Hansard — Thursday, April 23, 2026 Afternoon, Issue No. 162

Cecilia was deeply respected as an Elder in our community. She was a tireless advocate for the preservation and renewal of Indigenous language, culture and traditional knowledge across the interior of British Columbia.

Her life was rooted in the land. Those who knew her would often find her out in the wilderness picking berries, gathering pine needles or carefully collecting birch bark for the traditional baskets that she so beautifully created.

Cecilia’s greatest gift was not only the knowledge that she carried but it was the knowledge that she shared. She generously taught the traditions, values and skills of Indigenous Peoples to anyone who wished to learn them. Her children, her grandchildren and great-grandchildren were constant companions in that learning, and through them, her teachings will continue for generations.

Her influence extended far beyond the family, reaching classrooms and communities throughout the region, where she mentored and guided countless people. In recognition of her extraordinary contributions, Cecilia was named the Indspire laureate in 2018, an honour she held very close to her heart.

In 2023, the Thompson Rivers University awarded her an honorary doctorate of letters, acknowledging a lifetime devoted to cultural knowledge and education. Education was profoundly important to Cecilia. This was reflected in the recent release of her book, One Arrow Left, which continues to share her wisdom and story to others.

Cecilia DeRose leaves behind a powerful legacy — one of culture, teaching and connection to the land. Her impact will be felt for generations. She was loved by so many. I’ve had conversations with people like Dan Peron and with friends from the rodeo world that have shared that she was like a mother to them as they rodeoed across this province, not to mention that she was an amazing doctor on the side.

She is survived by DeeDee Mobs; Charlene Ostrom; Leonard DeRose; Denny DeRose; and, of course, David DeRose, who is the self-professed favourite son of the family. He’s a great friend of mine.

On behalf of this House, I extend my deepest condolences to her family, friends and all of those whose lives she touched. May we all remember and honour the teachings she so generously shared.

[1:05 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I call second reading on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act, in the chamber.

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

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

Amna Shah: I’m pleased to continue debate on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act. Just picking up…. Maybe I can just briefly summarize where I left off in discussing how important this bill is to deliver real and measurable outcomes, not just for the K’ómoks First Nation but for the surrounding region and for British Columbia as a whole.

I’ve talked about how important it is to ensure that it supports and delivers a stronger economy in the region — higher wages; better partnerships with First Nations, with non-Indigenous communities — really serving as a foundational aspect of all of those positive outcomes that it can bring.

I just want to briefly reflect. We had a solemn commemorative event in the Hall of Honour today, which really reflected on the dangers of what can happen when hatred is unchecked in our communities and the unimaginable loss and the outcome of an immeasurable pain that lasts for generations to come. It all starts with words that are uttered by somebody or people who can’t stand the thought of promoting the success of not just their neighbour but of their entire community. Unfortunately, we had to hear some of those words in this chamber today.

As I reflect on the commemoration that we witnessed today, we do use the words that we will not forget. And that’s why this treaty act is going through this chamber right now. It is because it respects the history. It acknowledges that none of us here would be here if not for that history. So whatever rights or wrongs that may have happened in the past, it is our obligation to at least recognize and acknowledge what happened, where we are and what we can do better.

This bill is the definition of what we can do better. It doesn’t end with this bill. It continues. And it continues to adapt to changing times, to changing circumstances.

That is important because we know that things that prevent our prosperity in this province are things like racism — things or concepts that harm other people because of their identity, that prevent the prosperity of this province by saying, “No, no, no, you can’t give them special treatment” but forgetting the fact that none of this is about special treatment. It’s about an obligation that we all have to the people of this province, and that includes the K’ómoks First Nation.

[1:10 p.m.]

When we address things like racism, hurtful words, harmful rhetoric, we are affirming that commitment that we will continue on with introducing bills just like this for the benefit of all communities in our province. How does that work? Over the 30 years which led to this point, there was a listening to Indigenous voices, there was a respecting of the cultures and the rights, a challenging of the harmful assumptions that somehow certain people are treated better than others.

All of that happened because you can’t just work together to get to a better place, in a vacuum, without addressing some of the harmful rhetoric that exists in our communities. Those two things go hand in hand. That is crucial. It is necessary for building trust. Within that 30 years, I can imagine — actually, I can’t imagine, but I can assume — that there have been ups, there have been downs, but none of that led to a place in which communication collapsed.

That’s why we’re here today, because it works. Some people…. Having this happen over the course of such a long period of time, it’s significant, because treaties are complex. They’re complex, but they’re also not final settlements that close the door on any future discussions. They’re living agreements. They’re designed to evolve over time, to adapt, to support ongoing relationships.

We see it in the treaty’s provisions for governance and for cooperation, and we see it in the use of side agreements that allow flexibility in the implementation. We see it in practical arrangements like the K’ómoks estuary consent agreement. This particular agreement established a consent-based decision-making process for certain land use decisions in areas that have deep ecological and cultural significance.

It’s accountable. It’s transparent. And it reflects a modern approach to shared stewardship, because it is everybody’s responsibility in this province to ensure that we uphold that. That is what reconciliation looks like in practice. We are witness to that today. It’s not symbolic. It’s not abstract. It’s concrete. It’s detailed, grounded in real-world outcomes.

Some may actually ask: “Why does this process take so long?” The answer is simple. It respects the history of this country, and it matters. Treaties, as I said, are complex. They address land, governance, resources, culture, economic development. They require extensive engagement, careful negotiation and commitment to get the details right, but the length of the process should not be confused with lack of progress. What we’re seeing here is the result of a sustained effort and a clear path forward.

I want to return to the choice that is ahead of us as we debate the principles of Bill 20, because that’s what we’re doing here in second reading. Either we can continue with uncertainty, with unresolved claims, with relationships that are defined by conflict and by lack of trust, or we can continue to move forward with clarity, with cooperation, with collaboration, with agreements that recognize — recognize, not give — the rights, respect communities and create opportunities for everybody in this region.

[1:15 p.m.]

The K’ómoks Treaty Act chooses that latter path. It’s about building stronger relationships. It’s about creating stability and certainty. It’s about ensuring that reconciliation is not just a concept. It’s not a goal. It’s not just something that we talk about but a reality that we deliver. We have an opportunity to do that in this chamber.

As we go through this debate, I would hope that all members in this chamber will engage in respectful debate. A bill like this is the only way for us to move forward. It really is. We cannot live in the past of the harm that has been done to Indigenous communities all across this province. We cannot engage in rhetoric in this House. For the sake of our province, please.

Injustice to one people is injustice to all peoples. I will say, I had a very brief lunch today because I wasn’t really hungry anymore after the session this morning. But as we ended our break, I thought to myself: “You know what? I can dwell on the words that were uttered in this chamber, but I’m not going to.”

I’m not going to because I’m going to look to the future. I’m going to encourage every member in this House to look for a path forward together — together with Indigenous communities; together with each other; together, in this case, with the K’ómoks First Nation — because a few people’s hatred does not define us as a province. It never will. As long as we are on this side of the House, it will not.

We will not do that by casting aspersions on people. No. We will do that by returning ourselves to the basic principles and values of being human, what it means to be human, a good human. I really cannot not stand here and ask for that, plead for that from everybody in this chamber. I cannot not do that. It is my responsibility. It’s my obligation.

I hope that members and people who are listening today will use today’s events as an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to each other, to all of the Indigenous Peoples in this province, that there is a brighter future for all of us together, hand in hand. We will discuss. We will collaborate. We will respect. And we will ensure that we will not stand for the types of harmful rhetoric that we heard in this House today — not yesterday, not now, not tomorrow, not ever. That is my commitment to all of British Columbians in this province and to the K’ómoks First Nation.

I urge every member in this House to support the K’ómoks Treaty Act and work together to deliver the type of province that we all want for each other.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act. I have listened intently to the arguments made from the members opposite, from the government. I’ve listened intently to the arguments made from the critics on this side of the House, from the very reasonable arguments put forward by the member for Nechako Lakes and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[1:20 p.m.]

I have to say that the comments from the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream are deplorable. They were meant to incite hatred, and it has to be called out each and every time. It’s disrespectful for the people of the K’ómoks Nation, for all First Nations and for many minority cultures who have been oppressed throughout the ages.

I am going to take a different path. I’m going to return to order and decorum and respectful dialogue on this bill, and I’m going to do that for the people in this room today and for the people who are not in this room. I think that’s important. We owe them that.

I want to begin by acknowledging the decades of work undertaken by the K’ómoks First Nation, their leadership and their community, to reach this point of discussion we’re at today. Treaty negotiations, as we know, are not simple. They require persistence across generations, leadership and difficult conversations within communities and with governments. The work undertaken by K’ómoks reflects their commitment to governance, to economic participation and, indeed, to reconciliation. That work deserves recognition in this House. I commend them for that work.

I want to acknowledge that on March 8, 2025, eligible voters of K’ómoks Nation approved the K’ómoks treaty with 81 percent voting in favour. I also want to acknowledge Chief Nicole Rempel for her role as Chief and for speaking to this House. I want to acknowledge those that attended when Bill 20 was introduced, including the Elders and the young people. I appreciated the cultural celebration of the day, as I know many other members did.

Treaties are a long and, most would say, winding road, and I know this particular treaty has been the subject of many years of discussion in the region. I know the previous speaker had touched on that. The government’s chosen way of bringing this treaty into force is with this proposed bill before the Legislature.

The government has called second reading debate only a week after bringing this in. I will admit, as a legislator, I find that to be a challenge. I think there are flaws in this process overall. I have a role as an official opposition MLA, and our role is to scrutinize what has come before the House. To digest 30 years of work in this short of a period is a problem. I do feel the need to state that for the record.

I want to be clear at the outset. Like my colleagues on this side of the House that spoke before me, the members for Nechako Lakes and Columbia River–Revelstoke, I support treaties. I support treaties because they are the most appropriate and durable way to define and finalize the relationship between First Nations, British Columbia and Canada. I support treaties because they move First Nations out from under the Indian Act — a piece of legislation that has imposed control, created dependency and contributed to the suppression of Indigenous cultures and governance.

I support treaties because Canadian courts have made it clear that reconciliation is best achieved not through litigation but through negotiated agreements, something that is reflected directly in the preamble of this legislation. Sometimes the courts are necessary, but a treaty certainly presents another path. Supporting treaties does not mean abandoning scrutiny in the duty of my role as a legislator in this House. Supporting reconciliation does not mean ignoring legitimate concerns. And supporting this process does not mean accepting that it has been carried out in the best possible way.

I’m going to go into a little bit of the details of B.C.’s treaty process over many, many years now, because it’s very unique to our province. It’s very complex, and I think it’s important to put this bill in context. The treaty process over the many decades has been the result of decisions made and decisions not made over more than a century now.

Unlike many parts of Canada governed by the numbered treaties, most of British Columbia entered Confederation without treaties covering the vast majority of its land. In other regions, treaties were used, however imperfectly at the time, to facilitate settlement and define relationships between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples.

[1:25 p.m.]

In British Columbia, that didn’t always occur. There were limited exceptions, of course. On Vancouver Island, Gov. James Douglas negotiated the Douglas treaties between 1850 and 1854. These agreements, while brief and often contested in their interpretation, recognized certain village sites and harvesting rights.

But beyond those treaties, the Crown largely failed to, at the time, engage in treaty-making across the province. Instead, first the colonial and later provincial governments proceeded as though Indigenous title had been extinguished or did not exist at all.

I will acknowledge, as a student of Canadian history, that Indigenous nations never did accept that particular position. For decades, there were Indigenous leaders who traveled to Ottawa and even to London, petitioning governments and asserting clearly that their lands needed more certainty. In the course of my career, I’ve met some of those Indigenous leaders, and this was and still has been an active and ongoing dispute. For some of that period, Indigenous Peoples were even restricted from raising funds to pursue legal claims, limiting their ability to challenge these assumptions in court.

I think that history matters because it explains why British Columbia has entered the modern era with unresolved questions of title across much of our province’s area.

There was a legal turning point, of course, in 1973 with the Calder versus British Columbia decision. For the first time, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that Aboriginal title existed prior to colonization and continued unless lawfully extinguished. While the case did not grant title in that instance, it fundamentally changed the legal landscape. It forced governments to acknowledge that the foundation of land ownership needed some more clarity added, and that’s the process that we’ve been going through.

In the decades that followed, additional decisions reinforced that Indigenous rights and title are constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

But courts can only go so far. They can recognize rights and define legal principles, but they can’t build the detailed practical frameworks required for governance, land use and economic development. That’s the role where…. Treaties are a mechanism to uphold that.

That brings us to the first major change in B.C.’s modern treaty era, coming with the Nisg̱a’a final agreement, which came into effect in 2000. That agreement established a framework for self-government, defined land-ownership and created mechanisms for resource management and economic participation.

It was not without its own concerns raised at that time — and still, an imperfect process — and concerns still remain to this day. But it has been in place for 26 years now, and that is important as we enter into this discussion today. It demonstrated that negotiated agreements could actually be possible where litigation alone could not be the only other alternative. It is notable that the Nisg̱a’a treaty was negotiated outside the B.C. Treaty Commission process. I’ll get into that.

The B.C. Treaty Commission process was established in 1992 to facilitate negotiations for these agreements. It was established as an independent body to facilitate negotiations between First Nations, B.C. and Canada. The commission was intended to provide a structured, made-in-British-Columbia process, one that could move beyond litigation and towards these negotiated agreements, grounded in mutual recognition and respect. The process set out a clear pathway from statements of intent through to final agreements, with the goal of achieving certainty and reconciliation through dialogue instead of conflict.

But the existence of a process does not guarantee the outcome. Its success depends on how it is carried out, on meaningful consultation, on addressing overlap between nations and on ensuring that agreements are durable and broadly supported. That’s why the reasonable concerns we’ve heard in the course of this debate have to be taken seriously. If the process is not working as it was intended, it’s our responsibility to pause, to reflect and to ensure that it does.

What we have learned over the past three decades in treaty-making in British Columbia is that it’s not a linear process. It is complex, uneven and deeply dependent on the circumstances of each nation and each community where they are situated.

[1:30 p.m.]

My own community knows that. In 2007, the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation rejected a negotiated treaty in a ratification vote after years of work and again in a subsequent vote actually.

Then there are other examples that have fallen outside the treaty commission process. In 2000, the McLeod Lake Indian Band adhered to Treaty 8 more than a century after it was first signed. Treaty 8 covers a very big area in the northeast of the province, and this is also in my constituency. These examples remind us that treaties take different paths and can take different timelines.

As I mentioned earlier, the courts have continued to shape this landscape as well. In Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized Aboriginal title to land for the first time. It also reinforced a simple but important truth: where treaties do not exist, uncertainty also persists. So that’s, again, a reason to try to move treaties forward in the best way possible.

It brings us directly to the issue before us today. Treaties are meant to provide certainty. They are meant to provide that long-term, durable solution and not to perpetuate the uncertainty that exists that we’ve heard from that Tŝilhqot’in case.

That brings me to the items that have been raised in a respectful manner regarding Bill 20. As MLAs, all in the House will know that we received a joint statement from the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, the Nine Allied Tribes and the Lax Kw’alaams band. Their message is supportive but also very cautionary. I think it’s important that, members of this House, we all listen very carefully to it.

They state: “We support modern treaties and the inherent right of all First Nations to self-government and self-determination within their territory. However, treaties must be implemented in a manner that reflects Indigenous law, respects neighbouring nations and upholds the honour of the Crown.” I think this is, obviously, a very principled position. It affirms treaties, but it also sets a clear expectation for how that work must be done.

Within the same letter, these nations go on to say:

“Both the Kitselas and K’ómoks treaties violate Indigenous law and claim territory in an overly broad manner and with little or no legal or historical foundation. Both treaties take overly ambitious claim areas and turn them into treaty rights.

“Up to this point, provincial negotiators have refused to engage in meaningful consultation and have refused to require amendments to these treaties to adjust boundaries; require protocols in overlap areas, as was done in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty; or include other mitigation measures.”

These are serious concerns. Obviously, 30 years of discussion and these comments have not been resolved. Again, this is a week after this has been introduced. It’s very difficult from a legal landscape to ascertain what to do here, but this is a very legitimate comment about the integrity of the process.

They are also pointing us to a very constructive path forward. Wei Wai Kum says the K’ómoks treaty claims nearly 80 percent of its traditional territory and has vowed legal action if the treaty moves ahead as drafted. So that is not the certainty that we are trying to get to or that is needed — with more legal action.

The purpose of treaties is to create certainty, to avoid litigation and to establish those stable, durable relationships. The ɬəʔamɛn final agreement included protocols to manage overlap and shared interests. I think that tells us that these issues can be addressed when there is a willingness to do so.

The government has changed the mandates from the era of previous treaties signed in the last 26 years, and I think that is something that, as legislators, we have to take note of.

The question that has to be asked here is whether or not advancing treaty legislation in the face of unresolved territorial and governance issues risks creating long-term conflict and uncertainty. That is a very important issue that we all have to contend with here.

[1:35 p.m.]

Reconciliation cannot be one-dimensional. I get it. It’s very hard work. It cannot be achieved by reaching agreement, also, with one nation while creating conflict with another. It cannot be achieved by asserting certainty where uncertainty remains, and it cannot be achieved by moving forward when those directly affected are telling us that the work is not complete.

Bill 20 is not symbolic. It gives the treaty the force of law and makes it binding on all persons. It transfers land ownership; alters forestry tenures; removes lands from the ALR; and, in some cases, limits compensation. These are permanent changes with real consequences and very important ones.

Again, I go back to the fact that we’ve had a week of this legislation before the House, and now, after 30 years, we’re rushing this process significantly without addressing these concerns.

That is precisely why I believe we must think this through, not to reject treaties but to ensure that we get this right. Government should be spending the time to properly engage meaningfully with neighbouring First Nations who have raised legitimate concerns, because if we don’t resolve those concerns here, they won’t disappear. They will move to the courts. That is exactly what treaties are meant to avoid.

I want to continue with the question of certainty, because that is, ultimately, what we have been discussing significantly over the past couple of days. The preamble to Bill 20 states: “and whereas the K’ómoks treaty advances the objectives of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

That language is obviously aligned with what the government has brought forward in DRIPA legislation, which, at that time, they said was aspirational. But as we have learned now, today, it also raises serious and unresolved legal questions that we need answered and need resolution to.

We have seen in recent months that the application of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has created uncertainty — uncertainty significant enough that this very government has been forced to revisit; reconsider; and, at some points, has said they want to attempt to amend their own approach. We don’t know exactly what the plan is, going forward, because it hasn’t been presented to the House yet. It may come in the fall, but we’re not sure.

That tells us something important. The legal framework surrounding UNDRIP is still evolving, still being interpreted and still being tested. It’s important to note that Indigenous rights are already protected in the constitution. That is the highest law of the land, and it is very, very important that those rights have that protection enforced there.

At the same time, this legislation embeds the principles of UNDRIP that will carry, despite the fact that we have constitutionally protected rights…. Those can’t be amended, but the laws we have here can be amended. UNDRIP is, here, written into the treaty itself, not just the Bill 20 reference we see.

We have heard from legal experts who warned that this model does not eliminate uncertainty. We hear some of the legal opinions. We’ve heard some read into the record already in the course of this debate. But I will just read one comment that was noteworthy from some legal experts — Joan M. Young, Radha Curpen, Robin M. Junger, Sasa Jarvis, Tom Theodorakis, David Burchart, Corey Kent — who wrote in a bulletin: “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-era treaty agreements.”

This particular comment, reference, was in relation to private property questions, comparisons to the decisions in the Quw’utsun and Gitxaała court cases and questions about the effect this may be having on existing treaties as well.

[1:40 p.m.]

This is something that we do have to pause on. I don’t know the answer. Again, I’ve only had a week to digest this. It is a lot to take in. A statute can be amended by future governments. A treaty is much more difficult, and I don’t know if this is locking in uncertainty for generations. The government needs to explain this very clearly.

We’ve heard from neighbouring First Nations who are telling us, clearly, that unresolved issues, if left unaddressed, will not disappear but instead will move to the courts. That is not what treaties are meant to do. Treaties, as we’ve heard from all members so far who’ve spoken, for the most part are meant to resolve conflict. They’re meant to provide clarity, and they’re meant to build durable relationships. And I think we actually agree on those principles.

That’s why this moment matters. It was the government’s decision, I believe, to, I would surmise, change the treaty mandate to include the UNDRIP language to not resolve these territorial challenges that are still included here. But once this legislation passes, this will all be very difficult to change course. So the question before us is not whether we support treaties. I certainly do. The question before us is whether we are prepared to ensure that this treaty and this model is right before we make it permanent.

I am requesting that the government actually responds to these specific issues. Obviously, the language around reconciliation matters. I want to hear some of that, but I also want the answers to these specific challenges to this legislation before the House. Why didn’t the government engage meaningfully enough with neighbouring First Nations? Because that’s what we’re hearing from them as legislators, and we have to take that at face value.

How is the government planning to ensure that the legal framework we are embedding will actually deliver certainty? Again, legal experts are telling us that they don’t believe it is right now.

I get that this has been a long process, but this is the hard work of real reconciliation. Is this government actually doing that hard work, or are they just saying the things that are easy in this process? We can’t just say the easy things. It’s about getting it right and leaving behind agreements that will stand the test of time. The K’ómoks Nation deserves that, and so do the rest of British Columbians.

Again, I support treaty. I want to vote in favour of the K’ómoks Treaty Act. I sincerely do. I support moving beyond the Indian Act. And I support reconciliation grounded in negotiated agreements, but reconciliation must be done properly. It must respect all affected nations, and it must provide the certainty that British Columbians desperately need. I think the government could show some more leadership.

So this is about meeting the moment and taking a hard look at the legislation before this House today. Let’s make sure that we actually get this right for the K’ómoks First Nation, for the people on Vancouver Island, for the people across British Columbia, as this is precedent-setting, and we need to make sure that that moment is that leadership that British Columbians expect.

Thank you for the time. I look forward to hearing from other members in this debate.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: You know, there are days when I come into this House and it’s really hard to hear the racism and the hate that is being directed at Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia. It’s really hard. It’s really hard when this morning the member for Saanich North and the Islands was heckled when he stated section 35 of the constitution is the law.

[1:45 p.m.]

UNDRIP is an international commitment that helps inform section 35, and DRIPA is the roadmap on how to do that. The opposition heckled him so he couldn’t get that out.

I also want to know whether the members do support treaties, especially in their ridings where we have two treaties coming forward in this House. I want to know if they support it. I also want to know…. I’ve heard things that the other members have said, that this is not symbolic, that this is not history-making. I want to know if they went to the Hall of Honour and looked at those Elders in the eye and those children in the eye and the women in the eye and said: “We don’t support this.”

So I am very angry because I feel like you can’t say, “I support this,” and then say: “But it’s wrong.”

Thirty years — 30 years this community has been waiting to have this relationship established with the government, to have no more uncertainty, to be able to hold their heads up high and feel good about the work that the people before them did and reaching this point. It is historic. It is very historic. There are ancestors that have passed away and are not going to see this day happen. The children within those communities are going to be able to grow up knowing exactly who they are and to feel proud of who they are and to be able to have their acknowledgement by Canada and British Columbia. That is really important.

I cannot stress enough, to members who don’t understand, that making sure that you have land for generations to come, making sure that you have access to fish, to berries, to be able to do cultural practices….

I know in this House that when we debate things, we have a difference of opinion. But when it involves racism and hate, I don’t stand for that. I thank my sister who stood up today, and she also defended that.

It’s not just about Indigenous communities, because we’ve had this hate directed at us for years. But then you’re going to turn to other cultures, and that’s not fair. No one should have that hate directed at them.

When we talk about treaties, this is not new work. This has been happening for years. The B.C. Treaty Commission puts their information on their website. You know exactly what’s happening. As I said earlier, if you didn’t, then why aren’t you building that relationship with your communities? Why aren’t you talking to them about what’s being put in the treaty, asking questions about how this will impact, how this will lift up our region, how this will lift up everybody? We have proof points from the other treaties that this lifts everybody up. The trends in the economy are so important. We know that this is going to be a positive impact on the whole region.

We talk about agreements. We talk about…. There were other examples of other communities that have fallen outside the treaty process. Every Indigenous community has the right to their own path to reconciliation. Their path may be different than others, and that’s okay.

I want you to think about what Canada and what British Columbia would look like when tourists come to visit if we were allowed to speak our language and gather our food and build our own relationships in the societies that we had. People pay good money to go to Europe and to other areas of the world to go and experience that.

[1:50 p.m.]

Imagine if you felt proud of your Indigenous communities. Imagine if you had friends visiting here from around the world and saying: “Wow, you should go and visit K’ómoks First Nation. They just signed their treaty. They have beautiful art and regalia and language and culture. They get out onto the land, and we support that.” I feel like that’s something that we should be proud of as British Columbians and as Canadians.

When we talk about treaties, this is not something that is brand new. As I said, this has been negotiated for over 30 years — 30 years. And then we talk about: “Oh, this is being rushed.” How is this being rushed?

It’s time for us to step up and support these communities and stop with the hate. Some members on the other side have read out quotes from lawyers. The respect and the disrespect that’s shown here in the House — sometimes to people like the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, who is a lawyer, has worked with First Nations for many, many years…. He’s heckled when he tries to talk about this.

So I’m sorry. I don’t believe when people say: “We’re not directing hate. We stand shoulder to shoulder with First Nations.”

We know that we have more work to do. We know we have more work to do with reconciliation, with communities, to be building that trust and that relationship with them. But it’s a respectful relationship. We try very hard every day to uplift people; to support strong, healthy, thriving communities.

We know of other modern treaties like Tsawwassen, ɬəʔamɛn, Nisg̱a’a. We know how well those treaties are working in their regions because we’ve built those relationships. We’ve built it so that we have an opportunity to work with them collaboratively, to be standing side by side through the good times and the bad.

There are always going to be hard times and hardships that come, and it really depends on whether or not you’re able to weather that storm together. We’ve seen that happening over the past few months.

We know, too, that treaties build stronger local relationships because they do allow for mechanisms for resolving matters and working together on shared priorities. I don’t feel that we should be judging any of the communities that are trying to come together and work out their issues. We should give them the space and the time to be able to work those differences out and come to us and say: “Here’s what we want to do, and here’s how we want to move together.”

I recently had the opportunity to visit ɬəʔamɛn and to visit Powell River last year, and I can say that the community is thriving. They’re doing really well together. And that is my hope for K’ómoks, that they’re able to build this and build good, strong local relationships.

B.C. is so unique because we have so many different First Nations with their own language, culture, art, traditions. I am so grateful when I have an opportunity to travel to new communities and for them to trust me to come and take part in their ceremonies. It’s so important to be able to get out and do that.

Treaties are a really good way for us to make sure that there’s certainty. There’s certainty for where K’ómoks is going to be able to have ownership over their lands. They’re going to be able to make really strong, durable decisions for the future of their children and their community. And they’re going to be able to reap more economic benefits based on their treaty.

[1:55 p.m.]

This is what it means to, actually, do reconciliation in this province. It doesn’t mean being racist. It doesn’t mean treating someone as less than you because of the colour of their skin or their culture.

I want to say, too, that we’ve been working with the case law of this province for many, many months now and trying to find solutions together. We’ve been trying to work hard. It’s been really hard. But the case law has been really clear that the treaties confirm, as the courts have already done, that UNDRIP should be relied upon as part of the interpretation of the treaty.

We’ve tried very hard to communicate with other communities, with other organizations, with the public about what this treaty means and what it doesn’t mean, because we don’t want lies creating fear or creating uncertainty about what the path is for this treaty. It’s time that we all work together in this House to lift up all of British Columbia.

K’ómoks First Nation came here. They shared their culture with us. They shared their Elders with us. They shared their children with us. I want this to be a safe house for Indigenous people to come in, and it’s really hard some days when I have to hear hate and racism about Indigenous people and Indigenous communities.

I want them to feel welcome. I want this House to be welcome to them. And I want to see more Indigenous MLAs coming here to represent their communities, to stand up, even when it’s really hard, and say: “This isn’t right, and we need to change the way things are being done.”

I’m really proud of the work that has been put into this treaty negotiation. I’m very proud of the work that the public service has been doing. I know that they work hard to bring forward maps, to bring forward land details and then to make sure that they’re doing their very best to provide the best treaty negotiations that they can.

I urge all British Columbians to get the facts right, to reach out and talk about the treaties, to talk about whether this is what’s best for British Columbia. I don’t think any government would spend 30 years on doing something right…. I think that what we have put forward in this bill, in this treaty, is exactly what the communities have advocated for, have fought for, have died for, and I think it’s only right that we all unanimously support this.

We can’t keep saying to First Nations that we want reconciliation and then vote against it. We have to be able to walk hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder and make sure that they know that we support them, that we support communities.

I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I do hope that all members of this House will also support it.

Claire Rattée: I want to start out by saying that I prepared a speech, and I put a lot of time and thought into how I was going to proceed with this. But unfortunately, I have to start by stating a few things to correct the record.

[2:00 p.m.]

I don’t really want to be doing this right now because I do think that this is important work, and I don’t think, personally, that it’s particularly respectful to the K’ómoks Nation that this has become as politicized as it has. But there have been a number of comments that have been made today that are simply inaccurate.

I’m going to start by saying that I absolutely support treaty. I’ve spent the last year and a half in my communities working with the communities that are going through the treaty process. I’ve always supported them in that. I absolutely support First Nations getting out from under the Indian Act.

I absolutely understand how alive and well racism is. I get that. I’m a Jewish person, and I have blonde hair and blue eyes. Do you think I haven’t had people make really racist comments to me without expecting that it was going to hurt my feelings? I have Indigenous family members.

I understand that racism is alive and well, but what I don’t appreciate is that there’s this continuous hurling of insults at our side because we’re going to question what might be in these treaty documents. It was made towards our side too. Many of them have been.

We have a right to question what’s in this document, and I think that’s fair. I think that we owe it to the K’ómoks Nation, but I also think that we owe it to the other nations that are impacted by this and to all British Columbians, because we have a duty to get this right. This affects all British Columbians, and if it’s done properly, it affects them in a really meaningful, positive and powerful way.

I know that, firsthand. I am one of the few people that sits in this chamber that has the honour of representing a treaty nation, which has been a treaty nation for a long time — the Nisg̱a’a Nation. I know what that treaty has done for them. I know what it has accomplished for our entire region and the entire province. It has provided certainty.

But what’s bothering me about what’s in these treaties — and I want to say very clearly that this is not the K’ómoks First Nation’s fault; this is not any First Nation’s fault; in my opinion, this is an issue of the government not getting this aspect right — is that there is very strong language around UNDRIP that has been incorporated in here. The reason I take issue with that is because we have seen the legal challenges that this has created to try and make it the authoritative document that all our laws are supposed to be interpreted through.

The Minister of Environment, who is somebody that I would consider to be a friend…. Her and I have always gotten along. We, obviously, share riding boundaries. She’s always been very kind to me. I take no personal issue with her. But I do take issue with the fact that she was talking about existing treaties and she says: “We know how well those treaties are working.” Then why are we changing the model right now? Why would we be changing that? We know that the treaties that have been signed have worked. So why are we going that route?

What really bothered me about the comments that were made just now were comments around: “Well, then I would recommend that those members do the hard work and make those relationships and go into those communities.” I think it’s incredibly rich considering that that member’s own community is one of the ones that has a problem with one of the treaties that is going to be before us, and we had to meet with them. They are not my constituents, but they feel like they’ve been left out and not brought to the table.

I don’t understand how that’s fair. I don’t understand how it’s fair to slander us as racists because we have questions about that and we have concerns about that. That’s wrong. We have a duty. This is our job. It’s not always easy. But we have a duty to all British Columbians to make sure that we get this right.

We’re completely drifting off from where we were with treaties originally when we’re incorporating things like that, particularly given the landscape of where we’re at right now.

Again, I’ll be the first to admit this is not my wheelhouse. This is not something I know everything about. I am not a lawyer. I’m somebody that spends time in my community and tries to get to know the First Nations in my community and to understand where they’re coming from. I have spent that time. I’ve had those difficult conversations.

I’ve had to go to my community and say: “I’ve been supporting you guys on this for the last year and a half, and now, finally, with only a week to actually be able to read these treaties, I’m having concerns about some of the language here. Can we work together and try and find a way to solve this?”

I think that’s important, because the reality is that UNDRIP was not supposed to be the authoritative source for how we were going to interpret all of our laws in this province, in this country. That was never the intention behind it. The government themselves have said it’s supposed to be aspirational, yet we’ve brought into force the requirement to make sure that that’s how we’re interpreting our laws.

I know that a number of members on the government side have said that the opposition is quoting these lawyers and whatever and then conveniently turning around and saying: “Oh, but it’s another lawyer.” Well, yeah, it’s another lawyer, because everybody has different opinions on things. The Attorney General said it herself the other day. Lawyers will say all sorts of different things, and we’re going to have to determine who has the correct opinion. Realistically, it doesn’t matter, because it’s going to come down to what the courts say.

[2:05 p.m.]

The fact of the matter is that there are other people that have also expressed those concerns who are also Indigenous. In my opinion, from what I’ve seen so far with trying to use UNDRIP and bring it into legal force, it has been an equal-opportunity killer. It doesn’t matter — Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I’ve seen it in my own riding, how these overlapping issues of consent from all First Nations…. It’s just not possible. There are over 200 First Nations in this province. We can’t get everybody to the same place, because not everybody wants the same thing.

I think it’s honestly, really unfair to assume that all First Nations want the exact same thing all throughout this province. That’s just labelling them all as the exact same person. It would be unfair to do it of any race. It doesn’t matter who it is.

The reality is that we’re never going to get to a place where we’re going to have every single First Nation agreeing on everything. We’re also never going to address all of the issues of overlapping land claims. I don’t know that that’s possible unless government is willing to bring all nations to the table at once and try and find a way to determine that. It’s going to be a very difficult and very long process, and maybe that’s what needs to happen. The reality is that we’re never going to get to a place where everybody is going to be able to agree on all of these things.

I’ve seen it happen in my riding already, where a nation has tried to move forward on forestry projects. Because of the implementation of DRIPA and therefore UNDRIP, neighbouring nations have taken issue with what they’re trying to do and blocked them. That’s not fair. That damages that Indigenous community as well. It’s on their traditional territory, and they’re not able to make decisions about what they’re doing there. We’ve seen it play out time and again throughout the province. To pretend like that’s not happening and to just kind of gloss over it is really disingenuous.

Like I said, it’s not just lawyers that have come forward and said these things. I’m going to read a couple of things about UNDRIP that have been said by Indigenous people that are concerned about it. One of which, obviously, is going to be Ellis Ross. He’s former MLA for…. He’s my predecessor that used to sit in this House. He’s one of the strongest Indigenous leaders that I’ve ever met, and he knows what he’s talking about. He’s taught me a lot of things about this.

I have a number of different quotes here from him in news articles. He said: “Nobody knows what the rules are anymore. UNDRIP is causing widespread permit paralysis. Government embrace of UNDRIP is blocking the progress that B.C. First Nations have made through 40 years of courtroom decisions.”

Just as UNDRIP becomes impossible to integrate when the province tries to regulate ordinary activities such as speed limits, Ross said it is proving especially counterproductive when it comes to more complex and thorny issues such as land claims. “There are certain issues you have to address as a government that impact all of us, like health and safety, regardless of First Nations interests,” Ross said. “That contradicts the promise by this government that you can align UNDRIP with every single law. I don’t see how you can do that when you have to consider larger factors that affect all of society.”

Jody Wilson-Raybould gave a speech in which she said: “Adopting UNDRIP would be unworkable and a political distraction.”

These are other Indigenous leaders that recognize that there are issues here. I think that trying to pretend like there aren’t and glossing over it is doing a disservice to everybody. It’s doing a disservice to Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people. I think that, really, the goal of treaty is supposed to be that we all get to the same place.

I’m absolutely willing to recognize and admit that Indigenous people in this province have been held back for a long time, and they’ve been treated unfairly. I don’t think that there’s anybody in my caucus that doesn’t agree with that statement. I want Indigenous people to be able to have all the same opportunities as every British Columbian.

One of the biggest things that holds them back from that is the Indian Act. It’s paternalistic, it’s outdated, and it’s cruel. I want Indigenous people to not have to live under the Indian Act. I don’t want them to have to live as effectively wards of the state. They’re British Columbians. They’re Canadians. That is not okay.

They have every right to participate in our economy, and I’ve seen how that can happen in my riding. I’ve seen how successful First Nations can actually be when they are moving forward on resource development projects. We wouldn’t have LNG Canada or Cedar LNG if it weren’t for the Indigenous communities in my community and the Indigenous leaders in my community. It just wouldn’t be happening. They fought really hard for that, and they deserve that credit.

[2:10 p.m.]

I know that this government often likes to take credit for that, but the reality is that it was people like Ellis Ross and Crystal Smith that made those projects happen. They were the ones that were championing it and spearheading it and putting the really hard work in for it.

I have seen that that can happen. I have seen how you can build those relationships and how you can repair a lot of those broken relationships. Absolutely, it means doing the work. It means showing up. It means spending time in communities. It means understanding why it is that they want a seat at the table. They have every right to do that.

In my communities, I have seen how First Nations have absolutely led the charge on making sure that we get increased access to health care, especially around mental health and addictions, because it wasn’t coming from government. They had to fight really hard for that. They had to put in a lot of hard work, and they did it. They finally got our first treatment centre open. That wouldn’t have happened without the leadership that has come from First Nations in my communities. I know it wouldn’t have.

So I recognize that we have to work with them, and that’s what frustrates me so much about the fact that us asking questions about what is in here and asking for responses from the government side on it has somehow made us horrible people that don’t agree with treaty. I want nothing more than to support these treaties. But I do have concerns around some of the language, and I certainly do have concerns over the fact that there are overlapping claims that haven’t been addressed.

Again, that’s not the First Nation’s fault. It’s not for a lack of trying. I understand we’re speaking about K’ómoks today, but it’s in the context that we know that there are other treaties coming forward that are in communities that I represent. I know how hard those communities work to try and get other nations to the table.

But the reality is that, in my opinion, that was the government’s responsibility, and there was a failure to do so there. That has to get addressed. We can’t lift one nation up while putting another one down and leaving them behind. That’s not fair. That has to be addressed.

The fact that we haven’t had ample opportunity to be able to go through this legislation and to go through these treaties…. I mean, this is a significant amount of work. As opposition, we don’t have the same resources that government does. I don’t think that makes me a racist because I want to better understand what’s going on here. Some of the questions that have been asked from our side have not been answered, still, by the government side.

If somebody can give me a good explanation of why, very clearly why, we need that language around UNDRIP in these treaties…. I haven’t heard it yet. I have not heard that from the other side of the House.

Like I said, I work with a treaty nation that is in my riding that doesn’t have any reference to UNDRIP. It wasn’t necessary. They’ve been incredibly successful. They’ve moved forward on projects. They have the PRGT pipeline going. That process is underway. There was no requirement for that to be part of their treaty.

But I can tell you, for sure, that what is going to happen is that now they’re going to want it as part of their treaty. They’re going to want their treaty reopened just like every other treaty nation is. Why wouldn’t you? Of course, if another nation is getting something that they weren’t, why wouldn’t they? I would.

Treaties are supposed to provide clarity. They’re supposed to provide assurances. They’re supposed to provide some form of finality. I’m not saying that in the sense that I don’t agree with the concept of, obviously, being able to go back in and address certain things.

Just in the 15 or so short years that I have lived in my region, I’ve watched the evolution that’s happened with the Nisg̱a’a Nation, for example. Moving forward on self-governance is not a simple task. Unfortunately, they didn’t have exactly the resources to be able to just fully implement an entire governmental system right off the bat. It takes time. They need a phased approach. They need time to be able to train their people, to be able to fill positions.

Speaking to the two nations in my region that are going through this process right now, they’ve told me how many people they’re going to have to train and all of the positions that they’re going to have to fill. Things change. It may need a phased approach of: “We’re going to take on this portion of it and that portion. These ones, we’re not. We’re not ready for it. We can’t take that on under our government structure.”

That’s acceptable. I understand that. I recognize that. Those things have to change, but the point of treaty is supposed to be that we get some finality when it comes to the land question especially. That’s something that we need to address. It’s something that I believe First Nations also want us to address, even just for the relationships that they have with one another.

That has caused a lot of tension over the years. That’s caused a lot of problems, not just between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people but also between neighbouring nations. I’ve watched that play out. I’ve watched it play out in my region over and over again. The reality is that in the Nisg̱a’a treaty, for example, there were overlapping land claims that still haven’t been addressed 20 years later.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s not easy work to do, but it is work that has to be done. I’m trying to do what I can as opposition, but the reality is that that is work the government has to do.

None of this is to detract from the fact that I think it’s really important to recognize the K’ómoks First Nation and their leadership and what they have managed to accomplish here. Going through a treaty process is incredibly hard work, especially to do 30 years’ worth of work.

These treaties have been going on basically as long as I’ve been alive, and I recognize that many of the people that started this process aren’t even alive anymore today. That breaks my heart. I wish it hadn’t taken that long. I wish that there had been a way to find a path forward a lot sooner.

I think it’s important that when we talk about treaty, we recognize the context here in British Columbia and how different it is in other regions. The reality is, if you look at a province like Alberta, for example, they dealt with this a long time ago. I think that we’ve seen the positive impacts of them having dealt with treaty when it should have been dealt with.

I wish that our province had done that because, I think, in Alberta, you don’t see a lot of the same problems that we’re seeing right now in British Columbia. You don’t see the tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people that we see in this province.

That makes me really sad. I don’t like that in my riding there are tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It bothers me immensely, and I want to be able to do something about it. I want to be able to address it, because I recognize that we’re all British Columbians. We should all be treated the same, and fairly, and I get that we haven’t been. I recognize that.

I want to do something to correct that, but I can’t do it at the expense of others in my community either. I have to be able to balance what all British Columbians need. It’s important that we lift First Nations up, that we give them a seat at the table and that we make sure that they have the same opportunities as everybody else. Treaty can do that, but like I said, it has to come with some finality. There has to be some finality to the question around land.

It’s hard, because I can’t speak in as much detail about K’ómoks as a community. I haven’t spent time there. It’s not my riding. I don’t know the members from K’ómoks as well as I do the ones in my riding.

Obviously, one of them will be coming forward, I would assume, sometime next week. I’m looking forward to that, because I’m looking forward to the opportunity to be able to highlight what an amazing community they are, all the great work that they’ve done in my riding and that they continue to do.

Hopefully, one day I’ll be at the place where I can speak the same about K’ómoks, because I’ll get to spend some time there and get to know their leadership and have a better understanding of the challenges that they have faced.

Realistically, what I need to talk about today are the concerns that I have about this piece of legislation and about this treaty. I really do think that when treaties are done properly, they don’t just benefit that nation; they benefit all British Columbians. Right now I’ve got concerns that aspects of this could actually end up not benefiting either.

I don’t think that it’s a benefit to K’ómoks to then have contentiousness with their closest neighbour. I don’t think that that helps them. Like I said, in my opinion, it’s government’s responsibility to make sure that they have brought everyone to the table and that they have done that work, especially for a government that preaches about reconciliation. This is not reconciliation if we’re leaving other nations out, if we’re not bringing them to the table.

I can’t speak to what has happened between K’ómoks and Wei Wai Kum because, again, it’s not my riding, and they’re not people that are my constituents. I haven’t had that relationship with either nation, but I do know the ones that affect my riding.

The nations that are bringing forward their treaties in my riding have made the attempts to have those conversations, but it is not their responsibility to make sure that this is resolved. The reality is that there are a number of First Nations, both in my riding and surrounding it…. Both Kitselas and Kitsumkalum are part of the larger Tsimshian nation; so is Lax Kw’alaams.

[2:20 p.m.]

I would love to see them all being able to work together, sit down, come to the table and have government facilitate something to ensure that those land issues can be addressed and that everybody gets a piece of the pie, because they deserve to. That requires leadership, and it’s leadership that, again, has to come from government.

There is a member that represents that nation and that could be doing that work. I would really urge them to do it, because again, I don’t think that this benefits the nations that we are trying to benefit if they end up having a problem with their closest neighbour.

These are not new issues. In both of these cases where there are overlapping land issues, both times they’ve gone to Supreme Court already. This is not a new problem. This is something that government was aware of, the negotiators were aware of.

I think it was predictable that this would become a problem. Unfortunately, because there was a decision made to not address it before government decided to bring this legislation forward, there’s a really good chance now that even once these treaties pass, we could end up in court.

That’s not fair to these nations that have worked for 30 years to try and get a treaty — that they then still won’t be able to implement it. That really bothers me. And that is government’s responsibility. It’s the government of B.C.’s. It’s the government of Canada’s.

That needed to get addressed, and I know it could have been, because I’ve seen it before, with the Nisg̱a’a treaty. There are overlapping land claims. They were able to resolve it well enough to sign a treaty, and everybody was happy with the outcome. Things are moving smoothly in my region. There are no issues with that.

So why couldn’t that have been addressed? The only thing I can come up with is that this government was desperate for something to change the channel and the issues around reconciliation right now. This feels rushed — to bring it forward before that’s dealt with. That’s the way it feels to me.

I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair that these other nations are feeling like they’re not being brought to the table, that their issues of land aren’t being addressed. They might be legitimate; they might not be. I can’t speak to that. Like I said, I am humble enough to admit that I don’t know what I don’t know. This is not my area of expertise. I am not a lawyer.

All I know is that I grew up in the Lower Mainland. I grew up with many friends that were Indigenous and that didn’t have a lot of connection to their culture. It’s just the reality. It’s not as common in the Lower Mainland. I didn’t understand a lot about the history around it, and I didn’t understand a lot about Indigenous culture in general.

I grew up very close to the Tsawwassen First Nation, and that’s another treaty nation that has been very successful and hasn’t faced a lot of the problems that we see in more northern, rural or remote First Nations communities. I had a culture shock when I moved up to Skeena. I remember driving through some reserves for the first time, and to be honest, I was in tears. I didn’t realize that we had people in British Columbia that were living in conditions like that.

It was hard, and it gave me a better appreciation for how not only Indigenous communities but, in general, people that live in northern, rural and remote communities in this province have to fight so much harder to access the same things that most of British Columbia takes for granted. I think that’s especially felt in First Nations communities. They’ve had to fight and work even harder to get access to those same things.

I think that this treaty process could go such a long way. Again, I’ve seen what can be accomplished in communities like mine when First Nations are given a seat at the table, when they have the ability to participate fully in our economy. I think that treaty can do that.

I’ll be honest. I don’t know how I’m going to vote. I’m not sure yet. We’ve only had this for a week, and I’m still trying to figure out how I can get to the point where I can support it.

Again, I do feel a disservice was done to these nations in bringing it forward before some of these issues were addressed — and to try and bring this forward with only a week for us to look it over. I think that the right approach here would have been to have tabled this at the beginning of our session. I don’t know why it wasn’t, because I know the dates of all of the ratification votes within the communities. The treaties were ready.

[2:25 p.m.]

I wish that we had had more time to be able to go through these. I wish that I wasn’t speaking to something when I’ve only had a week to look at it, when it’s something this consequential and this significant. I get that, technically, the piece of legislation isn’t that long, but the treaty itself is. Again, I don’t have the context of this community, so it has been a lot to try and wrap my head around.

Overall, I just want to come back to where I began, that I support treaty. I think that it is the highest form of reconciliation that we can have. We’ve seen how this has played out in other provinces and how successful it has been and how it has significantly relieved a lot of the tensions and pressures that are felt, usually, in our communities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. So I know that this can be effective, and I know how important this is, but I still think it’s important that we get it right.

I would just close by, first, really thanking the K’ómoks Nation for all the hard work that they’ve put into this. I really just want to put it on the record that they absolutely have my support in their journey to achieve treaty. I wish that we would see more nations doing it. It’s hard work, but it’s important work, and it needs to happen.

Saying that, I really, really hope — I’ll be listening very intently — that somebody on the government side can explain to me, very clearly and unequivocally, why that section around UNDRIP language and using UNDRIP as the authoritative source for how we interpret this piece of legislation is in there, why these two nations are saying that they were not consulted, how we plan to address that and how we plan to address the potential eventuality that we end up in court as a result.

What is this going to do? How is this going to affect these nations? I want to get these treaties passed, and I want these nations to have that opportunity to be able to properly implement their treaties. But if we end up in court — again, I’ll admit when I don’t know — I do not know how this plays out then. We’ve heard that there are threats already that this will end up in court, and it will be challenged.

I would love to hear a response to those two issues, because until I have clarity on that, I don’t know if I can support this, and I really want to. So I’m hoping somebody on the government side can provide that clarity for me.

Hon. Christine Boyle: What an incredible honour to stand in this House and speak to the introduction of the K’ómoks Treaty Act and the decades of work that generations of K’ómoks leaders and community members have put into bringing this act to the stage that it is today.

The work in community is what I want to speak to first. I was fortunate in my time as Minister of Indigenous Relations to hear about, to witness the leadership that was happening on the ground by the K’ómoks Nation, Chief and leadership and community; and the engagement that was happening member to member and, in some cases, door to door — ensuring that members understood what was in the treaty, that their questions were answered, that they felt heard and included.

This is the work of generations, and because this work was started three decades ago by leaders with a vision of what impact they could make for future generations in their nation, the community has been doing that outreach for a long time. When it came time for a community ratification vote, that work stepped up even more. Members were, as I said, engaging on the ground and door to door, making sure they were connected. The turnout in the community for the vote was incredible.

[2:30 p.m.]

All of us in this House know what that work is like, to knock on doors and engage with our community members. But our voter turnouts in provincial elections are nowhere near what the K’ómoks were able to achieve, which is a testament to the depth of work that they have done to get to this point and the depth of commitment across their membership to see this through.

I am proud to stand on this side and to be part of a government that understands treaties as one important and incredibly tangible piece of our shared work on reconciliation to reflect the self-determination of nations in choosing their own path forward. We as a government engage in a whole number of tools on that reconciliation path, and each nation has their own path. We are signing reconciliation agreements and working in other partnerships. Treaty is one of the paths that nations choose to take, and it is a long and significant step for nations to take.

Again, the work that K’ómoks has put into it will be of benefit to K’ómoks members now and for generations to come. The idea that you could spend 30 years in this work in the service of the next seven generations of your community is so moving to me, because all of our decisions should carry that idea and that weight of thinking about not just our own generation but seven generations to come.

The work of the K’ómoks treaty is not just of benefit to K’ómoks members and not just of benefit to future K’ómoks members but to the entire region. We know other treaties signed around the province have had benefits across their region. That’s the good work that the nation is leading, and that is an important piece of the province’s shared work on reconciliation overall, as we hear the Premier and others speak about regularly.

As my colleague the member for Surrey City Centre spoke about earlier, this is important generational work for all of us to lay a new path forward for all British Columbians. The K’ómoks treaty, for their community and all of us, helps move us in a direction where nations are leading their own way and where we’re lifting everyone up together. This treaty, like all treaties, addresses a wide range of interests of the nation that will lift up the community and the region as a whole.

I was really struck, again in my time as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, by the work being led both by the treaty commission and in partnership between nations and government to recognize that treaties are no longer considered a final agreement as they once were, that they no longer require a giving up of rights but that they reflect a living relationship. This is an important shift from treaties of generations past.

Our work to shift the treaty relationship to be a living relationship — a breathing, growing and evolving relationship — is, again, a reflection of a deep understanding that reconciliation lifts us all up across the province, that we can grow together in partnership, that we can do more in partnership and that what we know now and what we are putting into writing in partnership in the K’ómoks treaty now represents a moment in time and everything we’ve learned up to this moment in time. We’re committed to walking together into a future that lifts up K’ómoks members, that provides a better path for K’ómoks members and that moves us all forward together.

That reflection in the shift of treaties being living relationships and living documents is incredibly important.

[2:35 p.m.]

I want to speak again about the benefits that come out of treaties — that we’ve seen in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty; that we saw in the Nisg̱a’a treaty, which recently celebrated a significant anniversary; that we see in treaties around the province — that create healthier communities; that create services that make life easier and better; that bring new investments and prosperity to the community along with good jobs and stronger tools for land management, water and resource stewardship; and that bring certainty and stability to the community.

Modern Treaty Nations — like Tsawwassen, like Maa-nulth and more — have seen these benefits. I have been fortunate to be at tables with these leaders through the Maa-nulth treaty agreement, through the Modern Treaty Nations alliance, to hear stories directly from those Chiefs and elected leaders about the benefits the treaty has brought to their communities, lifting up their culture and heritage, strengthening relationships with local communities. The treaties have brought higher wages for treaty nations and in the surrounding areas.

These are tangible impacts for members and for their broader communities that make a huge difference and that I am proud to be part of. And, like I said, grateful to the generations of leaders who have put in this work before us.

B.C. is, of course, in a unique context on treaties because the majority of First Nations in B.C. don’t have treaties. Doing this hard work together is one of the ways that we can take action to resolve long-outstanding questions and complex shared histories to create more certainty and prosperity for First Nations and for British Columbians as a whole.

Like I said, alongside reconciliation agreements and other paths, we hear from nations that there’s not one path that will work for everyone. I’m grateful, again, to be part of a government that understands we should hear from and follow the lead of local communities and nations in what that path looks like for them.

The K’ómoks First Nation have been on a treaty path for decades. Their membership spoke loudly and strongly in their local ratification vote on this treaty, and they have been doing the good, important and challenging work of engaging with neighbouring nations on this path forward.

They have been clear that this, for them, is the path: affirming their pre-existing rights and setting out how those rights will be exercised; recognizing and establishing self-government and law-making for K’ómoks; affirming their lands to govern and manage; addressing issues of language, culture and heritage; and providing the basis for a revitalized relationship between K’ómoks and all levels of government.

Historic work. It was, we will all remember, historic to be in these chambers when the K’ómoks members danced into the chambers on the floor, something that was not allowed even 15 years ago in this House.

To have Indigenous language spoken in these chambers, to have dancers and ceremony as part of the legal and law-making work that we do in these chambers, I think, is an important growth for us as a government and an incredibly important recognition of the role of ceremony, of Indigenous law-making and of arts and culture in all of that — that we bring people and culture into the work that we’re doing in here.

[2:40 p.m.]

Quite frankly, sometimes the work that we do in here is so divisive. I can point to members’ words, just earlier today on this topic by a member opposite, that were incredibly hateful and damaging. That is not the work that we should be engaged in here. We are bringing people together.

I want to lift up the moment we had here together where K’ómoks leaders danced into these chambers, where we heard words from Elders and where we got to hear from the elected leader of a nation about the important work that she is leading now and that she is standing on the shoulders of past leaders in her community in bringing forward. Again, an honour to be part of this history-making agreement and to continue to support the work of reconciliation and the self-determination of nations.

I am honoured to get to support the K’ómoks treaty as it continues its process. I look forward to voting in support of it. I look forward to the path forward alongside the K’ómoks Nation in lifting up their members and all British Columbians in this important shared work of reconciliation.

Donegal Wilson: As always, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in this chamber. Today it is to speak to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

I want to begin by being very clear. I support treaties. I have always believed that this is the path forward for British Columbia. They are our path to reconciliation. We need that certainty, and we need that path today.

They are the path for generations of unresolved legal questions that should’ve been addressed long ago. My colleague from Skeena articulated this very well, in the sense that it hurts my heart that we have people in our province that live like it’s a Third World country. This is British Columbia. There should be nobody living like that in British Columbia.

I’m fortunate in my region that many of the nations are struggling but strong. We have neighbouring nations that are not as strong. I believe that this treaty process is necessary. But I also believe, and I’m kind of sad at the way this came forward, that for too long in this province, we’ve avoided that difficult work.

We’ve avoided negotiating the treaties. We have avoided tough conversations around land, resources, wildlife. I believe it has created an imbalance in our society, and it creates different rules for different people. The Indian Act itself creates those different rules for different people.

We’re all British Columbians. We all deserve to prosper. The modern treaty process exists today to correct that history. It is our attempt to achieve reconciliation. It exists so that rights can be recognized, that lands can be transferred, that governance can be established and that relationships between governments can move forward — and to do that on a stable and respectful foundation, where everyone understands the rules.

Treaties, when they come forward, should have resolved all outstanding issues. It should not be the role of this House to make those decisions on behalf of nations. That should be done at the treaty table through negotiation.

They should bring clarity to jurisdiction. They should create predictability for future decision-making. Most importantly, they should replace conflict with agreement. And that’s why my heart hurts today, because this treaty is coming forward without those key pieces. It’s what reconciliation should look like in practice, but we’re not there yet.

I want to affirm that treaties are not symbolic documents. These are not intention papers. These are constitutionally protected agreements. They shape how governments will work together for generations. Not today, not tomorrow — generations.

When this Legislature ratifies a treaty, we’re not just simply approving a policy. We’re establishing that permanent framework for land, governance, relationships that will affect people across British Columbia long after all of us in this chamber are gone. I’m honoured to be here today to be part of this historical debate. I believe this is why treaties matter and that we need to get this work right.

[2:45 p.m.]

They must be done carefully, thoughtfully and in a way that strengthens relationships and communities, not only between the Crown and one nation but among all nations and communities, because the purpose of a treaty is to settle the issues, not to leave them unresolved for the courts to decide later.

Bill 20 cannot be discussed without discussing the content of the treaty itself because it, literally, is the legal mechanism to enact the treaty.

I do want to share a quick story from last week. I was having lunch with some constituents here in the Legislative Dining Room, and we had a conversation that, of course, turned to treaties. It was on the day that this treaty was being introduced, that afternoon.

One of their questions was, and they asked me directly, what I believed about the treaty process in British Columbia. They asked whether I supported it, and I told them I absolutely did. I told them I believe treaties are the right path forward for this province. I told them that modern treaties are how we move forward and beyond uncertainty, beyond litigation and toward a future built on agreement instead of conflict.

I also told them something else. I told them that I hoped, sincerely, that nothing in this treaty would put me in a position of not being able to support it, that this government would not put anything in this treaty that would jeopardize this agreement, because I recognize the work that has gone into getting to this point.

I recognize the effort by K’ómoks leadership, over generations at this point. They’ve been at this for decades. I recognize what this moment represents for them. I was in this chamber when they danced, when they shared from their leadership. I was in the Hall of Honour. I celebrated with them.

I want this agreement to be successful. My heart hurts that there are items in this agreement that put that in jeopardy.

I believe it is not the role of the members of this House…. We’re not at the negotiating table to settle the question of lands. I don’t believe…. We weren’t there for the decades of discussions. We didn’t hear. We don’t know what those contexts were. But today the responsibility shifts here, to this Legislature.

This government has brought forward and rushed, in my opinion, a piece of legislation to ratify the results of that work in a week. We’ll call it a week. It was eight days ago that this treaty was introduced.

Just to be clear. This isn’t the only treaty that was introduced last week. We have two treaties that we’re working on as opposition. This treaty here is, let me look, 398 pages plus over 700 in appendices — one treaty.

We have two of these we’re going through right now, here in this Legislature, in a week. I take that as a serious responsibility, and I have been reading. I have been educating myself. I have been trying to understand the decisions that were made in this treaty.

I’m hoping that somebody in government can explain to me why they made the decisions they did, because once legislation like this passes, it cannot easily be revised later. All three parties must agree to reopen the treaty. That’s the provincial government, the federal government and K’ómoks. All three have to agree to reopen the treaty.

These are not just statutes. These are constitutional frameworks that govern that relationship between our government, the federal government and this country as we move forward.

I think one of the most serious concerns, for me, being implemented with Bill 20 at this time is the embedding of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, referred to as UNDRIP. It is embedded into the treaty itself. This is being done at a time in this province where uncertainty exists around UNDRIP and the legislative framework that we have in B.C. to implement it, which is referred to as DRIPA.

I just want to read the section of the treaty that refers to this. It says, on page 7, “General Provisions,” “Nature of the 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 the parties in their implementation of this agreement.”

[2:50 p.m.]

Everything we do forward in this agreement will be embedded with UNDRIP.

Reading this, I struggle with how this government can put forward that legislation today and not ignore the framework that we’re sitting in as a province. We’re not doing this in isolation of the legal landscape that we live in today. The Premier in the last month has changed positions six times on his direction forward for DRIPA.

I’ll do a brief quote from an article recently published by Rob Shaw on April 20: “After another confusing 24 hours of reversals by Premier David Eby, here’s where things now stand on his once ‘urgent’ and ‘non-negotiable’ changes to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act: they aren’t happening after all. For now, anyways, maybe. That’s about as much certainty as we can get out of this New Democratic government these days. It seems to switch positions on DRIPA every other day, like a weather vane spinning in the wind.”

I feel, in this Legislature, that quite often we see that as well. At a time when it is clear that this government has no idea how to move forward, they’re talking about amendments, they’re talking about pausing it, they’re talking about kicking it down the road, they’re talking about now a joint path forward six months from now. All of those things are in discussion today, yet this is still embedded in a treaty they also introduced in that framework and context.

We’re also in the process…. This government is in the process of appealing lawsuits, backstopping mortgages and trying to find a path that protects fee simple land. All of that uncertainty is around, yet this government, after 30 years, chose this time in history to introduce these treaties. They have done a disservice to the First Nations that put that work in to do that today. It hurts my heart that they would pick this time in history to bring this forward, amongst this chaos.

I think with the language of UNDRIP introduced into these treaties, it has fundamentally and foundationally changed the treaties. I think the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs clearly articulated that in her speech, where she spoke about this being a living document, that this is going to grow with us, and it’s changing. All of that is not the certainty that people are looking for within a treaty.

I think the cover page alone is the clear marker of the difference. It says K’ómoks First Nation Treaty: A Living Agreement. At the same time, when we signed the Nisg̱a’a treaty, the cover page at that time said, “Nisg̱a’a final agreement,” meaning we were reconciled. We agree at this point in time and forever forward that they no longer live under the Indian Act and that they are equals in British Columbia. It was a final move.

I think it’s worth putting a little bit on the record around the timelines around this treaty. I did touch on it briefly. This treaty didn’t begin last year. It didn’t begin five years ago. It didn’t even begin ten years ago. This is over three decades of work. It comes to this Legislature with a week for the opposition and British Columbians to better understand where this is going.

Even a year ago, K’ómoks Nation ratified it. This isn’t new. The government has known what has been contained in this agreement yet has not shared it with British Columbians and the opposition until a week ago. We are being asked to review a constitutionally protected agreement, one that will shape land-ownership, governance authority, consultation structures, fiscal relationships, wildlife, fish and decision-making processes for generations in the space of a few days.

I want to be clear that this is not a criticism of K’ómoks First Nation. They have done the work. They have put in the 30 years. I believe it’s this government that is choosing this time and place to introduce this treaty that is flawed. They have included language in here that makes it hard to support.

[2:55 p.m.]

Even beyond the timelines, I think, what is even more concerning for me is that it’s clear that the negotiation work isn’t done. Last week, as these treaties were being introduced, all members of this chamber were receiving letters. They were letters from neighbouring nations, clearly in opposition and outlining their concerns.

This demonstrates to me that the work of the negotiation table is not done and that this government is choosing to push forward quickly to ratify this treaty, through Bill 20, in spite of that opposition. They are asking us to make the decision to elevate one nation over another.

We are legislators. We weren’t at the table. Why would you bring a treaty forward that is not finalized, that is not settled? We’re asked to make a decision toward settlement of lands to the K’ómoks Nation, with neighbouring nations claiming as much as 80 percent overlap with infringement on their rights.

These nations are threatening legal challenge if they proceed with this treaty and are requesting that K’ómoks pause their treaty and come to the table to settle the dispute. They can do that either through Indigenous protocol or traditional negotiation tables.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

When neighbouring nations are telling us they need more time to get a solution, I think that matters. I think it’s key that that letter included solutions. It included directions forward.

I was also invited by Wei Wai Kum, as were all members of this Legislature, to witness a ceremony with them and their neighbouring nations, to hear them. While all members of this Legislature were invited, I will share that only members of the B.C. Conservative caucus attended, and I was one of those that attended because, as I shared earlier, I’m trying to learn. I’m trying to understand, and I’m trying to support. It is my responsibility to listen to people and to educate myself.

What we were asked specifically, at this gathering, to do…. We had ceremony. We had speeches. We heard from Elders, Hereditary Chiefs and elected Chiefs, and what they asked us to do that day was to listen and to bring that message here to the chamber.

I am going to read a little bit of the letter from Wei Wai Kum with some of their concerns, to honour that commitment. I quote from the letter from Wei Wai Kum First Nation on March 27, 2026:

“We send this letter and briefing package with regret. We hoped to support K’ómoks First Nation in their effort to complete a modern treaty. Unfortunately, the K’ómoks treaty overlaps close to 80 percent of our territory and contains many and massive infringements of our rights and title.

“K’ómoks leadership has consistently refused to meet with us to work out the issues between us, and provincial negotiators have failed to meet their commitment to engage in consultation and accommodation negotiations with us. We are left with no choice.”

I just want to highlight another little section from the letter. It was where they highlighted some of the major impacts and infringements on their treaty. I’m not going to quote it directly, because it’s very long. I’m going to just hit the key points from it.

I believe the letter is public and available on the Wei Wai Kum website if somebody wants to read the entire letter. But here are a few examples of what they’ve highlighted.

When this treaty is passed, Wei Wai Kum will have no core territory. Their ancestors fought and won many wars to conquer this territory, and they believe that with the lines on the map and words in the treaty, they will have no land to pass on to their grandchildren.

This treaty will make it so every project they do as a nation will need K’ómoks permission. K’ómoks will have a treaty right to be consulted on every land development, every economic development initiative and every conservation and stewardship initiative taking place by Wei Wai Kum.

K’ómoks will be given preferential treatment as a treaty nation and could block their projects. They provided the example that K’ómoks is already trying to block their wind farm project, underway with the Ministry of Energy and that has been strongly supported by this government.

The K’ómoks treaty will give K’ómoks fee simple ownership of the Salmon River Reserve, which was created for their ancestors in 1886. K’ómoks only gained an interest via a failed amalgamation in 1941.

[3:00 p.m.]

It also says that K’ómoks will have a right to harvest fish stocks that they have spent decades restoring. They’ll be able to interfere with their enhancement projects and their treaty right to harvest sockeye from the enhancement work they have done.

They will have no ability to negotiate exclusive fishery areas in their own treaty, if they so choose to go that path, because K’ómoks will have a treaty right already. K’ómoks will have a treaty right to at least 13.8 percent of the elk in the territory, and the treaty will give B.C. the right to unilaterally increase that harvest amount in the future, something that is not guaranteed for Wei Wai Kum.

I hope I honoured the commitment I made to Wei Wai Kum to share that in this House. I believe that they’ve brought forward some concerns that shouldn’t be on us here as legislators to try to sort out. That should have been handled at the negotiation table prior to these treaties coming here.

I know that Wei Wai Kum is not alone in raising these concerns. Those aren’t the only letters that we’ve received as legislators in the last week. There have been nearly two dozen neighbouring nations that have called for a pause on the…. There are three different treaties currently being considered, two that are before the House now. When nations themselves are asking this Legislature for more time, I believe it’s reasonable and responsible for us to listen.

I also believe it’s important to take additional time when leadership organizations themselves are asking us to take a break, to take a pause, to provide some room.

Just yesterday myself and others in this chamber received a letter from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that has also called for a pause in implementation in legislation so that unresolved overlap concerns between nations can be addressed before ratification proceeds. That letter is a news release that can be found online. I quote from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs: “Reconciliation cannot be achieved through incomplete or unilateral processes. Moving forward without resolving shared territory and overlap issues risks undermining relationships between nations and creating long-term uncertainty.”

Treaties are supposed to be creating certainty. These letters prove that that is not what’s happening here. Reconciliation is not strengthened by speed. These are decisions that we need to slow down and ensure that we get right. It has to be durable, transparent and clearly understood by everybody that has to live with them for generations.

I think that, at their very core — and why I support treaties as a path forward — modern treaties are meant to do something very specific. They are meant to create certainty. They define rights. They establish governance relationships. They clarify how decisions will be made between governments, going forward, and they reduce the need for courts to resolve these questions that should instead be resolved through agreement.

That certainty will benefit everyone. It benefits First Nations seeking recognition and stability. It benefits communities planning infrastructure and growth. It benefits industries that are looking to make long-term investments and be partners in these projects. It benefits the province as a whole by replacing uncertainty and court cases with durable agreements.

But when we have this treaty in the House with people threatening legal action before it’s even been ratified, we have to ask ourselves if we are achieving those goals. Does this agreement actually increase certainty? If it doesn’t, it risks shifting unresolved questions from negotiation tables back into the courtroom. And British Columbians don’t want to be in court. We need certainty. We need to find a way forward.

In the week I’ve had to review this, I’m struggling. I’m not going to lie. The terms of the treaty and the outcomes that it will create are not clear for me. I believe that I don’t want to jeopardize the work of K’ómoks. I know how hard they worked on this. My goal, in fact, is to bring everyone up.

I hope that K’ómoks will support a pause to do that work with their neighbouring nations to find a path forward, that they don’t put legislators in that position to make that decision. My understanding is that it could be done through standard negotiation tables or through traditional Indigenous protocols, some of which were shared with us by Wei Wai Kum.

[3:05 p.m.]

I think all of this brings me back to the question of timing. Why are we doing this now? I get that we want to get out of court, but by adding UNDRIP language into this treaty at a time when we’re already in court about that seems wrong. They define our relationships, going forward. It’s supposed to define how our governments will work together. It’s supposed to shape land ownership and jurisdiction, yet we hear that 80 percent of the land is being claimed by another nation.

They establish long-term fiscal commitments. Normally, those commitments are clearly laid out within the legislation, within the treaty, but in this case, it is a living agreement. Those are all put to future agreements that will not come before this Legislature, that will be made by cabinet. Those include finance agreements, governance agreements. There are future agreements around fish harvesting and wildlife coming, and none of that is actually included in the treaty, which is very different from past treaties.

These treaties are supposed to be durable. They’re supposed to give us a path forward. Right now it’s supposed to be the reconciliation that we’re all looking for. It’s supposed to provide the end.

British Columbians want to know how to get to reconciliation. Right now I think many British Columbians don’t even know what it is. There is so much confusion around reconciliation and First Nations in this province. This treaty had the opportunity to solve it in one area of our province, but it, unfortunately, elevates one nation over another.

I will want to close by returning to where I began. These treaties matter because they do provide clarity, or should provide clarity, where uncertainty has existed for generations. They should recognize the rights that were never resolved through historical agreements in most of British Columbia. We wouldn’t be here today if we’d done that work a long time ago. I think they matter, because they create a framework for governments to move forward together, instead of continually relying on courts to define our relationships.

I think that’s one of my biggest concerns as we go forward. This is clear, that we’re going to be back in court. They’ve come right out and said it. We’re only talking about one treaty here today, but this isn’t the only letter, and this isn’t the only treaty where we have these letters.

I don’t believe that it is the role of this Legislature to solve that. I believe the treaty table, the Treaty Commission and the negotiation team should have solved that before it got here. I believe that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, also asking this Legislature to pause, needs to be heard. I think that we can’t continue with unresolved overlap concerns between nations and then be expected to ratify this treaty before that has been solved.

I believe that neighbouring nations have asked to be heard. Wei Wai Kum, in this particular treaty, has asked to be heard. With that uncertainty still present, I think our work isn’t complete. My hope is that this process can pause here so that this agreement can move forward with the confidence not only of this House but of the inherent governments whose relationship it will shape for generations.

I want treaties to unite us all around a shared certainty. I want us to get to final reconciliation. Taking the time to achieve that certainty now will help ensure this agreement succeeds for everyone involved, for generations.

I know that I will reflect back on that conversation I had last week with the constituency in the dining room. I wish that the province had not included language in this treaty that made it questionable whether I could support it. I can say today that, regrettably, they did. That will make supporting this treaty very difficult. I hope with more time and maybe through committee stage on this bill that perhaps those concerns will be addressed, but I’m not feeling very hopeful today.

Rohini Arora: I rise today not just to support Bill 20 but to respond directly to many of the remarks made today by members of the opposition and also by the critic for Indigenous Relations yesterday in the House.

[3:10 p.m.]

When we first begin to think about the lay of the land, we have to talk about the original violence that occurred on these lands. That has to be the basis for where the conversation begins. There has to be a foundational understanding. It is very clear, based on the comments I’ve heard from several of the members of the opposition speaking today, that that level of understanding varies. That’s okay. I understand that.

When my colleague the Minister of Environment stood up to speak and shared her thoughts about herself as an Indigenous woman standing in this building, working directly on issues that impact the broader community of which she belongs to, it is not a hypothetical. We’re not talking about racism over there somewhere. That is a woman embodying the experience, the cultural backlash, the challenges of being an Indigenous woman and the way that she is treated.

It is really important to understand that when someone in front of you who has the lived experience as a racialized person, Indigenous or Black person…. When they’re sharing their experience, believe them. That is the first place to start.

I’ve heard so many different comments today. It’s going to take me some time to go through many of the comments that I think are important to expand upon. I heard several times over from the members that they want to hear the reason to support this treaty. Yet I’ve heard time and time again from just a few members recently who just spoke that their intention is to support treaties, that their intention is that they do support First Nations, that they are willing to go and meet with First Nations. Yet I hear a double standard. And I say this respectfully.

You know, many of you, that I can be very passionate on particular topics. But this is an issue that not only is near and dear, but as a racialized woman myself, as someone belonging to the Punjabi community with parents who are immigrants, who came here in the 1970s…. By the way, people of India and Pakistan — not the same, but we share the same colonizer, slightly different history. So this topic really hits close to home.

When I hear that there are challenges, whether it be jurisdictional, whether it be that there are some nations that have frustrations, why is it that it’s held to a different standard? Often there are laws that are passed that will address the issue of the moment, whatever that may be. There’s ongoing work to work with other communities. It is rich to me to say that we should hold back the work of this treaty 32 years. Since 1994, the Canadian government, the provincial government and K’ómoks began discussions.

Finally, we get to a place where I never thought as a six- or seven-year-old watching parliamentary proceedings that I would be standing here, being able to witness a treaty celebrated as a member of this Legislature, to be in community, in the Hall of Honour, celebrating and feeling not only my spirits rise but hope for the future. It is a historic moment.

To say that it’s rushed is a really unfortunate perspective. I’m trying to understand why 32 years feels rushed. The treaty process is done by the treaty commissioner and their team. Several times the member who spoke just before me said that the province was taking part in the decision-making and, at the same time, saying the Treaty Commission was making decisions. So which is it?

Once the treaty agreement has been reached, our job is to help propel it forward. And that is to keep us out of courts. That is to keep K’ómoks out of courts.

[3:15 p.m.]

Yes, there are always challenges, no matter what. In any law that’s being passed, there will be people that are happy with the law that is passed and there will be people that have concerns. That’s the reason, in the treaty process, that there’s a certain amount of time where engagement is actually ongoing, even though the treaty has been ratified. This is that time.

Not to mention, the member who spoke before me also spoke to the fact that during committee stage, we’ll be able to have robust discussions about it as well. There is ample opportunity in front of you where discussions can be had and will be had.

Yet there’s this hesitation to support it.

I understand that we’re on opposite sides. I really get it. I know that we have to represent our parties and our values. But from what I heard from the few members that spoke before me, it seems that we’re all on the same page. We want the same thing. Yet we in these chambers are not on the same page about how we go about it.

Is that a reason to stall 32 years of work? I really struggle with that.

It isn’t that I just heard a concern about the process. From many of the members, not including a few that I heard speak today — I’m thankful that they reiterated their support — I heard a pattern of language that casts Indigenous rights as chaos, that treats Indigenous governance as suspect. It frames reconciliation as something to be feared rather than fulfilled.

I have to say this at the outset. After listening to the speech from the critic yesterday, it’s difficult for me to maintain confidence in his approach being taken toward what should be a role of constructive criticism. It should help move us forward. But we have to understand the ramifications when we speak about a community in a blanket way.

Indigenous communities and their populations were much larger. Because of colonization, not only did their populations dwindle; their language was taken from them. They were taken from their homes. I mean, imagine you opening your door, a police officer and someone from a church standing outside, ripping your child out of your arms, and you never see them again. You can imagine the damage that does to you for your own generation — likely the pain of being unwilling to talk about it because it’s unfathomable.

I have to say, respectfully, to my friends across the aisle that you have a residential school denier that’s being courted right now to come back into your ranks. It is really important, if you’re going to be values-driven, to be values-driven regardless if it makes you popular or not. I know that, firsthand.

I have taken time to speak to the Elders in community. I live in the riding of Burnaby East. My riding is situated on the lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, səlilwətaɬ and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm Nations — four nations. Elders who have lived through some of the darkest chapters in this province’s history are telling me now that the racism that they are facing today reminds them of when they were in residential schools.

Why does that matter? Because since the beginning of this session…. By the way, what a diverse group of MLAs. We have four Indigenous women here. It’s something to celebrate on both sides.

I’m hearing that the racism that these Elders are facing today reminds them of being in residential schools. That is such a profound thing to hear. What that says to me is that the beginning of this session, where several of the members on the other side, many of whom are not in the caucus today…. Not only was a documentary filmed — harming Indigenous communities, calling reconciliation an industry — yet members of the caucus, even today, on the other side have shared that they support treaties.

[3:20 p.m.]

There isn’t a single person on our side that doesn’t support treaties. There isn’t a single person on our side that doesn’t understand, to some degree, the history of the original violence of colonization that took place on these lands.

This is not “everyone is bad, and some people are good” or “some people are bad, and some people are worse.” We can’t simplify it to this zero-one-sum game. It’s not. Just because some First Nations are receiving their rights, it doesn’t mean that others are losing out in some way.

This is equity in action — justice and equity. It’s not a piece of pie that you can eat. They are rights that, when fulfilled, may feel uncomfortable for those who have never had to have their existence, their rights and their freedom of movement challenged.

First Nations were forced onto reserves. Many of them were fishing, farming communities, nomadic. They moved up and down with the seasons because that’s where their food sources were, caring and stewarding this land. They were pushed back further and further. So from having access to fish, now you can’t fish. You’ve got to go back further.

Well, guess what. The government of the day — no conversation. Just, by the way, a law has been passed. You’ve got to move back further. So now maybe you’re a few miles away. And we have cars today. First Nations didn’t have cars back then. Many people didn’t. So imagine the trek you would have to make. Not only that, but you’re not welcome when you do make it. You’re looked at as some kind of scourge in society.

Laws being passed is one thing, but there’s a need for language and cultural revitalization, and that means that members in this House have to be very careful about the approach that they take when they’re talking about First Nations.

Racialized people — Indian, Pakistani, Jewish, Muslim — every community that is here has the right to live with dignity, with respect and be able to move freely.

Partially, the treaty process seeks to recognize the rights that were inherent to First Nations, not rights that are being made up. These always existed. The perspective of the original governments….

This province itself formed in 1871. In 1872, First Nations and the Chinese community lost the right to vote. I don’t know if members on the other side know this. What happened is that the First Nations of the time were incredible organizers, and they supported one candidate that was running. The governing party didn’t like that, so they took their rights away, and it took years to get it back.

I am from here, born on the territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ. I don’t have to prove how much blood of mine is Indian. I don’t have to do that. It’s just accepted. First Nations have to prove through blood quantum. Who else lives by these rules? Do you have to prove how Asian you are, how Black you are, how Jewish you are, how Muslim you are, how Christian you are?

These things matter because at the end of the day, it’s a deep othering, a deep injustice that’s not just entrenched through laws of the past but also socially. My friendly colleague across from me from Maple Ridge East, Burnaby East, we have that in common.

I have seen people pick on you for the fact that you speak English a little differently, yet you are such an intelligent, sharp person.

Why is it that people who are Indigenous or racialized or Black have to be limited and almost watered down and diluted to only how we don’t fit in?

[3:25 p.m.]

A treaty process recognizes that the people that have been here since the beginning have a right, have always had those rights, and it’s our government that’s doing the hard work to recognize them.

A 32-year process could have been any government. It’s not that we’re trying to rush something through. We’re told that an agreement is reached. We’re told that there is space by the Treaty Commission, by the way, through a clearly defined process where Wei Wai Kai and Wei Wai Kum and other neighbouring nations would have the ability to speak about any concerns that they have so that it can be continually addressed.

Laws are evolving. I heard the member before me say that we need to achieve final reconciliation. I would be interested to know how she defines that. What does final reconciliation mean? I’ve heard my friends on the other side talk about economic reconciliation. Fine. That’s a part of it, of course.

But what about social reconciliation? What about dignity? What about the fact that there are First Nations communities with their status Indian cards who are sometimes denied access because of communities that don’t have a good understanding of the history? They don’t even recognize those as licences or appropriate government ID when we know that they are.

There’s something to be said about the fact that so many people in our province don’t have knowledge about First Nations. Why is it that we’re looking at communities so separately in that way? Humanity should unite us all, number one. But rights that have been withheld through laws, policies, when being made right, is not taking rights away from anyone else.

I can understand that there are frustrations and there are challenges and that Wei Wai Kum has some thoughts, and I’m thankful that they’re bringing them forward. I know that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is absolutely focused on the challenges that they’re bringing forward and is looking for a way to support them. That is the role.

The problem for me, personally, through my experience, is when the K’ómoks treaty is becoming so politicized. Yes, there are concerns right now. British Columbians are trying to understand the ramifications, the legal concerns. But legal chaos? That’s the wrong word. The official opposition critic yesterday said legal chaos. Is it really chaotic to find a way and a path forward with First Nations, hand in hand, in lockstep?

When the member said that recognizing Indigenous rights will create legal chaos, I thought: “What does he call the last 150 years in British Columbia?” Was it not chaos when treaties were never signed across most of this province? There is a reason we call it unceded territory, unsurrendered territory. Was it not chaos when First Nations were confined to reserves that represented a fraction of their lands? Was it not chaos when children were taken to residential schools and entire cultures were targeted for erasure? That is the real history of the province.

Bill 20 is not creating instability. It’s not creating legal chaos. It’s confronting it. It’s confronting that real history.

The dismissal of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples — let’s talk about that. We heard it described as aspirational. We heard it mocked, as though it were some abstract idea that does not belong here.

[3:30 p.m.]

But let me be clear. UNDRIP is not foreign to British Columbia. It reflects principles that have existed on this land long before the Legislature ever did — principles of shared stewardship, consent and respect for territory. To dismiss it is not just a legal argument. It is a dismissal of Indigenous governance itself, and that is something this House, collectively, shouldn’t tolerate.

The member also warned of uncertainty again and again, but the truth is that uncertainty is what happens when rights are ignored. Treaties like this do not create uncertainty. They replace courtroom battles with negotiated agreements. They replace conflict with clarity. They replace decades of litigation with a path forward.

I heard many times that we have to find a way to address this. We do have a way. Modern treaties. That is the way.

There was language used that suggested Indigenous nations somehow are drawing lines on a map or creating claims out of thin air. But let’s be honest about what that implies. First Nations did not arrive here recently. Everyone else did. And that’s okay. We all make up this beautiful province of British Columbia, and clearly, from even some of the comments of my friendly colleagues on the other side, I heard that they, too, want to live with First Nations and other communities harmoniously. Yet there’s a cognitive dissonance, because there are statements being made that would speak contrary.

There’s no invention of a connection to this land. It exists. It simply does. Their laws, their governance and their stewardship go back thousands of years. If there are lines on a map that do not reflect that reality, it’s because those lines were drawn without them. B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I., Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, the territories — these were lines that were drawn on a map and then given names.

Bill 20 seeks to partly correct that with ongoing work. The reality is that things evolve. Reconciliation, in my view, is not something to be final. It’s ongoing work, because it’s not just political. It’s social. It’s cultural.

Of course, the concerns that I’ve heard about overlapping territories and the need for consultation is something we’ve heard very clearly. We are alive to the issue. It’s not that we are ignoring it.

Yes, that work will continue, and that dialogue matters, but we shouldn’t use the complexity of the issue as paralysis to take action. If we wait for perfection before moving forward, reconciliation would never happen. That’s not acceptable.

For too long, this province has been built like a house without a foundation, constructed quickly, unevenly and without the consent of those who were already here. Every time we take a step toward treaty, we are not tearing that house down; we’re actually reinforcing it. We are making it stronger, fairer and more livable and stable for everyone who lives here.

[3:35 p.m.]

We have to move past the rhetoric of fear. It’s in our best interest. Racism and discrimination impact, materially, resources. It limits workforce participation, affects mental health because of discrimination and overpolicing.

We have to move past the idea that recognizing rights of Indigenous communities somehow threatens the rest of society. It doesn’t. I’m not threatened by it. I know my colleagues on my side of the aisle are not either.

Bill 20 is not something radical. What was radical was ignoring Indigenous title for over a century. That was radical. Bill 20 is not uncertain. What was uncertain was leaving these issues unresolved for generations. Bill 20 is not chaos. It’s responsibility.

This is not about politics. This is about finishing the work that should have been done long ago. It is about doing it with honesty, respect and the courage to move it forward. I strongly support this bill. I urge all members of this House to do the same.

Lynne Block: I do rise today to speak to this Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act. I want to begin by saying something clearly, because clarity matters in this House, and often it’s overlooked. Clarity.

Reconciliation matters. It’s not something to be feared. So I will repeat that reconciliation matters. Treaties matter. They are a positive way forward. Treaties matter. Negotiated settlements matter. The recognition of Indigenous rights matter.

For generations, governments in this country failed Indigenous people. That is not in dispute here today. The courts have reminded us again and again that reconciliation is best achieved not through endless litigation but through negotiation, respect and honour. That principle is sound. That principle is just. That principle deserves legislation that is transparent, accountable and durable.

I am not a racist. I do not hate anybody. In fact, I find it difficult to hate anyone, but to be labelled a racist or to be deemed hateful solely because I want to point out the flaws in this bill, the flaws that can have a negative impact on all citizens in B.C., both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, is disappointing. True reconciliation, real collaboration, honest conversations cannot be had when a person’s attitude is negative toward any constructive criticism.

To reiterate, reconciliation matters. Treaties matter. Negotiated settlements matter. The recognition of Indigenous rights matter. The courts have reminded us again and again that reconciliation is best achieved not through endless litigation but through negotiation, respect and honour. Again, that principle is sound. That principle is just. Again, that principle deserves legislation that is transparent, accountable and durable. Bill 20 does not meet that standard.

[3:40 p.m.]

This is not simply a disagreement over policy. This is a structural, legal transformation with cascading consequences across British Columbia. It fundamentally alters the relationship between treaty law, provincial law, local government authority, resource rights, agricultural protections and investor certainty. It does so in ways that are unclear, feel rushed and, in some cases, retroactive.

As someone who spent years in the classroom before entering this chamber, I have learned that clarity matters. As a teacher, I learned long ago that when a student hands in work that is unclear, feels rushed, incomplete, the kindest thing you can do is not simply put a passing grade on it and move on, because that does not help the student grow. It does not teach accountability, and it does not teach excellence. Sometimes the responsible thing to do is to hand it back and say: “This needs more work.”

Bill 20 needs more work, because the consequences of getting this wrong are not theoretical. They are immediate, they are structural, and they are long-lasting. And they affect all citizens of British Columbia, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

Under section 6 of this act, the K’ómoks treaty prevails over provincial law in cases of inconsistency. Provincial treaty implementation legislation also overrides other provincial enactments where conflicts arise. This, effectively, creates jurisdictional paramountcy and a multi-tier legal hierarchy. Businesses, municipalities, investors and ordinary British Columbians will be left asking a basic question: which law applies? And when the answer to that question becomes uncertain, confidence begins to erode.

Under section 8, any legal challenge involving treaty validity requires notice to the Attorney General of British Columbia, one of the same people that proposed this bill; the Attorney General of Canada as well; and the K’ómoks Nation at least 14 days in advance. All parties may intervene. That means possibility of increased litigation complexity. It also could mean increased costs. It could also mean increased delay, particularly when you’ve got several Indigenous nations not wanting this treaty to pass.

Under section 24, this act applies retroactively to July 22, 2024. It retroactively validates enrolment, eligibility and ratification decisions. If the process was lawful and clear the first time, why is retroactive validation necessary? That is really incomprehensible. I don’t understand. If it was lawful there and clear the first time, why do we need retroactive validation at all?

Retroactive law-making undermines certainty, both for Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens of B.C. It raises serious questions. And it creates the appearance of legal shielding rather than legal clarity. There’s that term again — “clarity.”

The consequences for British Columbia’s economy are profound. Businesses respond to uncertainty. And uncertainty is exactly what this bill creates. When treaty supremacy is combined with broad, regulatory discretion and the denial of compensation in key areas, investors are forced to price that uncertainty into every single decision that they make.

[3:45 p.m.]

Capital. Capital becomes more expensive. Projects become more cautious, if they happen at all. Long-term investments become more mobile. The result may not be immediate collapse, but it is a steady re-pricing of British Columbia as a higher-risk jurisdiction. And in a global economy, capital has choices.

Under this government, British Columbia faces soaring annual deficits, a ballooning provincial debt now measured in the tens of billions, repeated credit rating downgrades that increase borrowing costs and billions of dollars each year in interest payments alone — money spent servicing the debt instead of funding classrooms, hospitals and public services. Any uncertainty caused by this bill will only exacerbate our already precarious financial position in British Columbia.

Nowhere are the negative consequences of this bill more immediate than in forestry. Under sections 15 and 16, timber-harvesting rights under Forest Act agreements are cancelled. Area-based licences are partially deleted where they overlap treaty lands. Road permits are cancelled insofar as they apply to K’ómoks lands. Specific woodlot licences, W0085 and W1677, expire in 25 years and are non-replaceable. Allowable annual cut reductions may be opposed on W2030, and former tenure holders remain liable for road deactivation and environmental obligations.

Think about that. Rights are extinguished. Liabilities remain. The obligation survives, but the asset does not. That is not balance. That is distortion.

Under section 17, these impacts do not constitute expropriation. And that is a very important part. There is no compensation, no traditional recourse under the Expropriation Act. This sends a chilling message to anyone who invests in British Columbia in good faith. Why would they take the risk?

Another major concern is agriculture. At a time when food security matters more than ever, this act removes K’ómoks lands from the agricultural land reserve. The Agricultural Land Commission Act no longer applies. Provincial oversight….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I apologize for the interruption, but we have someone, I believe, about to seek leave.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Jennifer Blatherwick: Okay, now don’t make any noise though.

I would like to introduce to the House members of the École Glenbrook Middle School from New Westminster. This is where my husband teaches. They know me as Mrs. B., and I am so delighted that we were able to meet them today.

Will the House please give them the warmest of welcomes.

Deputy Speaker: I want to add to that, too, that Mr. Speaker sends his warm regards to you as well. He is, of course, the MLA for Burnaby–New Westminster. So welcome here today.

Debate Continued

Lynne Block: I echo that. Anytime it’s a teacher or classrooms or schools in here, always, you can interrupt me anytime, because I talk too long anyway in the classroom. That’s okay.

I want to go back to agriculture. I just pointed out some of the flaws in this bill that impact forestry, but I’d also like to point out some of the flaws that impact agriculture.

[3:50 p.m.]

At a time when food security matters more than ever, this act removes K’ómoks lands from the agricultural land reserve. The Agricultural Land Commission Act no longer applies. Provincial oversight disappears. Appeal mechanisms disappear. And there is no equivalent provincial body ensuring soil protection or preventing fragmentation.

Without equivalent safeguards, farmland becomes vulnerable to non-agricultural development pressures — for example, warehouses, industrial expansion, speculative land use and the blacktopping of farmland. Once prime agricultural land is lost, it is rarely recovered.

We were informed about one particular area where, indeed, the land was taken out of the agricultural reserve, and the First Nations there blacktopped it and put in huge warehouses. They’re getting paid great amounts of money for the leases on that. With that money, they’re buying up private land next to their land. I think that that’s a huge issue, moving forward, that has to be rectified, resolved, before you move further, particularly with agriculture.

At a time when British Columbians are already worried about food affordability and food security, one in four families is using food banks. What I was finding out is that a lot of those people already have a job, but they don’t make enough money to pay for housing and food. So they have to make decisions, and they’re embarrassed. A lot of them say: “I’ve never used a food bank before, and this is the very first time.”

When they are worried about food affordability and food security, reducing long-term farmland protections is a serious mistake.

Bill 20 also significantly alters local governance. So besides forestry and agriculture, I want to look at specific local governance. The Comox Valley regional district loses most authority in designated areas. After a six-month transition period, enforcement authority ceases unless bylaws are adopted by K’ómoks.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

That creates a potential regulatory vacuum. K’ómoks may adopt, amend or repeal former Comox Valley regional bylaws unilaterally. Meanwhile, the CVRD retains responsibility for certain services such as elections and financial planning. Municipalities remain responsible for infrastructure planning and emergency coordination.

The Speaker: The Chair will ask the member to save her space and adjourn the debate.

Lynne Block: I move to adjourn debate, and I reserve my right to speak again.

Lynne Block moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the points of order raised earlier today by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and the Minister of Finance concerning remarks made by the Member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream during debate on Bill 20, intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Two related issues have been put before the Chair: first, the use of the phrase “blood and soil” in describing the ideological foundation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and second, broader concern raised regarding the characterization of Indigenous Peoples and their histories. The Chair will address these matters separately, as they engage different procedural principles.

[3:55 p.m.]

On the first aspect of the points of order, the Chair has considered the words used, their widely understood meaning and the context in which they were spoken.

The phrase “blood and soil” is historically recognized as a slogan associated with Nazi ideology. Expressions that invoke ideologies connected with Nazism have previously been regarded as deeply offensive as they undermine the dignity of this House.

The test applied by the Chair is not the intent of the member but the effect of the words on the dignity of the House. Under our well-established parliamentary practice, language that is offensive, inflammatory or that brings the House into disrepute is unparliamentary, regardless of the intent with which it is used, whether it is used approvingly, neutrally or critically.

The Chair’s role is not to assess a member’s personal beliefs or motivations but to ensure that debate is conducted in a manner that upholds order, respect and the reputation of the House.

The Chair therefore rules the use of the phrase “blood and soil” to be out of order. The Chair will shortly ask the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream to withdraw the expression immediately.

On the second aspect of the points of order, namely, assertions that the member’s remark mischaracterized Indigenous history or culture, the Chair must be clear about the limits of procedural authority.

Disagreement with historical interpretation, legal analysis or political viewpoint is a matter for debate, not for the Chair to adjudicate on a point of order. The Chair does not determine the factual correctness or moral quality of arguments made in debate, provided those arguments do not breach the rules of order.

The Chair now asks the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream to withdraw the expression “blood and soil” and refrain from using language of this nature in future debate.

Tara Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I will say that the words that I spoke here….

The Speaker: Member, it’s not a debate. No explanation. I’m asking the member to withdraw.

Tara Armstrong: I will withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call continued debate on Bill 20.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members.

Recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. Apologies for the interruptions.

Lynne Block: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m learning a lot today, and I appreciate having the opportunity to finish my debate speech.

I was looking at municipalities and this bill.

The whole problem is that municipalities, and I’ll repeat this, remain responsible for infrastructure planning and emergency coordination but their regulatory authority becomes conditional, not absolute. This creates fragmentation. This creates overlapping authority, and this can, possibly, create potentially conflicting systems.

Again, this creates uncertainty, not only for the municipality but the specific residents, the businesses and the local governments alike. It could be precedent-setting.

Confusion is not reconciliation, and confusion, which we have right now with this, is not good government. I ask this House: if governments abandon clarity, will the public lose their trust in us?

[4:00 p.m.]

Trust is built through transparency. Trust is built when governments explain, not obscure, what they are doing.

There are ten major failures or flaws in this bill which I would like to reiterate.

First, cabinet overreach. Sections 25 and 26 grant cabinet extraordinary authority to make regulations it considers “necessary or advisable,” to override enactments, to resolve ambiguities and to address “matters not sufficiently provided for.” This is, effectively, a blank cheque.

Second failure or flaw, treaty supremacy over provincial law. Section 6 creates jurisdictional uncertainty.

Third failure or flaw, removal of agricultural land reserve protections.

Another flaw, fourth, denial of compensation. Section 17 bars recourse.

Fifth failure, retroactive law-making. Section 24 validates past actions after the fact. That’s a real, huge concern, big red flag.

Sixth failure, permitting delays and economic uncertainty through overlapping approval regimes.

Seventh failure, weakened local government authority and fragmented governance.

Eighth failure, vague language. As an English teacher, this is unconscionable. Whatever is written should be clear, with no ambiguities or possibility of wrongful interpretation — for example, “necessary or advisable,” “transitional difficulties” or “not sufficiently provided for.” These are subjective terms that invite litigation. They are subjective, as they can be interpreted connotatively, not denotatively. That matters.

Ninth failure, economic risk. The cumulative effect is a higher-risk environment for long-term investment, and we certainly need long-term investment in British Columbia.

Tenth failure, a patchwork of governance. Patchwork governance is not reconciliation. It is confusion codified.

There’s also that serious issue of transparency. Concerns have been raised that the final treaty contains significant amendments compared to earlier agreements-in-principle. Earlier models sought legal finality. This treaty appears to adopt a “living agreement model.”

Article 34 reportedly states that nothing modifies or extinguishes Aboriginal rights. Unlike earlier versions, this treaty reportedly incorporates UNDRIP as an interpretive authority. Consultation standards appear to move toward free, prior and informed consent. Canada may now need to consult K’ómoks before consenting to certain international obligations.

These are substantive policy changes. Why were they not clearly communicated to the public? Why were local governments not fully informed? Why was the media not briefed? Transparency matters, because without transparency, trust erodes and institutions weaken.

Legal experts such as McMillan LLP and scholars such as Dwight Newman have raised concerns, yet these experts in this field have been denigrated in this House. Why? These legal experts have not raised political concerns. They have raised legal concerns. They have raised economic concerns. They have raised governance concerns. Their warnings should not be dismissed or denigrated. These warnings should be red-flag signals to all of us.

When we step back and view Bill 20 in its entirety, the issue is not one provision in isolation. It is the interaction of all provisions together.

[4:05 p.m.]

This legislation alters jurisdictional hierarchy between treaty and provincial law, cancels existing resource rights without compensation, removes agricultural protections without equivalent safeguards. This legislation reduces municipal and regional authority, expands executive discretion, introduces retroactive legal validation. It also creates overlapping governance systems with shared or shifting authority.

Individually, each one raises serious questions. Collectively, they create a system where legal certainty is reduced for Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens, where governance is fragmented and where economic decision-making becomes more complex and less predictable.

Reconciliation is not in question. The question is whether reconciliation is being implemented in a way that strengthens clarity, strengthens stability and strengthens trust in law or whether it unintentionally introduces uncertainty into the very systems that communities, workers, businesses and governments rely upon.

For that reason, this bill in its current form should not proceed. The responsible path forward is not haste but precision, not assumption but clarity, not passage in its current form. Be careful in its reconsideration.

I would recommend that this Bill 20 have a comprehensive review — a full legal review of jurisdictional hierarchy provisions, the introduction of a compensation framework for cancelled rights, restoration or replacement of agricultural land protections, clarification of municipal governments’ authority during and after transition and a narrowing of cabinet’s regulatory discretion. Most importantly, I recommend full transparency regarding substantive changes from earlier agreements.

Only when those issues are addressed can this House properly assess whether this legislation achieves both reconciliation and stability. Right now this bill achieves discord and uncertainty, and reconciliation deserves both stability and transparency. All British Columbians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, deserve nothing less than laws that are clear, fair and built to last.

Rob Botterell: I rise today to speak to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act. I start by mentioning and noting that I base my observations and comments on my 25 years of experience as a lawyer working for First Nations, negotiating treaties — being at the table with the province, with the nation I was working for, with the federal government for hours on end, for days on end.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that this treaty and the resulting treaty act are the result of over 30 years of negotiations involving three parties who have access to experienced legal counsel, experienced policy advice and have come to the point of having a treaty that they wish to proceed with and which the K’ómoks People support. That is an extraordinarily important factor to take into account.

[4:10 p.m.]

Who are we to substitute our judgment of what should and shouldn’t be in a treaty when we see the outcome of over 30 years of negotiation in front of us?

As the House Leader for the Third Party and the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I take strong exception to challenges made to this treaty in areas where the parties have laboured over many years, thousands and thousands of hours of negotiation, with the benefit of expert advice to reach an accommodation on the path forward.

I will certainly be speaking to specific issues in due course that have been raised by my colleagues, but I will be approaching it from the perspective that the issues that are raised have to be pretty fundamental before we are going to turn back the treaty process that has been in the works for 30 years.

I just want that to be on the record.

I want to speak to the importance of the treaty process itself. As we know, treaties hold the potential to be the highest form of reconciliation here in Canada and in B.C. They are a fundamental mechanism for building enduring, positive, long-term relations and turning the page on over 150 years of history, where the land question has been not dealt with, where reconciliation has not been achieved, where nations have been treated in horrific ways. We have an opportunity to turn the page on that history.

These treaties are one form of approach to reconciliation but a very important part. As we know, B.C. is also in a unique position in that this province established and continued to establish itself in the absence of negotiated process with First Nations, unlike other parts of Canada. This lack of partnership with nations, this lack of consent, has informed our relational context in this province for far too long. We’re here today as a result of efforts to right that wrong.

While recognizing the colonial history that has brought us to this point, it is equally as important to highlight that partnership, alliance and negotiation have existed on these lands since time immemorial, long before today and far outside of the Crown’s involvement, over thousands of years. Indeed, the skills of Indigenous communities in negotiating access to resource sites, facilitating trade, resolving conflict and navigating relations were so apparent to Europeans upon contact that they realized it was in their best interest, even in the interest of their survival, to learn Indigenous treaty protocols.

Did you know that Peace River in Alberta, the province next door, came into its name after a war was settled through a treaty between the Nehiyawak Plains Cree and Dene? Or further east, that the great law of peace led to multiple treaties between the nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy after years of war? The Haudenosaunee Confederacy is strong and sovereign to this day.

It’s important to appreciate the different approaches in different parts of the country. It’s important to remember this today as we speak in this House to the impacts that this treaty may have on the future. It is important because treaties do not only impact our future but also our present. Their impacts are felt in the relationships we value, on the shape of the lands and the waters we live on, even on the names of the places we may call home.

[4:15 p.m.]

I can say from my personal experience in working with the Maa-nulth Nations, with Tsawwassen First Nation, with Huu-ay-aht First Nation that treaty actually creates certainty. It doesn’t create uncertainty. And we now have a living-treaty type of model that is even more appropriate to the nature of the relationship we’re building. But the key point is that certainty is created by treaty and the ability of the parties to come together and find a path forward through extensive negotiations. And extensive engagement with the non-Indigenous community, non-Indigenous businesses is the way in which you create that path so that everybody understands what’s involved and what the path forward is.

It’s important because a treaty is not only or even always an agreement between First Nations and Crown governments but a reflection of the relationships built over many years — the labour spent and the care given by First Nations on these lands since time immemorial.

The treaty we’re talking about today, and the treaty act, is also a reflection of changes made in recent years, particularly in its designation as a living agreement. As defined by the B.C. Treaty Commission: “A living agreement is a treaty that, while constitutionally protected, can evolve and adapt in a way befitting a relationship grounded in the highest form of reconciliation.”

This is significant. It offers the opportunity to relate to this treaty in a new way, in a way that recognizes the complexity and ever-changing realities that we all live and work within. And I know, from personal experience working and being involved with the Maa-nulth treaty and its implementation, that these treaties are living, and there is opportunity to address the evolving nature of the relationship. In this way, this treaty holds the potential for hope, excitement and right relations.

Keeping this in mind and keeping in mind that this is a treaty negotiated amongst the parties over many years, we must not turn away from the fact that there are serious concerns which have been raised by the Wei Wai Kum First Nation in regard to territory infringement and access to significant sites, governance, harvesting and cultural connection.

I want to be clear. These are difficult issues. The success of the treaty and the success of the process ultimately depend on coming to a resolution, and it is only the First Nations involved who can address that, with the support — only if requested — of non–First Nations governments and the B.C. Treaty Commission. Ultimately, it is for those nations to respectfully work out the path forward.

As a lawyer who spent years working in treaty negotiations with First Nations here in B.C., I deeply understand that there are often issues that are left unresolved at the time of treaty signing and of treaty enactment, that those issues are attended to through nation-to-nation negotiation and agreement. It’s the nature of the relationship that those unresolved issues can take time.

I want to acknowledge the years and years of work that have gone into the treaty up until this point. But I must also acknowledge and I want to thank the Chiefs and leaders of the Wei Wai Kum First Nation for taking the time to sit and share, with me and my caucus, their experiences.

I must also acknowledge that the amount left unresolved for this treaty, in their view, is significant. I want to share for the House a few of the concerns that have been raised by the Wei Wai Kum with the Green caucus. I believe it’s important to share some of them in this House so they can be part of the public record and can be fully acknowledged, defined and addressed in a good way.

[4:20 p.m.]

Wei Wai Kum have asserted there is an almost 80 percent overlap between this K’ómoks treaty area and their traditional territory. Concerns have been raised about the Salmon River Reserve, which would be transferred to the K’ómoks First Nation as fee simple land as part of this treaty. The Wei Wai Kum have stated that this area contains gravestones, big house sites and other places of cultural and spiritual significance to their people.

Then, importantly for a treaty at this stage, the Wei Wai Kum have stated that, in their view, there has not been adequate consultation or willingness to meet with their leadership on this treaty.

Finally, while this is a living treaty that will change over time, and it’s intended to do so, the Wei Wai Kum have raised concerns about aspects of this treaty that will prevent them from significantly revisiting parts of the treaty once this is adopted. Those are some of the issues that the Wei Wai Kum Nation are raising.

I just want to note that, in the context of the treaties I’ve been involved in negotiating and representing nations on, these issues do arise. This is not unusual. There are often more than one shared-territory or overlap type of issue, and they all need to be dealt with.

Having shared these concerns, I want to reiterate that raising these points is not an indication of me placing judgment on what has happened over the last 30 years of this treaty process to get us to today. It is not unusual, when you are dealing with complex issues with nations who are living and existing in a modern world, where European concepts of property and boundaries and dispute resolution are involved.

It does mean acknowledging that serious concerns have been raised, and I believe they should be heard in this House and responded to as this treaty legislation is considered. Now, we are placed as MLAs in this House in a position of voting on the legislative approval of this treaty, when these significant issues haven’t had the opportunity to be fully heard and attended to. I’m left to wonder about the precedent set if we are to pass a treaty bill with this much unresolved.

I have not reached my view, and the Green caucus have not reached our view, on the path forward. So I don’t want my comments to be taken as taking a position on the path forward and the validity of these concerns, but I do believe that it’s important for these concerns to be on the public record.

I, certainly, want to pass this treaty with full confidence in its capacity to address issues that arise, including these.

Deputy Speaker: Member, my apologies to interrupt you. I’m actually seeking leave myself to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Deputy Speaker: Members, it gives me great pleasure to welcome École Glenbrook Middle School. The teacher is Ahlbert Dayrit, and we are joined by grades 7 and 8.

I am making this welcome on behalf of the hon. member for Burnaby–New Westminster, who just happens to be the Speaker of our House. He is very happy that you’re here today. Welcome to all of our youth and everyone else in the chamber.

Apologies for the interruption.

Debate Continued

Rob Botterell: I want to pass this treaty with full confidence in its capacity to address these issues that arise in a good way.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

As someone who spent 25 years practising Indigenous law and working with nations and seeing the joy in the eyes of grandparents, parents, children and whole communities at the bright future that treaty can create, I want to put forward that it’s critical that no treaty can be used to cast doubt on the integrity of Indigenous-Crown relations.

[4:25 p.m.]

Particularly in this time of deep bigotry, hate and anti-Indigenous racism — as exemplified in this very House this morning by the MLA for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream — we must stand firm in our support for the treaty process and we must do everything we can to prevent that type of behaviour and conduct from causing the process to be questioned.

The reality is that the parties have negotiated a treaty that has addressed a range of complex issues, and they have done so in a way with full advice, full support, and it is not for us — on particular issues, whether it’s the agricultural land reserve designations being removed or forestry — to question those.

Why is that? It’s because this agreement and treaty has been reached through extensive consultation with those impacted in business, in the communities. I know from personal experience that when you negotiate treaty, you have the expert advice. You have the three parties at the table, and you spend hours, days, years — in this case, over 30 years — reaching the language that the three parties are comfortable with and that has been the subject of extensive consultation. Who are we as legislators to substitute our view of what the treaty should contain?

There are some concerns that have been raised, and they have to be of a very serious magnitude to warrant our involvement. There is one, of course, that I have raised, and it’s the concerns raised by the Wei Wai Kum. The reality is that a resolution, ultimately, must be made amongst the K’ómoks and the Wei Wai Kum. It’s not the place of this government to determine when and how that happens.

Where does the Green caucus stand? Where do I stand as the Indigenous Relations critic? Before being able to decide whether or not to support second reading, I will do what we all should be doing. I will be reaching out to the minister to spend time to understand how the ministry and the Crown are addressing these issues or supporting the resolution of these issues if asked. I will be reaching out to K’ómoks Nation to hear their perspective on these concerns.

We all do a great disservice to our roles as MLAs if we don’t take the time to hear all sides of a particular issue that is elevated to the level of importance this one is.

That’s the work that I’ll be doing, and I’ll be approaching that work and listening with an open heart and an open mind before deciding on the best path forward for this important legislation. What I want to be able to understand is the process, going forward, because I support the treaty process, and I support the treaty.

Very often, what happens in this House, in other parts of the community and around the province is…. When an issue arises, often you have two types of approaches. One is an approach of listening, understanding, gathering all viewpoints and looking for a way to uphold a solution that will support, in this case, the treaty process. The other way is to look for reasons to vote down legislation.

[4:30 p.m.]

I am looking, the Green caucus is looking, to fully understand the concerns, have all the viewpoints and be able to be comfortable in deciding on a path forward at second reading. My commitment to the House, to all the nations involved, is that we will do that work, and we will do it in the context that this is an important, historic moment for the K’ómoks, and we have to find a path forward.

We can’t spend another 30 years, five years, waiting. We need to actually figure out a path forward. That’s the work that we’ll be doing between now and second reading vote.

Stephanie Higginson: Welcome to the students. We are currently in debate on a treaty for the K’ómoks Nation, which is monumental. It’s been decades in the making, and it’s the first treaty that our government has brought forward since we’ve been on this side of the House. Welcome to the debate.

I do rise to speak with profound support for Bill 20, the K’ómoks First Nations treaty. I want to thank the member from the Green Party for his words. His experience in this area is unprecedented in the House.

I want to recognize that the negotiating teams for K’ómoks First Nation, Canada and British Columbia have worked for decades to get to this stage. The time it takes to build the relationships necessary to do this work spans beyond just political terms of office. That can make it particularly difficult to move this work through this House, because there is a sense of disconnection from the work for those of us who might be new to this place.

But what I do know is that many people worked for many years to build the relationships necessary to do this hard and critical work. For that, I am filled with respect and gratitude.

I want to extend an invitation to all members of this House to build the relationships with the nations in your riding. If you have not done that yet…. This is a non-partisan statement. This is for both sides. If you have not started building that relationship yet, it is critical to build that relationship so that when big moments happen, you have the relationship to work through those difficult times together. So I encourage all members of this House, if you have not started to build those relationships, that you start.

I was fortunate enough to do some work in the area of reconciliation when I was on the school board in Nanaimo. One of the nations brought…. My knowledge of positions in the Catholic church isn’t very good, but I think they were like an archbishop or a bishop, regional area. This bishop had built a tremendous relationship, a trusting relationship, with the local nation. You know, with the history of the church, I was really impressed with the ability of this person. I wanted to learn from them.

I said: “How did you do it?” He said: “You show up, you sit down, and you shut up.” Those were his three pieces of advice. Show up, sit down, and shut up — every single time there’s a community event. When they finally say to you, “What are you doing here?” that’s when you know you’ve built some modicum of trust. If you’re looking for a way in, I pass that lesson on to you. It was a good teaching.

The introduction of this treaty marks B.C.’s fifth modern treaty. Currently B.C. has four modern treaties with eight nations. This would be the fifth. I think it’s important that we talk a little bit about how we got here, both as a province and also for the K’ómoks community. The history teacher in me runs deep. I have not been in a classroom for maybe two decades now, but it’s still there.

My history lesson. In 1763 — we’re going back, friends — the British Crown issued the Royal Proclamation, a document that recognized Aboriginal title during European settlement of what is now Canada. The proclamation states that ownership over North America is issued to King George III but that Aboriginal title exists and can only be extinguished by treaty with the Crown. This is 1763. The proclamation further specifies that Aboriginal land can only be sold or ceded to the Crown and not directly to new people coming to settle on the land.

[4:35 p.m.]

In most of British Columbia, treaties were not negotiated between the government and the First Peoples. The exceptions are the Douglas treaties on Vancouver Island and Treaty 8 in the Peace River region.

A quote from chapter 4 of the book Unceded by George Abbott highlights the issues that British Columbia faced at the time. “Only three years after confederation, British Columbia and Canada were at loggerheads on the issue of reserve allocations for First Nations. British Columbia’s small reserves stood in stark contrast to those east of the Rockies, and the province resisted Canada’s proposals to remedy that disparity.”

In correspondence with Prime Minister Macdonald in 1872, discussing the processes used east of the Rockies for settling Indigenous title, then Lt. Gov. Joseph Trutch stated: “The Canadian system, as I understand it, will hardly work here. We have never bought out any Indian claims to land.” As First Nations leaders and organizations would argue for decades, going on centuries now, Aboriginal title was therefore not officially extinguished, and legally, the nations retained jurisdictions over their territory.

Numerous court cases have gone on to affirm these rights. One of the most impactful is probably Calder versus British Columbia, 1973. This landmark case unanimously agreed that Nisg̱a’a’s title had existed on Nisg̱a’a land. Another is Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997. This case is often looked at as one of the most comprehensive decisions about Aboriginal title.

In 1997, Delgamuukw set out how the courts will deal with Aboriginal title by setting a test to determine if title still existed and, if so, how the Crown might justifiably infringe upon it. In that case, the court further ruled that Aboriginal title is different from merely land use and occupation, as it had previously been defined, but it also incorporates Aboriginal jurisdictional authority over how the land is used.

Delgamuukw also acknowledged Aboriginal collective ownership of the land that includes a cultural relationship to the land. Both of these cases would pave the way for addressing Aboriginal title in Canada.

As a result of the Calder case and Delgamuukw and numerous other cases, the federal government developed a claims process in the 1970s, but the province of British Columbia refused to participate in the process until the 1990s. So why did B.C. start participating in the process? Well, it was when resource development in the province declined due to uncertainty over Aboriginal title that the province of B.C. decided to engage in the treaty process.

After decades of trying to run from or fight in court the incomplete land issue in British Columbia, primarily motivated by the actual or perceived economic losses, the provincial government created the B.C. Treaty Commission in order to finally reach agreements with First Nations over title.

I keep hearing the other side say that this side created this mess. But to be clear, we did not create this inconvenient truth. We inherited it, and we are deeply committed to trying to do something different than previous governments in order to try to solve these unresolved issues.

If that history lesson, with reference to the reason that B.C. began to engage in the treaty process in the ’90s, isn’t a sound reason for doing things differently, I don’t know what else could be. Imagine if we were trying to do the same thing that previous governments have been doing unsuccessfully — the criticism that we would be getting from the other side. First Nations across British Columbia deserve the peace of mind, but also, so do all British Columbians. This is why we are bringing forward this treaty.

Imagine being a K’ómoks leader who has been at this work for decades, for generations, listening to the way issues of title are currently talked about in this chamber. Imagine hearing members opposite say: “This really isn’t the time for this. There’s just too much other stuff happening around reconciliation. Why now?”

[4:40 p.m.]

Imagine. Decades, generations, and people say, “Why now?” because they can’t get over the hurdle. The K’ómoks Nation deserves it now. That’s why now. It must be frustrating. It must be scary. But it can also help justify the feelings of uncertainty that a nation may feel about having a treaty go through these chambers. After generations of having rights stymied at every turn, the unease of looking at this place to approve a treaty is understandable.

After my very brief history lesson, this now brings us to the modern treaty process, the process that helped bring this K’ómoks treaty to the Legislature. I want to talk about this because I keep hearing people say that they feel rushed.

I just want to say that getting massive amounts of information and digesting them in short periods of time and then coming up with really good questions that represent the concerns of the constituents in your riding is, actually, the job. That is the job. Insert any topic.

Digesting massive amounts of information in a short period of time…. If you didn’t have the experience necessary before you became an MLA to do that, then buckle up and get on the treadmill and build those muscles, because that is, literally, the job. This is not the first time or the last time that you’re going to be asked to digest a lot of information in a short period of time.

However, I take issue with the notion that people are being asked to digest a lot of information in a short period of time here, and I’m going to tell you why.

Modern treaties are negotiated amongst the governments of Canada, British Columbia and First Nations in B.C. They are government-to-government relationships. The treaties are grounded in the recognition of Indigenous rights. They reconcile pre-existing Indigenous sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty. They do not extinguish the rights, including title, in form or result, and they are able to evolve over time on the coexistence of Crown and Indigenous governments and the ongoing process of reconciliation of pre-existing Indigenous sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty.

There are six stages of treaty implementation. Stage 1, statement of intent to negotiate. Stage 2, readiness to negotiate. Stage 3, negotiation of a framework agreement. Stage 4, negotiation of agreement-in-principle, known as the AIP. Stage 5, negotiation to finalize a final agreement or treaty. Stage 6, implementation of treaty. All those stages are not done in the moment that we table it in the Legislature.

I encourage people who want to know more about each stage, or about what stage a local nation may be at, to visit the B.C. Treaty Commission website. I will give it to you, in case you aren’t aware of it — bctreaty.ca. It couldn’t be simpler.

Here, people will find full and transparent information regarding various treaty stages, what’s under negotiation, engagement opportunities available for those impacted by the negotiations and at what stage that participation is appropriate — because it’s not appropriate at every stage, but there are stages where it is appropriate.

There are interactive maps, so very many reports on the processes, reports on the history of the processes and the evolutions of the processes. This includes information on the 2019 recognition and reconciliation of rights policy, which has been brought up here by members opposite. You can also review the annual reports of the Treaty Commission, which outline the work over the previous year. It is full of open and interesting information.

The information about the K’ómoks Nation can be found on this website and has been recorded there since the commission started publishing information.

Modern treaty nations like Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth, ɬəʔamɛn and Nisg̱a’a are examples of the benefits for people and communities that treaties can bring — new investments, partnerships, good jobs, land stewardship and certainty. Across all modern treaties, we have seen clear trends: higher wages, not just for treaty nations but in the surrounding communities as well; stronger local relationships, thanks to mechanisms for resolving matters and working together on shared priorities; diversified and stronger local economies that provide a strong net return to the treaty nations and to B.C.

Deloitte released a report last year — Deloitte is pretty trusted by some of the untrustworthy folks that don’t trust all the information; Deloitte is pretty well trusted — called the Financial Benefits of Modern Treaties in British Columbia.

[4:45 p.m.]

That report is filled with further details on the trends that I just mentioned, so if you don’t believe me, you can go look at the well-audited version of this.

The negotiating teams for the K’ómoks First Nations, for Canada and B.C. have worked for decades to get to this stage. I want to thank them for their professionalism, their attention to detail — building the relationships on the ground necessary to bring this document at this time to this House.

Because I keep hearing that the members opposite feel rushed, let me reassure you about the timelines associated with this particular treaty. The K’ómoks First Nation entered into treaty negotiations under the B.C. Treaty Commission process in 1994 with the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia. In 2012, negotiators reached an agreement-in-principle, establishing agreement on substantive elements to be detailed in the completed treaty made public.

In the years since, K’ómoks, British Columbia and Canada have engaged and informed K’ómoks members; people throughout their region, including neighbouring nations; and all levels of government and industry partners on the treaty. Engagement is an important aspect of treaty and reconciliation negotiations and the ratification process. Engagement is difficult, and it’s hard to know how to get people’s attention these days. People don’t often care until later in the process, despite efforts to proactively engage people. That doesn’t mean that people are hiding things. It means that the world is busy.

I remember on the school board when report cards were changing. If you want to see a community get riled up, then try to do something with the education system. In my school board, we tried to be proactive about the changes. We proactively, before any changes were made, had meetings for families. We announced the meetings. Principals made themselves available for meetings.

They went to PAC meetings, and when they had separate meetings for these report cards to say, “Hey, this is what’s going to happen. This is what it’s going to look like. What do you think? Let’s get you comfortable with it,” three people showed up to those meetings that were done across about 30 schools. Then the report cards changed, and then people engaged in the process.

So no matter how hard you try to front-end-load that engagement, the world is busy, and sometimes people just don’t engage. It does not mean that people are hiding things.

On July 22, 2024, chief negotiators initialled the K’ómoks Treaty. Initialling marked an important milestone in the treaty journey as it signalled the conclusion of the substantive negotiations. Initialling was subject to important caveats, including Canada and B.C. fulfilling their duty to consult other First Nations and the completion of a final legal and technical review of the treaty. The legal and technical review may answer some of the questions that have been asked from the other side.

In his address, the official critic, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke — we have more than one critic, sorry — expressed surprise at this process, expressed a sense of feeling rushed. But the process has been ongoing publicly and transparently for decades.

If I was the critic, which I’m not, because I’m on this side of the House…. I don’t know what it means to be one, so I’m just guessing. But if I was one, particularly for this issue, I think one of the first things I would have done was to ask for a briefing on the active treaties in process. I think I probably would have prioritized them with the ones that are sitting at stage 5, or I would have asked my colleagues to get informed about the treaties and the negotiations that are happening in their ridings. Then I would have asked them to bring me any information that they thought needed to be brought to my attention so that I didn’t feel surprised or caught off guard. That’s what I would do.

On the ground, in the first step of ratification, eligible voters of the K’ómoks First Nation voted on whether to approve the treaty and a self-government constitution. On March 8, 2025, eligible voters voted 81 percent in favour of ratifying the K’ómoks treaty and 83 percent in favour of ratifying the self-government constitution.

[4:50 p.m.]

Chief Councillor Nicole Rempel stated, “This is an important milestone for K’ómoks First Nation. Our members have shown strong support for this treaty, and we are confident in both the agreement and the process that has brought us here” — confident in the agreement and the process that has brought us here. “The introduction of this legislation moves us closer to implementation, strengthening our governance, recognizing our rights and creating the long-term opportunities for our nation and our region. We remain committed to moving forward with respect, collaboration and continued engagement.”

If fully ratified, the K’ómoks treaty will provide the basis for a revitalized relationship between the K’ómoks, their neighbours and all levels of government by fostering a shared understanding, providing certainty — I know that word; we don’t like to use it around here for some reason — and supporting further work together in the region.

It will lay out negotiated approaches to self-governance. It will describe how K’ómoks rights will be exercised, ensuring that Aboriginal rights are recognized and not extinguished. It will clarify that the treaty does not infringe or extinguish the rights of neighbouring First Nations.

It will confirm land parcels totalling approximately 34.42 square kilometres — that’s pretty specific — to be owned and governed by the K’ómoks, with an ability for the K’ómoks to purchase up to 15.92 square kilometres of pre-approved additional land over time.

It will address existing interests and tenures on treaty lands. Interest holders have been engaged on the proposed approach to their tenure or interest.

There is, really, no reason for anyone to be surprised by this. There really isn’t.

There are still several steps to complete — so for people who are feeling rushed, don’t worry — before the treaty could come into effect. These include this debate in the Legislature, committee stage. But upon passage here, there are still even more stages.

We need federal approval. Ratification is fully complete once a treaty is signed and both the provincial and federal implementation legislation is brought into force. This happens on the treaty’s effective date, which is agreed on by all parties.

The effective date is set by coordinated federal-provincial orders and typically occurs following a transition period after royal assent has been granted. The transition period allows all parties to be prepared for the treaty’s implementation. The parties will conduct ongoing public engagement during this period — there is a theme here — so everyone who is potentially affected by the treaty is kept informed.

Of importance for people to know is that the proposed treaty lands for the K’ómoks treaty only include private property that was acquired on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis, which is a key tenet of the B.C. Treaty Commission. Private property is only acquired on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis. Adjacent landowners who may be impacted have been engaged extensively through public open houses, public communications and direct correspondence over several years.

The news release for this treaty carried endorsements from numerous local community leaders — including Will Cole-Hamilton, board chair of the Comox Valley regional district; Doug Hillian, director of the Comox Valley regional district; Nicole Minions, mayor of Comox; Vickey Brown, mayor of Cumberland; Bob Wells, mayor of Courtenay — with unequivocal support, demonstrating: “We stand with K’ómoks.”

Look, this isn’t easy work. Treaties aren’t easy work. Reconciling our past isn’t easy work, wrestling with the information we’ve been taught in school with a learning and an understanding of what actually happened in history.

I remember the day my dad had this realization, my dearly departed dad. He called me in tears with an understanding of what had been happening when he was a boy growing up, trying to reconcile what he thought he knew with what he had just learned. He never reconciled all of his feelings.

My dad, through various adventures in his life, had his last rites read to him four times.

[4:55 p.m.]

On the time that he actually died, I said: “Dad, do you want a priest?” We were planning what he wanted when he was going to go. He said: “No, I’m not there yet. I’m not ready yet.”He, unfortunately, passed away before he was able to reconcile those feelings with his faith. He was faithful his whole life.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip said: “Reconciliation is not for wimps. It’s hard, and it’s messy.” This quote was recently misattributed to former Premier John Horgan. He was quoting the Grand Chief when he said it. If there’s anyone who knows that, it’s the Grand Chief.

History and courts have shown us that we cannot keep running from this. While it can be scary, I would argue it doesn’t need to be scary. We should not be scared of change. We should not be scared of doing things differently, of evolving who we are as a province and a nation.

On this side of the House, our clear goal is to move forward in a way that provides certainty, respects Aboriginal and private property rights, and supports shared prosperity for all. Modern treaties create predictable relationships. They foster partnerships and provide a framework for all people in B.C. to live together, to help build a better future for everyone.

I heard words recently from National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak of the Assembly of First Nations. It was in response to the RCMP surveillance on First Nations. She used words that have stayed with me: “Partners in this nation called Canada.” I just think we should stop and think about those words. What is British Columbia? What does a Canada that walks together with the First Peoples of this land, in partnership, look like? “Partners in this nation called Canada.”

From Jody Wilson-Raybould — I read this in the newspaper today. It was from a speech in 2014: “Create a Canada that all Canadians aspire to live in — a country based on shared values and principles that we have spent years as a nation fostering; creating a fair, caring and compassionate society that confirms our place on this planet as a favoured nation and one of the best countries in which to live.”

That’s what I aspire to. That’s what I am here working towards. This treaty is a step in that direction. It is that vision in action. It is partnership.

Where I come from, Hul’q’umi’num’ is the language spoken. There are two terms; I think I’ve used them before in this House: Uy’shqwaluwan, when you use your heart and your mind together, when you find that balance, and [Hul’q’umi’num’ was spoken], which means working together, doing it together. I hope we can take these ancient teachings from the land that my riding is on, Uy’shqwaluwan and [Hul’q’umi’num’ was spoken], to help us in this work.

I look forward to supporting the bill in the House and moving it to committee stage to have the questions of the members opposite answered so that we can support the K’ómoks Nation and the people of the Comox Valley in the next steps of this treaty enactment.

Linda Hepner: I rise today to speak to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act of 2026, and I shall try to do so in the absence of any lecture, any snide remarks or any condescending tone.

Let me begin clearly by saying that I support treaties, and I support reconciliation. I have a very clear understanding of, and have worked very closely with, Indigenous groups. I brought water to the SEMYOME Nation in my community. I worked with the qʼʷan̓ƛʼən̓ Nation on housing. I’ve worked with the Métis Nation. I support recognition of Indigenous rights and self-government.

[5:00 p.m.]

British Columbia’s history, marked by the absence of treaties across most of the province, demands that we do better. Modern treaties are an essential path forward. I want everyone to know that it would give me great joy to support a modern treaty. But supporting treaties does not mean suspending judgment. Modern treaties, when done properly, bring clarity and certainty. They define relationships. They enable economic opportunity. They recognize rights in a very meaningful way.

I want to acknowledge the work of the K’ómoks First Nation — decades of negotiation, perseverance and community effort to reach this point. That work matters, and it deserves full respect.

Reconciliation is not just one agreement between one nation and the Crown. It’s about the broader web of relationships among nations, among governments and among communities. When those relationships are incomplete or unsettled, we cannot simply legislate past that reality.

We are hearing concerns from neighbouring First Nations about overlapping territorial claims. I am no legal expert, nor would I ever profess to be the Solomon that is going to solve whose territory we’re overlapping and what that looks like. But what I do know is that concerns about that are unresolved. That last point is critical, because consultation is not just a check box. It’s a constitutional obligation, and it must be complete. It must occur before implementation, not alongside it.

Yet here we are being asked to pass and implement legislation while those discussions are unsettled. And we have nowhere to establish what those rights really are. This is not the standard that British Columbia would expect of us. Government will say that this treaty creates certainty, but certainty is not something you can simply declare. It is something you build. It is built when all affected parties are heard, when overlapping interests are addressed, when legal frameworks are clear and understood.

Let’s take a quick look at the outset of section 3 of the bill. It provides that the K’ómoks treaty has the force of law, reflects a core feature of modern treaty implementation statutes. It gives domestic legal effect to what will become a constitutionally protected agreement under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

That dual character, statutory and constitutional, is very important. Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as R. v. Badger and Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada, have consistently affirmed that treaties must be interpreted purposefully, in a manner consistent with reconciliation. However, they have also emphasized that clarity of legislative intent remains essential, particularly when statutes are used to operationalize treaty rights.

Section 3 is not merely declaratory. It is incorporative. It transforms the treaty text into enforceable domestic law. This raises an important interpretive question. Is a treaty, once given the force of law under section 3, to be interpreted strictly as a statute or as a constitutional instrument under section 35? The answer, in practice, is probably both. That duality creates complexity for courts interpreting disputes, regulators applying statutory authority and proponents seeking certainty in land and resource decisions.

For example, a decision-maker under the Land Act must now consider the statute itself, the treaty as incorporated under section 3 and the constitutional protections afforded that treaty. Yet section 3 doesn’t provide guidance on how those conflicts between these interpretive layers are to be resolved in administrative practice.

[5:05 p.m.]

This complexity deepens when we turn to another section, which states that in the event of conflict between the treaty and provincial law, the treaty prevails. This clause effectively creates a statutory paramountcy regime operating alongside constitutional paramountcy under section 35.

Here’s where the red flags are going to generate a very important conversation in this House on behalf of all British Columbians. It is purposeful, not an adversarial conversation, and we have to have it. We owe that to the K’ómoks People and to the others engaged in the treaty processes throughout our province as well as our diverse population and the many affected stakeholders who are watching this debate on Bill 20.

It raises several specific concerns. Firstly, the scope of conflict. It doesn’t define what constitutes a conflict. In Canadian jurisprudence, in what I have read, conflict can arise in two ways — operational conflict, the impossibility of dual compliance; or frustration of legislative purpose. It does not clarify which standard applies.

This matters, because it determines how broadly the treaty may displace provincial statutes such as the Forest Act, the Land Act, the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Local Government Act — particularly when we’re talking about delegated authorities, because municipalities operate under delegated authority.

But the section does not address whether municipal bylaws are captured within provincial law for the purposes of treaty paramountcy. This creates, again, uncertainty for local governments, particularly in regions adjacent to the treaty lands, that now must determine whether zoning bylaws, development permits or environmental regulations affect their lands.

That brings me to what I think is the most serious issue in this bill: DRIPA, UNDRIP. Bill 20 embeds and relies upon the very legislative framework — British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA — that is currently under active legal challenge and ongoing interpretation.

We are being asked to ratify a treaty, intended to last generations, that is explicitly tied to a framework we do not yet fully understand, a framework the courts are still interpreting, a framework that is in practice still evolving and a framework that this government itself continues to grapple with in terms of implementation.

Across this province, there are numerous active legal challenges, more than 20, testing how DRIPA is to function. Those cases are not minor. They go to fundamental questions. What does free, prior and informed consent mean in practice? How does DRIPA interact with established constitutional law? What happens when multiple nations assert overlapping claims? How does decision-making actually work on the ground? These are foundational questions, and they have yet to be resolved.

At the same time, government continues to refine its approach to DRIPA implementation. In other words, we are still defining the rules. Despite all of that, this bill proceeds as though those rules are settled. It takes an evolving, contested and not-yet-fully-understood framework, and it hard-wires it into a modern treaty.

[5:10 p.m.]

We have yet to hear from the government on why existing successful treaties were not good enough in terms of the language, why we had to embed UNDRIP into this treaty. Otherwise, we would all be home and be happily signing a treaty.

But this is such an egregious breach of what, I think, anyone who was supporting the treaty, the modern treaty application, could foresee. This is not a caution. This is not clarity. This is legislating in the middle of a moving target.

Now, to make this concrete, consider a statutory decision under the Land Act involving a tenure in an area adjacent to treaty lands. The decision-maker must now consider the Land Act; the treaty as law under section 3; the paramountcy clause under section 6; applicable regulations under sections 25 and 26; DRIPA obligations; and, potentially, UNDRIP as an interpretive framework.

This is not a simple administrative exercise. This is a complex and uncharted journey in treaty-making that this government bears a fiduciary obligation to getting right the first time for all British Columbians.

Without clearer legislative direction, different decision-makers may reach different conclusions on similar facts. That is the definition of legal uncertainty. When you embed unsettled legal framework into a permanent agreement, you do not create certainty. You lock in confusion. You risk conflicting interpretations, future legal disputes and instability in the very agreement meant to provide clarity. And that is not fair — not to the K’ómoks Nation; not to neighbouring First Nations; and not, certainly, to British Columbians who expect stability and transparency.

Reconciliation cannot be built on ambiguity. It cannot be built on shifting interpretations. And it cannot be built on a framework that is still being tested in the courts while we embed it into law. That’s lunacy, because uncertainty does not advance reconciliation. It undermines it.

Treaties are not ordinary legislation. They are meant to endure for generations. If we proceed while consultation is incomplete, while overlapping claims remain unresolved and the legal framework itself is unsettled, then we are not strengthening reconciliation. We are now putting it at risk. If this treaty becomes a subject of a future dispute or challenge, the damage will extend far beyond this one agreement. It will affect confidence in every treaty that follows.

Modern treaties are the way that we need to go, but we need to make sure that we are doing this one particularly correctly. We have models in this province already where we have had success. So I would wonder why. What is the possible reason the government has to embed UNDRIP and create this uncertainty?

I’ll give you another example of where I think there could be some uncertainty with respect to the treaty as well. Section 18 provides the K’ómoks law-making authority within a foreshore area. This clause reflects a move towards self-government and recognition and also introduces overlapping legal authorities.

[5:15 p.m.]

The foreshore is an area typically governed by provincial jurisdiction like the Land Act, the environmental statutes and the resource management framework. But this clause does not define how K’ómoks laws and provincial statutes are to be resolved when there is a different, concurrent jurisdiction that needs coordinating.

Since municipalities derive their authority from the Local Government Act…. I do know a little bit about municipalities. They regulate zoning and developmental permits and local environmental protections. So where a municipal bylaw conflicts with a K’ómoks law, does the section in that treaty render the bylaw inoperative, or is there an expectation of harmonization? The bill does not explicitly address that. And that does create real uncertainty for municipalities who are trying to plan infrastructure or to approve large developments or to even enforce bylaws in their adjacent areas.

At the end of the day, this is not a call to abandon the treaty. It is a call to get it right. It is a call that means pause it and get some understanding of what on earth is the rationale for embedding UNDRIP into a treaty when we have good examples of successful models that are already working and we have the footprint for those.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I would be very interested in hearing the government explain why this, which is a model for uncertainty, needs to be in this treaty. Pause that legislation until we can get some clarity around that. Provide clear and transparent direction of how this would ever be applied in practice while the courts are doing their work, which is beyond me how that would work. Only then could we move forward with an agreement that is truly durable.

Welcome, Mr. Speaker. I will wind up my comments for you today.

We all want reconciliation to succeed. We all want treaties to succeed. But success is not going to be measured by speed. When we’ve had less than…. I know it has been 30 years, but we’ve only had five days. Success is not going to be measured by speed. It is going to be measured by clarity; by stability; and, most importantly, by trust.

Right now this bill asks us to move forward in the face of unresolved consultation, overlapping claims and a legal framework that is still in flux. We can do better. We must do better. We cannot hardwire uncertainty into a permanent agreement and then call it reconciliation.

For those reasons, I conclude my remarks, and I look forward to further discussions at a committee stage.

I adjourn the debate.

Linda Hepner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick: 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. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, April 27, 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:19 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Energy and Climate Solutions
(continued)

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

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

Larry Neufeld: There was a follow-up question that I was going to ask right before the break, but I think I’ll leave that, and we’ll move into something a little different.

The minister has spoken quite often on this particular topic, and I think it’s important for us to get on the record as far as what the current stance of the government’s position is. That, of course, is with respect to the pipeline to the west coast.

I would start with: the governments of Alberta and Canada have signed an MOU. It includes the following commitment from the federal government: “If an Alberta bitumen pipeline is ultimately approved under the Building Canada Act and provides opportunities for Indigenous co-ownership and shared economic benefits, Canada confirms that it will enable the export of bitumen from a strategic deep-water port to Asian markets, including, if necessary, through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.”

My question to the minister is: will British Columbia come to the table for the discussions with Alberta and the federal government on this pipeline?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the important thing to recognize is that there is no proposal yet. The MOU may be an agreement between Alberta and the federal government, but it’s an agreement which, for example, suggested by April 1 there would be agreements on carbon pricing, agreements on pathways — agreements that haven’t happened yet.

Now, sometimes things take longer than one might expect in government, even in other provinces and in the federal government. But it is a fact that there’s no proponent, and that agreement also says there’ll be a private proponent. There’s no route. There’s no plan.

I think the member understands, as I do, that you pay for pipelines by charging a toll on the pipeline for people to move oil. No one, at the cost of such a pipeline, would pay for that.

[1:10 p.m.]

Presumably, as was the case with TMX, which cost $34 billion to twin just a few short years ago — $34 billion to twin an existing pipeline to add, in that case, 580,000 barrels per day of capacity to the TMX line that…. There was a massive public subsidy to the tune of about $18 billion of public money that went to subsidize a pipeline. That allows them to operate that pipeline in the moment.

As would be the case with most such pipeline proposals, had it been the case that the payers — meaning the takers who take contracts on the pipeline — were paying the full cost, then the pipeline would be, shall we say, priced out of the market.

Those are the circumstances. The federal and Alberta governments…. There’s lots of talk about it. I get asked about it all the time. As the member will know, I think for the first couple of months of this year, north of 80 percent of my interviews were about a proposal that didn’t exist.

You can imagine, I think, how British Columbians feel when we have extraordinary proposals in LNG, in ports, in mining, in infrastructure, in transmission lines, and there’s so much focus on a project that hasn’t met the basic standard of existence yet, which doesn’t depend on the B.C. government at all. It depends on having an actual proposal.

Our position, and I’ve been stating it many times, is that I don’t support the lifting of the federal tanker ban on the north coast. I don’t support that. It’s a federal tanker ban. There’s an acknowledgement that the primary jurisdiction, regulatory jurisdiction, is federal.

However, this is happening in B.C. and has profound implications for B.C. Therefore, clearly, B.C. should be consulted. It’s something, by the way, that is acknowledged. As should be B.C. First Nations, something that is acknowledged even in an MOU that affects B.C. that didn’t involve B.C., such as the MOU between Canada and Alberta.

We stand ready to do that. The Premier, I believe, has met today — I haven’t heard the results of that meeting — with the Prime Minister. Obviously, our focus is on our projects. Our focus is on supporting British Columbia projects. I always think it’s strange when people from British Columbia seem to support other provinces’ projects more than our own. But I’ll just leave that there for the moment for the member to consider and reflect on. That’s the situation we’re in.

Further, I’d say this. In the world today, in the movement of oil in particular — bitumen oil in particular — what are favoured, generally, and what have been allowed by technology are optimization projects.

Now, why are they favoured? For obvious reasons. The member, who worked in the industry, will understand. The TMX twinning took TMX from 300,000 barrels per day to 580,000 barrels per day. That was $34 billion in dollars a few years ago, pre-inflation dollars, for 580,000 barrels of incremental capacity, of which about 120,000 a day on average are not used now.

TMX itself has proposed optimizing that pipeline, and I’ve received some attention for my views on this, which some have described as different than they expected, although I think they’re quite normal. I think when the public owns a pipeline and pays $34 billion for it, it would be a good idea if we used it fully. We tried to get the public the best return possible on that massive subsidy, in this case, to fossil fuel industries.

We have supported, not in the least important way, the public way — although the Premier has engaged personally on that with respect to the part of the project that involved dredging the harbour — but also supported the optimization project in the most important way, which is that we’re actually working on it every day, actually working to assist Alberta to get oil to tidewater, while people are talking about a proposal that isn’t even here yet.

[1:15 p.m.]

I think that demonstrates our commitment to working with others, other provinces in Canada, not just to advance our own interests. The primary interest there — from a financial perspective, in any event — is with the province of Alberta, not with us, I think it’s fair to say. And there’s some, of course, risk to us.

I think it was former Premier Christy Clark who said that all the risk is in B.C. and all the money is in Alberta. That’s what she said. I think we’re, as a country, hopefully, taking a broader position in support of one another.

I’ve been pretty clear about my views on the pipeline, but that view isn’t to deny Alberta’s interests. But where possible and where the government actually has a role to play, including the role played by B.C. Hydro, because the optimization project would require electricity, we have been, I think everybody would acknowledge — including TMX, the federal government, the Alberta government — more than cooperative.

However, I strongly believe, for the reasons I’ve suggested — for example, the route that’s being pursued by the province of Alberta — $34 billion for a twin pipeline on an existing route would, obviously, cost more on a greenfield pipeline, a nonexistent route, which is purported to carry more oil. It’s not surprising to me that there isn’t a private sector partner. If TMX’s price is higher than average on a route that’s a twinned route that’s built, then what would the cost of this route be on tolls if, in fact, the route were to be built? Financially, it doesn’t make sense.

We strongly believe, as well, as a government, in the tanker ban on the north coast. There are strong economic, social, environmental and political reasons to do so.

I spoke yesterday of the six LNG projects that we have. There are other remarkable projects — the AltaGas proposal in Prince Rupert, for example, and all the work that’s being done on the north coast with the support of First Nations.

With two of those LNG projects on the north coast, the proponents are essentially First Nations. In the case of the Cedar LNG project, the Haisla First Nation owns 51 percent. Pembina owns the other 49 percent. In the case of Ksi Lisims, the leadership on the proposal comes from the Nisg̱a’a First Nation.

The issues on the north coast and the reasons why there is a tanker ban in place and implemented on the north coast are good and sound economic reasons. We have major projects that are on the go right now — including LNG 2, which we hope will reach a final investment decision; and Ksi Lisims LNG, which we hope will find a final investment decision. So we have a stake in that question too.

As well, as much as everyone wants to talk to us all the time about it, Alberta needs to get a proposal. They need to get a proponent, need to get an idea. It’s not just government support that makes private sector projects happen. I don’t mean to lecture members of the Conservative Party on that point. I just make that point clearly.

We understand the political and regulatory situation. We’ve taken a pretty clear position; a straightforward position; and, in many respects, a cooperative position. We’ll continue to engage with other governments in the country on these questions. But it’s their proposal, and don’t they have some responsibility to come up with money and a plan and a route and a proponent and an idea themselves prior to us addressing it?

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

My question to the minister. Certainly, given my background in owning companies and working in the industry…. Would the minister not agree that it’s up to the proponent to decide if it’s cost-effective or not and not the government?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Absolutely, it’s the responsibility of the proponent. Maybe that’s why there’s no proponent. But to ask British Columbia to be constantly commenting on a proposal where there is no proponent…. I mean, there’s a political arrangement — we’ve seen that — but there’s no proponent.

I don’t disagree with the member. The proponent has to come up with the money, and they will. We talked yesterday, and the member asked me if our clean energy approach to LNG, electricity approach to LNG, made sense.

[1:20 p.m.]

Well, the proof is in the pudding. We’re building projects that are clean energy projects. That’s a pretty clear statement about that.

The question is, and the question will be…. You’ve heard, and the member will have read the Toronto Star and the Toronto Globe and Mail and different comments about this and the speculation and all of that on the subject. But the fact of the matter is that the government of Canada and the government of Alberta said there’d be no public subsidy. That’s what they’ve said.

Now we hear, reading source columns and newspapers, that maybe they’re considering a public subsidy. And people will judge whether publicly subsidizing a bitumen oil pipeline is the right approach and the right expenditure. They may argue for that, or they may not. We’ll see.

The agreement says there’ll be measures in place by April 1. They’re not in place. The agreement says there’ll be no public subsidy. Now they’re speculating about a public subsidy. The agreement says it’ll be entirely a private sector project, and now we’re hearing different things about that.

I would say to the member — let’s say, in agreement to what he said — that you bet the proponent has to determine that. The proponent may read my comments, but I’m sure what they’ll do, as people always do on major private infrastructure investments, as we do with public investments, is they’ll crunch the numbers and see for themselves.

Larry Neufeld: It has been reported that we may expect by July 1 to have a proposal. Should there be a private proponent included in that proposal, would the minister remove his objections based on cost, if the private proponent does, in fact, choose to invest that kind of money?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, in the case of the southern route, the twinning of the southern route, the TMX Pipeline, what we call that now, the member will know that there was a very large public subsidy. It’s a matter of public record. It’s massive, breathtaking almost. I don’t think we’ve ever seen an equivalent public subsidy for any project ever.

I’m just saying what the federal government and the Alberta government agreed to, whether they hold to that agreement — a public commitment of private project, no public subsidy. They’re also talking about a major subsidy for something called Pathways.

We’re enthusiastic at the idea that they would support lowering the emissions of that project. We’ve got some actual decarbonization projects in B.C. that we’re engaging with the federal government on, which I think would be a good idea. But I think what we do in B.C….

This matter, I’d say to the member, has been a subject of considerable public interest. I’ve been asked dozens and dozens of times about this project — many more times than I’ve been asked about LNG or the North Coast transmission line or clean energy projects or wind projects.

I think, at a certain point in time, it’s up to Alberta — which is effectively the proponent right now — and the proponent to come forward with something. What will that involve? Well, I think most people in my position would say: “I’d rather deal with the substance than the speculation.” Me, I’d rather deal with the substance than the speculation, and we’ll see what they do when that comes.

What I’m stating is simply a fact. There was no proposal. There was no anticipated proposal. There is no proponent. The Alberta government admits this, but it’s because they’re running around looking for a proponent. Obviously, they want one. They’ve entrusted $14 million on a project that’s going to cost tens of billions of dollars, largely on communications.

Just so we understand, I’m not being, at all, disrespectful to Alberta. They have the right to pursue their interests as they see them. I’m more respectful of Alberta, I would say, than we’ve received respect from other jurisdictions about our legitimate concerns and positions. But they can come forward with a proposal.

Our position on the tanker ban is pretty clear. It’s a federal tanker ban. It’s not our legislation; it’s the federal legislation. And we’re going to continue to make the case for British Columbia, especially our projects, ensuring that our interests, the interests of people living here — First Nations and others — are respected in this process as part of our job and our responsibility.

[1:25 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Without question, I, certainly, do recognize that the tanker moratorium act is under federal jurisdiction. The quote that I read earlier would suggest that the federal government is willing to re-examine and make allowances for a project to happen through adjustments to that act. I would also go further to suggest that in my reading of the act, it is clear that the voluntary exclusion zone is just that. So while, again, this is under federal jurisdiction, I would….

My question to the minister is: does the province monitor or keep track of the volume of tanker traffic through the Hecate Strait?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is that it’s the federal government’s role, surely, to enforce federal legislation.

Of course, we’re live to these questions and there’s always discussion about the tide because the tanker ban refers to large tankers and leaving specific ports, and it’s enforced as the federal government seeks to enforce the tanker ban. So that’s what they’re doing, but there is no question that the tanker ban is effective in keeping large tankers out of Hecate Strait. If the federal government needs to do more…. The member disagrees, but it is their obligation and responsibility to do so.

There is no question that if, say, the Alberta government were successful, there would be a massive number of bitumen oil tankers going through the strait. That’s just a fact. The tanker ban exists. It’s a federal law. We support that law, but we recognize that we’re advocates in this. It affects British Columbia. It profoundly affects other projects that we’re doing in British Columbia which require working together with people in the region who feel very strongly about this.

But all that said, the member is asking whether our government is enforcing federal law in this case. The answer is it’s our expectation that the federal government will do that, and that seems to be a reasonable expectation.

The member referred to the MOU between Canada and Alberta and certain parts of that MOU that refer to the oil tanker moratorium, sometimes colloquially called the tanker ban. It also refers to the existence of a project called the Pathways project, which, as an expert on the ground in these issues, the member will know is an interesting proposition, a very expensive proposition. It will be interesting to see who Alberta and Canada think will pay for the implementation of that proposition, in addition to the cost of an oil pipeline.

What I’m saying and what we’ve said is that we’re supportive of Alberta aspirations, but an additional 300,000 to 400,000 barrels for $3.5 billion in this context…. It’s not a bargain, because that’s a lot of money. But that’s what we’re not just allowing to happen but actively engaging with TMX on. It shows the reasonable supposition.

The difference between that project and the other project is that this project exists in time and space, and I try and live as much as I can in time and space.

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to apologize to the minister for my reaction. I don’t want that to be taken in any way as a lack of respect.

What I would suggest, though, is…. My question was not whether the province was enforcing a federal piece of legislation. It’s whether they were monitoring the volume of heavy tanker traffic through the Hecate Strait, because, in fact, it’s a voluntary moratorium. It’s not obligatory, and heavy tanker traffic does travel through.

It’s been documented quite widely, and I’m curious if the provincial government has monitored or knows the number — per month, per year — that do travel through that area that is mistakenly being purported as it being a ban. It’s a voluntary exclusion zone, and tankers have been through there quite recently, actually.

So I would ask the government…. Well, that’s what I’m asking. That is exactly what I’m asking.

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m pretty clear that it is the obligation of the federal government to enforce and to gather statistics on the tanker ban.

The reason why the tanker ban, the legislation, is deemed so important by people who are proposing a northern route is they know that the northern route couldn’t succeed with that legislation in place. It actually is the opposite evidence to what’s been suggested here. I think that from my perspective, of course, it’s the federal government’s responsibility to enforce and gather statistics on federal law, just as it’s our responsibility…. We’ve had this discussion through the thing and offered our information about how it’s going here in B.C.

But I think this is a tanker ban which, for a long time, was voluntary but in place, just to be clear — but in place.

The person who first proposed the tanker ban was a gentleman named David Anderson, who was the former leader of the B.C. Liberal Party in the early 1970s. He replaced a guy named Dr. Pat McGeer. Prior to becoming leader of the provincial Liberal Party and elected in 1972, he was a federal MP, and he was the one who first put this forward.

It was the first Trudeau government that essentially established this tanker ban, which was effective as voluntary, and then it was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government that brought in the legislation.

That legislation, in my view, is effective. I could go for a long answer, if this was in the federal House, about how it works and why it’s effective and why there may be cases when individual tankers may end up in those waters and why smaller tankers which serve the coast — it was never anticipated that those tankers would be excluded — are not affected by the ban and why the port of origin is important.

All those things are the way that they enforce the law. The reason they do it that way is for the very reason you said. You don’t want to bring in laws that are too difficult to enforce. We don’t need traffic police officers in the Hecate Strait giving tankers tickets. That’s not an effective enforcement method.

But they put that in place, and I think everybody acknowledges it’s significant for people on the north coast and effective. It’s also, for people who would like to see an oil tanker project through the North, obviously, a major impediment to their wishes as well.

Larry Neufeld: I’m not trying to be intentionally combative. My reading of the moratorium is, and I believe the minister did mention this earlier, that 12,500 tonnes are allowed to dock in order to supply communities in the area. My reading and my understanding of the moratorium is that transit of the area is a voluntary exclusion zone, and it has been reported in major news publications.

I wish I had brought the article. I don’t know the date off the top of my head. But due to weather, a large oil tanker travelled through the strait, and that’s far from the first time.

I did look for data online in order to come up with a number before I asked the question, and honestly, either I didn’t spend enough time or I didn’t dig deep enough, whatever the case may be. Therein lies the question as to whether the….

Again, recognizing that that’s federal responsibility, but if this is a rationale that we’re using for outright banning tankers in the area, I’m wondering if the province has been monitoring and lobbying the government to make it a true ban.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The article was in the Globe and Mail. I think it was a couple of weeks ago. It was written by Justine Hunter, who’s a journalist who has worked in these buildings for, I dare say she won’t appreciate my saying, about 30 years.

One of the reasons we are engaged in the story is she wrote a story about, as you say, a private citizen who was monitoring tankers and seeing one or more tankers going through the zone.

[1:35 p.m.]

I don’t think, though, for example, in the example the member provides, for weather reasons, a tanker going through the zone…. That’d be the federal government’s job to assess and play that role. That doesn’t mean the law isn’t effective. Obviously, if the law wasn’t in place, there would be regular industrial traffic there.

The tanker ban, to that extent, is in place for large tankers. He has rightly said that there are different rules for smaller tankers and different rules depending on port of origin and arrival. That’s the purpose of the oil tanker ban and the regulatory mechanism by which the federal government enforces that law.

The Globe and Mail article suggested that, at least in a couple of cases, it wasn’t fully applied, and they were interested in that discussion. That would be an interesting discussion between the Globe and Mail and the federal government. That’s why it’s valuable to have active journalism in our province.

I think in that case I spoke to the journalist. I can’t remember if I was quoted in the article or not. I was aware of that. I was aware of that story, anyway, and that it came out.

But I don’t think, fundamentally, that story suggests that the law isn’t in place and isn’t applied in B.C. I don’t think they said that. They said that they found some cases where the area was traversed. That’s an interesting question, but I don’t think it changes the fundamentals of it.

Alberta would not be, because they don’t support the oil tanker moratorium — Alberta doesn’t — including it in their MOU if they didn’t think it was effective. I think that’s, pretty clearly, the case. Most people saw that as a significant thing in the MOU, as did the hon. member when he asked his first question and quoted it.

We have a different view than them, and we think that the northern route is unbelievably expensive. There isn’t a route. You kind of have to go with oil pipelines through valleys, not over…. It’s more difficult to do an oil pipeline than a natural gas one, I think. I think the member would agree with that. It has real challenges on the ground, in the coast, and real implications for many other projects we have.

But again, as I said before, the member is right. It’s up to the proponent to determine if they can bring the capital together to engage in such a project. I’m just saying it is my opinion that such a project, given the low cost of optimization projects….

By the way, it’s not just ours. There are optimization projects in the Enbridge system as well, albeit ones that go to the United States, that would increase the capacity there. Just in optimization projects, we’re talking about 800,000 barrels per day for, probably in total, well under $10 billion against a proposal that would cost…. I don’t know. Is it 40? Is it 50? Who knows?

In that climate, if one were to pursue those optimization projects, the competitive climate would be even worse for a pipeline. But again, it will be up to proponents. I’m just saying a fact — that they don’t have one.

Larry Neufeld: Just to be clear. I’m not in any way suggesting that anyone broke the law. What I am highlighting is my understanding of reading the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, and I’m completely open to the possibility that I may have misread.

My understanding, again…. The 12,500 limit is the maximum that is allowed to dock at a port. The exclusion zone is voluntary, which does allow, to my understanding, and I am open to…. I may be incorrect once or twice now and again, but my understanding, from having spent what I felt was a thorough review of it, is that it is a voluntary exclusion zone.

So it’s not breaking the law. By and large, they choose not to, for the most part. But when weather or what have you dictates that, it’s a voluntary exclusion zone, not an enforced legal zone.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The issue of the port is an important question, and that’s not voluntary. That’s the key question in why the law is effective.

If you’re going to engage in a regulatory action or a legal action or a bill, as they did in the federal House, you have to have some reasonable method of implementation. In this case, they chose a reasonable method of implementation that doesn’t cost too much money.

[1:40 p.m.]

You don’t want a system where you’d have to have boats out or boats sent out if, as you suggest, a tanker, for example, were in trouble or needed to, for weather issues, go in there. That’s not the purpose of it. The purpose of it, though, was to stop large oil tankers leaving ports in the region.

So there simply would not be a northern route, I don’t believe, unless you were to…. I don’t even know if you were to go to Stewart, whether that would make any difference or not. That would be prohibitively more expensive than other options. They haven’t even determined where they’re going yet.

The Premier of Alberta has speculated on different locations. I don’t think it’s even fair to talk about her speculations or to speculate on speculation. What this is, what is in surplus on this question, is speculation. What is lacking are proponents, routes and a serious assessment of the value of the pipeline against the revenue that would have to come to pay for it.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

Perhaps this would be the question, I think, that would be something that a lot of folks in the industry would want to know. What conditions must be met before the provincial government would remove objections to the pipeline?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s important to put this in context. Just to finish our previous discussion, 12,500 is the line the member talked about. The tankers that are going out of the TMX system right now are 80,000 to 125,000.

Clearly, that’s why the ban is an important consideration and why the strong support in the region for the moratorium by First Nations is important — First Nations who have supported multiple other energy projects. So to suggest they’re against energy projects or against natural gas or against fossil fuels is incorrect. I think that’s an important question to assess.

From my point of view, there are issues involving British Columbia. But again, this is not our proposal. This is the Alberta and federal governments’ proposal.

We believe they should engage with us. I would engage with people on Boxing Day. Earlier this week was my birthday. I would’ve engaged with them on my birthday. I would engage with them on Canada Day. I’d engage with them on any day that they want to engage on any issue.

It’s not a secret where I am. I talk to Minister Jean from Alberta on a regular basis. I talk to Minister Neudorf from Alberta on a regular basis. I talk to Minister Hodgson on a regular basis. They know where to reach me. Most importantly, the Prime Minister knows to reach the Premier. Even today I’m sure that this issue was brought up between the Prime Minister and the Premier in their meeting earlier today.

I would say our priority…. Since there’s no proponent, no project, no route, no business plan that can be taken seriously, our proposal today is to express our view. Then, I think, in fairness, we would have to see, if that circumstance were to change, what would happen.

We’re absolutely engaging with the government. Our view is pretty well-known on some of these issues, including the issue of tankers on the north coast.

Larry Neufeld: Should the First Nations support a pipeline through their territories, including the north coast, would the province endorse a northern route?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t refer to the hon. member in this case, but the many questions I get asked on this question by members of the media and others, I think there should be a moratorium on hypothetical questions.

The question is: what if this happens? The Coastal First Nations, for example, have expressed their view very clearly. I don’t hear people saying that Coastal First Nations are stopping us from considering the proposal.

[1:45 p.m.]

This is a hypothetical question, and the fact is they don’t have that support. There’s a core reason, amongst others, they don’t have the support. There’s no project, there’s no proponent, there’s no plan, and there’s no route. So it would be remarkable if anybody, First Nation or otherwise, would be agreeing with that.

First Nations can and will speak for themselves, although surely they should be consulted in this matter. My understanding of the position of the government of Alberta is they should be. My understanding is that they should be.

The member asked about a hypothetical result. There’s no project yet. I’m happy to assess substantive things, and there’s surely, if anything, no agreement yet. I think many First Nations have made that very clear, including First Nations from his constituency.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the minister, I disagree that that’s a hypothetical question. I really do. The question, I felt, was quite straightforward. Should the proponent, whomever that would be, be able to garner the support of First Nations, would the government drop objections to this line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, hypothetical question 1 was: should they find a proponent and money for this, would I support it? The second question is: should they get support from — it’s unclear what he’s saying that the test would be there — among First Nations, what would I do? I would say to the member: let’s let them find a proposal.

I mean, I have to say the North Coast transmission line, for example, is a similar important proposal. I think we’d agree. The member might disagree with me on the priority or whether we do it. Fourteen agreements with First Nations, term sheets, including all the relevant First Nations but two so far on the line, and a route, a plan. We’re going to start construction in 2026.

In the other case, no proponent, no route, no plan, no money and no proposal. They’re working on it. Well, let’s see the end product of their work, and then we can comment on it.

But I have a feeling, given that I get questions in the House, questions in the media, that I’ll be asked again about it, maybe even right now.

Larry Neufeld: I’m going to go back to a question that I did ask earlier. What conditions must be met by the proponent for the government to drop objections to the line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, clearly, the main regulatory responsibility…. This is acknowledged, and it was established in the courts around TMX. The main regulatory responsibility is with the federal government, so they have regulatory responsibility there. They also, because it affects British Columbia, should talk to British Columbia, and that hasn’t happened yet. The proponent hasn’t talked to the government of British Columbia yet for one very good reason. There’s no proponent.

Larry Neufeld: I’m not trying to be combative. I am trying to establish a path forward. I have worked in that industry for a long time. I am very aware of how skilled and talented many, many people are in that industry.

And I do, with respect, disagree with the minister’s characterization that what I’m asking is hypothetical. I would disagree with that entirely. On its basis, what I’m asking for is a path forward for a nation-building project that this government would agree with.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In the case of the optimization project, which is a real project — it has investors; TMX is the proponent — we’ve been engaged seriously for at least a year on that project. Frankly, even though, again, it’s not our jurisdiction — the Port of Vancouver isn’t really our jurisdiction — the Premier has offered some comfort. That’s a real project.

[1:50 p.m.]

I think it’s the responsibility of those who want to bring real projects to actually produce the project. That’s what I’m saying. It’s pretty straightforward.

So it is hypothetical. We don’t know what the project is. We don’t know what the route is. We don’t even know what route they’re considering. We’ve said what we think generally about it, and we’ve made that clear. But we’ve also been engaging with the federal and Alberta governments on a number of things.

I think what Premier Smith would say when people say, “There’s no proponent and no route,” is: “Well, we’re working on that, and we’ll get in touch with you when we have a proponent and a route.” That’s the moment to discuss that, when you see what you’re actually talking about.

The way we treat proposals, including ones that benefit Alberta, that benefit the industry, is demonstrated by our actions. It’s my belief that we need to treat everyone with respect. That “everyone” includes the government and people of Alberta, the oil and gas industry, but surely it also is the people of B.C., the people of coastal B.C., the coastal First Nations and others — all of which need to be treated that way.

To date, we have a private political arrangement between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta, and they’re working on it. I’m not working on it, except to prepare for what may come, because there’s nothing to do. There’s no “there” there.

Do you have a proposal? You share it with me. If you have a proposal for whatever subject but you say, “I don’t have a proponent” or “Really, I don’t know what it’s going to be yet,” well, I would say to you the same thing. Come back to me when you know what it is and you know where it’s going to go.

Larry Neufeld: My question to the minister, then, would be…. What I’m hearing is that perhaps something along the lines of a white paper or something written would start the conversation on what conditions would be required for British Columbia, the government of British Columbia, to remove their objection to the line.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Now, remember, the regulatory authority lies primarily with the federal government. There’s some regulatory authority here, but it would…. I think the jurisprudence would say it has to act within the confines of reasonable administrative law, and that’s what would happen.

What we’re saying is: produce a project. In the meantime, let’s talk about NCTL. Let’s talk about LNG Canada 2 — you know, real projects, real projects in time and space. That’s not disrespectful to Alberta, but they don’t have a project, so in advance of that, to talk about all these issues doesn’t seem to me to be desirable.

If I were to say, which I’ve said many times, that we don’t want to see the tanker ban lifted on the coast, I guess that would be a condition. But remember, that’s a federal law, so you might reasonably say to me, “That may be what you want, but maybe you won’t be able to do anything,” and that will be the debate. But that’s all…. The reason that sounded hypothetical was that it was hypothetical.

From my perspective, I’d say to the member that I’ve laid out really clearly what I think about these subjects. I’ve laid it out comprehensively. Where there are real projects, we’ve acted in a fair and, dare I say it, neighbourly way to our friends in Alberta — better, I would say, than the response to our discussions with them, say, on the intertie. But that’s just the way it goes.

It’s ultimately, and continues to be, up to them. There’s a suggestion, as the member has said, that they may have a proposal by July 1. That’s the suggestion. I think that’s their aspiration. There were also aspirations for April 1, and they missed those deadlines. I’m not sure the world is going to hold them to account if it’s August 1 or September 1 or June 20. But as they do that work, we’ll continue to engage, and if they want to talk to us about it — anytime, anytime.

I’ve not failed to talk to Minister Jean about it. We have full and frank and robust conversations on these questions, Minister Jean and I. He’s a very interesting and thoughtful guy, and I like him a lot. I have many conversations with Minister Hodgson on it. But they acknowledge they’re not ready yet, and they’re not ready yet.

[1:55 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I agree that there is not a proposal in place. I do agree with that.

As an engineer working on projects, particularly of that scale, a level of certainty is required before you can get to the next stage of planning. That is the crux of my question.

Is the minister saying that a full proposal would be required before conditions for government of B.C. approval? Or would it be something more simple, such as, again, a white paper or a pre-planning document?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, on a major private sector proposal like that, you need investors and you need the commitment to invest. You need a plan or project, and then you build a route and all those other things. But none of that has happened.

This is a thought bubble right now that may, when the Premier of Alberta, for example…. It may come to more than that, and there’s a desire for them to proceed.

Again, I think it’s reasonable to say, if it was another proposal…. Say the member wanted to build a dome stadium in Dawson Creek. He’d have to get some money for that because that would cost…. Even if you’re talking about a dome stadium for 10,000 people, baseball in January, he’d have to be able to show that it makes sense to attract investors.

He’d have to have people who would want to play in January in Dawson Creek. There might be some. Then he’d have to show how he would build it. He’d have to show that he could obtain land and that he could obtain financing.

If a member would come to the House and say, “Well, what’s your reaction to that?” I’d say: “That’s a very interesting thing.” But I don’t think I would be providing authority. The issue, really….

You’ve got to start with investors and a plan and a proponent. None of these exist now. One of the reasons they’re having so much difficulty — I mean, the agreement was in November 2025 — is that the economics, compared to optimization projects, are not very good.

It’s not for me to judge that, ultimately. It’s for the proponent and their investors to judge it, unless governments stepped in to subsidize that.

I guess my question to the member would be: if there was a government subsidy for such a proposal, would he be in favour?

Larry Neufeld: That is not a question for me. That is a question for the government. Perhaps someday I will be responsible for answering that question. I’ll leave that with you.

My question to the minister would be: what next step would he like to see from a proponent to push this conversation forward?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, one, that there be a proponent. That’s a pretty important step. I’m not trying to be glib, but there’s no proponent, so we can’t do that.

What I would say, though, is this. In B.C., we have project after project. We’ve listed them off. They’re really tangible and real. It’s our expectation that the federal government….

Here’s one of the issues that British Columbia has always faced. Not just this NDP government now, in the present tense, but every government on major projects — clean electricity projects, other projects. Typically our projects go from B.C. to B.C. and then internationally. They don’t go west to east. They go to B.C., although we have a number of proposals right now and projects that are under construction right now that do that. But generally speaking, it’s that.

What the federal government typically does…. We see this with ferries. The federal government typically says: “Well, it’s not between provinces because it goes B.C. to the world. So we don’t provide as much support for that.”

I’m not speaking of the present government or our current Prime Minister but all the Prime Ministers before them. It’s one of the reasons B.C. gets poorer treatment on a whole series of issues. This is frustrating, I think, to British Columbians, because British Columbia, because it’s a have province, which is a reflection of our economic strength as a province — there are really three have provinces; B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan — contributes to equalization in the country.

[2:00 p.m.]

Ontario, a have-not province, Conservative government. I’ll leave that aside. Quebec, a have-not province, $14 billion in equalization. Manitoba, a have-not province, to be fair, in a partisan sense — $4 billion and a dramatically smaller amount in equalization.

In addition to that, these jurisdictions seem to get a larger share of what we call federal largesse.

The purpose of equalization is to ensure that’s how we’re dealing with the fiscal capacity of provinces and we’re going to treat people fairly. So our expectation, our task…. When the Prime Minister is talking to the Premier and he wants to talk about this question, of course we engage. The Premier engaged. It would make no sense not to, because we’re good partners. So we engage, and we tell them what we think.

But we want to talk about our projects. We want to talk about all those mining projects. Six new mines opened just in the last year under our Minister of Mines. I can tell you that if we work together as a team with the federal government, that number will grow and grow and bring generational wealth to people in our province.

What we want to talk about are those projects that are on the cusp of success, and we’re going to drive them over the line. I mean, for example, projects in the Port of Prince Rupert, clean energy projects, the North Coast transmission line, mining projects and LNG projects in the province. That’s what we want to engage with them on.

I just say that with the greatest of respect, because the minister…. The member, I should say. Maybe he’ll be minister one day. Who knows? He didn’t answer the question about whether a public subsidy would be a determinant or not. That’s fair enough. He’s not the minister, I suppose, but he’s the spokesperson for the B.C. Conservative Party, so he may have to find his way to answering that question in the public debate.

I think what we should do in B.C. is support the extraordinary, successful, clean energy agenda driven by a B.C. Hydro that generations have built. I think the federal government should be interested in that and interested in providing fair treatment to British Columbia, whether it’s on ferries, electricity, energy, infrastructure, mining or anything else.

Larry Neufeld: This question is, honestly, in my mind, more of a housekeeping question, because I believe the minister already did answer it, at least for the most part, in one of his responses. Just to make it cohesive, it’s fitting in this context of where we’re at in the discussion.

My next question to the minister. Is it the minister’s view that a project to the south is more realistic, and would this government support a project through a southern route? In that respect, I’m talking about a twinning pipeline.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s interesting. I was in the hallway in the Legislature, just about 60 metres from here, I’d say, and there’s a report in the Globe and Mail saying that the federal government may be thinking of a southern route. That’s what it said. That was interesting, but it was anonymous sources. In the article, the spokesperson for the Minister of Energy said, though, that’s not the case. So we discussed that a little bit.

I think, again, if they want to engage with us — meaning the federal or the Alberta government — we’re open to doing that. They have to, because it goes through B.C., regardless of the regulatory jurisdiction. Hopefully they’ll do that, but they, certainly, haven’t determined that. This is why it’s not for us to be answering questions about a proposal for which there’s no proponent. It’s for the potential proponent and the government of Alberta to answer questions. Then we can respond to that.

It shows the gulf of options, and we don’t have to respond to theoretical options on a project that’s still theoretical. Let’s respond, in a general sense, to proposals that are real. But I heard that the federal government…. At least, these anonymous sources suggest they favour the southern route. Well, that’s interesting, but that certainly wasn’t confirmed in my direct discussion with Minister Hodgson later that day.

[2:05 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that.

I am chewing into my colleague’s time here, so I am going to very quickly just mention that…. I’m going to hold back on my questions around the Fuel Price Transparency Act, for the simple fact that we may be bumping into something that’s before the House. I think there are a few I could ask, but without getting into a full discussion, I don’t know how productive we’ll be.

A couple of really last-minute, quick…. I wouldn’t call them housekeeping. Not to imply that they aren’t important.

I do want to talk around the Energy Regulator methane reduction. I know the minister did speak to this yesterday, but I’m looking for clarification of total methane emission reductions achieved in the reporting periods discussed. Are those fully attributed to Energy Regulator regulatory actions, or would that be partially, or more than partially, attributed to industry actions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There’s no “I” in “team,” and the truth is the B.C. Energy Regulator plays a role. But the people who make it happen on the ground are industry, and I’m delighted. I repeatedly praise them for this success.

This reduction in methane emission is an achievement of technology, in many respects, by the industry. So let’s give them full credit. We credit the B.C. Energy Regulator and the actions of the government, but when you’re talking about substantive performance on the ground, actually reducing the emissions, the industry deserves a ton of credit, and every time I’m asked about it, I give it to them.

Larry Neufeld: Again, being mindful of my allocation for the time slot here, under the theme of methane reduction, I’m curious as to the number of regulated facilities that are currently out of compliance with respect to methane regulations. What, if any, penalties have been imposed for non-compliance?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What we’ll do is, if it’s okay…. I’m just being solicitous towards his colleague from Salmon Arm–Shuswap and the important time that he will need. I always have his best interests at heart, as the member for Peace River South knows.

What I’ll do is I’ll endeavour, by the end of the session today, to provide that information to the member and not delay now — I don’t think sitting and waiting for five minutes is the right approach — if that’s okay.

Larry Neufeld: I appreciate that response from the minister and his staff.

This has already been answered, but I think, in a way of bringing together this line of questioning…. Well, it has been answered, but we’re looking for confirmation as well.

Can the minister outline the proportion of the Energy Regulator’s total operating budget that comes from industry and if any comes from the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I was just double-checking that answer. It’s 100 percent cost recovery, and it has been, dating back some decades now, although we’re adding new responsibilities there, which will equally be 100 percent cost-recovered. And as we discussed in our discussion of Bill 14, I believe, where the member at that time asked questions about a potential cross-subsidy. That doesn’t exist either, so it’s 100 percent cost-recovered.

That’s the approach, and that’s been a successful approach, I would argue. It means that the B.C. Energy Regulator isn’t tied up in, necessarily, the Treasury Board process. There are occasions when the industry would like to contribute more to get faster response time or whatever, if that were the case.

It also imposes a rigour on the process, which has proven to be useful over the past 26 years in the Oil and Gas Commission and now with the B.C. Energy Regulator. So 100 percent is the answer.

Larry Neufeld: Again, I felt it was just necessary to absolutely identify that there was no provincial money.

[2:10 p.m.]

I do have a couple more here that I think are important to include. The Energy Regulator is responsible for overseeing liability management, including inactive and orphan wells.

My question is: can the minister provide the total deemed liability currently associated with regulated oil and gas infrastructure in the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The total deemed liability associated with abandoning, assessing, reclaiming and restoring all wells in B.C. — dormant, inactive and producing — is modelled at approximately $2.33 billion. For dormant sites, this total is estimated at about $1.14 billion. The orphan levy is $24 million annually, which was increased by $9 million, from $15 million in 2025. This increase ensures orphaned sites can be restored in a timely manner. That’s a responsibility that I think the member would agree with that the industry has.

Estimated orphan liabilities are reported annually in BCER’s financial statements. That’s a good place for people or those listening to this to take a look at this. As of March 31, 2025, the estimated restoration cost of all orphaned sites was at least $218 million. The BCER is forecasting to pay approximately $1.1 million in landowner compensation in ’25-26, honouring 216 surface lease agreements to 180 different landlords with orphaned sites on their property. The BCER has collected nearly $195 million in security as of March 1, 2026.

That answers the next three questions as well.

Larry Neufeld: It certainly is the next question. But I think, just for clarity, if I heard it correctly, the total value of financial securities held against this liability is $195 million? Did I hear that correctly?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The BCER has collected nearly $195 million in security as of March 1, 2026.

Larry Neufeld: My following question, then, would be…. In my estimation, there’s a significant gap. What plans are in place to address that gap between liability and funding?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there’s a workplan in place — the member probably knows this — every year. Obviously, the focus is on the sites of highest risk, as you’d expect. That includes regulatory liabilities. That work is done, and then work is organized around that question on an annual basis, so real progress is made.

The BCER is currently managing a population, just for the member’s interest, of 746 unreclaimed orphaned sites, many of which have undergone significant closure work. A further 256 orphaned sites have been reclaimed. So a lot of progress was made, and there’s a serious and systemic approach to it. Again, hopefully we’ll be able to arrange a meeting in the coming week for the member with BCER.

The system makes sense, in that sense. It may appear, at first blush, that the numbers don’t equalize. I don’t think they’re intended to. But the real progress is made, and that’s to the credit of everyone involved, including the BCER but also our partners.

Larry Neufeld: I believe that the minister answered this, but to be a little more succinct, can the minister confirm whether the current liability framework fully insulates taxpayers from future remediation and cleanup costs?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: In my previous answer, I noted we’d increased the liability and the payment from $15 million to $24 million to ensure that gaps are filled. But really, between industry action and the dormant site regulations, we’re doing, I think, the appropriate job in managing the situation. That would be the best response.

I appreciate that the member may argue that we should be charging more to industry for this in some fashion, but in fact, the system has been working effectively in addressing dormant sites.

We’re happy to provide all the information the member might wish on that question.

Larry Neufeld: I’ve used up more than my allotted time internally here, so I’m going to take this opportunity to thank the minister and thank his staff. I very much appreciate the candour in the answers, although there are a few there I might still need to tweak for next year.

With that being said, I may pop up later on, but I’m going to sit down and yield my time.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just want to thank the member for Peace River South. It’s a good exchange. I think he performs his duties extremely well. I’m very appreciative of the work together.

We’ve taken note of the information we’ve promised to provide the member. We’ll be doing that and also arranging the meetings and, really, beyond those meetings, any meetings that the member might like to have at the staff level, the deputy level — whatever he would do to get all the information he requires, which I think is really useful and appropriate. It doesn’t just make the debate more efficient. It makes it more fruitful for him and for me and for the people watching us.

David Williams: I guess we’ll move on from pipelines to power.

I want to thank my colleague for the great job he has been doing.

As we know, Powerex plays a very important role with B.C. Hydro and income. They are the trading company that buys electricity and actually sells electricity, so they play an integral part in the overall revenue of the corporation.

B.C. Hydro, in the 2024-25 annual service plan report, states that over the previous five years, from 2021 to 2024-25, Powerex trade income ranged from $386 million to $1.051 billion. B.C. Hydro’s latest public quarterly reporting also shows that for the nine months ending December 31, 2025, trade revenues were $989 million, essentially flat from the same period over a year earlier, while B.C. Hydro says uncertainty around U.S. tariffs and trade policies is being carefully monitored for potential financial impacts.

My question is: can the minister provide an update on how Powerex has been affected by the current trade and energy environment?

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, the numbers we’re talking about are profits made by a sophisticated and talented group of traders and leaders at Powerex. Those profits go up and down in different years because of different conditions, but they are doing exceptionally well. In fact, our staff at Powerex are routinely recruited because they’re the best in North America, public or private sector, and we’re super proud of them.

[2:20 p.m.]

Yes, there are some variations, and there are some changes in U.S. energy markets — the restriction of the California market, for example.

We discussed yesterday at some length, so I won’t repeat it, the discussions we have with the province of Alberta and some of the challenges in the way that that province organizes its energy markets.

Powerex operates all over the western states. It’s enormously successful, and that money we’re talking about is profit they’re making that is used to mitigate rate increases here. So it’s a benefit to the people of B.C., and the folks at Powerex are doing very well. Yes, obviously, when you’re operating in Canada and in the United States, the impact of U.S. policies is significant.

I think I’ll also have occasion later to talk to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke about the discussion of the Columbia River treaty, which, of course, Powerex has a role in, in terms of its role with respect to the downstream benefits.

But I think Powerex is doing extremely well. You’ll see the reason we provide multi-year averages is that it does go up and down as you’re trading on the market and as conditions change. Drought against non-drought and other conditions affect things.

The benefit to British Columbia of Powerex is just extraordinary. It allows us to do remarkable things. It’s because of the foresight of previous generations who built an energy system based on large hydro projects. It’s incredibly flexible. When you’ve got that work of generations, combined with the outstanding work of the staff at B.C. Hydro and at Powerex, you see the results we get on a consistent basis, which are truly remarkable. They are unbelievably flexible.

Anyone who has observed energy markets over the last 30 years, not just over the time of Mr. Trump, knows that they frequently change. But having a talented, flexible crew who’s able to manage all that is, I think, a demonstration of what a Crown utility can do and how innovative it can truly be.

David Williams: That’s a perfect segue into the next question.

Can the minister provide the most current available figures for Powerex gross trade revenues to date for this fiscal year?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ll endeavour to get the member partial-year numbers for 2026 and share them. I think he’s just asking for the idea here, so I’ll give him fiscal 2025, which is a trade income of $627.8 million and import revenue of $528.1 million, net export revenue of $495.7 million.

Those are the key things. What I’ll do is, rather than get into the details of it…. As noted, over the last 16 years, counting this coming year, we’re looking at nine surplus years and seven import years.

Here it is: $394 million to the end of December of last year. That’s our numbers for the last fiscal year, which is what he was looking for — $394 million from April 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.

[2:25 p.m.]

Obviously, he’ll know that the annual report will come later than that, but we’ll endeavour to get him the full package and information, should he wish.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I realize how hard it is trying to get information on such short notice, which leads me to the next question. Powerex’s net income or contributions to B.C. Hydro, overall results to date — would you happen to have that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s $394 million for the last fiscal year, ’25-26 through December. So that’s three-quarters of the fiscal year — $394 million in net income.

David Williams: Just to clarify, that was Powerex’s net income and contributions to B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister for that very quick answer.

Maybe the minister can answer this one as well. What is the current year-end projection for Powerex’s trade income? I realize that may be a little tricky.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, what I’ll endeavour to do, because we don’t have that information yet…. That result will come soon. The $394 million is pretty up to date, because that’s the first nine months of the last fiscal year. It’ll, obviously, be larger than that through the final three months of the fiscal year. We’ll endeavour to get that information to the member as it comes, and I would expect that would come before the end of the legislative session.

David Williams: That kind of leads me into my next question. It was a lead-up into this question. Has the current trade and tariff environment had any measurable impact on Powerex’s earnings, its margins or its trading activity? If so, by how much?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think that it’s fair to say that the current relationship between Canada and the United States is in flux and has an impact.

Clearly, Powerex is doing quite well in spite of that. If you think of the nine months of the fiscal year, which all coincide with the current President’s administration, $394 million in net income by a public entity on behalf of the public is pretty impressive in that context. But there are a number of disruptions in regulatory markets. I would say some of the trade actions of the current administration have been capricious.

Of course, we haven’t restarted — and we’ll discuss this later, again, with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke — the Columbia River treaty discussions, of which this will have an impact. But what it shows and what Powerex has proven over time is an ability to be flexible and to respond to emerging conditions.

Clearly, the challenges that Mr. Trump’s administration have, have an impact on us. It’s hard to determine what things would have been if something hadn’t been in place. But what this shows is that Powerex continues to perform very effectively.

David Williams: This goes on to identify U.S. tariff and trade risk when it comes to Powerex. B.C. Hydro’s 2025 and 2026 third-quarter report says that ongoing uncertainty surrounding United States tariffs and trade policies, including retaliatory measures by Canada and British Columbia, is being monitored for potential financial impacts. It also said that those disputes could affect B.C. Hydro’s load, its revenue, trade, supply chains and overall financial performance.

My question to the minister: has the United States made any threat, formal or informal, that could interfere with Powerex’s operations, electricity trade or cross-border market access?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well I think the statement that he quotes from B.C. Hydro is just stating the obvious, that there’s great instability and, as someone else once said, uncertainty under the heavens. I think that, clearly, it’s the obligation of B.C. Hydro and Powerex to monitor that.

[2:30 p.m.]

The member will know that part of Powerex’s responsibility is the disposition of assets in the Columbia River treaty, which is currently the subject of negotiation between Canada and the United States. Equally, the United States has taken a number of overall actions against British Columbia and Canada which are significant. So we continue to monitor it, and we’ll have to respond as need be.

The fact of the matter is that B.C. Hydro and the United States have benefited from stable economic and trade relationships and that those economic and trade relationships have been disrupted by the current U.S. administration — historic relationships, including our relationships between Canada and the United States around free trade agreements, which have been in place since 1988-1989. All of that is something that we’re monitoring carefully, and obviously, we continue to do quite well.

I think one of the things that I communicated around the time of the discussion of the Columbia River treaty…. Sometimes people would come, when Mr. Trump first came to office, and say: “Wow, shouldn’t you shut off something?” But in fact, British Columbia and its flexible hydro system works with our American partners very effectively.

You don’t succeed in a trade war by hitting yourself in the head. We have to be prudent and thoughtful and monitoring and work with people. That’s what we continue to do at B.C. Hydro. The relationship between the western states and the western grid and B.C. Hydro is to the benefit…. B.C. Hydro is a contributor to the western states, the western grid and to British Columbians.

David Williams: Can I just clarify then? There’s been no threat for the United States, informal or formal.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there are no tariffs.

David Williams: Another follow-up question to the minister would be: if no threat has been made, what specific risks is B.C. Hydro currently monitoring with respect to Powerex and its cross-border electricity trade? Are there any steps they’re taking?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’d say it’s all of the things in the service plan that the member cited in his first question on the subject.

David Williams: Okay, we’ll move from south to east.

B.C. Hydro’s public reporting shows that ongoing market purchases and imports are part of the system operations. The B.C.-Alberta intertie workshop summary noted discussion that Alberta generation benefited through export purchases made by Powerex on behalf of B.C. Hydro to serve B.C. loads. However, I did not find a public source showing any ministerial directive ordering Powerex to buy more energy from Alberta because of a trade dispute with the United States.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I covered this issue in detail yesterday, but I’m happy to do so again.

In January of 2025, I met with Minister Brian Jean, who’s the Minister of Energy in Alberta. I subsequently met the minister responsible for utilities in Alberta, Mr. Neudorf. We have been in discussions with Alberta to address issues that we have around the intertie and, we think, really, not the good dealings that Alberta has had with us dating back to 2007, 2008.

Alberta benefits from this relationship significantly, especially when they face significant power deficits as they have, including times when they ran out of power, effectively, and we backstopped them.

Alberta has significant issues in the United States, in particular with their relationship with Montana and their interties there. They’re negotiating challenges with Berkshire Hathaway and others who have interests there.

[2:35 p.m.]

It’s in Alberta’s interest to have a strong relationship with B.C. We have been communicating. The member was here yesterday when I spoke of those communications of the need to have stronger relationships in Canada, which some have described as an electricity grid here, and to improve the intertie and improve relationships between ourselves and Alberta.

We are endeavouring to do that. Powerex at B.C. Hydro and the outstanding team at B.C. Hydro led by Charlotte Mitha have been leading this work on behalf of the province and on behalf of myself. Electricity exports in Alberta are significantly lower than B.C., with less exposure to U.S. markets. That said, Powerex is responsible for nearly all B.C. exports, which benefit B.C. ratepayers. Private companies in Alberta benefit from export.

In other words, there are some challenges in a system like ours, where we can make decisions because we have a publicly owned B.C. Hydro; and a situation in Alberta, where there are differing and sometimes combative players in the marketplace.

That said, Alberta, yes, would benefit more from improved relationships in B.C., and B.C. has been actively pursuing that — agreements that would not benefit B.C. They might a little bit but, certainly, would benefit significantly the province of Alberta. We’re hopeful to make progress. We’ve had repeated efforts to do so. Alberta has listened to B.C. on some key issues that they’ve been proposing or musing about, and I think that’s a good thing.

We’re going to continue to do that work. I think everybody wants us to have a stronger mutual relationship between Canadian provinces, and the need for that is highlighted by the challenges with the current U.S. administration, which has been, as the member described in his first quote, relatively capricious in its attitude toward trade policy.

David Williams: Like you just reiterated, it’s good to have close ties with Alberta, and it’s, obviously, to their benefit. During trade disputes, probably, as well, it insulates us somewhat too.

With that in mind, has the minister or the ministry or B.C. Hydro issued any directive to Powerex to increase electricity purchases from Alberta during the trade dispute with the U.S.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: To a degree, those are limited by the circumstances I described previously. B.C. Hydro continues to operate through Powerex on the western grid, which includes Alberta. We’ve been making substantial efforts to engage Alberta about improving the interties between our two provinces.

I think a fair person would say that B.C. has shown, given Alberta’s need for such things, a greater interest in that question than the province of Alberta. But they, as we’ve been discussing in the earlier part of the afternoon, are distracted by other issues right now.

David Williams: Maybe the minister can clarify. Currently purchases from Alberta right now are being strictly made on a system need and the market conditions or the least-cost considerations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, and that system sometimes is system failure, the need to keep the lights on in Alberta. B.C. has been absolutely ready to assist our partners when that occurs. But the answer to the question is yes.

David Williams: I’m going to move on to the North Coast transmission line. The North Coast transmission line has been described as moving quickly, with B.C. Hydro showing phase 1 targeted to be in service by fall 2030, phase 2 by 2032.

Can the minister set out specifically what milestones still must be completed by 2026 to keep this project on schedule — including permitting, route finalization, Indigenous agreements, procurement and customer commitments?

B.C. Hydro’s public materials do not appear to have an exact construction start date, so can the minister provide a precise date construction is expected to begin and a final transmission route to be determined?

[2:40 p.m.]

I’ve had some inquiries through my office regarding the transmission line, and my understanding is that only recently they’ve got confirmation that the line would not be going through their property. They were holding off on haying, to give you an example.

Hon. Adrian Dix: FID prior to the summer, so probably June. Under construction in the summer of 2026. The permitting is done. The main permitting agency is the B.C. Energy Regulator, and that work is going on now. It’s going to be shovels in the ground this summer.

David Williams: My understanding is, then, the final routes have all been just finalized, one. And two, all Indigenous agreements are in place.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Phase 1 — the route’s been completed. Phase 2 — it’s almost completed or virtually completed. We have term sheets with 14 First Nations. There’ll be final agreements that will be required prior to FID, and that’s where we are right now.

David Williams: Given the scale of the project and British Columbia’s experience with major cost overruns on projects such as Site C, what independent oversight mechanisms are actually in place to protect the taxpayers from major overruns on the North Coast transmission line?

In particular, if government is exempting B.C. Hydro from usual requirements to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the B.C. Utilities Commission, what external cost scrutiny remains, and who will provide it?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is some of the experience coming out of the Site C project, which, obviously, preceded this.

The project is overseen by B.C. Hydro executive steering committee and North Coast transmission board subcommittee, both of which include independent external advisers. Membership in the North Coast transmission subcommittee includes Mr. William Duvall, chair; Mr. Don Kayne, ex officio — Don Kayne is a former president and CEO of Canfor, as you’ll be aware; Mike McDonald; and external advisers Heather Hill, Lecia Stewart and Lisa Ethans. I can provide the member with biographies of our external advisers.

Additional oversight, of course, comes from our First Nations co-owners and from the independent B.C. Energy Regulator. This approach with external advisers is, I think, a useful approach and one that we’ve undertaken here. Those are the external advisers. As I say, they’re people of real quality who have great experience in capital projects. I’d be happy to provide the member with their biographies, but I won’t read them into the record here.

David Williams: My understanding is that they are more consultants than they would be independent. With that in mind, maybe the minister can answer this question.

The government has said that by bypassing the CPCN, the certificate of public convenience and necessity process, it can save up to 12 to 18 months. What is the trade-off in terms of lost independent review? And how will the minister assure taxpayers that speed is not coming at the expense of accountability?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: We know how to build transmission lines. This is part of B.C. Hydro’s core business, one.

Two, this project had been announced. It has been the subject of two laws in the Legislature. It is supported by the government. It is part of the capital plan, going forward, of B.C. Hydro.

We’re proceeding because it’s the purpose, really, of the certificate of public convenience to decide that it’s a good idea to build a project. Well, we’re building the project, and spending 18 months and increasing the cost of the project doesn’t seem to be the right idea. That’s the reason we took that decision.

Obviously, the member says the external advisers — external to B.C. Hydro — with real expertise on the subcommittee overseeing the project…. That’s a significant role, and certainly, there may also be the possibility, as we move into the construction phase — it would be premature now — to have an independent oversight adviser. That’s something that the board of B.C. Hydro is considering.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. That’s a good segue.

Moving on to the next one, regarding jobs. The Premier has once said that since operational, the North Coast transmission line is expected to create 9,700 direct, full-time jobs and will contribute nearly $10 billion per year to GDP and generate about $950 million annually in public revenue.

Can the minister clarify exactly when those benefits are expected to begin and whether they depend on specific industrial projects reaching final investment decisions? What portion of those benefits are contingent rather than guaranteed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The North Coast transmission line is essential, and you don’t need to talk to anyone other than the mining industry. Essential to the development of mines in the region. Essential to the development of LNG in the region. Essential to developments around the port in the region. Essential for customers in the region who have had occasionally problematic electricity service. Essential for communities in the region.

The benefits of it are extraordinary, and that’s why the government did something that is unusual. My message to B.C. Hydro is that it has to be driving economic growth right now. It has to be the B.C. Hydro of the 1960s that drives economic growth, and that is what we are doing. Those projects, without the North Coast transmission line, would not be proceeding.

In addition to that, as the member knows because we debated it last fall, we made significant regulatory changes to ensure that, essentially, the North Coast transmission line route is not simply the responsibility of potential projects, which, of course, would stop those potential projects from happening.

The North Coast transmission line…. I’m happy to share our view of the situation with the member. But I’ve got to tell you that it is one of the most necessary projects to economic development in the province.

That’s why we introduced not one but two pieces of legislation that directly affect the North Coast transmission line, because it’s so important to get it built. That’s why we’ve made regulatory change to support industrial development, especially critical mineral development in the northwest — to support that. That’s why the project is so important.

That’s why it’s so disappointing, I say — I won’t go on at length about this point — that a transmission line that serves the northwest is being opposed by MLAs from the northwest. It seems counterintuitive. It’s like saying a project in one’s constituency which benefits your constituency…. “I’m going to oppose it because head office of the B.C. Conservative Party said we have to oppose everything the government does.”

Well, that’s not my view. This is a great project for the North, for the northwest. It’s visionary, and we support it. We are going to drive it, for that reason. The Premier is making a very clear case about the need for that line. We’ve made that in repeated debates in the Legislature, so I will save my remaining 12 minutes and 24 seconds, which I could easily use to describe its virtues.

David Williams: I would say that we’re totally in full support of having more power up north. We actually see the need for the power. It’s the fact of how we go about getting it, where the power is coming from and how we’re transporting it that may be the question.

[2:50 p.m.]

But it’s, certainly, not the need. I believe that more power is always better. Excess usually brings down costs.

The minister has said electricity demand is increasing sharply in the North, which we’ve just determined. B.C. Hydro has stated that the existing Prince George to Terrace infrastructure is reaching capacity — we know that’s the case — while the Prince George to Terrace capacitors project is already fully subscribed.

Is the North Coast transmission line being designed with capacity for future expansion, twinning or additional industrial load beyond the current plan, and if so, what is that expandable capacity? One of my concerns is the fact they’re using capacitors to boost the power from Site C to Prince George.

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. It’s always good to see you there.

We, obviously, want to maximize the use of existing lines, and that’s what capacitors do. When we’ve reached our maximum there, we build new transmission lines, which we’re doing now and which the opposition, bizarrely, strangely, unusually opposes.

The member says at some point, somehow, some way, by magic, they want more electricity on the north coast. Well, you do that by building transmission lines. If he thinks that Site C should only serve Metro Vancouver, well, that’s not a view I agree with. I believe that it should serve the North as well and the northwest as well, and that’s why we’re engaging in these projects.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. For the record, no, I believe Site C should be serving the people of the North. I think that we should have more power. If we could dedicate only the power for Site C to the North, it would be great, but unfortunately, we don’t have enough power.

Anyways, my question to the minister. Well, first off, the government has justified this line on the risk of industrial demand. Government has justified this line on the basis of substantial industrial demand, including a 2023 expression-of-interest process, identified about 5,000 megawatts of potential industrial load.

If the promised industrial demand does not materialize or major projects are delayed or cancelled after the public investment has already been committed, who, ultimately, bears that financial risk — B.C. Hydro, the ratepayers, the taxpayers or the industrial customers? To put it in context, if any of these projects cancel and they don’t need the load.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would say that if you look at the range of projects, the projects already in FID, the projects coming, I think what would be foolhardy is to engage in a strategy which says let’s wait before we build anything for years and years until we get final investment decisions from everyone. We see, and the report the member cites shows, the level of demand that’s coming, and we are building our provincial B.C. Hydro system to meet that demand.

In the 1960s, when W.A.C. Bennett undertook the two rivers policy, the industrial demand…. There weren’t FIDs there, but he saw the potential of the province in advance. He acted on that, and he nationalized B.C. Electric. He nationalized it, because the private sector wouldn’t do it. They wouldn’t develop two rivers at once, and he wanted to develop two rivers at once.

[2:55 p.m.]

He thought that demand would be met, and it was. We are in a similar time now, with mining, with LNG, with ports, with clean electricity, with clean industry. We are at that time. We can either turn back, delay, wait and hope, or we can act to build our economy.

People in B.C. want to become more resilient, more self-sufficient, create wealth here, and that’s what the North Coast transmission line is about. Absolutely, I believe that the electricity provided and the transmission provided is needed, and that is why we are going ahead. We are taking, yes, some risk in order to fulfil the promise of our province, to create wealth for future generations.

It is an absolutely critical thing to do and to show our faith and our support for the northwest of British Columbia, which deserves it. It has an unprecedented opportunity in mining, and we’ve heard about that. We heard about that in Mining estimates from the Minister of Mining.

It’s improbable — we’ve seen it — not theoretical. But success on issues of LNG and the government’s policy of electrification, which will lead to the lowest emission LNG in the world, and the success of the Port of Prince Rupert, and on and on we go, and the possibility and potential and significant load of projects such as Ksi Lisims….

Should we wait and delay all of those projects because we don’t have faith in British Columbia? We have faith in British Columbia. We know British Columbia’s going to grow, and we intend to be there.

B.C. Hydro is going to be there, just like it was in the 1960s, to drive economic development in our province and hope and prosperity for future generations. That’s what B.C. Hydro is there for, including providing extraordinary service to its customers, and that’s what B.C. Hydro will be doing.

David Williams: I absolutely agree with the minister. It’s like that saying: “If you build it, they will come.” Unfortunately, you have to have a really good economic climate. You have to have the proper regulations, regulatory controls, in order to make it so that business wants to invest.

So with that in mind, I’m more concerned about what happens if there is no investment — that the ratepayer isn’t going to, ultimately, end up paying over a long period of time — which goes back to my question to the minister. What binding financial security will be required from industrial customers before taxpayer-backed construction proceeds? And how much of the project costs will be protected by those commitments?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to note, we had this debate. The member and I had this discussion at length last fall. His question isn’t any different than it was then, and my answer isn’t any different than it was then. Amazing how that is.

Sometimes people criticize consistency as a problem for an imaginative mind, but in this case, it works for him and works for me. So let me say this to the member. The regulatory changes we brought in last year, which the member knows about, only apply to industrial customers requiring the North Coast transmission line in order to take service.

The NCTL tariff changes include the introduction of three new tariff supplements. These were the changes we made around tariff supplement 6 last year. The new North Coast development security agreement allows B.C. Hydro to collect development security for the North Coast transmission line to confirm customer intent to take service and prioritize projects that are more advanced.

The new supplement to the electricity supply agreement requires industrial customers to acknowledge that their power may be interrupted if there’s an issue on the transmission system.

[3:00 p.m.]

The new supplement to the facilities agreements removes the generation and 500 kV transmission costs for eligible large industrial customers, lowering barriers to major project investment.

The new supplement to the facilities agreement applies only to specific industrial sectors, including mines; timber-processing operations; LNG facilities; and facilities involved in producing, gathering, processing and disposing of petroleum or natural gas. The definition does not include, of course, the new oil pipeline from Alberta.

That’s just for my friend from Peace River South, who is waiting for another answer for that. He may even get up again, now that I’ve mentioned this subject.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I like that. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, I say to the member for Peace River South.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, even more so.

The definition of eligible projects with respect to petroleum and natural gas matches the language in the Energy Resource Activities Act, which treats these facilities separately from pipeline operation.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate going over things that we may have covered in the past. Unfortunately, the next question might be as well. But when you get older, your memory is just not quite as good as it used to be, right?

The government has said that six First Nations, including all the hereditary leaders, signed phase 2 term sheets in July 2025 and negotiations are continuing on phase 1. What exact equity stake is being offered to the First Nation partners, and how will that equity stake be financed? What rights will come with its terms of governance, returns and long-term decision-making?

I do realize we did cover some of this when we were talking about the bills in the fall, but not all the agreements were finalized at that time.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It was, I think, six at that time, and I think eight further agreement have been signed since that time. That’s just the basic information we had, as the member will recall. Having turned 62 this week, I’m fully empathetic to his point of view.

First Nations will be able to acquire up to 50 percent ownership of the line. The project is expected to use the 80 percent debt, 20 percent equity structure, which is similar to B.C. Hydro’s current capital structure. This means First Nations can invest up to 10 percent of project capital costs as equity. First Nations will earn returns on their equity investment over the economic life of the project, providing a long-term, stable revenue stream.

The size of the First Nations investment opportunity will be confirmed based on the cost of the project, of course, prior to construction cost. B.C. Hydro and the province will continue consulting and engaging with all impacted First Nations, whether or not they choose to be co-owners.

This was the discussion we had before, 50-50, 80-20, which was the core of the lengthy discussion the member and myself and the member for Peace River South had with respect to Bill 31. That continues to be the case, except that more term sheets have been signed. Of course, term sheets are important, but the final arrangements will be made in the next period.

David Williams: Just to clarify. On the agreements, equity stake by the First Nations is up to 50 percent or is 50 percent? That’s my first question.

My second one would be: how many additional nations are still in negotiation to date? Does the minister expect any of those agreements to be finalized before construction starts?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The final agreements haven’t been signed. In that sense, they’re all subject to final agreement.

Let me give the member an update if that works for him. The seven phase 2 First Nations signed non-binding term sheets on July 21, 2025. It was a very moving day. In fact, Wet’suwet’en elected and Hereditary Chiefs were there. That does not happen every day, I would say. It was a really moving day and a really important day for us — very proud of that.

All of the phase 1 nations signed non-binding deal sheets with definitive agreements now under negotiations. That was on January 20, 2026. We, in fact, signed that at the Natural Resources Forum in Prince George. I think the members opposite were there.

[3:05 p.m.]

These non-binding sheets outline key elements of the final agreements and include a high-level summary of the opportunities and benefits that would be found within the final agreements. Definitive agreements will include commitments on environmental protection, First Nations participation in employment and contracting opportunities and core economic terms. We are proceeding with this now.

I think that answers the question from the member.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

I think that’s enough for up north. Let’s move a little west, Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast projects. Last estimates we discussed the two transmission lines running across Texada and near Duncan. The minister indicated that these lines would be replaced under B.C. Hydro’s capital plan.

My question to the minister. Can the minister provide the current estimated timeline for when the replacement of these lines will begin?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What I’ll do so we can regain…. If he has a set of questions on that question, we’re going to get a precise answer. I don’t want to take up too much of the member’s time by waiting for that, but as soon as I get it, I’ll bring it back here and read it into the record today.

David Williams: All the questions regarding that line, including the capacity and First Nations ownership?

Interjection.

David Williams: I can continue on. Okay.

Regarding the transmission line from Texada to Duncan, will these replacement lines involve partial First Nations ownership, or will they remain wholly owned by B.C. Hydro? Currently they’re B.C. Hydro property only, with no Indigenous equity.

Hon. Adrian Dix: That’s right. They’ll be 100 percent B.C. Hydro–owned.

David Williams: Will the replacement lines carry the same capacity as existing lines, which is 500 kilovolts for the Texada Island line and 230 kilovolts for the Duncan line, or will the capacity be upgraded?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The line to Duncan won’t need to be replaced for another 20 years, but we are in the early planning stages of a new line to Vancouver Island to meet demand here.

David Williams: When you say a new line going to the Island, is that the one for the southern route going that way? So the existing lines in the north end are going to be the same capacity? They’re just going to be replaced with the same capacity that’s there right now, yes or no?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

David Williams: That was a nice, easy question.

Okay, so my question…. I realize there wouldn’t be any final cost because it’s not the…. They haven’t been replaced yet. So what is the current estimated cost to replace these lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re in the early planning stage.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

My first question would be that if we’re in the planning stage, when do you expect the final planning to be completed and we’ll have an estimated cost?

The second thing is: will it be subject to an environmental assessment?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, but there would be a permitting regime attached, including…. Because it’s tidal, obviously, there’s a federal role as well.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

I didn’t get an answer, though, regarding when we will have an estimated cost, when the preliminary work will be done and we’ll have an estimated cost for the project.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s in the early planning stage, so I wouldn’t expect you’d see a cost before next year’s estimates.

David Williams: I look forward to that.

Let’s move on to the Campbell River system upgrades, the John Hart dam. My question is: has a contract been awarded for the spillway gates associated with the John Hart dam seismic upgrade project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, and we’ll endeavour to provide details of that to the member before the end of our session today.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

Is this project still on track for completion in 2030?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is yes, and I’ll give the member more details with the other answer.

David Williams: I assume that if it’s still on time, it’s still on budget. Or has the budget increased?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: In the service plan, Member….

We’ll provide it. We’ll provide this information to him. But the final cost is $912 million. The completion date is estimated for 2029. So that project is on track.

David Williams: I do realize it’s a little ways out.

The Campbell River upgrade project. How many jobs has it created to date?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ll get that information for the member on the job numbers and try and get it before the end of today.

David Williams: I do realize it’s hard getting the information on such short and timely notice here, so I appreciate when you do get the information out to me.

This one has a lot to do with the residents that live nearby and people that use that area. With respect to public road closures related to the John Hart dam and the Strathcona dam projects, can the minister provide an updated timeline for how long the Brewster Lake Road will remain closed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ll bring this information as a package together. I recommend the member bring those kinds of specific questions that he has, and I’d be happy to get the information to him as soon as we have it. We’ll make the request in, and I’ll just report out as I get it. I don’t want to take up all of his time just waiting for a detailed answer like that.

David Williams: I realize that it is time-consuming.

I’ll move on to a different project here, the Jervis Inlet and Agamemnon Channel power line project. What is the total current estimated cost of this replacement project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s $64 million.

[3:20 p.m.]

David Williams: Nice timely answer.

My question to the minister would be: specifically, what would be the estimated cost of the bypass line near Saltery Bay?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s not a problem. It’s a below-$50-million project, so the list we have now doesn’t have it available, but I’ll endeavour to get it to the member as soon as possible.

David Williams: This project’s a little bit closer to completion, so I’m sure the available information is a little bit more available. Is this project still on track for completion in the spring of 2027?

Hon. Adrian Dix: You heard that answer, yes.

David Williams: Can the minister outline the consultation process with local First Nations and provide details on the engagement carried out to date? In other words, what’s the current negotiation with First Nations, with regard to this project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: On the Jervis crossing project, I don’t believe that there are significant issues with First Nations.

David Williams: Given that the existing lines are being replaced because of age and ocean spray corrosion, what measures are being built into the new infrastructure to reduce susceptibility to ocean spray corrosion in the future?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think that will be built into the design criteria for the new line, as you’d expect. Obviously, we see, over time, technological improvement, and that’s a good thing. Obviously, there’s wear, as well, when you have lines in place for a long time, but that would be built into the specs for the new line.

David Williams: I would hope that.… When you replace things, they’re, obviously, new and improved.

This one goes back to the hikers in the area. Does the minister anticipate any damage to the upper trail at Saltery Creek or the lower trail at Ahlstrom Point during the construction?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s our policy and position not to do permanent damage to things, so that would be the case in this case.

David Williams: So I will assume that damage or any kind of disruption will be fixed and that it’ll be back to original condition after construction.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’ll go on to the next project, the Saltspring Island and North Pender Island submarine cable project. My question regarding this project: is the project still on track for an in-service date of September 2026? That’s coming up really close.

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair. It’s again so good to see you there. Just excellent.

Our staff will endeavour to get the information, and we’ll be bringing it back as a group of answers before the end of today.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap.

David Williams: Thank you, Chair. Nice to see you, like the minister said.

And thank you to the minister for the answers. I do look forward to all the information by the end of the day, or even Monday.

Maybe this will be in the information as well. My question regarding this project would be…. The project has been in planning since 2022. Engineering and environmental studies were not completed until 2024. Can the minister explain why those studies took more than two years, and what contributed to the project delays?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ll, certainly, be providing information about dates and approval dates as we respond to the question. I would say that in any capital planning process…. B.C. Hydro has hundreds of projects, as the member will know, and we’re exploring some of those, which is great.

I would say that, in this case, planning can take a while for a variety of reasons. You’re also, in terms of your resources, planning projects consecutively and so on. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an undue delay in any way, but we’ll get the member an update on the project.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. This kind of goes along the same line.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

An environmental overview assessment was completed and is guiding the project design. Now, can the minister identify the key findings of that assessment and explain how those findings have influenced the design and the implementation?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s so good to see you in the chair.

The Chair: It is always a delight.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s always a delight. It’s particularly good. We’re in the high-viewing season of the afternoon, so I’m glad to see you there. Very critical to see that.

As I say, all those issues — we’ll add that, and we’ll have a report back to the member before the end of the day on these questions.

David Williams: My question to the minister. In the summer of 2021, three submarine cables between Vancouver Island and the Mainland were found bulging and leaking oil — not a good thing — which B.C. Hydro attributed to extreme heat.

With the severe heat events becoming more and more common, what measures are being incorporated into this project to prevent similar damage? As we know, during the heat dome we almost had a big failure, Obviously, it’s imperative that for any new cables being put in, or for existing cables, there has to be some kind of oversight or assessment to make sure they don’t fail.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: All of the repairs have been done, first of all, as one would expect. There’s enhanced cable monitoring. The cables are now shielded, so the same heat effect would not occur. Considerable work went in, as the member would imagine, with the manufacturer to ensure that this situation is not repeated.

I think all of those technical changes, repairs done, fans monitoring, new protection for circumstances of extreme heat….

It shows the ongoing need for climate resiliency and why climate action is so important. Simply taking a hands-off approach to climate change is, in every possible way, an expensive proposition from a business perspective as well as from a human one.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Built-in resiliency is probably a good thing too.

The next project would be the Salt Spring Island to North Pender Island realignment project. My question to the minister would be: can the minister confirm the projected completion date for this project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re going to have a whole Salt Spring section to my answer before five o’clock.

David Williams: Okay. Actually, I’ll add a few more things to the minister to add to his list to provide.

What would be the total cost of the project, including the portions of the cost of the existing overhead lines between Salt Spring Island and North Pender Island that are being upgraded? Will the upgraded overhead line carry the same capacity as the current line, or will the capacity be increased? That can be provided with the information at five o’clock or whatever tomorrow.

I’ll move on to a different project. It would be the Victoria to Esquimalt cable replacement project. We’re moving our way south, as you can tell.

I would also like to ask about the Victoria to Esquimalt cable replacement project. The issue was brought to B.C. Hydro’s attention in 2023, when it was described as an emergency, yet it is still not close to completion. That was due to the heat dome and the lack of power on the Island, obviously.

My question to the minister would be: what has gone wrong, and what has caused this replacement to take so long, especially after being labelled as an emergency?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, I can’t get over how good it is to have you here, hon. Chair.

It’s a very long line. It’s in an urban area, which creates certain challenges, and it’s going as well as can be expected.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

There was one cable failure in 2023. What contingency measures have been in place since then, in case there are further failures, to ensure that households are protected from outages and other unsafe conditions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There’s always redundancy in our substations and in our lines. Under those circumstances, we reconfigure to manage the load, or B.C. Hydro does. That’s the approach we take to that question.

David Williams: We’ll be going to those redundancies shortly. This is all leading somewhere.

[3:35 p.m.]

The next project is the Victoria to Saanich cable, Horsey to Goward. Finally, on the Victoria to Saanich cable connecting Horsey and Goward substations, which is currently considered at moderate risk of failure…. My question: what metrics and assessment criteria are being used to classify this cable as being at moderate risk of failure?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I know the Chair would’ve answered this question for me, but it’s the equipment health rating system that’s for all our systems, which judge our systems on standard criteria. That’s how such an assessment would be made.

David Williams: When you say “the criteria,” is that determined by B.C. Hydro staff? They go through and assess, and they set these ratings for equipment failure or equipment redundancy?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, it’s a B.C. Hydro system, and of course, it’s informed by best practice. B.C. Hydro maintains its system largely through B.C. Hydro, through the outstanding IBEW and teams in general at B.C. Hydro, and they do exceptional work.

What we do is we have standard criteria for assessing equipment in our system, which includes conditions such as age and others. We use those to assess equipment in our system at all times and a rating system that ensures that we’re on top of what’s, obviously, a wide transmission distribution and generation network.

David Williams: Now that we know that this was at moderate risk, this brings me to 2024. B.C. Hydro told Saanich council that design would be completed in 2025 and construction would begin in 2026. We now understand that design and study work has been delayed ongoing through summer 2026, with construction probably pushed into spring 2027.

Given that the cable is nearing end of life, moderate risk, why has this project been delayed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: At moderate risk, we have means of consistently assessing the position of it. It’s not in a position of imminent failure. B.C. Hydro has, of course, many demands on equipment replacement and capital demands, and they’re, obviously, proceeding with the project and carefully monitoring to ensure that ratepayers are protected.

David Williams: We’ll, obviously, be monitoring this project.

Can the minister confirm whether the B.C. Utilities Commission has approved this project and, if not, whether an application has, at least, been submitted?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The project wouldn’t require BCUC approval.

David Williams: Now we’ll move on to where this culminates on the Island here.

Island Generation in Campbell River. Island Generation facility in Campbell River provides 275 megawatts of backup generation for Vancouver Island, but B.C. Hydro’s current agreement with Capital Power expires this October, October 2026.

[3:40 p.m.]

Given that the major Vancouver Island reliability projects are still underway — including Campbell River upgrades extending for years; the Victoria to Esquimalt cable replacement is not due in service until fall 2026, if we’re lucky; and the Victoria to Saanich replacement is not even starting construction until spring 2027 — why is B.C. Hydro allowing this backup supply arrangement to end before all these reliability risks have been fully addressed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As noted last year, since we discussed this issue in last year’s estimates, the issue around the Capital Power question, which is one that I’ve been seized with…. As the member may know, I’ve met with the mayor of Campbell River about it. There’s concern in the Campbell River community around the project in a general sense, including the impact it might have on municipal revenues.

In terms of the project in general, he will know that the issue in Campbell River is the supply of gas. If you don’t have adequate supply, then you can’t serve, and it’s largely a peaking plant now. In other words, I’ll get for the member the number of days a year that it’s open till. If you can’t get the supply of gas, it can’t serve that purpose.

The reason why the supply of gas is affected is that gas is going to a project called Woodfibre LNG in Squamish. That has been the issue between ourselves and Capital Power. The contract was going to end previously, and it was temporarily extended for that reason.

We’re certainly seized to the issue, and we’re confident we’re going to be able to deliver on the issue, but I appreciate, certainly, the concerns raised by people in Campbell River. Really, the problem isn’t one of point of view on the project. It’s about the utility, if I may use that word, of a plant that currently doesn’t have access to the gas into the future to serve that purpose.

But we’re working hard, and we’re always in discussions with people at Capital Power and everyone else to ensure that the interests of people on Vancouver Island are protected. Really, I think the degree of investment in the transmission and distribution system on Vancouver Island is massive and continuing.

Ensuring that there are adequate sources of both generating power on Vancouver Island and generation and distribution is the subject of one of the largest capital plans, if not the largest, in the history of B.C. Hydro, since the majority of that capital plan is to do with upgrading existing infrastructure, which wasn’t dealt with for a long period of time before this government came to office and which we’re catching up to address. That’s what we’re doing.

The Capital Power project dealt with those challenges in terms of the extension of its contract. But we’ve also been working with the city and with others on that question. That project, which I believe was part of the original Elk Falls project that dates from the mid-1990s and provided contract service and then less and less service over time, is now largely a peaking service for B.C. Hydro.

That project, obviously, has been of concern to the mayor of Campbell River, and that’s why I met with the mayor of Campbell River about it. We continue to examine all options in that regard.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

My understanding is that the Island Generation and Capital Power project actually had natural gas going there, and that natural gas was reallocated to Woodfibre, right?

Also, the pipeline to Woodfibre — my colleague can address that one.

But my question to the minister right now is…. We’ve already explained that there’s built-in backup in case there are power problems on the Island, which Island Generation actually took care of because it was an emergency backup for when we do have power outages here on the Island.

My question to the minister. Can the minister confirm what firm contingency plans will replace Island Generation after October ’26 if there are service interruptions on Vancouver Island, in light of all these projects either delayed or not completed?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: We, of course, will address that, and the people of Vancouver Island can rest assured that B.C. Hydro, which provides outstanding service on Vancouver Island, will continue to do so. We, as always, address all options in an imaginative and thoughtful way to do that.

The issue of Woodfibre LNG…. The member may be concerned about LNG or not think it should go ahead or should not get access to natural gas. Of course, that’s not generally, I think, the position of his party.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Just a follow-up question to the last one then. Is the government confident that this backup plant is no longer needed? What specific projects or system upgrades will be fully in place by October 2026 to justify that decision?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The people of Vancouver Island can rest assured that we will be there for them. B.C. Hydro takes these issues, of course, very seriously. Many outstanding customers on Vancouver Island.

The work we’re doing in the distribution and transmission system is substantial. The work we’re doing at John Hart and in Campbell River is substantial. We’ve gone on a little tour of Saltspring Island and Pender Island and southern Vancouver Island in these estimates as well.

I just assure the member that B.C. Hydro knows its work, and we will be delivering for the people of Vancouver Island. Of course we will.

The Chair: I call a five-minute recess. It is now 3:46 p.m., which means you have to be back here at 3:52 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 3:52 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: We are going to return to business. I believe we were just about to recognize the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap on the question.

David Williams: This is my last question regarding Island Generation, and I’m sure the minister will be quite happy about that.

My last question to the minister would be: if delays continue on Vancouver Island transmission and cable projects, is the minister prepared to extend or replace the Campbell River backup arrangement rather than risk reliability shortfalls?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think I’ve explained the contract situation with Island Generation and reasons for the discussion taking place. We’re, obviously, alive to all those considerations. I’m absolutely confident that B.C. Hydro will deliver. In terms of the projects that have been discussed, the John Hart dam, one of the most important mediation projects in the province — on time and on budget. That’s the largest, I think, of the set of projects talked about.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, but it’s the largest of the set of projects talked about, and we’ll be providing information on the other.

B.C. Hydro is doing a great job preparing for this, addressing the challenges, I would say, of climate adaptation. These are very practical decisions made by B.C. Hydro, and they assure reliability. It’s the reason why B.C. Hydro is one of, if not the most, highly respected corporations in B.C., public or private.

David Williams: Now we’re going to go to fast-tracking energy projects, which we all like to see actually. I’m sure everybody in this room would be very happy with energy projects being fast-tracked.

The province announced in 2025 that renewable energy projects would move under the B.C. Energy Regulator and later said the streamlining permitting legislation would simplify approvals and remove the need for cross-ministry and agency permitting for projects such as the North Coast transmission line.

[3:55 p.m.]

With that in mind, can the minister clearly state which major energy projects will still be required to go through a full environmental assessment process and which projects will instead proceed through the streamlined B.C. Energy Regulator process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m delighted to hear that the member is in favour now of fast-tracking energy projects, because as I recall, we had a vote on this question in the Legislature, and he voted against Bill 14 and against Bill 31, whose purpose was, in part, to fast-track renewable energy projects.

That bill applies. Sometimes we can assess the position based on what people say, and sometimes we can assess it on how people vote. Against fast-tracking energy projects is how the opposition voted — alas, in spite of my considerable efforts, I say to all the members of the opposition side now, to convince them otherwise. It’s a disappointment to me that I was unable and unsuccessful in my efforts to convince them to actually support fast-tracking energy projects — not talk about it, not opine about it, not think about it, not wish it but actually do it.

This is a different position than our position. We took action. As the single-window regulator for wind and solar projects, the BCER is committed to streamlining regulatory oversight.

That status that comes under Bill 14 of fast-tracking projects applies to the North Coast transmission line and to nine wind and energy projects at the moment. I expect that it will also apply to some of the successful proponents in the call for power whose results we expect in May.

David Williams: For the record, we’re for fast-tracking projects. It’s probably other parts of the bill that weren’t so good.

My question to the minister would be: can the minister confirm whether the North Coast transmission line will undergo a full environmental assessment or whether it will proceed entirely under the streamlined processing model? That includes all phases.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I refer the member to my second reading closing speech, where I laid out 176 times that the opposition got it wrong on the facts in second reading debate there. The fact is that I listened to the debate. I understand why they voted against it, because they’re against clean energy and against getting the electricity we need. They opposed fast-tracking those projects. We’re in favour of fast-tracking those projects. That’s the difference.

The North Coast transmission line goes under the new model — in other words, no requirement for environmental assessment.

David Williams: Like I said, we are for fast-tracking projects, and we’re for clean energy. We’re for more energy. We’re for cost-efficient energy.

My question to the minister would be: can the minister confirm whether projects resulting from the 2025 call for power will require environmental assessment and, if so, under what thresholds or criteria?

The minister just explained that of the nine calls for power, wind power won’t. The solar probably won’t. But are there any other projects in the call for power that will?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We don’t know the successful proponents, obviously, for the 2025 call for power. That process is done independently. Criteria are set, and then the decisions are made independently with the fairness adviser at B.C. Hydro. So I can’t say how many projects, because we don’t know what the projects are or what the mode of energy is. But if they’re wind power projects, they will be exempt from environmental assessments. If they are others — say, for example, solar projects — environmental assessment will apply.

David Williams: My question to the minister would be: what is the government’s policy rationale for allowing some major energy projects to proceed without a full environmental assessment?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I know that members of the opposition who made a series of claims about the non-application of the Agricultural Land Reserve Act and the non-application of other statutes were wrong and shown to be wrong and gave up asking the questions at committee stage, as I recall. All the assertions made at second reading not backed up at committee stage — that’s what happened.

We had a full debate on Bill 14 at that time, and I laid out my position at length. I know members of the opposition enjoyed that extensive debate because I think…. Hopefully, they would want more such debates, and I’m delighted to give them.

They’re against fast-tracking projects. They voted against it. They’re, clearly, on the record against it. There were fantasy reasons put up for them to be against it, ones that were completely at variance with the facts, something that we established at second reading stage.

Then all of those assertions never came forward in specific questions at committee stage. Why? Because they knew they were wrong. They were just against what the government was doing. The reflex of unthinking opposition was applied to this bill.

Why do we need to fast-track projects? Because they’re good for the province. Because they’re distributed across the province. Because they provide clean electricity. Because we understand, through previous environmental assessments, the issues in wind power projects and that those issues can be addressed in the permitting process.

In short, we made a decision to do that in the interests of British Columbia — to ensure we were not, in fact, delaying projects, increasing their costs when it was not necessary. That’s why we made that decision. We had an extensive debate on it. I gave two second reading speeches, answered a few questions at committee stage, passed the legislation. The opposition was against it because they’re against fast-tracking projects. They’re for it in theory, but when it comes to a real choice, they’re against it.

Well, we were for it because we believe in clean electricity. We believe that you can have wealth and address issues of climate action. That’s the difference between us and them. I would say that debate demonstrated, in sum, the reasons for that — that there was no serious reason provided for that opposition, other than they’re against wind energy.

Their leader at the time described it in a profane way that I can’t repeat in this mixed company. But he’s against wind power, and he said it. They all said it. In other debates, they said they’re in favour of small nuclear reactors, which would be at a fraction of the price. They said that repeatedly. They were wrong. In fact, they were dramatically more in terms of price, but 11 of them said it nonetheless at second reading stage. They were wrong. The Darlington project — dramatically more expensive, for example, than Site C.

You can make these assertions, but occasionally, even in the modern age, we use footnotes.

I’d just say to members of the opposition that I’m so excited about a return to the Bill 14 debate where the government was fast-tracking projects and the opposition was opposing them. I hope that we get more questions on it as we go forward here in estimates.

Larry Neufeld: I just want to take the opportunity to respond. It sounded somewhat like a bit of a political speech there. But I guess…. What do we do? What do we do for a living?

Yes, we did address the SMRs yesterday. I believe that that was an oversight on some of my fellow colleagues. That is not the position of the official opposition, and it is not my position at this point.

What I will also suggest is, certainly, myself, and I have not heard anything from my colleagues that would suggest…. Again, this is just a disagreement. I’m not…. I do disagree on the characterization of myself or others in my party being against clean energy.

What I was against was picking and choosing. Bill 14, on its basis, if you recall…. I remember saying that in my speech, that I don’t disagree with it on its basis. The challenge I had was picking. It should be available to all. Fast-tracking. Again, it’s not something that….

I apologize. I didn’t hear the entire speech, but that is what I picked up when I came in. I wanted to take the opportunity to respond. My apologies. I do not have a question for you.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m delighted to say that of the 176 — let’s call them inadvertently — misleading statements made by opposition members in the Bill 14 debate, just for the record, none of them were made by the member for Peace River South. The other 39, 176…. The member for Peace River South — zero errors. So there you go. No runs, no hits, quite a few errors — 176 errors. That was my summary of that debate.

[4:05 p.m.]

I would say that the nuclear reactor question was in the Conservative Party platform last election. That was there and then endlessly repeated in those debates. But I appreciate it was not in the member for Peace River South’s speech. I want to acknowledge that I didn’t, when I laid out those errors, find an example in his speech of that. He gave a very thoughtful response to the bill.

The Chair: Now, what I’m hoping is that we’re going to embark upon a new adventure.

David Williams: Thank you, Chair. Yes, we are.

The Chair: Okay. I am delighted to hear that.

David Williams: To the minister: I’m actually going to ask the question again. What is the government’s policy rationale for allowing some major energy projects to proceed without a full environmental assessment?

We seem to have gotten sidetracked.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the projects we’re talking about…. The member asked how many there were. There were the nine wind energy projects that came out of the 2024 call for power and the North Coast transmission line.

The reason those were…. There’s some debate around the North Coast transmission line, which is a twinning of an existing line, about the application of environmental assessment. In any event, the bill that was passed by the Legislature and is now in law addresses that question on the nine wind energy projects.

Again, and I think I laid that out in my previous answer in some detail, if the member would like me to repeat that intervention, I’d be happy to do that. I’d be happy to contribute. I see some of my colleagues encouraging me forward there. But I won’t do that. Just to say, we made the exemptions for the wind projects for the reasons I explained about 7¼ minutes ago.

David Williams: No, I think we’ve discussed it quite a bit here now.

My question to the minister: has the ministry created or is it using any policy that gives different permitting treatment to projects with Indigenous equity participation versus projects without Indigenous equity participation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: In terms of permitting, that’s not a factor.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Let’s move on to something that we really hold dearly here — small nuclear reactors. According to the ministry’s estimates notes from last year, B.C. Hydro is monitoring the development of small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs.

Can the minister confirm whether the ministry is considering joining the SMR strategic plan that the federal government and the provinces of Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta have already joined?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. In fact, of course, under provincial law, those are not allowed at present. You’d have to amend the statute for that to happen.

There are no small modular nuclear reactors currently in North America. There’s one in Russia, and there’s one in China. They’re talking, of course, of building one beside Darlington — not just talking about it. The people of British Columbia and the people of Alberta and other Canadians are contributing to this venture from Ontario. Of course, it will lead, amongst other things, to large rate increases for people in Ontario.

My view of it is that we should be curious as people. So clearly, these projects are not competitive now. Clearly, we don’t need them now. Clearly, for example, on fault lines, they wouldn’t be the place to go. Clearly, they would require very extensive international and national and provincial regulatory treatment.

So we are not planning to join it, but we are observing. I believe, over time, the prices and the viability of such projects may change. So we should be observing as other jurisdictions go forth in here and use subsidies provided by taxpayers across the country.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. That answered my next two questions. So I’ll go on here to the next one.

[4:10 p.m.]

The ministry estimates notes also stated that B.C. Hydro is monitoring the development of SMRs and that their construction in British Columbia would be difficult because of the province’s high seismic activity. At the same time, B.C. Hydro acknowledges that construction is possible in high-seismic areas, as demonstrated by Japan’s use of nuclear energy.

Why is this minister holding British Columbia back from what many see as the energy of the future?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’m not doing any such thing. I mean, it’s established to be dramatically more expensive in terms of cost for B.C. Hydro ratepayers, and it’s a time when affordability is important. B.C. Hydro has the lowest electricity rates, in addition to Manitoba Hydro and Quebec hydro, in the world. We want to maintain it. If we have less expensive options, then we’re going to do that.

The regulatory situation to enter into this field for the first time would take a very long time, so it is not a practical and comparative option. If you compare the cost of Site C power, for example, against the cost of a small modular nuclear reactor, Site C is a genuine bargain, even at the $16 billion cost it ended up arriving at. Clearly, for this to be a practical venture in B.C., you have to be competitive, and the costs would have to come dramatically down.

It’s a little different in Ontario because they have a long history, as you know, of nuclear power in that province. And in terms of the safety of the project, they’re putting their small modular nuclear reactor beside a larger one, which addresses some of those questions.

I won’t get back into the position of the opposition on small modular nuclear reactors or the folly of going to the north coast on it. But clearly, in the case of small modular nuclear reactors, there is a technical, regulatory and economic argument not to proceed at this time.

I share this with B.C. Hydro. I think, as the great Ted Lasso once said, you have to be curious and not judgmental. So we’re curious, of course. This is a major development in the world, of course. But there are only two. One is in China, and one is in Russia.

Our seismic zone and the fact that we have extraordinary alternatives in terms of power development means it’s not something that we should consider at this time. That’s why there won’t be an overturning of a ban on nuclear power that has been supported by administrations dating back decades.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. With that in mind, by the minister’s own admission, we should be looking towards the future, we should be building for the future and we should keep our eye on the future.

If that’s the case, then my question to the minister is: why is B.C. Hydro not undertaking a study of where potential SMRs could be located in British Columbia? We should be actively monitoring SMR development across the country.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Last May 3 we released our call for expression of interest on firm power because, as you know, we need firm power in British Columbia. That call for expression of interest came out in June, and it was open until September. In September, obviously, the submissions closed. There were 104 of them. We did a report on those in December of 2025, and we’ll be giving a broader public report on projects soon — 104 projects, all kinds of technologies that show the possibility.

That is the way you do it. You actually seek the market, including B.C. Hydro’s capacity, and you look at the options that are actually practical in British Columbia right now. We’ve done that, and I think the results will be of great interest when they’re finally released.

This has not been a secret. I’ve talked about it in at least ten provincial forums. We take an expansive view of what needs to happen.

With respect to nuclear energy, it’s not, for us, competitive right now, and that’s why it’s not in that process. It’s not competitive right now here in B.C. for regulatory reasons — you require international approvals and others; it’s not for cost reasons, unless the opposition believes we should just increase the costs on B.C. Hydro ratepayers for no reason.

[4:15 p.m.]

Do we have other options for firm capacity? Yes, we do, and 104 proposals for 19 gigawatts of electricity is pretty impressive. I think we’ll see in the results of that the sheer variety of options, clean energy options, that British Columbia has.

David Williams: With that in mind, we determined that SMRs right now would be a costly venture for the government to undertake at this present time. But with that in mind, there are currently proposals and future developments in other countries that embrace independent power producers or even public-private partnerships. Would the minister entertain an independent power producer building a nuclear plant in the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The current legislation, which dates from the Campbell administration, does not permit it, so no.

Secondly, we are looking at firm power. We had an open process that I just described to the member. If he’s concerned that we’re not sufficiently interested in independent power producers, especially for intermittent electricity, we’ve done two calls for power for independent power producers in the last year.

The first round, $6 billion worth of projects — 8 percent of the hydro system, equivalent of electrifying 500,000 homes. And the second one will be coming out soon, so that shows…. All of those projects were independent power producers aligned, in those cases, or working in partnership with First Nations, which is really exciting, I think, in B.C. — exciting because it means that the profits from those projects will remain hugely in community over time.

As I say, those 104 projects I talked about, 19 gigawatts of capacity…. It’s extraordinary and, I think, demonstrates the opportunities we have in B.C. I appreciate that the opposition may want to campaign on higher hydro rates and undoable projects that will take decades to do. I prefer projects that we can do.

Larry Neufeld: My question to the minister is: does B.C. Hydro import electricity that is generated from nuclear power? The second part to that is: does Powerex trade electricity that is generated through nuclear power?

Hon. Adrian Dix: My expert advisers say no.

But remember, I’m not expressing a position that there’s something unholy about nuclear power plants, say, in Washington state or anything else. I’m just saying that it doesn’t make sense for B.C. Hydro ratepayers and for B.C. Hydro right now to engage in a new program. We’ve always, as people in B.C. Hydro….

There’s always this discussion of: is our commitment to clean energy at B.C. Hydro, that 100 percent commitment to clean energy…? Should that lead us to hide it from the world? That’s not what we’re doing. We’re embracing and engaging the world, and we are winning out there, in both Alberta and in the United States, for ratepayers at B.C. Hydro and for customers in the United States. For both the American customers and ourselves, it’s mutually beneficial.

We talked about…. I think it was in the range of $384 million in profits from that in the first nine months of the last fiscal year, the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.

You know, this is the same discussion we had yesterday, I think, around whether or not it’s affected.

We could, I suppose, take the view that we are separating ourselves, like, say, 1950s Albania, from the world. That is not a practical approach for B.C. Hydro. It’s one that I would absolutely oppose.

We do have to embrace the world. We’ve got to make smart decisions. Increasing the cost of our electricity on projects that it would be almost impossible in any kind of practical time to license here and which have severe other problems…. I say this to members of the opposition. I would presume, over time, the cost of those projects will come down.

[4:20 p.m.]

The cost of such projects does come down. The technology when you’ve done two of them is not as proven as when you do 20 or 30 or 50 or 75. So I think we should stay open-minded, be curious, not judgmental, but also protect ratepayers, ensure rates are low, ensure we have clean electricity, ensure our system is reliable. Those things are important too.

Larry Neufeld: Yesterday we spoke at length about an intertie to Alberta. I’m also aware that discussions are underway around the potential for Candu reactors. Would this ministry be willing to import power from Alberta that is generated from nuclear power?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The problem with that project…. Currently just so we understand it…. This is the absolute reason why British Columbians should celebrate B.C. Hydro and 100 percent public ownership of resources here. Electricity rates are 80 percent higher in Edmonton and Calgary than they are in Vancouver. So Alberta deciding that it wants to get more expensive sources of power than the alternatives is an interesting approach.

Alberta, energy-rich as it is, is uncompetitive with British Columbia in this question, and the gap between British Columbia and Alberta has been growing, not shrinking. It didn’t go from 120 percent to 80 percent. It went from 40 percent to 80 percent in the last few years. The prices are going up there.

Yes, I gather Alberta is looking at a Candu-style nuclear reactor. What I would say is this. I don’t think…. I meet with Minister Jean. He doesn’t say: “Don’t do the North Coast transmission line.” The country celebrates that we’re doing the North Coast transmission line. It’s good for Alberta, by the way. And I don’t say what Alberta should do in their jurisdiction. If they feel more expensive, firm power in their system that is effectively renewable and non-emitting, as natural gas power is…. If they want to pursue that option, absolutely they should.

I think quite a distinguished person that the member will know, Ian Anderson, was working on that project. He certainly met with me and talked to me about the project.

I’m happy that Alberta does what Alberta does, but we don’t need more expensive electricity when we produce cheaper electricity. That’s a challenge for them.

With respect to the intertie, again, we’re going to work with other jurisdictions and work with Alberta. We’ve got an enormous amount of mutual issues, most of them right now actually on the southern intertie. There’s lots of talk about the northern intertie, but the southern intertie…. We’ve been making significant efforts to reach out. Our officials have gone there. They spent days there. We’re working on those issues.

They have a more complicated electricity structure and system there, which is just what they do. They have a different system. We have a much more aligned system — publicly owned B.C. Hydro, regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. So it’s a different structure.

I admit it’s easier for us to get things done in this space than in theirs. There may be some areas which are easier to get done in Alberta. I would readily concede. So that’s the situation.

Yes, I hear they’re talking about that, and I say that the Alberta government should pursue, in the interests of the people of Alberta, its agenda, just as the B.C. government here will. And what we want to do is, as much as possible, be supportive of their agenda. We had a long discussion of that earlier.

Larry Neufeld: We did, certainly. So my question…. I’m sifting through. I believe I’m going to take that as a yes, and please correct me if I’m not interpreting correctly.

Hon. Adrian Dix: What was the question?

Larry Neufeld: The question was: would British Columbia, would B.C. Hydro, import electricity from Alberta that is generated through nuclear energy?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I enjoy, as I described earlier, our consistent lifting of the moratorium on hypothetical questions.

There is no nuclear energy in Alberta. Alberta, I would assume, if they’re going to pursue that project, would be pursuing that project for domestic consumption.

[4:25 p.m.]

It would be, I suspect, very expensive electricity, dramatically more expensive, for example, than the hydroelectric projects that are kind of in the neighbourhood — that’s prose for northern Alberta — that the member will know well. All our dams on the Peace, etc., and our wind projects and everything else — in every case, less expensive and, certainly, in combination, less expensive than a proposed nuclear proposal in Alberta.

Markets count, always, so I think the challenge for Alberta is producing expensive electricity and seeking markets for it. Our commitment is to ratepayers here. That’s why we’ve pursued the options we’re pursuing, which we view as better options.

I think the small nuclear reactor option is just…. It’s unproven. People are working on it. They’re doing it. It’s going to be extremely expensive, to begin with. There is absolutely no disputing that, and not even the industry disputes that fact.

In terms of a Candu-style reactor in Alberta, well, Alberta has its own electricity policies. They put restrictions on renewable electricity last year. They decided to do that. Again, maybe I agree with that; maybe I disagree with that. But I respect the provincial jurisdiction of the government of Alberta to do that.

They feltm perhapsm they were getting an excess or they were having issues with renewable electricity. They took action against it. It’s not what we’ve done, but we have a different system here, a much more — dare I say it? — rational market, and the beneficiaries of that rational market are the ratepayers of B.C.

Larry Neufeld: I’m not trying to put words into the minister’s mouth. I am taking it as a yes that B.C. Hydro would not segregate or would not differentiate power coming across the Alberta border based on the method by which it’s generated. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, they haven’t produced the project yet, and we don’t have the intertie that would be required yet, so it remains a hypothetical question. What I’m saying is that while it’s not the path I would take, I respect the jurisdiction of the government of Alberta to produce firm electricity for Edmonton and other cities there.

David Williams: I think that we’ve covered that topic pretty well.

We’ll go on to another really interesting one, IPPs. As we all know, when the minister was sitting on this side and he was the opposition Energy critic, he was not in favour of IPPs. He thought they were too expensive and that they weren’t very cost-effective.

With that in mind, to the minister: your government has often been critical of the older private power model, including many of the run-of-the-river contracts, on the basis of costs and seasonal value. Yet B.C. Hydro continues to rely on large-volume, privately supplied electricity through long-term purchase agreements, including non-storage hydro and cogeneration.

British Columbians deserve clarity on how much of the system still depends on these projects and how much power they are actually adding and whether the government now sees them as part of the solution or a legacy problem.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m delighted that the member has been reading my old speeches in Hansard, because they were fantastic, I have to say — some of my best work. Many people say that being on the opposition side is not fun, but I disagree with that, and I think those speeches are evidence of how much I enjoyed the estimates process when I was in opposition.

I can’t say — I don’t believe — the ministers involved enjoyed it quite as much. But I find it…. I believe in the estimates process. I’m respectful of the questions that have been asked by members. I think it’s an important process. I thought it was important on the opposition side. I took it very seriously. And sometimes I was good, and sometimes I was just there.

[4:30 p.m.]

In any event, the facts are the facts. In the period that the B.C. Liberals were in power, and I don’t want to identify…. The debate for the soul of the B.C. Conservative Party that’s taking place now between former B.C. Liberals and others….

But when they were in power over those years, those 16 years, hydro rates went up 54 percent above the rate of inflation. During the period the NDP has been in office, they’ve gone down 12 percent against the rate of inflation. Part of the reason they went up 54 percent against the rate of inflation is that the government at the time pushed B.C. Hydro to enter into contracts that didn’t make sense for B.C. Hydro. They created a lot of freshet power, and they weren’t as efficient as they could’ve been.

People ask me questions sometimes about the TMX pipeline, whether we should pretend that it wasn’t built now. Regardless of my position 12 years ago, 13 years ago, they’re built now. They’re 25 percent of the hydro system. We use all kinds of projects, from wood waste to other IPPs.

We’ve done two calls for power for IPPs for renewable energy in the last short while, the first major calls for power since 2011. We can talk about the previous government in this position. It stopped doing it because the calls for power they did caused problems towards the end.

But we decided that was the best model to go forward, especially for intermittent renewable power. In my opinion, it’s a successful approach. The $74 price of the last call for power was competitive in the world sense. It was significantly below the previous call for power by the previous government some decade before. And very few things in life go down in cost, I think, over time, so that’s a reflection of the performance of that call for power.

So we have ten IPP projects that the present government approved in the last year. There’s another call for power whose results will be announced in May. We’re taking a position of support for those, with a dramatically more rigorous approach than was taken by the previous B.C. Liberal government.

I do not want to attack the member with that legacy, because, of course, he was not a member of that government. But I would say that most people looking at that question said that B.C. Hydro did not get the best value for the money. But those contracts exist, and where they’re practical…. Many of them were long-term contracts that are still going on, the original contract. Others need to be renewed, and we’re addressing those in a businesslike way, which is, I think, what everyone would expect us to do.

My position 13 years ago might have been right, but what my position was in 2013 isn’t the practical approach to dealing with these issues now. That 25 percent of power that we’re talking about B.C. Hydro receives from various IPP sources — from Atlantic Power in Williams Lake, to the wind power projects, the run-of-river projects, to Mamquam, to all the other projects. That’s just a practical approach. You don’t say that when projects are built, you can undo them because you might’ve disagreed with some of them 15 years ago.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

I’m glad to see that the minister has an open mind and is open to all kinds of power. And things do change over time. Unfortunately, we all get older too — sad part.

Anyways, my question is: can the minister provide the number of private run-of-river projects currently operating in British Columbia under B.C. Hydro purchase agreements and the amount of electricity they currently generate in the last fiscal year?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m happy to give the member a breakdown of all of the IPP contracts we have. I think it’s about 132. Not all of them are run-of-river projects. We’ll give him a breakdown of that.

Just to give him a sense of the value of the energy purchased from independent power producers last year, that’s $1.257 billion.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Were those the same figures as the previous fiscal year? Number of run-of-river projects, as well as the power generated.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I said we’d give him a detailed breakdown of both the IPPs and the numbers, and I’m happy to do that for ’25 and then 2024, if that works for him.

The value in terms of purchases was more. In the 2024 year, it was $1.381 billion.

David Williams: My question to the minister. I’ll skip over a few of the questions then, because they’ll kind of be redundant. Is the government concerned with the technology itself when it comes to run-of-river or the pricing of the older contracts?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Clearly, we’re like everybody else. We should get the best price for our owners, who are the people of B.C., and our ratepayers, who are the people of B.C. So price is a consideration. One of run-of-river’s challenges is that it produces the largest amount of electricity at a time when we have the largest amount of electricity. That’s just a fact of the matter.

When we renew contracts, there’s a new negotiation around those contracts. That work, if contracts are up, would be going on now, would be going on consistently as contracts expire and are in a position to be renewed.

It’s not a technological problem, but it’s a quality-of-the-energy problem that sometimes presents itself against the value for ratepayers and the value for our owners, who are the people of B.C. Obviously, and the member would agree with this, we should get the best deal possible for the people of B.C. There isn’t any other way to run a peanut stand.

David Williams: Thank you for the answer, and I do agree we should always be looking out for the ratepayers and trying to get the best deal possible for the ratepayers.

With that in mind, can the minister break down for the last fiscal year how much electricity B.C. Hydro received from private, non-storage hydro projects compared to wind, biomass, gas-fired thermal and cogeneration?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We were going to break down that information for the member, and we will. We’ll add those categories too.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister, and I look forward to getting that information.

We’ll move on here, then, to some cogeneration. The same issue applies for cogeneration, with B.C. Hydro’s public supply lists showing private biomass and cogeneration facilities still in operation, including Tolko in Armstrong, which is in my riding; McMahon cogeneration; and B.C. Hydro reached a 2025 deal to keep the Williams Lake Atlantic Power facility operating. It suggests that these facilities still matter for grid supply — obviously, for rural jobs and for mills that are adjacent to industrial properties.

My question is to the minister. Can the minister provide the number of cogeneration plants, such as Tolko in Armstrong or Atlantic Power in Williams Lake, that are currently operating in the province and supplying electricity under B.C. Hydro arrangements? How many cogenerations are there? Like, the mill ones.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I can almost do it from memory, but we’ll provide that. We just, in the answer to the question before last, said we’d get such a list, and we’re happy to do so.

Let me just say this about that though. I think there are still remarkable opportunities, and B.C. Hydro…. Certainly, my position as minister is that everything we can do to support the stability of the forest industry, we should do.

[4:40 p.m.]

We had 104 responses to our request for expressions of interest on firm power. Obviously, some of those included mills. Part of the real challenge for mills is just the challenge of fibre. It was, certainly, one of the challenges for Atlantic Power, which was a challenge of fibre, some of which they’ve managed to resolve. There was work by B.C. Hydro that I was very much supportive of, but also the challenge, for them, of getting fibre is a significant one, as it is for other mills in B.C.

I think B.C. Hydro getting firm power from the forest industry is a good thing in a general sense. I’m happy to give them the details, but you’re right. In lots of communities, it’s important. It’s essential to the economics of mills, from Howe Sound Pulp and Paper to others which are significant around the province. For example, two of them are on Domtar sites, in the existing thing. So we’re going to continue to do that.

Just to give the member…. Certainly, I’ll provide him with a list. That’s 17 biomass power plants that collectively produce approximately 2,700 gigawatt hours per year.

What we did just recently, on March 14, for the biomass program…. We deposited an OIC that provides consistent pricing from B.C. Hydro for three power plants which otherwise would have seen revenue reductions on April 1, 2026. That was a response to some of the very questions that the member is asking.

We believe that bioenergy can support economic development in regions. It’s not sufficient in some cases, but it provides options for some mills. We’ve been very open to that. In fact, we have mills that have applied under the request for expressions of interest on firm power. As I noted to the member sometime earlier in the afternoon, we’ll be providing more information about where we’re going on that in the coming month.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. My concern is that, as we know, there are a lot of cogeneration plants still in operation, and a lot of them haven’t had their contracts renewed. One of my big considerations is the fact that we know we need electricity. We know that they’re contributors to each of their communities, so it’s imperative that we keep these cogeneration plants going.

Same goes with the run-of-the-rivers as well. A lot of small communities depend on these small, independent producers. That’s my concern, and I do appreciate it if you could provide that information to me.

With that in mind, I’ll turn it over to my colleague here regarding the Columbia River treaty.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a handful of questions to my well-dressed friend on the other side, the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, about the Columbia River treaty.

I do appreciate there are staff members here that have been very gracious with their time in providing me with updates around this.

I know in Columbia River–Revelstoke and neighbouring ridings, it’s an issue that’s at the top of people’s minds with the Columbia River treaty, especially with our neighbour to the south and some unpredictability, at times, in the behaviour that the President has displayed, that shifts over to the nature of the agreement and what’s happening, specifically, with the Columbia River treaty.

I did receive a wonderful briefing from the staff not long ago as to the current status of the negotiations for the Columbia River treaty. The minister indicated to me that perhaps there were some developments since that briefing. So I’m just wondering if the minister could provide a very high-level overview as to any recent developments within the last 30 to 60 days as far as those negotiations are concerned, and maybe we can go from there.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No developments, but just the expectation, I suppose, of action from the U.S. government. Last year when we had this discussion — I think it was with his colleague from Kootenay-Rockies, and we’re thinking about him every day — we said that after the U.S. election, there had been an agreement-in-principle in July of 2020 and subsequent efforts to act on that.

[4:45 p.m.]

Some of the aspects of those agreements are in place and have been in place, but the broader agreement and renewal of the treaty is part of an agreement-in-principle, and now we’re moving towards a final treaty.

Typically, in the U.S. system…. It’s an unusual system, I think, in this respect, maybe in the world. In the case of the Biden administration, from January 2021, when they took office, they didn’t get someone really on and rediscussing the Columbia River treaty for 11 months. They were getting their people approved and everything else.

I think what we’re hearing from the United States is that their people are now in place. That doesn’t mean anything has happened, because nothing has happened. What it indicates is the American government may now, some 14 or 15 months after the election, into the Trump administration, be prepared. They haven’t indicated that yet to us, but I think we’re certainly preparing for that.

In a general sense, the U.S. administration, in its approach to international treaties, I think a fair person would say, has taken a different approach, certainly to other treaties within Canada. The Columbia River treaty is unique in that it requires a ten-year termination notice. But there are issues that we want to address.

Really, the development of the agreement-in-principle reflected the views of people in the member’s region, who worked very hard, and of our staff team. Kathy Eichenberger, who’s behind me, and Les MacLaren led that team. They’re really exceptional people — in Kathy’s case, living in the region and known in the region, which gave real force to our efforts.

Also, the involvement of First Nations, the Columbia Basin Trust, local communities, which were very involved…. I did a town hall last year. It was one of those Zoom town halls, and I was the star, I guess, or one of them, with Kathy and Les and everyone else. We had 700 people in the region, I think, come on that call. Ordinarily, I don’t think a provincial cabinet minister on a Wednesday night would draw that kind of crowd. But that doesn’t reflect me in any way. It reflects the real interest in the region.

So we are conscious that we carry with us the hopes and the aspirations of the region and the changes that were brought in place with the agreement-in-principle and in the discussions with the U.S. government. There’s no news, but I would say that we’re getting to the time when we’re preparing for such news or for a response from the new American administration.

I don’t have any knowledge as to what that response might be in comparison to the agreement-in-principle we received at the time of the Biden administration. I would say that the negotiations that we have had on this file have taken a long time. They passed through the Obama administration; the first Trump administration, where we made progress; the Biden administration; and now a second Trump administration.

We don’t think the best or the worst of circumstances, but we have to be prepared. It would be my hope, and the member may wish to join me at some of this in the region in the summer…. Certainly, my colleague from Nelson-Creston is a remarkable advocate on this question, as is my colleague from Kootenay, from Castlegar-Trail.

My position is that we need to be as united as possible in addressing these negotiations and advancing the interests, obviously, of Canada; of British Columbia — British Columbia has a very significant role in these negotiations; of First Nations, yes; of local communities; and, of course, of the Kootenays.

I recently had a meeting with about 22 recent high school graduates who had worked on a project on the Columbia River treaty. They expressed to me how important it was to them. Part of that, to me, and I consider it extremely important, are the obligations on the government.

I would hope — that’s why we’ve wanted to really reach out to the critic as well — that British Columbia, on this question, given the work going on in the community, would have a common front. My pledge is to continue to keep the member informed and involved in that process as we go forward. So nothing yet, but the anticipation of something.

[4:50 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I really appreciate that from the minister. Part of the reason I enjoy this critic portfolio is because it is one that’s non-partisan, and it’s one that brings all residents together locally in the Kootenays as well as provincewide and, I think, all Canadians as well. So I do appreciate the minister offering to keep me in the loop, and I would greatly appreciate an invitation to any more engagement sessions that are taking place throughout the summer.

Some of these questions…. I think I know what the answer is. It would be good to get some of the answers onto the record. I’ve really appreciated learning about this file. It’s complicated, but it’s also very interesting at the same time, and there are lots of moving parts. It’s quite an important file, I think, for our province and for our country.

Could the minister just confirm that the interim arrangements that are currently in place, including the downstream-benefit arrangements through to 2024, remain fully operative and have not been modified, suspended or challenged in any way since the pause began when the administration changed in March 2025, please?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, it’s a legal agreement based on the exchange of notes between the countries that’s in place until 2044.

Scott McInnis: Can the minister confirm the actual final Canadian entitlement revenue figure for the fiscal year that just ended and maybe provide a revenue forecast model for the current fiscal year, please?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to maybe go back to the last two fiscal years, if that’s all right for the member, and then talk about our forecast for this year: ’24-25, $297 million; ’25-26, $275 million; this year, ’26-27, $271 million. That includes the entitlement, and it also includes moneys for flood risk management.

Scott McInnis: If I understood that correctly, and thank you to the minister, a slight reduction for the forecasted revenue for the upcoming fiscal year of a $4 million reduction. Could the minister just provide a brief explanation as to why there is that reduction?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It was always meant to decline, but in the arrangement we made, we arranged for a lower Canadian entitlement in the next ten years and a higher in the subsequent ten years. So if you think of 2024 to 2034, roughly, and 2034 to 2044…. That was part of a complex negotiation, but it reflects what was expected — a declining value of the entitlement.

Also, when we took the money, I think our negotiators had the foresight to look at the long-term view of the community and of the value of the entitlement and look to back-end-load the value of the entitlement for the 2034-2044 period, which maybe in terms of the government in power right now might not be the normal approach. But it made the most sense and got us the maximum we could get out of the entitlement, which is a good approach.

[4:55 p.m.]

Obviously, Powerex is very involved in that as well as our negotiators. And I think, on balance, given that this was the expectation, it’s a good deal and a good approach for everyone involved.

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

Last year the minister cited an additional $37 million in higher revenues expected over the next three years. I’m just hoping the minister could provide a year-by-year breakdown of that projection as well as confirm if those figures remain the same, given the circumstances have changed somewhat since the pause.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The Canadian entitlement, as noted, goes through to 2044. The flood risk management moneys are for three years. This is of massive and important value to the United States of America. The payments are as follows: $35 million in ’24-25, $53.5 million in ’25-26, $54 million in ’26-27.

Understanding that that agreement — this does put structure to negotiations as well — expires on July 31, 2027, so it gives structure to what we’re doing, we ideally want a broader agreement. We do have to renew this. That will be the subject of the negotiation. But this provides structure to them because this agreement, unlike the other which expires in 2044, expires on July 31, 2027.

Scott McInnis: Thanks to the minister for that breakdown.

The drop in entitlement from 1,140 megawatts to approximately 660 megawatts — has that now taken effect, and if so, what is the current delivered entitlement amount? What was the revenue impact in the most recent fiscal year, please?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The Canadian entitlement was always anticipated to decline over time as other power generation is being added to the Pacific Northwest grid and the U.S. demand for electricity increases. The relative contribution of treaty power benefits to the United States has also been decreasing. That’s the reason why.

The numbers…. I’m going to take the member back one further year this time, because the big drop in numbers occurred after the 2022-23 to ’23-24 years, so 448 to 262 to 221 to 217. It’s not continuing to drop, but the big drop that the member is referring to in his question occurred between ’23-24 and then the beginning of the ’24-25 fiscal year.

Scott McInnis: I understand that this is potentially a little bit of a hypothetical question, and I understand if the minister may not be able to answer this. I fully understand that. I’m just wondering, talking about flood control payments: has the ministry been able to quantify B.C.’s financial exposure if the U.S. were to invoke called-upon flood control operations, which have never been used, and if so, what is the liability estimate for that?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Interestingly, I’d say to the hon. member, there’s no defined meaning for what “called upon” signifies. It’s an ambiguity in the process.

But that said, what isn’t ambiguous is that B.C. Hydro would be compensated for power loss.

Scott McInnis: If the interim agreements were to lapse before a final treaty is signed with the United States, what is the legal status of flood control obligations on both sides, and what contingency does the ministry have in place for that possibility?

Hon. Adrian Dix: If the flood risk management agreement is not extended, the treaty default is called upon — flood control. This is not a pre-planned regime but rather an ad hoc operation where the U.S. would have to call upon Canada for assistance to mitigate anticipated damaging floods. In this scenario, the United States would have to plan to first drain their own reservoirs.

When we talk about the negotiations, this is an important U.S. consideration in the negotiations, and it’s important to understand the value of that to British Columbia. We have a three-year agreement. We would default — because the agreement continues; the Columbia River treaty continues — to this “called upon” notion, which is, I would suggest, not a desirable outcome for the United States.

It’s always better to negotiate and to have these things in place in an understood and understandable way. But again, that part is for the discussions to come. What we have on that question is a number of years. Of course, we’re hopeful to arrive at an agreement.

I think it’s important to note that the Columbia River treaty has significant value to Canada and to the region and potential benefits from the agreement-in-principle but also to the United States of America.

So I disagree. Sometimes these issues get called upon in the political debate. “We need your water.” I mean, the water flows in the Columbia River into the United States. They get it all. Once it goes there, it’s theirs — or the people in the United States.

But there are real advantages to agreement on the U.S. side and the Canadian side, which means there’s the possibility of a beneficial agreement on both sides. That’s obviously our hope and goal.

Scott McInnis: I just wanted to ask a couple of quick questions, just clarifying questions about Indigenous nations and the revenue shares with that.

There are three nations which receive entitlement revenues. The Ktunaxa, the Secwépemc and the Syilx Okanagan Nations receive a 5 percent entitlement revenue from the agreement. Could the minister confirm the dollar amount paid to each of the three nations that I mentioned under the 5 percent revenue share for the most recent fiscal year, please?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member is right. It’s 5 percent each of the entitlement.

If you look at the numbers in the entitlement, there’s a way of finding the number broadly. But you’ll see in the reduction of the entitlement that 5 percent of less is less. So it went from roughly $17 million to $12 million in that period.

We’re looking…. We’re at a point of renewal, because that was an interim agreement. It’s my expectation that that renewal will occur, but that’s where we are.

When you get 5 percent of something and it reduces, it has an impact and would have an impact on those nations in all cases. But it’s still the 5 percent of the entitlement. So for each, it would be $17 million to $12 million.

Scott McInnis: That answers the first half of my next question.

I’m assuming the answer is yes, but due to the reduction, have the nations been formally advised of a projected revenue impact over the 20-year term, and what was their feedback to that announcement?

Can I actually add a footnote just for the sake of time? If I could ask the minister, if it’s okay, I do have a set of other questions. We’re running out of time. If I may submit them to the ministry for a written response.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, always. What I would hope on the file is the member…. If he has any questions at any time, we’ll make staff available to him.

One of the unique things about these negotiations…. There were some new negotiations that took place up to and including December of 2024, and First Nations have been full participants, really, as observers anyway. They’re in the room for the negotiations. So not only do they know the impact but they were part of those decisions in a kind of seamless and fundamental way, which is really impressive, and they played a really positive role.

I think Kathy would strongly agree with this in that. The working relationship amongst the group is really strong. So not only do they know; they were part of the decisions.

Scott McInnis: I’m just going to take about 15 seconds here, and this will be my last question before I hand it off to my friend from Peace River South here. I just want to make sure I get….

Again, I’ve sort of alluded to this in some of my previous questions, but it’s something that I’m hoping I can get somewhat of an answer from, from the minister, not because he doesn’t want to answer it. But I get it. There is an element of the unknown to this.

I’m just wondering if there is, again, a formal sort of risk assessment of scenarios in which the U.S. does not return to the table, including a reversion to the unmodified 1964 treaty. If so, will the minister be able to provide us with some of that information?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We did risk assessments on, really, all the scenarios. The scenario in which they provide notice, the ten-year notice to end the Columbia River treaty; where they proceed but don’t agree to the AIP, so walk away from the table, in which case the treaty continues on without the AIP and with the agreements, understanding that some of those agreements…. The three-year agreement ends on July 31, 2027. So we model all of the different options.

[5:10 p.m.]

Obviously, and the member will understand this, our responses in these negotiations with the most powerful country in the world are confidential. But all of those options have been modelled in how we respond to them. There are options in continuation with the AIP. All of the options were modelled, because until the United States returns to the table, the Columbia River treaty with Canada and British Columbia, we won’t know what their position is. So we’ve modelled all of the different options. Yes to the AIP. No to the AIP. Yes to treaty. No to….

What happens if they don’t continue with the flood mitigation? What happens if they do want to do that? All of those options have been modelled.

Larry Neufeld: On March 2, during the B.C. Utility Commission review of the B.C. Hydro latest long-term plan to understand that…. B.C. Hydro acknowledged that demand is rising faster than previously expected, requiring a further 2,700 gigawatt hours of electricity per year by 2030. My question is: will the minister ease restriction on the use of natural gas for space heating in order to alleviate that increase in demand?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member refers to this great news for British Columbia, which is that because of the success of major projects in B.C., because of the success on projects such as mining and, to a degree, LNG and others, B.C. Hydro will be revising upwards its plan over a period of years in terms of its integrated resources plan. This is great news.

And rather than going back through old things, which had assessments — like you assess how likely you think Ksi Lisims is to happen and so on and so forth — we are updating that. We’ll present that shortly to the BCUC.

As I noted, too, and what the reference load forecast, and just to say the primary drivers of that…. It’s a lot of upstream. It’s mining. It’s upstream liquefied natural gas terminal projects. It’s the AI-related load that we debated in the last session — 400 megawatts over two years. It’s incremental power, for example, and other such load. So we are reassessing that.

At the same time, as I discussed just briefly with the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap, we’ve done a request for expressions of interest last year for firm power and received 104 responses to that.

That call for firm power extended out the types of power we might see a response for. We still have the renewable standard, the clean energy standard. But, extended out, it includes a wide variety of things from biomass, as we discussed; to geothermal; to hydro; to offshore wind, which is less, I suppose, intermittent than onshore wind; to battery; to carbon capture projects; etc.

So we’ve done the preparation. We’ve done the work, and we’ll be coming out with that soon to match this change in our load over the next decade. That preparation has been done. So we’re seeing, obviously, the actions on intermittent power that we’ve seen not once but twice, but as well, we are in a position to respond on the very issue the member raises.

We’ll share that response and clearly brief the member when it’s received. That will be coincident or around the same time as the new load forecast goes as part of the IRP process of the BCUC.

We thought it was reasonable just to take a step back from that and make it more accurate. The member can debate what model we would use to respond to that. But we have prepared for that and now done a year of work in preparation for that on firm load as well as the continuing work on intermittent load.

With that, I move that the committee rise. I’m not sure what the vote’s going to be on this, so we’re going to have to see. We’re going to have to test the House.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is now adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.

Contents