Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Sheila Malcolmson.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Today is Administrative Professionals Day. The Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals is powered by our amazing teams of administrative staff who support the work that we do. Today it was a pleasure to invite our ministry’s DMO administrative staff to the Legislature for lunch in the dining room and to watch question period here in the chamber.

[1:35 p.m.]

Please join me in welcoming Magdalena Golacka, Leigh-Anne Gajowski, Ashley Giasson, Tamara Crosby, Staci Krausse, Melanie Mitchell, Rue Pope, Chris Munkacsi, Julie Hutchins, Jane Mayall and Maryann Sloan.

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

Rob Botterell: I’m pleased to welcome two guests from the Vancouver Island South Film and Media Commission, a non-profit economic development office that attracts global film projects to the south Island. In the gallery today are Annie Wong-Harrison, the president of the board of directors and a resident of North Saanich; and Tara-Lee Novak, the film commissioner for southern Vancouver Island.

A few months ago, Annie and Tara-Lee took me on a set tour of a production being filmed in my riding of Saanich North and the Islands, and I got to see firsthand how the film sector generates an annual regional spend of approximately $60 million.

In other really exciting news, the south Island has been recognized as an emerging location at the Global Production Awards, along with Texas, Spain and Slovakia. The winner will be announced in Cannes, France, during the prestigious Cannes Film Festival. Tara-Lee and Annie will represent south Vancouver Island at that event.

Please join me in wishing them the best of luck.

Kiel Giddens: I know that they’ve been in the House already this week and have been introduced, but the intergovernmental affairs committee from the city of Prince George is here again today.

I want to sincerely thank every member of this House who has met with them this week. They’re doing important advocacy for the North. I hope that some folks have come away with some more city of Prince George, Mr. PG socks. Really, I thank them for their time here this week.

I also want to thank Coun. Cori Ramsay. Last night UBCM held a reception. We’ve been meeting with UBCM representatives. I know that Councillor Ramsay is not in the room, but she’s making the city of Prince George, also, very proud as the president of UBCM this year.

Will the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I know that for all of us in this House, Creative Industries Week is one of our very favourite weeks of the year. I’d like to take a moment to introduce and welcome members who are here from the Council of Film Unions, the Union of British Columbia Performers and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. It was a pleasure to join them last night at a wonderful reception at the Provincial Museum.

I just want to take a moment to note that these unions and their members represent thousands of skilled workers who, literally, power B.C.’s film and entertainment industry. They tell our stories both from behind the camera and in front of the camera. With more than 20,000 members across these groups, their contribution to our province’s economy is enormous.

In the gallery, I am pleased to welcome members of IATSE 891, including the president, Amanda Bronswyk; business representative, Crystal Braunwarth; and sergeant-at-arms, Michael Billings.

From UBCP, I’m pleased to welcome Keith Martin Gordey, president of UBCP and ACTRA national vice-president; along with Aliza Vellani, Henry Williams, Arielle Reid, Lesley Brady and Phil Klapwyk.

Finally, from the B.C. Council of Film Unions, we’re honoured to be joined by Nicole Luther, the executive director.

Thank you so much for being here today.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Claire Rattée: I’m really grateful and really blessed to have a lot of amazing women in my life, but today I have two of the most important in the gallery — my mom, Marjory, and my best friend, Chelsea. My mom asked a very simple thing of me. She asked me to say something smart today, so I hope that I do while she’s watching.

I would just hope that the House would please make them feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ve got a couple of introductions, both on either end of the House.

First, a couple of constituents from Langford. We’ve got Melissa Ellis, who many will know in the building as one of our fantastic political staffers, an Energizer Bunny keeping us all excited in the hallways.

Her son Grayson is in the House, I think for the first time, in question period. Now, Grayson is a 15-year-old Royal Bay student who loves baseball, and I think he loves politics too.

Will the House please join me in making Melissa and Grayson feel very welcome.

Then, way on the other side of the House, I’ve got my constituency advisers in the House. We’ve got Logan Nemet, Sawyer Pugh and Mack Stanbridge. They keep me organized. They are beloved by the people of Langford-Highlands, because they fix problems every single day.

Would the House please join me in making my incredible constituency office team welcome here as well.

Lynne Block: I do want to add on to the Creative Industries Week some brilliant people who really enhance British Columbia to the world.

Specifically, I want to really highlight Screen B.C. I had a tour about a month ago of all these different places in B.C. that were filming some very well-known series, including Tracker, which is one of my favourites.

I just want to make sure that they feel very, very welcome today.

Dana Lajeunesse: Today I want to introduce a school group to the House. Above the Speaker are Dan Walkem, Casey Clinton, Maureen Froud and Laura Stevenson. These are members of my graduating class from 1981. Over lunch today, I made them promise that if I could get them a nice, warm House welcome, they wouldn’t share too many secrets with anyone here.

Amelia Boultbee: I am very excited to welcome two of my friends and constituents here to the House today, Paul Crawford and Julie Fowler, who are both big proponents of the arts.

Paul Crawford was the director of the Penticton Art Gallery for over 20 years, and Julie also runs Ignite the Arts and is the executive director of the B.C. Music Festival. They are both here today to also celebrate Creative Industries Week, and I want to thank them both for everything they do for the arts in our community.

Would the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Sunita Dhir: Today in the gallery I have a very special guest — a proud husband, a very proud dad and an even prouder longshoreman and union worker — my darling husband, Navdeep.

I want to take a moment to thank him for his support. It’s not easy being married to this job, and I could not do it without you.

May the House please make him feel welcome.

Rosalyn Bird: This person does not need an introduction for those of us that work in this House, but for those in the gallery, I would like to introduce you to the Clerk of the Legislature, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, who just completed her fourth Boston Marathon in person, with a time of 3 hours, 54 minutes, 52 seconds.

I would just like to thank her for her incredible dedication and commitment, not only to how this House runs and the support she gives the staff here but for showing that to the community and the province. She does that for everything that she puts her mind to.

Hon. Anne Kang: It is Creative Industries Week in the Legislature this week, and I would like to welcome a group of guests to the House who represent the strength and leadership of B.C.’s creative and screen sector. Joining us are Leslie Wootton, executive director of Screen B.C., and Liz Shorten, chief operating officer of the Canadian Media Producers Association.

[1:45 p.m.]

Screen B.C. serves as a strong voice for the motion picture industry, bringing together partners across the sector to support growth, workforce development and collaboration. The Canadian Media Producers Association represents independent producers across the country, advocating for a strong production environment and helping to bring Canadian stories to audiences at home and around the world.

I’m also pleased to welcome Michelle van Beusekom, president and CEO of the Knowledge Network. Knowledge Network plays a unique and important role as B.C.’s public educator-broadcaster, supporting and commissioning high-quality, commercial-free programming, investing in B.C. creators and sharing stories that reflect the diversity, history and culture of our province. Through its work, it helps ensure that local voices and perspectives are accessible to audiences across British Columbia.

We also welcome producers Tyler Hagan and Trish Dolman, whose work continues to showcase the creativity and talent of B.C.

Together, these leaders and creators are helping to build a strong, innovative and globally recognized screen sector in our province.

Please help me welcome all these folks to the B.C. Legislature.

Harman Bhangu: Today we have Monica Anchan’s grade 5 class from St. Catherine’s Elementary in Brookswood. There are 30 students and ten adults here.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to also welcome the Vancouver Island South Film and Media Commission and speak to the impact they have across our region — over $60 million annually of spending, 4,300 jobs, 167 productions. Their role, championing not just the south Island but all of British Columbia’s film industry, has been what brought that Cannes nomination, and their trip over to Cannes is part of our trade profile as a province.

I want to really thank them for the work they do. Also, they shared with me that the digital tax credit that our government introduced has been key in the international competitiveness needed for them for the Cannes nomination and the work they do.

Thank you.

Make them feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew: I rise today to acknowledge the birthday of former Kelowna-Mission MLA Steve Thomson, one of my predecessors and someone I have long admired for his humble leadership and steady service.

Steve brought to public life the same teamwork and discipline that earned him the nickname the Blue Ox in his rugby career, including time with Canada’s national team.

He also served with distinction as minister of agriculture, energy and forests and continues to give back, including through his work helping lead Kelowna’s Memorial Cup effort.

Happy birthday, Steve.

The Speaker: Member for Peace River North.

Jordan Kealy: I thought you were going to save the best for last.

I would like to introduce my friend and fierce advocate for Tumbler Ridge, Darryl Krakowka. He’s in the House today. He has been here for a couple of days, as well as members from the Peace River regional district. They’ve been here for a couple of days.

I also want to thank the Minister of Transportation for fitting in an impromptu meeting for a landslide that just happened in my community and that isolated some families. It’s not an easy situation, so I just wanted to give a shout-out to everybody. I wish you luck in the rest of your meetings.

Steve Morissette: I rise today to welcome three guests to the House who play a critical role in supporting safety across British Columbia’s film and television industry.

Joining us today are Tamara Tulloch, industry health and safety specialist for Vancouver Island; Daniel Farley, director of industrial health and safety; and Trina Pollard, CEO of Actsafe Safety Association.

Through their work, they help ensure that thousands of workers in the motion picture and performing arts industries can do their jobs safely each and every day. Their leadership, expertise and commitment to health and safety are essential to the continued success of this important sector.

Please join me in warmly welcoming them to the Legislative Assembly.

[1:50 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: I’d like to introduce Paulina Chow-White. She’s not in the chamber. She’s somewhere in the precinct, probably having meetings all afternoon.

She’s the CEO of the Terry Fox Humanitarian Award Program. We had an inspiring discussion with our caucus about passing on Terry Fox’s legacy to the youth across Canada through their awards program.

Let’s make them feel welcome.

Statements

Earth Day

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As my colleague said, we’re sending lots of love and light and prayers to our colleague Amshen, the MLA for Vancouver-Strathcona.

Also, today is Earth Day. As Minister of Environment, I take this very seriously. I hope that we will all reflect on what we are doing to uphold the strong environmental protection that we have here in British Columbia and that we all take the time to figure out what more we can be doing to help save our earth.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare: I would just like to remind the members of the House, and I thank you for the reminder that I received today from one of the members on the other side, that it’s Administrative Professionals Day. Thank your managers, your CAs, your LAs — all of those people who make all of us look so great.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to welcome a group of distinguished guests to the House who are leaders across British Columbia’s screen, creative and digital media sectors.

Joining us today are Amy Lang, president of North Shore Studios; Dr. Ted Gervan, managing director of academic and business operations at the Centre for Digital Media; and Mary Lim, director of programs and innovation.

We are also pleased to welcome Dominique Roy, manager at Screen B.C.; Gladys Tong, founder of G Creative Productions and a Screen B.C. board member; and Sonia Bhatia, director of diversity, inclusion, recruitment and engagement at Sony Pictures Imageworks.

These individuals are helping to grow and strengthen one of British Columbia’s most dynamic industries — supporting innovation, talent development and inclusive opportunities across film, television and digital media.

Please join me in warmly welcoming them to the Legislative Assembly.

Paul Choi: I rise today to welcome several guests to the House who are helping drive B.C.’s success as a global centre for film and television production. Joining us are Spencer Kent, VP of finance at Industrial Light and Magic; Kendrie Upton, executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada, B.C.; along with Amy Barager and Heather Hawthorn Doyle, board members of the Directors Guild of Canada, B.C. District Council. We’re also pleased to welcome Raila Gutman, who is senior director of B.C. and national member development with CMPA-BC.

Their work supports a thriving industry that creates jobs, develops talents and brings B.C.’s creative expertise to audiences around the world.

Please join me warmly in welcoming them to the Legislative Assembly.

Statements

Accomplishments of
Musician Raymond Salgado

George Anderson: I rise today to recognize an extraordinary constituent, Raymond Salgado, whose voice is carrying the spirit of our province onto the world stage.

Raymond was born and raised in Lantzville. He started singing at the age of 11. Since that time, his incredible talent and amazing voice have taken him pretty far: singing for the Canucks at Rogers Arena; becoming a finalist in season 2, Canada’s Got Talent; and more recently to Cannes, France, where he participated in an epic flash mob that has been viewed over 80 million times on TikTok alone.

If you haven’t seen it, I’ve shared it on my TikTok. Raymond sang a sweeping rendition of Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida,” alongside a choir, violins and flash mob creator Julien Cohen at the grand piano.

Raymond is amassing a global fan base and is set to release an EP of original songs in summer 2026, proving again that world-class talent grows right here in British Columbia.

I hope that the entire House will join me in congratulating Raymond Salgado.

[1:55 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My apologies. I’ve just been made aware that a good friend and colleague of mine, and that of members of this side of the House, Jen Ford, who’s the board chair of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district as well as a councillor with the municipality of Whistler and former UBCM president, is somewhere in the House. I believe she was just entering security.

Will the House please join me in making her feel very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples Repeal Act

Trevor Halford presented a bill intituled Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Repeal Act.

Trevor Halford: I move a bill intituled Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Repeal Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order of paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I rise to introduce a bill to repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, because when this bill was passed in 2019, British Columbians were given a series of promises. We were told it would not cast doubt on private property. It has. We were told it would not create a veto over development. It has. We were told it would never be used to strike down laws passed by this House. It most definitely has, including the Mineral Tenure Act, throwing an entire sector into chaos and putting thousands of jobs at risk.

We haven’t entered into reconciliation. We’ve entered into co-governance now, and the Premier knows that. It’s not my word. It’s his. The Premier has said that this presents significant legal risk. He said: “It must be fixed as quickly as possible.” He called the amendments that he was going to put forward “urgent.” He called them “non-negotiable.” He told this province that 20 court cases have already been amended to cite the Gitxaała decision and that every one of those cases puts other B.C. laws at risk. Those are his words, not mine.

They have been telling British Columbians that they have frustrations, that he would act decisively. He has changed his position again and again — amend it, suspend it, delay it. More uncertainty.

The solution is simple. We need to protect the legal liability that this Premier and this Attorney General have clearly outlined, and I believe that this bill will do that.

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

Division has been called.

Madam Clerk will connect with members participating remotely. Please make sure your audio and your mics are on.

[2:00 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	Wilson	McInnis
Paton	Day	Bhangu
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Dhaliwal	McCall	Maahs
Block	Stamer	Gasper
Mok	Davis	Chan
Boultbee	Sturko	Brodie
Armstrong	Kealy	Williams
Chapman	Bird	Doerkson
Luck		Tepper
NAYS — 47
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Kahlon
Chandra Herbert	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Gibson	Glumac	Shah
G. Anderson	Chow	Morissette
Valeriote		Botterell

Members’ Statements

Earth Day and Celebration AT
Everett Crowley Park

George Chow: Today marks the 56th anniversary of Earth Day, which is especially significant because the Artemis moon mission just returned to Earth 12 days ago and reminded us once again that the Earth is not flat and that there is only one Earth.

Having one Earth is becoming quite a challenge. If everyone in the world lived like Vancouver, we’d need three Earths. Since we only have one Earth, and until we get to Mars, we need to love Earth and cherish it.

So let’s celebrate Earth Day in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview at Everett Crowley Park this coming Saturday, April 25. Vancouver’s longest-standing annual Earth Day celebration, Earthfest, is organized by the Everett Crowley Park Committee within the Champlain Heights Community Association in my constituency. It is a local group of volunteer environmental stewards who have tended to Everett Crowley Park since 1985.

I’d like to give recognition to this group of passionate residents who advocate for and implement the Champlain Heights community vision for Everett Crowley Park as an urban wilderness. They work closely with the three host First Nations, the Vancouver park board, local residents and NGOs to ensure that their work is inclusive and collaborative and that it leads to a cohesive community with a lasting connection to the park and the land.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of the committee, Everett Crowley Park has come a long way from being a former city garbage dump to a beloved space for many in the Vancouver-Fraserview community. There’s lush greenery, a duck pond, many varieties of wildlife and even off-leash dog trails. There is something to enjoy for everyone.

I invite all of you to join me at the annual Earthfest taking place in Everett Crowley Park this Saturday, April 25, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Dao Tran and Community Contributions

Bruce Banman: I rise today to recognize an individual whose story reflects the very best of what it means to call British Columbia home, Dao Tran.

Dao Tran came to Canada as a Vietnam refugee in the mid-’80s. Before arriving in Abbotsford, he spent years in a refugee camp in Hong Kong, uncertain of what the future would hold. Like so many who come to this country seeking safety and opportunity, he arrived with little more than hope, dreams and determination. What he built from that beginning is nothing short of remarkable.

[2:15 p.m.]

For more than 40 years, Dao has been a steady and familiar presence in the Abbotsford cycling community. Through his work at Abby Bike Shop, he has not only run a successful small business, but he created a place where relationships are fostered, where families are served and where community truly comes first.

What stands out most is not just what he has built but how he has given back. In addition to the countless donations over the years, this year Dao made a significant contribution to the Abbotsford Regional Hospital by funding an ECG heart-monitoring machine, helping ensure patients have access to timely and accurate cardiac care. He has also volunteered his time through the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation and supported hospital initiatives directly, giving back in both visible and in quiet ways.

Dao is a fiercely proud Canadian. He has never forgotten the community that welcomed him, and in return, he has spent a lifetime strengthening it.

Dao Tran’s story is one of resilience, gratitude and service. It is a reminder that the strength of our communities is built not only through hard work but through kindness and a commitment to giving back.

On behalf of this House, I will ask all members to join me in recognizing Dao Tran for his extraordinary contributions to Abbotsford, British Columbia, and Canada.

Thank you, Dao Tran.

Religious Diversity

Steve Morissette: I rise today to celebrate the rich and beautiful diversity of religions in British Columbia. March and April are especially meaningful months across many faiths. I have been making an effort to learn more about these faiths and their celebrations to better understand the cultures and traditions that shape the lives of so many British Columbians.

April is Sikh Heritage Month, and during this time, Sikh communities celebrate Vaisakhi, one of the most significant dates in the Sikh calendar.

A short time ago, Christians across the province gathered to celebrate Easter, a time of reflection and renewal.

In the Jewish faith, Passover is observed, a commemoration of the Exodus and a powerful story of resilience and freedom.

In Hindu communities, Holi has recently been celebrated, a vibrant festival of colour, joy and the triumph of good over evil.

And for Muslims, Eid is marked with joyful, multi-day celebrations of prayer, charity and feasting following Ramadan.

Many First Nations hold a spiritual responsibility to the land and sea and believe that we humans are part of a circle of life where all animals, plants and elements possess a spirit and share equal value.

I know there are many more beliefs. British Columbia is home to a remarkable diversity of faiths and beliefs that add colour, depth and strength to the cultural mosaic we all share. We are a province that supports, respects and celebrates this diversity.

Whatever you celebrate, whatever you believe, you’re not wrong. It is right for you. That freedom, that respect is something we must always protect.

The Speaker: Members, before we continue for the next statement, the Chair has observed and has been also advised by other members that some members are wearing unauthorized pins today. So please make sure you take off those pins if you are wearing that today.

Agricultural Technologies in
Chilliwack and Link to Netherlands

Heather Maahs: What do the Netherlands and Chilliwack have in common? Of course, beautiful fields of tulips but also nurseries, greenhouses, farms and canals or sloughs. Chilliwack boasts approximately 40 greenhouses.

[2:20 p.m.]

Did you know that the Netherlands is the world’s second-largest agriculture exporter, despite the limited land available to them? Their advanced farming technologies and knowledge utilize the least amount of space, incorporating such innovations as vertical cultivation to yield these fantastic results. Using automation and beneficial insects, they have revolutionized the way we grow food.

This past weekend I attended the opening of a brand-new nursery in Chilliwack called The Flowerhouse. Pete DeVrij took the land in the ALR that was unusable for crop production and built a huge greenhouse, thus making the best use of land and yielding a spectacular array of beautiful flowers.

Chilliwack boasts many greenhouses and nurseries, almost exclusively run by the hard-working Dutch community, bringing with them their knowledge, technology and expertise in growing. Many are now proudly using self-serving refrigerators that come directly from the Netherlands and that the community can utilize to purchase eggs, flowers, dairy, hazelnuts — you name it.

Of course, we value all diverse contributions from all folks from all countries, but on this day, I want to recognize the contribution of the good, hard-working people who live in Chilliwack, whose Dutch heritage helped make Chilliwack the beautiful and productive agricultural hub it is today, and say thank you to them.

Environmental Activists in
Vancouver-Kensington Area

Mable Elmore: Today on Earth Day, in a world buffeted by climate change and biodiversity loss, the activism by environmental advocates has never been more important. Activists play a vital role in driving change to protect our planet and promote sustainable alternatives.

Vancouver-Kensington is home to three change-makers who are committed to green initiatives and environmental justice. They are Donelda Rose, Jeanie Morton and Ben Ernst.

On a side note, Ben Ernst is the co-founder of Earnest Ice Cream, a chainlet of artisan ice cream that is widely known for its unique flavours and its commitment to sustainable operations, charitable work and sourcing local and fair trade ingredients. Ben and a friend started Earnest Ice Cream on Fraser Street, not far from my Vancouver-Kensington community office, and now have two other branches in Vancouver and one in North Vancouver. I encourage you to try their scoops and pints.

Also, Ben and Donelda live in Vancouver’s first co-housing project, an intentional community where sustainability and caring for the environment are among its shared passions.

Ben, Donelda and Jeanie visited me recently to talk about how British Columbia can meaningfully live up to its commitments to climate action. They brought with them a report by the B.C. climate emergency campaign, a group of nearly 650 diverse agricultural, arts, business, community, environment, faith, health, housing, Indigenous, labour, government, outdoor recreation, research, senior tourism and youth organizations across the province.

As the report notes: “We need to build for the future, not the past. Investing in climate action reduces energy and transportation costs, creates jobs, builds healthier communities and improves energy security.”

We need more everyday heroes for the environment — like Donelda Rose, Jeanie Morton and Ben Ernst. We also need to encourage and empower the youth to take up advocacy for the environment.

I close with a quote from Xiye Bastida, a 21-year-old Indigenous climate justice activist from Mexico: “We are on earth to take care of life. We are on earth to take care of each other.”

Rio Tinto Aluminum
Operations in Kitimat

Claire Rattée: I want to take some time today to recognize an incredibly important milestone for my community.

Last Wednesday was the unveiling of Rio Tinto’s new alumina conveyor at B.C. Works, replacing infrastructure that was originally built more than 70 years ago when the Kitimat smelter first came into operation. That original conveyor helped build the community that so many of us are proud to call home. Now, with a $138 million investment, Rio Tinto is ensuring that legacy continues for decades to come.

I had the opportunity to tour this project with a number of my colleagues in its final stages last September. What stood out to me was not only the scale of the work but the confidence that it reflects in Kitimat’s future.

Rio Tinto has been foundational to what makes Kitimat what it is today. That impact extends far beyond the smelter itself. It is seen in good-paying, family-sustaining jobs across the region. It is seen in their significant contributions to organizations like the Terrace and area hospice society or the Kitimat Hospital Foundation. It is seen in a long-standing commitment to community that has never wavered.

Generations of families have lived in the Kitimat and Terrace region and worked entire careers at the Rio Tinto smelter and the Kemano dam. This legacy is what has built the foundation of Kitimat and continues to do so to this day.

[2:25 p.m.]

What makes this investment even more meaningful is the context in which it is being made. In the face of global pressures, like rising aluminum tariffs, and environmental challenges, such as drought, Rio Tinto has continued to invest, adapt and move forward. That kind of resilience and long-term commitment matters, especially in northern and rural communities like mine.

This project is about more than infrastructure. It is about continuity, confidence and ensuring that the next generation can continue to build their lives in Skeena, just as so many have before them.

Today I want to recognize Rio Tinto, the workers who made this project possible and the community that continues to support it. Skeena was built on projects like these, and thanks to investments like this one, its future remains strong.

Oral Questions

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Trevor Halford: More than 20 claims against the province have already been amended in light of the Gitxaała decision.

British Columbians, homeowners, small business owners, municipalities and industries are left in the dark regarding these cases and this government’s supposed plan. Now the Premier himself has stated that there are over 20 cases right now before the courts that could have significant ramifications based on the legislation that this Premier passed in this House.

To the Attorney General, can she table or will she table today a complete list of the 20 court cases the Premier referenced?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s precisely why we are moving with First Nations and other stakeholders to solve this problem through addressing it at the tables that we’re bringing together right now, because of the identified risks that the Premier has articulated and so have I.

I have legal teams that are actively assessing and making sure that we respond to all claims, and we will be seeking appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify the law.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: I think I asked a very simple question. That could’ve been a very simple answer.

It was the Premier himself that said that they had to act in a very urgent way. It was him himself who said that there are 20 cases right now before the courts that required immediate attention in terms of legislation, in their words, to amend DRIPA. Twenty court cases.

The first question is: can the Attorney General produce a list of those court cases today?

The second question is: when the Premier says that the idea to postpone the amendments to DRIPA, in his words, were based on the direction of the Attorney General to delay and put British Columbians at further legal risk, can the Attorney confirm that was her advice to the Premier — that we delay this legislation this spring and, in fact, maybe we’ll see something in six months? Was that at her direction, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This side of the House is really focused on bringing people together to solve very challenging problems. We take a very different approach to the people across the aisle, who would spread misinformation, create division…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …create ridiculous conversations that are not based in reality about this topic.

We are facing a challenge that we are going to bring people together to solve and create a durable solution for this province and for all people of this province. We’ll continue to do that work.

The Speaker: Member, second supplementary.

Trevor Halford: Okay, let me try this again. I’ve asked two very clear questions of the Attorney General, and I get that they may be a bit awkward, but they need to be answered for the public record.

Question 1. The Premier has said there are 20 court cases right now, and that was his reason for the urgency in putting forward amendments to DRIPA. What are those 20 court cases?

The other question that was clearly asked is…. The Premier said to the media 48 hours ago that it was the Attorney General that tapped him on the shoulder and said: “There’s another way. In fact, let’s not do the amendments. Let’s put it off.” Even though, in the Premier’s words: “There is extreme legal liability.” “Let’s put that off and try and see what we can do in six months.”

Was that the direction the Attorney General gave to the Premier, yes or no?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve said it many times. We are focused on bringing people together to find a durable solution to this challenge…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …and we are working together as a team, on this side, to confront what is a challenging issue. As the Premier talked about, it’s one of the most difficult issues I think we have had.

We want to make sure that the solution that we present to this House is the most durable solution to fix the challenge that we’re facing, and we’re going to work together as a team to do that.

Scott McInnis: Legal experts on Aboriginal law are speaking out against this government’s utter mishandling of Indigenous relations in British Columbia. Geoffrey Moyse, a government lawyer for over 30 years, said this government is displaying a level of “ineptitude and incompetence” he has never seen before. Tom Isaac, who literally wrote the book called Aboriginal Law, said the NDP “seems to be co-governing with undemocratically elected governments.”

My question is a very, very simple one. Does the Attorney General agree with these statements made by leading Aboriginal law experts?

Hon. Niki Sharma: You ask a lawyer, they’ll give you their opinion, and every opinion is very different.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to make sure that we stay focused on the task of solving the problem. But since I’m up again on this topic, I want to talk about the accomplishments because of DRIPA.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Sections 6 and 7 agreements that have unlocked…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh. Members, you have asked the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It’s her prerogative how she answers. Please, let’s listen to her.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …billions of dollars of investment in this province — billions — making sure that we can address child and family services so First Nations can take over jurisdiction over their children, rectifying a wrong of historic proportions in this province.

I’m proud of that work, and every single person in this House should be very proud of that work. The commitment that we have to DRIPA lifts all boats in this province, and the work that we have done so far shows that. We’ll continue to do that.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: Well, I’d like to thank the Attorney General for that. I’d like to talk about the challenges with DRIPA, but we have less than 23 minutes left in question period.

It seems like the AG and the Premier are at odds with how to proceed here. The Premier proposed a suspension, while the AG’s plan about some sort of cabinet–First Nations Leadership Council decision-making framework has clearly won the day.

So my question is a very simple one. Who’s in charge over there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The only thing odd is the questions coming from that side today.

We are working together, again, to solve a very challenging issue…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …and we are bringing people to the table to do that. We will come up with a durable solution to this challenge. That is for sure.

If you want to talk about odd, sending a fundraising email after a very serious decision came out so that there could be political gain on something that is a very serious issue in this province, sending out misinformation about an agreement with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm to stir up this idea that Indigenous people are going to take everybody’s private property….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s the approach and the choice that they’re making over there that is going to solve nothing. We’ll continue to do the work to get to a durable solution.

Regulation of Artificial
Intelligence Technology

Jeremy Valeriote: As several members have noted, it’s Creative Industries Week, and artists’ livelihoods are at risk, along with the livelihoods of workers in many other sectors.

We’ve heard this government advocate for a social media ban for teenagers, but the public has no concept of their plan for artificial intelligence. As long as the government remains focused on the economics and energy requirements of the AI boom and patiently waits for the federal government to regulate the sector, we put at risk that which makes us human: artistic expression and creativity.

[2:35 p.m.]

B.C.’s creative industries need to know what the plan is.

To the minister of AI…. He has been in this role for nearly a year. When will he share his service plan so that British Columbians know their government’s plan to address AI in B.C.?

Hon. Rick Glumac: As the member probably knows, we have a Look West economic plan. Part of that plan…. There’s going to be an action plan related to AI and new technologies.

We are working very closely right now with the federal government. We’ve had several meetings with the federal government, and they’ve done broad consultation around a federal AI strategy. When we’re talking about regulation affecting AI, the regulation has to happen at a federal level in most cases.

We’ve done that advocacy. I’ve reached out myself to several ministers around this, and when the federal government releases their AI strategy, which I understand is coming soon, we’ll be talking very closely with them and updating our action plan on AI and new technologies as well.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: If we’re relying so heavily on the federal government, it makes me wonder why we even have a provincial minister of AI.

Week after week we hear serious concerns globally about the concentration of power in a small number of AI companies and their executives. The UN is exploring coordinated approaches to AI governance, and the minister of state has a chance to include British Columbians in this process too. But I’m not hearing a clear service plan, and when questioned about his AI investments, the minister offered no contrition, though British Columbians are being asked to adapt to a rapidly evolving technology without a meaningful role in shaping how it’s governed.

Given the scale of what’s at stake, from data privacy to public safety to democratic integrity, will the minister commit to striking a people’s assembly so British Columbians can have a direct voice in shaping how AI is governed in this province?

Hon. Rick Glumac: As I said, we’ve been talking very closely with the federal government. If the member thinks that every province can develop their own set of regulations to govern this rapidly changing sector…. I think that’s an irresponsible way to go.

We need to have a uniform set of regulations, and that’s some of the advocacy that we’ve been doing to the federal government. In fact, in the wake of the horrible tragedy in Tumbler Ridge, we have reached out to the federal government to ask for uniform reporting standards for AI companies regarding their chatbots, and that’s advocacy that we’re continuing to make.

You will see, through our AI action plan, what the province will be doing in regards to AI locally, and that’ll be coming out soon.

Justice System Handling of
Victim Impact Statement in
Case of Police Officer Death

Steve Kooner: Thirty days before the ruling on the case of the killing of Const. Shaelyn Yang, the National Police Federation wrote to the Attorney General to warn her office there would be no victim impact statement by her family if the accused was found unfit to stand trial. They even provided a solution. Despite that advance notice, this Attorney General failed this family.

Why did the Attorney General not respond to these concerns raised by the National Police Federation and the family of Constable Yang?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Out of clear respect for families involved and court matters, I won’t talk about a specific case in this House.

I can assure people that it has been a top priority to make sure that our justice system is functioning in a timely way that respects victims. We’re doing a range of reforms with respect to that, also including making sure that the Criminal Code of this country responds in correct ways, when it comes to crime, and keeps people safe.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Steve Kooner: There was a press release by the National Police Federation, so this is in the public domain.

This government talks a big game about efficiency in our freedom-of-information request system, yet the Attorney General didn’t even have the decency to respond to this family and the National Police Federation in a timely manner.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is unacceptable. The Attorney General had a clear and concrete solution proposed to her. The Yang family had already prepared their statement in good faith, yet the apathy from this Attorney General meant their voice was excluded.

Will the Attorney General, at least, acknowledge this family and commit to immediately addressing this gap to ensure another family is not silenced?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m always really appreciative of people that come to me with their concerns about the justice system, and they let me know what the gaps are and what the needs are to fix it. Although I won’t comment about particular cases or issues in this House, of course, I will sit down and connect with people who have issues or ideas.

It’s my job to make sure that the justice system is working in an efficient way and responding to people and their needs, and I’ll continue to do my best to do that.

Government Position on Pipeline
Proposal and Engagement Process

Kiel Giddens: The government of Alberta has been meeting with First Nations and local governments in our province about natural resource development and opportunities for B.C.’s and Canada’s prosperity.

Is the B.C. government at the table, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, because we’re discussing the same issue over and over again, I’ll say it very clearly. There is, with respect to Alberta’s pipeline proposal, no proponent, no proposal, no route. Alberta missed deadlines, so far, in their MOU with the federal government. When there’s an actual proposal and an actual route and an actual idea and actual customers for a line, which surely no one will pay for, then, of course, we’ll engage.

We continue, as well, to engage with the government of Alberta, to engage with the government of Canada on a host of energy issues — including with Minister Jean, with Minister Neudorf and, of course, with Minister Hodgson — and we’ll continue to do so.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens: The Minister of Energy already lost one election on a pipeline. I think he’s ready to lose another one.

That was a long-winded answer to a simple question. The answer is that B.C. is not at the table. In 69 days, Alberta is submitting a project and proposal to the federal major projects office for “a world-class, Indigenous co-owned pipeline to the west coast of British Columbia.” Alberta is engaging communities in our province to champion this project and find a respectful path forward to partner with First Nations.

Will this government stop its opposition campaign, work with the Premier of Alberta, work with the Prime Minister and get a nation-building project to B.C.’s coast, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member from the North who opposes NCTL; who opposes the low-carbon fuel standard, which would cost jobs in Prince George; who opposes energy projects across the North; who opposes clean electricity, which hugely benefits the North…. Gladly fight an election on any of those questions when the time comes.

The province of Alberta, in this free country, is allowed to come to British Columbia and talk to people, just as I regularly go to the province of Alberta to talk to people there. They don’t need my permission, and they haven’t asked for us to be at the table. They’re coming. It’s a free country. They can come.

I don’t know what the member is talking about. He talks about a proposal that doesn’t exist yet.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: He’s talking about a proposal and an MOU between the federal government and Alberta, where the principal items, due on April 1, were not delivered.

We’ll continue to deal with the situation in all jurisdictions, but we support projects in British Columbia. The opposition, for reasons passing understanding, is more supportive of Alberta projects than British Columbia projects. Maybe they should fight the next election in Alberta.

Mineral Claims Processing
and Consultation Framework

Gavin Dew: This government says B.C. will be a “critical minerals powerhouse,” but the record says otherwise.

[2:45 p.m.]

Government’s own mineral claims consultation framework promised decisions in 90 to 120 days, yet 85 percent are not completed on time. This government is paralyzing the very sector it claims to support.

When will the Mines Minister actually deliver approvals on time?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

The mineral claims consultation framework was developed in response to a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court gave us time, and we consulted with the industry and also with the First Nations. We put together the system, and we have implemented that system. We know that that system needs improvements, because it’s a new system. In this budget, we have $3 million additional money to hire more staff members to fix that.

Let me tell the member that, from last December to this January, we have approved six major mining projects. Every second month a new mining project was approved. Each project will bring in over $5 billion investment to support thousands of jobs for the people of British Columbia during construction and thousands of jobs during the mines’ longtime life.

We will continue working on that, to improve the system and to make it better, moving forward.

The Speaker: Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

Gavin Dew: Incremental system improvements are not going to be enough. Right now people thinking of risking their capital are unsure who really makes the decisions in B.C. To quote the president of the Association for Mineral Exploration: “Who’s actually in charge? Who’s the final decision-maker? Who signs off on a project?”

Who is really in charge of mining in this province?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question. I think the member is asking a question to the Minister of Mining, and the Minister of Mining is in charge of this file.

As I said earlier, the one thing which I have heard from the industry, including under the previous administration, is certainty and stability in the permitting process. The difference is, during the last 16 years when they were there, they failed to take any action. We are taking action, as we speak, to improve and to provide that certainty and stability in the permitting process.

We have reduced the major mines application process time by 35 percent. We have announced a fixed permitting timeline for mineral exploration — the only province in the country to announce that.

We will continue to make improvements. But let me tell the member once again that we have approved six major mining projects between last December to this January. That will bring over $5 billion revenue to support thousands of jobs during construction and thousands of jobs over a long time during the mining life cycle.

Mineral Claims Processing Decisions
and Role of First Nations

Korky Neufeld: Here’s a quote: “All of our worst fears at the time, that we were told would never happen, have all happened. Basically, there’s a de facto veto in place with the current implementation of DRIPA.” These are the words of the president of the Association for Mineral Exploration.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation: do First Nations have veto over mineral claims decisions in this province, yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, I think every one of us would want a say for something that happens in our own backyards, and that’s, indeed, what First Nations people want too. So I don’t think it’s unusual that they want to be involved in mining projects in their territories.

[2:50 p.m.]

Indeed, the process is important. A veto suggests that there is no consultation, there is nothing and it’s just an arbitrary decision. In fact, what First Nations people want as leaders in the mining industry….

They’re leaders in the mining industry, Member. I think the members need to understand this. This is not the time to spread doubt on the fact that First Nations people want mining success in their province.

In fact, just earlier today, if we followed the members in their thinking, we would have torn up a plus-billion-dollar project with the Tāłtān in mining, which they have supported, they’re leading on and they’re investing in.

If we followed his line, that project would be torn up, in smithereens on the ground, with thousands of people losing their jobs, because he does not have the respect for First Nations leadership in mining. We do support First Nations leadership in mining. They want to see it succeed, and so do we.

Korky Neufeld: That was the longest “yes” answer I’ve ever heard.

AME’s news release said: “Any process on DRIPA needs to be consistent and transparent. After all, we are all in this together. The only way to succeed is if everyone is at the table.” This government has tried to do reconciliation in the dark for years, and the result has been a total failure.

When will this government learn from its own mistakes, stop doing reconciliation behind closed doors and be open and transparent with the public and industry when it comes to reconciliation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, I think it’s important that we be respectful to other governments that we work with in this province, and that includes First Nations governments. They’re legitimate governments that have a legitimate right to make decisions that impact their people.

The member may not agree with that, but I believe it’s true. If a member thinks that we can….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If the members think that we can proceed with ignoring the legal realities of this province, with ignoring title rights of Indigenous Peoples, ignoring the section 35 rights of Indigenous Peoples, they should say so, because their actions demonstrate that that’s what they believe.

I know they go around here, and they try and have it both ways. But their example today of trying to tear up agreements, which would lead to economic chaos in this province, tells the whole story. Look at mine project after mine project…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …forestry, clean energy, housing, culture.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: You know the other thing that they tore up this morning by trying to bring forward legislation that would tear up the rights of Indigenous People? Child welfare in Indigenous communities. They would tear up that agreement, as well, to take the children of First Nations communities and bring them back into the wards of the state.

We respect First Nations governments. We think that we should listen to them, work with them — just as we do with all governments in this province, businesses, unions, non-profits, the people of B.C. — respect them, work with them.

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Peter Milobar: Well, I guess we found one of the ten in the caucus that didn’t support the Premier last week.

The Attorney General has recommended that, essentially, DRIPA be reworked over the next six months. But there are a lot of things hanging in the balance — the Heritage Conservation Act reworking, the Water Sustainability Act, rangeland tenures, Mineral Tenure Act, the old-growth deferral.

Is the Attorney General suggesting that all of those potential changes are on hold until DRIPA conversations with Indigenous communities, or are those going to proceed as if nothing has changed all of a sudden?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are addressing a very particular challenge to do with the Gitxaała decision through the discussions with First Nations leadership. The work of government continues in the many things that we are working on to bring prosperity to this province, to bring more equality to this province, to make sure that we’re supporting British Columbians across the province through very challenging times.

That work will continue, and we’ll continue to do it in a way that is very transparent and includes everybody.

Peter Milobar: DRIPA impacts every law on the books in British Columbia. The Premier is just not your run-of-the-mill Premier; he is a lawyer who also happened to be the Attorney General during the time that DRIPA was brought in and also the Interpretation Act changes came in.

He would very well know the legal ramifications of making statements like that there are 20 cases being amended right now, creating extreme legal liability to British Columbians. The Premier would have known exactly what he was saying and what that exposure was. He has now told us — on the advice of the Attorney General, who should also know whether that legal exposure is actual, real or political theatre — to actually not worry about it. We don’t need to pause anything. We don’t need to change anything on the legal books.

[2:55 p.m.]

We can just let things continue on for the next six months while conversations happen. There’s no legal exposure, and everything else can continue on and get changed, as this government is thinking, under the provisions of DRIPA.

A very simple question that this Attorney General has dodged several times today. Did she provide the advice to the Premier to stand down and that there was no longer legal risk for those 20 cases over the next six months, or did the Premier not tell the public what was actually happening when he said that we needed to pause DRIPA for three years because of extreme legal exposure? A Premier who was a former Attorney General, who ought to have known exactly what he was saying when he said that….

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, we are dealing with a very challenging issue. We’ve been clear about what we see as the legal risks with the decision with Gitxaała that we’re searching to appeal on — and a clarity in the law.

We have an opportunity to solve that issue with First Nations leadership, to solve it in a durable way where we can move forward without that liability and continue the good work under DRIPA.

This is a conversation that we’re having with many people transparently. We are working as a team to solve this issue, and we’ll continue to work as a team to do that.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Lobbyists Transparency Act
Review Committee

Steve Morissette: I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Steve Morissette: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Steve Morissette: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

As this House will know, the Lobbyists Transparency Act regulates lobbying activities in the province. The act requires a special committee to review the act once every five years. This was the first review of the act since it was amended in 2018.

Our committee’s work included receiving input from key stakeholders and the public. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the organizations and individuals that took the time to participate.

I would also like to acknowledge staff from the Ministry of Attorney General and the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, who provided briefings and additional information to the committee to assist its work.

In the course of its deliberations, the committee received considerable input regarding the workload required for organizations, especially charities and non-profits, to register and report lobbying activities. We also heard about the act’s important role in promoting transparency and supporting public trust in democratic institutions.

The committee’s recommendations reflect this input and seek to balance the act’s registration and reporting requirements with its transparency objectives. Our committee makes 24 recommendations to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the act, address concerns about high administrative demands and increase transparency related to the use of communications.

We also highlight the importance of improving public understanding of the act’s requirements and the lobbyists registry through enhanced accessibility and educational supports delivered by the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all committee members for their dedication and meaningful discussions during this review. In particular, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, for his support throughout our work as well as the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Valemount, for her thoughtful contributions to this committee.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office who supported our work, including Darryl Hol, Natalie Beaton, Hanna Kim, Alexa Neufeld and Emily Andrews.

Thank you as well to the staff in Hansard Services for their support.

[3:00 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all committee members — particularly the Chair, the member for Kootenay-Monashee; and the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Valemount — for their dedication and the work they’ve undertaken on this review.

I would also like to recognize everyone who contributed their perspectives and provided thoughtful input on how the Lobbyists Transparency Act can be improved. In particular, the committee appreciated the registrar of lobbyists, Michael Harvey, and his team for their input as well as their important role in ensuring the reporting and monitoring of lobbying activities.

During our review, the committee discussed the misconceptions that may exist around lobbying as well as the legitimate and important role of lobbying in democratic societies. Lobbying does allow individuals and organizations to share their expertise and perspectives with public office holders and to engage in the policy-making process. The act’s requirements and the lobbyists registry are essential tools in ensuring that lobbying takes place in a transparent way, which is critical to maintaining the public’s trust.

As committee members, we also reflected on the input we received about a lack of clarity regarding the act’s requirements and the concerns some have about inadvertent non-compliance. We heard about the chilling effect this could lead to, where individuals and organizations could actually be discouraged from engaging with public office holders. To address these concerns, the committee identified opportunities to simplify reporting requirements while maintaining transparency in order to better support democratic participation.

Finally, I, too, would like to extend my sincere thanks to the staff of the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services for the support they provided throughout our work.

The Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Jody Toor: I rise to present a petition regarding Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

This petition is signed by over 10,000 B.C. taxpayers demanding that the government end its assault on open information and scrap Bill 9.

Ian Paton: I also present a petition of 158 signatures from residents of Delta South.

The petition from the residents of Delta South and Tsawwassen respectfully requests that this House call on the Ministries of Forests and Agriculture and Food to cancel the 2026 plans to aerial spray in Tsawwassen, Beach Grove and Squamish for spongy moth and to reform the program permanently to prohibit all aerial spraying over B.C. communities.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4), any division called in Sections A, B or C during the morning sitting on Thursday, April 23, 2026, be deferred until the start of Orders of the Day for the afternoon sitting on Thursday, April 23, 2026.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I move Motion 15, which is on the order paper.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today to oppose Motion 15 and the motion that the Government House Leader is moving to have a private member’s bill….

The Speaker: Member, the motion has not even moved yet.

Á’a:líya Warbus: Did you not move it yet?

Interjection.

Á’a:líya Warbus: Oh, he called it.

The Speaker: Thank you.

[3:05 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 15 — Committal of Bill M237
to Insurance (Vehicle) Act
Provisions Review Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 15, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper.

[That, should the motion for second reading of Bill (No. M 237) intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026, pass, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A (1), Bill (No. M 237) be committed to the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

And that, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A (2), the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act report Bill (No. M 237) back to the House by the deadline fixed for the Special Committee to present its final report to the House.]

I’ve been watching the second reading debate on Bill M237, and it has struck me that this bill is seeking to amend parts 10 and 11 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act. Section 182 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act requires the Legislative Assembly to appoint a special committee to review parts 10 and 11 of the act, something this House did at the beginning of this session on February 19.

This House knows that we’ve established a multiparty committee to examine how enhanced care is functioning — listening to public and stakeholder feedback; and considering potential improvements, including ideas such as those outlined in this bill.

As the Government House Leader, part of my role is to advise the House on efficient ways for us to spend our time and ensure that we are stacking our work accordingly. Given that there is a committee with expertise reviewing the sections of the legislation that this bill looks to amend, it makes sense to send this bill for complete study and entertain amendments as they consider other changes to the act.

I want to be clear. This motion does not kill the bill nor does it prevent the committee from doing the work and reporting back to the House. It’s simply recognizing that having two committees doing the same work at the same time could lead this House to adopt recommendations that are counter to each other.

This bill has merit in its discussion. In passing this motion, it allows for a fulsome discussion and an examination of this bill by a special committee that is already tasked with looking at aspects of this work.

Á’a:líya Warbus: The motion that the Government House Leader is moving today is bringing forth that, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A(2), the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act report this private member’s bill back to the House by a deadline fixed for the special committee to present its final report to the House. We don’t have clear language right now about that fixed deadline.

In discussions about allowing this to set a precedent moving forward for private members in any caucus to bring forward…. This is their one opportunity to bring forward an item of business. That is very important. That is very prominent.

So this idea that it can’t be handled through the regular course of action and the duplicity…. It’s dealing with something very, very specific. It is making a straightforward, minor change that, in the opinion of our caucus, does not need to belabour the special committee in the work that they’re doing that, actually, is more robust, is more fulsome.

To the Government House Leader’s point around a committee coming with a different opinion than another committee, then that would be something that this House should consider.

[3:10 p.m.]

Again, just going back to the precedents of this House, the way that these standing orders are set out, they’re set out that way for a very specific reason. There’s a reason why we follow these standing orders. There’s a reason why precedent is set by any decisions made based off of changing those standing orders and moving away from a process. I worry, personally, about the protection for any future private members that want to bring forward business.

I am one of those private members, and although I’m further down on the list, I know that if I come forward with a very specific idea and a very specific bill or a legislative change, I would like to know that the government will not be able to move that bill over to a different committee, where it is not following the same procedure as everybody else’s bill and being measured the same way that everybody else’s bills have been measured. And that is through this committee.

This committee has done some really sophisticated work in the time that I’ve been sitting as an MLA. We’ve seen many private members’ bills move through that committee because there is a fixed deadline. There is a fixed deadline that everybody agrees upon, that it is a certain amount of days, and that ensures the protections are afforded to each member that their work is going to move through that committee. There’s not going to be a stall. There’s not going to be a hold.

Things could get complicated with that committee and the things that they are talking about, specifically to those two clauses that have nothing to do with this very narrow, specific change that is within this private member’s bill that he has brought to this House.

Again, I go back to if we set that precedent and then further to that, down the road…. “Well, we did that one time, so what’s the issue this time? What makes this different?” Then I think it opens a doorway where private members may not feel, again, protected by a process that was decided upon in this House.

There was a committee that was put together that designed this process very specifically — that that committee would be the committee that would sit and handle private members’ bills. Again, they’ve done really sophisticated and excellent work in bringing these bills to really high levels of scrutiny and ensuring that they get the discussion they need.

It’s the opinion of our caucus and of other private members on this side of the House that this just wouldn’t be appropriate, so we cannot support the motion. When it was talked about to begin with, it was really clear that that wouldn’t be supported.

I’m standing up today in opposition to that, making sure that we make the point that if there is some perceived duplicity, then that is not a purposeful move by our member, who did not know what the work of this committee was going to be.

Today I just want to make sure that we get it on the record that the democracy of this House and the protection of these private members and the bills that they’re going to bring forward…. This is their one opportunity, just one, that they get, and it is protected by process that was already designed by this House.

So since we already declined this, and now the motion is being brought forward, we have to stand up and defend that democracy and defend the standing orders and the processes of this House to make sure that anybody in the future is not going to be shut out, shut aside, maybe not heard on how they would prefer for their bills to be scrutinized and by the ways that are laid out for a very specific reason.

With that, I just want to make it very clear. We, absolutely, do not support this motion to move this private member’s bill to a different committee and believe that it needs to follow the proper channels that were laid out for private members’ bills so that they can have the exact same chance as every other private member’s bill.

If we delineate from that, then I’m not sure why we have orders that we follow in the House at all. They’re really important. Everybody agrees to them.

This motion is a motion that we don’t agree with.

[3:15 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I’m the designated speaker on this particular motion, at the request of the House Leader.

I would ask that we take a short recess for a bathroom break at this time. Could we take a short recess?

Okay, well, I’ll start talking then.

This is about the fundamental principles of democracy. This is about the fundamental role of due process. Despite the arguments made by some in the government that this bill represents a violation of process, I completely and vehemently disagree with that particular assertion. What this bill, in fact, represents is due process for people, doing the right thing for people at the right time with due speed and exigence for an urgent matter.

This bill was originally drafted last fall, and it died on the order paper and has been resubmitted. There was no such committee struck at that time. If the government had a problem with that bill, they may have come forward to some sort of issue in that regard.

But to go and try to hide their disdain for amputees by hiding this in a committee where it would be buried and have no force or effect and no requirement to be brought forward as legislation is simply reprehensible. It is inappropriate. It is unconscionable. It is not the right way to represent the people of British Columbia.

Standing Order 84A(1) needs to be applied. Standing Order 84A(2) needs to be applied. We should not be pushing aside the standing orders to shove a private member’s bill off to a committee when, in fact, the due process is clearly laid out in our procedures and in all of our references.

When I look at the lovely synopsis that all members have been provided with regarding private members’ time, Monday morning statements on motions and bills — which every member has a copy of, printed in March 2026 by the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia, on statements, motions and bills, which details through its table of contents the specifics of how this process is supposed to occur — I see nothing compelling about the government’s desire to shove this bill, this compelling bill, which will help people, off to another committee to be examined and possibly to die forever, never to see the light of day again.

The committee’s recommendations would not be binding on the government. The committee’s recommendations would have very little to do with anything about helping people at this point. That committee will hear a whole variety of other things. Why not concentrate on those? This is a parallel process. It is not a divergent process.

When we look at the table of contents in the synopsis regarding this bill, we see, on page 1, private members’ time. Well, let’s examine exactly what that says. It says: “Private Members’ Time, Monday Mornings.”

“Private members’ time on Monday mornings affords private members the opportunity to discuss matters of importance in their constituencies or the province at large that they may not necessarily have the opportunity to raise during other proceedings.

“It takes place in the chamber from 10 a.m. to 12 noon each Monday morning and is comprised of private members’ statements; private members’ motions; and private members’ bills, also referred to as public bills in the hands of private members.”

There is a list of precedence associated with getting on this particular list. So just like anyone else, I was drawn on the list of precedence. I was down a bit on the list, and I managed to negotiate a spot with another member to switch so that this compelling bill could be brought forward in an exigent manner, so that it could be heard and bring help to people in a direct and quick way to solve compelling issues.

[3:20 p.m.]

How does that draw list of precedence work? Well, at the earliest opportunity in a new parliament, the Clerk of the House will conduct a draw to establish the assigned placement of private members to propose business for the duration of that parliament.

Such a draw was conducted. That list is then appended to schedule D of the orders of the day. And when we look at the orders of the day, we see that list. It is all there, with all of the members duly listed.

It is also available on the Legislative Assembly website, under the “Parliamentary business” menu on the “Session overview” page. The member at the top of the list will have the first opportunity to move a private member’s motion or second reading of a private member’s bill.

After the member moves their item of business, their name is removed from the list, and the next member becomes eligible. My name is now removed from that list. I would revert to the end, and the next person goes forward.

I don’t get to come up with another bill. I don’t just have one sitting in my back pocket that I can whip out and say: “Okay, here’s another bill that’s going to help people.” Oh, no. No, I don’t have that handy right now. I’m sure I could think of one, because there are an awful lot of things that need to be done in this province to help people. That’s certainly the case.

Recognizing the need to be urgent about this particular matter, the member from Shuswap graciously agreed to switch places with me. He didn’t even think twice about it. He said: “That’s an important bill that you need to get through. I support that bill, and I’m happy to switch places with you.” We duly went through all the process to do that, and I thank the Office of the Clerk a great deal for their support in making sure that happened in a smooth and reliable way.

Now, this is all within the due process, as described in the synopsis. So after the initial draw in a new parliament, any member may exchange their placement with another member, or should they choose, they could withdraw their place, up until the opening day of a new parliament. That’s a perfectly reasonable, process-laden way to operate.

After the opening day, a member may only exchange their placement or withdraw their place until they reach the third place on the list of precedence. Exchanges or withdrawals are not permitted when a member is listed first, second or third on the list of precedence. Exchanges and withdrawals must be communicated by providing written notice to the Office of the Clerk.

That is exactly what happened. That due process was followed. Hearing from the Government House Leader that this somehow represents a better process, quite frankly, is a farce. This is not a better process, to take a private member’s bill, to shove it into a committee and let the committee play with it as they would. No, sir. It is not due process.

On sitting days, the other way that you can shift this is by providing the notice to the table during sitting hours using the “Notice of list of precedence change” template. If exchanging places, both affected members must sign that notice. That is on sitting days. This is the kind of thing that goes on when you want to switch. It’s not a simple matter to go and trade places and negotiate or discuss, but in this case, it was easily done in a respectful, sensible way, because it was the right thing to do.

Now, on non-sitting days this is done by electronic means. You email the details of that change to the Office of the Clerk. If exchanging places, the other affected member, of course, has to be copied and also reply signifying their consent to the change. After all of that, the list of precedence on schedule D of the order paper is updated and the date of the change is noted. This is due process. Due process.

[3:25 p.m.]

Writing such a bill also has a process. You could do some and take a first kick at it yourself and write a draft and then take it to the Clerk for support. The Law Clerks look at it very carefully. They provide advice. They make suggestions. They do a few tweaks, sort out where your commas are supposed to go, maybe make some insightful and intelligent wording choices, give you some good advice as to the drafting of that bill and then come up with a version for making a motion.

That support provided by the Office of the Clerk to members as they near the top of the list doesn’t mean that members don’t have any other responsibilities. They are responsible to ensure that they have prepared an item of business for private members’ time. Members who are near the top of the list of precedence should also be prepared to move their item of business, as debate may move quickly, depending on the time taken to make sure that the preceding member’s motion or bill gets before the House.

Now, there are timelines associated with all of this. Advancing private members’ business is not trite. It is not something taken lightly. It is not something that can just be willy-nilly chucked out of the House with a move from the Government House Leader to a new committee without violating our standing orders. This is why the Government House Leader wants to do that. He wants to do something that does not follow due process, while at the same time claiming that this bill somehow violates due process. It’s duplicitous.

In order to advance private members’ business and timelines, it is, certainly, the case that in order to provide certainty about which items of business will proceed and to ensure which members need to prepare for debate, timelines for preparing and identifying an intended item of business must be met. In this case, these timelines were met. Everything to make a very simple and elegant change to a flawed piece of legislation was followed to the T.

When we’re looking at a piece of legislation that is intended to change the definition of a catastrophic injury — from two or more to one or more limbs being severed, lost, gone — one would think that this is the type of thing that all parties in this House would support without hesitation and without reservation.

It is shocking to me. It is shocking to me that members on the other side of the House, in the government side, would be going around and attempting to subvert this bill by pushing it off to committee, all in the guise of saying: “Well, you know, we’re very sympathetic to the plight of people who’ve lost a limb. However, it’s about process.” It’s about process. Well, that sounds like something that a person would hear from an adjuster and when they would, actually, really, want to have a lawyer to argue on their behalf.

I find the suggestion that this bill be shoved out and shoved away into a file folder in a committee, which will hear a whole bunch of other problems with an act that certainly has a lot of flaws, just simply unacceptable.

Now, this is not all of the process that had to happen with regards to this private member’s bill and, dare I say, any other private member’s bill. When you reach third place on the list of precedence, the item of business that you wish to advance must go onto the order paper.

That means that by the time a member is in fourth place on the list of precedence, you must either have a motion of notice or a bill listed for second reading on schedule D of the order paper. This ensures that the motion is eligible to be called or that the bill is before the House when that person advances into third place on that list of precedence, which I referred to earlier.

[3:30 p.m.]

It’s important to note that although bills must have been previously introduced and read a first time, they may still appear as not printed on the order paper. Now, there are example timelines that are made for reference in the synopsis.

I very much appreciate the work of the Clerk’s office in taking that excellent guide to parliamentary procedure, which was recently revised, and making these synopses for members, such as myself, as guides to follow while putting everything in one place to make it easy to understand and make sure that we follow due process. Due process is what this is about.

It is, certainly, the case that members are responsible for managing the two-day notice requirement in time for motions and bills to reach the order paper. That is exactly what has happened in this particular case. I took all the steps required to make sure that the two-day notice requirement was met. I made sure that all the i’s were dotted and all the t’s were crossed.

I even took the additional step in making sure there was plenty of time. This bill has been in preparation for a good long time, since I first met with the person inspiring the need for this, Ms. Chantal Sutton, who was here on Monday to discuss all of this.

When you see someone who has firsthand experienced the problem that this bill is designed to fix and she tells you of the heartbreaking accounts of the difficulties in getting a fair settlement from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and the difficulties in being treated with any sense of feeling for what she has gone through, it’s heartbreaking. It’s heartbreaking.

Is it manipulative? No. Is it somehow misleading or lobbying? No. This is a person who had a problem that came forward and, recognizing that this problem applies to others as well, stepped up and said: “I’m more than willing to support my MLA for Prince George–North Cariboo in bringing forward a bill about my particular problem.” We didn’t call this Chantal’s bill, but it well could be referred to in popular speak as that. It’s certainly her bill, as much as it is mine or this opposition’s.

Now, when we are considering whether or not we’re going to have a bill like this taken and handed off to a committee, I think it’s very important for all of us to understand the significance of doing such a thing. When we do that, what we are doing is delaying that time period in which an individual can claim for benefits in respect of a catastrophic injury, even further than would be the case if we were to let this bill go through due process completely parallel with the process of the committee.

This bill has never been an attempt to subvert the work of any committee. This bill is parallel to that. If the committee chooses to examine this bill while it’s going through the House, or the points on it, that’s fabulous. They do not need to pull the bill in order to do that. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

How many people are there out there that would benefit from this bill were it to be passed? The answer is unclear. The answer is unclear because that information is not published by the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. To get a freedom-of-information request out to do that, apparently, will take a bit of time.

[3:35 p.m.]

Currently, losing a limb, such as a leg or an arm, is not considered a catastrophic injury, and for that reason, benefits are not provided.

We all recognize this is devastating. We recognize this changes a person’s life and that we should be supporting those suffering from catastrophic injuries in every way we can. Supporting this bill is one step forward in this House, dealing with a clear oversight in the legislation and making it better for British Columbians and their families who are having to deal with this catastrophe that has affected their lives — one of many problems with the legislation that I hope that committee will look at.

But we’re already looking at this problem, and let’s fix it in this House right now, where it needs to get dealt with. That’s all I have to say.

Peter Milobar: I feel the House Leader and my colleague from Prince George–North Cariboo covered off most things quite well.

But I did want to highlight the reason this is such a concern to the opposition. It’s very clear to us that with four private members’ bills now being passed, of consequence, brought forward by the opposition, the government is stinging a little, I think, between their use of Monday morning time, trying to bring in wedge motions or private members’ bills that they then have to walk back and pull back and remove from their member.

That is not on the shoulders of the opposition, that the government side cannot seem to get their act together on how they are dealing with issues at Monday morning private members’ time. But certainly, the member for Prince George–North Cariboo should not be penalized.

More importantly, the people of British Columbia that suffer catastrophic loss in an ICBC claim should not be penalized because the government has a bruised ego about the fact that their private members do not come forward with substantive changes to public policy — be it this, be it the firefighter cancer presumptions, the dashcams, the postpartum-prenatal care bills. I know I’m missing another one. There were four. Yesterday, the other around veterans, the other bill….

That’s the substantive work this side has been doing, and a motion like this is just the government’s attempt, frankly, to try to push back a bit on their embarrassment of the lack of serious issues that they’ve been bringing forward, choosing to spend their time on wedge politics on Monday mornings instead of substantive work like we are talking about.

So we fully reject the premise of this motion completely.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question before this House is the motion on notice that has just been presented.

Division has been called.

[3:40 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the motion is that, should the motion for second reading of Bill M237, intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026, pass, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A(1), Bill M237 be committed to the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and that, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A(2), the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act report Bill M237 back to the House by the deadline fixed for the special committee to present its final report to the House.

[3:50 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Kahlon
Chandra Herbert	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Gibson	Glumac	Shah
G. Anderson	Chow	Morissette
Valeriote	Botterell	Boultbee
	Sturko
NAYS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	Wilson	McInnis
Paton	Day	Bhangu
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Dhaliwal	McCall	Maahs
Block	Stamer	Gasper
Mok	Davis	Chan
Brodie	Armstrong	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 20.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, where we are going to begin debate on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Á’a:líya Warbus: It was our understanding that we were going to Bill 9. Now that we’ve shifted to Bill 20, we request a short, 15-minute recess just to get our speakers in order.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you very much. We will have a 15-minute recess here.

The House recessed from 3:54 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will call this chamber back to order, where we are going to contemplate Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Recognizing the Minister of Indigenous Relations.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s good to see you.

[4:10 p.m.]

It’s great to be here in the people’s House discussing a treaty. I say that because it’s not something that happens in this House very often, historically anyways.

I often will say that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is today. Indeed, I think the best time to make a treaty should have been 150 years ago, but the next best time is today. We haven’t got there in the past, but we should be.

Treaties, agreements and other arrangements to live together in this place we now know as British Columbia, a place where peoples have lived for thousands upon thousands of years…. It’s important we recognize that fact. It’s important that we recognize that we have an obligation to live in a good way together, and that means making agreements, making arrangements — with K’ómoks in this case — making a treaty to find that better path together, to hold each other up, to lift each other up, to support each other, because treaties are about coming together.

It may be called the K’ómoks treaty, but it really is about the K’ómoks-B.C.-Canada treaty together, recognizing the people of K’ómoks, the K’ómoks Nation, recognizing their place and the importance that we have with that relationship together.

I move that Bill 20 be now read a second time.

As members know, the government of B.C., Canada and the K’ómoks Nation have been working together for a long time, three decades, to arrive here at this point in time — over 30 years spent working together to forge a better path of reconciliation; to move away from division, from ignoring, from ignorance; to move away from confrontation and try to find a better way to live together in harmony.

Similar to other modern treaties in the province, the K’ómoks treaty was negotiated under the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

Before I go much further, I want to acknowledge the lək̓ʷəŋən Peoples, whose territories this House that we are debating this legislation, their territories…. I want to thank them for welcoming the K’ómoks and us into this place and hold up their work in working with Chiefs and councils there. I take that very seriously.

I also want to acknowledge Chief Nicole Rempel; the whole council of K’ómoks Nation; the federal government; and, of course, everybody in the Comox Valley, as well, who also participated and supported getting us here today. I just met with the mayor of Cumberland, who was talking about how important this work was.

As I mentioned, parties in this treaty have actively pursued this work for a long time. They’ve told us to get on with it. Alternatively, we’ve slowed, we’ve started, we’ve moved, and we’ve slowed, we’ve started, we’ve moved. But finally, the different pieces have come together at once to bring forward this treaty legislation.

There was initialling in July 2024. Of course, that was to indicate strong support for the elements of the treaty. That then went to the process of going to the K’ómoks Nation to ask them: “Well, what do you think? What do you think about this treaty? What are your thoughts on coming together in this way of reconciliation?” And 81 percent of eligible K’ómoks voters voted in favour of ratifying the K’ómoks treaty, with voter turnout at 91 percent.

I would say none of us in this House could claim the same amount of voter support. None of us could claim the same turnout in local elections that returned us to this House. So clearly, this shows strong support, exceptional support from the K’ómoks People. It tells us that they’re ready, and I hope that this House is ready too.

Once ratified, of course, through that process, it comes here and brings us to this stage of the debate, this stage of the discussion. Should it pass through this House — and I make no assumptions, though I certainly hope that members will indeed decide that treaty is an important objective and that these treaties are ones that we should support — it will then continue through a community process. There’s ongoing work with neighbouring nations, a signing process, going to the federal government, and then, eventually, after that, should it pass the federal level and royal assent, we will then, of course, get to the effective date.

Treaties provide certainty — certainty for the K’ómoks People about their place in this province, their place in this nation; certainty for people in the region around the K’ómoks Nation in terms of how we are to work together and what the path is for respecting the age-old, time-immemorial rights of the K’ómoks Nation, their culture, their history and their rights to take care of the land and the estuary that has sustained them since time immemorial.

[4:15 p.m.]

Treaties are one of the highest forms of reconciliation, one of the highest forms of certainty. They’re also one of the greatest ways that….

Some have told me that treaties should be treated as major projects in the sense of what we’re hearing around the federal government and major industry and so on; that treaties, in fact, and reconciliation with First Nations governments should also be seen as an incredible opportunity to lift all of us up, to lift this nation up, to lift this province up, to raise the status, to raise the standard of living, to raise the respect, to raise the cultural togetherness, to bring us closer together.

Treaties do that when done well, and certainly, the K’ómoks Nation is no different. They’ve done everything possible to bring that community together and will continue to do that work to reach agreement with neighbouring nations. I know some protocol agreements have already been reached to deal with issues of overlap, to deal with issues of togetherness and common use of common areas.

Members in this House have chosen to focus a lot these days on First Nations people, making suggestions that they’re coming for people’s homes, etc. It’s completely false, completely wrong. Indeed, treaties are one way that nations have told me they want to express to their communities that we are all here together.

No one is going anywhere. “We’re not coming for your home, since what was done to us we would not want done to anyone else.” I’ve heard Chiefs, Elders, councillors, nation members all say variations on that same theme. Let’s stop the fearmongering. Stop the fear of the other. We’re all here together. Justice. Justice is what we want, but that’s just us, all of us together finding that path.

Uncertainty over the ownership of land, uncertainty over rights and title, uncertainty over obligations and responsibilities has held First Nations communities back for generations. The Indian Act — the yoke of the Indian Act, as many Elders have told me, many Chiefs and councils — has made it so that when they want to move to support their communities, they are held back. They are not able to do what they should be able to do and what any other government is already able to do.

Because of the patronizing paternalism of the Indian Act, we’re still in a place where too many nations struggle to even just be able to do the basics — because of the weight of the imposition of law; the imposition of administrative forces that may not reflect the needs of that nation, may not reflect the needs of the people, the needs of the modern day. It’s an antiquated act which is still causing harm.

Treaties are one way to help take that yoke, take that chain off.

It will provide opportunities for economic growth, for the nation to lead as they have been in businesses, in environmental stewardship, in housing, in health care. The list goes on and on. This is about leadership and supporting the leaders of the K’ómoks People to be able to achieve their dreams together with the leaders in the Comox Valley, in the North and elsewhere.

I think it’s really important that we recognize that we should be doing more of this. This should be a common occurrence in this House, not a historic occasion but something that we all understand is our obligation — to do the work, to lean into it. Not to push away, not to fearmonger but to do the hard work of learning.

I want to thank a few people who I visited with earlier today, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Certainly, their reconciliation committee has been doing work to dispel mistruths and rumours and ensure that everyone sees the benefit of getting these relationships right. In the end, we all prosper when we work better together.

These treaties include new recognition and predictability provisions, recognizing that First Nations entered treaties on the basis that they do have Aboriginal rights and title. Some members have asked: “Why don’t we extinguish rights? Why isn’t the province going to courts to try and say that Aboriginal rights were all extinguished under Trutch or under one of the many colonial governors?” That’s not how it works. You don’t get to extinguish someone’s human rights like a cigarette.

I think we need to put that to bed and put that in the past because extinguishment of human rights is not a solution to certainty. It’s not a solution to prosperity.

[4:20 p.m.]

Acknowledging the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, of First Nations here in B.C. is a better path to trust. It is the path to truth, to responsibility, to opportunity. It is the path to prosperity, I believe, and togetherness — acknowledging the truth, acknowledging the responsibilities, acknowledging that Aboriginal rights and title continue.

The courts have said it. If you don’t believe me, you can certainly read more than a few court decisions over the years that have told us, have told this House, that we’ve got to get our own house in order. And that’s, indeed, what we’re trying to do through this agreement with the K’ómoks Nation.

The treaty provisions provide certainty about what rights K’ómoks People have through binding agreement, how they will be exercised by K’ómoks, along with agreement on the province’s and Canada’s responsibility to the exercise of those rights.

Under this approach, K’ómoks agrees to exercise and assert section 35 rights as set out in the treaty. The treaty articulates which section 35 rights may be exercised, what makes up those rights and where they can be exercised geographically.

That means, for those that have continued to suggest this treaty means that we’ll continue to have endless land claims and fights and conflict and that these things will not be resolved with the K’ómoks People…. That means that title and rights claims cannot be filed because we’ve found a way to respect each other’s places, respect each other’s geography, nations, culture, history.

We will continue, of course, to work in relation to section 35 rights, but really, the treaty is the legal document that we must respond to. It provides the stability and predictability for the people in that region — indeed, for all of British Columbia.

The relationship of the treaty to the rights of neighbouring First Nations is one that we also take very seriously. First Nations, as we know, commonly have common rights areas — shared areas, shared territories where, through agreement, through relationship, through protocol, there’s a sharing of resources, a sharing of obligation, a sharing of responsibility. We believe that we need to continue that work and support that work with neighbouring nations.

We also need to do our work to make sure that we are accommodating those interests where there might be impacts. Nations, in many cases, are in the best place to resolve these issues, as contemplated under the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

We also, of course, work very closely through our work with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to support those efforts at protocol and coming together on those issues of shared areas, of boundaries, of overlaps. There have been many different names for that challenge, but it is real, and we acknowledge it.

The treaty itself makes space for arrangements between neighbouring nations through protocol agreements. I know, certainly, some are underway. Some have been signed already.

We do have constitutional obligations to the neighbouring nations, of course, and these are key to consider during the negotiations. The treaties are designed to prevent an outcome where we would impact negatively on other nations’ rights.

For example, treaty harvesting rights are non-exclusive. They do not take priority over asserted or established harvesting rights of other nations. They do not prevent other nations from also exercising their harvesting rights in those areas. As well, throughout the K’ómoks negotiations, changes have been made within the agreement to already address concerns from neighbouring nations.

For the K’ómoks treaty, given that certain neighbouring First Nations have identified remaining adverse impacts, accommodation offers have been made, with offers of either land or funding coming from the province and government of Canada. Those neighbouring nations have rights, and we want to make sure that we respect them and that we find a better path to bring nations together.

We continue to commit to working with nations to resolve overlap concerns and working on finding solutions that will work for all involved.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The K’ómoks Treaty Act is necessary to make the benefits from treaties come real. It’s similar to previous treaty implementation legislation. It establishes the legal status of the treaty and other agreements contemplated by the treaty. It sets out that the K’ómoks treaty is binding and that it can be relied on by all parties.

Now, that’s a little different than contracts you would think of, where they can only be relied on by those who sign them. But actually, what this means is this treaty can be relied on by local business, local governments, other interest holders in the region. They can rely on the content of the treaty for things like land management, access and use of treaty lands, fishing, hunting.

The act established K’ómoks ownership of their treaty lands and fee simple. It sets out that their treaty lands are not within the boundaries of any municipality or regional district. However, they can choose to join the regional districts in accordance with provincial law if there’s interest, but it is not required. It provides that treaty lands are part of the Comox-Strathcona regional hospital district and for nation membership in that hospital district as of the treaty effective date.

[4:25 p.m.]

The legislation, for people to know, is a bit of a shift. It does remove K’ómoks lands from the provincial agricultural land reserve. However, it’s important to know that under this treaty, K’ómoks have committed to designate the lands that are currently within the agricultural land reserve as K’ómoks agricultural lands, with the same sort of process and same sort of standards that the province has under the ALR.

The laws will, of course, prioritize the preservation of high-capability agricultural lands for agriculture and other food production as well as define farm and non-farm uses comparable to provincial law.

In speaking with K’ómoks Nation members, I know I’ve certainly heard excitement and interest in bringing back more traditional foodstuffs through the agricultural production as well, because there’s a huge interest in the region and they’re just great to eat.

In terms of other uses of land on treaty land, it enables adjustments to forest tenures as of the treaty effective date. Forest tenure holders have been consulted extensively as part of this negotiation process to ensure that we take their interests into account. Provisions in the treaty ensure a transition period for the licensees and will allow further discussions to continue with those licensees.

It also enables the province to enter into treaty side agreements, like tax agreements, a foreshore agreement, the K’ómoks estuary consent agreement. In addition, of course, the act will propose consequential and related amendments to a few statutes to enable specific treaty commitments and alignment between those statutes and the treaties.

As members will know, of course, K’ómoks and Canada were consulted on drafts of this legislation and are strongly in support. Members met with many members of the K’ómoks Nation last week and could see their strong support for the treaty. I believe K’ómoks met with the opposition caucus to discuss the treaty, what was in it, how it worked. I heard that was a very good meeting, and I appreciate the members putting in their time to engage on these questions.

Certainly, as I’ve indicated, whether it was in the estimates process or otherwise, we’re always happy to take questions, because we want to do this work that brings everybody together, as we hope this treaty will.

Of course, we’re not done yet. Discussions continue working through the system with neighbouring nations, as I mentioned earlier. Engagement with local governments, interest holders and the public continues. It has been extensive.

I think members on the opposite side have told me they really like the consultation process that takes place during the treaty process through the B.C. Treaty Commission. I’ve heard members talk about how open it was and how they hoped that other processes could mirror or model from some of that work.

I certainly value that feedback, and I think we’re looking at how to operationalize that through the other work we do, because the K’ómoks treaty process has been extensive. Some would say it has taken too long. I hear that, but sometimes to do the right thing takes a long time to do it right. That being said, I’m hoping to do many more treaties in the future with nations, as we see the benefit and as they see the benefit.

To finish up there, I want to make sure that members have time to ask their questions, make their debates and share their feedback and responses. The K’ómoks Nation has been nothing but generous in their time to address any concerns or issues that members may or may not have, and I certainly think of them. Our ministry is doing our best to be responsive to the needs of members in this House as you have questions.

It has been over ten years since a treaty has come through this chamber. I believe it was the ɬəʔamɛn treaty back in, I think it was, 2014 or thereabouts, so almost 12 years now. Let’s not make it another 12 until the next one. Let’s do this good work together. Let’s ask the tough questions, and let’s pass this treaty, because I think it’s well past time for us to take this step with the K’ómoks Nation and with many other nations.

I really thank the members for their interest in the treaty, for the work that they’ve put in working with K’ómoks Nation, and I really hold my hands up to all members who want to engage in this work.

I’m sure there will be some tough questions. I know the critic will be keen to ask many, and I will do my best to provide the best answers that I can to share the important work, the honourable work that many members of the K’ómoks Nation, of the Comox Valley, of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations, of many other ministries, of the local governments, of the federal government have put in to get us to this stage.

It’s an exciting time. This will make a huge difference for the K’ómoks Nation, but indeed, it will lift up everybody in the Comox Valley as we find a better path of reconciliation with the K’ómoks Nation.

[4:30 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I’d just like to indicate that I will be the designated speaker to Bill 20.

This is really an interesting time for me, as the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. Three years ago, I never would’ve thought I would be standing here in the people’s House talking about a modern treaty. This is quite an interesting opportunity for me and for our caucus, I think, and I’m looking forward to making some remarks here today.

I want to thank the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation for his comments and the work of the ministry to do this work with a treaty.

We have a complicated landscape today in British Columbia. The minister alluded to that, that when there was settlement in British Columbia there was not the completion of signing historic treaties, an exercise which we saw throughout Canada at the time of settlement, over a period of time.

We do have a piece of Treaty 8, one of the historic treaties in the northeast and the Peace region, which overlaps into British Columbia, and a small handful of what are called the Douglas treaties on Vancouver Island. Essentially, that was it for well over 100 years. Some of the challenges that we’re seeing today, specifically with the land question, come down to the fact that we didn’t complete those treaties over 150, 175 years ago.

The lack of doing that back then puts us in this position that we’re in today, when we see claims of Aboriginal title that are happening across British Columbia. That is a constitutionally protected right under section 35 for nations to pursue that, as far as ownership over the land base. But again, that wouldn’t be possible if we had done that work a long time ago to settle these treaties.

We do have a number of modern treaties that have been settled since the early 1990s, starting with the Nisg̱a’a treaty. I had the opportunity to visit Nisg̱a’a treaty territory this summer. They were gracious enough to give some caucus members and myself a tour, to speak about their governance protocol, some of the economic opportunities that they were pursuing, which wouldn’t have been done in the same framework had they not had a modern treaty.

Generally speaking, the modern treaties that we’ve seen come forward have been successful in many ways. They’re not perfect. Nothing is. But generally speaking, I think if you asked the nations themselves that had settled modern treaties, they would say that it was successful for them.

Other models that we see around the province are, of course, the Tsawwassen treaty, the Maa-nulth treaties, ɬəʔamɛn and a handful of others. So there is a model in the modern treaty process, which is vastly different than we saw with historic treaties, that is generally successful. As the minister noted, it’s a lot of hard work.

I know with the K’ómoks treaty and Bill 20, to which we’re speaking today, this has been three decades in the making. It’s important for the public to understand that. That is a lot of blood, sweat and tears over many generations, to get that work finished, to where we sit today where we have a piece of legislation and a corresponding treaty document, which we are debating today and will be debating throughout the coming weeks.

[4:35 p.m.]

Just on a note, there is another treaty which has been brought forward to the Legislature, the Kitselas modern treaty. The Kitselas are Tsimshian People located in British Columbia’s northwest, and we will be debating that treaty legislation and the corresponding treaty document as we proceed.

I just want to take a minute and thank the Treaty Commission. They took a lot of time to answer our questions in opposition, to provide detailed briefings to our caucus. As the minister noted, we did have a delegation led by Chief Rempel from the K’ómoks First Nation, which came and spoke directly to us in opposition, and we found that very informative. It’s important for us to understand the treaty process and how that works.

As the minister also noted, it has been over ten years since we’ve had a modern treaty come forward to the people’s House.

With that, I would just like to say…. Obviously, the work that the minister had pointed out, with Chief Rempel in their community, to talk about treaty with their members at the K’ómoks First Nation, to highlight the positives that treaty can be for their community, specifically the permanent removal from the Indian Act, which is a very significant milestone, I think, for any nation that enters into the modern treaty process…. I know it was a highlight that was brought to our attention.

I just want to thank Chief Rempel and the council and all the folks with the K’ómoks First Nation for speaking with us. I know it has been a ton of hard work by the K’ómoks leadership throughout, as I said, several generations to get where we are today.

Obviously, treaty negotiations, like any negotiation, are very complex, demanding. They require sustained leadership, community engagement and persistence — especially in a process over several decades — to continue the momentum of getting toward a final treaty agreement.

I know there are 204 First Nations in British Columbia, several of which are at various stages of the treaty process. It is a very long and complex negotiation, and it does take a lot of sacrifice and hard work by both the participating First Nation — in this case with Bill 20, the K’ómoks, obviously — and for government. The idea with a treaty, generally speaking, is that the agreement is to define specific rights and governance and things within the treaty in exchange for land and other benefits to the nation.

I really look forward today to addressing the treaty and Bill 20. Unfortunately, I do have to say I’m a little bit disappointed in the government for bringing forward this legislation, which wasn’t on the proposed orders of business as they were supposed to be. We should be here debating Bill 9. I had a meeting with the Clerk’s office at 4:30 to talk specifically about this legislation because this was unbeknownst to us that we were moving the treaty to today.

I want to vocally display my displeasure for that, and I think my colleagues would agree, but I don’t blame the government. When it comes to reconciliation in British Columbia right now, I think it’s fair to say that they’re in a tailspin. It’s extremely frustrating that we are rushing this process through and that the official opposition has had a week to review a 308-page document that will be permanently entrenched into our constitution.

[4:40 p.m.]

In the opposition…. I’m not making excuses. I’ve worked extremely hard to get through this treaty, to make the notes that I need to. It’s extremely frustrating that it has been a handful of years and lots of government resources to finalize this treaty and the official opposition gets less than a week to review the document and make comments about it. I find that to be absolutely ridiculous, to be frank with you.

Again, I don’t blame the government. They are looking for something on the reconciliation file to celebrate, because they’ve utterly failed this province when it comes to reconciliation, especially in the last number of months. I’m not surprised that they’re rushing this forward to try and have something to celebrate in the media.

I do have to say that I’m quite disappointed with the lack of respect shown to the official opposition and to the public, for not having the adequate opportunity to properly review this extremely, extremely consequential document and to make corresponding comments about it. I find that to be very disappointing.

We in the official opposition have limited resources to go through this stuff, and the public is counting on us to ask the right questions and to debate properly and fairly the contents of Bill 20 and the corresponding treaty document. I think it’s fair to say that we have not been afforded that opportunity.

That was before the Government House Leader decided to throw a curveball into the orders of the day and call Bill 20. Shame on them. It would have been reasonable to give the public, first and foremost, and the official opposition 30 days to review this. I know why they’re doing it, and I’m going to get to that.

I personally support the previous modern treaty model. Like I said, it’s not perfect, and it’s a complicated landscape in British Columbia. I think the other modern treaty agreements, again, have shown successes.

The first thing I want to say is that Bill 20 and the corresponding K’ómoks treaty are vastly different in many respects than the previous modern treaties that were signed before this government came into power. Again, I’m going to get into that in much more detail moving forward.

With this rushed process, there has been very little time to consult with the public, to speak with various stakeholders, to properly understand the everlasting legal implications of a modern treaty. We’ve been given seven days to review this document, which will be enshrined in the constitution forever.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[4:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis: I see in the audience one of our regional district of East Kootenay directors, Mrs. Roberta Schnider, is here visiting from East Kootenay. It’s wonderful to see her here. She does so much great work in the East Kootenay as a regional director. It’s wonderful to see her. I do have a more lengthy meeting with her tomorrow, which I look forward to.

I’m hoping that the House could please make Mrs. Schnider welcome here today.

Debate Continued

Scott McInnis: I’ve never done that, where I’m in the middle of a speech and sought leave to make an introduction.

Back to my point here. This is not a driver’s-licence-renewal piece of legislation where…. “Yeah, give us a few days to look it over. We’ll make corresponding comments as we see fit. We’ll debate the legislation. We’ll go to committee, and we’ll talk about it.” This is a treaty. Once this is passed, in the language therein, it is next to impossible to make any amendments. This is extremely consequential.

Again, our resources in the official opposition to get through this document and the corresponding legislation, which doesn’t seem to me in many ways to be connected to the treaty itself…. It’s quite disconnected from the actual treaty document, to be honest with you. That was part of my meeting with the Clerk, to figure out: “Well, where in this enabling legislation can I actually ask questions about the treaty?” This is not clear to me.

Again, our resources are limited, and to get through this in seven days…. I’m really not sure what to say about that. I do want to make my point very clear once again. This treaty, the K’ómoks treaty, is not the same thing that we’ve seen with other modern treaties brought to this House and passed before this government got into power.

I don’t know, at this point, how I’m going to vote as the critic for the official opposition on this treaty. I support treaty. It’s the best that we have. It’s supposed to provide that certainty over land and resources. Rights are clearly defined within a treaty. I’m not sure that those questions are fully answered in this treaty.

I know that’s part of the objective here of speaking to Bill 20 and the corresponding treaty, but this is very clearly a different model than we’ve seen with past modern treaties, very different. There are lots of unanswered questions in Bill 20 that must be answered before I can make an informed decision on behalf of all British Columbians, as the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, as to whether I can support this or not.

This is a new, evolving model of treaty. It’s a living agreement. There are ongoing negotiating mechanisms to reopen the treaty every ten years and look at various provisions, which I’ll get into later, which is different. I’m not sure, in many ways, for all British Columbians, if that is something that’s going to provide that certainty that treaties are supposed to bring.

That’s the idea behind treaties. It does provide — for the First Nation that has entered into the agreement, the provincial government, the federal government and the public — that certainty and that finality. That’s why with the previous models, I’m a supporter.

[4:50 p.m.]

Why are we moving away from that model? That’s my biggest question here.

We are taking a modern treaty model that, like I said, is not perfect, but it generally works well and provides a lot of certainty and clarity and finality. Why are we moving away from that to something in a model that’s very unproven; I would say, at the bare minimum, legally uncertain; and, in many ways, ideologized by this government? I’m having a hard time understanding why we’d move away from something that’s working well.

I don’t put any of my criticism on the K’ómoks First Nation, certainly. They are wanting a pathway for self-determination and a departure from what’s a very harmful Indian Act in many ways. But I think this government has brought in components of uncertainty that make this treaty very difficult to comprehend at the very least.

Now, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation said a couple of things I’d like to draw attention to when speaking of neighbouring nations and their concerns, potentially, with treaty. We’re looking at their rights and how they’re impacted by treaty, because that’s the thing. Treaty, for a nation, especially on Vancouver Island…. I’m looking to my friend from Courtenay-Comox. I believe there are 63 or 64 First Nations just on Vancouver Island. So obviously, the treaty rights of one nation are going to have an impact on section 35 rights for other, neighbouring nations.

The minister says that he takes that very seriously. He also said: “We want to make sure we respect them.” Well, I’ve had the opportunity, over the last number of days, to speak with a delegation, including Chief Roberts, from the Wei Wai Kum First Nation. That’s, certainly, not the message that I received from the Wei Wai Kum, that they were taken very seriously or that they were respected.

We cannot pursue reconciliation for one First Nation at the expense of others. That is a recipe for disaster. That’s exactly the process that has been followed here. The Wei Wai Kum support K’ómoks in their path to self-determination and self-government. But the process by which they were included was an utter failure on behalf of this government, to put it very kindly.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’d like to read something into the record from the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, a release they put out on April 12, 2026. Before I do that, I’d just like to thank, again, the delegation for the Wei Wai Kum for reaching out to us in official opposition capacity to discuss their concerns, because, by all accounts, this government wouldn’t pick up the phone.

“April 12, 2026. Wei Wai Kum First Nation is urging the province of British Columbia to pause the K’ómoks First Nation treaty ratification process. While the nation remains committed to reconciliation, it warns that the K’ómoks treaty, as currently drafted, contains massive infringements on the Aboriginal rights and title of their nations. Unless amendments can be made, Wei Wai Kum will be forced into legal actions and other formal steps to protect its rights and interests.

“Wei Wai Kum has extended repeated invitations to Premier Eby, cabinet ministers and MLAs to meet with Hereditary Chiefs and Knowledge Keepers to understand Indigenous law.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder, we don’t use names.

Scott McInnis: Pardon me, Madam Speaker. I’m reading verbatim. I will watch that next time. My apologies.

“When the province declined, the nation moved the meeting to Victoria, steps from the Legislature, to remove any barrier to attendance.”

I’d just like to acknowledge that for that specific meeting, I was unable to attend because my one flight a day I get from the East Kootenay overlapped with that time.

Continuing: “The Premier and ministers still declined to meet. The nation expresses appreciation to the MLAs who attended.”

I’d like to stop it there for a second, because it was only opposition MLAs who attended that meeting. Not a single representative from government had the respect to, at least, go and listen. Not to make any promises, to say: “Yeah, we’ll amend the treaty. We’ll amend the legislation, Bill 20.” They didn’t even bother to show up.

Back to my comment about the minister. “We want to make sure we respect them.” Well, you missed it on this one.

“The current K’ómoks treaty draft is unlike any other modern treaty in B.C. It claims almost 80 percent of Wei Wai Kum territory, lands, waters and resources that ancestors secured and defended and that Wei Wai Kum leaders and members hold a responsibility to steward and protect. It would also give K’ómoks fee simple ownership of the Salmon River Reserve, which was created for the benefit of their ancestors in the 1880s.

“‘Wei Wai Kum supports K’ómoks in its reconciliation path, but not at the expense of our rights and title,’ stated Chief Councillor Chris Roberts. ‘We cannot accept a treaty that encompasses our lands, where our people have rights and title and have exercised stewardship, governance and cultural responsibility for generations. The nation is deeply disappointed and expects more from a government that speaks so often about reconciliation.’

“Wei Wai Kum First Nation calls on Canada and British Columbia to pause the ratification process.”

Notice they’re saying pause. They’re not saying rip it up. They’re not saying start again.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: Pardon me?

[5:00 p.m.]

I look forward to hearing some of these members speak to the treaty. I also would invite them to speak with Chief Roberts.

I’ll start again.

“Wei Wai Kum First Nation calls on Canada and British Columbia to pause” — in case anybody didn’t hear that — “the ratification process to ensure the treaty does not infringe on the rights, title and territory of Wei Wai Kum and the broader nations. One nation’s treaty should not come at the expense of another nation’s history, Indigenous law, rights, title and territory.

“By rushing to sign agreements that ignore major territorial overlaps, the Crown is creating conflict between nations and doubt among landowners and businesses across B.C., threatening to throw the province into uncertainty.

“These overlaps must be resolved through protocol between nations — ones that build unity, certainty and stability for everyone in the province. Those protocols need to be based on traditional laws and written into the treaties with equal legal force to the treaty.

“Wei Wai Kum is a significant economic driver for the mid-Island. Wei Wai Kum territory is the site of the John Hart dam; a new Wei Wai Kum–led wind farm project; two mines; and significant forestry, fishing and water resources. All of these may be put at risk if Wei Wai Kum is forced to go to court to claim Aboriginal title to protect itself against the K’ómoks treaty.”

How’s that going to look? A basic process to consult didn’t happen from this government, and now we have the Wei Wai Kum claiming Aboriginal title to the treaty territory of K’ómoks because this government can’t attend a meeting or pick up the telephone. “Oh, certainty. Oh, we’re working through with everybody.” Ridiculous.

I’m quoting Chief Roberts here again, from the statement.

“‘We want to see treaties succeed,’ said Chief Roberts. ‘But the Crown has a fundamental duty to ensure that treaties respect the rights of all nations whose territories are affected. The history, ownership and governments of their people in this region are clear, documented and cannot be ignored. K’ómoks cannot magically draw a line on a map, erase history and claim our territory. The governments should not let this happen, and our Chiefs, council and members will not allow it to happen.’

“Wei Wai Kum cannot and will not stand by while the Crown unilaterally assigns rights within its territory to another nation. The nation calls on the NDP government to postpone bringing forward legislation in the spring session to ratify the K’ómoks treaty. The nation wants to celebrate alongside K’ómoks, but meaningful collaboration must come first.

“‘We have solutions to offer. We are willing to negotiate protocols with K’ómoks to jointly recognize core territories and to support each other’s treaties,’ said Chief Roberts. ‘To date, K’ómoks has been unwilling to negotiate these solutions, and unlike in other treaties, the governments have declined to require these protocols as part of the K’ómoks treaty. We are calling on British Columbia to create space for effective and respectful dialogue among nations so that all can support the agreement, including Wei Wai Kum.’”

As opposition members, we can’t ignore these concerns nor should the government. I’m not going to speak for the Wei Wai Kum, but it sounds to me like they’re prepared to use every legal tool in the toolbox to make sure that a process is followed and that they’re heard, a process which was not at all afforded to them by this government.

[5:05 p.m.]

Now, I know overlap issues have occurred before in some of the modern treaties, but we’re in a new reality in 2026.

I have a news release here from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that I’d like to read into the record, from today. The title of that letter is: “UBCIC Supports Calls to Uphold the Title and Rights of all Impacted First Nations Before Advancing Treaty Legislation.”

“xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ, Vancouver, B.C., April 22, 2026.

“The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs stands in support of Wei Wai Kum First Nation, the Nine Allied Tribes and the Lax Kw’alaams Band in their call for the province to pause advancement of the K’ómoks and Kitselas treaty bills until outstanding issues are addressed with respect to boundary resolution.

“Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, UBCIC president, said: ‘Reconciliation cannot be achieved through incomplete or unilateral processes. Moving forward without resolving shared territory and overlap issues risks undermining relationships between First Nations and creating long-term uncertainty.

“‘The concerns raised by impacted nations reflect long-standing issues with Crown negotiation practices, including those consistently raised by the UBCI Chiefs council, and advancing treaty legislation with unresolved boundary issues is irresponsible and will be challenged. This approach is not aligned with the province’s commitments to support nation-led work to address territorial overlaps.’”

Continuing on in the letter:

“The nations have raised serious concerns regarding unresolved territorial overlaps, governance issues and the lack of meaningful consultation and accommodation — issues that engage fundamental principles of inherent and constitutionally protected title and rights and the honour of the Crown.

“‘UBCIC supports the inherent rights of First Nations to self-determination. However, the Crown must not advance agreements that affect multiple nations’ territories without ensuring meaningful consultation, accommodation and the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted nations,’ stated Chief Councillor Linda Innes, UBCIC vice-president.”

I think it’s fair to say that with the recent events in the news, this government’s relationship with the UBCIC is already a chilly one. I don’t foresee that moving forward a treaty without following just a simple process is going to help that relationship.

Again, this government is trying to plow ahead with a treaty because they need a win. But there’s a lot at stake here, and I don’t think they realize what they’re risking doing to try to accomplish that.

So an overlap issue process. Again, it was very clear from both the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Wei Wai Kum First Nation that all they’re asking for is a little bit more time to address some of these concerns.

Again, they’ve reached out to government, to ministers and to the Premier. Radio silence. This could have been avoided. We shouldn’t be talking about this. This didn’t pop up yesterday. Any form of progressing with a form of reconciliation cannot be at the expense of others. That cannot happen.

[5:10 p.m.]

It’s very clear, again, from these letters that unless this is addressed, there is legal action coming. I can assume very expensive legal action. I think that’s a fair conclusion to draw.

Again, I’m trying to understand why we’re moving away from a model that has generally been successful into a rushed process with lots of question marks.

With that, I do want to move into my next theme here as an issue with this treaty. For Bill 20, under section 3 of the treaty…. I’m looking now at the treaty document itself. In the general provisions…. The public needs to know this, because general provisions in a treaty…. I mean, if we do those well, they should be very transferable in treaties. They should be the foundation that is bulletproof, that we can engage with nations and say: “We have the general provisions taken care of. Now we’ll work out the particulars.”

In Bill 20, again under section 3 of the treaty — I’m looking at the document itself here — “General provisions,” under “Nature of this agreement,” section 5: “The United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is an authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement and accordingly informs all the parties of their implementation of this agreement.”

Is the government out of its mind? I mean that with the greatest of respect. We’ve spent the last three weeks canvassing the legal issues the UN declaration is having on our province. The Premier has called it “the legal uncertainty,” “chaos he needs to fix,” “an emergency” and all these other things, to the point where he was going to amend the legislation, which is DRIPA, to suspend it, to make it a confidence vote, to not…. And now we’re looking at enshrining the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples into a treaty?

I can’t believe that this…. This was a shock when I read this: “An authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement.” That is exactly the problem, legally, that we’re facing with provincial legislation. So we’re going to look to the United Nations declaration as, ultimately, the authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement? Have we lost it?

The Premier has sought leave to the Supreme Court of Canada over the relationship between the UN declaration and the laws of British Columbia, and somehow this government thinks that enshrining this exact same provision into a treaty is a good idea.

[5:15 p.m.]

I can’t believe it, and I’m certainly not the only one. I’m going to get there.

So how are we to do that? The provincial government, federal government and the nation…. To use this, the United Nations is the authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement.

The Premier is seeking leave to the Supreme Court of Canada to do the opposite in provincial legislation, because he rushed through the Interpretation Act when everybody was looking the other way during a provincial emergency and shut debate down after 14 minutes. Yet here’s the same language in a treaty that cannot ever be changed.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: Again, I look forward to the member from Surrey standing up and speaking in favour of this treaty and how that, actually, makes any sense.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: I apologize to the member from Surrey.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: Don’t tell me what to do.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Scott McInnis: Sorry, the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside says it’s not true. I look forward to her explaining that in detail — how it’s not true.

Why are we creating legal uncertainty in this treaty when it comes to the UN declaration? We are in the middle of a chaotic situation related to the UN declaration and our own provincial laws. Why are we doing this?

When the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples was drafted, was it drafted specifically to be implemented in British Columbia as a stand-alone declaration? The answer is no. Was it drafted to be placed into provincial legislation in any province in Canada? The answer is no. But somehow this government has decided that they’ll enshrine it in a constitutional document, with all the legal chaos that is taking place around the province in relation to our laws aligning with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Why are we treating UNDRIP as if it’s some sort of holy document for reconciliation in British Columbia when it was not drafted specifically to be implemented in British Columbia, let alone in a constitutionally protected document? Again, have we lost our minds?

We have legal chaos in this province right now. And for some reason, we make the United Nations declaration the authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement. How is the court going to read that when there’s an issue with the treaty? Anybody know? Didn’t think so. Nobody does.

[5:20 p.m.]

It’s just like what happened in Gitxaała in December of 2025. The Premier said that it was a shock to him and the courts got it wrong when, in fact, they interpreted the law exactly as he wrote it.

We have the same thing in this document, exactly. We have DRIPA and the Interpretation Act wound into one in a constitutional document that cannot be changed.

This does not create the certainty that is absolutely necessary for the validity of treaties, moving forward. How are the courts going to look at that two, five, ten years down the road? Nobody knows.

I’d like to read two things into the record to validate exactly what I’m saying. The first one is a bulletin that was put out by McMillan LLP. One of the drafters of this bulletin is Robin Junger, who served in government as a deputy minister and also a chief treaty negotiator, so I think it’s fair to assume he knows what he’s talking about.

April 14, 2026. The title is “Do Recent Treaty Agreements Address the Uncertainties Created by the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaała Cases?”

“There has been a great deal of discussion lately regarding the Cowichan Tribes and the Gitxaała court cases. Cowichan Tribes found Aboriginal title to exist over private land in Richmond, relying at least in part on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Gitxaała found a B.C. law, the Mineral Tenure Act, legally unacceptable on the basis it was contrary to the DRIPA.

“But there is another significant legal issue lurking here that does not appear to have received much attention to date. It relates to the question of whether, or to what degree, three recently signed final agreements, treaties, with the Kitselas, Kitsumkalum and K’ómoks First Nations perpetuate the same risks the B.C. government has expressed concern about in the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaała court cases.

“The answer to this question may ultimately depend in part on whether the B.C. government suspends part of DRIPA, as it has said it plans to do” — not anymore — “but it appears the government is planning to introduce treaty implementation legislation for new treaties with additional First Nations in the Legislature imminently.

“Issue 1. The treaty agreements rely on UNDRIP and contain provisions similar to those that the court relied on in Gitxaała and Cowichan Tribes. The preambles to each of the new treaty agreements state that the parties enter into the respective agreements with the common objective of advancing the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The substantive provisions of the new treaty agreements provide that UNDRIP is an authoritative source for interpretation and will inform the parties in their implementation of the respective new treaty agreements.

[5:25 p.m.]

“Both the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaała decisions relied on UNDRIP and related B.C. legislation — in Cowichan Tribes, in support of the conclusion that the provisions of the Land Title Act that provide indefeasible title to private land owners do not apply to protect against Aboriginal title claims over private land; and in Gitxaała, as an interpretive aid in addressing the proper reading of the Mineral Tenure Act, in support of the conclusion that the province’s online mineral claims system used to grant mineral claims under that act is inconsistent with UNDRIP.

“UNDRIP appears to have influenced the language used in the new treaty agreements. As a result and in contrast to other modern-era treaties, the new treaty agreements do not appear to provide the certainty found in prior modern treaty agreements.

“Issue 2. The recent treaties use a new certainty model that does not protect private property owners conclusively and forever against Aboriginal title claims.

“Each of the new treaty agreements provides that the intent is to ‘achieve flexibility, clarity and predictability’ in providing for the implementation of Aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including Aboriginal title, by setting out (a) the respective First Nations’ ‘exercisable section 35 rights,’ their attributes, the geographic extent of those rights and the limitation of those rights; and (b) the processes by which Aboriginal rights that are not at this time exercisable may become exercisable section 35 rights.

“Of the 13 modern-day treaties passed into law in Canada since the Nisg̱a’a final agreement, made effective on May 11, 2000, none have yet applied this new certainty model. Prior modern treaties — for example, the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement, made December 6, 2007 — set out ‘exhaustive’ Aboriginal rights and the limitations to those rights as modified by the treaty.

“In contrast, the new treaty agreements do not present this same finality but rather provide processes that may allow for further exercisable rights to be asserted, including through binding arbitration. Private land owners, industrial users of public land and private owners who use public land are not shielded from such claims.

“While there has been some public engagement on the issue of this new treaty model, that all happened well before the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaała decisions were rendered. It does not appear that a great deal of attention was paid to the issue. Government reports of public feedback contain only the following minimal statements that do not in any way address the issues that have arisen from the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaała cases.

“Question. Reconciliation, rights and title — will there be extinguishment of rights, assurances against future claims?

“Answer. Treaties do not extinguish or modify rights. They are living agreements that can evolve over time. Treaties create the foundation for renewed relationships between the Indigenous group — in this case, the K’ómoks — B.C. and Canada to build a stronger future.

“Question. How will the treaty affect access to private properties in the Kitsumkalum treaty territory?

“Answer. Access to private property is guaranteed under provisions set out in the treaty. Numbered provincial highways and major resource roads are excluded from the land package, ensuring access for landowners. If a private property is accessed by a road that will become treaty lands, an easement will be provided by Kitselas or Kitsumkalum to ensure access.”

“Issue 3. The recent treaties raise a question whether the prior treaties will need to be reopened on the basis that their certainty model is contrary to the Declaration Act.

[5:30 p.m.]

“Article 26(1) of UNDRIP provides that ‘Indigenous Peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.’ No provision of UNDRIP states that such rights are subject to treaties or agreements that Indigenous Peoples may make with the state that would limit or modify such rights or exercise them.

“There is some potential a court could find the new treaty agreements and related implementing legislation contrary to DRIPA in this regard, using reasoning similar to that of the Court of Appeal in Gitxaała. But there is an even greater chance a court could make such a finding in relation to the prior treaties that used the ‘modification of rights’ model of certainty discussed above. This is especially true if the court were called upon to consider that question in the face of other legislation implementing a different certainty model contained in the new treaty agreements.

“These are complex questions that are subject to various contingencies and which may, ultimately, require litigation to address. But what is clear is that any suggestion B.C. will achieve certainty and avoid DRIPA-based concerns through greater use of treaties is an oversimplification and perhaps even illusory.

“In the meanwhile, it is important that any business investing in any areas of B.C. where treaties exist or are pending consider seeking legal counsel specific to their circumstances to ensure they understand the degree to which those treaties do or do not provide certainty now and into the future.”

As I had alluded to in that letter, that opens a whole other set of questions, because we have a number of modern treaties in British Columbia already, like I stated: Nisg̱a’a, Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth, ɬəʔamɛn. I think it’s fair to say that they’re going to want to have their treaties opened and looked at, because they don’t include the same certainty model or the UNDRIP language that is within Bill 20 and in the treaty itself.

How’s that going to work? Again, are we risking successful modern treaties, which are working, with what is a very unclear, somewhat radical new model?

I want to reiterate that I support treaty. It is the best that we have, as a constitutionally protected right. This is entirely different in many respects. Why? Again, why are we abandoning something that has worked, with uncertainty…?

It has to be drawn to attention on the record that these issues for which we’re speaking were not part of the agreement-in-principle signed before this government came into power. In the K’ómoks treaty, there were alterations, significant ones, made after the agreement-in-principle, which lays down the foundation which the treaty follows. This government comes into power, and then they throw all this UNDRIP language in, change the certainty model, apparently don’t talk to neighbouring nations whatsoever, and here we are.

[5:35 p.m.]

Why? Why are we going down this road? Why don’t we just take the general provisions and the model that worked for, let’s see, 25 years in the new modern treaty system? Why don’t we just take that and apply it to Bill 20 and the related K’ómoks treaty? Why don’t we just keep it the same? What’s not working? What’s uncertain about them?

I just can’t understand, in this legal environment, which we face in relation to UNDRIP, why we’re bringing it into a treaty to create this uncertainty. As the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I want nothing more than to support this treaty, but I’m having a very, very difficult time with this model.

As I’ve expressed in my first letter, I’m not the only one who shares those concerns. I bet you if we had more than a week to review these treaties, we’d have other people speaking out. I imagine this won’t be the end of what we hear about why we are pursuing this new model. Again, I’m begging somebody in government to stand up in their budget speech and explain why we’re going away from that and why implementing UNDRIP is going to radically somehow make the treaties even better.

Again, a declaration drafted by the United Nations — not specific to B.C., not meant to be in law — is now going to be somehow entrenched into a constitutional document forever, in a climate where there is extreme legal uncertainty around how to even interpret that document legally.

It’s not a legal document. It’s supposed to be an aspirational guide. But now it’s the authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement. Again, the question I have is: why? That’s not the only reference to UNDRIP within the treaty, but it’s certainly the most concerning one. I highlighted on social media a few days ago that there was a sharp turn taken with Bill 20 and the corresponding treaty from the agreement-in-principle to today — a sharp turn.

I’d like to read something into the record from somebody I’m actually looking forward to meeting in person one day soon; somebody who I have tremendous respect for and for their work as a constitutional law professor at the University of Saskatchewan, a tier 1 research chair; somebody who’s very pragmatic, non-partisan, a leading academic on constitutional law — Dr. Dwight Newman.

I recommend everybody do a little reading on what Dr. Dwight Newman publishes on his Law for Breakfast Substack. It’s very informative.

[5:40 p.m.]

Like I said, it’s very non-partisan, very objective. Dr. Newman caught wind of me addressing the divergence between the agreement-in-principle and the final treaty agreement, and I’d like to read what he had to say.

“B.C.’s new treaties contain significant amendments that need to be explained. April 19, 2026.

“I don’t normally do two posts in the same weekend, and in doing so, I am also interrupting my three-part series on UNDRIP that I started yesterday, but there is a breaking development worthy of attention.

“My eye was caught the other day by a post on X by Scott McInnis, MLA, claiming that the new modern treaties under discussion in British Columbia departed from the underlying agreements-in-principle. I decided to look into this a bit more and found even more changes compared to those I already highlighted.

“By way of background, British Columbia has three new modern treaties negotiated that also involve the federal government and that now need legislative and parliamentary approval of treaty implementation statutes: the K’ómoks treaty, the Kitselas treaty and the Kitsumkalum treaty. They’re all posted here, but they’re hundreds of pages each, as are the underlying agreements-in-principle.

“Having reached modern treaties would normally be an unqualified good thing, as modern treaties are an excellent win-win way of achieving clarity with Indigenous nations and resolving outstanding legal claims. But the B.C. government has done different things in these treaties than ever before and is muddying communications around them in ways that are deeply problematic and will cut against trust in institutions.

“With the length of the documents, I did not have time to compare all of them at this point, but comparing the K’ómoks treaty to the corresponding agreement-in-principle gives us some examples of very significant changes, some of which have been under discussions, sometimes implicitly such as in this law firm bulletin, but some of which have not. At a very quick glance, the other two treaties have also changed, but they warrant their own detailed attention. Sticking even to just the K’ómoks treaty, even while other changes probably also warrant attention, let’s consider just four of those.

“First, the agreement-in-principle took the traditional approach of using a modern treaty to achieve legal certainty, often seen on the public side as the main point of negotiating modern treaties. But the treaty takes the living agreement approach that avoids extinguishing or even modifying rights.

“Look at article 34 of the general provisions: ‘Nothing in this agreement or the treaty implementation legislation modifies or extinguishes any Aboriginal rights of K’ómoks, and Canada and British Columbia will not assert against K’ómoks that any Aboriginal rights of the K’ómoks are modified, surrendered or extinguished as a result of this agreement or the treaty implementation legislation.’

“Now, the K’ómoks do agree to exercise only certain rights, the ‘exercisable rights’ under the treaty, general provisions, article 35. This is a different approach compared to that in previous treaties and in the agreement-in-principle.

[5:45 p.m.]

“Going along with this new approach is an avoidance of finality in the treaty. There are instead to be periodic renewal discussions. These are to consider various matters that may give rise to desires for change to the treaty — see periodic renewal provisions, starting at page 24 — including changes in law or policy and whether there is progress being made on the ‘common objectives’ defined earlier in the treaty that include providing for K’ómoks self-government; supporting cultural preservation, capacity-building and new fiscal relationships; ‘achieving equity with other Canadians in socioeconomic outcomes and overall well-being of K’ómoks and K’ómoks members;’ ‘enhancing economic opportunities for K’ómoks, K’ómoks members and the surrounding community;’ and ‘implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in accordance with the Constitution of Canada.’

“Second, let’s pick up on the last point. That provision about implementing UNDRIP is a new provision compared to the agreement-in-principle. A search of the AIP actually shows no mention of UNDRIP. So it’s also new that the treaty has general provision article 5, which states that the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is an authoritative source for the interpretation of this agreement and accordingly informs the parties in their implementation of this agreement.

“In technical legal terms, that provision does not precisely entrench UNDRIP in the treaty, but one wouldn’t be unreasonable to describe its effects that way. It does say, in effect, that any interpretation must seek alignment with UNDRIP, and it also says that the parties must implement the treaty in a manner shaped by UNDRIP. UNDRIP has taken on a role never set out in the AIP but now present in the treaty.

“Three, the general consultation provisions in the treaty are very different than those in the AIP. Most notably, consider the general provision article 67, which states that Canada and British Columbia will carry out consultation as set out in paragraphs 66 to 79, with the aim of securing the free, prior and informed consent of the K’ómoks.

“This is a ‘free, prior and informed consent’ oriented consultation requirement rather than a requirement of meaningful consultation as set out thus far in Canada’s duty-to-consult case law. There are significant conceptual differences between the two, as I have shown in a recent book chapter and as I will discuss in some degree in part 2 of the three-part series on how UNDRIP means different things than claimed. There is a change between the AIP and the treaty that takes on a conceptually different approach to consultation generally, as well as further changes on consultation, but I can’t talk about everything here.

“Four, look at general provision article 27. ‘Prior to expressing consent to be bound by an international treaty that would give rise to a new international legal obligation, Canada will consult with K’ómoks separately or through a forum or means as appropriate if compliance with the new international legal obligation may adversely affect a right of K’ómoks under this agreement.’

“Now, this isn’t as much an issue at the provincial level, but it’s another interesting change after the AIP, which had a more limited commitment of consultation in its general article 53, which says: ‘Canada will consult with K’ómoks on the formation of Canada’s position in respect of international discussions or negotiations that may adversely affect the K’ómoks right to harvest migratory birds.’

[5:50 p.m.]

“Previously, Canada was agreeing to consult about its position in advance of forming its position on the specific topic of migratory birds. Now Canada is agreeing to consult, especially in advance of any treaty signature ratification process that may affect K’ómoks’s exercisable rights. The inclusion of such provisions in this and other treaties affects Canada’s abilities to participate efficiently in international treaty-making and global governance processes, and they warrant further discussion as well, not just in British Columbia but at a national level.

“Apart from the very practical effects of these new clauses, why does this all matter? Normally, the point of a treaty within these processes is simply to put into better legal language the agreement already reached in the AIP.”

I’m just curious why there was such a left turn taken from the original agreement-in-principle to what we have here today in Bill 20 and the corresponding treaty.

In the last few minutes, I want to speak here today…. Again, there are significant differences between what we’ve seen pre-2016 and what we see today. To reiterate, this overlap issue is a very complicated one. I want to be very understanding and respectful, both to the government, because I know this is hard work, and to the affected nations and the treaty nations themselves. There’s lots of work that has to be done there.

But the process itself about being open and willing to listen to those concerns is one that’s non-negotiable. Again, the overlap issue is a complicated one, but that doesn’t excuse not sitting down at the table or picking up the phone, which were exactly the concerns expressed by the Wei Wai Kum First Nation. They made it very clear that all they want to do is have a little bit of time to talk about it and to have somebody in government listen to them.

We can’t undertake this extremely critical work, which is going to adversely affect others, without at least addressing it and listening to those concerns, because the result is going to be more litigation, more court challenges, more cases of Aboriginal title being filed in the B.C. court system, which makes everybody nervous.

We have to find a better mechanism to address these complicated overlap issues before we go ahead and finalize a treaty. Again, more important than solving all of those overlap issues, which may or may not happen, there has to be a fair process to ensure that, if we can’t solve all the issues, at least those affected have the time and the space to talk about it.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m not the only one who’s expressing these concerns. There are more people out there, legal experts, who are raising concerns about some of the language in the treaty, because it’s vastly different than what we’ve seen before. The treaty has only been publicly available for less than a week. I think it’s fair to say that’s not the end of those concerns. We have leading academics in Aboriginal law expressing legitimate concerns about why we’re doing this.

Again, some of the issues were raised by Dr. Dwight Newman, who’s not a politician, not an activist or an opposition staffer. He’s a law professor at the University of Saskatchewan. His conclusion is that there are significant, undisclosed changes between the agreement-in-principle and the final treaty.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I don’t know why the rush to debate this so quickly when everybody, including the public, has had seven days to look at it.

Professor Newman wrote: “Some of these changes seem to reflect an actual renegotiation of the agreement previously reached.” A renegotiation. That’s not a slight drafting adjustment.

He talked about why an explanation of why these changes were made has not been publicly forthcoming, to provide some transparency. The agreement-in-principle was based off an old model — well, a modern model — that was generally very successful. Then we took a right turn and went down an unproven, legally uncertain model under UNDRIP. I don’t understand why we’re putting ourselves in that position. Transparency is key with these treaties, and there are some hard questions to answer.

Why are we doing it this way? Again, this is a serious document. Once Bill 20 is passed here, and the corresponding connected treaty, we can’t go back and say: “Oops, that was a bit of a mistake. Why did we put UNDRIP as the authoritative source for interpretation of this document when we don’t know how the courts are interpreting UNDRIP? Why did we do that?” The concern is that’s exactly what we’re doing with the Declaration Act in our provincial legislation.

We have court cases lined up out the door because of that. How is that going to affect the K’ómoks treaty in Bill 20, let alone the other previously reached agreements around the province for treaty? We can’t afford that. “Oops, we made a mistake. Let’s go back and erase it.”

[6:00 p.m.]

It’s easy to do an analysis between Bill 20 and the corresponding K’ómoks treaty and some of these previously reached agreements.

Again, if we look at the Maa-nulth treaty, the final agreement from 2009, and the K’ómoks treaty, they’re two fundamentally different models. But why? Does the Premier have a stack of complaints on his desk from the Tsawwassen, the Nisg̱a’a, the Maa-nulth Nation, the ɬəʔamɛn saying: “Our treaty is not working”? Maybe he does but he hasn’t told anybody.

A treaty is a negotiated settlement to provide certainty. Part of the agreement is that the rights for a treaty First Nation are clearly defined and written down. That’s part of the agreement, in exchange for land and treaty settlement lands, federal money. That’s the agreement that’s struck. But we seem to be moving towards a model where that’s not happening anymore. Again, I’m struggling to understand why we’re doing that.

It’s called a living agreement, this treaty, but that’s not what treaties are supposed to be. They’re supposed to provide that certainty. Of course, every 25 years or 20 years, whatever it is, you have a look at some things as time evolves. But again, the certainty provisions and the hard-wiring of UNDRIP into this treaty makes it very concerning, and I can’t understand why we’re doing that.

Again, how are the courts going to interpret UNDRIP being the authoritative source for interpretation of it? Because UNDRIP is very vague. It’s not a legal document. It was never written to be law anywhere. But again, this government seems to have it as this bright beacon which we need to head towards or we’re not achieving reconciliation. Why?

As far as I know, Canada is the only country on the planet with constitutionally protected and recognized Aboriginal rights. For some reason, we seem to be placing UNDRIP at a higher level than those rights, when we don’t even know what it is and the courts don’t know what it is. Why? We shouldn’t revert to: “Well, it’s a nice thing to do” or “It makes sense.”

[6:05 p.m.]

Again, this government has done an excellent job of somehow framing that UNDRIP is reconciliation and that without it, we’re going to lose human rights for Indigenous People in Canada, in British Columbia. But it never brought in any new rights. Those were already there.

With all the uncertainty, the legal uncertainty, that we’re facing in this province today, it has been the topic of discussion for weeks or months on end, around the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. With that uncertainty, why this government thinks it is a good idea to hard-wire it into a treaty is beyond comprehension.

My ears are open. If there are people, members on the government side, who make a good argument about why that’s important or why it’s contingent in this treaty, I’ll listen. But also, not forgetting that we are in a climate of extreme legal uncertainty in this province right now with UNDRIP….

Again, we’re the only nation on the planet with entrenched constitutional Aboriginal rights. UNDRIP doesn’t introduce new rights. Taking it away doesn’t take away any rights. Why are we doing this?

There are lots of components of this treaty which are generally the same, as we’ve seen with other modern treaties that have been successful. But that overarching umbrella of UNDRIP being the authoritative source for the interpretation of this treaty changes everything. The duty to consult and accommodate is replaced with free, prior and informed consent.

I want to finish my thoughts just by sincerely reiterating my desire to want to support the K’ómoks First Nation in their treaty. Because, again, it has been decades of hard work, generations of hard work. But again, for some reason, this government is experimenting with a new model that is completely unproven and legally uncertain. I do not understand why.

I’ll tell you right now, if these were the same general provisions and generally the same framework as our previous modern treaties, my speech would’ve been five minutes long.

This is a shock to me, that we’re moving in this direction. I didn’t anticipate this when we spoke with the K’ómoks leadership, when we spoke with the B.C. Treaty Commission. Then this came out. It certainly wasn’t what we anticipated.

[6:10 p.m.]

I want to support this. But I’m not, at this moment, sure that I can.

There’s a very — I don’t know how to describe it — similar feeling to when we look back to 2019 with the provincial legislation around the Declaration Act and the subsequent Interpretation Act amendments, where it was the same thing. It was like: “Don’t worry about it. It’s just aspirational. It’s just a guide for how we should be pushing forward relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.”

Now today we see that our province is in big trouble legally because we didn’t take the time to actually debate what that would look like down the road and the uncertainty, potentially, that it would create. And here we are.

Again, the Premier, his desire…. He’s a very smart man. Very smart. I genuinely believe that he understands the legal challenges that are in front of this province right now. I firmly believe that, which is why he made several proposals to amend, suspend, pause the Declaration Act until we actually figure out what this means and how it’s actually intertwined into our legal framework in British Columbia. I firmly believe he understands that challenge in front of him.

Why are we putting it into a treaty — the same thing? Honestly, I’m sick to my stomach that in five or seven years from now, we’re going to be like we are today but in the same situation with treaty. We have to think about that.

It’s not a situation of calm waters legally right now in British Columbia. The Premier has admitted that several times. So again, what are we doing? Why are we experimenting with this? There’s no need to. We have a successful model with a proven track record.

But again, for some reason, we feel like we have to have UNDRIP. We have to have it there. Without it, this won’t be successful. It won’t work. It won’t achieve reconciliation. But why? I hope that throughout the stages of this debate and the subsequent committee debate when we go through this, we can get those answers.

All I want to know is: why are we doing this? What’s the reason for it? What are we missing in the other modern treaties that we need to put it in here? Again, I haven’t heard from the other Modern Treaty Nations that it’s not working for them without it. This has the potential, realistically, to create legal chaos once again.

[6:15 p.m.]

Can we answer that question, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, of why we need UNDRIP in a treaty, not as a reference, not as a footnote at the back, not as a guide, not as some sort of documented moral compass but as the authoritative source for the interpretation of the agreement, when the authoritative source for the interpretation of the Declaration Act in our provincial legislation is extremely uncertain, to put it mildly?

Again, if government members can explain that to me in detail, in good faith, I’ll listen to them. Present your arguments. Why do we need UNDRIP hard-wired into this treaty when we have other models successfully working without it? We’re throwing a web of legal uncertainty into a constitutional document. Why?

I certainly hope that in relation to the Wei Wai Kum…. Again, I want to thank them very much for reaching out to the official opposition. I enjoyed speaking to Chief Roberts, a very nice guy. I hope there is an avenue to address their concerns around this treaty and Bill 20.

Again, I’m realistic. I don’t think we’ll be able to solve all the issues that they’re addressing. I don’t think they believe that either. But I think it’s the process to try and find some common ground that they feel has been tremendously flawed from this government. I think when we’re talking about treaty, sometimes the process is just as or more important than the final outcome, because it sets the table for what we are going to do in the future.

I certainly hope that there’s a willingness, as the minister said he wants to respect neighbours, to take them seriously. There’s a great opportunity to do that. As I alluded to in their letter, I feel like if government fails to do that, to even take a meeting, to have a conversation…. It was made clear to us as a delegation that that certainly hasn’t happened. Not even the effort was made.

I can’t understand that. At the very least tell them: “You know what? It’s a signed document. There’s nothing we can do.” At least give them that courtesy. But to not even respond?

I fear greatly that the possible outcomes are going to be not helpful, not only for the K’ómoks First Nation; for the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, who was also involved in the treaty process themselves, might I add. I think for all nations in British Columbia, this is very important, as I feel like if this process of addressing the concerns is not followed, these three modern treaties may be the last ones we see, including Bill 20 and the K’ómoks treaty.

[6:20 p.m.]

Again, I want to reiterate something from the letter from the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, when speaking about all their economic development opportunities that they have. They’re working hard on being a successful economic driver as a First Nation.

“All of these may be put at risk if Wei Wai Kum is forced to go to court to claim Aboriginal title to protect itself against the K’ómoks treaty.” That should be reason enough for the government to pick up the phone, because they’ve made it very clear that they have core territory which they may be able to prove, to the test of Aboriginal title, ongoing and exclusive occupation of the land. They may be able to prove that in treaty settlement lands of the K’ómoks First Nation.

Think of the mess. That will not be helpful for any form of reconciliation to happen in this province, because I can guarantee you, if that process isn’t addressed, this won’t be the only time we’ll see that.

Option A: set up a meeting, pick up the phone and maybe Wei Wai Kum continues to follow the path of their own treaty. Failure to do so? We may have a claim of Aboriginal title that creates a legal mess when it’s completely and utterly avoidable.

I want to thank you for the time. As the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, it has been a true honour to speak to a treaty. I’m very serious when I say I want nothing more than to support this treaty, but I have very serious concerns about some of the core language that I see in this treaty, and it’s not necessary. It creates major uncertainty, moving forward.

Steve Morissette: I rise today with optimism to speak in support of the introduction of the K’ómoks Treaty Act and the Kitselas Treaty Act. These are not just pieces of legislation. They are milestones. They are a result of decades of work, dialogue, perseverance and partnership between First Nations, the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada. Most importantly, they are steps forward on the path of reconciliation, a path we all share responsibility to walk together.

Treaties matter. They matter because they recognize something fundamental, that First Nations have inherent rights — rights that predate Confederation, rights that were never extinguished and rights that deserve to be recognized and implemented in a meaningful, modern way.

Modern treaties are constitutionally protected agreements. They are not symbolic. They are not abstract.

[6:25 p.m.]

They are practical frameworks that define how we live and work together on this land. They bring clarity where there has been uncertainty. They replace outdated systems imposed under the Indian Act with modern, self-governing structures that reflect the priorities, values and aspirations of treaty nations.

Importantly, they are not static documents. They are living agreements designed to evolve over time as relationships grow and circumstances change. They are not a line drawn in the sand. They are a bridge forward.

British Columbia is unique in Canada. Unlike much of the country, the majority of First Nations in our province do not have historical treaties defining land ownership, governance or jurisdiction. That absence has created uncertainty for First Nations, for governments, for businesses and for communities.

Modern treaties are one of the most important tools we have to address that reality. They provide clarity around land ownership and governance. They establish how decisions are made. They create certainty for investment and development. And they provide a foundation for respectful, collaborative relationships moving forward.

We do not need to imagine the benefits of treaties. We can see them. In treaty nations across British Columbia, we are witnessing real, measurable outcomes: stronger local economies; higher wages, not only for treaty nations but in surrounding communities as well; new investments in business partnerships; better infrastructure; and communities that are empowered culturally, socially and economically to shape their own futures. These agreements benefit everyone. They lead to healthier communities, improved services, sustainable stewardship of land and resources and long-term stability.

Let me turn specifically to the K’ómoks treaty. This treaty is the result of decades of negotiation. It reflects a tremendous amount of work by the K’ómoks First Nation and by both levels of government. Importantly, it reflects the will of the people. On March 8, 2025, eligible voters from K’ómoks First Nation voted in favour of ratifying their treaty and self-government constitution. That matters. That is democracy in action. That is self-determination.

If fully ratified, the K’ómoks treaty will recognize the nation’s pre-existing rights and define how they are exercised; establish self-government and law-making authority; affirm K’ómoks lands for governance and management; protect language, culture and heritage; and create a renewed relationship between K’ómoks, their neighbours and all levels of government.

This treaty will support economic development in the Comox Valley. It will help facilitate housing. It will encourage investment, and it will create jobs. It will provide certainty — certainty that benefits not just Comox but the entire region.

The Kitselas treaty represents another important milestone. Like the K’ómoks, the Kitselas First Nation has worked for decades to reach this point.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I just want to make sure that we focus on the treaty and the piece of legislation before us today.

Steve Morissette: Okay, thank you.

[6:30 p.m.]

I also want to highlight an important and practical aspect of these agreements: treaty side agreements. These are detailed, legally binding agreements that help operationalize treaty commitments. They provide flexibility. They allow partners to work through technical and implementation details, and they ensure that the spirit of the treaty is translated into real, on-the-ground outcomes.

A strong example of this is the K’ómoks Estuary consent agreement. This agreement reflects a shared commitment to stewardship of a vital ecological area, one that supports salmon, wildlife and countless plant species and that holds deep cultural significance for the K’ómoks People.

Through this agreement, decisions about land use and estuary will be made through a consent-based process. It is transparent, it is accountable, and it provides certainty. It represents a practical, real-world example of reconciliation in action.

Some may ask: “Why treaties, and why now?” The answer is simple. Because the status quo is not good enough. For too long, uncertainty has held communities back. For too long, relationships have been defined by conflict rather than cooperation. Treaties offer a better path. They provide clarity. They provide opportunity. They support self-determination, and they build the foundation for long-term, respectful relationships.

Others may raise questions about overlapping territories or complexity of negotiations, and those concerns are valid. These are complex issues. They require careful, respectful dialogue. They require leadership from First Nations themselves. And they require support from governments. But we cannot allow complexity to become an excuse for inaction. We must continue the work, because the alternative — continuing without clarity, without agreement, without reconciliation — is far more difficult.

Modern treaties are not about division. They are about unity. They are about creating a shared future. They are about recognizing rights while building partnerships. They are about ensuring that all people in British Columbia, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, can move forward together with confidence and respect.

The introduction of the K’ómoks Treaty Act is an important step, but it is just that — a step. There will be further opportunities for public engagement. There will be ongoing consultation with neighbouring First Nations. There will be continued work to ensure these agreements are implemented successfully.

At its core, this legislation is about something fundamental. It is about building relationships based on trust. It is about recognizing the past while creating a better future. It is about ensuring that reconciliation is not just a word but a reality.

I encourage all members of this House to support this act, to support this treaty and to support the vision of a British Columbia where we move forward together with clarity, with respect and with shared purpose.

I’m deeply honoured, as a settler, to be a small part of and a strong supporter of reconciliation.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing our MLA for Nechako Lakes, online.

John Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for not being able to be there in person. Unfortunately, I put my back out over the weekend, so I’m in the process of healing. Regardless of that, I’m still very honoured to have the opportunity to rise and speak with regards to Bill 20 and the K’ómoks treaty.

I have a little bit of a unique situation here associated with this, simply because I had many discussions with the K’ómoks Nation back when I was the minister. The agreement-in-principle was signed the year before I became the minister, but I do remember having conversations about treaty and about how to proceed with treaty.

[6:35 p.m.]

I remember, at the time, the chief and council had made a decision not to proceed beyond the agreement-in-principle. I asked them why, and they said because they were concerned about their rights. They were concerned about their section 35 rights being defined, and they were concerned about giving up the taxation status.

I see now, in this treaty coming forward, that section 35 rights are still fully upheld. They’re not defined under treaty in measurable ways that previous treaties were, and the taxation exemption exists beyond. In other words, the province and the federal government conceded on both those issues.

Now, maybe that’s what they needed to do to get to an agreement, but I still wonder, and it leaves a question in my mind. Why the shift? Why did we need to get there? What was it that we secured as a province in relation to these treaties? Did we secure what the minister had described as certainty? Did we provide the certainty for the people in B.C.? Did we provide the certainty for the people in the Comox Valley? Did we provide the certainty for the K’ómoks Nation and its people?

It makes me really wonder about this treaty brought forward, in particular because of the language of UNDRIP that is now being implemented as part of this. UNDRIP was never part of the original treaties, two of which I had the honour of speaking to in the Legislature as they moved forward. I had the honour of signing agreements-in-principle, particularly with the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum. I’m looking forward to those discussions to come up.

I wonder about this whole idea of certainty that’s being created. Because UNDRIP is in the language, it’s worthwhile looking at some of the sections of UNDRIP, in particular DRIPA, which is the implementation of UNDRIP — the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which, quite frankly, the Premier has been on again, off again, on again, off again with six times, because of the legal uncertainty that has been created through the Interpretation Act and through DRIPA. DRIPA, of course, is the implementation of UNDRIP.

I look at this, and I think: “Okay. Let’s have a quick look at article 32 of UNDRIP, where it talks about free, prior and informed consent.” Well, do we have free, prior and informed consent from the nations that overlap with K’ómoks Nation? Don’t appear to. This treaty coming forward, is it actually in violation of DRIPA — of the very act that has created so much controversy and shock, problems and issues in British Columbia? Yet we’re moving forward a treaty that may, actually, be in direct contravention with the very act itself.

We’re looking at bringing in this piece of legislation, which is equivalent of a constitutional-level document, which will enshrine UNDRIP into law, into how the courts will interpret laws in British Columbia. So what is it that the Premier has said that he needs to suspend because he needs to figure out how to deal with the court cases and all the uncertainty and issues that are being created in British Columbia?

On one hand, okay, I get it. Right. He has lost some court cases. Tons of court cases coming forward. Tons of uncertainty. Exactly the opposite of what the Premier had said it would be. On the other hand, he’s wanting to bring forward these treaties.

Well, I could guarantee you as we move forward these treaties…. If this government insists on moving them forward in the current state with the language of UNDRIP in there, what do you think the chances are that the very language that’s in this treaty will be used against the government as it tries to fight the court cases that it is currently struggling with?

The very language that the Premier thinks needs to be suspended because of the way it’s being interpreted is now going to be enshrined and used against the Premier. How is it that this Premier and this government is bringing forward these treaties at this time when they have not resolved the issues of DRIPA, when they have not resolved the issues that are outstanding? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

When we talk about, once again, the certainty that this minister has talked about, it makes me think about the neighbouring nations and the K’ómoks People themselves.

[6:40 p.m.]

Because UNDRIP is now enshrined, or will be enshrined, as part of this, you would have to assume that UNDRIP is also enshrined for its neighbours, because clearly, that’s the intent of the government.

UNDRIP allows for nations to have distinct political, legal and economic opportunities. It allows them to have the right to develop other economic activities within the nation, to freely determine and pursue their economic interests and considerations. So what do you think is going to happen here?

On Vancouver Island, with all the nations and all the overlaps that are in there, you’re going to have neighbouring nations being forced to try to put forward their court cases for their rights under DRIPA and UNDRIP and, of course, section 35 of the constitution. So you could conceivably have a treaty being put in place, the K’ómoks treaty, and the neighbours — Wei Wai Kum or other neighbours — putting forward title cases within the treaty territory.

If the government says that can’t happen, then the government is making an argument that treaties extinguish the Indigenous rights of other nations. Well, clearly, that’s not in the language. Clearly, that is not what’s in the treaty. So you’re going to be sitting in a situation where you don’t have agreement with your neighbours. They’re going to be able to move forward title cases. Quite frankly, given the way the courts are going and the way this government has put DRIPA as a priority — what they’ve done with Haida Gwaii, with the issues that we’ve seen with Quw’utsun and others — clearly, you’re going to see title cases that will be successful within treaty territories.

How will that work? What kind of certainty does that bring? What happens if now you’re in a situation where for the next 15 years, these sorts of issues are going to be fought out through the courts, rather than sitting down and negotiating and dealing with how you need to address the overlaps?

Now, I saw treaties come forward, and I’ve seen challenges over treaty boundaries that have not been successful. I get it. I understand that once the treaty is in place, it has a certain level of, I guess, authority, you might say, that the courts look at. But that was before DRIPA and UNDRIP. Now that you have these enshrined in the treaty that you’re bringing forward here, you’ve got a serious issue. Because you don’t have the same level of certainty that you may have had with the existing treaties, with the ones that were done through the modern treaty process before the government brought this information in, before they brought this process in.

How will these things work? Once again, free, prior and informed consent — was that followed? Likely not. I’m looking forward to asking that question of the minister and watching how many times he dances to different answers, because I know he’s not going to be able to answer that question appropriately.

I sort of look at it, and I think…. I’m a true believer in treaties. I’ve negotiated them. I’ve been part of the teams that negotiated them. I’ve signed them. Very honoured to be there. I was there doing the final ceremony for ɬəʔamɛn when it came and was implemented. I’ve been talking to the treaty nations, making sure they understand that as a party, should we have that honour to form government that finds us as partners, we’ll want to work and bring life to the treaties to make sure they’re successful.

I want to see that happen. But I’m in a very conflicted situation right now because of language and how these are being implemented. I’m not sure this is the right path anymore. I think maybe we should be thinking about a different approach. But I am open to sitting down with the nations, with these treaty nations — particularly the K’ómoks, as the one we’re negotiating here — and talking about if it’s possible to remove this DRIPA language, this UNDRIP language and still implement the treaty.

After all, who brought forward the idea that this needed to be in the treaty in the first place? I suspect strongly it was this government. I don’t think this was a demand of the nations. I’ve talked to a number of the nations that are in the treaty process. They haven’t demanded this language. So why does it need to be in there? Why is this government insisting on putting it in there, especially given all of the uncertainty that is there around DRIPA currently in the court cases that are happening in B.C.?

[6:45 p.m.]

I look at all of this, and I think: “Wow, what a time to be bringing this forward.” When treaties were previously brought forward in the Legislature, there was lots of long debate, lots of good discussion. It was important to do that, because you want to set the tone for how treaties will be perceived by the courts, how they’ll be looked at, should they be challenged in the future.

The treaties that were brought in were, basically, unanimously supported. There were a couple of NDP MLAs who did decide to speak against the treaties and vote against the treaties. Do you know what the NDP did? They kicked them out of their party. They weren’t allowed to have an individual voice. They were kicked out of their party and forced to sit as independents.

Sorry, they weren’t kicked out of their party; they were kicked out of their caucus. They were forced to sit as independents for a period of time. I guess it was considered a punishment for them daring to stand up and have an individual perspective.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I can appreciate your comments, but I want to get….

John Rustad: I think it’s important that people do hear from all MLAs and having the opportunity….

Deputy Speaker: I’m hoping you’ll focus on this legislation, Member.

John Rustad: Thank you very much. It’s important that I am focusing on this legislation, because this legislation, Bill 20, is another treaty coming in. It’s important to reflect on our history and what happened when people voted against treaties and the independent voices that need to come forward.

That’s an important piece of our history. That’s why it needs to be brought forward in terms of Bill 20. How will that be treated, going forward in this process?

I do look at how this actually works, particularly also that…. Some of the questions I’m going to have for the minister as we get into committee stage are: what happens when the nations…? They’re successful, they want to buy some more land, and maybe they want to add that land to treaties. I get it. That’s a provision that’s there and available, as far as I can see, from the treaties.

What happens to the municipalities where that land has come from — private land that was a willing buyer, willing seller? Do municipal laws still apply? How does that change things within there? There are many components that need to be thought about in terms of how that gets structured in this treaty.

My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke made many good points. I’m not going to reiterate much of that here. But the one point that he did make is this is a very weighty piece of legislation. It’s a weighty piece of treaty. There needs to be that full engagement. I don’t get the sense that’s happening.

I’ve talked to some of the experts, experts who agreed with treaty, who’ve said: “Yes, this is the highest form of reconciliation. Yes, we need to move forward with this.” Then they saw the treaties and went: “Oh, wait a second here. This is not what we had expected. This is not what was talked about. The language in here is very troubling and could set us up for significant legal challenges and issues down the road.”

[The Speaker in the chair.]

So that, to me, really makes me wonder. Why suddenly this shift, this radical approach that is being brought in by this government? Think about it. The United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is in this treaty, in Bill 20….

I wonder if anybody on the government side has actually gone back and looked at the original discussions at the UN about UNDRIP — how it was supposed to be implemented; what it was there for; why it was being done; and, in particular, why some of these very controversial sections were meant to be guiding principles and not law, not legally enforceable, not implemented as law. That was the discussion at the UN before it was passed. That seems to have been completely ignored and completely forgotten as this has gone forward.

So like I say, with the K’ómoks Nation, I can remember having those discussions with them. I remember sitting down and talking to them about what they wanted to do, particularly when it came to harvesting; their fishing rights; and, of course, their rights in terms of shellfish; how they participated in festivals.

I think the world, quite frankly, of the K’ómoks People. I want to see them being successful in this treaty. I want to see them have the opportunity to really thrive and not be held back by the Indian Act and various things that have been implemented over many, many decades. I want to see that success, and I think treaty could do that for them. It is just a shame to think that this government has put language in there that could undermine that very opportunity that they are hoping to do for their people.

[6:50 p.m.]

I look forward to actually doing more engagement with the K’ómoks People about these concerns — how we can address them, how we can make sure that this treaty can actually move forward without having the unintended consequences that this government seems to be so fond of creating.

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

John Rustad: Oh yes, okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s one of the problems without being in the chamber.

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

John Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jodie Wickens moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:10 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Energy and Climate Solutions

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $89,684,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just wanted to make a few introductions, because I always think these estimates are, for the opposition, a maximal opportunity to have exchanges. Maybe later, after the session, I can read the introductory remarks to the hon. members opposite, but in the meantime, I just wanted to introduce some of the people who are joining us today and over the next couple of days to assist me in responding to questions.

To my left is Deputy Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Peter Pokorny. Over my left shoulder, Ranbir Parmar, the executive financial officer and assistant deputy minister; behind me, Rachel Shaw, the assistant deputy minister, energy resources division; Viva Wolf, who, the member will know, plays a very important role in his region as well, assistant deputy minister, northeast initiatives division; Chris Gilmore, the assistant deputy minister of electricity and utility regulation and a Habs fan, so not as happy as he was on the weekend.

Nat Gosman, assistant deputy minister of the climate solutions division, is here, and he is over my right shoulder. You’ll also hear from Charlotte Mitha, the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro — you’ll see her here; Ryan Layton, the executive vice-president and chief financial officer at B.C. Hydro; and the CEO and commissioner of the B.C. Energy Regulator, Michelle Carr. And we have subject-matter experts galore.

As well, I’d just note for the member’s colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke — who, I think, will be asking questions at some point on the Columbia River treaty — Kathy Eichenberger is here as are many others who will join to provide assistance that I will, no doubt, require.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Peace River South. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Larry Neufeld: Yes. I would like to thank all the staff for your valuable time, and I would like to thank the minister for the opportunity.

I do intend to go through a wide variety of different subject material, and we’ll try not to make it quite as contentious as question period, but we’ll cover a lot of the same materials.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: I don’t know. Pipeline — a heads-up.

With respect to that, I intend to begin again with some generalized questioning covering most aspects, and then we’ll delve in much deeper by different subject matter after that. Depending on how boring I get and how many eyes I see drooping, I might pass off to my colleague here as well.

One of the things that I wanted to start with — I think it’s not a surprise, and I’m sure the minister has seen this — is the ICBA modelling from CleanBC. There was some significant modelling that was done there. What it showed was that CleanBC would strip $109.7 billion in economic activity from B.C.’s economy by 2029 — 2.5 times the level of damage from Trump’s tariffs.

I guess, first of all, I’d like the minister to comment on that. My understanding is that was completed very diligently, using government modelling. Has that changed? I’d be interested in the minister’s comments.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It is a ridiculous suggestion that a program that, in fact, promotes economic development and economic value, that sees British Columbians reducing their need for electricity and being able to spend on other household items, a program that advances our province and its interests, would have such an effect.

[3:15 p.m.]

In fact, the contrary is true, and I would say the idea that the cost is $113 billion…. Are you kidding? It’s more than the cost of the entire budget for a program that, while very important, is insignificant. It’s also modest in its expenditures. I mean, on the face of it, it’s ridiculous, and I think the member probably would agree with that.

Larry Neufeld: I’m not sure I would characterize it in quite the same manner. It was, again, modelling done by an outside organization, and that’s perhaps something we can delve into a little bit deeper tomorrow. I’m not trying to be contentious about it. It was published, and it was quite well circulated. It’s something that is worth discussing, without question.

The other thing that I wanted to talk about. The review of CleanBC discussed 2030 emissions targets that were at, my understanding is, approximately 50 percent, from memory. At what point would we start looking at whether CleanBC, the program, is successful, given that we’re, essentially, at 50 percent of where we were expected to be?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, if you look at this over a period of time, I think B.C. has the most effective climate action program in the country. It’s effective because in its work with industry and the clean industry fund, it creates wealth and economic growth. In its work in the community, it allows people to avoid costs. It has had success at a time when we’ve had a massive population increase.

If you look over the last period that’s measured in the CleanBC program — starting in, I think, 2007-2008 — we’re achieving real emissions reduction at a time when there has been massive growth in our province. Between 2007 and 2023, real GDP increased by 45 percent in B.C., which is significant — in particular since 2017 but also before, I would acknowledge — compared to the national average of 30 percent.

In other words, GDP increased 50 percent more than the national average in that period. Over the same period, the population of B.C. increased by 30 percent, not an insignificant issue. Whether you’re talking about the consumption of energy, whether you talk about emissions, whether you’re talking about health care or any other issue, it’s a significant issue.

Obviously, this presents some challenges to emissions reduction, this growth in the economy — which has, of course, the member would agree, significant benefits to all of us as well — and the increase in population. Let’s say between 2007 and 2023, and there is a lag in the information, that gross emissions per capita fell by 28 percent and emissions per unit of GDP fell by 36 percent in B.C.

B.C. has also had, as you will know well, in general, a lower level of emissions prior to those programs — those initiated by the Campbell government and then subsequently by the Horgan government and the Premier’s government. In general, the major reductions that were made in other jurisdictions happened from coming off coal, which was never a primary energy source in B.C. We benefit from decisions made into the 1960s and before in terms of the development of clean energy and clean electricity in our province.

That means if you’re looking at percentage reductions in comparison to absolute emissions, the percentage reductions are affected by the fact that we started at a lower level than many other jurisdictions.

Larry Neufeld: To the minister, thank you for that answer. Admittedly, I don’t know that I would, necessarily, have expected the minister to have specifically read the ICBA report. But I did, and it’s quite interesting.

The report does identify more than 20 different measures, beyond the carbon tax, that are driving costs. The question that I would pose is: is there an estimate of the cumulative GDP impact of these measures?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I simply disagree with the measure taken and the characterization of the ICBA, which is a fairly partisan organization that doesn’t support CleanBC and, obviously, supports opposition parties. I would say that this measure of economic impact is simply ridiculous, and they should be embarrassed to be putting these things out.

You can make arguments against things. You can make arguments that this measure or that measure is good or bad. Last year, as the member knows because we were both in the House, we voted and the member voted to get rid of the consumer-facing carbon tax in B.C., which was a significant source of criticism. But the suggestion that it costs that much to the GDP is absolutely incorrect.

Let’s have a serious debate on these matters. And I say this to the ICBA as well. They could make more of a contribution than ridiculously exaggerated numbers that make no sense. Instead, we should focus on the effectiveness of programs. I’ve described the reduction of emissions in terms of GDP per capita, but I would add to that — electricity rates, 80 percent lower in Vancouver than in Edmonton. Clean electricity and often not clean electricity, 80 percent lower.

You say that I’m taking credit for that. I’m proud of it. I’m proud of B.C. Hydro and its workers and everything else, but that is not a measure of failure of clean electricity programs or of CleanBC. That’s a measure of its success — not measured, of course, by the ICBA.

They can bring forward reports. I could spend some time, we could spend some time taking apart…. I think a report that doesn’t meet the standard is a piece of exaggerated advocacy at best. I’m sure the ICBA, as the member said…. Listen, I got the report when it came out too. And I hate to say this, and it’s terrible to admit it, but I read too much. Obviously, I read the report, and I’d say an average grade 8 student could have taken it apart as well.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that. I’ll leave that alone. I was going to make a comment that my education level was slightly above grade 8, but I will leave that alone because I’m sure that was meant in the best of humour.

The minister did mention the carbon tax, and yes, I remember that evening very well. I want to say it was 2 a.m., as I recall.

Is there a projected cost? Given that the consumer carbon tax has been removed — the industrial carbon tax, obviously, remains — is there a projected cost to industry, given the escalated industrial carbon pricing program? And would we be able to have those numbers?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I may have misheard the member’s question, but I’ll give him the answer. He wanted the answer on the revenue impacts of the removal of the consumer carbon tax, I think. That fiscal impact was estimated at approximately $2.1 billion. In ’26-27, I think it was $2.077 billion; $2.3 billion in ’27-28; and $2.6 billion in ’28-29.

That was the net impact of the elimination of tax credits that were linked to the carbon tax. That was the net impact to the budget, if that’s what he’s looking for. If he’s looking for something about the OBPS, he can ask in his next question.

Larry Neufeld: My understanding is that we’re roughly around $2 billion a year. From that answer, I’m understanding $2 billion a year in charge from industry, escalating to about three-ish over a period of time. Did I understand that correctly?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, I was saying the consumer-facing carbon tax, the one we eliminated last year. That was the financial impact.

If he’s talking about the output-based pricing system…. As you know, the B.C. output-based pricing system for large industrial facilities — remember, just for large industrial facilities — that emit over 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and produce regulated products remains in place to maintain an effective price on carbon for large emitters. The rate is set to increase in the next year, but it’s $95 per tonne in ’25-26, and it aligns with federal industrial carbon-pricing requirements.

Some of these issues are part of the accord with Alberta, as the member will know.

To make sure it’s functioning as intended, we do an annual review of the program. For example, we recently made changes to the benefit of the forest industry for emissions that…. It was industrial processes, lime kiln processes that couldn’t be offset otherwise, so it made it much more like a tax if you can’t do it.

The intent of the output-based pricing system is to give industry an option and a benefit for reducing emissions, to incentivize that as many countries do and as the federal system is intended to. As well, of course, we’ll align with the federal government to align with those very federal rules, which British Columbia is obliged to do and which other jurisdictions, including Alberta, are working on.

The net revenue forecast for ’26-27 from the output-based pricing system is $334 million.

Larry Neufeld: To understand correctly, $334 million per year is what the provincial government is bringing in from the industrial carbon tax?

Hon. Adrian Dix: For the output-based pricing system, that is the amount for 2026-2027, the estimated amount. Obviously, what happens gets reported quarterly in the final budget — the actuals against the estimates, just like any other royalty system that would depend on extraneous factors — to the government. That’s the estimate that’s found in the budget.

[3:30 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: To the minister, thank you for that.

Once the escalating price…. Do we have a projected revenue from the industrial carbon tax, say in three to five years?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The B.C. output-based pricing system is estimated to bring in — these are budget items — $386 million in ’27-28, if that assists the member. We tend to estimate these things in the budgeting process for years out, and that’s the number for ’27-28. So it is more, although not, I would say, substantially more, and obviously, the system is set up to incent industrial emitters to reduce emissions as well.

The intention of such a system is not…. While it produces some revenue, that revenue, in the scheme of things, is important but relatively modest when you consider the net impact of the consumer-facing carbon tax that we cut.

But really, the intent of the system is to reduce emissions, and it has proven effective in doing that. I would argue companies, of course…. There are a number of compliance measures. Companies earn credits. They have offset units and so on, that allow them to address industrial emissions here in B.C.

It’s important that we be competitive. It’s also important that we be consistent with the government of Canada and its position. That’s our agreement. Our system is seen as equivalent and effective. There’s a regular annual review process that involves more than industry — obviously, it would involve non-profits and others but also industry — to make sure it is effective.

So the purpose really is…. While it produces some revenue, in the scheme of a budget this large, that’s not a huge amount of revenue. What it does do is also incent the reduction in industrial emissions, which is good for human health and for everybody.

Larry Neufeld: Staying with CleanBC here for a moment. Will the minister commit to expanding the CleanBC review panel’s mandate to include a full economic impact and a cost-benefit analysis?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the CleanBC review is completed. It was completed in November. They did some excellent work. I think they provided some 84 recommendations, and we’re working through those recommendations now, some excellent.

It was led by Merran Smith and Dan Woynillowicz. It was completed. The full recommendations were in place, and I think it was completed quite efficiently. When you think of the time taken for some reviews, a review that was, really, launched in May or June of 2025 and was completed by November was, really, quite an efficient process and efficient review.

I’d be happy to share with the member — we’ve got that — the sheer number of groups that responded to that review. I was personally extremely heartened by the full participation not only of individuals but hundreds of business organizations, environmental groups, community groups, advocates, interested parties and individuals who took part in this. It was an extraordinary review over a short period of time. I think the reviewers did very well, and of course, we’re going to assess their recommendations over time and make decisions about which are implemented.

I would also note that it was a statutory review. We moved the review forward. It was done in cooperation with the B.C. Green Party, as the member will know, and my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky played an important role in that process. I appreciated that role. But the reviewers were independent reviewers.

There was a statutory review required one year later. Essentially, we moved a statutory review up. The review would have been necessary slightly later. We got it done earlier because we thought it was an important moment and an important inflection point for CleanBC, and I think the reviewers made an important contribution.

Larry Neufeld: The minister mentioned independent reviewers, and that is something that has been brought to my attention from more than one individual. The reviewers, to my understanding…. I’m not going to profess to be an expert on this, although perhaps I’ll retract that part. I probably shouldn’t admit that.

[3:35 p.m.]

My understanding is that the two individuals were deeply involved in creating the plan initially. So my first question would be if the minister would be kind enough to comment on the level of independence, if the review was completed by individuals that created the plan.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The reviewers are two things. They’re independent individuals. If you’ve met them, you’ll know that. I would be happy, by the way, to facilitate such a meeting, to the extent I would need to, between the hon. member who has taken on this critic portfolio — I think it’s a useful thing to do — and both individuals.

They are subject-matter experts, and that means they’ve been involved. I suppose one could argue that you could hire reviewers that didn’t know anything about it so that they didn’t have any previous views on these matters, but I don’t think that would be the wisest course. These were independent reviewers. They were jointly selected by ourselves and our colleagues in the Legislature and the MLA for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

They met with 157 organizations in 41 engagement sessions, received 279 written submissions from 232 different organizations and 47 members of the public and received 2,650 public responses as well.

They had different levels of recommendations — 32 that were sort of core and then more that were sort of sub-recommendations to that. They did an excellent job. It was such a comprehensive review that went…. It happened over a relatively short period of time and engaged with the whole community. And what impressed me most about it, with respect to the two reviewers, was the willingness to engage with those reviewers by people with very different views on the question.

I mean, if I would list…. I’m happy to provide the list of organizations. I think it’s in the back of the CleanBC review. Happy to share that, and it’s publicly available. That shows that people saw this as a process they wanted to get involved with. Whether you were the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or whether you were the David Suzuki Foundation, you found you had such confidence in the review that you fully took part, and I think that’s a positive thing.

Merran Smith is the…. I think New Economy Canada is where she’s working now, which is an outstanding independent non-profit organization that looks at economic issues. She has been very involved, yes, in the clean energy sector. She has led in that sector. Dan Woynillowicz is an energy expert who has worked in the environmental field. Both of them have broad experience and both engage equally and successfully with many voices in the debate, including environmental voices but also business voices as well.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:38 p.m. to 3:57 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, calling the committee, Section A, back to order. We are considering the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Larry Neufeld: Before the break, we were talking about the definition of independence of the two reviewers. I have done expert witness work for the Crown, provincially and federally, and I would suggest that if I were in that circumstance, there may have been a concern around whether I would’ve been considered independent, given that previous role.

My question to the minister is: the two individuals that were chosen for the review, was the determination of their independence tested through an ethics commissioner or some other type of independent body that would review this type of thing?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Dan Woynillowicz and Merran Smith are outstanding individuals. Their work is on the public record, and the proof of their independence is their report, which is thoughtful but has many challenging recommendations for government and that were found challenging by others.

There were critics, I’m sure, and there will be critics on either side of many of the recommendations. I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in this case, demonstration of independence was a report that was a real contribution to the CleanBC program and to the public debate.

It’s always the challenge in things, as I said to the member earlier. I do not think the member, had he been not an MLA but a citizen, would have been in any way disqualified in terms of his independence for the report. It may be that his specific interest in CleanBC and the programs contained wouldn’t have made him sufficiently expert, or not. That would’ve been a question. I think he would have been absolutely sufficiently independent, be it an NDP government or a government of conservative stripe or whatever.

I think there are issues in these discussions sometimes around issues of conflict. But the independence of these reviewers was demonstrated by their outstanding review and the engagement people had with them. I think that’s an important point. When I listed off, and I won’t do it again, the number of groups that took part, that’s a demonstration of the confidence in the process that really diverse groups had.

[4:00 p.m.]

I was heartened by that and really impressed by the material that went out, the approach they took, the fact that they engaged with groups of different kinds. That’s a demonstration of what you want in a reviewer.

Of course, they need to be interested, compelling and involved in the subject matter and want to do and engage and give up significant time, energy and effort, with intellectual commitment to the task. I think they did an outstanding job, and I think they were independent. That doesn’t mean people agree with them, but certainly, what you’d want is for them to be independent of the program, and they were certainly that.

Larry Neufeld: To the minister, thank you for that answer. I’ll rephrase my question.

In the context of some work that I had done as an expert witness, if I were to be hired to review a report that I had written and provided as an expert, I would suggest that I would have been disqualified from doing that.

So the question back to you, Minister, is: was that considered, in this particular case, as to the true independence of these individuals?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, CleanBC is a program of the government of British Columbia, which followed up on programs of the previous administration. As you know, Premier Campbell, in particular, at one time in my somewhat long journey as an MLA, was very committed to issues of climate action and took action in that respect. Certainly, some of the programs we have in place, including the carbon tax itself, were programs of Mr. Campbell, who, as I understand it, is now a member of the Conservative Party.

The CleanBC program was developed by the government of B.C., and we brought in reviewers to look at its success over that time, its weaknesses, where it failed to achieve its goals and what could be done to make it better. People who know about it are well qualified to do that. They engage with lots of different people, and I think that’s a very positive thing.

Ms. Merran Smith was involved in the Climate Solutions Council for a number of years, which is an advisory body, enacted in legislation. Her work is outstanding and recognized and continues to be so.

You know, people’s views…. We talked about another report earlier by the ICBA, and I expressed my opinion on those views. The people involved in the ICBA aren’t hiding the fact that they’re against the program. They’re not hiding the fact that they support another political party than the government. I have nothing but respect for Chris Gardner and his contribution to public life in B.C., even though I profoundly disagree with him on a number of things.

This is an open and democratic debate, and people’s résumés are on the table. The result in this CleanBC review was an enormous response — from interested parties, from industry, from business, from labour unions, from the community and from non-profit organizations — to the review. So I think that’s a positive thing.

The review stands on its own merits, and if the member thinks of the review and is critical to the reviewer or thinks there should have been different reviewers, that’s something he’ll consider when he reads the report, as we do in an open society.

Larry Neufeld: Again to the minister, thank you for that answer. I would like to state on the record that in no way am I suggesting that these individuals hadn’t done a good job. I’m not besmirching their reputations in any way. That’s not my intent with this.

My intent is to test the methodology around the decision to have individuals that wrote it. Again, the bias is an inherent bias, in my opinion. Again, flipping the coin here, if I wrote it, of course I’m going to think it’s good. So am I truly an independent voice to pass the litmus test, whether that’s truly an independent…?

I think I’ve belaboured that. I won’t force you to answer that once more, but I think, again, I just wanted to put that on the record.

[4:05 p.m.]

We did touch on this in some of the previous questions, but I think it fits with what we were just talking about. With respect to an independent economic review of CleanBC, would the minister commit to having that completed and led by economists?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just want to repeat the names of the reviewers because I mispronounced them before our little voting break. Of course, it was Dan Woynillowicz and Merran Smith.

What we did with CleanBC…. The legislation, which was passed by the Legislature, enshrined in law a review, which we’ve now undertaken, with recommendations. And I think the contribution of the program, we report… It’s one of the most reported-on programs, in fact, that you’ll find.

We do regular reports on aspects of CleanBC, from EVs to heat pumps to overall emissions. Some of these reports are statutory, and they come forward. But we’ve done the review, and now we have to take decisions based on that review and some of the recommendations that come forward. There are significant numbers. Some we’ll put in place, and some we won’t.

For example, there was an item with respect to EVs — which we won’t get into here because it’s the subject of legislation that’s before the House, and the member and I will have an opportunity to do that — that we put in place. That’s close to what was recommended but not exactly what was recommended, but I would say that was a response to the review.

In terms of the CleanBC review, that’s what we’re doing. We’re not going to schedule yet another review. We’re going to continue to, I believe, succeed with the program in making life more affordable for people; driving clean economic growth; incenting investment in clean technologies that are in the interests of and make B.C. businesses more competitive and, of course, reduce emissions.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

The review recommends creating a clean economy diversification fund, and it would be funded through a percentage of natural gas royalties. My question to the minister is: has he accepted this recommendation, and if so, what percentage would be applied?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, I have not, but all the recommendations in the review are themselves under review. There were a significant number of them, but I have not accepted that recommendation.

Larry Neufeld: Can the minister give us an indication, at this point, if it’s likely that that recommendation will be accepted?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, let me say two things. I’ll say them in two sentences. One, that’s not one of the recommendations we prioritized. Two, it’s a Finance decision. It would be, should it go ahead. But it’s not one of the recommendations we prioritized. And with that, I’ll sit down.

Larry Neufeld: My follow-up would be: should that decision be made, is there a recommended percentage that would be reclaimed from the natural gas royalties?

The Chair: Before we continue, if you can keep your chatter just a little bit down, thanks.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I will attempt to become even more riveting in order to draw attention here. I think I’ve reached my peak.

The government tabled a budget, which we’re debating now. It wasn’t in that budget. So I don’t think speculating on that…. I’d just say that that recommendation is not one we prioritized. It would ultimately be a Finance decision, but I’m not leaving it there. I’m not saying: “Look over there” or “Ask the Minister of Finance.” I’m saying it hasn’t been prioritized.

[4:10 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Again, getting back to what I had initially said, I’m going to bounce around a little bit, just to get some general questions in. We did talk about natural gas and, of course, LNG, so I’d like to move to a couple of questions in that perspective.

This one is, again, with respect to CleanBC. CAPP reports $10.8 billion in natural gas supply chain spending across 120 B.C. municipalities between 2018 and 2024. This includes 135 Indigenous-owned businesses.

The question is: has the minister calculated or has the ministry calculated the employment and supply chain impact of potentially constraining LNG development, should it be necessary to meet CleanBC targets?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think one of the remarkable things…. If the member had attended — I think he may have — my presentation to Resource Works just before the UBCM, I spoke on this question and raised the very point that the member made with respect to First Nations–led businesses. The report had come out that day, I think, that CAPP had done, laying out the contribution of Indigenous-led businesses to the energy sector and to CAPP member companies. At that time, I praised them for that contribution.

I think one of the interesting things about reconciliation and Indigenous relations is the success that the private sector has had. I just note the success, for example, of Enbridge, which has made dozens of First Nations partners in their company, or the success in the public domain of B.C. Hydro. There was a day when we were hitting the height of B.C. Hydro development, which the member knows well, when there were 564 self-identified Indigenous people on site working on the project at the height of it.

I can get the number for the member later, or his colleague, when we’re talking about Site C, perhaps, and an extraordinary contribution to that. The work that First Nations are doing in cooperation with wind energy companies and joint ventures to build a new generation of renewable energy power…. I’m well aware of the contribution of energy companies.

With respect to LNG, maybe I’ll give a first answer to the member, just to say I think the success that British Columbia has had…. I say this sometimes in question period. There were no LNG projects with final investment decisions when John Horgan became Premier, and now we’re having four under construction and a number more, hopefully, at final investment decisions this year. So this is an industry that didn’t exist when the NDP took office.

It’s not just the NDP. It’s, of course, many British Columbians who contributed to it. LNG Canada won many contracts with Indigenous-led businesses, but also 50,000 Canadians worked on that project. Sometimes people refer to these as offshore projects or refer to the word “offshore.” That’s 50,000 Canadians on that project.

The Cedar LNG project, majority-owned by the Haisla First Nation. Ksi Lisims LNG, led by the Nisg̱a’a First Nations. Woodfibre LNG did a unique environmental assessment with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh First Nation.

The industry is contributing and, further to that, is leading in terms of low-emission technology. The government’s policy on electrification benefits Canada and benefits British Columbia in terms of the value of our LNG and our place in the marketplace. I think our proximity to Asia, in particular; the quality of the work done on LNG; the electrification of LNG plants — what’s happening with Woodfibre LNG, which will be delivering its first LNG product in 2027, is extraordinary on all those grounds.

To go on the Woodfibre site, I recommend it to the hon. member. If he hasn’t already gone, I recommend that he visit that site. He’ll meet many members of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation who are working on that site.

[4:15 p.m.]

I think we’re doing well. You can always do better, but I think we’re doing well.

Further, the Tilbury project, which is working with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm First Nation…. I think sometimes people refer to reconciliation as a matter that is government to government, but I think many of the people leading in reconciliation are in the business community, and I think LNG partners up and down the coast of B.C. deserve a lot of credit for that.

Larry Neufeld: This one’s a little bit long-winded, but if you can bear with me.

This year’s budget forecast is $1.3 billion in natural gas royalties. I know we’ve discussed this many times in the House. That’s just a drop in the bucket with respect to the overall financial impact to the province. It is expected to rise to $1.57 billion in the following year.

The service plan that the ministry developed sets a target of 27 percent of B.C. gas exported overseas by ’28-29. The CleanBC review says LNG expansion would “negate reductions from other sectors” and require 40,000 gigawatt hours per year of electricity, roughly the output of 7.5 Site C projects.

I’m looking for a comment from the minister if that is a position that the government is going to maintain through electrification or if there is a policy change in place.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will know, and I just want to note, we talk about LNG in the world and where B.C. is at. B.C., if it was taken as a jurisdiction and we’re comparing it to other countries — British Columbia against other countries, like Canada against other countries, because B.C. is LNG in Canada, essentially — by the end of the decade, with projects under construction, will be the sixth LNG exporter in the world. Those include the United States against British Columbia, Qatar and other countries.

If LNG Canada phase 2 is built and Ksi Lisims and Tilbury phase 2, by the mid-2030s we’ll be fourth in the world for LNG.

With respect to clean energy development, there is no question…. We’ll have an opportunity and an occasion to talk to the critic for B.C. Hydro about issues of electricity demand in B.C. But we are confident that we can meet the test. And it will require….

We’ve gone through a period, really starting in 2007, of relatively flat electricity demand in B.C. over a couple of decades. That’s because starting in 2007, we saw a pretty sharp and continuing drop in the demand in the forest industry — which was not good news for the province, I would argue, in a certain way, but that was part of the effect at that time.

Other things, conservation measures, have had a significant effect, and we’ll talk more about that. But we have an integrated resources plan in B.C. We have the largest now…. With the projects we have started and the new ones in the call for power, which we’re going to see the results of next month, we’re going to see the largest growth of electrification the province has ever seen. The North Coast transmission line, which will deliver more electricity to the coast — including to, for example, the Ksi Lisims project — will have a big impact on that.

So, yes, it’s a test for B.C., just as in the 1960s. We built out an electricity system to create in British Columbia the province we have today. A lot of the demand that that system was designed to address was pulp mills in the province, which were large users of electricity. W.A.C. Bennett had a two-rivers policy, and the private sector wouldn’t invest. He did it as a nationalized Crown corporation. He wasn’t a socialist, but that was kind of socialism in action in a certain way. He did it for that reason.

[4:20 p.m.]

Now we need to do the same thing. It is good news for B.C. that demand is going up. It is good news because it means economic activity. We are particularly advantaged because of B.C. Hydro, because of the sacrifices people in the member’s region have made as well. It was not all easy, the damming of the Peace River. Nor was it easy in the Columbia, the damming of the Columbia River. But from the sacrifices made, we are in a remarkable and strong position to address this.

So, no, the policy isn’t going to change. It’s going to continue to go forward and to succeed across our province. I’m very confident and very positive about the work done in LNG.

Just to be clear, and this is sometimes not understood, both LNG Canada 1 and LNG Canada 2 were approved prior to the electrification policy, so it doesn’t apply to them in the same way as it does to other projects. That’s just a fact.

But I’m confident that we’ll meet the test, and that test isn’t just for LNG. It’s for the mining development that we’re going to see across the province, the critical minerals we’ll see, the Port of Prince Rupert and industries and ideas that we haven’t even imagined yet.

Of course, he and I, in this room some time ago last fall, had a discussion about the possibilities of artificial intelligence and data centres. All of these are demands on the electricity of the province, but we’re going to meet those demands because we’ve got a great Crown corporation that is determined to do so.

The message I have for people is: let’s go, in mining, in LNG, in clean industry, in critical minerals, in ports and in other sectors. But we also have to go on conservation, on clean energy, on new projects, on electrifying our province and ensuring that the electricity produced in the province is from clean sources. That allows us to address some of these questions of the real impacts — economic, social and environmental — of climate change. And we have to be effective in other measures.

I am as committed as ever to climate action, which I think is good, obviously, for public health, for all the people who will be living in the generations beyond us who we’re hoping to influence and for all people and, of course, our environment, our world and our economy.

Larry Neufeld: I very clearly heard that the electrification policy toward future natural gas and LNG production will remain in place under this government. My follow-up question is: has any economic modelling been done to provide a sense of what that increased cost of production and the increased cost of our product at the end of the day would be?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, again, the proof is in the pudding. Cedar LNG was approved. It went to final investment decision. It’s under construction. Woodfibre LNG was approved. It’s reached final investment decision. It’s under construction with the lowest-emission LNG in the world. Making our industry…. The business community in B.C. has taken up this challenge more…. Reducing its emissions is a positive for B.C. It’s a world advantage for B.C., and we’re going to continue to do it.

Ksi Lisims LNG hasn’t reached final investment decision, although we have an electricity agreement, which we signed at the Natural Resources Forum in Prince George in January, which shows the direction there. All of this, I would say to the hon. member, is a demonstration, in fact, that the policy is working.

I mean, you don’t get to final investment decisions — and the member worked in the energy industry; he knows — without it making sense. This makes sense. It makes sense for B.C. It gives us a competitive advantage, I believe, and it’s allowed us to go ahead. It’s great news for everyone in terms of jobs created but also in emissions avoided. And that’s an important consideration, as well, that the industry takes very seriously.

Larry Neufeld: I’ll rephrase my question. Do we have a number per unit sold of natural gas that the electrification policy will add to the cost of that fuel to sell — the selling cost of that fuel?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will also know, in the budget, in the appendices of the budget, the natural gas price forecast. He’ll know that the price of natural gas is typically set on the North American market because we haven’t been exporting to the world. We’ve been stuck in the North American market until the last year, when we’ve started to have success in diversifying that.

We have natural gas price forecasts around the world that are set in the marketplace. We have estimates in the budget, and the arithmetic of those estimates was laid out in detail in the budget, both in the page “Estimates Revenue” and then in table A6, “Natural Gas Price Forecast,” which shows how natural gas is priced in the world market and what the expectations are.

The price forecasts that were put in place were actually in the budget for reasons of…. We want to be prudent in the budget. We’re significantly below those forecasts. In fact, that decision to be prudent in the forecast was the right decision. As we’ve seen the evolution…. We’re into the fiscal year now, so we’re seeing that the prudent forecast proved to be the right approach taken by the Ministry of Finance in this.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

But natural gas prices are set in the world market. We have huge advantages in that market — those advantages and some disadvantages. But some advantages in that market are the proximity of the market and the quality of our natural gas, which I think, objectively, is the best in the world and has utilization across the world but also in the development of other petroleum, other oil and gas products, as the member will know. Those prices are set around the world, but we’re going to be well positioned.

The people who say that B.C. is meeting the test are the partners, the joint venture partners on LNG Canada 1; on Cedar LNG, which includes Pembina and the Haisla First Nation; on Woodfibre LNG, one of the largest private companies, certainly, around the Pacific Ocean. They think that. So that’s pretty good evidence. They may not be, I dare say, independent, but they’re showing their confidence with their investment.

We’ve got to continue to do that. A lot of people are talking about existing conditions in the world, the war and everything else. We’ve got to be competitive in the long run, in my view. We’re not going to be ready to address the circumstances of this conflict, but we have to have LNG that’s competitive in the world market for decades to come.

We’re going to continue to benefit from that. It raises the value of the natural gas that the member and I and all the other members and all the other people out there own — and own with First Nations, who have their own claim to that — that is developed by natural gas companies.

We’ve got to be efficient, and we’ve got to be effective. Reducing emissions here is one of the ways we’re effective.

Larry Neufeld: My question is: does electrification add five cents per cubic foot to the cost of production? Does it add 50 cents? Does it add $1 per cubic foot to the production?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think how the customer, the producer, the LNG plant deals with its cost stack is…. Obviously, they all have different cost stacks, depending on where they’re located and their circumstances and the size of their production and other questions. But what we’ve seen here in B.C., since the electrification policy has come in and our other policies….

We talked about the output-based pricing system earlier, and other policies of the government are in place. We’ve had success after success by people who are not…. While I think they’re sophisticated business people, they’re not soft business people who work in the industry. I wouldn’t describe our partners in these ventures and people investing in B.C., massive amounts of capital…. When it comes to investment decisions, they’re hard-headed. We’re clearly competitive, because we’re succeeding.

Larry Neufeld: I’ll leave that alone. I’m going to take that to mean that we have not modelled it.

[4:30 p.m.]

I would move on to say that natural gas royalties are projected, which we already know, at $1.3 billion. The energy resources division has a budget of $20 million to oversee this revenue, $1.50 per $100 of industry-generated funds.

Does the minister believe that this level of resourcing is adequate in order to properly overlook the fastest-growing resource sector in the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, this is my opportunity to say how proud I am of our teams, both in the Ministry of Energy and at the B.C. Energy Regulator, who do an exceptional job overseeing it.

The member will know that the B.C. Energy Regulator has taken over responsibility for some renewables, as well, and is, essentially, funded by the industry. That model was put in place by a previous NDP government, of which I played a part, I’m embarrassed to admit, because it was 27 years ago. I’ll just say to the member that I’m old. But that’s proved to be an effective model.

I believe having the B.C. Energy Regulator responsible for multiple statutes and responsive to environmental considerations, industry and others is a really effective model for doing it, and it’s not caught up in the annual discussion of a budget in any given year.

Our teams at the Ministry of Energy have done spectacular work. They’re working on all these LNG projects. There are significant public policy issues to deal with — not just LNG but propane — environmental circumstances of climate action, of CleanBC. They do an exceptional job.

If the member is saying that there could be more, that’s true, but I think that on the royalty system, we have the Ministry of Finance, which is also involved. If we’re getting into the details of how we address that, they play a real part on a regular basis, as does the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solution, as does the B.C. Energy Regulator.

I think it’s a combination that is modern and dynamic, and I’m really proud of the work they do, both in ensuring that British Columbia is safe and the industry is properly regulated, that the laws that we pass in this Legislature are applied and that economic development occurs in an efficient, safe and clear way.

We’ve got a great team doing this, and you can always use more people. But I think, again, the performance of the B.C. Energy Regulator has been excellent. When I go and talk to people in the industry, they reflect positively on it. They have suggestions all the time, I suspect. But I think the Energy Regulator and the ministry do a really good job.

If we had more, we could do more. I suppose you can make that argument. But I think the team has just done exceptional work this year and is doing exceptional work in the coming year. I’m very proud of them on every front, whether it’s clean energy, climate solutions, regulation of energy, ensuring that approvals get done on time, the work of our major projects group or the work of partnerships with Indigenous People.

The work is expanding because it is a fast-growing industry, and I think we’ve got the people who really have delivered for us. I’m just extremely proud of them, as minister.

Larry Neufeld: The next question is something that I have many, many conversations in my region around, and that is the permitting process. With the Yahey decision, of course, it’s, effectively, a different permitting regime that has occurred in the Peace region.

What has been happening and, unfortunately, has resulted in conflict is that we’ve seen a significant movement of drilling and production activity from Crown land onto private land. It is creating conflict with agricultural producers.

[4:35 p.m.]

My question to the minister is: what is the current average processing time for an oil and gas drilling permit in the Peace region, and how does that compare to processing times in Alberta for equivalent activities in the Montney formation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Michelle Carr, beside me, is a frequent visitor to Fort St. John. Alas, the Energy Regulator’s big office is in Fort St. John and not in Dawson Creek, but I’m sure the member will forgive me for that. But what I will say is that for the last few years, we’ve permitted more wells than any time since 2014.

What I’ll endeavour to do, because we’ll be here tomorrow, is…. The Energy Regulator has some detailed information that we’ll provide and I’ll provide to the member tomorrow. So we could have that discussion based on those numbers or not, but we won’t be waiting till the end of estimates — not a promise — or weeks from now.

Michelle Carr is committed to getting us that information, and that would be helpful, I think, perhaps, for the debate. I’d be happy to do that.

Larry Neufeld: I appreciate that answer, and I agree that it would be far more productive to wait, so I’ll skip ahead a few questions here.

The mandate letter for the ministry directs the minister “to dramatically accelerate permit approval for clean and low-carbon energy infrastructure.” My question to the minister is: does this directive extend to oil and gas permits or only wind, solar and transmission projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What we did was adopt what we were doing in oil and gas. We adopted it. We moved clean energy to the BCER. We did make other changes with respect to environmental assessment, and we debated those in the House. The differences between the parties are understood, so I won’t give a long speech about it.

I think that when I became Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, one of the first things I did was…. We approved renewable projects, and then we made changes to the way they went through process. In my view, I’d say it was the opposite of what a lot of people think. We were applying to renewable energy the same standards that we applied to oil and gas, which were broadly seen as better.

When we made those changes in the late 20th century, it was then the Oil and Gas Commission. Then it became the B.C. Energy Regulator. That model of having an agency become expert in a field and to have responsibility broadly for the provincial laws, in that field, and be independent in the way that it is was seen as, I think, the best model.

We’re applying that and that expertise to the renewable sector, so I think it’s the opposite, actually, to the member’s question, which is fine. But I think it demonstrates our confidence in the work that’s done by the B.C. Energy Regulator, both in ensuring that the law is upheld but also ensuring efficiency in permitting and other questions.

Larry Neufeld: I know we’ve discussed this quite a few times in the House and different places, but equity has legs.

[4:40 p.m.]

If we do create a situation whereby it’s more expensive to produce from the Montney on the British Columbia side, first of all, is that a concern to the ministry that investment will flow east into our neighbouring province? If that is the case, are we taking steps to ensure that we remain financially competitive?

Hon. Adrian Dix: You bet we are. It’s always a concern in sectors. It’s a concern for Alberta sometimes, and it’s a concern for B.C.

I think in the estimates last year, I described broadly my view of being cooperative with Alberta because, I think, sometimes, in the face of an industry that’s very sophisticated, having B.C. and Alberta working together means that we aren’t whipsawed against one another in terms of these questions and that we can get a proper value for a resource that’s owned by the people of B.C.

Obviously, some of that is subject to First Nations claim and First Nations interests, certainly. But I absolutely believe that we have an absolute duty as a generation to address issues of reconciliation. We need to do that, and that means those things. We have to do even better. This isn’t a choice for our generation. Maybe if history had been different, it would be a different choice, but it wasn’t different, and we are where we are.

I am absolutely convinced that we are and will be competitive. You know who else believes that? The member’s constituents who are First Nations, who also believe in that. He will have met, as I have met…. I was in Fort St. John recently meeting with Treaty 8 First Nations. They don’t disagree with that either. The people in the region don’t disagree with that either.

But people in the region, I’d say, on the environmental question for the region, are quite determined that the B.C. Energy Regulator does its job in regulating the industry. They are quite determined. And the member and I have both experienced people who have expressed that view really strongly in our time, in our respective roles here.

We’ve got to be competitive, of course, and we have to get the maximum value, fair value, for the resource, for people in our province, to pay for important things like health care and education. It’s no secret to anyone that I am a determined advocate for public health care, and I see this role of ensuring a maximum value as central to that.

But we’ve got to do both. It’s a calculation of production against royalty, and it’s the final number that matters most, not the two numbers before the final number. You have to balance considerations, and that’s precisely what we need to do. But we also have to be efficient in our responses. There’s no advantage to B.C. in not being efficient in the way that we regulate and the way that we operate.

We have some challenges, but we also have some of the best natural resources in the world and truly remarkable people who work in the industry who are committed to their safety record.

I was in the Peace recently, and we did an event around Site C. No fatalities on that project. The safety record, broadly…. There was a very sad incident a couple of years ago involving a natural gas company, in 2025, where a couple of workers passed away. But the overall safety record…. The member was there. He’ll know how hard that was. I spoke to people involved. But generally, the safety record is excellent. We can’t compromise on safety. We need to leave the place better than before.

The final thing I’d say is we have to restore the Peace. The exploitation of natural resources has consequences. I was very proud, at the natural resource conference and since, to sign restoration agreements with all the Treaty 8 First Nations, to develop true expertise, as well, of those nations in restoration.

That is a positive thing that I don’t just think First Nations support. I think everybody in the region supports that and believes in the responsibility of companies to restore. But there’s also a legacy of lack of restoration. The Peace is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and it requires that for the long term.

We know that natural gas is going to be significant for a period of time. The long-term outlook is an interesting discussion, which perhaps we’ll have. But the region will always be one of the most beautiful places on earth if we treat it that way.

Larry Neufeld: The next question is one that…. I’m interested, quite honestly, to hear the answer to this one, not that I’m bored by anything else that you’ve answered.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Oh, you could’ve been.

[4:45 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Yeah, well, we all have our role.

The mandate letter that was provided to the minister instructs him to “cap emissions from the oil and gas sector.” CAPP’s president and, I would suggest, producers from across Canada have warned that this is, essentially, a cap on production.

With natural gas royalties, which we’ve discussed how important that is to the provincial economy…. With natural gas royalties expected to continue climbing and LNG Canada expected to generate upwards of $23 billion in royalties over its lifespan, my question to the minister is: how does the minister plan to cap emissions without capping production?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We were referring to the CleanBC review a little while ago. I would recommend, for the consideration of the member, the report and the recommendation with respect to that cap in the review and in the report, which was an important evolution of positioning.

Of course, we’re taking that recommendation very seriously in our work. Equally, the federal government, which had been proceeding in that direction, has taken a new approach as well. So new circumstances require new approaches.

Everybody knows we have to address issues of emissions, and we’ve got to use the best possible tools to do that. There are some very positive recommendations in the review to address those questions. Obviously, as we’re dealing with projects that come forward, we’re going to be addressing that question as well. But you see in the CleanBC review and in the response from the federal government some of the work we’re doing.

I just want to add that by working with environmentalists and working with the industry, we have had exceptional success in reducing methane emissions. This is a B.C. success story. We are dramatically ahead of the province of Alberta on this question.

This is a challenging question, and I’m sometimes a little critical of the federal government and their occasional private deals with the province of Alberta on questions, because we’re competitors. We meet their standards, and Alberta doesn’t meet the standards. That makes us less competitive. It means we have success in the reduction of emissions, but it does have an impact.

So we have a series of initiatives, I think, that demonstrate the success we’re having with reducing emissions in the oil and gas sector, which we’re very proud of. We’re going to meet our requirements in reduction of methane emissions, which is an important thing for our province and our community.

We didn’t do this on our own. We didn’t do this in the ether. We didn’t do it because government decided that. We did it in cooperation with the industry. We’ve seen that, and we are going to meet the CleanBC Roadmap reduction of 75 percent methane emissions.

I’d just note, in terms of natural gas, an 18.5 percent increase from 2022 to 2025 and a 29 percent increase in production from ’21 to ’25. We have to meet that test, and we will. We continue to meet that test by reducing emissions in the area, by electrification, perhaps. And perhaps the member will ask about initiatives to electrify in the Peace, which I think would have a significant effect in reducing emissions.

These questions don’t take away our obligation to reduce emissions and meet our standards. We’ve seen and had recommendations, which we are, obviously, seriously looking at, from the CleanBC review about the cap and suggesting a different road and from the federal government, which was an advocate of a cap. It put regulations in the Gazette on what the cap would look like, which has now gone in an entirely different direction — in terms of the regulatory structure, I mean, not in their goals.

We’ll be working with the federal government and working to respond to the advice we’ve received in the CleanBC review, but it’s an example of, I think, the thoughtfulness on all sides.

Sometimes people…. The member asked a question about one recommendation in the review. There are lots, and this was a comprehensive and farsighted view of the broad issues in the industry, the community, the province and the issues in the interests of British Columbians. There’s an example where the member might agree with the recommendation.

[4:50 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I’m going to take that as a “likely to have,” and please correct me on your next answer if I’m not taking that correctly. I’m going to take it as it’s likely that the emissions cap is going to be removed or adjusted.

My question to the minister is: when would we expect that decision?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The issue of the oil and gas cap was, obviously, a subject…. I’ll just go into a little bit of detail of what the federal government did, which has implications for us.

The previous situation had been a federal cap coming. A provincial cap would be connected to that. The federal government has changed approach. They signalled a step away from implementing the federal oil and gas cap, shifting their emissions reductions priority for the sector to carbon markets and to carbon capture and sequestration opportunities.

In November 2025, they further telegraphed their intent to discontinue the implication of the oil and gas emissions cap in its memorandum of understanding with the province of Alberta, as the member will know. Initially, the proposal of the oil and gas cap was a federal proposal, but not here. So as part of the CleanBC review, as I noted, Dan Woynillowicz and Merran Smith advised that strengthening existing measures would reduce emissions more effectively than introducing a provincial cap at this time. We’re carefully reviewing that recommendation.

The situation was a federal cap, and they’ve decided not to go in that direction. That has, obviously, implications for the province. We’ve had an exceptional review, and we’re considering that approach, but we’re also ambitious about cutting emissions elsewhere. As with the federal government, that’s an important requirement as well.

It was a federal initiative. It was gazetted. It received a lot of attention. It was well criticized on all sides — what they put forward, I believe it was, in the fall of 2024. They’re now clearly not going forward with that, so that federal initiative is no longer before us.

Larry Neufeld: To seek clarity, I’m going to ask the minister if I have been corrected or if I have not been corrected as far as it’s likely for the emissions cap to be removed.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, that decision hasn’t been made, but it’s not, again, a removal, in effect. I mean, the anticipation had been that there would be a federal cap, and B.C. had talked about what it would do, but the federal government was proceeding with this cap, and now they’re not. So the question is what action we’ll take next, and obviously, that’s under consideration.

We’ve also been in a period of very significant growth in production and/or significant reduction in emissions as a result of the actions we’ve taken together. Our work is to continue that approach, in which we’ll see, I think, significant progress with electrification — at least we believe so — and significant progress by the industry in terms of methane reduction, hopefully everywhere.

Hopefully, the federal government, which seems to have given Alberta a 2035 deadline and B.C. a 2030 one, which is interesting, in their agreement with Alberta…. Hopefully, we’ll see that progress made in both places. Alberta is a little behind us now in terms of the progress they’ve made on methane reductions, which is a credit to the industry here. Some of that is the composition of the industry — not the dominance, because they’re both important — and the important role that the oil sector plays in the Alberta economy and the Alberta industry.

Nonetheless, apples to apples, we’re doing better, and that’s a real credit to the companies operating in the member’s region.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

What timeline would industry be able to expect a decision on those changes that were just discussed?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there’s no cap in place. Now, remember, this was a federal cap that was coming forward that they’ve decided not to proceed with, so we are reviewing the matter to see how we’re going to address emissions, working with industry and others who have an interest in the future.

At the moment, if you’re saying: “Well, when is something going to be removed?” Well, does it need to be removed? If you were…. Depending on what your position is on these questions, you might have a different view about how quickly we should act. Some might want us to act more quickly or less quickly in addressing that question, but we are, obviously, responding to the federal action but also to our success in other areas in reducing emissions.

Larry Neufeld: I can very much appreciate what the minister just said, and I do understand that. If my question wasn’t clear, I apologize.

I’m looking for a timeline around what the new structure…. What would industry be able to expect as far as an emissions regime, whatever that looks like at the end? Is that months away, years away?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ve spoken to some of those considerations when we talked about our work on methane emission reduction and others. In terms of the federal price, we’re waiting for that now, and our policy would be to align with that. You see some of this discussion of alignment, as well, from the province of Alberta. Our position is that we’ll be aligning with the federal government on the price.

Larry Neufeld: This one is an interesting question for me as well. Has the ministry completed any type of modelling of the impact of potential changes to the regulatory regime around emissions and what effect that would have on gas production volumes; royalty revenue; and, ultimately, employment in northeast B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think the industry’s ability to respond on methane, as we’ve discussed, is beneficial to the industry, which deals with federal initiatives that are often aligned with provincial initiatives. So the industry’s ability to respond to that in a positive way, as they have, is good for the industry, good for production and good for the industry here in B.C. — just as electrification is on the LNG side.

[5:00 p.m.]

As we continue to meet these requirements — which are essential and, in any event, national requirements that we are aligning with our system — this is positive for the industry. And to the extent that they’re national requirements, I think, in a broad sense for us, it’s a good thing.

What we are not in favour of are special deals for the province of Alberta. We’re not in favour of that. We want to ensure that our industry is treated by the federal government in an equivalent way and that we continue to make progress, of course, on emission reductions — as we are; as we must — but that we have a competitive balance between the Alberta and the B.C. industries on these questions.

That will require…. Some of the disquiet between the federal government previously and Saskatchewan and Alberta on some of these questions was not necessarily positive for us in that sense. Some people, I think, enjoy conflict. I enjoy working together with people to achieve the goals that people in Alberta want to achieve too. They want safe communities. They want climate action. They want an industry that is the cleanest in the world.

You see this, for example, in the oil sands, with the development by many businesses in Alberta. And there’s some support, I think, from the Energy Minister in Alberta, Mr. Jean, and from the federal government of the Pathways initiative, for example.

Our view is that we’ll hear from the federal government on some of these questions soon. Our view, strongly, is to align with the federal government on these questions. We think that their goal and our goal of an industry that is the best in the world, the cleanest in the world and successful and efficient is a goal that’s in the interests of everybody.

Larry Neufeld: I’m going to ask the minister to correct me in his next response. I am taking that response to mean no, that economic modelling has not been completed with respect to potential emissions changes.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, methane emissions are down, production is up, and revenue is up. You look at the budget we’re debating now, and you see that, in black and white, in the next few years.

It shows that you can have more than one goal. Addressing emissions is a goal not just of this government but of governments, I hope, across the world. They all signed on to that, after all. Everybody did.

But since 2018, methane down, production up, revenue up. As they might say in my riding in East Vancouver, we can model that.

Larry Neufeld: I’m not arguing with what the minister just said. My question was: has any economic modelling been completed to show the effect of changes?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The only modelling that matters, the real-time modelling — methane emissions down, production up, revenue up. That’s modelling. That’s real-time experience. But I don’t take it for granted. Obviously, revenue is hugely connected to things outside of our control, and that’s why you have to have control of costs.

We had a year, a number of years ago, when the province of British Columbia got, I think, $2.5 billion in surplus natural gas rents. That hasn’t been the case the last number of years, where prices have been low. We don’t control all of that, when I say revenue is up. Let’s just acknowledge that. But when production is up over time and emissions are down, revenue will be up, given common conditions.

If the price were to collapse for some reason in the world, that would affect our industry and investment in our industry here. But we see LNG and having the cleanest LNG in the world as a long-term result for our industry here and a positive result that will have an effect in all three of those things as well. It’s by pursuing all those goals that we do that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I’ll move on to the next question. This is another one around the mandate letter: “Investment from producers that use best-in-class emissions reduction technology.” The minister was mandated to attract that to the province. My question is: what specific investments have been attracted under this directive since January 2025?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just received a couple hundred suggestions, and I’m in the process, as I talk to you, of synthesizing them into something approaching coherence.

Obviously, the call-for-power projects — $6 billion in investment. Obviously, the northwest transmission line, which is going forward and will be under construction this year. Obviously, Cedar LNG, in service in 2028. The northeast B.C. connector’s construction began, in the member’s region, in August of 2025 — in service, quarter 2 of 2027. That’s $450 million in investment. Aspen Point, the T-North expansion, that’s an estimated cost of $1.2 billion — in service, end of 2026, and construction started Q2 of 2025.

The clean industry fund itself, which is making investments, including in the member’s riding and in the member’s region, in the best emission reduction technologies in the world…. The overall impact of the clean energy fund over ten years is a 14-megatonne reduction in emissions. That’s pretty successful.

We’re working with partners in the northeast on electrification initiatives which will have further positive impact both on investment in the area and investment in natural gas but also in emission reductions. We’ll repeat the LNG projects, including one in operation, many under production and carbon capture and storage projects funded by the clean energy fund in places such as Taylor, the McMahon project and others, which show, I think, the impact that we have. There are the pipelines from Enbridge, from Pembina and others.

All of that work is going on in that period, in meeting our twin goals of economic development, of course, but also in emission reduction, to have an industry that’s best in class in emission reduction.

[5:10 p.m.]

We are No. 1 in Canada in this area. That’s a credit to our industry and to the teams working on these initiatives but also the multiplicity of investments we’re seeing.

When the Premier travels to Asia, I’d say to the member, this is of real interest to people in countries such as South Korea, Malaysia, Japan, the Philippines, where you see the interest in our product, yes, but also in the product that we have close to their markets — low emission, the work done upstream in the Peace in particular, exceptional.

I think this has been a period, since January 2025, of really extraordinary success.

Larry Neufeld: I’m going to move into a slightly different area for a moment. Whether this is one that we would come back to tomorrow as well or not, I guess we’ll determine. It is my understanding that unused deep-well royalty credits do expire September 1 of 2026, six months from now.

My question is: how many credits remain outstanding? What is their estimated value? And how many of these credits have been successfully transferred to environmental pools as of today?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The drawdown since the decision was made to eliminate the deep-well credits has been about $3 billion to about $600 million. A program called the HLER program was working closely with the industry to ensure that that program has the proper flexibilities so that the industry can continue to use the credits that they’ve earned.

Larry Neufeld: Would I be able to ask how many have been successfully transferred to environmental pools as of today?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, that’s what we’re working on, on the program right now. We’re expecting that to arrive at a conclusion very shortly on that program. That’s been part of the challenge for the program, which hasn’t been able to be used sufficiently for restoration, for example.

We’re confident in the work we’ve done with all of the industry partners and with Treaty 8 First Nations, and we’ll have, I suspect, something to provide the member before the end of the legislative session.

Larry Neufeld: This next one…. I don’t want this to come across as some type of make-work project, but I think it would be valuable for many that are interested in this file. In the last 14 months that the minister has held this role, the mandate letter directs him to, among other things, “dramatically accelerate permit approval,” “expand global markets” and “ensure B.C. Hydro is responsive to changing market conditions.”

Can the minister provide a directive-by-directive accounting of measurable project on each mandate item with relation to oil and gas?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: With respect to the first, I’ll just make a couple of points to the member on permitting efficiency. I think he asked that. And I hate to say it, but I think it’s been 15 months now or 16 months. It’s been a while.

The BCER has eliminated its entire backlog of inactive applications following the Yahey decision. Over the past three years, BCER has permitted over 1,000 wells each year, which represents the highest three-year period of new well permitting since 2008. That sounds pretty impressive, and it is. I can answer more questions about those questions with that.

The second thing I’d say on permitting…. The very changes we brought in the Legislature — this isn’t to do with oil and gas but is to do with other energy fields — demonstrates our commitment to reducing permitting backlogs, and the work of the BCER in this area has been exceptional. We can do better, and they’re committed to doing better, but I think they’ve demonstrated that.

I want to just highlight a set number of recent and ongoing permitting improvements by the BCER: the greater emphasis on what’s called risk-based decision-making; strengthened staff capacity and focus in areas of consultation and decision-making; reduction of overall decision points, which are important when decisions are being made; system enhancements to improve application reviews; and implementation of the permitting service standards and timelines for greater transparency and predictability for industry.

The BCER’s First Nation consultation framework, which is important, has been updated to align the consultation requirement with the level of potential impact to First Nation rights and overall project risk. That work was done in consultation with First Nations and industry.

The BCER has undertaken significant process redesign to improve permitting efficiency to eliminate unnecessary decision points across projects’ lifecycles while maintaining appropriate regulatory oversight. Results are 20 percent fewer pipeline amendments, 15 percent fewer well amendments and 30 percent fewer facility amendments.

A fourth phase of this process, which is focused on streamlining applications that support restoration and reclamation activities, is underway and will be implemented in the summer of 2026. I’d add to that the seven agreements signed with First Nations in the region that assist in that process. Over 75 percent of decisions made by a statutory decision–maker within a week of conclusion of the BCER’s technical environmental reviews and the conclusion of required First Nations consultation — that’s pretty good as well.

With respect to ensuring B.C. Hydro is responsive to market conditions, the member will note the changes we made, concurrent with the passage of Bill 31, in terms of the mining industry and the response of Mr. Goehring to those changes, which, essentially, were not sufficient for final investment decisions but were essential steps for the development of those conditions.

The building out of the North Coast transmission line; the other transmission line projects we’ll be covering with the member for Shuswap, perhaps, tomorrow; and so on and so on. It has been dramatic.

I just make the point — you talk about residential ratepayers, which is part of that request — that B.C. Hydro rates went up 54 percent above the rate of inflation under the previous government. They’ve gone down 12 percent against the rate of inflation under this government. That includes the most recent increases in the last two years, which were 3.75 and 3.75.

In terms of meeting our climate emission goals, we see this in the significant work from heat pumps, which had a significant impact on residential emissions and consumption, to our success in methane emissions.

[5:20 p.m.]

On all of these important goals of the government, our teams have been doing exceptional work. And I emphasize “our teams.” I think the importance of mandate letters is the message and the significance that they give to these initiatives, not just to the minister but to the entire team. I think that while other organizations have their own mandate letters, it’s important to send that signal.

I think the ministry staff, the extraordinary work by our climate solutions teams, the exceptional work done by our regulatory teams, the work we’re doing on major projects…. At every level, our teams have been up to what is an extraordinary and challenging mandate. As I noted before, I’m extremely proud of their work and occasionally not shy of taking credit for it.

Larry Neufeld: I was planning to bounce around a little bit. I guess I should ask if it would be appropriate to move into the North Coast transmission line with the staff that we have today. Okay?

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Okay, perfect. I’ll admit that I drink a lot of water, so I might need to hand off to my colleague here in a few minutes.

The Chair: This committee shall recess for the next five minutes. It’s 5:20 on my watch. If everybody could be back in at 5:25, I would appreciate it.

The committee recessed from 5:21 p.m. to 5:29 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

[5:30 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I know that I’d first of all like to acknowledge the fact that the minister was very lenient during committee stage. A number of my questions that were more appropriate for this particular part of the session were answered then, so I’m going to do my very best not to repeat a significant amount.

What I am going to start with is…. I know that we did have this discussion at length around the cost-effectiveness or the cost comparison between a natural-gas-fired generator in close proximity to the need relative to the cost of the power line.

Again, I recognize very much that this is done. This is happening. It’s simply…. From my perspective, I’m very interested. I couldn’t get there on the economics, and I’m quite interested in trying to explore that a little bit further. By no means am I trying to use up time or waste time, but I think it is important for us to understand this.

I will admit this has been a few months since I’ve gone into this in exceptional detail, so please do forgive me if it does take a moment to get back into it. But my understanding is that the line is built in two phases and, with the additional incremental capacity, will end up at 2,200 megawatts. Where I was struggling on the economics was…. I take the $6 billion projected cost. I divide that by the 2,200 kilowatts. I come up with $2,227 per kilowatt.

When I look at the cost of the Kineticor Cascade power project — obviously, on the other side of the border, but natural-gas-fired — I come up with $1,667 per kilowatt hour.

My question would be, again, around economics, recognizing that this is done. I’m not trying to argue that. What assurances can we provide to the public that the power line…? Again, I’m recognizing that I’m comparing a power generation scheme to a power line.

If we recall back that far, my argument was that we could have generated the power in place for less than the cost of the power line. I’m interested for the minister to comment on that assumption.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, of course, building a new pipeline is not dissimilar to building a transmission line, except it’s maybe more industrial capacity. Building a transmission line isn’t easy either. It would take significantly longer to construct than NCTL. Even if you were to situate gas generation on the coast, you’d still have to build transmission lines in phase 3 and deliver the gas, of course, to the natural gas plant.

Members of the opposition, more than a dozen of them, suggested small nuclear reactors, and they said that it would be a fraction of the cost, which was just plainly untrue. It was plainly untrue. They said it repeatedly in Hansard. I invite the member to take a look at it. They did.

That power is so dramatically more expensive than Site C. If it were at Darlington — the power, I mean, being generated at Darlington — with massive public subsidy by the federal and Ontario governments, the small nuclear reactors would cost way more.

These are real choices. Of course, the fact that there are no small nuclear reactors in North America…. In fact, the only ones in the world actually operating are in China and Russia.

So, yes, our system, which has worked in B.C. significantly…. We are a proven success in building transmission lines, a proven success in clean energy generation. And the level of the industrial proponents required — we would easily meet the test.

[5:35 p.m.]

That’s not to say this isn’t a difficult or expensive project, because it is, of course. This is across our massive province. We have to continue to do what we’re doing, which is generate more electricity. But it’s a huge opportunity for the region.

I’ll just say this. We built other lines. We built the Interior–Lower Mainland line recently. We built power lines everywhere to take northern power to the south. As someone who lives in the south, I think that’s a good thing.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, I’m one of them, right?

But I would say that even if there are demands for electricity in the region, in addition to mining projects and others, that will be met by this.

I think people in the northwest should have access to northeastern electricity just like every other region in the province. So if the suggestion is that we should just be building the lines north-south and not east-west, well, I don’t agree with that. I think it’s just a point to make. I’m not suggesting the member agrees with it. But dramatically increasing B.C. Hydro’s ability to serve the northwest, including residential customers in the northwest, is important.

There are some real challenges in the region, some energy challenges which we may get into, talking about natural gas rates, residential rates in the region and what happened with respect to Methanex and the huge investment that’s required in some existing pipelines now.

This is a practical, not inexpensive…. No one can say that these amounts of money are inexpensive, but it is a prudent and thoughtful decision and, I think, comparatively, the right one on all the range of issues.

Larry Neufeld: Again, to set a few things straight on the record, I don’t deny that some of my colleagues did say that in the House. They were provided with advice after those comments, and I don’t think you’re going to be hearing them again.

That being said, I think I would also like to take this opportunity to put on the record my own thoughts. I do believe, as perhaps has been suggested otherwise…. I absolutely do believe in a full basket of options. I do. Green energy — absolutely. If it fits the situation, wind is fantastic. Solar is fantastic if it fits the situation.

I live in the North. I live in an area that can be under snow for six months out of the year. Solar isn’t always the best option for me. I’m not saying that’s not the case somewhere down here. I just thought I would take that opportunity.

I was going to work my way up to this question a little more gently, but I guess I’ll just lay it out there. With respect to the North Coast transmission line, are there any plans or has it been discussed around providing an intertie to the Alberta system that would…? I’ll leave it at that for now.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It gives me a chance to maybe just talk about the broader issues around intertie. We’ve been engaged with the province of Alberta around this. In January of 2025, I had just become minister. I met with Minister Jean and subsequently Minister Neudorf about these considerations. B.C. has significant issues in the south, and we have not been well treated by the province of Alberta.

Interestingly, on these issues of intertie, the province of Alberta is full of contradictions and conflicting authorities. B.C. Hydro gives us a more simple approach. We have a Crown corporation here that allows us, with the work of the extraordinary subsidiary Powerex, to do this work and to make decisions, whereas there are contrary players in the Alberta system, all with different interests.

We sometimes hear from our Alberta friends, “We’ll talk to this person and try and convince them,” and so on. I think there are, on the intertie side, real opportunities that would benefit both provinces.

I say this respectfully because I admire and respect the Alberta ministers and the deputy ministers who work very hard on these issues. I think they’re almost as good as our deputy ministers and our ADMs here — almost. But I would say that we’ve shown more interest in them.

[5:40 p.m.]

I’d also say that as a result of that, we were mildly offended when Canada and Alberta talked about B.C.’s interties in their MOU agreement, because we’re the ones who are, in this marketplace, the impressive players.

Alberta is, I think, interested in the North, but we’ve got a real interest in the south first. Because of the nature of the existing intertie, we’ve got some issues there that we want to resolve. We’ve been open to the discussion, and we’ve been the one advancing it.

That’s not to say Alberta isn’t interested. They are, but let’s just say they’re focused on other issues, I think. But one can be focused on pipeline issues and address these other issues, as well, which are important for industry. So we’re not opposed to working more closely with the province of Alberta. In fact, we’ve been leading that work, and we’re going to continue to do that.

The folks at Powerex and…. Behind me is our outstanding CEO, Charlotte Mitha, of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Since we last met in estimates, she has taken over as CEO. They’ve really shown leadership here, as does our ministry team. Looking forward to making progress. If it was just up to us, we would have made more progress.

Larry Neufeld: I would also like to state on the record that I would agree with the minister, on the basis that I do agree with going east and diversifying our options for supply.

Where my concern comes in is…. Our discussion from the committee stage was that natural-gas-fired generation was not suitable for the province. My concern through the intertie is that we would be exporting those economic opportunities to Alberta where, for the most part, the electricity is generated by natural gas. I was at a conference not that long ago where they were talking about Candu reactors, which we’ve also had quite a discussion around.

I’ve heard the minister on many occasions describe Site C as a large battery. Is there an assurance from the minister that there will not be power brought in from outside our jurisdiction, run through the Site C filter battery and then put into the main grid as clean energy?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, just to take a step back from it, a lot of this debate…. There are some people who claim to run institutes in B.C. who are, actually, sort of fossil fuel lobbyists, and they contribute to the debate sometimes. In other industries, that’s taken place.

If you look at British Columbia over the last 16 years now, nine years we’ll be in surplus electricity and seven years in deficit. But every year — and some of the deficit years we’ve made the most money — our electricity is worth more than anyone else’s because of our battery. In February of this year, we imported some wind power from Alberta that was worth zero dollars, which is a pretty good deal. Not much for free these days, and that was kind of for free because of the flexibility and the brilliance with which our system is managed here.

Often when they have severe electricity problems in Alberta, it’s B.C. that backs them up, not the reverse. That’s because of the work of our engineers, our technicians and IBEW members and MoveUP members in the B.C. Hydro system.

That’s not the intent here. The intent is to support one another. Alberta’s issue comes from the south. They’re under pressure from the south from some of their arrangements. We are relieving them of challenges, too, including from a very famous company, Berkshire Hathaway, and from Montana. They have some challenges too.

Can we make arrangements here in our mutual interest? That’s the question. We have a massive and significant advantage. I agree that we want those clean energy projects in B.C.

[5:45 p.m.]

We do have a role — it’s a relatively small role — for natural gas in peaking in our system, and I expect that role to continue in our system. It actually enables, I would argue, clean electricity. So there is a role for natural gas.

Our plan for natural gas, as the member knows, is a huge export plan around LNG. That’s our major plan for natural gas. It’s the most…. It’s a way of selling our resource, like we do when we manufacture in the forest industry, to upgrade the value of our resource, and I think it does that.

We have to act in our mutual interests. The intent here is not to not favour British Columbia. We have real interests here. But we’re also Canadians, and when they need our electricity in Alberta, I don’t think anyone here would hesitate to support them or vice versa.

I do think there’s a little bit too much of all this. We are very successful in the U.S. market. Powerex is successful in Alberta, as well, but very successful in the U.S. market. The previous estimates reported about $600 million in profits, effectively, by Powerex at a time when we were in an energy deficit in that particular year because we were filling the reservoirs, because of drought. This is an opportunity for both jurisdictions to perform and to work well together.

I’d just note, as well, that the situation with the United States, while we’ve been extremely successful there, is, let’s just say, hyper-kinetically imperfect right now for Canada. The pressure on Alberta from Montana and the other pressures and our own discussions, which our critic from Columbia River–Revelstoke will be part of, I think, probably tomorrow around the Columbia River treaty — all of these issues are there for us. So I think Canadians should become more connected, and I think it’s in our interest to do so.

We have more customers in Alberta and fewer in other places. Well, those might be the customers we want. By the way, we’re sharing this with other Canadians, the ones who aren’t shopping in the United States. They’re making that decision too, and this is a natural response to, frankly, the vicious way the country is being treated right now — not by the people south of the border, who I continue to love and respect, but by the government there.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the minister, I didn’t hear an answer to my question, and it ties back into what we were discussing earlier — the larger role that CleanBC plays in our energy policy.

The question is: should power be brought in from Alberta? Will it in any way be…? From an emissions perspective, would it still be counted as natural-gas-fired or -generated power, or would it run again through the filter, and we would give it to consumers as green energy?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Perhaps I can assist the member with some information from B.C. Hydro about the nature of trades in the present. I noted our expectation this year, and I’ll be having this discussion with the member for Shuswap. We’re in a very positive surplus year for electricity. This isn’t a matter of political debate. It’s good news for the province. We want to be in surplus, and we are. We are significantly in surplus this year.

About 90 percent of the U.S. electricity traded — we do a lot with Powerex — comes from Washington, Oregon and California, although we go as far as New Mexico in some of these trades, believe it or not. These states have rapidly expanded solar and wind, creating frequent energy surpluses, especially at times that are desirable for us.

[5:50 p.m.]

In fiscal 2025, roughly 65 percent of electricity generated in those three states came from non-emitting sources. Powerex prioritizes imports during hours when trading partners have surplus clean energy, such as daytime solar peaks in California and Arizona but also with respect to Alberta. I’ve talked about wind power from Alberta, which is actually quite plentiful in that province, as the member knows.

B.C. Hydro generates 98 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, making it a pretty attractive trading partner for jurisdictions who themselves are looking to reduce emissions, including Washington state and Oregon but also Alberta.

The province’s climate action team measures the greenhouse gas intensity of grid electricity through the electricity emission intensity factor. The most recent measure of B.C.’s grid emissions, which includes Powerex’s imports and exports from the United States and from Alberta and other jurisdictions, was 9.9 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour in 2024, which is much lower than the power generated from natural gas.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the minister, I still didn’t hear an answer, so I’m going to ask that he correct me on the next response if I’m not understanding it correctly.

Power that would be…. I’m not disregarding…. Powerex has done a great job. I’ve done the tour. I’ve seen it. I’m impressed, no question. It’s a resource that serves the province and serves the ratepayers — absolutely.

Where I’m going with this, in a much larger context, is…. Again, I’m concerned. And if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I’m completely okay with that. My concern is that we’ve potentially exported investment, we’ve potentially exported expertise to a neighbouring province in order to export the emissions that go along with natural gas generation of power.

Can the minister give us assurances that when that power is imported through the intertie, the emissions will be accounted for correctly under CleanBC?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, yes. In the last answer, I described how we do this, which is that we measure the greenhouse gas intensity of grid electricity through the electricity emission intensity factor. The most recent measure of grid emissions, which includes Powerex’s imports and exports, including from other provinces, was 9.9 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour in 2024. It’s much lower than power from natural gas — dramatically lower — and from coal.

Importing power allows B.C. Hydro to conserve water in its reservoirs for winter and high-demand periods, which we do, and we do well doing it, and it conserves clean power that can then be exported at times when neighbouring regions rely heavily on fossil fuel generation. It reduces overall emissions, not the contrary, in our neighbourhood in the west — whether it’s Alberta, B.C. and the western states, which we’re very much a part of and central to.

The short answer is: the member need not be concerned about that question. We’re seeing…. I’ve just listed off how natural gas production is going up in B.C. If it was going down, that would be a different story. It’s going up. We’re not exporting anything.

Our goal, obviously, on LNG is to ensure that it’s B.C. natural gas being used on LNG. That means that’s not just a question of emissions. That’s a question of royalties for our province and for our economy and work for our people. And we’ve been doing that.

So more production…. Yes, we’re growing clean energy, which has been a policy in B.C. for a long time, far before this government, but one that we can be really proud of. These significant calls for power, these calls for expressions of interest on clean energy, all the things we’re doing, are building wealth and economic development in B.C., and they’re going to continue to do so.

I don’t think concerns about Alberta should stop us from having a good relationship with Alberta in these matters. I don’t have concerns about that. Quite the contrary. I think that we, as I’ve noted, can save them significantly in their own challenging dealings with northern American states, northwestern American states — not Washington and Oregon but Idaho and Montana, etc. — that affect them.

I think that’s a good way to promote things. I don’t go into this afraid. I go into this as a Canadian saying that this is good for Canada. And we are rolling in terms of developing clean electricity.

[5:55 p.m.]

We’ve got the best team at Powerex. It’s really worth it, and I offer to the members opposite that it’d be really worth doing a tour of Powerex to understand just how sophisticated they are. Everybody in the world wants the people who work for Powerex, but they’re staying here because this is the best place in the world to work.

Larry Neufeld: Just for the record, I’m not in any way suggesting that I am fearful of Alberta or closer ties to Alberta. In fact, just the opposite. I agree with forming closer ties.

The question, again, was around…. I’ll use the term “whitewashing” the energy that’s coming from a source that the government considers less clean and then running it through a filter, i.e., Site C, and putting it back into the line as green or clean energy. I’m just looking for an assurance that that’s not the case or that would not be allowed to happen.

Hon. Adrian Dix: That’s not what we’re engaging in. It’s not a whitewashing exercise. The answer to that is no.

But I would say this. It is true that emissions in a plant are associated with that plant. In other words, if there are emissions in something we were to export, we have responsibility for those emissions. That is the way it works.

For example, the TMX pipeline. The bitumen comes through B.C. It may be that there are emissions from the processes in B.C., but the bitumen is accounted for in Alberta and not here. That’s standard.

What we’re doing is meeting our electricity demands. We see them growing, and we’re building more capacity and more energy. That’s great news for B.C., and we’re going to continue to do that.

I would rather not have demand come from other jurisdictions. But the trading of it and because of the nature of our system…. In the abstract, you might not, but the trading of our system makes it an incredible advantage for us, and we should do that.

There are other areas of life — housing and others — where it’s more expensive to be in B.C. We know this. Electricity is one area where it’s less expensive, and we should continue to build and support that.

So I don’t think that’s the case. Quite the contrary. But what I also don’t want to be doing is talking down our friends in Alberta who are doing some very interesting things as well. That isn’t my intent either.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister. If I’m not being clear, it might be the hour of the day or what have you. But thank you for that answer.

There is one other that I would like to get to that is not necessarily on the North Coast transmission line. With respect to the EV charging network that is in the province, what is the current value? What did we spend on it in the last year? How many chargers do we currently have? I’m talking high-speed chargers.

[6:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. So good to see you there.

Since fiscal 2018, the overall provincial expenditure on EV chargers over that period is $190 million. Interestingly, that represents about 25 percent of the investment in EV chargers, a lot of which is private, and the province is going to surpass its goal of 10,000 by 2030 easily — well before 2030, which is exciting.

We believe and I believe…. This will, again, be potentially the subject of a debate in another place, so I won’t expound too much on the EV question, because I think we’ll have an opportunity to engage on this in another place and the member can dig in. But I think that this is the right role for the province, which is building out the infrastructure to make things work. We’ve moved to that role, and we’re making that investment in that role.

The federal government is putting in place rebate programs that were discontinued in British Columbia. I believe that we need to have…. As lower-cost EVs come into British Columbia, the charging network question is the key question, especially in regions to make sure everyone has access to EV charging. I think B.C. Hydro will play a leading role in this.

In terms of EV charging in the province, it’s not just public investment or B.C. Hydro investment, but it’s a broader investment by the private sector, as well, that is leading us to having such success — the best charging network in the country. You see it in the difference, I would argue, in the provinces that have EV charging networks worthy of their name and those that don’t.

Ontario, which benefits most from tariffs and industrial protection for its automobile industry, contributes relatively little to this, because their charging network isn’t very good. There’s no reason why Toronto, which is a kind of dynamic and progressive city, should have a third of the EV sales as Montreal. That’s largely to do not with cultural factors or cost factors, since currently that rebate applies to both people — that federal rebate. It’s because of the success, I think, of charging networks in B.C. and Quebec.

Some people’s concern is affordability, and that is an issue, although the federal government’s decision to allow imports of lower-cost new EVs makes a difference, as does the ongoing resale market now for cars. It is making EVs significantly more affordable in our province.

Having the charging network in place is important and it’s good for B.C., because we’re using B.C. electricity and not somebody else’s gasoline.

Larry Neufeld: So to confirm, I understand 10,000 high-speed chargers in the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The goal by 2030 is 10,000, and we’ll exceed that goal. Not all of those are high-speed chargers, but the incremental investment…. I think people are saying that it’s the high-speed chargers they want because they mimic what we expect from filling up with gas. Increasingly, the quality of charging is improving, and B.C. Hydro is part of that, as are elements of the private sector.

The technology is getting better in the cars, of course. Their range is significantly improving as well, which is a major factor for people whose decision not to go into an EV…. It would’ve been a really good decision this year given what’s happened to the price of gas because of the war between the U.S. and Israel and Iran.

[6:05 p.m.]

You’re seeing that in this month. The most recent month is the best month in EV sales we’ve ever had in British Columbia. It’s over 25 percent. There’s some talk about the 26 percent target. Well, it looks like external factors there, just like last year when people abandoned the EV market because of their political objection to Tesla and to Mr. Musk. We’re seeing a return to that market and a diversification of that market that’s important.

For us, we think the provincial role is not in rebates anymore because we think the price differential will be less and would be made up for people in their day-to-day savings from using EVs. We think having a great charging network will be a benefit for the province, and that’s why we’re proceeding with that.

Larry Neufeld: My question would be then: how many current, as of today, high-speed chargers do we have in the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s 2,417.

Larry Neufeld: My question would be: how many of them are connected to the electrical grid, and how many are powered through hydrocarbon-fuelled engines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The vast, vast majority are connected to the grid. There’s a small number in the North that are private ones that are supported by fossil fuels. Overall, the vast majority are connected to the grid, and that situation will continue as we build out the system, especially as fast chargers will become more and more prevalent.

Larry Neufeld: So to confirm, no government money was used on any charger that is fuelled by hydrocarbon.

Hon. Adrian Dix: There are a few that are not near the grid. If you want a provincewide system and there are places that are not near the grid, you’re going to have to fuel them somewhere. I think fuelling them by hydrocarbon, whether it’s B.C. Hydro or a private provider, makes sense under those circumstances.

If you’re off grid and you want to have a charger, then you can’t, obviously, plug into the grid. But the vast majority are connected to the grid, and I think that’s the important thing.

I just want to make this point about the previous discussion we had. I just want to emphasize this. I think I said this, but I want to say it really clearly here. B.C. Hydro operates under a 100 percent clean electricity standard. This is directly relevant to the member’s questions about…. I think he said whitewashing or something.

The standard requires a generation procurement or import of clean energy in a quantity at least equal to 100 percent of the domestic sales for energy in B.C. plus any energy exports made by Powerex represented as being sourced from clean supply over a four-calendar-year period. That’s the standard, and that responds a little bit to that question’s substance, the response we had for that question. I thought I’d just add that at the end.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

Of the high-speed chargers that have had public money go into them, I am curious the rationale of why the hydrocarbon tank and the generating unit may have been painted, in some cases, colours to blend them into treed areas or whatnot and put in behind treed areas. I’m curious how many have had that treatment done and why it was done.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In terms of off-grid sites — as I said, there are not very many of them — propane is the preferred fuel on those sites because it’s actually a lower-emission fuel.

[6:10 p.m.]

Just to put that in context, I am the wrong person, perhaps, to ask about the beauty of a charging station or any other question. I’d just say that if you’ve got an off-grid site that’s fuelled by propane that charges electric vehicles, I think that’s a totally legitimate proposition.

Larry Neufeld: Was the minister surprised when I asked him the question about why they were painted to match and hidden behind trees?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’m interested. As the member may know, this is the time of the day when I like to reveal personal information. I think that’s important. I think people have been looking forward to this, to hear about my partial colour blindness, which is one of my many deficiencies. I won’t list them all off because that would take too long, and we’ve only got 35 minutes left.

I’m interested in the member’s point. Anything the member says interests me in the course of this estimates debate, including questions about painting charging stations, which I think are really interesting questions. I just think that everything that happens here is inherently interesting. So I’m unaffected one way or another by questions about painting charging stations.

If the member wants to make a point about that, I’m happy to do that, but the answer is I don’t have the slightest idea why they painted the charging stations that way. But I’d say that, overwhelmingly, our charging stations are connected to the grid, that there are some that aren’t because they’re off grid, principally. They principally use propane because of the commitment of people to reduce emissions, nonetheless. I think that’s a good thing.

I think there’s a tendency, which I don’t think the member has, to criticize things that aren’t perfect. When people are making a good effort and are really committed to the goal and are providing really good, important service to people and making sure that service is provided in areas of the North that don’t often get service…. I frequently get questions around these things, about, “Well, we don’t use those in the North. Is that just for the south?” and everything else.

We’ve got to deliver to the North because I think EVs are the car of the future, and they will be the car of the future everywhere. You’re seeing this all around the world except the United States right now. We’ve got to make sure that the benefits of that are felt by people in every region.

I’m fascinated by painting, but more by Picasso and Rembrandt than by the painting of charging stations.

Larry Neufeld: I’ll expand. I’m certainly not suggesting the charging stations are painted. It’s the engine that fuels it, and the fuel source, the hydrocarbon fuel source, is blended into….

The concern here that has been presented to me by constituents is that it’s disingenuous that the electric charger is…. The fact that it’s being fuelled by hydrocarbon is being hidden from them, and that’s my concern.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’d be happy to provide a list of the ones that are done, and people shouldn’t feel it’s disingenuous. It’s providing a practical service for people.

I think people who are off grid and are living off grid but have an electric vehicle…. I think it’s quite reasonable to provide them with a charging opportunity, and if, in some cases, it comes from a fossil fuel or from propane, for example, I think that should be something to be applauded. Since it’s the very rare exception — it genuinely is — I think that’s a reasonable point.

I know people like to point to these questions and try and find hypocrisy. You know: “Oh, you drive a car.” I’m an advocate for EVs, but I do drive a 2004 Nissan Sentra and never bought a new car in my life. I’m not the best poster child for the New Car Dealers of B.C., although I love the New Car Dealers of B.C., who played a central role in the success of our EV program. Why we’re No. 1 in Canada is hugely because of the New Car Dealers of B.C.

[6:15 p.m.]

But that’s just what I’ve decided to do. I think there’s a tendency that people have to be a negative, and I think we should be very proud of our charging network and very proud of the people who have seen to extend that network to places that are off grid. What a fantastic thing to do.

If anyone complains in the constituency, you tell them that I said that I admire what people are doing in the region to make this happen for people.

Larry Neufeld: I’m certainly not suggesting that I would be against what has happened. It’s simply seeking clarification on the effort to disguise what was done. I’m certainly not suggesting that we don’t want them and certainly not suggesting that it’s something that I personally am finding to be…. The presence of them, certainly, is not offensive is what I’m trying to get at.

Well, actually, these questions relate to a bill that’s before the House. I’m actually going to ask my colleague to do a few while I collect my thoughts.

David Williams: I have a little follow-up. My question is to the minister. It’s a quick follow-up from what my colleague had mentioned earlier. It goes back to energy that’s being imported.

You were explaining that through CleanBC, it’s accounted for if it comes from a fossil fuel or anything that accounts for the emissions. Where exactly can you find that information?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We published it on our climate solutions site. I don’t think I’ll list off the link, but I’d be happy to provide the member with the link so that he can keep an eye on that over time. I think it might actually be one of his favourites after a while.

David Williams: Thank you for the answer. It might be one of my favourite links.

To end the day here, we’ll go with some fairly straightforward questions.

Going back to last year, we already know that there’s a hiring freeze on because we’re in a little bit of a financial crunch here, so we’re trying to save money where we can. We know the ministry is doing all they can to do that. With that in mind, they had a hiring freeze with staffing numbers as well.

Last year we asked the ministry the exact head count on December 11, 2024, and the current count, and the minister gave us an FTE figure. What were the exact head-count numbers, and what are they today? Not the FTE, the exact head counts.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re reaching the end of the day. I’m happy to give the member the existing positions or existing people who are there, but I will give him the FTE count, which is the answer and the information that is typically provided, just to give him a sense of what that is. In fiscal ’25, it was 356; fiscal ’26, 314.

David Williams: Moving on, last year we asked the minister about consultants, and we were told that there would be no new consultants and that staff would not be replaced with consultants. Since then, how many new consulting contracts has the ministry entered into, and what was the value of the work that they’ve undertaken?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we replace no staff with consultants. We do use consultants from time to time — for example, when we’re looking at royalty questions. This is an important credibility question when we’re working with industry and others and First Nations, so we have outstanding staff working on those questions. But you do seek independent valuations from companies such as Wood Mackenzie and others for that information, which is a good way of doing business in the world. But we don’t replace staff with consultants.

David Williams: Just to clarify, what you’re saying…. If the minister can just clarify that there are no more consultants than there were last year and there have been no additional consultants hired.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. I said that, of course, there are new consulting contracts where required. I’m saying the staff are not replaced with consultants. In terms of detailed information about consulting contracts and their value, happy to provide that to the member.

David Williams: Last year we were told that there was going to be program review and savings to try to save some money through the ministry. The minister said that programs were being reviewed for efficiency and cost control but provided no actual savings, reforms or eliminations. Maybe the minister can tell me exactly what savings were found, which programs were changed and what the dollar figure was.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the dollar figure is a $3.036 million reduction, which represents the Energy and Climate Solutions contribution towards government’s expenditure management savings as a result of the corporate efficiency review which was brought in, given fiscal challenges.

We have, in other areas, increased staff because of increased responsibilities for the ministry. We, obviously, have a record number of successful new projects that we’re managing. But that’s the number I’m referring to. It’s $3.036 million.

David Williams: Thank you for the answer.

Last year the minister said that B.C. was self-sufficient based on average demand. In plain language, can B.C. meet its electricity needs for a full year without imports, yeah or no?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I see it as that and more. If you look at the two systems, the Peace system is at water levels at 111.6 percent of average and, in the Kinbasket system, at 119 percent capacity. So we’ll be exporting about 5,000 watt hours of electricity this year.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. We may be coming back questioning along that line a little bit later on.

Now going back to last year, reliance on trade and imports. If power trade is an ongoing and necessary feature of our system, how does the minister distinguish between regulatory self-sufficiency and actual operational reliance on imports?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ve got a much better system than a system where we were the Albania of the West. We benefit from this system. We’ve got the best trading group in the world working at Powerex. We’ve got an outstanding B.C. Hydro, and we make money doing this — money that reduces rates for the member’s constituents and all the other members’ constituents and my constituents. This is an outstanding system.

We do have, in drought years, years where we import more power than we export, and that’s the nature of our system. We do have to build out more electricity in our system because the province is growing. We have so many major projects and so much success going on in our province. That increases power demand. That’s not bad news; that’s good news.

I’d say to the member that the B.C. Hydro system, because of the extraordinary foresight of W.A.C. Bennett and Dave Barrett and generations of people who supported them, leaves us in an outstanding position where we lead in the marketplace and we benefit people in B.C. Why would we leave $600 million on the table? It’s about $60 million a point. Why would we leave a 10 percent hydro rate increase for his constituents on the table when we can do so much better than that?

I think our system and our teams do well. I do think we do have to produce more electricity because demand is going up, and that’s what you have to do everywhere. But boy, the system works for B.C. We should be proud of it. We should be delighted at it, delighted that we succeed in our relationship in North America, delighted that B.C. is the leader in North America in these questions. That’s good news for us, not bad news.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. Yeah, I’m very delighted with B.C. Hydro and our electricity, but I think I would have been a lot more delighted 40 years ago, because 40 years ago we were actually really self-sufficient. We didn’t rely on importing and exporting power.

Now, saying that, we’ve already determined that we do import power as well as sell power. Last year the minister acknowledged that the imported electricity is a mix. What share of imported electricity came from fossil fuel generation, and can you publish that breakdown?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ll stay modest here. Powerex imports electricity from several sources, including the Canadian entitlement under the Columbia River treaty, which, of course, is clean electricity, clean resources such as hydro and other renewables and wholesale markets.

About 90 percent of U.S. electricity traded with Powerex comes from Washington, Oregon and California. These states have rapidly expanded solar and wind, creating frequent energy surpluses at different times, an advantage for our hydro-based system. In fiscal 2025, roughly 65 percent of electricity generated in those three states came from non-emitting sources. Between 2015 and 2025, the carbon intensity of western U.S. electricity fell by about 35 percent as renewables replaced fossil fuel generation.

[6:30 p.m.]

Powerex prioritizes imports during hours when trading partners have surplus clean energy, such as daytime solar peaks in California and Arizona. Makes sense to me. B.C. Hydro generates about 98 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, making B.C. an attractive trading partner for jurisdictions working themselves to lower emissions. We’re a net benefit.

Our climate action teams in the ministry measure the greenhouse gas intensity of grid electricity through the electricity emissions intensity factor. I described that to the member in his previous question. The most recent measure of B.C.’s grid emissions, which includes Powerex’s imports and exports, was 9.9 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour in 2024, which is, obviously, dramatically, impossibly lower than natural gas or coal. In short, it is a benefit to our system.

People are, I think…. When you have this extraordinary clean electricity system and brilliant people maximizing its benefit for the people of B.C…. I know the desire to be snide in this world when something exceptional is happening is occasionally high. I think there’s a German word for that, but I’m not sure what it is, and we’re getting towards the end of the session. But this is a success story for B.C., and people want to be snarky about this success story.

We are a clean energy leader. We’re a clean energy giant. We’re going to do more clean energy in the future. And I’m proud of what we do, both in our relationships with the United States and Alberta and everywhere else.

David Williams: Thanks to the minister. I’m glad to hear that we’re a clean energy superpower, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.

But going back to my question, I was asking…. The fact that we import power…. As we know, Alberta has a transparent system where you can go on and you can see where the power is being generated at any moment in time so you know where you’re importing power to and from, and it gives you a breakdown of whether you’re buying power from a solar facility or a wind facility or a natural gas facility, which goes back to what I was asking.

The question is: is there a way of having a breakdown of how much we import that’s non-green energy, number one? The second part is: why can’t we have a transparent system as well?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re providing the member…. I look forward to his review of the website.

I just want to repeat this, because we do measure. People say: “Oh, you’re bringing in natural gas or something to supplement your system.” I don’t think they really think it’s a bad thing. They’re just trying to be…. I’m not suggesting this is the member, but maybe others are just trying, in the face of this exceptional success in B.C., to be snarky.

Let me repeat to the member what the results are. The most recent measure of B.C.’s grid emissions, which includes Powerex’s imports and exports, was 9.9 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour. Let’s compare that to natural gas: 500. Let’s compare that to coal: 1,000.

That demonstrates when I say that we’re doing clean energy in B.C. and our role in the marketplace. We are decarbonizing not just ourselves but others in the region. The evidence is there.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Going back to comparing different jurisdictions, in Alberta you can go onto a website there and you can monitor where the power is coming from and where it’s going to at all times of the day. You can track, basically, all the power. We don’t have that here.

Last year we actually had this question, and I was given the reasoning as the fact that Powerex trades and that it would upset the market. Since that time, Alberta…. They trade as well. Again, maybe just clarify to me why we can’t have a transparent system the same as Alberta has or other jurisdictions have.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just laid out what a clean energy system it is. By the way — because people sometimes say, “Oh, well, you’re sacrificing, for clean energy, economic values” — electricity is 80 percent higher in Alberta, 80 percent higher today and going up like a rocket. Our clean electricity is winning on climate, winning on affordability, winning on the economy.

We operate, as the member knows, a vertically integrated electricity system. They don’t. They have a complex system, which is, I would say, at a residential level, not serving consumers. It is bizarre to many that a town like Calgary that relies on energy pays so much dramatically more for electricity than we do in beautiful British Columbia. But that’s the way it is.

Protecting the information, as I’ve noted to the member, helps Powerex participate effectively in western electricity markets and secure value that benefits B.C. Hydro ratepayers. I’m sure he wouldn’t want an answer to my question to undermine the value of B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro does publish real-time net import and export flows on B.C.-U.S. and B.C.-Alberta interties, updated every five minutes. Maybe it should be three, maybe it should be seven, but it’s five on its website.

An independently verified account of Powerex’s trade activities for the last four years has been posted on Powerex’s website. Disclosing commercially sensitive information would reduce Powerex’s ability to generate trade income. I’ve suggested to the member that I’d be happy to offer him a tour of Powerex to see just what extraordinary work they do.

Of course, B.C. Hydro, unlike others in other places, is subject to oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission, which reviews reporting, planning and rate-setting to ensure accountability and protect the public interest.

All I can say is that’s the reason why. But I also say that at every level, I’m proud of our B.C. Hydro teams and what they deliver for customers in British Columbia — industrial, commercial and residential.

David Williams: Thanks to the minister, and thank you to the many, many employees that work for B.C. Hydro, because I do believe they do an awesome job.

Last year we also discussed rate neutrality and the fairness of single-tier pricing. Last year the minister said the move away from the two-tier structure would be revenue-neutral. Revenue-neutral for whom? Which customer groups are expected to pay more and which ones are expected to pay less?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s a choice for customers, as the member should know.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. Yeah, I’m aware. Actually, some of the single-tier pricing works good, because the fact is that you have backdown rates.

Going on to another question along that same line, last year the minister said there’s a 40 percent increase in the rates, but that did not answer the concern whether low-usage households will pay more under a blended structure. What is the ministry’s distributional analysis of the winners and losers under this rate change, and how many households do not hit tier 2 on a monthly basis?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They get to choose. There’s a tool on the website to show which is the right tool for them, which gets them, effectively, the best deal. So they get to choose.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Again, do you have any information on how many households do not hit tier 2?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t have that answer. We’ll get it quickly. I’ll let the member know at the beginning of estimates tomorrow — one of my favourite days of estimates, day 2.

[6:40 p.m.]

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. It sounds good to me. I’ll remind you tomorrow morning.

Power-demand pressure. If B.C. is self-sufficient, why is the ministry simultaneously warning of the need for major new generation to meet the rising demand? What is the expected supply-demand gap over the next five years?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Our job is to meet demand, and that’s what we’re doing. That’s why we have an integrated resource plan. That’s why we plan for the future. The reason there’s an increase in demand is that B.C. is doing so well.

As noted in question period today by my colleague the Minister of Mining, six new mines approved this year — six new mines, incredible — and more to come on the major projects list of the federal and provincial governments. Take a look at those lists. We are growing, and it is good news for B.C. We’re growing in the clean energy sector. We’re growing in LNG. We’re growing in the ports, and we’re growing in all sectors of the economy.

This is enormous potential. B.C. Hydro’s task — it’s a difficult one sometimes — is to meet that demand, and that’s what we’re doing. That’s why, in 2024, we did a call for power. That’s why the next year, in 2025, we did a call for power. That’s why we did the request for expressions of interest for firm power. That’s why we’re taking step after step to build B.C., just like they did in the 1960s.

The fact that we have a publicly owned hydro utility here, B.C. Hydro, to do that is exceptional. It means our system is better managed and more significantly supported than other systems. When you look at these, just for an example of what we’re doing, yes, we’re building out more resources.

The period between 2007 and roughly the present was a time of flat demand. Why was that the case? It’s because starting in 2007, we saw a dramatic reduction in demand from the forest sector. To some degree, the ’60s dams were built for the forest sector and for people, but the forest sector saw a decline in that demand.

Equally, we saw things like LED lighting, which allowed us to dramatically reduce consumption at the consumer level, such that the dramatic increase in population that we’ve seen was not reflected. The per-capita consumption of electricity was reduced against the growing population.

Take a look at these generation projects. The 2024 call for power — 4,830 gigawatt hours for ten projects. That’s 8 percent of the system. In 2025, 5,000 further received in the projects. We’ll be making the announcement on that soon. On capacity, of course, Site C. Revelstoke 6, that’s 500 megawatts of capacity. The utility-scale batteries we’re looking at, a significant 400 megawatts of capacity. The changes at G.M. Shrum, 100 megawatts.

Of course, the important way we do it is to reduce demand through Power Smart programs, of which B.C. is an international and a world leader. So, yes, we are building more electricity. Yes, we need to build more electricity.

But we won’t need electricity in this room much longer because I’m about to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, members of the committee. It now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:43 p.m.