Hansard — Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Morning, Issue No. 98

Hon. David Eby: I rise to introduce a member of the press gallery who is here today. This is Richard Zussman’s last day, and he has been a fixture of this place for a significant amount of time now.

[10:05 a.m.]

I would like to reflect on his strengths. I’d like to focus on those. One of them, without doubt, is his commitment to the job and his integrity. I think a lot of members might question that, having seen his observance of the “one question, one follow-up” rule.

He is a person of principle and integrity, to the point that he once scaled a stairway in the Legislature to avoid a protest in order to bring bagels to his colleagues in the press gallery, but also because he firmly believes that journalists, rightly, should have access to the Legislature.

He put his job on the line to publish a book about politics and was rightly rewarded with a cushy job at Global for his strong and principled stand.

He has a nickname for me, which is the Big Cactus. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition it’s not because I am a prick. If you hear it, in my defence, it’s a commentary on my Zoom decor during the pandemic.

I would just like to say he is an incredibly good guy. He is a proud father, fiercely defensive of his kids and his family. He puts a smile on the face of everybody in the Legislature when he passes by. We’re going to miss him very dearly.

I wish him the best of luck with his professional curling career. I think it’s ambitious, but he’s never been short of ambition.

Thank you, Richard Zussman, for your work in this Legislature.

[Applause.]

Peter Milobar: I want to assure the Premier that the funny thing about nicknames is it’s left for everyone to interpret them how they would like. I’ll leave it there.

On behalf of the B.C. Conservatives, as well, we’d like to wish Richard a fond farewell and good luck on his next journey in life and where that takes him. He, as the Premier has said, has always shown very high journalistic standards.

Again, as we all read through the infamous book by him and Rob Shaw, probably a little…. I was new. I was just here in 2017, so I wasn’t too worried about what might be, or not, said in that book. But certainly, there were lots of other politicians out there that were reading with great interest on how their time in this place was going to be played out within the pages of that book.

I think it speaks volumes that everyone in this chamber still continued, over the years, to work closely with Richard in terms of getting out, on behalf of the public, both sides of the story, of how both perspectives of this place get brought forward.

We really do want to wish Richard the best of luck.

The rumour I heard was actually that based on the Blue Jays’ playoff run, Richard realized he needed more time to devote to his baseball pool. His fantasy league, apparently, takes up a lot of time, and that was cutting into it.

On behalf of the B.C. Conservatives, we really do wish Richard the best of luck, moving forward.

Introductions by Members

Peter Milobar: I have one other introduction that I will be in trouble…. Probably a more important one, frankly.

No offence, Richard.

Today is my youngest granddaughter’s first birthday. I wish Ellie Marie Janowsky a happy first birthday. Hopefully, we can figure out how to record this so she can see it when she can actually understand what’s going on.

I wish her the best of birthdays as well.

Rob Botterell: It’s my honour to welcome students from Mayne Island School. These elementary school students and their teachers are my constituents. They’re, frankly, amazing, and they’re visiting the Legislature this morning.

I hope the House will join me in welcoming them.

Pete Davis: When we get a chance to recognize our support staff, it’s always a good day. My LA, Pegah — it’s her birthday today. I won’t tell you how old she is because I think I’d get in trouble if I did that.

Happy birthday, Pegah. I hope you have a great day.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I’m very pleased to welcome to this House the Nepal Cultural Society of B.C., a community organization of people of Nepali origin and friends of Nepal in B.C. The society was established in 1999, with the primary purpose of promoting Nepali culture and identity.

We are joined today by Raju Bhattrai, president of the society; and his family, Madhu Bhattrai and Alisha Bhattrai.

We are also joined by Shankar Bhandari, who is a member of the society, and his family — Tulasa Bhandari, Samyog Bhandari and Sanskar Bhandari.

I’ll ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Kiel Giddens: In the gallery today are members of the Construction Maintenance and Allied Workers union. Their members build some of the largest projects in this province, like the Site C dam or our highway infrastructure. We can’t build British Columbia without them.

With that, I want to welcome Chris Wasilenchuk, president; Jessie Gregory; Shawn Sly; Ronnette Paul; Mike Jensen; Michele Banducci; Carlo Sciarpelletti; Ron Kneller; Andrew Brown; Mark Miller; Jan Morris; Philip White; and Barbara Bachmeier.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to the member from Prince George for announcing the presence of the members from Construction Maintenance and Allied Workers Canada, who are in the House with us today.

Indeed, as he noted, they have built some of the biggest infrastructure projects in our province, from bridges to dams to Coast Guard vessels to major infrastructure. They are literally everywhere, including in New Westminster, where they’re working on the Pattullo Bridge right now. It is such a pleasure to have them working to help us build the economy that we’re building in British Columbia.

I won’t read their names into the record again, but I do just want to give a special shout-out to Ronnette Paul, who is a Red Seal carpenter, who is a terrific mentor for young women in particular who are coming up through the trades.

I just want to say, Ronnette, I think your mom must be awfully proud of you.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them all today to Victoria.

Anna Kindy: Every third Tuesday of November is National Grief and Bereavement Day. It’s a day to acknowledge a universal experience in loss and the vital supports that help navigate it. Hospice societies play an integral role in this, as well as the end-of-life support and mental health wellness program.

I’d like to welcome today Pablita Thomas, the executive director of Hospice Care Alliance of B.C.; Donna Flood, who I met when I was in Prince George, for Prince George Hospice; Amanda McNally, Peace Arch Hospice; and Teri Henderson, Victoria Hospice.

Hon. Diana Gibson: As we debate bills and pass legislation here in the House, we rarely think about what happens next. Today I have the great privilege of welcoming the print brokerage of the department of the King’s Printer.

Here in the House today we have Carolyn Walker, Karen Garland, Paula Peterson, Paul Correia, Rowan Schmidt, Jean Guy Collette, Abebe Tilahun and Debbie Daniels.

Would everyone make them feel very welcome.

Brennan Day: I would just like to introduce Mayor Nicole Minions of the town of Comox. While we don’t always see eye to eye on politics, she’s a fellow political nerd.

She’s joining us here today, and it’s fantastic the work that Comox is doing, and the council, on behalf of everybody in the Comox Valley.

Please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: We also have today with us the Hindu Buddhist Foundation of Canada. We are joined by Parashar Malla and Raj Sigdel, a devoted community leader who has tirelessly served the Nepali community in British Columbia since 1999.

Through his vision and dedication, he led the establishment of the Hindu Buddhist Foundation of Canada, creating a spiritual and cultural home for Nepalese across British Columbia.

[10:15 a.m.]

They’re here somewhere in the gallery. I’ll ask everybody to please make them — yeah, they’re there — feel welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: One more today. It is, indeed, a very special day, an important day today, because it is the fifth birthday of Abigail Margaret Sakawsky.

Abby is watching from home today. Abby is my great-niece. She is my goddaughter as well as my birthday twin. She is the light of our lives. I am so grateful for her.

Would the House please join me in wishing Abby a huge happy fifth birthday.

Paul Choi: I am very excited today to welcome hundreds of Korean community leaders who are here today.

If I can get all of you to stand up. Thank you very much.

They include the Korean consul general, who is acting ambassador. Many are here for the first time to the Legislature for the Korean reception at noon. They all have made significant contributions to the richness of our community and to diversity. It is what makes our community unique and strong.

So please, if I can ask the House to make them feel very welcome today.

Steve Morissette: I understand there’s an old friend up here, I believe above me. I can’t see her. Her name is Jan Morris. She’s from Chilliwack. I haven’t seen her in a number of years, and I hope to run into her after QP. She’s here as a strong union rep.

Please join me in welcoming her to the gallery.

Teresa Wat: On behalf of the official opposition party and as the critic for multiculturalism, as a former multicultural minister, as a former international minister who led trade delegations to visit Korea between 2014 and 2017, we would like to welcome the Korean community and also the Korean consul general’s representative here.

Last week the opposition leader and I had a meeting with the Korean consul general, and we talked about how much the Korean-Canadian community has contributed to our province.

Welcome. I look forward to talking to each and every one of you at the first-ever Korean Heritage Day at the Hall of Honour.

Welcome.

Members’ Statements

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Teresa Wat: I rise today to acknowledge the important and enduring role that complementary and alternative health care practices, including traditional Chinese medicine, TCM, play in supporting the health and well-being of British Columbians. These practices are valued by many families across our province, and they form an essential part of the modern, diverse and patient-centred health care system.

B.C. has been a national leader in the development of TCM. In 1999, our province began the formal regulatory process for TCM, becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to establish a comprehensive framework for professional standards, education and public safety. This year marks 25 years of full statutory regulation, the longest and most established TCM regulatory system in Canada.

I also want to share something personal. My own grandfather was a renowned TCM practitioner. I grew up listening to my mother telling me of the respect that my grandfather earned for his knowledge, compassion and dedication to healing and maintaining the good health of his patients. His legacy has shaped my deep appreciation for this profession, and I’m proud of the incredible work TCM practitioners continue to do today.

For many families, especially within the multicultural community, TCM is not simply an alternative. This is a trusted and integral part of their health journey. This tradition has strengthened our health care system, expanded patient choice and promoted preventive wellness for people from all walks of life.

The TCM community in our province is launching a petition, online and offline, asking public support to say no to the proposed deregulation of traditional Chinese herbal prescriptions in B.C.

[10:20 a.m.]

Today I extend my heartfelt thanks to the TCM alternative medicine community for their professionalism, their dedication and their contribution to the well-being of British Columbians.

Truth and Reconciliation

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: So many times I’ve wanted to get up to say something about the misinformation being shared here every day. There is a House decorum which I respect, and I have witnessed that some do not. As I shared with my relative last week, I choose my battles, because I would be exhausted if I stood up for every little thing, not to mention that it would jeopardize my community as racism rears its ugly head. As the Elder said: “You can’t talk to someone that doesn’t use their ears.”

Truth-telling is a fundamental aspect of reconciliation. As I shared with my colleagues along the way, this is not going to be easy. We need to sit, listen and feel this, no matter how uncomfortable this may make us feel at the moment, by facing the full truth of understanding and the depth of injustice that occurred on these lands.

I can hear people saying: “But there was already an apology.” Reconciliation is not a single act or an event. It is a lifelong commitment. It means walking together with respect, learning from Indigenous voices and supporting self-determination and cultural renewal. Small steps like learning local Indigenous place names, supporting Indigenous-led initiatives and challenging stereotypes move us forward towards meaningful change.

As we reflect, we remember that reconciliation is not about guilt but about responsibility. It calls on us all to rebuild relationships based on honesty, compassion and equality.

Let this be our promise to keep listening, to keep learning and to keep walking the path towards justice and healing together.

Rocky Mountain Rams

Pete Davis: I rise with immense pride to celebrate a team that embodies community, determination and teamwork, the Rocky Mountain Rams.

Sports aren’t just about scores or trophies. They teach young people how to work together, rely on each other and push through challenges. If there’s one organization that shows the power of true teamwork, it’s the Rams.

Just a few short years ago this team struggled. They barely had enough players to field a team. They went years without a win. But they never gave up. The players learned patience and resilience. The coaches never stopped. The parents kept believing. Slowly, something incredible happened. They became a team. Once that happened, everything changed.

This year the Rams lost only one game. Three of their six games were played in the United States against tough American teams, and they came home with two huge wins. That’s huge. Teams that once shut them out completely were no match for their grit and determination.

A huge thank-you goes out to head coach Dan Herrick and every coach who gave their time to these young athletes.

You’re not just building football players; you’re building leaders, confidence and community pride.

It’s not just the senior tackle program that’s thriving. The Rams football division is booming as well, proving that football in Kootenays is thriving.

Both my sons, Dylan and Tyler, have played for the Rams. This program has given them purpose, pride and friendships that will last a lifetime.

Today, to all the players, coaches, parents and volunteers: thank you for showing us what is possible when a community comes together. You embody the true spirit of the Kootenays — grit, teamwork and heart.

Finally, go Rams.

Korean Heritage Month

Paul Choi: A few weeks ago, as members in this chamber, we did something beautiful. By passing the Korean Heritage Month Act, we didn’t just add words to a statute. We opened a door.

[10:25 a.m.]

As the sponsoring member, I’m proud and humbled. I came to B.C. as a kid, stocking shelves in my parents’ corner store. I served later as a police officer and lawyer, and today I stand here as an MLA.

That journey is only possible in a province that believes every story belongs. This act makes that belief visible. Thanks to all the colleagues across all parties, to committee members, to the Clerks and staff and to the elders and Korean community leaders who lent their voices and who have joined us here today. Your resilience, our community’s resilience, brought us to this moment. I’m proud to be Korean, proud to be British Columbian and proud that October will now stand as an invitation to learn, celebrate and build together.

This act is more than about one community. It’s a signal to every visible minority family that recognition expands the circle. It doesn’t ration it. When we honour Korean heritage, we strengthen the shared house we all live in. So let’s mark the moment together.

I warmly invite all of you downstairs to the Hall of Honour for a celebratory lunch reception. Come meet community leaders, try the food that tells our story, hear the K-pop and see taekwondo demonstrations. There is actually a K-pop dance. So please come and take a look, and leave with a calendar reminder for October.

To my parents and to every newcomer child watching: your language, your culture, your dreams — there is a room for all of you here.

So kam-sa-ham-ni-da.

Thank you, British Columbia, and let’s celebrate together.

Comox Valley Hospice Society

Brennan Day: You can tell a lot about a community by how it treats people in their final days. In the Comox Valley, we don’t measure compassion in budgets or line items. We measure it in the hands held in quiet rooms, in the sound of laughter and tears shared under one roof.

For over 40 years, the Comox Valley Hospice Society has been that constant source of comfort and care, working tirelessly with donors, volunteers and government. They helped open the Aitken community hospice at Ocean Front Village in 2022. It was more than a ribbon cutting. It was a promise kept, a promise that no one in our community would face their final days without the care, familiarity and dignity that they deserve.

Shirley Wade-Linton was the catalyst who started it all. She saw a gap in the system and gathered people together for conversation and for compassion.

From that first meeting in 1983 grew the world-class facility we have today, providing six hospice beds for residents of Courtenay-Comox and Mid Island–Pacific Rim. These are places where dignity still matters, where nurses, volunteers and families create something sacred, the kind of care that can’t be rushed, can’t be quantified and should never be compromised.

Yet here we are with capacity reduced by three beds, or 50 percent, at a time in our province when, by 2036, nearly 25 percent of British Columbians will be over the age of 65, a benchmark that has already been well exceeded in the Comox Valley. When a hospice bed closes, a family loses a place to say goodbye. When local care is absorbed into distant systems, something vital is lost: not efficiency but humanity.

Today I want to recognize the members of the Hospice Care Alliance for British Columbia here in the gallery — quiet, steadfast advocates who remind us that hospice care is not a service to be trimmed. It is a promise we make to one another and deserves stable funding.

The Comox Valley Hospice Society has honoured that promise for decades — local, transparent and compassionate. Now it’s our turn to keep that promise, because in the Comox Valley, we don’t walk away from one another, not at the beginning, and certainly not at the end.

Sooke Family Resource Society

Dana Lajeunesse: Today I wish to shine a spotlight on an organization whose steadfast dedication has touched the lives of countless individuals and families in my community, the Sooke Family Resource Society.

For decades, the Sooke Family Resource Society has been a cornerstone of support, compassion and hope for the Sooke region. Their commitment to strengthening families and fostering healthy communities is evident in the breadth of their services.

[10:30 a.m.]

From early childhood programs and youth outreach to support for new parents and seniors, this society provides a safe and welcoming environment for all who seek assistance. We know that families are the foundation of our society. When families thrive, communities flourish. The Sooke Family Resource Society recognizes this and works tirelessly to ensure that every individual, regardless of age or circumstance, has access to the resources and support they need.

Their programs not only address immediate needs such as food security, housing assistance and counselling but also empower individuals through education and skill-building opportunities, creating lasting, positive change.

During my time in local government, I witnessed firsthand the profound impact of their work. The caring staff, dedicated volunteers go above and beyond, meeting people where they are and walking alongside them on their journey.

Whether it’s helping a young mother navigate the challenges of parenthood, providing mentorship to youth or offering a warm meal to a senior in need, Sooke Family Resource Society embodies the very best of community spirit. Their work is a testament to the power of compassion, collaboration and community action.

Let us extend our gratitude to the staff, volunteers and supporters of the Sooke Family Resource Society.

May their example inspire us all to continue building a more caring and inclusive British Columbia.

Speaker’s Statement

Guidance on Private Members’ Bills
and Application of Standing Orders

The Speaker: Members, before we start question period, I would like to provide some guidelines regarding private members’ bills and amendments.

Hon. Members, the Chair has been reflecting on private members’ time and notes that the standing order changes that took effect in the 43rd parliament have run the course of nearly a full parliamentary calendar year. Based on the Chair’s observation to date, it is an opportune time to provide guidance to the House on limitations attached to private members’ bills for the benefit of all members.

The Chair will first offer guidance on the application on Standing Order 67, which provides, and I quote: “It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.”

In the Westminster parliamentary system that we adopted in British Columbia, only the Crown can propose a tax or an increase in tax or propose the spending of public funds. The provisions of Standing Order 67 stem from constitutional obligations prescribed in the federal Constitution Act, 1867, with application to the provincial legislative assemblies, which are also prescribed in section 47 of the provincial Constitution Act.

The Chair is aware that members often ask what constitutes a money bill, which would be out of order in the hands of a private member without an accompanying message of the Lieutenant Governor or royal recommendation.

To assist the House, the Chair has examined parliamentary customs and usages in Canada and the United Kingdom as it pertains to the royal recommendation and the provision of Standing Order 67. The parliamentary authorities hold that a royal recommendation is required if any provision in a private member’s bill would authorize a new and distinct charge to be effectively imposed on public money.

A royal recommendation is required for any bill whose implementation would necessarily entail new or increased expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund, other than incidental costs already authorized by an existing appropriation. When deciding whether a private member’s bill introduces a new and distinct charge, the Chair will assess the financial impact of each provision to determine whether it introduces a new charge upon the consolidated revenue fund.

[10:35 a.m.]

In making that determination, the Chair will examine each clause to determine whether it specifically authorizes any spending for a distinct purpose or contains language that indicates that public funds are being appropriated.

In clear terms, Beauchesne, sixth edition, at paragraph 613, states: “A bill which does not involve a direct expenditure but merely confers upon the government a power for the exercise of which public money will have to be voted by parliament is not a money bill, and no royal recommendation is necessary as a condition precedent to its introduction.”

At paragraph 600, Beauchesne also states: “The principle that the sanction of the Crown must be given to every grant of money drawn from the public revenue applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue.”

Next, the Chair will offer guidance on the application on Standing Order 76, which provides: “Any bill affecting the Constitution must be introduced by a member of the government or with the sanction of the government.”

As the Chair noted in a ruling on April 14, 2025, a private member’s bill may be ruled out of order on the grounds that it offends Standing Order 76 by touching upon provisions in the provincial Constitution Act or the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, being Canada’s constitution. Private members are bound by these constitutional and procedural limitations on private members’ bills, which apply equally to amendments proposed by private members, whether to a government bill or a private member’s bill.

Members will no doubt be well served by advice from the Clerks-at-the-Table on the application of these rules. The Chair urges private members to undertake their due diligence in respect to these obligations and to seek procedural advice as early as possible prior to the introduction of the bill or an amendment.

The Chair wishes to assure the House that the Chair examines every private member’s bill for its procedural admissibility. The Chair has no hesitation to rule on the admissibility of a private member’s bill before it proceeds to consideration at second reading, in accordance with the precedence assigned to private members.

If any member wishes to seek direction from the Chair or otherwise raise arguments for the Chair’s considerations, they are welcome to do so by raising a point of order.

Finally, members are reminded that the authority of the Chair is limited to interpreting matters of parliamentary procedures and not matters of public policy or law.

Oral Questions

Funding for Long-Term-Care
Facilities and Hospice Beds

Brennan Day: Two weeks ago we warned this government of the unintended consequences of their long-term-care cuts.

Haro Park non-profit residents are now missing baths, eating breakfast alone and losing basic support. At the Three Links non-profit, residents are already seeing care reduced, food quality cuts, activities cancelled, bathing schedules disrupted, and the charity says that without funding, they’ll be forced to close permanently. Operators have not yet heard from this minister, and they’re running out of money while seniors suffer.

Will the minister reinstate funding today, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and for the shared concern about caring for seniors and elders in our province.

Of course, nothing could be more important than ensuring that seniors and elders have the care that they need at that point in their lives. I know we have canvassed this several times here in the House. This government is deeply committed to building out a sustainable system of care for people at the later years of their lives, and nothing could be more important.

[10:40 a.m.]

What we need is a care system that is sustainable, that is not built on temporary funding measures. That’s why our government has wound down the temporary funding program put in place during the extraordinary time of the pandemic.

We continue to work with operators. We are working directly with them through the health authorities. We have a team inside the Ministry of Health and at each health authority that is working with each operator and examining the personal or particular circumstances that those operators are facing so that we can take action.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day: This minister committed to getting the payment model in line in the spring, and here we are, after we’ve warned repeatedly that these cuts would put seniors into hallways. This minister assured us that “not one person is going to be kicked out of their bed or their home tomorrow. For anyone on the opposite side to infer that is absolutely wrong.”

But Aitken Hospice, which serves this minister’s own riding and mine, is losing three beds, half of its capacity, due to these cuts. Beds are now being cut by attrition, and as patients die, new patients aren’t being admitted. We expect the third bed to be vacant tomorrow.

Will the minister commit today to providing dedicated, separate funding for hospice care, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I stand by my words that this government is dedicated to establishing that system of funding for long-term-care operations and continuing to support the incredibly valuable work of hospice and palliative care organizations throughout this province.

Again, the member is mistaken if he wants to infer that people are being kicked out of their beds, because they are not.

I know that this is a difficult situation in Comox right now, where a decision was taken to temporarily pause intakes for three hospice beds out of six in this facility.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: In working with the operator, these are the measures that the health authority and the operator have come to an agreement over while we continue to work with them to support that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m grateful that we have representatives here in the House today from the B.C. Hospice Palliative Care Association because of the incredible work that they do in communities. Whether it’s community-based hospice…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …or assisting people at home through health authority supports, supporting people in hospitals, the work that these people do to provide the dignified care, to provide the best care possible near the end of life is absolutely incredible, and I stand up for them every single day.

Anna Kindy: The seniors waiting aren’t, maybe, getting kicked out of care, but they can’t get in. There’s up to a four-year wait to access long-term-care beds for my community in Campbell River. On top of that, our hospital is running at 130 percent capacity, and up to one-fifth of the beds are seniors waiting for long-term care.

The government has repeatedly promised more long-term-care beds. A new care home was finally promised by this Premier when he came to my riding before the last election, but they haven’t even broken ground yet.

My question to the Premier: is he going to follow through with his promise to Campbell River, or was this just another photo op?

Hon. Josie Osborne: This government continues to take action to strengthen long-term care and assisted living in the province by taking multiple tactics here, including growing the workforce that’s required to support long-term-care operations; adding 2,400 new health care assistant training seats in an earn-and-learn program working out in remote communities as well as larger centres; continuing to build and renovate more long-term-care beds, with 36 projects underway and ongoing.

We’ve added 1,300 new and renovated beds. There are 4,300 coming along and underway.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: But it’s not enough to create new long-term-care facilities. We must support seniors to live at home. We know that’s what seniors want to do. By increasing home supports for seniors, enabling people to stay longer….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, let’s listen to the minister.

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is building out the system of care for seniors at the time they most need it.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

[10:45 a.m.]

Anna Kindy: This is the reality on the ground in Campbell River. One of our best care homes received an email from Island Health, saying: “We are now in a time of fiscal constraint as mandated by the Ministry of Health, and I have been given explicit instructions to reduce the number of temp beds across the Island.”

Here we have the clearest signal yet that this government’s own fiscal message is resulting in cuts in front-line services. Why is Island Health being told to “tighten our belts” while our seniors are languishing in desperately needed hospital beds and stretchers in the hallways?

Hon. Josie Osborne: You know, there’s no question that more is needed in building out long-term care and supporting seniors.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, let the minister finish, please. Members.

Member for Richmond Centre, please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Building beds is just one part of this work. Again, I speak of the work that must be done in supporting the people who work and deliver care in long-term-care beds: creating these health care assistance programs, health care access programs that enable people to come into the system; building out the system of long-term care; building through the Better at Home, keeping seniors safer at home so that they can stay there, which is what they want to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The decision has been taken to wind down the temporary COVID-era pandemic measures in place because we need a long-term system of care that is predictable and stable.

This government is focused on that work. The work is happening inside the Ministry of Health, and we will continue it.

Health and Environmental Impacts
of LNG Projects and Fracking

Jeremy Valeriote: Along the route of the Prince Rupert gas transmission line, which incidentally doesn’t go to Prince Rupert and doesn’t yet have an approved terminus, there are compressor stations that will roar as loud as jet engines to push methane from fracking sites in the northeast to Ksi Lisims in the northwest. The significant health impacts of living next to one of these compressor stations is a risk, yet the 11-year-old environmental assessment for PRGT refused to consider those impacts.

The proponent said there weren’t enough “human receptors” in the Kispiox Valley to justify a health impact study. These human receptors, if it’s not obvious, are people. They’re people living their lives in Hazleton, Kitimat and Squamish, and they don’t deserve to be sacrificed for the benefit of, as one Gitanyow Elder told me, people who have never felt the land breathe.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Parks. There are, by my count, about 95 human receptors on the floor of this chamber. If a company was flaring methane in the harbour outside our window, would we be considered significant enough for a health impact study?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will know that the PRGT pipeline proposal went through the environmental assessment process. In the last year, it has acknowledged that the proposal and the project has received a substantial start and is going forward. He will know the extensive work by the environmental assessment office in addressing just those issues and that every environmental assessment certificate in B.C. comes with conditions.

With respect to the PRGT proposal — which, of course, is led by the Nisg̱a’a First Nation — that project has received environmental assessment approvals. It will be required to meet all the conditions of those approvals, and the project is continuing now.

I think that when we have extensive process in our province for approvals of projects that involve significant studies and work, decisions are made — in this case, were made — to allow the project to proceed. But that doesn’t mean the project can proceed inconsistent with the conditions applied, and I am sure that will be the case in the case of the PRGT pipeline proposal.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: I would submit that if we’re sacrificing human receptors, what good is a strong economy if there aren’t any human receptors alive to enjoy it?

Residents of Kitimat and, soon, Squamish and the Nass Valley are regularly exposed to methane gas export by-products like airborne benzene, formaldehyde and other chemicals linked to asthma, heart disease, birth defects and Alzheimer’s.

[10:50 a.m.]

Meanwhile, in Dawson Creek, residential water wells have run dry. Water is scarce thanks to a historic drought caused by climate change, but the limited available water is being sucked up by fracking companies, who buy it at a huge discount. Now Dawson Creek is proposing another pipeline, not for fossil fuels but for water.

My question is for the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. Will the government make the fracking companies pay for the water pipeline or pay full freight for the water they use, or will they make Dawson Creek’s human receptors foot the bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: With great respect to the important issues raised by the member, he will know that in 2018, the government did an extensive review of hydraulic fracturing. Significant recommendations were made, and those recommendations have applied.

He will know it refers to methane emissions. British Columbia is leading Canada, leading North America, in reducing those emissions, a 51 percent reduction since 2015, which reflects the CleanBC policies of the government and the really exceptional work done in that case by industry to see that that’s put in place, such that we have made real progress on those questions.

All of these issues, the application of laws, are dealt with and, we insist, are followed all the time, and that will continue to happen as we both see the opportunities in natural gas in B.C. and also reduce emissions.

These are issues that are also subject to a review done of CleanBC programs, which will be released soon, that’s done under the auspices of the member’s party and our own to ensure that we’re continuing to address these issues.

Health Professions Legislation
and Impact on
Mental Health Professionals

Tara Armstrong: Well, if I were the government, here is exactly how I would get rid of two-thirds of all mental health professionals overnight: the NDP’s very own Health Professions and Occupations Act.

This government is giving itself new powers to pry into the confidential client files of people in therapy. New rules scheduled to take effect in April under this law will allow the government to punish any psychologist who doesn’t comply with penalties, harsh penalties, of two-year prison sentences and half-a-million-dollar fines. The result: psychologists are leaving. Many of them have contacted my office directly.

According to a recent survey, 68 percent of psychologists are planning to end their practice in B.C., 68 percent. That’s over two-thirds of all psychologists in this province gone.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Tara Armstrong: My question to the minister is this. Will she repeal this intrusive law and prevent 68 percent of our psychologists from leaving British Columbia?

Hon. Josie Osborne: It’s incredibly unfortunate to see the kind of misinformation that is being spread about the act and its vital role in protecting the public and protecting the integrity of health care professionals.

The purpose of the Health Professions and Occupations Act is to better protect the public, to provide a better framework and a more accountable and transparent system. This legislation is about ensuring that patients are kept safe from harm and discrimination. That’s always been the role of regulatory colleges, and that is not changing. To be clear, the legal mandate of colleges is not changing at all. The HPOA strengthens this.

We are going to continue. The regulations come into force this spring. The act comes into force this spring. The superintendent’s office is being set up right now. The regulatory colleges are doing the preparatory work.

I have heard from professionals across the province who are thankful that this act is coming into place. We have heard from professions that want to be regulated under this act because they understand just how important it is to protect themselves as well as the public.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

[10:55 a.m.]

Tara Armstrong: Yes.

It sounds like the minister should maybe go and review the 645-some clauses in this law so she can refamiliarize herself with it.

According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, one million British Columbians will experience a mental illness this year. It’s serious. These Orwellian powers in the HPOA threaten to rob over two-thirds of those people of their mental health professionals. This includes some of the most vulnerable among us: victims of abuse, trauma survivors and first responders.

Psychologists are begging this government not to barrel ahead with the HPOA rules.

Will the minister, at the very least, suspend these new rules and consult with psychologists to prevent the crisis her very own legislation is causing?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The simple answer is no. No, this government won’t do that. This government is moving ahead with the Health Professions and Occupations Act as a way to strengthen the framework, include more transparency and accountability to protect the interests of the public, to protect the integrity of the health care professionals themselves.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised that these members opposite are opposed to the act, because they’ve aligned themselves with B.C. Rising and people who spread dangerous misinformation. People like Dr. Charles Hoffe, who tells people that the COVID vaccine is lethal and that they should buy ivermectin from an animal feed store. People like Dr. Stephen Malthouse, who told people that the COVID vaccine turns you into a magnet.

Clearly, this is incredibly alarming. We are watching the consequences of medical misinformation play out right now with Canada losing its measles elimination status. We should be embarrassed by that because it didn’t need to happen.

We are going to continue to stand up for evidence-based decisions, for evidence-based policy, for public universal health care, because medical misinformation kills.

Waste Dumping Site on
Cowichan Tribes Land

Sheldon Clare: Yesterday I asked the Environment Minister twice: when did she first learn about the Cowichan toxic waste pile?

The minister didn’t answer my question but did say: “We issued a pollution prevention order on October 2.” This was two years after a risk assessment was carried out.

Either the minister knew about this river-killing mess and didn’t act, or her staff didn’t tell her. Which is it?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I’m not really sure why the member is asking this question, because he is not….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

That’s it. Okay.

Minister will continue.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Anyway, I was saying I would welcome my new critic to come and meet with me and talk through this. I understand we have a meeting this afternoon scheduled.

Yesterday we did talk about what we have done, and I’d be more than happy to go through this with him and provide him the information that he’s requesting.

Conditions at B.C. Housing Facility

Linda Hepner: Imagine being the mother of five kids, including a medically fragile newborn, living in a roach-infested B.C. Housing unit, begging for help from this government.

That’s what Alicia Williams is experiencing right now. Even her doctor says the unit is unsafe and unsanitary.

[11:00 a.m.]

Can the minister please tell us how many cockroaches she thinks are acceptable in a B.C. Housing unit?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, let the minister start, please. Wait for your comments afterwards.

Please, Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

It is completely unacceptable, what’s happened in this building, and troubling to hear about any issues like this.

We take tenant concerns like this one seriously and are committed to ensuring that they’re addressed in a timely and appropriate manner. Inspection with a licensed pest control inspector is being scheduled, and an additional treatment will happen if required. Neighbouring units are being inspected. Technicians will be brought in if needed.

The tenants at MacLean Park can contact the on-site building manager, the Lower Mainland directly managed office, as well as the tenant support line.

We’ll continue to respond and support this family alongside the work we are committed to in building good, dignified, affordable housing and supportive housing in every community across this province.

Safety of Hospital Workers and Patients
and Hiring of Security Staff

Macklin McCall: As the president of the B.C. Nurses Union, Adriane Gear, says: “Nurses did not go into the profession to be security guards, but that’s exactly what’s happening.”

She is deeply concerned that using nurses for protection and expecting them to act like peace officers is the only strategy that this government is relying on.

Will the minister commit to immediately deploying fully trained peace officers who have the authority to use force if necessary to protect patients and staff in B.C. hospitals?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for raising the incredibly important subject of safety in the workplace, safety for all health care workers.

It is unacceptable to see violence against health care workers in any setting, which is why we are so dedicated to the work that we have underway with the B.C. Nurses Union, with health authorities to do everything we can to reduce and eliminate that violence.

The work that our relational security officers do in hospital settings makes a difference. With the training that they have, specific training around de-escalating and reducing aggressive situations, they are making a real difference. We are seeing the work hours and incidents of violence going down in hospital settings where these relational security officers work.

I want to assure the member that these relational security officers have the highest standards of training, the highest, most advanced security training licences for security officers in all of B.C.

We continue to work with the B.C. Nurses Union, to listen to them…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …to strengthen the violence prevention frameworks in place at health authorities, to examine other ways of reducing violence in the workplace, and we are going to continue to do that work.

Working Conditions for Nurses

Kiel Giddens: The B.C. Nurses Union has been clear that nurses do not feel safe in our hospitals. That’s a fact.

This government also knows that nursing ratios in B.C. are abysmal. At Jubilee Lodge in Prince George, acute care needs are higher than in almost any other long-term-care home, yet staffing ratios are, shockingly, as high as one nurse to 66 patients.

Nurses are overwhelmed. Many leave crying. Sick calls are constant, and those who do come to work are burning out under the heavy workload, at times ending up hurt. Psychological claims are also on the rise.

To the Minister of Labour, why isn’t WorkSafe properly auditing nursing safety in our health authorities?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to the member for a very, very important question.

We know that there is nothing more important than ensuring that health care workers who work across our health care system come to work and can be safe and work in a dignified environment. That’s why we work with health authorities, with WorkSafe to ensure that our occupational health and safety structures and systems across British Columbia are in effect.

We know that WorkSafe has a high-risk strategy for health care, recognizing that there are particular concerns and particular issues in health care that need to be addressed. That work continues.

I’m grateful for the partnership of all of the health authorities, the health employers and the bargaining associations in ensuring that we continue to move forward to make sure our health care system is the safest it possibly can be.

Safety of Nurses
in Rural Communities

Sharon Hartwell: You know what keeps Adriane Gear up at night? Rural nurses working alone with no security, waiting up to an hour for RCMP to respond.

What does the minister say to rural nurses who are petrified they won’t make it home to their loved ones because this government refuses to keep them safe?

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

Preventing violence in the workplace — no matter a small hospital, a rural hospital or a larger centre — is incredibly important. It’s important to retaining nurses. It’s important to recruiting more nurses. It’s important for every single one of the health care professionals that we rely on.

That’s why we have the agreement with the B.C. Nurses Union around minimum nurse-to-patient ratios, because we know that meeting these ratios is essential to workplace conditions, to the safety of patients and nurses alike. In those smaller communities where I have spoken directly to nurses, where minimum nurse-to-patient ratios are already being met, we can see and feel and hear the difference that it’s making.

That’s why we’re committed to minimum nurse-to-patient ratios. That’s why we’re committed to doing everything we can to prevent violence in workplaces, whether they’re small or large.

That’s why we’re going to continue this work and doing it in partnership with the Nurses Union and workforce across the province.

Emergency Health Care and CT Scanner
for Kitimat General Hospital

Claire Rattée: I’m getting so sick and tired of…. Every time we ask a question, we hear the same thing, “there’s nothing more important,” yet we don’t see any action on any of these things that get brought up. We hear from every single minister….

Interjections.

Claire Rattée: Cuts to health care. Hallway health care. People don’t feel safe. Nobody feels safe in this province, and there’s nothing being done about it.

Three weeks ago a 17-year-old boy died in the Kitimat hospital. His name was Vincent, and his death was entirely preventable. All he needed was a CT scan. He had suffered from excruciating stomach pain for years.

Twenty-two days ago he returned to the ER, and after five hours of sitting there losing colour and difficulty breathing, a CT scan in Terrace was finally arranged. After waiting in the ER for almost six hours, he died as he was finally about to be transferred.

Again, this was entirely preventable.

The community fundraised for a CT scanner in 2023 to avoid this very outcome. Three months ago government ministers came to Kitimat to take credit for this community-funded project, yet it is still not operational.

I informed the minister and her chief of staff about this two weeks ago, and I told them that I expected an answer immediately. I have yet to receive a response.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Claire Rattée: A mother has lost her son, and nothing can change that, but this government can commit today to reviewing this tragedy, how this diagnosis was missed, and to activating that CT scanner immediately.

I’m wondering at this point how many more people have to die in Kitimat before this government makes sure that that CT scanner is up and running.

Hon. Josie Osborne: First of all, the loss of any child is an incredibly tragic circumstance, and I think the hearts of everyone in this House go out to this family. I know the member understands that I cannot speak about individual cases. I do appreciate that she brought it to my attention, and I appreciated being able to talk with her when I was recently up in Kitimat and Terrace.

I urge any family in a situation like this with concerns to please go forward to the patient care quality office in the health authority where they reside, because it’s incredibly important that matters like this are looked into.

[11:10 a.m.]

On the subject of the CT scanner in Kitimat, renovations are underway inside the hospital, and it is expected that the CT scanner will be up and running in spring 2026. This will make a big difference for people living in Kitimat, in the region, to be able to access this kind of diagnostic capacity. It is part of the reason why our government is committed to building that out.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I would be grateful to follow up with the member individually again, to talk about this matter, but I know she understands I cannot speak publicly about an individual case.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table a report from the Ombudsperson, annual report, 2024-25.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 25.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 31.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Okay. We’ll call the House to order.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the opportunity to finish my time here this morning, speaking in opposition to Bill 25.

I left off yesterday with speaking at great length about snow removal and the issues around parking and traffic in relation to that. It’s a serious concern. I brought to the attention just how much of an impact snow has in our small mountain communities in the East Kootenay. I sincerely believe that that wasn’t really a consideration in the drafting of this legislation, so it’s something that I will be addressing further as we move in further stages of this bill.

I’m also curious, as we speak today about Bill 25, as to why it appears, anyway, that the provincial government doesn’t trust municipal governments to make decisions that are in the best interest of their own individual communities. Some of the top-down approaches here are just simply not going to be applicable to the wonderfully diverse and unique communities that we have here, especially the ones in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

In regards to the short-term-rental component of Bill 25, I have to speak frankly and say that I think more regulation and amendments to legislation around short-term rentals is not, again, taking into consideration some of the unique needs here in British Columbia.

I did canvass this issue in budget estimates in the spring with the former Minister of Housing, and the issue is around enforcement.

[11:15 a.m.]

I understand that a registry website that the province is rolling out has the ability to remove people from some of the third-party listing organizations. But in Columbia River–Revelstoke, that’s not the issue that people have with short-term rentals, those that do.

Fairmont Hot Springs is a community I represent, right in the middle of Columbia River–Revelstoke. There are many concerned citizens there who have issues with short-term rentals. But it has nothing to do with the registration system and the ability to be on and off some of these third-party platforms. The issue is around there being no enforcement to people breaking the rules. That’s the issue.

Fairmount Hot Springs is an example of a community that heavily relies on short-term rentals. This is a small community that has a huge influx of tourists essentially year-round, either for skiing at the local resort…. Obviously, the Fairmont Hot Springs resort itself is quite a large tourist attraction, as well as the two golf courses which are in the immediate vicinity here.

The issue is that when people come over from various parts of British Columbia or from Alberta, they can be noisy and disruptive if they’re attending something like a bachelor party or whatever. There’s no enforcement around enforcing the rules. That’s the challenge I think we need to look at a little bit more with short-term rentals, especially in Columbia River–Revelstoke. We just don’t have that boots-on-the-ground capacity. That’s something I’d like to address before I get into it a little bit more.

We kind of see the infringement, I suppose you could say, of local autonomy around short-term rentals, and Bill 25, I think, increases that infringement from the provincial government. The reality is we need short-term rentals in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

It’s really sad to see that in my home community, Kimberley, we have really no hotel capacity in the town whatsoever. But we do see, again, an influx of tourists not only to the resort but to hockey tournaments. We have a couple of big festivals throughout the year. Our conference centre welcomes guests for various professional conferences. But since some of these changes have come into effect, those guests all stay 25 minutes down the road in Cranbrook, because there’s nowhere to stay.

It’s extremely frustrating to me that the government sees potential issues, perhaps in the Lower Mainland, around short-term rentals, and then claws back everybody without thinking of some of the local needs that are at play. That’s tremendously impactful for some of these smaller communities that just simply don’t have that capacity to host guests for lack of hotel spaces.

I’m a big fan of decentralization of some of these authorities, because nobody knows their community better than local government. I really believe that. I see that there is a piece in here about modern treaty Nations having the authority to administer short-term rentals kind of on their own, generally speaking. But why not local government? Why aren’t they afforded the same luxury?

It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, especially in communities that have those unique needs, especially Columbia River–Revelstoke, again, where our populations fluctuate tremendously in the high tourism seasons in the winter and in the summer months. So I’m just not sure why they’d be making an exception for one group of local government but not for another. It doesn’t add up to me. Again, I love decentralization, and it’s great that modern treaty Nations have the ability to administer some of those short-term-rental changes on their own, but let’s make that for everybody.

Revelstoke has done a fantastic job of engaging the community around the short-term-rental issue, whether they want to opt into the provincial program or not. They’ve spent extensive time canvassing the community, hosting town halls, getting deliberate feedback, and they’ll make an informed decision based on what the community tells them as elected officials. Why can’t we have that everywhere?

I just feel like some of this overreach into telling local governments what they can and can’t do with short-term-rental legislation and regulation is really not that fair, to be honest.

[11:20 a.m.]

I do have some questions and concerns around some of the local First Nation law around short-term rentals. Well, what are those laws? Do we have the capacity or does the government have the capacity to review some of those and make sure they’re in line with provincial regulations and legislation on their own, or is it is it totally decentralized? I’d love to have a little bit more of an in-depth discussion around that.

Essentially, I mean the reality is that I think overregulating and overlegislating short-term rentals…. I know the government likes to point out that rents have come down since we started regulating short-term rentals. I certainly don’t agree that those two are in direct correlation with each other. I think it’s a great excuse to continue to regulate short-term rentals. But let’s not forget some of the elephants in the room, that 70,000 people left the province last year. Perhaps there’s a softening in the housing market.

I think there’s more work to be done from this government as far as what some of those real on-the-ground, localized, unique situations are within communities so that they can address the short-term-rental market on their own. I just feel like a top-down provincial approach is not helping anybody.

I did hear some members in government yesterday speak about their concerns with data sharing. I think every member in this House would agree that private data is sacred and should be protected. But it appears that there are some, let’s call it, variances to that in this legislation, where modern treaty Nations are able to have access to some of that short-term-rental data and potentially to share that. So that’s a little bit of a concern.

I think we should have the ability to keep some of that data safe, probably more so at the provincial level, behind lock and key.

I don’t see anywhere in here, and perhaps this is going back to my original point about some of this enforcement around this regulation and legislation…. There don’t seem to be any added dollars. I know it’s pretty clear as day that money is at a premium right now, expenditures for the province. For the ability to enforce some of this, it’s going to take funding. I’m not sure that we’re in a position right now to do that.

Back to the overall theme here around densification of residential building, which I think is the target here for this legislation. This puts a tremendous amount of pressure on local infrastructure, as a couple of members previous to me have pointed out. I actually am thankful. We’ve been able to do some work on places like Kimberley and Revelstoke, getting some work done on their wastewater treatment systems, which is very, very helpful.

But again, are we thinking about the building component without looking at the infrastructure piece at the same time? I don’t know what it is, but it seems like all the water and sewer, specifically, in British Columbia was all built at the same time. And it now seems like they’re all coming up for massive overhauls or rebuilding.

Again, there are several communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke which are facing the same issues at exactly the same time. I think this is a very serious issue that we need to address with some more capital funding towards these projects which, upon my review, the legislation doesn’t seem to address.

Canal Flats is one of those communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke. It’s a small community at 850 or so residents, but it needs a several-million-dollar upgrade of its water infrastructure.

Some challenging language, I think, in the bill here is the definition of a “principal residence.” I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around that. The new definition: “The usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home.” That seems to me very vague and subjective, especially when comparing and contrasting to the original language of “most days in a calendar year.”

[11:25 a.m.]

I’m just not sure how we’re able to differentiate the usual place where an individual makes their home. What does that look like? Is usual 40 days out of a calendar year? Is it 120? Is it 300? I think that’s very, very vague.

Again, in relation to the short-term-rental piece…. Lookit, especially in our small communities in British Columbia, generally speaking, these are not big real estate investment trusts that are gobbling up real estate, renting them out short-term and making piles of money. These are just local folks that are fortunate enough to have the capacity to rent out a space for those that are visiting our communities. I just don’t like the theme of punishing some of those local people looking to make just a few extra bucks to supplement their income.

I do worry that additional legislation and overregulation of short-term rentals will result in the withdrawal of many of these units. People will just say: “The heck with it. I’ve had it.” I mean, they’re already paying well over $1,000 in most cases to register their short-term rental. I feel like this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, which would be devastating for tourism in Columbia River–Revelstoke specifically.

The reality is it’s not that those renting short-term will all of a sudden put their units into the long-term-rental pool. They like the flexibility. They like the supplemental income it provides time to time at the high peak season — Christmas, spring break, Canada Day weekend. There are many short-term-rental operators who only stay open for 21 days, 28 days a year. They like that flexibility. So it’s not an automatic that they’ll be thrown into the long-term-rental pool. It just simply does not happen. And vice versa.

Just a couple more comments here before I wrap up for my next colleague.

We do have a housing crisis in British Columbia, I think it’s probably fair to say, in just about every corner of this province. Again, perhaps I’m naive or green to this whole provincial legislator piece, but I would love to have that deep, in-depth conversation on a long-term goal to actually address, with the immediacy and the urgency that it requires, how we fix the housing crisis which we have. This just seems like a small piece of the puzzle that really doesn’t have that long-term positive effect that we’re hoping for.

I still haven’t heard from the government what that long-term vision of building B.C. and getting homes built is. Yes, we hear every election from this government, “Yeah, we’re going to build 300,000 homes, da-da-da-da,” and people buy into it, and then really nothing happens.

So we actually need to work together on this as a human issue. I don’t see that this piece of legislation actually addresses the root issue, which is that housing is becoming very scarce in British Columbia. In our opinion, we need to build a lot more a lot faster, and I don’t see that this legislation really addresses that root issue.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to finish today.

Claire Rattée: Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act. At second reading, our task is, obviously, to look at the broad principles of this legislation and ask whether this is the right direction for the province, for local governments and for the people that we represent.

Bill 25 does two big things. First, it further rewrites the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter to push small-scale, multi-unit housing — such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes — into what the bill now calls restricted zones, and it strips municipalities of much of their ability to require off-street parking for those units. It also significantly expands cabinet and ministerial powers to dictate zoning, housing form and density and parking rules where local governments do not fall into line fast enough.

Sounds familiar. Quite a few of the pieces of legislation that we’ve already dealt with in this session and the previous session are about expanding those cabinet and ministerial powers.

Second, it amends the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act to strengthen the role of participating First Nations, broadens the definition of principal residence, narrows the grounds for reviewing registration decisions and expands information-sharing and enforcement powers.

[11:30 a.m.]

There are pieces of this bill that I think are moving in a reasonable direction. I agree that we need more housing, including what people now call the missing middle. I also believe that modern treaty Nations and other participating First Nations should have meaningful tools to enforce their own short-term-rental laws and protect housing in their communities. Those are legitimate goals.

But I cannot support the overall approach this government is taking in Bill 25. At its core, this bill continues a pattern: more centralization in Victoria, more power for cabinet and the minister, less room for locally elected officials and councils to respond to the realities on the ground and, in this case, a very clear ideological bias against anyone who needs or chooses to drive a vehicle.

Let me start with the housing and zoning side. Bill 25 amends section 481.3 of the Local Government Act and section 565.03 of the Vancouver Charter to expand and relocate the definition of “restricted zone.” In simple terms, a restricted zone is now any zone other than a manufactured home zone where the permitted residential use would otherwise be limited to detached single-family homes or single-family with a suite or laneway or duplexes with a small number of extra units.

Those are precisely the zones that many families live in today — ordinary single-family neighbourhoods, often with suites or carriage houses, often with a mix of young families and seniors who have lived there for decades. Under Bill 25, those areas are directly targeted for further densification.

The bill requires that by June 30, 2026, local governments must adopt zoning bylaws that permit the use and density required under subsections (3), (4) and (5), the multi-unit housing that government wants in those restricted zones. If they do not meet that deadline or if their bylaws do not match the regulations cabinet may make about siting, size, form and density, the minister can step in and literally rewrite their bylaws for them.

I want to be clear. I am not opposed to gentle density in principle. In many communities, allowing more homes on existing lots is a sensible piece of the housing puzzle. What I am opposed to is the idea that cabinet and a minister in Victoria should be able to dictate, street by street, what form and density of housing must exist in places they have never even visited and then override local governments if they hesitate or disagree.

In my riding, in communities like Terrace, Kitimat, Thornhill or surrounding rural areas and First Nations communities, the questions are not just “how many units can we squeeze onto a lot”; the questions are: “Is there road capacity? Is there water and sewer capacity? Is there space for snow storage? How will emergency vehicles get through in the winter, when there are cars parked up and down both sides of the street? What happens on very narrow local roads that were never designed for high density in the first place?”

The communities that I represent have some extremely narrow residential streets. Many of those streets are subject to bylaws that already restrict on-street parking overnight and in the winter, precisely because of our heavy snow loads and the need to be able to plow and clear the roads effectively.

I know this firsthand because at my house, every time one of my neighbours parks on the street, I can’t get into my driveway. This is a very real concern in rural communities, and I don’t think that the minister understands that. I don’t think she’s ever been to the region, and I would definitely invite her to go so that she could understand firsthand how this does not apply in other communities.

When you’re dealing with multiple feet of snow and large plows and graders that need room to manoeuvre, you cannot have both sides of a narrow street jammed with vehicles. Municipal bylaws in places like Terrace and Kitimat reflect that reality. They balance residents’ need to park with the basic requirement to keep roads open, safe and passable in winter.

Those are hyper-local questions. They are different on a steep, icy street than they are on a flat grid in downtown Vancouver. They are different in a wildfire interface area than in a fully built-out urban core. Bill 25 does not show much respect for those differences.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the parking provisions. Bill 25 adds new section 525.2 to the Local Government Act and the matching section 306.02 to the Vancouver Charter. These provisions say in plain language that as of June 30, 2024, councils must not require an owner or occupier to provide off-street parking or loading spaces for the residential use of a housing unit that is required to be permitted under the small-scale, multi-family housing rules.

In other words, if the province forces you to allow duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes in these restricted zones, your city is no longer allowed to say: “Fine, but please include some off-street parking for those extra units.” That power is gone unless cabinet chooses to make regulations, and even then it is cabinet, not local councils, who will set the upper limit on how much parking can be required.

This is effectively a war on vehicle owners. I know government will say: “We are encouraging walkable, transit-oriented communities.” I am all for walkable communities and better transit, but let’s be honest about the reality in much of British Columbia, especially in the North.

[11:35 a.m.]

In northern B.C., it is almost impossible to live, work, raise a family or participate fully in community life without a vehicle. For many people, that vehicle is a truck. Distances are long, the weather is extreme, and many jobs are in industry — forestry, although that doesn’t exist much in my riding anymore, construction and the trades, where people need to haul tools, gear and equipment.

Public transit, where it exists at all, is limited in frequency and coverage. There is no SkyTrain. There is no bus every ten minutes. There are no safe, plowed bike lanes year-round, if any at all.

In my riding, a household with two or even three vehicles is not a luxury. It is often a necessity. A couple working different shifts in Kitimat’s industrial sites, a teenager trying to get to school and work, a family that has to travel to Terrace for specialist medical appointments or Prince George for the Costco — these are everyday realities.

On top of that, we rely on tradespeople, home care workers and delivery vehicles that all need somewhere to park when they visit a property.

Now imagine taking a typical single-family lot on a narrow northern street, adding a fourplex because provincial rules say you must allow it and then saying: “By the way, you are not allowed to require any off-street parking for those new homes.”

Where do the vehicles go? They go onto the street. Spillover parking clogs the road. Emergency vehicles have trouble getting through. Snowplows have nowhere to push the snow. When the graders and plows come through, they are fighting not just snow and ice but obstacles on both sides of the roadway.

That is dangerous for workers, for residents and for anyone relying on timely emergency response. For elderly residents and people with disabilities, that can mean longer walks through uncleared, narrowed corridors just to reach their own front door. For young families with strollers or parents carrying groceries and children on icy footpaths, it means more risk. For trades and small businesses trying to serve those buildings, there is nowhere to safely park a work truck.

In communities like Terrace and Kitimat, the bylaws that restrict on-street parking in winter and on narrow local roads were adopted for good reasons: to allow snow clearing, to ensure emergency access and to keep people safe. Bill 25 directly undermines those local judgments by removing municipalities’ ability to require off-street parking at the same time as it forces higher densities into those very neighbourhoods.

If government genuinely believes that this is the right change, they should at least have the courage to defend it honestly. Do not pretend this is just streamlining bylaws. This is intentionally stripping municipalities of their ability to require off-street parking for the very same multi-unit housing the province is forcing into those neighbourhoods. It is a targeted policy choice, and it will land hardest on families in car-dependent communities, especially in the North.

There’s another piece of this that cannot be ignored, and that’s infrastructure. Much of the core infrastructure in my riding is old and, in many cases, already under immense strain. I am talking about waterlines, sewer systems, storm drains and local roads that were designed and built for much lower densities decades ago.

In some neighbourhoods, the pipes are aging and at risk of failure. In others, the stormwater systems are already struggling with heavy rain events and rapid snowmelt. Roads are patched and re-patched, and in winter, they are under constant stress from freeze-thaw cycles, plowing, sanding, salting and heavy industrial traffic.

Local governments in these communities know exactly where their limits are. They know which subdivisions do not have the sewer capacity for a sudden influx of extra housing units. They know which roads cannot sustain more on-street parking without becoming unsafe or impassable in winter. They are painfully aware of how much it costs to replace a water main, upgrade a lift station or reconstruct a local road.

Bill 25 does nothing to address those infrastructure realities. It assumes that every community can simply absorb more units, more toilets flushing into the same pipes, more vehicles onto the same narrow roads, regardless of whether the underlying infrastructure is ready.

We all agree that we need more housing, but in northern B.C., that conversation has to include who is paying to upgrade the sewer and waterlines to handle additional units. How are we reinforcing roads that were never designed for the current mix of heavy trucks and higher residential densities? Where is the provincial commitment to help small and mid-sized municipalities modernize their infrastructure to match the densities that Victoria is now mandating?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I seek leave to make a quick introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you so much, friends. We have students here from Gordon Head elementary school. They’re up in the gallery right here. They’re here with their teacher, Jessica Hoyt. There are 30 of them. A grade 6 class? All right. I see. Grade 6 class.

[11:40 a.m.]

My brother went to Gordon Head elementary. I graduated from Lambrick Park. I’m a Lion. Hopefully you go to Lambrick Park as well.

Today you’re listening to a debate about important legislation that’s in front of the House. We hope you enjoy your visit, and we hope you enjoy hearing some of the exchange.

I’m asking the House to please join me in welcoming these amazing students to the House today.

Debate Continued

Claire Rattée: Right now Bill 25 essentially says: “Densify now. Figure out the pipes and roads later.” That is not a responsible way to plan growth, especially in communities that have already been asked to carry the weight of major industrial projects and their impacts.

I also want to touch briefly on manufactured home zones. Bill 25 defines a manufactured home zone as a zone where the only permitted residential use is for manufactured homes. Those zones are explicitly carved out from the new restricted zone definition.

I appreciate that there is a desire not to destabilize existing manufactured home parks, especially when we know that federal housing money is increasingly geared toward manufactured homes. But we need to be very careful that we are not creating a two-tier system.

If single-family areas are aggressively densified with small multi-unit housing and stripped of parking requirements while manufactured home zones are left as the only places where certain forms of lower-income or more affordable housing are allowed, we risk further stigmatizing those communities and concentrating poverty in a way that is not healthy or fair.

I have heard concerns that in some places, this approach could mean effectively replacing traditional single-family neighbourhoods with something that looks more like a trailer park, without the corresponding services, infrastructure or long-term protections. That is not a respectful or thoughtful way to handle either side of the equation.

Another key principle in this bill is the expansion of ministerial override powers. Bill 25 resets compliance deadlines to June 30, 2026, for small-scale multifamily housing zoning and then creates new mechanisms, section 786.1 in the Local Government Act and section 625.1 in the Vancouver Charter, for local governments or Vancouver to apply for extensions if they cannot meet the prescribed regulations in time.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. If there are extraordinary circumstances, local governments can ask for more time. But paired with that is an expanded power, in section 787 of the Local Government Act and section 626 of the Vancouver Charter, for the minister, with cabinet approval, to step in and directly enact or amend bylaws if a local government does not comply. That order can rezone areas to allow the minimum densities the province demands, set the siting, size, form and density of housing units and impose parking rules in line with the new provisions.

Again, I want to highlight the principle here. Local governments exist for a reason. They are closer to the people. They’re the ones who sit through the public hearings, who drive those streets, who hear from residents who will actually live next to the new units.

This bill says to them: “You may consult, you may plan, you may attempt to reconcile density with infrastructure and local character, but if we decide you are too slow and we do not like where you land, the minister will simply overwrite your decisions.” That is not partnership. That is central planning by order in council.

It is particularly troubling that the bill also temporarily suspends the normal requirement that rezoning must be consistent with an official community plan. Section 788 of the Local Government Act is amended so that until June 30, 2027, or one year after a future compliance date, zoning bylaws adopted to meet these new housing mandates do not need to align with the OCP.

So on one hand, this government tells communities: “Spend years working with residents on comprehensive official community plans.” On the other hand, they say: “When it comes to our housing priorities, your OCP does not matter. You can rezone against your own plan, and we will support that, or we will do it for you.”

[11:45 a.m.]

That undermines public trust in the planning processes and in local democracy, and the municipal governments are the ones who will have to face the brunt of that public scrutiny while the cabinet ministers remain conveniently out of the line of fire.

Turning to part 2, the amendments to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, one change that stands out is the new definition of “principal residence.” Previously that definition referred to the place where an individual resides for the longest period in a calendar year. Bill 25 replaces that with “the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home.” On paper, that might seem like a small wording tweak. In reality, it is a shift from an objective test, days in a year, to a more subjective notion of where someone makes their home.

Government has not clearly explained the rationale for this change. Without a clear explanation, we risk creating more disputes, not fewer. A family might have a condo in town and a cabin at the lake. A worker might spend months away on rotation. Whose view of their usual home will prevail, their own or the registrar’s? That matters when you tie principal residence to what can and cannot be offered as a short-term rental.

On top of that, section 11 is amended to narrow the grounds on which someone can seek a review of a registration decision. Reviews will now only be based on new evidence or other grounds that cabinet chooses to prescribe by regulation. The registrar can only consider new evidence if it is substantial and material and could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.

I understand the desire to avoid endless re-litigation of decisions. But we must also consider the small-scale operators who may not have lawyers, may not understand the system perfectly the first time and may only realize later that something was misinterpreted. If you combine a more subjective principal residence test, narrower grounds of review and stronger publication powers — including the ability to publish personal information about orders, notices and penalty status — you create a regime that could feel quite heavy-handed for ordinary people who are not trying to game the system.

Bill 25 also expands information-sharing powers. It allows the director to publish compliance and enforcement information, including personal information, and it broadens who can receive and share data, including participating First Nations, local governments and other prescribed entities. Again, I understand why enforcement requires good information-sharing, particularly when dealing with large international platforms. But with every expansion of data-sharing and publication powers, we should be asking: are the privacy safeguards adequate? Is the scope proportionate? Are there clear limits on how long personal information can be kept and how it can be used?

The bill also makes it clear that coordination agreements can apply different provisions of the act to different geographic areas within the treaty lands of a treaty First Nation. That is sensible, because not every village or region within a territory has the same needs. But the more we layer municipal bylaws, short-term-rental First Nation laws, related First Nation laws and provincial regulations on top of each other, the greater the risk of confusion for operators and for platforms.

Dual or overlapping authorities are not a problem in themselves. Many jurisdictions coexist, but they do require careful communication and clarity about who is responsible for what and where. We have to make sure that a small operator in a community near my riding is not trapped between different sets of rules, facing penalties from multiple directions without clear guidance or recourse.

So when we step back and look at Bill 25 as a whole, what do we see? We see a government that is rightly worried about housing supply but whose answer is increasingly to tie local government’s hands, override official community plans and centralize more and more power in cabinet and the minister.

We see a government that talks about climate and livability but whose concrete policies amount to telling families in car-dependent, winter-city communities: “We are going to densify your neighbourhood, we will not allow your council to require off-street parking for the new units, and we will override your bylaws that were written to manage heavy snow, narrow roads and emergency access.”

We see a government that is willing to empower First Nations in the short-term-rental system, which I support, but at the same time, is tightening definitions and narrowing review rights in ways that could reduce fairness for small operators while expanding information-sharing without clearly explaining why each added power is necessary and proportionate.

As the MLA for Skeena, I am thinking about the people who live this, not the people who write it. I am thinking about the elderly resident on a steep street in Terrace who already struggles to get to her front door in the winter and who now faces a street lined with vehicles because there is no off-street parking for the new units next door.

[11:50 a.m.]

The family in Kitimat, where both parents work shifts and rely on their trucks to get to site at odd hours, who find themselves competing for on-street space on a narrow road that also needs to be plowed and kept clear for ambulances and fire trucks.

The small-scale host who might rent out a basement suite part-time to help pay the mortgage who is trying to navigate a complex short-term-rental regime that keeps changing, with fewer avenues for review if something goes wrong.

The local councils who know the limitations of their aging water, sewer and road networks and who are being told from Victoria: “Increase density now, and worry about infrastructure later.”

We need more housing. We need to make better use of land. We need to address the pressures created by short-term rentals in some markets. But we will not succeed by pretending that Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George, Terrace, Kitimat and Nisg̱a’a communities all look the same or that every problem can be solved by another set of regulations from Victoria and another set of ministerial override powers.

A better approach would to set broad provincial goals for housing supply but genuinely partner with local governments on how to achieve them.

Respect the link between housing, parking, transit, winter conditions and infrastructure, instead of treating vehicle ownership as something to be punished.

Recognize that in northern B.C., a reliable truck is not a lifestyle choice. It is how people get to work, get their kids to school and get to medical care.

Empower First Nations in the short-term-rental space while maintaining clear, consistent, fair processes and transparent rationales for tightening definitions and review rights.

Reduce rather than increase the constant legislative churn that leaves local governments struggling to keep up.

I would urge the minister to rethink this centralized one-size-fits-all approach, to listen to local governments, to listen to northern communities that simply do not have the transit and infrastructure that underpin these policies and to bring back housing legislation that respects both the urgency of the crisis and the realities on the ground.

I want to speak from a personal point of view about some of these issues around the official community plans and local governments. As I mentioned in my speech already, those local governments, those mayors and city councillors and regional district directors, are the people that are on the ground. Those are the people that have direct interface with the community. They understand their community’s needs better than any politician in Victoria.

I know this from experience because I sat on Kitimat city council, and during that time, I went through the process of reviewing and updating our official community plan. It is an incredibly difficult process. It’s incredibly time-consuming. It’s incredibly expensive. There’s a lot of public consultation that’s required. The purpose of doing those official community plan updates and reviews is so that we can make sure, as a local government, that we’re getting it right for the citizens in our community.

When the provincial government decides to just come in and override in this way, it really undermines that process. At the end of the day, the people that end up having to bear the brunt of that are going to be the local elected officials.

It’s not going to be the MLAs and the provincial government that are going to bear the brunt of those outraged citizens that object to that densification in that certain area because now, as I said, you’ve got vehicles parked up and down both sides of the street and a snowplow can’t get through. It’s going to be our mayors, our city councillors, our regional district directors that are going to have to bear the brunt of that situation.

It’s very convenient to just make these decisions as cabinet, but there are people on the ground that actually have to deal with these consequences in a real-world way. Like I said, it’s those city councillors, those mayors, that understand what their community needs best.

Not only are they on the ground and attending public meetings all the time and having a conversation every day at the grocery store with their local residents, but they also are responsible for far fewer people, so they get to have more of those conversations. They get to understand firsthand: what are the actual challenges that my community is facing, and how can I properly tackle those?

Again, this feels like a piece of legislation that was not created with full consultation of local government partners and understanding what they’re actually looking for. Giving the ability to be able to override an OCP, like I said, is going to really undermine the public’s trust in that process. It’s already difficult enough to get people to attend these OCP update meetings as it is. This is just going to further complicate that when people are getting frustrated.

On the infrastructure side of things, this is a really significant issue in northern B.C. I’m sure it’s an issue that is going on all throughout the province, but I think we feel it really acutely in northern B.C. We know that there is a density problem in the Lower Mainland, and in northern B.C., we could probably assist with that. I would love to see more people moving up to northern B.C.

[11:55 a.m.]

But the problem is that we do not have the infrastructure to be able to handle that. Our highways are in very poor shape. Our roads are in poor shape. We have got schools that are crumbling and falling apart. We have very old sewer systems that need to be updated, old water systems that need to be updated, even landfills.

There are so many different pieces that have to be thought about when it comes to densification, and at the end of the day, our municipal governments are tapped. They don’t have the funds to be able to continually put into these infrastructure pieces. They just don’t.

Right now I’ve got…. The community of Terrace is part of my riding. When I’ve spoken with the mayor, he’s told me they do not have the funds right now to be able to replace sections of road that desperately need to be replaced. He’s already had to increase property taxes multiple times in the last few years. They are tapped. The residents of Terrace can’t afford that. They can’t afford to have their taxes go up anymore, and this government doesn’t help them with that.

There needs to be more partnership. If the provincial government is going to mandate densification, then they need to be providing some kind of revenue source to the municipalities to be able to keep up with that.

Again, I’m sure this is a problem all throughout the province. This is a province where infrastructure is certainly aging throughout. But it’s not fair to expect yet another thing to be downloaded onto the municipalities to have to cover. It’s just not right. It’s not fair.

Yes, we have to deal with this housing crisis. Yes, we have to deal with the densification. Like I said, I think that the North is a great place to live, and I would love to see more people move up there. We certainly have enough land to be able to build the houses, but we need the support when it comes to the infrastructure piece. It’s not going to be sustainable. We can’t do this on our own.

We also need to make it an environment where the contractors that are going to build these homes are actually going to want to make those investments. I can’t tell you how many times in the four years that I was on city council we had different groups come forward with proposals for different housing projects, and they could never make it to that final stage because it just didn’t make financial sense.

That should be what we’re focusing on, rather than mandating more densification. Make sure that people want to build houses in this province. Make it easier to build houses in this province. That would be a more effective way of being able to cut through some of that red tape and bureaucracy to ensure that we can actually handle this housing crisis that we’re facing. And, like I said, looking at places like the North and ensuring that that investment is made there, where we have the land to be able to expand.

Kitimat was a planned community. I mean that in the sense that it was, I believe, one of the first, if not the first, in this province to actually be planned, originally because Rio Tinto was coming up there — or Alcan, as it was at the time — for the smelter. They had a world-renowned planner come in and plan the community.

Planning communities is incredibly important. This is what allows the city planners to be able to figure out where to expand, to be able to plan for future growth. Overriding that does not help a community out.

In the community of Kitimat, we actually have…. There was mention of duplexes and fourplexes and things. We have an inordinate amount of them because this community was built for the purpose of having the smelter site there. I can tell you that there are a lot of fourplexes in Kitimat, and a lot of people don’t like living in them. It’s just the reality. A lot of people don’t like living in them.

We’ve also had a number of house fires that, unfortunately, have then affected multiple units at a time. There are risks associated with this kind of densification, as well, that need to be taken into account.

But a lot of people don’t want to live in them. They want to live in a single-family home, because that’s a huge part of the reason why a lot of people move up north. They want to have some property. They want to have a bit of space.

Leave this up to the municipalities. Allow the municipalities to make that decision. But give them the tools, give them the support that they need to be able to expand their infrastructure, renovate and update their infrastructure, make sure that it is a more suitable environment for contractors to want to build homes in this province.

It’s not that difficult to do. There just has to be a political will to do it. This is not an investable province right now. This is not a province where people want to invest their money. We need to work together to make sure that we change that so that we can get a handle on this crisis, because it’s only going to get worse.

I really hope that some of my comments have resonated with the members opposite that heard my speech today. I look forward to getting this into committee phase eventually and being able to discuss this legislation a little bit more thoroughly.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this today. I’m guessing, because of the time, we’re about done here.

Deputy Speaker: You’ve got 24 seconds, so if you want to wrap it up….

Claire Rattée: Noting the hour, I reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate.

Claire Rattée moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 31 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House is adjourned. We’ll reopen at 1:30 today.

The House adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

On clause 1 (continued).

David Williams: Thank you and good morning. Good morning to the minister.

My question to the minister has to do with governance and ratepayer impact. Has the ministry assessed the long-term implication of widespread joint ownership of the transmission assets on B.C. Hydro’s operational control, cost recovery, revenue structure and the overall system planning responsibilities when it comes to the joint ownership?

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, I just want to introduce to members of the committee the team around me. To my left is Peter Pokorny, the Deputy Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Directly behind me is Chris Gilmore, the ADM for electricity and utility regulation. Over my right shoulder is Zack Merilovich, the director of policy. And to my left is Suzanne Manahan, who is the executive project lead for NCTL. That’s who is with us this morning.

I appreciate their work.

With respect to this question, which we’ve canvassed yesterday and on the Thursday previous, I’d say that, as the member knows, the joint venture partners will own shares, equal shares, B.C. Hydro and First Nations, in the project and that B.C. Hydro will be solely responsible for operating the project. That continues to be the case and would be the case in a system that we have, which is a system around the province that is essential in ensuring that people get access to the electricity they need.

[11:20 a.m.]

So that’s the structure. The structure is that on the operation side of the transmission line, B.C. Hydro would operate the line as it does all the other many lines in B.C.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Moving on to procurement and the infrastructure itself, Bill 31 creates a new framework for ownership, asset transfers and partnership agreements for the North Coast transmission line. What it does not clearly set out is how this project will meet the province’s obligation to support Canadian manufacturing, protect ratepayers from long-term operating losses and ensure the use of the most efficient transmission technologies available.

My question is: can the minister confirm whether the agreement that cabinet may delegate under Bill 31 will contain explicit requirements for buy-Canadian procurement in the use of high-efficiency, low-cost transmission components, such as advanced conductor technologies and modern HVDC systems or next-generation insulated cables, so that the North Coast transmission line delivers the maximum efficiency for the taxpayer?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member will know that B.C. Hydro is a leader in buying Canadian and buying British Columbia and that the direction by the Premier in the month of March to all Crown corporations further reinforces this. This is a mandate, in general, for B.C. Hydro.

With respect to the building of the transmission line, of course it’s not the subject of this legislation. This allows for a joint venture partnership in the ownership of the North Coast transmission line. That’s the purpose of this section. But he can be assured that B.C. Hydro, which has generations of experience in building transmission lines, will build the best possible project.

The need here is to serve the economic and social interests of the northwest of the province, just as other transmission lines that B.C. Hydro has built have done the same for Metro Vancouver and other areas. So B.C. Hydro will continue, as it builds projects, to use the highest standards, as it consistently has. This is obviously an important transmission line, but all of our transmission lines are important.

Just recently, and the member will note this, in the Site C review, B.C. Hydro built a significant transmission network around that new dam. They did it ahead of time and did it with great efficiency, and I would expect the same thing on the North Coast transmission line.

Again, we’d be happy at any time…. The member knows this because he has visited B.C. Hydro, and he has had access to briefings that I don’t recall as an opposition critic in previous times. It’s because we’re open on these processes, and I’d always be open to the member having access to B.C. Hydro and getting briefed on important issues, even those that are not the subject of this legislation.

David Williams: My question to the minister: more specifically, does the government intend to include Canadian procurement requirements for the steel for the towers, the conductors, the insulators, the cable systems and the converter infrastructure with each phase of the North Coast transmission line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: All Crown corporations are under an obligation to procure Canadian wherever possible. The member will understand that in some circumstances that may not be possible, and that procurement would take place outside. But B.C. Hydro has an outstanding record, and I’d be happy to brief the member or have the member briefed on that record in terms of procurement of Canadian content in all its projects.

It’s a remarkable fact. At Site C, where there was a significant amount of steel used, that steel was Canadian, and that’s because B.C. Hydro has always taken these seriously but even more seriously in the wake of the attacks from the American administration on Canadian sovereignty and on British Columbia workers.

Happy to brief him on that. Of course, it’s not the subject of the current legislation or clause involved.

[11:25 a.m.]

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Will the minister require B.C. Hydro or any limited partnership created under this act to evaluate the use of high-efficiency transmission technology, for instance, low-loss aluminum conductor composites or other high-performance HVDC systems or other technologies that are used currently internationally to reduce power line losses and lifetime operating costs? Right now in Europe, there’s new transmission line wiring that has less leakage and has greater lifespan as well as more efficiency, so you get more bang for your buck.

Is that what’s going to be implemented in this transmission line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to say that the member will know the specifics of the construction of the transmission line, of course, are not the subject of this legislation. He’ll know that B.C. Hydro…. There are North American standards for transmission line which B.C. Hydro will meet and, as it consistently does, exceed.

David Williams: Will the minister commit to publishing an engineering and cost-benefit analysis comparing standard transmission components with higher-efficiency alternatives so that this Legislature can determine whether the lowest capital bid is truly the lowest long-term cost for the hydro ratepayers?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It might be possible if B.C. Hydro — which has built a network of transmission lines across this province, has done an outstanding job over time; that delivers some of, perhaps, the best service in North America at some of the lowest rates in North America, has expertise in construction of transmission lines…. They meet or exceed North American standards.

If the member wishes a briefing, in future, on the use and the materials used in transmission lines, I suggest that that may not be a subject for a legislative debate, but we’d be happy to provide it.

David Williams: Just to clarify, will B.C. Hydro be publishing what components are going to be in the transmission, like what lines they’re going to be using or what capacitors they’re going to be using or other components, so that the ratepayers could actually determine the efficiency comparison between old technology and new technology?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will know that in procurement processes, B.C. Hydro seeks the best technology. The question of course, which has nothing to do with the section in front of us…. It is just a fact that we’ve been broadly trying to respond to questions, but if the member wants more information on those procurement processes, he can have it.

All I can say is that B.C. Hydro has substantial expertise, continuing expertise, continually evolving expertise in this area. I’ve already suggested to him that should he wish information from B.C. Hydro, unlike previous governments, we’re open…. We try and be as open as possible with opposition MLAs because of my respect for the role of opposition MLAs and all MLAs in this House.

David Williams: I thank the minister for the opportunity to get additional information.

Finally, under the “despite any other enactment” in the bill override clause, can the cabinet designate an agreement that omits buy-Canadian requirements or efficiency standards, and if so, how does the minister justify leaving that discretion unbounded, given the lifetime financial impact on the taxpayers?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, buy-Canadian provisions are not the subject of the legislation. They’re the subject of direction. B.C. Hydro leads Canada in its policies for buy-Canadian. I’d be happy to have that debate in a time that is relevant, but I would say that that is the case.

[11:30 a.m.]

There would be no need, in a section that is the discussion of partnerships with First Nations and allows for those partnerships with First Nations, to be dealing with issues around material. We have policies in place that direct to buy Canadian, and those policies are enforced. B.C. Hydro, in its procurement practice and others, is justifiably proud of its record in that regard.

David Williams: This is coming from a colleague here. Is there going to be a transmission tax, now or in the future, on going through that line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

David Williams: At this time, I’d like to present an amendment.

[Clause 1, in proposed section 12.1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

North Coast transmission line ownership agreements

12.1 (1) In this section:

“First Nation” includes a person authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

“North Coast co-owned facility” means the part of the phase 1 project, the phase 2 project or the phase 3 project that, under an agreement designated under subsection (2), is owned by a North Coast limited partnership;

“North Coast limited partnership” means a limited partnership that, under an agreement designated under subsection (2), owns a part of one of the following, as specified in the agreement:

(a) the phase 1 project;

(b) the phase 2 project;

“phase 1 project” means the part of the North Coast transmission line project consisting of new 500 kilovolt electric transmission lines, and related facilities, from around Prince George to around Fraser Lake;

“phase 2 project” means the part of the North Coast transmission line project consisting of new 500 kilovolt electric transmission lines, and related facilities, from around Fraser Lake to around Terrace;

“phase 3 project” means the part of the North Coast transmission line project consisting of new 500 kilovolt electric transmission lines, and related facilities, from around Terrace to around Bob Quinn Lake.

(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, designate an agreement entered into, or to be entered into, by the authority that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers relates to any of the following matters:

(a) 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;

(b) the construction, operation, control, use, management, maintenance, safeguarding, repair or upgrade of a North Coast co-owned facility;

(c) the transfer or assignment to a North Coast limited partnership of an asset or a right of the authority used or exercised in connection with the ownership, construction, operation, control, use, management, maintenance, safeguarding, repair or upgrade of a North Coast co-owned facility;

(d) the provision of services by the authority to a North Coast limited partnership;

(e) payments by the authority to a North Coast limited partnership in relation to the authority’s use of a North Coast co-owned facility.

(3) Despite the common law and the provisions of this or any other enactment, if an agreement is designated under subsection (2),

(a) the authority is deemed to have, and to have always had, the power and capacity to enter into the agreement,

(b) the agreement and all actions of the authority taken in accordance with the provisions of the agreement are authorized, valid and deemed to be within the authority’s purposes,

(c) without limiting paragraph (b), if a provision of the agreement constitutes or effects a delegation of a power or duty of the authority, that delegation is authorized and valid,

(d) the authority is deemed to have, and to have always had, the power and capacity to carry out all of the obligations imposed under, to exercise all of the rights, powers and privileges granted by, and to otherwise give effect to, the agreement according to its terms,

(e) without limiting paragraph (d), in carrying out an obligation imposed under, in exercising a right, power or privilege granted by, or in otherwise giving effect to, the agreement, the authority may exercise all the powers and has all the immunities granted to it under this Act, and

(f) the agreement is binding on and enforceable by the authority according to the agreement’s terms.

(4) A North Coast co-owned facility must be wholly constructed with Canadian procured material except where prescribed under subsection (2) (b).]

The Chair: Okay. We’ll take a five-minute recess and come back.

The committee recessed from 11:31 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

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

Copies are being distributed as we speak.

I would like to recognize the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap to make some comments about the proposed amendment before a ruling is made.

David Williams: As you can see before you, the amendment is basically about procurement, making sure that we support our local economy and our Canadian economy, that we should always be doing procurement from a Canadian-first aspect.

I think in these difficult times, and in light of everything else that has happened in most recent times, it’s even more important that we support Canadian.

This transmission is a big investment. It’s a very big investment for this province. It’s obviously a big investment for the country now that it has been recognized. I think it is of the utmost importance that we show that we are truly a Canadian project and that we’re going to do everything we can to support Canadian business and Canadian industry in every way when it comes to this project, like I said.

The second component of this is that we must make sure that we actually have a strong local economy. Any kind of procurement we can do close to home or manufacturing that we can do within the province or buy within the province, I think we should strongly support.

With that, I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Member.

Having reviewed the amendment, I’ve determined that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill and deemed out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: That being said, shall clause 1 pass?

There has been a division called.

[11:45 a.m. - 11:50 a.m.]

Would everybody be okay if we waived the time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Wow, great. Okay.

Just putting the question to all members, and just a reminder that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is on clause 1.

Clause 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Routledge	Sandhu	Begg
Dix	Yung	Valeriote
NAYS — 3
Kooner	Mok	Williams

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

Contents