 completes the pattern. It amends consultation requirements in section 582.1 of the act. Previously municipalities were required to consult with the minister responsible for the Community Charter, the minister traditionally tasked with maintaining the relationship between the province and local government.

Bill 25 replaces that with consultation of “one or more other ministries.” That change may sound procedural, but its effect is profound. It dilutes responsibility and allows the province to coordinate consultations according to its own political priorities. Instead of a single accountable minister, municipalities must navigate a shifting field of ministers, each with its own agenda. The result is confusion and diminished accountability.

Taken together, clauses 1 to 5 reveal a consistent pattern: the expansion of cabinet’s power to make regulations, the pre-emption of local bylaws, the weakening of consultation requirements and the broad discretion to exempt or override.

The cumulative effect is to move decision-making away from local elected councils and into the hands of unelected officials and ministers. It’s Bill 44 all over again. That is not merely an administrative adjustment. It’s a structural shift in how British Columbia is governed.

Let us consider the broader implications. The government will say that housing affordability is a crisis that demands urgent action and that municipalities have been too slow to respond. No one disputes that housing is a serious issue, but the cure this government proposes is worse than the disease. The concentration of power in Victoria will not build homes faster. It will build resentment, uncertainty and inefficiency.

Conservatives understand that the principle of subsidiarity, that decisions should be made at the lowest level of government capable of making them, is not an obstacle to progress. It is the foundation of accountable governance. When the province overrides city councils, it bypasses the people those councils represent. It tells them that their public hearings, their community plans and their local knowledge no longer matter. It tells British Columbians that their voice doesn’t matter. That is not how you build trust or cooperation. That is how you breed cynicism and resistance.

We must also remember that once centralized powers are granted, they rarely remain confined to their original purpose. Today the justification is housing. Tomorrow it could be local taxation or policing priorities. Each step may seem minor, but the cumulative effect is the hollowing out of local self-government, a drift toward governance by decree rather than by consent.

From a constitutional standpoint, yes, municipalities are creatures of the province. But from a democratic standpoint, they are expressions of local self-government. The province should exercise its powers with restraint, not with domination. The relationship should be of partnership, not subordination.

[4:30 p.m.]

Furthermore, this bill introduces uncertainty into property rights again. When cabinet can alter definitions, densities and requirements by regulation, property owners and developers lose the predictability that underpins stable markets. They can no longer rely on locally adopted zoning bylaws or community plans. They must wait for the next order in council to see whether the rules have changed. That uncertainty discourages developer investment, stifles innovation and undermines confidence ,— the very opposite of what we need to stimulate for housing construction.

Let us not forget that process matters. Municipal councils make zoning decisions in public. Residents can attend hearings, voice concerns and hold their councillors accountable at the ballot box. When cabinet makes regulations, none of that applies. There are no public hearings, no recorded votes and no local accountability. Decisions are made in Victoria and imposed provincewide. That may be legal, but it is not democratic.

The Conservative tradition values institutions that are stable, accountable and close to the people they serve. It recognizes that when governments centralize power, they also centralize error. A mistake made locally can be corrected locally. A mistake made provincially affects everyone. Clause by clause, Bill 25 erodes that principle. So what should the province do instead?

They must reaffirm a culture of partnership. The housing crisis cannot be solved by treating municipalities as obstacles. They are essential partners — the level of government that delivers infrastructure, engages the public and manages the day-to-day impacts of growth. Respecting them is not an inconvenience. It is a prerequisite for success.

Clauses 1 through 5 of Bill 25 may seem minor, but they make a continued, fundamental shift. If we accept that the province can dictate zoning definitions, override local parking bylaws and alter rules through regulation without legislative oversight, we have accepted a new reality in British Columbia, one in which local government exists at the pleasure, not the partnership, of the province.

Our vision for this province rejects that path. We must defend the autonomy of our communities, the accountability of local democracy and the principle that power should always be exercised as close to the people as possible. We cannot promote housing affordability without undermining those values. We can modernize government without centralizing it.

Bill 25’s first five clauses are not merely technical amendments. They are a test of whether we still believe in local self-government. And I, for one, do.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to address some earlier comments that were made in the House with respect to the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and a point of order that was raised earlier with respect to comments that were made by the member for Kelowna-Mission.

While I feel like the point of order had been addressed at that time, I did want to just share some guidance that was offered to us on May 15 by the Speaker of our House.

While I won’t read all of his comments, I think it’s important to share, certainly, the last paragraph of that direction that he issued.

“The Chair will take this opportunity to remind members that freedom of speech is one of the most important privileges that members of this House possess to undertake their parliamentary duties. This privilege needs to be exercised with caution. Members cannot take advantage of the shield of free speech to insult or impugn the character of someone outside of this House who has no recourse given the protections attached to this House.”

Members, I think that’s important to remember. I appreciated the guidance from the Speaker on May 15, and I wanted to share that again.

[4:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Pete Davis: I rise today to speak on Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act. I want to start by saying something that I think every member in this House can agree on.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

There is no question that British Columbia is facing a serious housing problem. Families are struggling. Young people are frustrated. Seniors are worried about their futures. The cost of housing, whether it’s renting or buying, has reached a point that is simply unsustainable.

While we can all agree that there’s a crisis, we cannot agree on how this government is choosing to respond to it, because this bill, Bill 25, is not a thoughtful solution. It’s not even an attempt to balance reform. It is a sweeping overreach of power for Victoria, one that strips away the independence of our local governments and imposes a one-size-fits-all approach on communities that could not be any more different than one another.

Now, let’s be honest here. We live in one of the most diverse provinces in Canada. From Vancouver to Valemount to Burnaby to the Elk Valley, the needs, the challenges and the ways of life are completely different, yet this bill treats them all as though they’re the same. It assumes that what works in a dense, urban neighbourhood in the Lower Mainland will somehow work just as well in the mountain towns of the Kootenays or the farming communities of the Interior. That assumption is not only wrong; it’s dangerous.

No one in my riding denies that we need more housing. People in Cranbrook, Fernie, Sparwood and Elkford — they all see it. They all feel it. Prices have gone up. They can see rates have gone down. Young people are struggling to stay where they grew up. Businesses are having trouble finding staff because workers can’t find anywhere to live.

So yes, there is a housing problem in rural British Columbia. But the difference, the causes and, therefore, the solutions are not the same as downtown Vancouver.

Let me explain what I mean. In Cranbrook, young couples who were born and raised there are being priced out of their own hometown. They’ve got good jobs. They work hard. They’ve saved their money. But when they go to buy their first home, they’re met with prices that have doubled in just a few short years. Renters are hanging on by threads. Many are one rent increase away from having to leave the community entirely.

In Fernie, it’s much the same story but with its own challenges. The town depends heavily on tourism. People come for the mountains, the ski hill, the charm of downtown, but as more short-term rentals take up housing stock, prices rise. The very workers who make that tourism possible — the lift operators, the cooks, the servers and the tradespeople — are being pushed out. They’re forced to commute long distances, spending hours on the road every week just to keep their jobs.

In Elkford, shift workers are doing whatever they can to find a place to live. Some are living in temporary units, some in basements, some even in their RVs, parked wherever they can. It’s tough enough to work 12-hour shifts in the dead of winter, and then finding somewhere warm and secure to live shouldn’t be a battle.

It’s not just the workers feeling the squeeze. It’s smaller communities like Jaffray, as well, in my riding. Retirees on fixed incomes are struggling.

So yes, housing is a crisis everywhere in this province, but the kind of housing we need, the way we build it, and the pace at which we can realistically grow — those things look very different depending on where you live. That’s the part that this government refuses to understand.

What this bill does is impose a single provincial model, a cookie-cutter approach, completely ignoring the realities of life in rural British Columbia. It forces municipalities with over 5,000 residents to allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in areas that were zoned for single-family homes.

[4:40 p.m.]

If a local council doesn’t meet the government’s deadline, the minister can step in and rewrite the bylaws themselves. That is not collaboration; that’s control. It is Victoria telling every community in this province: “We know better than you do.”

It tells local governments that their carefully developed official community plans, plans they spent years consulting the public on, no longer matter. It tells residents who participated in town halls, filled out surveys and gave feedback that their voices don’t even count anymore. And it tells everyone, every small-town mayor and councillor, that their authority to make decisions for their own community can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. That’s not partnership; that’s provincial overreach.

Local councils are elected by local people. They’re the ones who have to face their neighbours in the grocery store. They’re the ones that take the calls when the snowplow doesn’t come or when a development goes sideways. They live in those towns. They know the terrain, they know the infrastructure limits, and they know what their residents want. They’ve spent years, and in some case decades, shaping their communities carefully and responsibly.

In Cranbrook, for example, the official community plan was just updated after three years of public engagement. Residents spoke clearly about wanting responsible growth, growth that protects green spaces, ensures water and sewer systems, and makes sure that they can handle the demand, and maintains the character of their neighbourhoods.

Fernie — same thing, plans focused on preserving its historic downtown and promoting balanced tourism.

The town of Sparwood — their plan emphasized supporting mining families while managing environmental challenges.

These plans aren’t obstacles. They’re the product of real community engagement. They’re what democracy looks like at the local level. But this bill takes it all away. It just tells them Victoria knows best.

It doesn’t stop here. Bill 25 also removes parking and driveway requirements for new multi-unit homes. Now, that might sound harmless. It might sound like cutting red tape or reducing barriers. But in regions like mine, it’s a recipe for chaos. People in the Kootenays rely on their vehicles — full stop. There are no SkyTrains. There are no rapid bus lines. There are no subways.

People drive to work in the mines. People drive to shop in Cranbrook. They drive to ski in Fernie. They drive to visit family members in their neighbouring towns. That’s just rural life in British Columbia. There’s no transit.

Imagine quiet neighbourhoods suddenly packed with vehicles on both sides, street driveways gone, front yards turned into makeshift parking, because they don’t have anywhere else to go, roads narrowed to one lane. Now picture a heavy snowfall in Cranbrook. The plows can’t get through. Emergency vehicles are delayed. Families are stranded, unable to even get their kids to school or to work. That’s not progress. This is a reckless decision.

Here’s the thing. It’s not because local councils fail to plan properly. It’s quite the opposite. These are the same councils that have spent years developing thoughtful, evidence-based plans to make sure growth happens responsibly. But under this bill, their ability to make those decisions is now being taken away. When the province imposes one-size-fits-all zoning rules, it ignores the very different realities that exist across this province.

What works in downtown Vancouver does not work in Fernie, Cranbrook or Sparwood. It doesn’t work in towns where families depend on pickups to get to work, where public transit is limited and where winter lasts half the year.

You don’t force dense urban-style housing into rural communities without understanding the consequences. You can’t remove parking requirements in regions where people have to drive. You can’t override community plans that were built through local consultation and expect people just to accept it quietly.

[4:45 p.m.]

This isn’t how you build strong communities. It’s how you create resentment, division and mistrust. And that’s what this government is doing. It’s sending a clear message to rural British Columbia that their voices do not matter, that Victoria knows best — that their way of life, their geography, their infrastructure, their weather, none of it matters in the grand scheme of this.

The truth is simple. Rural and urban communities are not the same. What works for one does not work for the other. Cities and towns are not interchangeable. Urban density makes sense where transit exists, where infrastructure is built to handle it and where services are concentrated. But in small towns spread across the mountains and valleys, where I live, where you might have one grocery store or a single access road, the same policies do not help. They’re harming. It makes it worse.

In many rural areas, water systems are already stretched thin. Sewer systems are decades old. Roads were built for small populations. Emergency services are limited. Schools are full. Hospitals are over capacity. Yet this government seems to believe that they can just legislate density and everything will magically work out. Well, it’s not going to work that way.

Real housing solutions require collaboration. They require the province to sit down with the local leaders to understand their needs, to work together to find solutions that make sense on the ground.

This bill is not about empowering communities. It’s about controlling them. It’s about taking away their ability to make decisions for themselves. It’s about silencing local voices and replacing local knowledge with distant bureaucracy. That’s not the British Columbia I was born in.

I believe in a province where communities have the freedom to shape their own future, where councils answer to the people who elected them, where governments listen before they legislate, because if we take away local voices, we take away accountability, and when we take away accountability, we lose the very foundation of democracy itself.

At the end of the day, this bill isn’t just about housing policy. It’s about respect — respect for the people who call these communities home, respect for the local leaders who’ve earned the trust of their neighbours and respect for the principle that good government doesn’t come from the top down. It comes from the ground up.

British Columbia is a province built on diversity, not just in culture or language but in geography, in lifestyle and in community. From one major city to our small towns, every corner of this province has its own identity, its own challenges and its own strengths. That’s something we should be proud of. It’s something we should protect.

If this government truly wants to solve the housing crisis, it needs to start by respecting those differences. It needs to recognize that rural and urban communities require different approaches, different timelines and different tools. Housing policy that ignores local reality is doomed to fail. When it fails, it’s not the government that pays the price. It’s the people, the families and the workers, the very British Columbians this government claims to try and help.

I urge this government to put away the heavy hand. Sit down with the people on the ground. Talk to the mayors, the city councillors, the planners and the residents who actually know what’s happening in their own backyard. Listen to the people who live it every day in their communities. If you truly want to build more housing, you can’t do it by tearing down local democracy.

Good governments listen, good governments collaborate, and good governments respect the people they serve.

[4:50 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Madam Speaker, esteemed colleagues and fellow citizens that are listening on TV, I rise today not as someone opposed to housing. Far from it. Indeed, everyone in this chamber shares the goal of ensuring that British Columbians can afford to live, work and raise families in the communities that they love. I rise, rather, in defence of how we build that housing and who decides what our communities will become.

Bill 25 is presented as a pragmatic, necessary tool to unlock housing supply. Yet when we read the clauses carefully, we see that the legislation reaches far beyond just zoning reform. It redefines the relationship between the province and our municipalities. It replaces partnership with paternalism. It imposes mandates without resources, and in doing so, it risks creating division where there should be so much more collaboration.

This is not a technical bill. This is a transformational bill, one that alters decades of local autonomy, democratic process and financial responsibility. For those reasons, I stand to outline the negative and unintended consequences that Bill 25 carries for local governments and the people they serve.

At the heart of Bill 25 are amendments to the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter that require all municipalities to permit small-scale, multi-unit housing, SSMUH, typically three or four units on lots previously zoned for single-family or two-family use. On the face, it seems sensible, but these clauses fundamentally remove the discretion of local councils to determine what density makes sense for their communities.

For decades, land use planning in British Columbia has rested on one principle, local knowledge. Communities differ in infrastructure capacity, geography and character. A blanket zoning directive from Victoria totally ignores this diversity.

The practical effect is that zoning power is no longer municipal. It is provincial by decree. A mayor and council that choose a different approach will be simply overridden. The Ministry of Housing now holds the authority to issue orders compelling compliance, effectively rewriting municipal bylaws from a desk in Victoria. This is not collaboration. It is centralization masquerading as reform.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I will adjourn the debate and reserve my right to continue.

Ward Stamer moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Darlene Rotchford: Section A reports progress on Bill 31 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor is in the precinct, so please remain seated. We will continue with the process of royal assent shortly.

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2025

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Sexual Violence Policy Act

School Amendment Act, 2025

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Korean Heritage Month Act

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these acts.

Interjection.

Hon. Wendy Cocchia (Lieutenant Governor): Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone. I was so distracted by a wonderful little voice there. It just filled my heart right away — not that you all don’t.

I just wanted to take a very quick moment to say a few thank-yous, if I may, because I know that I’m the only thing between yourselves and a nice, well-deserved, two-week rest. I wanted to thank you for it not being 2:30 a.m. That’s fantastic.

Most importantly, I want to sincerely thank you all from the bottom of my heart for the sacrifices that you as individuals, and your families and your loved ones, make so that you can serve British Columbians.

These are very challenging times, and in the pursuit of progress, you are part of the answer to all British Columbian challenges. You’re working with British Columbians across the province. Sometimes that work can be thankless, yet every day you choose to continue to serve. I thank you sincerely for your passion and for your commitment.

I will never forget, when I think about sacrifice, when I was watching the Legislature — I do watch that channel, by the way — and I saw a member. I know that this wasn’t a first time for himself, or many, that he was wishing his young child a happy birthday. It was a single-digit birthday, and I thought to myself: wow.

We hear about missing birthdays, we hear about missing family events, and we hear about missing anniversaries. Yet have you ever put yourself, when you’re not an elected official, in those shoes and thought: “I would be missing my child’s birthday”? That really struck me. I want you to know that I do take that message when I’m travelling around British Columbia and when I share with people the true sacrifice and hard work that you all do.

I want to not only thank you for what you do each and every day for your constituents, but I also want to thank you for the bills today and bringing them to royal assent here. Thank you very much.

I think one thing that we always can agree on is that we’re very, very proud to be British Columbians. We’re very, very proud to be Canadians.

Go, Blue Jays, go!

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:05 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call continued debate on second reading on Bill 25.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Speaker: The member will continue.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have to get back to where I was.

A mayor and council that chooses a different approach will be simply overridden.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Ministry of Housing now holds the authority to issue orders compelling compliance, effectively rewriting municipal bylaws from a desk in Victoria. This is not collaboration. It’s centralization masquerading as reform.

Bill 25 also amends procedures around public consultation. Where previously zoning amendments required a public hearing, the new provisions exempt councils from holding such hearings if they are merely implementing provincial directives.

Government has called this a way to cut red tape, but really, what’s being cut out is the public’s voice. Public hearings exist because community planning affects every resident — those who live next door, those who drive on the same roads and those who rely on the same waterlines. To remove that step is to replace democracy with expediency.

No matter how noble the housing goal, the ends do not justify the means. A government that silences citizens for the sake of efficiency undermines its own legitimacy.

In the long run, this will create exactly what it is supposed to not do. It will delay. Citizens denied a fair hearing will fight back through petitions, referenda and litigation. Instead of smoother planning, what we will see is greater confrontation. This bill replaces public deliberation with provincial dictation. In doing so, it erodes public trust.

[5:10 p.m.]

Perhaps the most alarming sections of Bill 25 are those granting the Ministry of Housing broad enforcement powers. If a municipality fails to meet provincial zoning requirements or housing targets, the minister may issue an order in council to override those bylaws. That power is near absolute. There is no requirement for municipal consent or a meaningful appeal. This effectively transforms the minister into a de facto local government for every city in this province.

Imagine. A community carefully develops a land use plan after months and years of consultation, balancing heritage, the environment and density. Then, overnight, the province declares it is in non-compliance and substitutes its own version. This is not a partnership; this is a provincial occupation of municipal space. This is not collaboration.

British Columbia’s constitution recognizes municipalities as creatures of the province, but over a century, we have built a tradition of local autonomy. Bill 25 breaks that tradition.

Another point is infrastructure obligations without adequate funding. These new housing requirements to infrastructure expectations…. Municipalities must now accommodate additional density without ensuring that water, sewer, transportation, schools can handle it. Yet nowhere is there a single reference to any new funding whatsoever. This is a classic, unfunded mandate.

The province dictates, but the municipalities pay and pay and pay. A fourplex instead of a single home may seem modest, but the compounding effect across thousands of lots will mean millions of dollars, possibly billions of dollars, of new infrastructure strain. Water main upgrades, storm water capacity, fire protection, new schools and, of course, road safety. Property taxpayers and not the provincial coffers will bear the brunt of these costs. If this government truly believes that housing is a provincial priority, it should come up with provincial dollars, not additional municipal debt.

This bill also expands provincial oversight of STRs, or short-term rentals — Airbnb, VRBO and similar platforms. While cracking down on these STRs is a worthy goal, these clauses create overlapping jurisdictions. The province will maintain a registry, but municipalities must still enforce local bylaws and feed data into the provincial database. And then who ultimately holds the final enforcement authority? Who collects the fines? Who bears the cost of compliance? I would suggest, again, the municipalities.

Municipalities that already have robust STR programs — Victoria, Kelowna, Whistler — will now have to reconcile all the conflicting data and processes. This duplication will be a waste of time, it will confuse operators and certainly frustrate our residents. Tourism towns could also lose a significant share of their business licence and accommodation tax revenue, yet the bill offers no fiscal offset. So what we have here is not clarity whatsoever, just some more regulatory chaos.

Every new clause in this bill brings administrative consequences. Municipal planners must rewrite zoning bylaws, update official community plans and issue revised development permits, all under a very tight provincial timeline.

Smaller communities, especially in rural B.C., often have a single planner or even none at all so that they end up having to offer those services from abroad. They’ll need to hire consultants at a greater expense, divert staff from essential work or simply fail to meet those deadlines altogether. This province may see this as an inefficiency, but for municipalities it’s the reality of limited human capacity. It also creates new responsibilities without new resources, a bureaucratic overload that will slow the housing approval process instead of speeding it up.

[5:15 p.m.]

This government proudly speaks about the number of new potential units, but housing without infrastructure is just density without dignity. More units means more cars, more wastewater, more children in our already overpacked schools and more demands for parks and policing.

Most municipal infrastructures were designed decades ago for lower densities. Obviously, upgrading these systems will be expensive and time-consuming. By imposing density without infrastructure planning or funding, this bill will ensure municipalities face significant service bottlenecks, boil-water advisories, road congestion, emergency response delays. The list goes on and on. This is not theoretical. Communities such as Kelowna and Langford have already seen service strain as growth outpaces infrastructure. Bill 25 will replicate that province-wide.

Because this bill grants sweeping ministerial powers and vague enforcement mechanisms, it also invites judicial review. Municipalities that feel their planning autonomy has been violated will have no recourse but to challenge these orders in court. Litigation is costly, often hundreds of thousands of dollars per case, and diverts staff and resources from actual housing projects.

Investors and developers also rely on predictability in the rules. If bylaws can be changed overnight by ministerial decree, planning certainty disappears. Developers may delay the projects or withdraw them altogether. Ironically, a bill designed to accelerate construction in our housing industry will actually end up slowing investment, and uncertainty in litigation will cost us all.

Also, beyond the fiscal and legal risks, Bill 25 will reshape the social fabric of many of our communities in British Columbia. Density, when planned thoughtfully, can create vibrant, walkable neighbourhoods. But when imposed without consultation, it breeds resentment.

Residents who feel ignored will not welcome these new neighbours. They will obviously blame them. Instead of inclusive growth, we risk social division between renters and owners, between new arrivals and long-time residents. Local democracy isn’t an obstacle to housing. It’s the foundation of community trust. When that trust collapses, so does civic cooperation.

Municipal planning is not about housing numbers. It’s about where we build. Many municipalities have carefully mapped out floodplains, habitat corridors and wildfire interface zones. Provincial directives of this bill could override these restrictions. Without local control, sensitive ecosystems may be exposed to development pressure, including flood risk, fire vulnerability and habitat loss. This is particularly alarming for interior and coastal communities facing climate extremes. Centralized decision-making from Victoria cannot possibly account for every local environmental nuance.

Bill 25’s structure also reflects a deeper philosophical problem: a loss of faith in local democracy. As I mentioned before, this province appears to believe that municipalities are obstacles to progress rather than partners in problem-solving. Yet local government is where democracy is most tangible. As our previous speakers have said, this is where citizens can speak directly to their representatives, where councillors can walk down the same street as their voters.

By stripping these councils of authority and autonomy, the province is telling citizens that their local vote matters less, that their community meetings, their petitions and their neighbourhood plans can be swept aside. This may accelerate decision-making, but it diminishes democracy.

We’ve also heard that this bill assumes a one-size-fits-all model for growth. Urban centres like Vancouver and Surrey may absorb some of this new density easier than some of our smaller municipalities. But smaller towns like Burns Lake, Smithers, Vanderhoof and Castlegar may face very different realities. They lack sewer systems with multi-unit development, have limited building trades, rely on groundwater aquifers and simply do not have the capacity.

[5:20 p.m.]

Applying the same zoning mandate across vastly different regions will punish our smaller rural and northern communities for conditions they cannot control and that they can certainly not afford. This bill’s lack of regional flexibility reveals a troubling metropolitan bias, a sense that Victoria knows best for every corner of this province.

When local governments are compelled to approve new density without matching infrastructure, the cost inevitably falls on local taxpayers.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

That means higher property taxes, larger development cost charges or cuts to existing services. The province will boast about the number of homes that are enabled while municipalities will bear the political consequences of angry ratepayers seeing their taxes rise. It’s both unfair and unsustainable.

Bill 25 was introduced and advanced with minimal consultation with municipalities. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, UBCM…. We requested greater collaboration and detailed fiscal modelling, but much of that input was ignored.

Housing reform that affects every community in this province should not be rushed through as a budget season overthought. Proper partnership means consultation before, not after, legislation is tabled. By ignoring municipal expertise, the province has sacrificed wisdom for speed, and the consequences will be borne locally.

Even if one supports the goal of this specific bill, the precedents established are alarming. If the province can unilaterally rewrite zoning bylaws today, what prevents future governments from imposing other local mandates tomorrow, perhaps on taxation, policing or even environmental policy?

Noting the hour, I reserve my time to continue and move adjournment of the debate.

Ward Stamer moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Lisa Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stand adjourned until ten o’clock, Monday, November 17.

The House adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:16 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31 to order.

I will look to the minister for any remarks he wishes to make before getting started.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. Over to them.

On clause 1.

Larry Neufeld: Before I do start, I just would like to make a little statement, again, of respect for the minister and his staff as far as being forthcoming and being willing to share and brief. I do appreciate that.

I did spend a fair amount of time on the bill itself, and at first glance, as I mentioned in the House, it appeared to me to be something that, with some amendments, I could support. As I thought about it further and as I dug into it further…. The minister and I have already discussed some of the fundamental disagreements that we might have, and I’ll be quite frank, over the need for this line.

Part of the line of questioning is going to be to establish the rationale behind it and, also, to provide some information that we can spend some time looking at as far as estimates are concerned.

My first question. In its integrated resource plan application to the B.C. Utilities Commission, B.C. Hydro has forecast an energy deficit position by fiscal 2029 and, more seriously, a capacity gap by 2032. Is the minister able to confirm that if shared ownership agreements, as per clause 1, of a transmission line anticipated to be completed no earlier than 2037…? How will clauses be incorporated in the agreements to mitigate these concerns?

Was that too convoluted?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m not sure. I think the last part was to connect the first question, which was — the member is quite right — an estimates question, to section 1 of the bill. I admire that effort, and what I would say to the member is I’m not going to be too restrictive about that.

Section 1 is quite specific to the issue of co-ownership with First Nations, which is an essential element of the North Coast transmission line project.

[1:20 p.m.]

I’d like for members of the committee to know I’m here with Peter Pokorny, who’s the Deputy Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions; Chris Gilmore, who’s the assistant deputy minister, electricity and utilities regulation; Keith Anderson, the senior vice-president of B.C. Hydro, and Zack Merilovich, the director of electricity policy. They’ll be joining and assisting me with the discussion today.

Phase 1 of the project is expected to be ready, if that’s the question, by 2030; phase 2 by 2032. The project will have shovels in the ground next year.

With respect to energy demand questions, which I think was his question, I don’t think it’s really linked to section 1. I’ll just say he’ll know, because he’s been briefed on this, I think, in some detail, that overall, energy demand, especially industrial demand, has been flat for some time in British Columbia.

There is, of course, more information coming as we file our integrated resources plan, as B.C. Hydro does with the B.C. Utilities Commission. But I think it’s fair to say that all of the estimates show demand for power increasing in British Columbia, and, to a degree, this bill is a reflection of that.

The member will also know that late last year we announced the results of a call for power. The B.C. Utilities Commission, which reviews that call for power in its role, has or is reviewing electricity purchase agreements that have been made between successful call for power proponents and B.C. Hydro. And we’ve now engaged, as of May, in a second call for power. The first call for power, cumulatively, is power the equivalent of Site C, about 500,000 homes, an 8 percent increase in the power available by B.C. Hydro. The second call for power is expected to be the same.

The member asked about capacity. He’ll know, because I believe he’s been briefed on this….

[The bells were rung.]

We’ll take a break and have a vote and come back.

I’ll leave you on the edge of your seat.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We will recess until after the division.

The committee recessed from 1:22 p.m. to 1:39 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I’d like to call the committee back to order on Bill 18. We had left off with the minister, so I will let the minister finish his remarks.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think when we went to the other House for the vote, I was talking about the RFEOI process, which the member has been, of course, briefed on.

It was launched on June 4. The responses were received September 8, 2025. We received over 100 submissions from 73 respondents, representing nearly 19 gigawatts of potential capacity. I think he asked about capacity.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now I would say that we’re on section 1 of the bill and just leave a sense, perhaps, of the frame. We have section 1 of the bill for the House. The section is intended and does add new definitions pertaining to the North Coast transmission line ownership agreements for the Hydro and Power Authority Act.

The purpose of the section is to establish the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to designate agreements between B.C. Hydro and First Nations for the shared ownership as part of the NCTL infrastructure and to allow B.C. Hydro to maintain all its current rights, powers and immunities under the Hydro and Power Authority Act, as well as its responsibilities when acting within the terms of the designated agreements. That’s the intent of it.

Its significance, of course, is very important. The NCTL is a partnership and will be a partnership between First Nations on the route and B.C. Hydro — which is, I think, a hugely advantageous consideration for the region, for the First Nations, for B.C. Hydro, for the project and for the speed with which the project will take place, which we see as important.

We’ll be having that discussion because that’s what the section is about. It’s about enabling that project, NCTL, to go forward.

Larry Neufeld: I absolutely understand. With respect to why these questions are coming through clause 1, it’s not clear to me what’s involved in those agreements or what could potentially be involved in the agreements. That’s what I’m trying to flesh out here.

I would suggest that I’m also curious, through my analysis, over the potential for the shared ownership agreements. In the same integrated resource plan that I referenced earlier, there is a figure, labelled 4-5, and it indicates an excess of generating capacity in the northwest. I have read an analysis by an independent party that would suggest that it’s an excess amount of generating capacity.

Even given the forecast that Hydro itself used in that figure, my question would be: for the parties that are going to be signatories under clause 1, will they be aware of that potential disparity?

Then, secondly…. Actually, I’ll leave it there, and then I’ll ask the next part, so that I don’t convolute it.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I appreciate the member’s suggestion. What he’s talking about refers to some independent estimate, which he didn’t identify. Perhaps if the member could just identify that, it would be of assistance.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

Sorry, it was referring to the B.C. Hydro integrated resource plan application to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Then it was referencing the 2023 data. Within that document, within that application, I was referencing figure 4–5.

I’ve looked at it, and I’ve looked at it, and I’ve had an individual that’s very knowledgeable in the area review it with me to make sure I was understanding it correctly. What it is suggesting is that there is an excess amount of generating capacity in the northwest.

Perhaps my concern is that for First Nations partnerships that would be signing on under clause 1, would they be aware of that? Would they be in agreement with the need for the line, given that there currently is an excess amount of generating capacity?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would just say to the member that in 2023, B.C. Hydro undertook an analysis and sought responses to the need for electricity in the region. It has all been part of the previous briefing. It’s directly relevant to this.

The member will know that that was significant in mining — not just in mining but in the Port of Prince Rupert, in LNG, in other developments in the northwest — and that we would need more electricity in the northwest. Once that survey was completed, and the conclusion was that we needed more transmission to the northwest, the government proceeded with NCTL.

[1:45 p.m.]

At that time, it also engaged with First Nations. That engagement started in 2023, as I noted in the House. As the member will know from our briefings on this subject, they’ve been in place, and terms sheets have been offered since then. Obviously, First Nations are well aware, because they live in the northwest, of the enormous economic possibility.

If we like, we can go down the list of mining opportunities that are going forward and could go forward based on the assurance that electricity will be coming. That’s why we’re building the North Coast transmission line. It is a generational opportunity for the northwest.

In 2023 that review was taken. The results of it have been well known for some time. They were the subject of our estimates debate in the spring, and the decision to proceed, I think, for the government, in any event, was an obvious one. Huge generational opportunity to create wealth in the northwest, jobs for people in the northwest, jobs for First Nations in the northwest, and an opportunity that we strongly believe First Nations should share in through a partnership agreement.

We’ve been working with them and will continue to work with them in phase 1 and phase 2 for partnership agreements. Those are obviously the first that we do, because those are the first parts of the line that would be built, and subsequently the third phase of the line in order to ensure that First Nations were part of those transmission opportunities. We are confident.

If you were to wait for final investment decisions from mine to proceed, then we would be delaying those projects, just as you would if you proceeded, say, with the opposition’s position on small nuclear reactors. You’d be waiting decades, and capital would leave. So our understanding…. Our work has demonstrated the need for more clean electricity in the northwest. That’s why we’re proceeding with the line.

Certainly, First Nations are not just in agreement with that, but well aware of it.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

Following up on the last answer, will there be…? Again, with respect to clause 1, the ownership agreements, we haven’t established what those are going to look like with respect to the transmission line.

The minister references a number of mines and opportunities that would proceed. Will there be any ownership agreement or encouragement for those entities to engage in an ownership agreement with a similar ownership agreement as would be represented in clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member will be aware of all the work that’s going on with the Tāłtān Nation around mining in the northwest, which is a generational, inspiring opportunity. If he knows, and I know he does, because he visited the northwest this summer…. He’ll know of the real sense of engagement by First Nations in the region to advance their wealth and their economic circumstances to create jobs, to become part of it.

If the question is: are those who will receive the electricity involved with First Nations? You bet they are. But involved with First Nations…. Ksi Lisims is a project initiated by the Nisg̱a’a First Nation. For example, the mining issues are worked out with the Tāłtān and others, depending on where…. FPX is slightly differently placed than, say, Galore Creek or whatever in terms of the mining.

You bet those projects will be engaged with First Nations, as was LNG Canada, as obviously Cedar LNG, which is another project in the northwest. It is an extraordinary project, one that will be effectively the lowest-emission LNG in the world until Ksi Lisims comes in line. It might be slightly behind Ksi Lisims in that category.

So not only are First Nations involved in discussions around mining, discussions around the Port of Prince Rupert, discussions around other economic issues. But they’re, in fact, leading those, as the member knows. It wouldn’t be correct to say that other projects are asking First Nations to be involved, when they’re being led by First Nations in those cases. But I think it’s fair to say that in the region, there is enormous interest in economic activity and the creation of support and wealth and community and jobs by First Nations. They’ve been leaders in this regard.

[1:50 p.m.]

They’ve been fully engaged and involved as they were with CGL, as the member will remember, and involved in his own region in a different way through Treaty 8 and all the discussions about revenue-sharing and restoration of work done in his region, which is something that is, again, beyond the scope of the bill but is inspiring, I think, to everybody involved in it.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for the detailed answer.

What I was getting at was more along the lines of: as we move toward the allocation component of this bill, or the potential allocation component, is there going to be preference given to organizations or groups that have signed an ownership agreement similar to what’s represented by clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we will get to the allocation framework when we get to section 2, if that’s okay.

I would say in a general sense that you saw in our call for power, again, something that was dealt with in our legislation this spring, that we had some occasion to discuss in that case. For B.C. Hydro, part of the criteria for the call for power was a minimum of 25 percent participation by First Nations in that call for power. In fact, that was exceeded in every case of an awarded contract. So that was part of the conditions.

But this is not really an allocation framework. What this allows is for B.C. Hydro to become involved in a partnership with First Nations, a joint venture with First Nations that B.C. Hydro continues to be responsible for. I’m sure the member will be asking me about the details of that and responsibility for the system and everything, or his colleague will be.

That’s what this section deals with. It allows B.C. Hydro to do what, for example, the wind companies would have done in that case, which is to have as a joint venture partner a First Nation.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

I think I’ll move slightly into a different area. Can the minister specify or list which First Nations have been formally consulted and whether these agreements will be tabled for public review?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So it’s not just an issue of consultation, as the member will know. It’s an issue of negotiation and discussion of a partnership.

In terms of phase 1 nations, which is the phase from Prince George roughly to Fraser Lake, just to put that index where that is: the Lheidli T’enneh, the Syilx, the Nazko, the Nadleh Whut’en.

In phase 2: the Witset First Nation; the Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation; the Nee Tahi Buhn Indian Band; the Skin Tyee First Nation; the Wet’suwet’en House groups, of which the member will know there are several; the Kitselas First Nation; the Kitsumkalum First Nation; the Metlakatla First Nation; and the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation.

So that’s in phases 1 and 2.

There will be, of course, as we go into phase 3…. Those negotiations are obviously not underway yet. We’re, obviously, working through it where we’re starting construction first, but in the first phase of the line, those are the First Nations that are involved.

The process is a subject of negotiation and, when final agreements are announced, we’ll be announcing those publicly.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

So if I heard correctly…. I’ll actually just ask this as a question as opposed to indicating what I believe that I heard. Have all First Nations whose territories are being crossed been contacted? Have any of them refused to engage in negotiations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the very succinct answer, Minister.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Excellent, excellent.

[1:55 p.m.]

With respect to the agreements, I was looking for a definitive answer in your previous, less succinct, answer. Perhaps I’ll reiterate. Will those agreements be tabled publicly?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There will be commercially sensitive information, and that wouldn’t be made public. But substantially, this is a public project of significant note. Aside from anything commercially sensitive, once agreements are made, they’ll be made public, and they’ll be duly celebrated.

Larry Neufeld: Just to be crystal clear, we’re saying that a redacted version of each and every agreement with First Nations will be provided publicly.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the substance of the agreements will be made public because it’s a public process. It’ll be made public not least of which by the First Nations themselves, who will be seeking support and endorsement through their governance structure for the agreements. So the substantial information about the agreement will be made public even if commercially sensitive parts of the agreement aren’t made public.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the agreements that are subject of clause 1, would the minister be able to give us an understanding of what…? Well, my first question would be an understanding of what type of level of ownership or what range of ownership that these agreements would encompass.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In a general sense, just to describe what the agreements are…. This may be a less succinct answer just to start us off here.

These agreements will include the roles and responsibilities of both B.C. Hydro and the First Nations partners, including the operational nature of B.C. Hydro’s role in the construction and operation of the line, and the terms of B.C. Hydro leasing the line from the limited partnership — the limited partnership being up to 50 percent owned by First Nations, which will need to be decided, and 50 percent owned by B.C. Hydro.

Agreements can only be — for phases 1, 2 and 3 — between First Nations and B.C. Hydro for co-ownership of the line. Those are the nations. Agreements can only be about construction, operation, control, use, management, maintenance, safeguarding, repair or upgrade of the North Coast transmission line.

Larry Neufeld: I didn’t hear potential co-ownership of existing infrastructure. Would that be included in any type of agreement that would be relevant to clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. I think that that did answer that.

I’m going to move into a slightly different direction at this point. Will the agreements that will be signed under clause 1 assist in any way in opening retail access to industrial customers?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, it doesn’t allow retail access, and that’s a specific term.

I’d say that the purpose of the agreements is to build the line. That will allow for connection by industrial customers, whether it be at a distance connection to the main line or, if they’re closer, closer to that. That’s allowed, but this is not retail access.

Larry Neufeld: To clarify, there will be no negotiated agreements within anything applicable to clause 1 that would allow a carve-out for one of the nations to implement a retail power sale. That would be my question.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, that’s not the intention.

Larry Neufeld: Is there any language that would be included in those agreements that would prohibit such actions?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I laid out what the agreements do include in my previous answers. So the answer to that is no, they don’t include that discussion.

Larry Neufeld: Would there be anything in the agreements that would prohibit infrastructure from being, in the future, disposed of by one or more of the partners of what’s being covered by clause 1 without either…? I’ll leave it at that.

Would there be anything in the clause or in the agreements that are covered under this clause that would prohibit one of the partners to dispose of any asset that is related to the agreements that would be signed under clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the only thing that would be allowed is that nations would be able to sell their interests to other nations along the line, if you follow me, or to B.C. Hydro. But other than that, no.

Larry Neufeld: The language to safeguard B.C. Hydro ratepayers, would that be included? To substantiate the minister’s last comment, would that language be included in the agreements that are under clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just note that the agreements, of course, are still under negotiation.

Other than what I said, which is that people won’t be able to sell, except to other First Nations, part of the agreement, or to B.C. Hydro, which is a significant limitation…. That would be the only provision by which someone could sell that asset.

Larry Neufeld: Perhaps I will clarify. I wasn’t actually referring to the asset in that question. I was referring to power itself. So would there be an opportunity for a nation to engage in retail sale of power, or is there language specifically prohibiting that in the agreements under clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

Larry Neufeld: Well, you’re so succinct. I’m just going to keep my jacket tied up.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Would any agreement signed as part of clause 1 or under the umbrella of clause 1 represent any commercial customers that would be asking for 150 megawatts or more?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The new line is to serve all customers, including those with 150 megawatts or more.

Larry Neufeld: That being the case, is it then the responsibility of the customer to be an investor in upgrades to meet transmission and generation demand? If so, do we have, to this point, private investment secured? And if that is the case, would we be able to have that number?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The industrial customers won’t own the line. They may have to make interconnection. For example, the project…. Even at Bob Quinn Lake, there are some projects that are significant projects. They have to make their final investment decisions, of course. But there is significant interest, as indicated in 2023 and, subsequent to that, from customers who are in the queue.

Obviously, their presence in the queue and listing the queue is something that’s commercially confidential to them until, obviously, they are lined up and they make their own decisions in that respect.

[2:05 p.m.]

So an industrial customer that needed to connect to the North Coast transmission line would be responsible for that, of course, but it doesn’t require ownership in the line to do that. They’re a customer, and they would be a customer of B.C. Hydro, just like the member and myself.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

Again, to make it absolutely crystal clear, under the agreements of clause 1, there can only be two owners or two groups of owners — those being B.C. Hydro and prescribed First Nations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that.

I believe we did cover allocation. I do agree that the next section is probably a better place to cover that. Will there be…? Well, that’s an allocation question as well.

Through agreements that would be signed under clause 1, would there be any rationale or explanation as to why the Utilities Commission is not involved in those agreements or is not being consulted on them?

Hon. Adrian Dix: In this case — I think the member would agree with this — there’s a demonstrated need. We can go through that very significant need if the member wishes. We’ve demonstrated need. Therefore, I think, the member is asking about the certificate of public convenience, but I’m not sure. He may want to clarify that beyond that.

Other than that, we’ve demonstrated need in our proceeding. The activities of B.C. Hydro, including things such as the integrated resources plan, are subject to review by BCUC all the time. BCUC has a responsibility to B.C. Hydro customers, whether they be industrial, commercial or residential.

In terms of this project, there was demonstrated need in 2023, and we’re proceeding with the project in partnership with First Nations, which is the subject of the amendments to the Hydro and Power Authority Act in section 1.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

Again, a point of clarity on my part; I apologize if I didn’t understand this correctly. Did the minister state that there was no need to subject this project to BCUC because the need was demonstrated in 2023? Did I hear that correctly?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The only way you do that is through CPCN, which is an issue of need for the project. The government and B.C. Hydro have already established the need for the project. That’s why, separate from the legislation, there’s an exemption from the CPCN, which the member has been briefed on and knows about.

In a general sense, BCUC has oversight of B.C. Hydro but doesn’t make investment decisions of this sort. They review B.C. Hydro’s plans and their rate applications and other issues, but they wouldn’t be dealing with this normally, except in the case of projects over $250 million, for CPCN.

In this case, the need for the projects been established separately, and the government is proceeding in partnership with First Nations, which is the subject of section 1 of this bill.

Larry Neufeld: I had a follow-up to that, and I’ll come back to it when it comes back up here.

Under clause 1, will the calculation of the offset and the terms of financial security be the same, relative to agreements signed under clause 1, as for all other industrial customers?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to be clear, section 1 deals with the agreement between First Nations who own the transmission line and B.C. Hydro to build the NCTL. It’s not an agreement with industrial customers. I appreciate that these things are not necessarily self-evident. So I’m not being critical of the question. But that’s the case here.

Larry Neufeld: I will state on the record that the minister was correct, and that should have been on a different section. My apologies.

My next question is: can the minister provide a list of any agreements or memoranda of understanding that have already been negotiated, as part of this agreement process, under clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Term sheets have been negotiated with some phase 2 nations. The rest of the agreements are under discussion, but we are optimistic, both on phase 1 and on all the phase 2 nations, that we will come to agreement. That’s for the negotiation process.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

I believe that this already was answered but I would like to ask it in a very clear, concise way because this is something that stakeholders have questioned me on. Can the minister guarantee unequivocally that public ownership of B.C. Hydro’s core transmission assets will be maintained in full under this bill and any agreement signed thereunder?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, just to be clear on this point…. The member and some of his colleagues raised it at the second reading debate. What section 1 does and what the bill does, effectively, is enable co-ownership with First Nations.

This is not privatization. I understand the rhetorical debate, but it’s not privatization. B.C. Hydro remains the operator of the North Coast transmission line and the rest of the B.C. Hydro grid. For it to be otherwise would not make sense, given the integrated nature of the grid.

Co-ownership with First Nations is about equity and participation, not about transferring control. The bill enables designated agreements where First Nations can hold ownership interests, but B.C. Hydro retains its authority to operate, maintain and manage the line.

This is about ensuring support for the development of the line with added benefits, such as speeding up consultation times on permitting and regulatory work, which can translate into project cost savings.

It’s something that not just B.C. Hydro does, as a commercial Crown, but that virtually every oil and gas company operating in the member’s riding does. He’s well aware of that. First Nations will be able to earn returns on their equity investment over the life of the project. This is a stable, long-term economic benefit, not just to First Nations but, I’d argue, to the entire region.

That’s what it does, and that’s the role of B.C. Hydro and the role of the partnership agreement in the construction of the North Coast transmission line.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

Just so I’m very, very clear, what I believe I heard was that under no circumstances would any agreement under clause 1, signed under the auspices of clause 1, affect anything other than the ownership of that transmission line.

Hon. Adrian Dix: That’s right. That’s three words.

Larry Neufeld: Again, I should have left it done up.

I’m going to get back into a little bit more technical stuff. As I was going through, reading and understanding how these agreements might affect different components of pricing, ownership, etc., I did some research on long-run marginal cost.

[2:15 p.m.]

I should have given a previous reference to this, but I’m referring here to the B.C. Hydro ’24-25 annual report, specifically figure 6-4. My question is: have participants in the agreements who are affected by clause 1 been made aware of significant scaling differences indicated in the reference figure comparing, in part, onshore wind and natural gas generation? Have they had any comment on those differences?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is a transmission project, not a generation project.

You’re talking about, I would say quite reasonably — I look at Mr. Anderson — thousands of hours of work together on the details of this project by First Nations that are thoughtful and sophisticated in this area and have done an outstanding job representing their interests. Details, including very significant details about the line itself, where it’s located, are dealt with, but this is a transmission project, not a generation project, so no.

First Nations are well aware, the member will know, and very much involved in some of those areas, but this is about a needed transmission project which — like other transmission projects in recent B.C. Hydro history that have served other regions, principally Metro Vancouver — is needed in this region because of the demand for power for the economic and social aspirations of the region.

Larry Neufeld: The minister did mention, and I am aware, that B.C. Hydro will retain operating rights or operating ability for the transmission line. Would anything that would be signed under the representation of clause 1, as these nations would be equity partners in the line…?

B.C. Hydro’s annual reports do provide the cost of energy as not fully allocated. Would that financial information be provided to the equity partners as not fully allocated, or would it be provided as fully allocated? I’m learning to understand the difference between those two. I do understand that there’s a significant difference.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the role of cost recovery, obviously, is people paying for electricity, I think. So I’d say no. This is, again, a transmission line project, the North Coast transmission line. Obviously, the partners will work together to oversee the construction of the line. B.C. Hydro will operate the line.

Issues around B.C. Hydro’s broader system are all publicly known in a general sense but not specifically relevant to this agreement.

Larry Neufeld: As a person that does own businesses, having an equity share in a piece of structure, I would be very curious as to understanding the revenue or the…. Obviously, Hydro in the partnership is going to be charging. There’s a value in that line of the electricity, the electrons moving through that line.

I guess I’ll restate my question. How is the value of that electricity determined? How is it apportioned, as per the agreements in clause 1? Is that done through a non-allocated calculation or a fully allocated calculation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They’re not responsible for the use, we understand, on the transmission line or for earning a rate of return on that transmission line.

[2:20 p.m.]

The electricity that goes through the line is often generated by B.C. Hydro or by B.C. Hydro under contract with another provider, and so on. This is about the transmission line and the rate of return. I think the member is talking about something else when he talks about “allocated” and “non-allocated.”

Larry Neufeld: I appreciate that my questions, perhaps, could be more clear.

The rate of return for an equity investor, how is that calculated?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The asset cost appreciated over time. Hydro, the joint venture partners receive a rate of return based on those costs and the rate of return with that. That’s the way it works. It’s not based on the allocation.

I think, what the member is getting at, but I’ll let him decide what he’s getting at, is somehow if the line isn’t successful, do they get less or something? Or if the customers don’t get through, do they get less?

We’re assuming — and, I think, looking at the numbers, that a reasonable person would assume — that the line will be full. Regardless, they recover costs from B.C. Hydro ratepayers based on a rate of return on the investment of the line.

Larry Neufeld: I will admit that I don’t know that I actually have ever seen a contract with my own eyes that would represent the flow of electrons through a power line.

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

This might be an issue on my end. But as an investor, I remain somewhat confused as far as how, if I was deciding…. I realize that it’s not part of this bill; I don’t have that opportunity. If I were a representative of a First Nation that was deciding to invest, or if I was representing a First Nation, how would I be able to calculate what that return is and whether that’s a fair value or not?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: As the member will know…. I don’t think this is actually unusual. It’s based on the capital costs of the line and the return on equity, which is laid out in the agreement.

If B.C. Hydro owned both ends of the line, it wouldn’t necessarily be substantially different than that. So they’re sharing in the return in equity of the line. That’s how the agreement for a transmission line would go, as it would in other energy systems that are differently organized.

Larry Neufeld: I apologize for belabouring this point. I remain confused.

If I was asked to, again, represent someone that was being requested to invest $50 million, $20 million, whatever that number is, I fail to understand how I can take pen to paper and understand if I’m getting a fair return.

Perhaps it’s a lack of understanding on my part. I’ll try to rephrase and do this in several parts. How is the power line equity investor paid? What mechanism pays them?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, B.C. Hydro pays them, pays the joint venture partners through lease payments, based on their level of equity and the rate of return agreed to.

The Chair: Member.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Chair. Sorry if I didn’t welcome you on the last question.

That’s beginning to make sense.

Again, with respect to how, in my mind, thinking back to someone that would be advising a signatory to an agreement under clause 1, would be…. How would I understand if those lease payments are fair, that my client should either cut the cheque or they shouldn’t?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you very much. Good to see you, hon. Chair.

Because they know the rate of return.

Larry Neufeld: Would the rate of return…? How is that established? Is that an arbitrary number?

That’s really the crux of what I’m trying to get to. I don’t understand where that rate of return would come from. I don’t know what that lease payment would be based on, and I don’t know how to ascertain whether it would be a fair number or not.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the reason they’d be interested is that transmission lines are very safe investments. We have a sense in that the rate of return is based on Fortis’s regulated rate of return through the B.C. Utilities process, which is notionally 9.65. It’s based on that regulated rate of return.

Obviously, the end payment to them is that differential with the cost of borrowing. So it is a good deal, it’s a secure deal, and it’s a safe deal. And it’s based on Fortis — which is a regulated utility in B.C., a private one — and their rate of return on their assets.

Larry Neufeld: If I’m understanding this correctly, this is a guaranteed rate of return with no opportunity for ups or downs throughout the lifespan of the agreement?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s a stable and safe investment, a good investment for First Nations. There are other, and will be in the agreements, risk trade-offs. For example, there will be benefits for early completion of the project, which is, obviously, beneficial to both sides.

There will be other risk trade-offs, but this is, as you would expect a transmission line to be, a stable and safe investment for First Nations and, effectively, for B.C. Hydro.

Larry Neufeld: That answer does make sense. Again, if I were advising a client who happened to be a signatory or potential signatory to this agreement or an agreement that would be subject to clause 1, I would be very curious as to….

We’ve established this is a guaranteed rate. Over what time frame? Is it the life of the agreement, and if so, what is that life? Are there any limits on that lifespan?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s generally over the life of the asset, which, in this case, is 50 years. If there are, for example, opportunities for reinvestment or further expansion, then there may be other opportunities along the line. But in this case, it’s a 50-year expected lifespan for the line.

Larry Neufeld: We’re talking a 50-year lifespan.

Again, I don’t know…. I’m assuming that’s reasonable. What I would ask is: is that language included explicitly in these agreements?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

Larry Neufeld: Again, keeping in this same line of thought, we talked about a guaranteed rate, which is fantastic. And yes, that’s a good rate. We’re indicating that it’s based off of the Fortis regulated return.

I’ll start with my first question. Will it be identical to that rate? Is that in the language of the agreements? Will it stay that way in perpetuity for the life of the agreements?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member will know, in response to all of these, that the agreements haven’t been finalized. That’s a preface for all the answers.

But we want to give as clear an answer as possible, and that answer is yes.

Larry Neufeld: The regulated return…. Am I assuming that that is something that is provided by the Utilities Commission?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, if the member were advising them, he’d know that people have to know what they’re getting when they sign on to an agreement, a project over 50 years. The Fortis rate of return is determined by the Utilities Commission.

In this case, it is being used because this is, and that’s why we’re passing the legislation, the first agreement. There hasn’t been a previous agreement like this. This is used as, essentially, a proxy — the established rate of return for Fortis on its assets.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

I may have misunderstood a previous response then. Am I understanding that the rate of return that will be included in these agreements will be pegged identically to the Fortis rate, or is it used as a reference?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Pegged identically.

[2:35 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Thank you. That’s great. I do appreciate that.

I’m assuming, from the previous answer, that we know that that is, again, the lifespan of the asset. What I believe that I had understood from one of the previous responses is that, should maintenance activities occur on this line, there are already mechanisms in these agreements that would be signed as part of clause 1, that would be in place automatically, to extend…. Or would a renegotiation of that agreement be required after the lifespan of the asset is expired?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The opportunity for reinvestment will be established in the agreement.

Larry Neufeld: With all due respect, I’m not sure I understand that answer. Is it going to be automatically rolled over, renewed?

Perhaps I didn’t ask correctly. Would it be on automatic rollover renewal, or would it be required to be renegotiated?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Hon. Member, there are effectively 50 years of payments. After the 50 years, they continue to be co-owners of the asset, but there are no further payments. It’s for 50 years, right? They continue to co-own the asset. The assets still exist, and electricity may be going through them. You know, I’ll personally be 111, so it’ll be good.

There would be a possibility for other reinvestments, those already will be anticipated in the agreement when it’s signed. But essentially, the agreement for the payments is for 50 years.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

[2:40 p.m.]

Again, for the sake of clarity, what I believe I just heard is that the agreement for payments ends after 50 years, but the ownership is in perpetuity. Is that correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The co-ownership of the asset continues until we cease needing to use it, effectively. So yes, the asset will continue to be co-owned, but the payments are for 50 years.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

Would the partnership, in the event that these assets do extend past the lifetime of 50 years…? Say they did 70 years, just as a number. I have no idea. Is there a mechanism within the agreements that are signed as part of clause 1 that would either set aside or have the ability to claw back reclamation costs of the assets from all partners — demolition and reclamation costs?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Reclamation, if it were required at that point in the distant future, would be the responsibility of B.C. Hydro.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer.

Equity investment. As part of the agreements that would be signed under clause 1, will there be a physical equity component that will exchange? I’m asking if participants will all be putting cash into the pot, for lack of a better description.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

Larry Neufeld: Is there a standard formula? Again, respecting the fact that these agreements are underway, how would B.C. Hydro ratepayers know that equivalent/fair — I’m trying to think of a better word — equivalent agreements are being signed with all nations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Every nation in phase 2 and in phase 1 will sign, effectively, the same agreement. That’s what we’re negotiating together. So they’ll have the same equity opportunity.

Larry Neufeld: Just to clarify, I heard the word “opportunity.” Will it be a requirement, or will it be a voluntary investment opportunity by each nation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Voluntary.

Larry Neufeld: So that, in my mind, brings the question of equitable treatment from one nation to the neighbouring nation. If one nation chooses to put in X number of dollars and the next nation chooses not to, is there a concern that, through the agreement signed under clause 1, it’s going to make a perception of inequity between the neighbouring nations? Is that going to cause a problem with phase 3?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s an excellent opportunity for all of the nations, and they all have an equal choice and an equal opportunity.

Larry Neufeld: Will there be an opportunity or has there been…? I will say, will there be an opportunity…? Again, respecting the fact that these agreements under clause 1 are still under negotiation…. Is there an opportunity…? We’ve already discussed the payment mechanism to which the asset will receive its rate.

[2:45 p.m.]

Actually, I think I might have just answered my own question, but I think I’m already halfway through it, so I’ll ask it anyway. In fact, I’m certain I answered it, but I’ll throw it out there.

Interjection.

The Chair: Continue, Member.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the…. Now I’ve lost my train of thought. With respect to the…. Actually, I did lose my train of thought.

I’m going to yield to one of my….

The Chair: Take your time, Member.

Larry Neufeld: I shouldn’t have laughed. It was a good one, too. Okay, I will move on to the next one.

In the agreements that will be signed under clause 1, the government does reference the word “co-ownership.” In that context…. I know we’ve already talked about shared governance. That’s clear. I understand that it’s not shared. I also understand that shared operational control has been established and that that will not be the case. With respect to — I think I may have answered my own question again — shared revenues…. I believe we did talk about that already. I will move ahead again.

What safeguards are in place to prevent further divestment of B.C. Hydro infrastructure — i.e., the infrastructure…? Obviously, this would be in relation to what the language included in those agreements would be under clause 1. What safeguards are in place to prevent one party from divesting equity share or assets associated with that portion of the asset?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think I answered this question earlier, but the nations would be limited to selling either to B.C. Hydro or to other nations. That’s the limit, as I said to that question earlier.

This is fine; it’s important to come at these things a couple of ways, and I understand the concern for the hon. member. It’s a good question, but we discussed that earlier, and that’s the limitation on the ownership.

Larry Neufeld: To the minister: thank you for that. That’s a challenge of jumping around in your questions.

My next one would be: were First Nations engaged in the development of this legislative framework?

Secondly, were any of the nations consulted in drafting this bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

Larry Neufeld: Were all of them consulted? How were they chosen?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we’ve listed off the First Nations that are involved in phases 1 and 2 of the line. That’s the full list of nations along the line who had the opportunity to take advantage of this equity opportunity. How were they chosen? They were chosen in that respect and in that way.

The consultation has been significant. Obviously, the legislation is required to proceed with NCTL. It would have been assumed, by the nations, that the legislation was coming forward and that it would allow for this equity opportunity. It wouldn’t make sense to negotiate an equity opportunity that was not permitted.

There have been over 300 meetings between B.C. Hydro, the government and the nations on this question so far. So yes, there has been lots of consultation.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer. More specifically, were all of those nations afforded the opportunity to contribute to the drafting of Bill 31?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, it wasn’t co-drafted in that sense. The intent of the legislation was to enable the agreements that would have been the subject of those hundreds of meetings and negotiations in thousands of hours. The legislation was drafted by the legislative counsel, but obviously, the nations involved are directly affected and were substantially consulted in the matter.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister. I accept the answer, for sure.

Were the First Nations required to sign NDAs during the consulting or the drafting process of these agreements?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Not with respect to the bill, not with respect to the legislation. There were not any NDAs, nor would there really have needed to be any NDAs.

There are NDAs sometimes, at the request of the nations, for the negotiations. These are commercial negotiations. As you might imagine…. So it’s not that there are no NDAs in the detailed negotiations such as this. There are, of course, such NDAs to allow you to go forward, as between the nations, sometimes, and B.C. Hydro.

But on the legislation there were no NDAs signed.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

Were there any NDAs signed with respect to execution or negotiation of the agreements that are subject to clause 1 of this bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The agreements haven’t been executed. We’re in the House talking about the legislation now, so for that part of the question, no. There are some NDAs in place, at the request of the nations, in the discussions and negotiations. But that’s expected.

It’s in a negotiation now, so there are no executed agreements yet, obviously. We’re enabling here such agreements to take place, so with that part of the question, it’s no.

There are NDAs involved in negotiations, as there would be in most commercial negotiations of this nature.

Larry Neufeld: To clarify, and 100 percent I agree that NDAs would be incredibly normal when it comes to commercial negotiations, did B.C. Hydro, as the representative of the ratepayers of this province, require an NDA before negotiations were begun under any agreements that would be in clause 1?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The short answer is no.

Let’s say that, in a general sense between the nations…. What I said to the member earlier, which is the need for equality of opportunity, requires transparency between the nations. The nations certainly understand that. I don’t speak for them here. They speak extremely well, as I can imagine the member knows, for themselves.

The importance of transparency between the nations is there. If you’re going to have equality of opportunity, people legitimately would want to see that equality of opportunity. But there were no NDAs required, in direct response to the question by the member.

Larry Neufeld: From a person that comes from a business background, that honestly is troubling. When we’re talking about the kind of dollars that are likely to be involved here and not requiring an NDA…. May I understand the rationale behind that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let me say, I’m delighted to hear the opposition become advocates for NDAs. Anyway, I think I’ll just leave that. I’ll just leave that. There’s a moment. In this context, I understand. I’m just going to leave that there.

I think in this process…. It’s different than a commercial operation. Say the member had a business and he had four investors, and they were 25 percent, and he was operating the business. Then there might be an NDA and there would be a need to inform the business.

In this case, the nations are the people represented and then, more broadly, the people they represent, the democratic organizations they represent. So the maximum of transparency is actually quite important in this process to ensure the democratic accountability for the nations. Just as we’re having democratic accountability here, democratic accountability for the nations.

So in a general sense…. You can tell, in response to the question, I’m pretty open about all the details of these agreements, really, as open as we can be. Equally, that was important, in these discussions, that there be trust. You’re building a transmission line, not with one nation — which might be the case for, I don’t know, an LNG project or something else or a project that’s sited in a particular place — but along a line. So the requirement for transparency is greater here, I think, for the nations who are participating.

[2:55 p.m.]

Then, as they go back in their accountability structures and approve agreements, for the people who are part of each of the nations…. If you’re going back, regardless of which nation is involved, and you want your community to approve an agreement, it’s got to be fairly transparent. They’re going to be asking questions, just as the hon. member in this place is asking questions about this legislation.

First Nations would be structured differently, perhaps, than the commercial arrangements the member was thinking of. But in a general sense, this is an open process. B.C. Hydro’s role in it…. Its management line, of course, is regulated by independent regulators. And our role in legislation by this House in passing this legislation which enables it…. Equally, First Nations have similar accountabilities and transparencies required with their communities. So I think a more open process is actually understandable.

In this case, it’s not affecting anybody’s stock price in that sense, which is sometimes the reason why NDAs in such a negotiation would be required until an agreement was announced. This is a different process. The government announced and supported the process. B.C. Hydro did back in January 2024, engaged with First Nations in the summer of 2024. So the relative transparency of all of this, given the important and central nature of the project, I think is actually quite normal and not, as the member suggests, at all disturbing. Quite the contrary. It’s what nations and all of us might expect.

Larry Neufeld: I am going to yield in a moment, because I find my mind is wandering a bit, and that might lead to my confusion on this point.

We just discussed NDAs and the rationale of the need for openness. Earlier in the conversation, when it came to a discussion around the public being made aware of these agreements, which don’t require an NDA, I was left with the understanding that that was not reasonable to expect the public to have full access to. Having executed many NDAs in the business world, I am aware that it is very easy to include your decision-making group within that NDA. It’s not the intent to keep information secret. It’s to keep it closed within a group.

Earlier in the conversation, I understood that — and I will get to my question; I think it does require a bit of a preamble — the need for…. I wouldn’t want to call it secrecy, but the lack of transparency on commercial interests was a concern. I’m struggling to reconcile those two. Perhaps the minister could help me understand the difference.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, let me say this, then. When the agreements are finalized, they will be very public. We will be recognizing and celebrating them in communities across the North. I think it’s a significant moment for the North. So there will be transparency. There may be some things, as I said to the member earlier, that require commercial confidentiality. But the agreements and what we’ve achieved and what we’re proceeding with will be a very public process.

The discussions, in a broad sense, with nations, what’s involved…. There may be some desire, as between nations early on or different nations, to maintain a certain degree of confidentiality as they engage for themselves. But the purpose of creating equality of opportunity and the confidence required to do that…. No special deals, right? This is a deal across the board, differently managed with phase 2 nations and phase 1 nations in these two cases.

My case for a more open process, in this case just in a general sense and not having the discussions be secret and the rates of returns be secret and everything else be secret, is because of the nature of the discussions between First Nations governments, effectively, and B.C. Hydro and, effectively, the government of British Columbia.

[3:00 p.m.]

So that’s the distinction I’d make between the two.

The member need not worry. When agreements are signed, I will be present and delighted and celebrating those agreements. I can assure you I will not disappoint members of the opposition by remaining quiet at that exciting moment, I think, for our province.

Larry Neufeld: I accept the answer, again reconciling in my own mind the need for secrecy, or lack thereof, in this case. Yet when it comes to land agreements or other agreements, the government position appears to be different.

I would suggest, in this case…. My question would be, what safeguards would the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro have when there are potentially billion-dollar negotiations going on without NDAs signed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Agreements were approved by, obviously, B.C. Hydro senior management, by the board. In this case, there has been some involvement by the province. So whether there’s an NDA during prior negotiation or not would not change those obligations or responsibilities to the public. Ultimately, amongst other accountabilities would be the discussions that we’ll have, I’m sure, next spring in estimates, for example, and many others — B.C. Hydro, the Utilities Commission and everyone else.

I think the public, which has very significant confidence in B.C. Hydro…. According to independent public opinion surveys, it’s well over 80 percent. Oddly enough, and this may seem incredible to the hon. member, even more popular than the government, which is below 80 percent, I’m told, in public approval. I think there’s a lot of confidence in the senior management, in the board of B.C. Hydro, the work that they do in protecting the public interest, the interests of B.C. Hydro, and so on.

I’m not sure the existence of NDAs in and of itself is a protection. You can make an argument. I mean, there are occasions, and the members has cited and talked about this, in commercial agreements between government where things have to be kept confidential. We’ve decided that cabinet discussions are confidential for lots of excellent reasons that have been established over now centuries. But I think our default position should always be, and especially in a very public process like this, to make sure that people have access to the information.

Usually in a negotiation, what you’re talking about isn’t the final agreement, so you don’t necessarily talk about everything. But what’s being talked about is not a secret. People talk about that at all, whether it be…. But you know, and we say this often in labour negotiations, and you’ve heard recently in the labour negotiations that have taken place here in B.C., that bargaining’s for the bargaining table. That doesn’t stop people from talking about their views from time to time. We’ve seen this in recent labour negotiations, and we see it in other negotiations.

I think, ultimately, B.C. Hydro does a good job for the ratepayers, established over time. The third-lowest electricity rates in North America. A recognized rate of return. Appreciated by the public, and boy, I appreciate them when there are windstorms and B.C. Hydro staff are out there working on them and doing an incredible job. I think B.C. Hydro is highly respected in this role.

It doesn’t mean it never makes mistakes. I was the opposition B.C. Hydro critic for a time. My friends at B.C. Hydro may remember that time and the questions I asked. I’m reflective on that process in my current position. But I think the public has a lot of confidence in B.C. Hydro for good reason.

Larry Neufeld: Would the minister be able to assure, on the record, that B.C. Hydro has…? I’ll rephrase. Are there other commercial interests or commercial agreements that B.C. Hydro has entered into without the use of an NDA?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the member, to a degree, answered his own questions earlier. With respect to the negotiations that are the subject here of section 1 and are being enabled, effectively, by section 1, NDAs have not been required.

We had all this discussion on the different views on NDAs in different circumstances. I was just teasing the hon. member, but in fact, there are different views on those and the purpose of those NDAs. So I’m sure we’ll be able to ask B.C. Hydro, and I can respond to the member in writing on the question of whether they sign commercial agreements.

Typically, you make a commercial agreement on, say, a price for, I don’t know, computers or something. The price is often kept confidential, for obvious reasons. The vendor has other customers. There are reasons for that.

In this case, these agreements that are the subject are very public agreements. Going forward is a very public process. The negotiations aren’t public. We don’t have stadium seating for them. But with respect to these agreements, NDAs have not been required.

Some have been signed in specific circumstances, but usually at the behest of other parties for good reasons as well. But generally, this is a fairly open process. It makes sense. When you have to go back to your nation and talk about term sheets, you’ve got to say what’s in the term sheet as a government. That’s to do…. Just as I’m here in the Legislature answering questions about the agreements as well.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that.

The reasoning for my questioning is to try and establish if agreements being signed under clause 1 are being treated differently in any way in structure than any other agreement that Hydro may have entered into.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I mean, I think we understand the agreement is now unique, because we’re enabling this agreement under the law. We know this is unique, in that respect. It’s the first time we’ve engaged in a co-ownership agreement with First Nations on a project of this sort.

So in that sense, it is unique, and it is different, and that’s why we’re discussing it. If it was just another commercial agreement, it wouldn’t be the subject of legislation. We require this legislation to proceed with the North Coast transmission line.

I’ll spare you another speech with the North Coast transmission line. We’ve had, probably…. Members have heard me quite enough. But that’s the difference.

David Williams: I hate to be a little redundant here, but I just want to clarify a few things.

In terms of the North Coast limited partnership, what will be the joint venture agreement between the First Nations? Is it a limited company or three separate agreements as leased back through the limited company?

Maybe you can just clarify that a little bit better.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I know the member has been engaged in the debate, so I don’t want to be redundant. But I understand that the agreements are still under negotiation, so we’re enabling these agreements with this legislation. They’re limited partnership agreements. They’ll have an agreement, then a separate contract for B.C. Hydro to construct the transmission line. That’s the nature of the agreement.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Will the First Nation partners be required to contribute any capital for their equity partnerships, and are the equity partnerships equal percentage?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, and equal opportunity across phase 1 and phase 2.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Will the First Nation partners take the same risk as B.C. Hydro if the line is underused, given that B.C. Hydro might bill ratepayers anyways? In other words, the ratepayers are going to be charged a certain percentage. If the line is underutilized or under capacity, who is actually going to foot the bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I did answer this question earlier, and that’s okay.

We talked about the Fortis rate of return and the 9.65 percent return, and that’s the answer to the question when you talk about getting paid, as Fortis does, on its capital investments.

That was used as a reasonable basis because Fortis is a regulated utility in B.C. It is a good basis for these negotiations, and that’s the return they will receive. Of course, you take off that return the cost of capital, like you would any other investor.

This is a stable, good investment. It’s why First Nations are interested, why they’re, I think, overall, enthusiastic about this project other than the benefits for their regions and for business and for economic development.

David Williams: I understand that is based on Fortis’s rate of return, so basically, it creates a yield. I also understand that yield is actually created by the B.C. Utilities Commission. They actually look at the rates, and they adjust the rates accordingly.

Is that…? Maybe the minister can just clarify if that’s correct and that’s how Fortis’s rates are determined. Also, staying with that point, if the B.C. Utilities Commission is no longer going to be deciding how the rates are decided, that would be a regulator. Is that correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The reason that Fortis was used is that B.C. Hydro doesn’t have a rate of return in the same way as Fortis does. The member will understand the distinction between those two, I’m sure.

Because Fortis does have a rate of return and has regulated their current rate of return on their assets and their capital investment as 9.65, that was seen as an effective proxy. It’s not 9.65 percent yet in the agreements because the agreements aren’t finalized, but once they are, that rate of return would be locked in.

[3:15 p.m.]

David Williams: I thank the minister for the last answer.

I’ll move on to another portion of clause 1. With the co-owned facility and the limited partnerships, how will the protections of the Utilities Commission Act be preserved?

It appears that the government is planning to exempt B.C. Hydro from BCUC regulations — specifically, 38, “utility must provide service”; 41, “No discontinuance without permission”; and 52, “Restraint on disposition.”

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro is still regulated by the BCUC. It’s still the entity that operates the line, so the regulation continues.

If the member is referring…. Again, we had, I think, over a number of questions, a discussion of the certificate of public convenience. If that’s what the member is referring to, that’s another thing on projects over $250 million. But BCUC remains the regulator of B.C. Hydro, which will be operating the line.

The ownership of the line will, obviously, be with the joint venture partnership, and B.C. Hydro will pay for that through lease payments. But with respect to the role of BCUC, it continues to have a role over B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro isn’t receiving any exemption.

One of the reasons why we’re clear about BC Hydro’s rights here, and you see that in the section, is also their responsibilities, which continue to be to the B.C. Utilities Commission, as a regulated utility in B.C.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Given that it appears that BCUC has no oversight in this role in the project, who will ensure that the public interest is protected in these agreements? Now that you’re moving away from the B.C. Utilities Commission having oversight on this portion of the transmission lines, if I’m correct, who will have the public interest?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro operates the line. They are being regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission, so the public interest is maintained in that respect. That was the answer to the previous question. That’s the answer to this one.

Larry Neufeld: I would like to introduce an amendment to clause 1.

The Chair: We will take a short recess and provide copies to the committee.

The committee recessed from 3:17 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

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

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. We have an amendment to clause 1:

[CLAUSE 1, by adding the following underlined text as shown after proposed section 12.1:

Reporting

12.2 As soon as practicable after a designation is made in respect of an agreement under section 12.1 (2), the minister must post, on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the minister, a report that sets out the following:

(a) the ownership structure, including any equity shares under the agreement;

(b) the projected costs, revenues and ratepayer exposure in relation to the project that is the subject of the agreement;

On the amendment.

Larry Neufeld: This amendment would require the minister to disclose the ownership structure, including equity shares under the agreement, not to exclude projected costs, revenues and ratepayer exposure, along with the anticipated regional economic and employment benefits.

British Columbia’s public authority, once they have entered into agreements — in most opinions, I would suggest — should have no problem letting the public know the details of those agreements. Hence the amendment.

The Chair: I find the amendment in order and recognize any other members who wish to speak to the amendment.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there’s no need for this step. It’s unnecessary law-making. We don’t need to add things to the law that don’t need to be in the law. We’ve just answered questions about the equity arrangement and the ownership structure in this House. I’ve made about an hour and 30 minutes of explanation to the Legislature as to why we’re doing it. That was just a subject of a public debate.

We’re in favour of the transmission line; the opposition isn’t. Those are positions that the opposition can defend and that we can defend, for example. So there’s no need for this. These are agreements between First Nations and the provincial government, and First Nations will be taking them to their people.

There’s no need to add a provision like this. We will be fully accountable, both for the agreements on the North Coast transmission line and for its costs, and so on, through other structures. There’s no need to add redundant laws to legislation or to make laws more complex.

[3:30 p.m.]

That’s why I ask members not to accept this but to accept what I’ve been doing, which we always try and do, I think, in our discussions. We should be open about all those questions. Ownership structure, open. Rate of return, open. A straightforward discussion of what I think are the extraordinary benefits to the line, open. That’s what the member is asking for. We don’t need to put it in the law. It’s already happening.

Larry Neufeld: With all due respect to the minister, and I do respect the minister, I would suggest that yes, I do agree. He has absolutely done a very great job of being transparent.

I suggest, maybe with tongue in cheek, that, at some point, he may not be the minister. I don’t know how that would happen. I think that this motion actually is important because, yes, the individual that’s sitting in that chair is transparent and open, but there is no guarantee, in the future, that that’s going to be the case. Having it written into the law that that transparency is required, I think, is quite reasonable.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to say that the ownership structure of the partnership is understood. It’s not going to change. As to between the nations…. There may be nations that don’t participate, but that will be public as well.

Some of the issues are a little more, shall we say, unclear. They’re subject to public debate. We believe that this sunlights the opportunities for mining. The mining association believes that, and others, but that will be a subject of public debate, which we’re having right now.

The costs of the projects and the issues of rates are the subject of BCUC review. In short, there’s nothing here that either isn’t happening anyway or that is required. So I guess adding laws that are redundant is not valuable.

I’m sure if my colleague for Peace River South were the Minister of Energy, he would take the same approach I do.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I don’t know. We’ll see, right? Any other member of the House might be the Minister of Energy.

I think, really, it’s not the Minister of Energy as a person, but it’s the Minister of Energy as an office that you would expect that. That’s why we have the Utilities Commission Act and other requirements. It’s a very public process, not just for the government but for First Nations. Adding additional requirements that aren’t needed isn’t something I favour.

Because of the way I’m answering the question, I’m not hostile to what the members believe — that there should be transparency. I believe there should be transparency. I’m just saying it’s not required. This amendment to the act isn’t required. That’s why I’m asking people not to support this amendment.

Larry Neufeld: I definitely am not trying to be argumentative in any way. I would simply say that the way I read this is that the requirement is to allow the public to view those agreements rather than those of us in the room having the discussions. From that perspective, I would suggest that it is reasonable. Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I wouldn’t agree. The member said we should post the agreements. I don’t think that’s what the amendment says. It’s a report based on the agreements with other things that probably wouldn’t be in the agreement. That is what’s there, but that may be a distinction with a difference.

I don’t think he’s suggesting that the actual agreements needed to be posted on a public website, the commercial agreements. He’s saying a report based on the agreements. What I’m saying to him is that that’s going to happen. We don’t need it to be put in the law.

Jeremy Valeriote: When the minister says “that’s going to happen or that will happen,” I need to understand what the mechanism is that requires that. If the BCUC is not involved…. I understand there is no point in unnecessary legislation, but if it’s not written down somewhere else, I’m inclined to support this, unless there is another mechanism to require it.

Hon. Adrian Dix: With respect to 12.2(a) in the amendment, asked and answered — the Hansard, amongst other things.

[3:35 p.m.]

With respect to issues around revenues and ratepayers, BCUC regulates rates in this province. That issue will be a subject of an ongoing public debate and regular reporting, as it has to, in statements by B.C. Hydro.

In terms of the anticipated regional, economic and employment benefits, that’s really a subject of public debate. I strongly believe, in the arguments I’ve made, that the member has now heard me make maybe more times than he wishes to hear me make them. But that’s really a subject of public debate.

I’m sure the people who disagree with the approach or want us to build a small nuclear reactor or whatever may have a different view. I’ve made those comparisons clearly. But I’ve made the case for the regional, economic and employment benefits of the agreement. That’s why we’re proceeding. That’s why we started to proceed in 2023.

All of this information, the case for it, has been made by B.C. Hydro, the government, the Premier, myself, a number of the First Nations, the mining association and those who are supporters of clean electricity in our province.

On the other issues, they’re already dealt with elsewhere. Specifically, that’s where they’re dealt with elsewhere and why I think the amendment — while well-intentioned, I absolutely concede — is not necessary and why I won’t be supporting the amendment.

Jeremy Valeriote: Under (a), “the ownership structure, including any equity shares,” I understand the minister has answered that to the best of his ability. But correct me if I’m wrong. I thought I also heard that that negotiation or agreement wouldn’t be put into place until this law is passed.

Is the minister saying that the general ownership structure won’t change and that there are no specifics that would come out after this moment, after the answer that was given earlier in this committee?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The ownership structure of the joint partnership is 50-50. That won’t change. What may change — this will be something that would be announced at the time of the agreements by the nations themselves — is if, say, a First Nation chose not to participate in this exceptional equity opportunity. Obviously, that would be public at that time.

In terms of the ownership structure and the equity participation of First Nations and the government, that’s established, and it’s sort of asked and answered in this discussion. That’s why to put it in the law, and this may be just as a matter of administrative efficiency, is unnecessary.

This is a very public process, and we publicly laid out the structure of the agreement already. So I’m just saying adding it into the law regarding the legislation is not necessary. That’s why I’m opposing it, not because I want to keep the information secret. I just told you the information.

David Williams: I see no problem with more transparency and taking away any possibility of changes happening down the road that ratepayers would not be aware of. By the minister’s own admission here, he said that is a good thing. Transparency is a good thing.

Like my colleague said earlier, there’s no guarantee…. Down the road under a different ministry, under a different government, things might change. I think that having more transparency and having more accountability, which is this amendment, is a good thing.

We covered the equity shares of the agreements, and as the minister explained, it’s 50-50 currently. I assume they’re never going to change, right? At least that’s what we’ve been told. But the projected cost revenues and the ratepayer exposure may.

From that aspect, I believe that having this amendment in there protects the ratepayers, especially if we actually move away from having the B.C. Utilities Commission overseeing rates.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The B.C. Utilities Commission will continue to oversee rates.

[3:40 p.m.]

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

Division has been called.

[3:45 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 4
Kooner	Valeriote	Mok
	Williams
NAYS — 5
Blatherwick	B. Anderson	Dix
Bailey		Shah

Jeremy Valeriote: Since we’ve just voted on an amendment that talks about benefits to British Columbians, I ask a little bit about both provincial and municipal tax revenues. That’s the LNG section of this, which we will get to in a little bit. That’ll be later.

I just want to talk about overall electrical capacity. B.C. Hydro has estimated that about 3,700 megawatts of power need to be added to the grid by 2029 to avoid an electricity deficit. Even with new electricity projects and development, the province could still experience an electricity crunch as early as 2026 if emissions-intensive industries like mining and LNG are electrified.

Given this context, what analysis is being done to determine what the best use of electricity in B.C. is, beyond the three industries specified in this new…? What analysis is being done beyond these three industries that are targeted by this legislation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to the member, we’re on section 1, which is the section that deals with First Nations co-ownership of the North Coast transmission line. I’m not going to not answer his question, but I think there will be quite a bit of opportunity on section 2.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’m guessing. I’m predicting. I could be wrong later on. I’d just say, in a general sense, what he knows, which is that B.C. Hydro — I answered this earlier — over a period of 20 years, has had relatively flat growth. This is because of some achievements in conservation. LED lighting has played a more significant role than people would think in the reduction of residential electricity costs, commercial electricity costs and others. We’ve also seen a decline in industrial, in large industrial loads by subsectors, particularly forestry.

What we’re seeing now is a change in that.

First, we’re seeing…. What we’ve seen over the last number of years, which is an unprecedented increase in population, has effects on all elements of B.C. life but does on energy as well. There’s increasing demand for electricity.

Secondly, as a province, we believe, strongly believe, in our clean energy agenda and are pursuing repeated calls for power. That’s what I said in my answer, which I just answered, to the member for Peace River South, which demonstrates a substantive response to those issues.

Thirdly, B.C. Hydro, in eight of the last 15 years, has exported more power to other provinces than it has imported, and in seven, it’s imported more than it’s exported. We typically import more in drought years.

What is universally true is that because of the outstanding nature of the legacy clean energy system we have and the extraordinary work of B.C. Hydro, we consistently make…. The power we sell in the United States and in Alberta and other places is worth dramatically more than the power we buy. So we’re doing extremely well.

Further, our electricity rates, as the member will know, are, say, 60 percent lower in Vancouver than in Edmonton. And that’s a tribute to public ownership of the resource, which is an important consideration and a continuing consideration. Who are our only competitors? The other publicly owned systems, Manitoba and Quebec.

We have an obligation, as we mete out this new energy demand…. We see it as mining, which is significant. There is demand in LNG, although I wouldn’t expect, necessarily, incremental projects, the ones under construction, being in place in the time frame the member suggests, which is there, and we just acknowledged it — projects such as the Port of Prince Rupert, some forestry projects, continuing increase in demand, and then the areas that were identified in the legislation, which I won’t talk about now but we’ll get to when we get to section 2.

Jeremy Valeriote: I take the minister’s point that we can get to some of these broader questions in section 2, so I will actually restrict my questions to the North Coast transmission line.

A couple of things that suggest that this wasn’t on the books for a long period that I would like to understand…. I understand that B.C. Hydro’s long-term planning documents, as recently as 2023, didn’t mention the North Coast transmission line. The 2021 IRP only has a few comments associated with transmission to the south coast. The 2023 update doesn’t add anything on the north coast.

Was the new demand in the northwest a surprise, and did the impetus for pushing this come from B.C. Hydro or from the government?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro’s job, in part, is to serve its customers, residential, commercial and industrial. It’s part of its job, and I think we all agree on this. It’s a huge advantage for B.C. to drive development in our province and jobs and opportunity with clean electricity that makes a difference, and that’s a significant part of it.

With respect to the northwest, the opportunities in critical minerals, which the member himself has spoken of in the Legislature, which are significant, have…. Their importance has become clearer in recent years, as has the fact that the northwest is limited by the current transmission structure. As it was the case with increasing population that we built the Interior-Lower Mainland line, we’re looking at building the North Coast transmission line.

[4:00 p.m.]

In 2023, B.C. Hydro undertook…. I think the original announcement may have been made by the former minister, the Minister of Health, but also by the then B.C. Hydro president, Chris O’Riley. It was to…. We saw this growing development of opportunity in the northwest and the need to serve and to meet the government requirement for electrification in that region.

So we went out and contacted potential industrial and other customers in the region to say: “Well, what will the demand be?” We got, as the member knows, because it’s been detailed in the background document that’s been shared with them, a very significant response in 2023.

As a result of that, B.C. Hydro started to work on the North Coast transmission line, which is absolutely necessary if we’re going to take advantage, for example, of opportunities in the Port of Prince Rupert; in mining; in other opportunities; the need for, potentially, increasing population growth in the northwest; and, of course, the need, as far as the government and the amount of government policy was concerned, to support LNG as well.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

I want to lay it all out there for the member. And the need, under the current policy, to electrify, in order to deal with issues of emissions as well as give us a product that, I think, would be highly regarded around the world.

B.C. Hydro did the review, saw the demand. It was also decided, I’d say between B.C. Hydro and the government, that the best way to consider a North Coast transmission line would be to involve First Nations. That’s what we started to do, as of the summer of 2023.

In January of 2024, B.C. Hydro put out its ten-year capital plan. The Premier announced that at a natural resources conference in January of 2024. We’ve proceeded on that since then. Term sheets were signed in 2025, and so on.

So it is a response to the obvious and historic, I think, opportunity for people in the northwest, a region which, by the way, overall has suffered, I think — I don’t want to make it comparative — a great deal from the relative decline in forest jobs in the province over 20 years, which is significant. Overall employment and income….

This is a region that requires investment and should not be limited in that investment by a lack of access to electricity in a province where a lot of that electricity is produced in the North, most especially in the Peace country and also, of course, in the southeast, in the Columbia.

We don’t build projects like Site C or the ten renewable energy projects or the ones that will come in the coming call for power…. We don’t build them just for Metro Vancouver or Vancouver Island. We build them for the whole province, ensuring that access and this opportunity is available, especially in the northwest.

I’d say, finally, the government has worked hard in our work with the Tāłtān on mining issues in the northwest. I think it’s historic work, and it’s going to be part of opening up an historic opportunity.

I think all of that is involved, I’d say to the member, and that’s a little bit of the history of how we came here. So yes, it wasn’t announced in 2021. That process was in 2023. It identified very significant demand, well above that which will be served by the North Coast transmission line, but you’d assume some projects may or may not happen. Then the government proceeded, and we’re proceeding with First Nations, which is the subject, bringing us back, of section 1.

Jeremy Valeriote: Another late addition seems to be phase 3 of this transmission line. During B.C. Hydro’s virtual open house at the end of June, the map showed phase 1 and phase 2. Phase 3 wasn’t listed. I see it’s got sort of a dashed line with an arrow potentially heading to the Yukon border.

Can the minister tell us when phase 3 was formalized?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, obviously, you’re starting a transmission line. You start with phase 1 and phase 2. So those are the things we’re working on, those agreements. We’re starting the work on phase 3 now.

I would say, to be able to bring that power to, especially, support the mining opportunities in the northwest is significant. I’d also say, and this has been raised in public debate recently, there is no project to the Yukon without the North Coast transmission line. Our vision of this project is to go, essentially, from Prince George to Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake, where I have never been, but I’d like to go. That’s the vision of the project.

[4:05 p.m.]

And then projects that are connecting to that would pay for their connection to the main line. But if you’re going to get to the Yukon, you’ve got to get to Bob Quinn Lake, right? That would be another project. It probably wouldn’t be a B.C. Hydro project, although we’d be very much involved in the management of that project. We’d have to see. We have an agreement with the Yukon government, and there would be lots of other people involved in that.

That would be, for them, a huge nation-building opportunity, and while it’s not entirely the responsibility of us or B.C. Hydro to satisfy that, we are interested in talking and in encouraging them. Obviously, the Prime Minister, Mr. Carney, has expressed significant interest in that project as well.

You have to start, and we are starting in Prince George. We’re going to Terrace, and then we’re going through phase 3. Obviously, the phase 3 discussions with nations and others will happen as we’re building phase 1 and 2.

Jeremy Valeriote: Apologies if this has been canvassed. I had to be out of the room for a few minutes.

On the subject of who will pay for this, I’d like to try and understand tariff supplement 6 and how it will apply and whether some of these industrial customers will pay for the cost of line taps or system reinforcements.

It may not be a simple question, but will customers using the North Coast transmission line pay these costs as mandated by tariff supplement 6? If not, why not?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, now we’re talking about part of tariff supplement 6, because there’s a broader review. Tariff supplement 6 contains a relative complexity, and I’ll do my best not to be complex here.

It was the case that projects that were higher than 150 megawatts were treated differently in the way that costs were assigned by B.C. Hydro. I’m simplifying it, but just for people to understand.

This was an artificial level put in place, I believe, by the Social Credit government. It may have been Energy Minister Jack Davis or Energy Minister Jack Weisgerber. I don’t know. I’m reminded that Peace River South is always in my heart, because he was the MLA for Peace River South.

It was put in place for specific reasons around, I think, a specific project on Vancouver Island and some concerns that people had around that project. It’s never been used. It essentially discriminates against projects that are the largest job creating projects, as opposed to…. If you’re 170, you’re treated differently than if you’re 130.

In our view, it would have meant that the projects in question would not go ahead. It was, essentially, the first project that signed on that would be responsible for very significant costs on the line, and that doesn’t make sense.

So that’s the element of tariff supplement 6 that’s involved in the legislation when we refer to that, even though it’s not, obviously, a subject of this section, which deals with First Nations co-ownership.

We’ve developed a very open process of discussion, but this is about First Nations co-ownership. If the member would like further briefings on the question of tariff supplement 6 — which, I think, is also going to soon be the subject of a BCUC review — not for these portions but for others, then we’d be happy to provide that.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m concerned that the government is obscuring the outsized role of the LNG lobby in driving this transmission line. I understand the co-ownership is a result of trying to drive this forward, and it is, obviously, mixed in with critical minerals and port expansion.

It’s a very direct question. Is Bill 31 a condition of LNG Canada investors making a final investment decision on phase 2 or of Ksi Lisims’ final investment decision?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think the member is incorrect. Cedar LNG is going forward with existing facilities, the existing line. LNG Canada 1, of course, is not. While it uses electricity for some of its functions, it’s not an electrified line, nor will be LNG Canada 2.

[4:10 p.m.]

If you look at the list of projects that would be potentially affected by that line, there’s only one, and this is not the result of an LNG lobby. It is, though, I would say, part of our commitment to electrification in this whole region. This is part of the debate we had at second reading — which, again, I won’t repeat.

The opposition has argued either for nuclear reactors in the region…. I won’t repeat what I said. I’ll just refer to my closing speech on that question. Others have argued that they should all be gas-fired. That’s not the view of the government. Our clean-electricity advantage should be there for mining, ports, LNG and everything else to reduce emissions, but also because it’s low-cost energy.

I’ll just repeat. The average, levelized price of our call for power is $74, against more than $300 for a small nuclear reactor in the region, just to make that comparison, or Site C, which is about $89 to $96. So clean electricity is a good deal for ratepayers. It’s a good deal for the public, and it’s why we’re supporting it. It also is a fundamental way to address climate change.

Now, if we have increased demands for electricity, then the only way to do that and not negatively affect climate change is to build out clean electricity. That is what the North Coast transmission line helps to do. You can’t just have wind power projects or dams. You’ve got to deliver the electricity where it’s needed, and you do that through transmission lines.

I just disagree with that characterization. I think the member was putting it forward as a question. I just disagree with it. If you look at the list of projects, really, you’re talking about, and it has not received an FID yet, Ksi Lisims. It’s received an environmental assessment certificate, but it hasn’t come forward with its FID as of yet. That would be the one project, on the list of projects that we’re talking about, that would be LNG.

So I think the answer to the question is no.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the long answer.

What I’m going to ask, I guess, is very much more specific. Is the Ksi Lisims FID dependent on the North Coast transmission line being built and on this bill passing?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, Ksi Lisims LNG is a commercial decision that they’re making. We have, as a subject of policy from now on, that LNG plants have to be electrified. In that sense, this is helpful to that project, but also helpful on issues of climate change, helpful on broader issues.

The electrification of this line, as opposed to the delivery of energy by other means, is a net positive for that project. I suspect the FID — the member and I have discussed this publicly and privately before — will depend on other factors, including the international market and other cost factors that Ksi Lisims is doing.

I think that the Nisg̱a’a First Nation is doing an outstanding job leading that project, but they’ll be making their decisions, I’m sure, based on a wide number of factors.

Larry Neufeld: I know that we did canvass this when I was up previously, but I find myself confused with a statement that was made during another explanation. I really need to understand this in my mind.

A question to the minister: is it a 50-50 partnership that is being considered under the agreements in clause 1, regardless of the amount of equity invested — i.e., if zero equity is invested, is there still a 50 percent share that is provided?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think what the member is getting at is if, say, some nations choose not to participate, what will the options be? That is being negotiated. There are two options in that respect. Hydro can take a greater percentage of the shares, or there may be some offering of those shares to other nations. So one of those two things would happen.

It’s my expectation, though, that nations will participate and it’ll be 50-50. But that would be the circumstance if, for example, people decided not to participate, not to invest. They, obviously, would miss out on the opportunity, and also that would be an opportunity for others take up those shares in what’s, after all, an excellent investment.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

So perhaps a hypothetical. Client A, potential partner A, puts in — pick a number — ten whatever. Ten jewels. Partner B puts in 30 jewels. Partner C puts in the maximum 50. Is the proportion of the shares allotted as per the amount of equity that is put in? What is the formula that’s being considered? Is that clear?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah. You don’t get offered a portion of a unit of equity. Everyone’s being offered an equitable deal, or an equal deal.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

I remain confused. So if group A puts in ten units and the maximum is 50…. I guess what I’m getting at….

I’ll try to make this less confusing. Is the equity component that’s being offered to each of the First Nations directly proportional to the amount of equity that they are investing, or is everyone given the same proportion of share regardless of the equity that they invest?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That was pretty straightforward. They’re all being offered the same equity.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. So if a nation invests zero, they’re still offered 50 percent share, or their portion of the equity. I’m not sure why…. I’m struggling to explain this. So every nation is getting the same proportion of the shares regardless of whether they invest equity or not.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. You have to invest to participate. I was going to use another expression. I found those words.

But you have to invest. You’re offered the same opportunity. There’s no requirement that people take it up, but it’s, I think, an excellent long-term arrangement that I expect nations will take up. But we’re still in discussions. So we’ll see.

I think that you definitely have to invest. There’s no…. Everybody is an investor in the joint venture partnership.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for the clarification. That was my original understanding, and one of the responses challenged that in my mind.

Thank you for that, and I apologize that it took me that long to make that clear.

With respect to the return…. I know we did spend a fair amount of time on establishing the 9.65 percent. I’ve since been informed that with that rate that we’re using to peg the return to, and of course that was the Fortis rate, there is a 50 percent debt utilization that goes into that component.

[4:20 p.m.]

With the agreements that are being negotiated under clause 1, is there any requirement for debt, or is there any plan for debt to be involved in this project, or will debt have any influence over the rate of return?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro, as members know — we had this discussion with the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap at second reading — operates on an 80-20 debt equity ratio, which will apply to this project for both sides of the project, for the First Nations side and for B.C. Hydro’s.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

On the 80-20, which I understand, will the agreements, signed as part of clause 1, assign that 20 percent proportion of the debt to the partner nation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s 20-80. Effectively, the equity investment is 10-10; that’s 20. Then B.C. Hydro will manage the debt for both sides, for good reason, because it’s in a good position to manage the debt at the lowest cost. That’s the way the program will work. The equity investments are there. The rest is debt, which, as with all projects, from Site C to all the others, is managed by B.C. Hydro.

Larry Neufeld: Another hypothetical. For any agreement that may be signed under clause 1, in the unlikely eventuality that the line is not successful or is underutilized, would the nation partner remain responsible for that 20 percent debt if the partnership were, for whatever reason, to dissolve? Or does that revert back to Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is an asset that’s put in place. They get a return on the asset, as we discussed earlier. In this case, it’s 20 percent equity, 80 percent debt. Sometimes we flip around. Sometimes maybe I flip around, just to be clear on what that is.

This asset is going to be successful in any event. The asset is put in place, and then the joint venture partners receive the return for that asset, which is pegged, as we discussed earlier, at 9.65 percent.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer. I believe that I’m understanding better.

In that vein of thought process, when this offer is made to the partners, when the financial offer is written down and it’s presented, there clearly has to be a value there that needs to be established, as far as the amount that’s being asked to be invested.

How is that amount assessed? Is that something that Hydro comes up with? Is there a third-party assessor? Again, thinking from the hypothetical vein, if I were advising a nation whether to invest or not, how would we establish the fair market value of what they’re being asked to invest in?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s the capital cost of the line by a class 3 estimate at the time that definitive agreements are put in place. It’s independently reviewed, which parties who are investing that kind of money would want. Then their benefit is 9.65 percent on their investment — obviously, minus the cost of borrowing — for profit. The member will understand that.

That’s how that’s dealt with, and that’s how it will be dealt with: a class 3 estimate, time-dependent agreement, independently reviewed. The 9.65 applies to the capital investment at that time.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer. That makes sense.

With respect to debt financing and the partner nations that would be asked to invest, are there any restrictions on the proportion of cash? Can they borrow 100 percent of the investment? Are there any restrictions on it? How is that controlled?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There are really no limitations now. They have to provide their equity. How they get that is, as it would be with anyone else, their business. How they get that, should they borrow their equity, would be a discussion between them and the financial institution or whoever they’re borrowing from, but there are no restrictions in the way I think the member was suggesting.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

To be clear in my mind, 100 percent debt financing would be allowed under the agreements that would be signed from clause 1.

Hon. Adrian Dix: There’s an equity share, and there’s a debt share. Like anyone else who’s participating in that, how they provide their equity share will be subject to their financial arrangements. They’re providing equity, as B.C. Hydro is, based on every other B.C. Hydro project. How they provide that equity is their business.

David Williams: In subsection (2)(a), it states: “a limited partnership through which the authority and a First Nation hold ownership interests in a part of one of the following, as specified in the agreement: (i) the phase 1 project; (ii) the phase 2 project; (iii) the phase 3 project.”

Can the minister clarify whether a nation can only be a partner in one phase of the project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The participation in each phase of the line depends entirely on geography. Just to be clear, for all the participating nations in part 1, which is Prince George–Fraser Lake, that would obviously be the only part that they would participate in.

[4:30 p.m.]

There may be some overlap between part 2 and part 3 as one turns the corner north, depending on the nation. That’s yet to be determined, so that’s possible. In any event, it’s entirely dependent on geography. The part 1 nations would not be purchasing into part 3, for example.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

In subsection 2(c), can the minister clarify what a potential asset that can be transferred or assigned through an order in council might be?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Hydro may construct the line on behalf of the partnership then turn it over to the partnership. That’s what it refers to.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Could that same asset, at a later date, be transferred back to B.C. Hydro through an order in council?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro doesn’t breach its agreements.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Would a First Nation be able to transfer the asset to another First Nation or non–First Nation private entity?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ve answered this question a couple of times. The First Nation would have two options in terms of that: one, to another participant in the process — that is possible, another part of the partnership — or, alternatively, to B.C. Hydro.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Can the minister clarify whether subsection (3) retroactively overrides any other legislation, specifically for the North Coast transmission line, or will this also affect current and future projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There was some discussion, I think, by the member for Peace River South of this question at second reading. Happy to respond.

B.C. Hydro and First Nations are in ongoing negotiations. We’ve established that. Once an agreement has been reached, it will then be brought to cabinet to designate. Cabinet cannot designate an agreement in real time, obviously. The retroactivity language mirrors existing language as is currently in the Hydro and Power Authority Act that allows cabinet to designate B.C. Hydro agreements for support services.

We’re not talking about open-ended authority here in any way. Cabinet can only designate agreements that relate to specific parameters related to the NCTL project itself. Examples include ownership through limited partnerships, construction and operation of the NCTL transmission line, asset transfer, service provision and payments between B.C. Hydro and the partnership — all related to NCTL.

These are clearly defined in the legislation to ensure transparency and accountability.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying.

Going back to the B.C. Utilities Commission, I understand they’ll have limited or no oversight in this project once it goes to a regulator. That being said, who is going to ensure that the public interests are protected in these agreements?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The B.C. Utilities Commission. That’s the reason this has been laid out in this way. It continues to have its authority over B.C. Hydro, which is building and operating the transmission line.

The purpose of this agreement is not to in some way evade B.C. Utilities Commission oversight, and it does not.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to…. I do appreciate the minister’s previous answer around the retroactive statement, around the retroactivity clause. I don’t know that this has actually been established in any of the conversations that we’ve had to date though.

What agreements are potentially subject to this retroactive clause that’s included in the bill? Which ones will be changed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The designated agreements referred to in the section of the act that only relate to NCTL.

Larry Neufeld: Is there any language that would prevent…? Actually, I’ll accept that.

I would like to introduce an amendment, please.

The Chair: Okay. Member for Peace River South, read your amendment.

Larry Neufeld: This amendment would restrict co-ownership of North Coast facilities. I know that we have discussed it.

The Chair: My apologies, Member. You just have to move your amendment.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. May I move amendments to clause 1 of Bill 31.

[Section 1 is amended by adding the following:

12.1 (2) (f) any agreement entered into must restrict the transfer, assignment or sale of a North Coast co-owned facility unless it

(i) is a return to the authority, and

(ii) it is not transferred, assigned or sold for more than the co-owners original investment in the facility.]

The Chair: Yes. Go ahead, Member.

On the amendment.

Larry Neufeld: This amendment would restrict co-ownership of North Coast facilities. I do respect that that has been discussed more than once, but again, I think it’s valid to put that into legislation for the simple fact that it would ensure that that ownership would stay as intended.

Any First Nation who enters into agreement with B.C. Hydro for co-ownership cannot sell their ownership off to a third-party organization. They can only sell their ownership back to the authority for the same amount that they paid for it to become a co-owner.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We will take a short five-minute recess while we get copies made for everyone.

The committee recessed from 4:37 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, we will call the committee back to order.

We have an amendment in front of us.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to speak briefly in response to the amendment…. I believe the Lieutenant Governor is coming soon, so we’ll be adjourning, if that’s all right with members, after I give a little bit of my response. You’ll hear my response.

[4:45 p.m.]

In general, I think these provisions are subject to the agreements themselves, and they should be. When you’re going into an agreement, these are the questions you negotiate. Our agreements are limited, in other words, to the participation of those along the lines.

I just note that the value of the agreement does depreciate over time, so the effect of the beginning evaluation isn’t as important. It wouldn’t have any effect really, I think, what’s happening here. So I’m not in support of the amendment.

I understand what the member is doing. He’s expressing the concern — and this is why it’s in the agreement, why I’ve been explicit about what’s in the agreement — that it’s the potential for a First Nation member of the limited partnership to sell outside of the First Nation. He’s trying to ensure that that doesn’t happen here.

So are we. We believe they should be subject to the actual agreements with First Nations, as they would be in a commercial thing, and that there are other small problems with the amendment, so we don’t support the amendment. That said, we understand the intent of it.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned until our next sitting.

The committee rose at 4:46 p.m.

Contents