Thank you for that answer, Minister. Of course, Bill 14…. It would lead back in through there. I should have…. I guess I answered my own question on that one. With respect to power generation under section 2 of the bill, the backgrounder that the government released claimed a 7,000-megawatt industrial backlog. Would that mean that the minister is acknowledging that B.C. lacks the generation capacity to serve that demand?

70 words

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

I’m not quite sure I heard an answer to my question, but I’m also willing to concede my question could be rephrased. Help us understand, as stewards of taxpayer dollars and as people who want to ensure that there is full confidence in permitting processes, in review processes for any and all projects, whether we support those projects or don’t support those projects. I am personally a very big believer that process connotes legitimacy when it comes to projects. Again, whether we lean towards supporting a project or don’t, as a government, as an opposition, it’s crucially important that the public, that stakeholders, that nations can have confidence in the process that results in a project approval or not approval. This is where I’m a little bit hung up. What I think I am…. Again, I’m a big supporter of mining. I’m the son of a mining engineer. Mining put me in diapers as a child. I’m very big on mining. With that said, I also recognize that the perception of an imperfect, flawed process, the perception of prejudice in a process can fundamentally undermine the ability of that project to move forward with the consent of stakeholders, of nations and of other levels of government, etc. Again, the perspective that I think I heard articulated in some of the conversations that I had with First Nations and I have heard with other stakeholders is that government will be committing and investing taxpayer or ratepayer dollars to build a transmission line to service projects. That makes government pregnant. Once Hydro, or government through Hydro, has built a project, what does that do to the incentive structure or the ability of government to review projects without their review being affected by the fact that they have pre-committed capital and pre-committed the construction of the transmission line? Again, what I think we heard some concern around at the First Nations Leadership Gathering was that the Premier appeared to be presenting as a fait accompli the idea that the transmission line was a package with the projects that it would power. From a commercial perspective, that makes sense. You need power. But from a regulatory perspective, from a permitting perspective, from a review perspective…. We did spend a considerable amount of time this spring, as we dealt with Bill 14 in particular, just wanting to understand process integrity. We raised concerns about how projects got designated. Obviously, there are worlds in which that legislation or the idea of that legislation could be expanded. Perhaps it could even include natural gas. Help us understand or help stakeholders and nations understand how government as a whole will balance the fact that it is effectively investing or pre-investing in enabling projects with the need to review those current and future projects in a way that is free from any prejudice or idea of prejudice, in that government is already pre-committing to this investment. Help me understand that, because that is a question I heard a lot of from stakeholders and Indigenous leaders last week.

508 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

11/17/2025

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

I’m not sure, in terms of designation, what the member is talking about. We passed a bill, Bill 14, in the spring session of the Legislature, that put renewable energy projects under the B.C. Energy Regulator. As we, I think, demonstrated at committee stage with members of the opposition, it meant that this was similar to what had gone on with the oil and gas industry in the late 1990s and was continued on in subsequent periods, which is to provide a single-window regulation for multiple pieces of legislation that a project would deal with. This was for renewable energy projects exclusively — all the projects, by the way, that Bill 14 applies to, to date. I’m expecting in the future to have a portion of Indigenous ownership, as a matter of interest. So those are projects under Bill 14. In February of 2024, the Premier named, I think, a list of 18 projects in the initial response to Mr. Trump. You can see, if you look at all those projects, how they’ve advanced over time. Many are private sector projects, but they include the North Coast transmission line, which you can see is making progress. But the rules apply. The B.C. Energy Regulator will be responsible for the North Coast transmission line project, but all the acts and approvals and permitting apply to that, as has happened before, although it’s a single-window regulation in that case. There isn’t an environmental assessment of that project. It’s going through and will have its appropriate certificate to go forward. But essentially, the North Coast transmission line, which we’re talking about here, is that project. What people in the mining industry have said to me is that they want to proceed with projects. They need energy, and they need electricity. So we’re delivering to that region energy via clean electricity, and I think that’s good news for everybody. They will, in many cases…. In the northwest, there’s a lot of work being done with the Tāłtān. This is in the area of my colleague the Minister of Mines, but I’ll say this. They are exceptional projects. They’re involving their own First Nations consultation, which is very exciting, and involving outstanding companies like Teck and Newmont and others. The North Coast transmission line. This legislation, in this section…. There’s a second section, which we’ll get into in a bit. The member talked about AI. I think he was talking about the second section. But in this section, it is dealing with a partnership between First Nations along the line and B.C. Hydro to build the line, and I think that’s good news for everybody.

440 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

11/17/2025

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

Well, we’re working with First Nations, and I just answered that question at length, so the member can look at that in the record. Also, the BCER works on those questions as well. What we’ve done — the member will recall the Bill 14 debate — is that various statutes that apply to renewable energy projects such as this one are under the auspices of the BCER. So those are requirements under a number of acts, including the Wildlife Act, and that will be the responsibility of the BCER. The appropriate permits will be required. Of course, there is less impact of a twinned line than there is of a new line. That would be, clearly, the case. Nonetheless, the BCER oversees the permitting of such projects and the application of those laws.

133 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

11/17/2025

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

Well, we’re in section 1, and what section 1 does is, and it’s the section relating to the North Coast transmission line project, essentially allow this to be a partnership or joint venture between B.C. Hydro and First Nations. The member will recall that we had another debate in this place around Bill 14 that addressed regulatory issues in the spring, and the Legislature passed Bill 14. That dealt with those questions and addressed, principally, renewable energy projects in B.C. That was the debate where that happened. This is a debate about NCTL and, specifically in this section, about the partnership with First Nations along the route.

107 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

11/17/2025

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

First of all, the purpose of the bill is to allow First Nations participation, which isn’t currently allowed in this project, a partnership between B.C. Hydro and First Nations. We have that participation and sharing on a lot of clean power projects right now, but those are essentially IPPs. Hydro’s relationship is a contract to the IPPs. So that’s what that allows. We’ve been working since the summer of 2023 on a partnership with First Nations along the line. So far, that had been focused on phase 1, which is roughly Prince George to Fraser Lake, phase 2 from Fraser Lake to Terrace. Then presumably, we’ll go up, and we’ll be starting the work on phase 3. We don’t have all the agreements in place yet, but I think this option of, if you will, sharing the upside together makes a lot of sense in terms of getting projects built and done on time and done quickly and involving directly First Nations in the benefits of projects. This is something that not just the government is doing but, you’ll note, in terms of its system, Enbridge is doing as well — for example, in sharing equity with First Nations, with the support, in that case, of the federal government. I think it’s a good model, going forward, that assists with things. It doesn’t address all of the issues. In the case of the North Coast transmission line, it’s the B.C. Energy Regulator that will have responsibility for the application of provincial law along the line and the responsibility of B.C. Hydro to ensure that the line is built. We ensured that was the case in the passing of Bill 14 earlier in the year. B.C. Hydro will have its obligations in building the line, and the joint venture department will have obligations, including the First Nations. With respect to the Ksi Lisims project, which obviously is not built, I’ll just briefly say the Ksi Lisims project went through a lengthy environmental assessment. There was significant participation in the project. There was a recommendation to approve the project by the environmental assessment office. Significant consultation was held. I think a number of nations supported the projects — others did not — in that discussion. Like any other private sector proponent, Ksi Lisims, led by the Nisg̱a’a Nation, will have to work on issues around concerns that communities have with their project. That said, it’s clearly a strong project that received the support of the federal government, which views it as a major national project in Canada. Ksi Lisims will work to address all of the issues and the numerous conditions of the environmental assessment certificate that were put forward. They’ll have the responsibility of satisfying that, and I expect they will. Like any other proponent, they’ll be working with the communities to see that that happens.

475 words

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

I rise today to speak to Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act. I want to start off by just quoting some stories from our local newspaper in Abbotsford. It says: “Housing Crisis in the Fraser Valley.” “As the rising housing market continues to inflate and the wages stay stagnant, young people find it increasingly difficult to improve their living conditions. “What income levels can afford a $1 million mortgage? How can someone save for a down payment on a $1 million house while struggling to pay such high rent? Is owning a home in the Fraser Valley an attainable goal?” These are questions that many young people in British Columbia are asking as they plan for their future. Just a story to start off with. “Currently my fiancé and I are looking to move into a detached home that aligns with our goals as a couple. We purchased a condo in 2017, and since then it has soared in value, $245,000 to approximately $650,000. Despite this jump in overall equity to put towards a detached home, we’re finding that even most townhouses are beyond our reach. “My fiancé is an industrial electrician, and I’m a full-time support worker. We both have very well-paying jobs, but despite our net income, the Fraser Valley is not affordable. Because of the high cost of housing, we are considering relocating to another province. “It saddens me that we are being pushed out of our home province, where all of our friends and family are. We want to provide for our future family with the same childhood that we had: a nice backyard with a trampoline, possibly a blow-up pool for the summer and a garden where we can grow vegetables and fruits. Is this realistic for us if we remain in the Fraser Valley?” The answer is no, they don’t think so. Another story. “When looking at a single person with a good career, we can see some barriers when it comes to owning a home or upgrading their existing one. Ashlee purchased a two-bedroom apartment in Abbotsford in 2010 for $125,000. She was only 21 years old, but the cost of the apartment was low, which also meant the down payment was an attainable sum to manage, about $7,000. She was also able to co-sign the mortgage loan with her father, a privilege that not all are afforded. She worked eight long years in retail to fulfil the mortgage payments, and she retained roommates to offset monthly costs. “Twelve years later her residence is currently valued at around $420,000, an increase of just over 236 percent. Even with this shocking jump of $295,000 worth of equity, it’s still insufficient for her quest to upgrade to a detached house or even a townhouse in the Fraser Valley with a soon-to-be career as a social worker. The real estate market she was once able to buy into as a single person is now beyond her reach should she choose to sell her apartment.” Bill 25. While I acknowledge its intent in legislation — namely, to increase housing supply and address our province’s affordability crisis — I must express some serious reservations about the scope, the approach and the potential unintended consequences of what this bill proposes. This bill is Bill 44 on steroids. At its core, Bill 25 represents a significant shift in how land use planning and housing decisions will be made in British Columbia. The bill amends the Local Government Act, it amends the Vancouver Charter, and it amends the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, all under the stated goal of removing barriers to small-scale, multi-unit housing. We all share the objective of seeing more houses being built, but the question before us is how that housing gets built. At what cost to local communities and the cost of additional infrastructure? Where is the democratic accountability? This bill is not a simple zoning update. It is a profound centralization of power, command and control — one that removes decision-making authority from locally elected councils and communities and transfers it directly to the provincial cabinet and the Minister of Housing. Municipalities like Abbotsford are committed to working with the province. The key word is “with” — in partnership, in collaboration, in co-governance. This is what is posted on the Abbotsford city website: “At its annual convention in Victoria, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, UBCM, got behind Abbotsford’s push to have the province of B.C. provide funding to cities to help cover rising infrastructure costs resulting from the increased residential density permitted by provincial housing legislation. “The successful adoption of the infrastructure funding UBCM executive resolution is proof that this is an issue felt by municipalities across the province and that action needs to be taken to ensure that communities are ready to meet the rising demand for city services, since more people living close together means more people using the same water, the same sewer, the same roads and the same infrastructure. “This resolution proposes that the province invest in a long-term, predictable, allocation-based funding program to support local government infrastructure servicing needs and stimulate growth of the provincial economy, as well as invest in provincial infrastructure investments and provincial permitting processes required to support housing-related population growth. “We are encouraged by the support this resolution received and look forward to seeing this proposal move forward so municipalities are relieved of undue financial pressure as a consequence of the province’s mandated housing targets.” Let me move on to the first part of the bill, the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter amendments. Under these changes, every municipality with more than 5,000 residents and located within an urban containment boundary will be required to adopt zoning bylaws by June 30, 2026, that permit small-scale multi-unit housing — such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes — on what were previously single-family lots. At first glance, that sounds reasonable, but the bill goes further. It prevents — I want to repeat: it prevents — municipalities, locally elected governments, from setting their own standards for the size, the form or the density of these new housing units. This will completely alter existing neighbourhoods. The city of Abbotsford, like other municipalities, needs to alter their official community plan. It gives cabinet, not local councils, the authority to determine what housing forms must be permitted, where and at what scale. In other words, local zoning autonomy, the very foundation of community planning, is being overridden by executive regulation. And should a municipality fail to comply with the prescribed deadline, the minister, with cabinet’s approval, is empowered to unilaterally enact or amend the city’s bylaw to bring it in line with provincial directives. Well, let me ask the question: where is the working with? Where is the partnership? Where is the collaboration? Where is the co-governance? Instead we get command and control. This is an extraordinary shift in power, one that effectively sidelines local government and removes the voice of the people from decisions about the shape and density of their neighbourhoods. I want to read another article that came out of Abbotsford. It’s called “Disagreements Over Provincial Housing Mandates.” “In 2023, the province issued mandatory housing targets for Abbotsford under the Housing Supply Act. In response, the city adopted bylaws allowing for increased residential density to meet the provincial requirements. However, the city has publicly stated that meeting these ambitious targets places significant financial strain on its infrastructure, such as water and roads.” The city of Abbotsford desires strongly to work with this government. The question is: is this government willing to work with the city of Abbotsford in a meaningful way? Equally concerning is the section of the bill dealing with off-street parking requirements. As of June 30, 2024, municipalities will no longer be able to require off-street parking. In other words, no garages, no driveways are required, no designated spaces for parking for small multi-unit homes that the province now mandates must be permitted as single-family lots. This means that a developer can build a fourplex with zero parking spaces, even in communities where transit options are limited or nonexistent, where amenities are not in walking distance. For families, for seniors, for tradespeople, for people with mobility challenges, this is not a theoretical inconvenience. It’s a very real, very practical problem. The inevitable result will be congestion, spillover parking where it shouldn’t be, access issues for emergency vehicles and conflict in communities that are already struggling to manage rapid growth. At the last UBCM in September, many city leaders argued that housing targets and related infrastructure needs are beyond their ability to control. This isn’t about opposing density. It’s actually about smart planning, which locally elected officials are best to decide. Density must be matched with infrastructure, with transit, with parking, with water and sewer capacity and with respect for the local context of each community. This bill does not provide that balance. It imposes a one-size-fits-all solution from Victoria, regardless of whether it fits in a mountain town, a rural community or a wildfire interface zone. This approach risks creating exactly the kind of haphazard, ill-considered growth that communities have worked so hard to avoid. Furthermore, the bill allows municipalities to rezone land to comply with provincial housing mandates, even when doing so contradicts their own official community plan. These plans are well-thought-out plans, years in the making. This clause in section 11 explicitly states that in 2027, local governments can ignore community-consulted OCPs and long-range planning for local needs and restrictions when rezoning to meet provincial requirements. This is not only the province overriding a local community. It is now encouraging municipalities to disregard the very planning documents that were developed through years of public consultation with their own communities. What message does this send to residents who have invested their time and trust in community planning processes? These are the taxpayers that we in this House serve. These are the same taxpayers that locally elected mayors and councils serve. British Columbians deserve a say in the future of their neighbourhoods. They deserve to know that when they participate in public hearings and when they engage in OCP reviews, their voices matter. This bill undermines that principle, and I would say shame on the government for this. Turning briefly to short-term rental accommodations amendments, Bill 25 also makes several changes to extend regulatory powers to modern treaty First Nations. Indigenous communities should have the tools to manage short-term rentals within their territories. However, this bill creates potential for overlapping jurisdictions and enforcement confusion, not clarity. It allows for coordination agreements that can apply different rules to different geographical areas, even with the same treaty lands. Without a clear framework and consistent enforcement standards, this could lead to uncertainty for both property owners and platforms alike. Additionally, the bill tightens the review process for registration decisions, limiting the grounds for appeal and centralizing decision-making authority with the government provincial registrar. While administrative efficiency is important, due process and fairness must not be sacrificed in the name of speed. I want to emphasize again that we all agree that British Columbia needs more housing. Our mayors and councils agree. They only want to work with this government. No one disputes that affordability and supply are pressing issues, but the way this government is going about it raises legitimate concerns about our local democracy, accountability and practicality. I read this in the newspaper just the other day too. It says: “Numerous households across the Fraser Valley were waiting for affordable housing last spring, four years after this government promised to solve B.C.’s housing crisis.” How much longer will they need to wait? Bill 25 assumes that Victoria knows best — similar to Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15 — and that provincial bureaucrats, not local councils, are best equipped to decide how every neighbourhood should grow. It assumes that parking, it assumes that infrastructure, it assumes that livability concerns are secondary to rapid densification, and it assumes that a uniform template for small-scale housing can work equally well in Surrey, in Salmon Arm, in Smithers, in Abbotsford and even in Spuzzum. That assumption is absolutely wrong. We cannot plan our way out of a housing crisis by dismantling local governance, we cannot solve affordability by ignoring infrastructure realities, and we cannot build public trust by imposing top-down mandates that silence community voices. A truly effective housing strategy requires partnership, collaboration, a co-governance relationship between the province and municipalities, First Nations and local residents. It requires flexibility, consultation and respect for local knowledge. Unfortunately, Bill 25 falls short on all three accounts. While the goal of increasing housing supply is one that we all support, this legislation, as it stands today, concentrates far too much power in the hands of the provincial government. It undermines local autonomy and disregards the everyday realities of families and communities across British Columbia. Let me try to be positive and offer some constructive solutions to Bill 25, a path forward rooted in partnership, practicality and respect. One, table Bill 25 and replace compulsion with consultation. Engage genuinely with UBCM, local governments, the private sector and citizens. Two, address real barriers — land, labour and infrastructure, not ideology. Without serviced land and skilled workforce, mandates are meaningless. Three, adopt place-based policy. What works in Burnaby may not work in Abbotsford. Respect local context. Respect local geography. Respect local economies. Four, build true fiscal partnerships. Provide predictable infrastructure funding. End the grant lottery, where communities compete for short-term photo ops. Municipalities need stable revenues to plan long-term growth. Five, reform the regulatory framework. The B.C. chamber’s data shows projects’ costs can fall by 20 percent with open procurement and reduced red tape. We can apply those savings to actual housing supply. Finally, six, restore local democracy. Reinstate public hearings, empower local councils and trust citizens. Democracy takes time, but trust takes longer. Without trust, no policy will ever succeed. I urge this government to reconsider Bill 25 as it is — to work with local governments, not over them, which is not too much to ask for; and to pair density with infrastructure. A building without services is just a shed. Buildings need power, water and sewer are costs that municipalities will need to bear on their own. Reconsider to ensure that our collective efforts to solve the housing crisis strengthen, not weaken, the fabric of our communities. This side of the House looks forward to committee stage to address further questions and debate on these serious issues and concerns. Bill 5 has far too many unintended consequences.

2436 words

Peter Milobar

BC Liberals

10/27/2025

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

I rise to speak to Bill 31, also known as the “Oops, we just realized we don’t have enough electricity in B.C., so we have to pick who gets to have it” bill. I say that because this seems to be a troubling pattern with this government over this fall session, in the legislation we’ve seen brought forward. In this case, with Bill 31, it seems to be a mad scramble to once again acknowledge what they’ve been warned about for years — failed policies and inaction leading to a constriction of electrical supply. We’ve seen that in just about all the legislation we have here. Even the private member’s bill today around professional reliance is trying to correct George Heyman’s legislation from 2018. This really does feel like a session where the government is saying: “Oops, we were warned about all this stuff — child care, other things — that has been failing. I guess we should start trying to scramble and bring in legislation to try to correct all the things that we thought we were doing well. We ignored what everyone was saying when it was first introduced. We’ve ignored what was being said about electrical supply over the last few years, so we’d better hurry up and bring in Bill 31 around that.” You think of the constraints we have around electrical supply in this province. Especially if you look at EV mandates and things of that nature and their draw on our overall grid, it’s no wonder that the government is now changing its tune on things like hydrogen generation within this province. Cryptocurrency. The government is not wrong on that. It consumes a huge amount of power for very few jobs on cryptocurrency mining, so I can understand that perspective on it. The bigger concern I have is around other areas that this bill is trying to constrain while picking winners and losers, with no real, definable decision-making matrix attached to this from government. When I reference things like hydrogen…. Why that’s important is because it wasn’t that long ago, in fact, before the last election, where the Premier was wrapping himself in a hydrogen project that was going to happen up in Prince George and what that would mean for the B.C. economy and how massive that investment would be. And you know what killed it? Access to power and the cost of access to power. But that didn’t stop the government ahead of the election from touting this as this great megaproject hydrogen project. And why? It’s important to note that the government is saying, “Well, we don’t want to allow hydrogen production that will be sold offshore to be done in British Columbia,” with Bill 31. They have no problem for an environmental footprint of scaling down coal consumption around the world to enable LNG expansion in this province if it uses electric drives. But that LNG production is not for domestic consumption; it’s for international consumption. Once again, the government, with Bill 31, is picking and choosing what type of energy export we’re going to have on a whim. They keep changing their minds. One second hydrogen is our investment of the future. The next second Bill 31 comes in, and it’s no longer relevant. We don’t need it. One second we’re constrained on power. The next second we’re not. This government took office, and they were going to stop Site C, at least slow it down and try to review it, out of an agreement with the Greens, slow-walk it. Delayed it and delayed it and added huge cost to it. Their energy policy keeps shifting. It shifts to whatever the political winds are saying. This isn’t the government chasing what their own internal caucus and their own supporters are directing them to do. They’re chasing public opinion polls. That’s what they’re doing. Look how quick they changed their tune on LNG and how future expansion may or may not actually need to be electric drive anymore. Look at what they’re saying about dredging the Burrard Inlet so that TMX could load up the tanker bigger. TMX, the project they were going to use every tool in the toolbox on. The Energy Minister actually lost an election, where he was supposed to become the Premier, on his changing stance on TMX, which he’s now back to fully supporting again. That’s the energy direction that this government keeps coming up with, and Bill 31 is a shining example of that. It will enable the government, yes, to have some more capacity into the system, but they will be able to pick and choose who that goes to. What we’re not hearing from this government is an overall provincial strategy with Bill 31 around energy in general in B.C. It’s all piecemeal — Bill 14, Bill 31 — all about centralizing power in the Premier’s office to pick winners and losers. Energy in B.C. is more than just hydroelectric, and I know the Energy Minister knows this. It’s wind, it’s solar, and it’s natural gas. It’s about energy consumption. Why I bring that up is I don’t see the government moving to restrict municipalities from sticking their foot into the whole energy mix within B.C. You have a city like Vancouver that decides to ban natural gas, that disrupts the overall planning for B.C. Hydro on energy in this province. Now, I’m not saying that we’re not going to eventually, over time, phase away from natural gas, especially in urbanized centres. That totally makes sense. But it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t jeopardize industrial growth in other areas of this province, where it doesn’t leapfrog transmission and generation of power by B.C. Hydro and other energy companies on where that energy is going to go because one municipality here or one municipality there, on a whim of a mayor and a council, decides they’re going to ban natural gas and all the energy that comes with that. That’s what then precipitates things like a Bill 31 coming forward. You do have to have…. When there was the cold snap — was it two years ago now? — in Vancouver, two-thirds of the energy consumed during that cold snap was natural gas, not electricity. They’re not ready for a cold snap and to be solely electric in the Lower Mainland. They just simply aren’t. How does Hydro create that capacity when you’ve got capacity needs in the northwest for large, industrial-scale projects that will employ thousands of British Columbians, working hard and paying taxes into our overall economy? How do you grow the economy with Bill 31 if you as a government are not prepared to step in and tell municipalities that they actually don’t have the ability — nor should they have the ability, more importantly — to actually impact the overall power system, the energy needs of British Columbia? What that does is it forces us to start buying electricity from other jurisdictions, from the U.S., from Alberta, from coal-fired jurisdictions. On the one hand, we can pat ourselves on the back that we’re not consuming as much natural gas. On the other hand, we’re firing up coal-fired plants and natural gas plants to import electricity into B.C. Bill 31 is a shining example of the government under crisis management situations with our energy policy over the last eight years, because they have changed their position multiple times. I understand what the minister is driving at with Bill 31, but I also understand the multiple times over the last eight years, as some of us have been here, where this government has completely changed, a 180-degree change on energy policy. When we get to committee stage on Bill 31, we’re going to have a lot of questions, just as we did on Bill 14. Once again, there does not seem to be a sustained or cohesive plan coming out of this government as to how we’re actually going to meet the energy demands, not just of British Columbia. If we’re truly insistent that we are going to do our global part for global emission profiles, last I checked, our emissions in B.C. don’t stop in our airshed. In fact, a lot of the stuff that impacts our environment is coming from pollution from offshore. I think that is something this House can all agree on. If we’re really going to try to leverage our advantages here, Bill 31, which bans hydrogen production for export…. It doesn’t really seem like we’re being a global citizen all of a sudden. I guess it will free up energy, though, for LNG electric drives so this government can make sure that we continue to send LNG overseas, which I support. But again, it’s an energy product for export. If nothing else highlights the hypocrisy of this government of how they’d like to try to pick winners and losers, it’s the fact that with Bill 31, they’re essentially saying: “Hydrogen for export, bad; LNG for export, good.” At that point, it’s no longer about whether it’s clean energy or not. Many would argue hydrogen is much cleaner than LNG. It’s just about what this government chooses to want to attract investment around or not. They seem to be making it very clear. They’re welcoming with open arms, which is a massive change from where they were at in 2017-2018 about LNG…. They’re welcoming with open arms LNG expansion, which, of course, the B.C. Conservatives fully support. Bill 31 will free up some transmission capacity and some generation capacity, one would assume, especially while it’s making sure that hydrogen, another what-would-be clean energy export, is prohibited for all intents and purposes. We’ll have a lot of questions around that. We’ll want to dig into that. We’re going to try to figure out if this NDP government now is a full-throated, full-on champion of oil and gas, of pipelines, of dredging the Burrard Inlet, of maximizing our energy. But they’ll also have to answer why hydrogen is not part of that mix while still trying to tout that we’re supposed to be a green jurisdiction. That’ll be the main focus of some of the issues that we bring up on Bill 31. I know others have spoken to other parts of this bill, and I’ll let them cover that off in other debate as well. I thank the Chair for this time, and I look forward to committee stage as we fully dive into Bill 31.

1753 words

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

It is refreshing to see this government finally acknowledging the wealth generation and tax generation powerhouse of B.C.’s rural and northern communities. I hope they continue to travel past Whistler and wine country to where hard-working British Columbians continue to subsidize the Lower Mainland and the capital region with real job creation, wealth creation and tax generation. Bill 31 looks like a short administrative bill. It is not. It is the third act in a familiar play this session, a trilogy, if you will. I’m just not sure if it’s The Godfather or Back to the Future. We saw it in Bill 14, and we saw it in Bill 15: concentrate more power in cabinet, shrink the role of the Legislature, step around the BCUC, and then call it modernization and progress. Let’s just be clear with who B.C. Hydro is represented by here in B.C., under this NDP government, and who will be overseeing these ownership agreements. Former Premier Glen Clark is the chair of B.C. Hydro. William Duvall is the former aide to Premier Glen Clark. Opreet Kang is the current business partner of the former Minister of Housing’s sister. So we just need to understand what independence looks like to this government. I certainly don’t question this government’s stance on recycling, very solid on that. Bill 31 keeps the same tune, however. This time the instrument is B.C. Hydro. It changes who can own critical transmission. It gives cabinet the pen to decide who gets power and who does not. It does this by regulation and not by debate on this floor. That’s the pattern, and British Columbians can see it. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues. The member for Peace River South put hard truths on the record about cost risk, ratepayers and the danger of governments picking winners and losers. The member from Shuswap hit the same notes on investor certainty, the need for BCUC oversight and the problem with retroactive law-making. I certainly share those concerns. Twenty-three years ago, when I graduated high school, British Columbia was a clean energy powerhouse. We exported power to the United States and filled our coffers. Hydroelectric power made us the most enviable, cost-effective producer in the world. Since then, we have slowly and quietly fallen behind. The push for electrification drove demand up. Municipal rules pushed natural gas out of new builds, but generation and transmission simply did not keep pace. Now British Columbians plug in their vehicles at night without knowing if the electrons are coming from our dams or from coal and gas south of the border. Some days we import. Some years we net import. That’s not independence. That is dependency. It makes our bills and our economy vulnerable to someone else’s grid and someone else’s politics, certainly something that we are seeing across our economy today. This government says we are elbows up on energy. We haven’t been that in over a decade. Let’s be honest. We are another body part up entirely, and everybody in British Columbia knows it. If this House is serious about climate and competitiveness, the north star has to be energy independence. Make what we use. Export the surplus. Keep decisions and data on our side of the border. Control the emissions, whether those are from hydro, solar, wind or natural gas. That’s where we started, and that’s what we need to get back to: independence, export, transparency and oversight. Part 1 of this bill lets B.C. Hydro enter ownership agreements on the North Coast transmission line, from around Prince George to Fraser Lake to Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake. On paper, it sounds simple. In practice, it opens up the door to co-ownership structures, transfer of assets and service agreements that can shift control of the public grid. Let me say this plainly. B.C. Hydro already has the authority to build transmission in this province. We do not need Bill 31 to string a single tower. So this isn’t necessarily just about building. This is about dealing. It is about who owns, who controls and who gets paid. I support unlocking the North. I support power for new mines, for ports, for LNG with the best emissions record in the world. I support First Nations partnerships. I come from a community that knows exactly what reliable energy means for jobs. But support is not the same as a blank cheque. As the member for Peace River South said, cost control matters. He watched Site C costs climb. He also noted the public line on this transmission project, marching from hundreds of millions to billions. That just set off alarms for every ratepayer because this line shows up on your hydro bill. If we are committing billions, we need to know what generation will actually flow through it, what the alternatives are, and how that risk is shared, not after the fact through regulation and the stroke of a pen but now. There is another path, if independence is the goal. Build generation where it’s needed. Small modular reactors are a serious option for the northwest. Reliable zero-emission baseload close to where it’s required. Lower line losses, shorter timelines, fewer right-of-way surprises that are getting more and more complicated as this government proceeds down its mandate. Technical jobs in the very communities that need them. Pair that with near-site, gas-fired bridge capacity at existing pipelines to stabilize the ramp. That’s how you get the North off of imports and back to exporting. If we’re going to import natural gas, coal or other fossil fuel–derived power, perhaps we should do it right here at home with made-in-B.C. natural gas. The peaking plant just north of me in Campbell River is seeing increased demand and not just at peak anymore. We need reliability in our grid, and that means localized solutions that meet the energy realities of B.C. If the goal is prosperity in the North and sovereignty for the province, put the generation in the North. Do not just run ever-longer extension cords and hope for the best. Part 2 of this bill is the allocation framework. Cabinet can restrict or ban power for three listed purposes: cryptocurrency mining, data and AI, hydrogen for export. Cabinet can set special rates, set caps, control timing, order competitive processes, deem costs recoverable from other customers. Cabinet can delegate the decision back to Hydro, and we’ve discussed who that represents, or the commission, but the marching orders start in cabinet. I understand the pressure. Large loads can arrive fast and, quite frankly, not fast enough in British Columbia to dig us out of the hole that this government has created. But let’s be honest about what this is. Bill 31 lets cabinet pick winners by regulation. It gives them the power to tell one proponent yes and another no. It lets them change course midstream or mid-government. Energy affordability and abundance are the single strongest indicators of national prosperity. You can’t have a high standard of living or a low level of poverty when energy costs more than people can afford to pay. Every major economy that has thrived in the world, from post-war America to modern-day South Korea, has done so on the back of affordable, reliable energy. When power is cheap, everything else follows — food, housing, manufacturing and transportation. But when governments make it expensive or scarce, the opposite happens. Putting more control in the hands of this government isn’t necessarily an indicator for success. Look at Germany just recently. After shutting down its nuclear power plants and over-relying on imported natural gas, primarily from Russia, it saw household energy bills triple, factories shutter and its manufacturing sector, once the envy of Europe and the world, begin to collapse. Or take California, where sky-high energy prices and unreliable grids are driving people and businesses out of the States as they look for more cost-effective jurisdictions, one of which used to be British Columbia. Meanwhile, nations that treat energy as the foundation of prosperity — like Norway with hydro; or the United States, in most cases, with natural gas — continue to grow, attract investment and lift their citizens’ quality of life through energy affordability. Energy policy is economic policy. Economic policy is social policy. If you can’t keep the lights on affordably, you can’t grow an economy. If you can’t grow the economy, you can’t lift people out of poverty. The member from Shuswap raised a good point. Investors need certainty. If government can change the rules with the stroke of a pen, capital goes elsewhere. Where capital goes, paycheques follow. When paycheques go, taxes rise. And we get what we have today under this NDP government — unaffordability, hopelessness and a bleak future for our children here in British Columbia. Only a few years ago B.C. Hydro was outselling British Columbia to crypto miners and data centres. Hydro’s own plan named these as load attraction opportunities. Government cheered those lines. Now government proposes to lock those down. That is policy whiplash. The bill asks us to trust that the new process will always be fair, always be transparent and always land on the right side of public interest. That is a lot to ask when the bill also lets cabinet overrule past decisions and treat similar customers differently by regulation. Transparency is not high on this government’s agenda. Don’t take my word for it. Nearly every independent source rates them at the bottom of the barrel in this country. So the opposition is right to be skeptical, and we are. This NDP government has not proved that they can be trusted when it comes to transparency. The minister says the North Coast line is a nation-building project. I respect the ambition. We need more of that in this province. The North deserves the same opportunity other regions have enjoyed. I agree that clean power was our advantage, but there are three tests. First, cost discipline. The member for Peace River South put the numbers in front of us. A project that starts at six can finish at 16, and we’re talking billions. Ratepayers wear the risk, and we cannot pretend that away. Second, generation credibility. A line without firm supply is a ribbon without scissors, something this government is all too familiar with. Calls for power might help, or they might not land in time. SMRs in the northwest and quick-to-build gas turbines next to existing pipelines are credible backstops for those peaks. Use technical solutions to technical problems, not political rationing. That was the point from the member from Shuswap. Third, governance. When the BCUC is a spectator and cabinet is the referee, the public loses the independent umpire that protects them from politics. That’s not a swipe at any particular minister. It is a defence of the institution that keeps prices honest and independence real. Bill 31 validates agreements retroactively. The public hears and asks a fair question. If everything was done properly, why do we need retroactivity cover now? The member for Shuswap pushed on that. I will as well. Retroactivity should be rare, founded and justified on the record, not a habit to paper over broken promises from the last eight years. The minister also spoke about data sovereignty. He’s right to be concerned. If we want sovereignty over data, we first need sovereignty over power. You cannot have Canadian control of AI infrastructure if you are depending on U.S. electrons at peak and U.S. policy on interties. If your load is balanced by a different country’s grid, your leverage is severely limited, something we’ve seen multiple times and very recently in our negotiations with the United States. When we are net importers, we are price-takers. When we are net exporters, again, we are price-makers. LNG Canada exemplified this problem, and this discussion on electricity is no different. Energy is measured in joules, whether it’s natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear or hydro. Energy independence is not a slogan. It lowers bills over time. It is leverage in trade. It is the ability to say yes to industry on our terms because we actually have the power and capacity to sell. The minister warns of data centre booms raising rates elsewhere. True, but the answer is not a permanent red light on entire sectors. The answer is published criteria and real price signals, capacity reservation charges, time of use, heat recovery standards, local job and tax commitments, interconnection queues that are transparent and scored, competitive processes run by Hydro and tested by the BCUC in broad daylight, with the full transparency and engagement of British Columbians. As the member for Peace River South said, efficiency without oversight is a danger. We can pace growth without politicizing the meter. This is not academic. In the Comox Valley and across the Island, seniors, small businesses and working families are already being pressed by rising housing, food and fuel prices. If we get this wrong, residential customers will pay for megaloads that deliver minimal local benefit. If we get this wrong, projects that would bring skilled jobs to the Interior and the North go to Alberta or Washington because the rules here look like a moving target. If we get this wrong, British Columbia trades its competitive advantage for a mood ring. Our province cannot afford another round of uncertainty under this government, definitely not on power and definitely not now, with the challenges we are facing from south of the border. I support equity partnerships with First Nations. Equity is better than the benefit agreements of the last century, but partnership should not mean the Legislature surrenders its duty to scrutinize terms, protect ratepayers and ensure value for the province as a whole. We can respect rights, share equity and maintain oversight here in this House. Here is the path I will support. One, publish the business case for each phase of the North Coast line — customers, timing, firm supply, cost share. Show the math before the shovel. Two, keep ownership of backbone transmission in Hydro. If there are co-ownership models, bring them here for approval — no quiet sell-offs of public wire. Three, build where we use. Stand up SMRs in near-site generation in the northwest. Start the regulatory work now with willing First Nations and industry. Four, restore the BCUC to its proper role. Cabinet sets high-level policy. The BCUC tests evidence, sets the terms and protects ratepayers. That is the guardrail that has worked to keep British Columbian energy affordable. Five, replace blanket bans with clear, objective, published criteria. Let data and AI compete on the same field. Tie interconnection to jobs, heat reuse, local tax base, resiliency and data sovereignty. Score it, publish it, and live by it. Make it equal for all businesses accessing our grid. Six, end the habit of retroactive fixes. If process went offside, own it and correct it, going forward. Do not rewrite yesterday in the dark. Seven, put independence in law. Set a statutory target to return B.C. to its sustained net export position by a certain date, with annual reporting to the House. Make independence of our province a commitment, not just a press release. Bills 14 and 15 taught us what happens when power moves from independent institutions to cabinet. It creates uncertainty. It incentivizes politicized case-by-case decisions. It weakens trust, lowers competition. Bill 31 repeats the mistake on our most critical utility. We can build the North. We can do it faster, with better tools. We do not need to centralize everything in Victoria to get there. We need to build what we use, export the surplus and put British Columbia back in charge of British Columbia. This province did not become an energy leader because cabinet always knew best. We led because we built big, told the truth about costs and protected the public interest with real oversight. People trusted the system. Investors trusted the rules. Communities trusted that the lights would come on and the bill would be fair. That trust is what is at stake here with Bill 31. This bill asks us to trade accountability for authority. It asks us to accept retroactive law as normal. It asks us to let cabinet turn the switch for some and keep others in the dark. That is not leadership. That is excessive control. I want a British Columbia that stands on its own feet again, where the North does not have to beg for power, where First Nations are true partners, where innovators build here because the rules are clear, where our kids grow up in a province that makes more power than it needs and sells the surplus on our terms to pay for our taxes that pay for our schools and our hospitals. I will fight for that in British Columbia. I will work with anyone in the House to deliver it, but I will not rubber-stamp another step in this slow bleed of oversight, not after Bill 14, not after Bill 15 and, certainly, not now with Bill 31. Our power belongs to the people who built it, paid for it and depend on it. Let us honour them with transparency, prudence and the courage to be independent once again.

2875 words

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

I appreciate the opportunity to stand today and talk to the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 31. It’s a real privilege to be able to do that. I don’t want to say I’m speaking for my constituents, but if I were to poll them, they probably would have some concerns about it. So I appreciate the opportunity to stand for them. This bill has been recently introduced into the Legislature of British Columbia. I want to emphasize one recurring theme throughout this bill — the erosion of accountability of elected officials and how oversight by this Legislature is being systematically reduced. I would like to thank previous colleagues that have sat and spoken about some of the nuances of this bill. I really appreciate it. There is an ongoing theme through all these bills that have been introduced this year in the House. It seems like we’re going to be beating a dead horse, but if there’s smoke, there’s usually fire for some of the things that we’re looking at. Let us begin with a short overview of what Bill 31 does and why it matters so much. The legislation is aimed at accelerating energy infrastructure projects — in particular, the North Coast transmission line in northwestern British Columbia — but also at revising how industrial electricity is allocated across the province. I thought that was B.C. Hydro’s job. Now we’re getting somebody within government here, our bureaucrats, to do that. It doesn’t make sense. On its surface, speeding up infrastructure makes it easier for industry to access power, access on offering ownership stakes for First Nations — all objectives that sound reasonable on the surface. Yet as usual, the devil is in the details. Those details reveal a legislative design that concentrates power, limits transparency and weakens the checks and balances that we rely on for democratic accountability. My argument today is that Bill 31 cuts out key oversight responsibility of our Legislature and of elected officials, thereby reducing democratic accountability, and we must interrogate the implications of that radical shift. Let’s begin with the first point, which is the centralization of power in the executive and the attendant loss of independent oversight. Bill 25 significantly strengthened the authority of the provincial government, via the cabinet or minister, over how B.C. Hydro allocates electricity, how ownership arrangements for transmission are made and how major projects proceed. For example, under clause 2 of part 1, cabinet may, by order, designate an agreement by which B.C. Hydro and a First Nation hold an ownership interest in part of the NCTL. What that means is that key decisions about project ownership, structuring, management and service delivery are being moved to discretionary orders by the cabinet, rather than subject to the kind of public scrutiny and legislative oversight that one might expect. The process becomes less transparent and less accountable to the Legislature. The bill also alters the role of the British Columbia Utilities Commission, which we’ve always believed is sacrosanct — that it is the commission that is looking after the interests of the Legislature, the interests of the public and interests of business, quite frankly. Under the Utilities Commission Act amendment, the cabinet can set or require special electricity rates, establish limits, select an eligible person for service and delegate matters to the commission or public utility. More importantly, Bill 31, as reported by independent media, removes or sidesteps the requirement that BCUC conduct a full public review of project necessity and public interest in certain cases. The government says the initiative is in the public interest, so the standard process isn’t needed. Really? Then ask the public. What does that mean for oversight? It means that decisions which historically would undergo public hearings, stakeholder input or review of cost benefit and public interest are now being pushed through with lesser scrutiny. The accountability of decision-making to the Legislature and the public is, once again, in this bill, like other bills, diminished. In another worrying dimension, the bill allows retroactive powers and board definitions under clause 1, and agreements under subsection (2) are cemented by retroactively granting legal power to Hydro or the authority to enter into ownership agreements. When retrospective powers are granted, when the criteria for decision-making are vague or delegated and when oversight mechanisms are weakened, the result is a weaker accountability framework overall. In summary, these features reflect a pattern where major decisions about industry infrastructure are being shifted away from the transparent, deliberative oversight of elected representatives and the regulatory bodies towards executive discretion. That shift inherently reduces accountability. But you know what? Somehow we knew this. When Bill 15 was passed in this House this last spring, many of us knew exactly where we were headed, and it continues with this bill. Let us explore how these design features translate into specific accountability gaps. One is environmental oversight and consultation process. While the bill includes First Nations equity participation, critics note that genuine free, prior and informed consent may not be fully secured. Likewise, by fast-tracking infrastructure and moving away from full environmental assessment review, the bill replicates a pattern of reduced oversight seen under earlier legislation, like Bill 14. The risk is that decisions about major transmission lines — which cross Indigenous lands, ecologically sensitive zones, traplines, waterways and agricultural land — may be made without full public scrutiny. The ability of communities to hold decision-makers accountable is much lessened. The bill prioritized electricity access for sectors like mining, LNG, ports and resource extraction over emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence, clean technology and other future-oriented industries, just as some of my other colleagues have mentioned here. It kind of doesn’t make sense. If these are the industries of the future, why are we limiting them coming onto the power line? We must not be able to fully implement the amount of power that we need if that’s what’s happening here. While economic growth is important, the shift raises questions about whether long-term, sustainable development and community benefits are being sufficiently weighed. Accountability demands that elected officials justify why some sectors are favoured and others are not. The bill provides less room for such public inquiry. The government projects large numbers. The numbers are overwhelming. I can’t even fathom some of the numbers here. As one of my colleagues already mentioned here, it starts out at $3 billion, then it’s $6 billion, and I will take bets that it will probably wind up being closer to $8 billion or $9 billion by the time this is done. Will it be on time? That’s something we’re forgetting as well. Nearly $10 billion annual GDP contribution and 10,000 direct jobs for the NCTL project. However, details of how these benefits will be distributed, how risk and financing are shared and how communities will be protected are unspecified. Here are some metrics and processes we might want to look at to assess value for money and check whether they are actually present in this project. One of the things we try to look for, and I tried to do some quick reviewing on, is trying to find a cost-benefit analysis, a full cost-benefit analysis, showing capital costs, operating costs, decommissioning, benefits. Are the jobs there? Is the GDP there? Is the revenue there — environmental savings, avoided costs — compared to a do-nothing or alternative baseline? We could not find any real, hard data on that. It would be nice to see some of that. But I want to quote somebody from a long time ago. You know, the government wants to trust us here. Somebody once mentioned…. I think it was Ronald Reagan who once said: “I trust, but I want to verify it.” It needs to be verified, and it’s time we got more verification on a project like this. Transparent assumptions. What load is expected? What projects will connect? What timeline? What happens if uptake is lower than expected? What if we put $9 billion, $8 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion into this and the uptake is a lot lower? We need independent regulatory review. A body like the B.C. Utilities Commission should review all of these projects. We need cost-benefit public interest. If that is bypassed, our truncated accountability is much reduced. Risk management and contingency plans are important. How will cost overruns be managed? Who bears the risk? What happens if the industrial demand falls short? We need a clear framework of how benefits flow to communities, how Indigenous equity stakes are governed, how jobs and local procurement are delivered. We need after-construction reports. There should be performance audits. Are costs on budget? Is utilization as expected? We have a history in this province with this government that, well…. Do we know any project that has been on time or on budget? It makes sense that we have all those reports in place so the public knows. These are big numbers that are being thrown around, lots of nice headline-grabbing information, but we really need to have that. The other one is transparency in ratepayer and taxpayer impact. If public money or public utility is involved, customers need to know how this affects their bills or how taxpayers’ exposure will be managed. So given the evidence, the project has a plausible rationale. The transmission system on the north coast is nearing capacity. We know that. There is industrial interest. Economic benefit is claimed. However, because a full, independent cost analysis is not publicly available, or at least not easy to find, and because oversight mechanisms appear to be reduced, the level of confidence we can have that the public is truly getting full value for money is moderate at best. Without transparency, it is hard for the public to hold officials to account for whether promised benefits are delivered or whether risks and costs are borne disproportionately by local communities or taxpayers. Concentrating investment in power infrastructure in the northwest of British Columbia, while seemingly beneficial for that region, may widen economic disparities with other parts of the province if not managed properly. The Legislature and public deserve scrutiny of whether those trade-offs are justified or how regional equity is being addressed. With further formal oversight processes, that scrutiny is diminished. Because the bill allows regulation to override other provisions of the act and mandate compliance by public utilities, even where previous decisions exist, the legal certainty of affected parties is much reduced. For example, a public utility or the commission must comply with a regulation made under this section, despite a previous decision by the commission. Fewer opportunities for public hearings, appeals or independent review mean elected officials and regulators are less answerable to the public and less subject to checks and balances, which again undermines accountability and destroys the trust of the general public and the taxpayers and the voters and the ratepayers in that group. I want to bring this back to the core theme though. What does this mean for accountability of our elected officials? What happens when large-scale decisions are handed off to executive discretion with limited legislative scrutiny? When cabinet powers expand and regulatory oversight is reduced, the role of elected representatives — the MLAs, the committees — and the public hearings become less central. The voters may still hold an MLA or elected representative accountable, but the decision-making path is less transparent, making accountability more diffuse. The Legislature traditionally holds the executive to account via debate, question period, committee review and requirements for public interest justification and oversight of statutes and regulations. When a bill reduces or bypasses these mechanisms, the legislators’ ability to supervise is much weakened. An infrastructure project like Bill 31, of this magnitude, affects land use, environment, Indigenous rights, public financing and regional economies. If the public sees major decisions taken without visible checks and processes, trust in governments declines, and when trust declines, so does the legitimacy of both process and outcomes. Bill 31 does not exist in isolation. It follows earlier legislation, as I mentioned before. Renewable energy projects like Bill 14, which gave board powers to cabinet and reduced environmental regulatory assessments…. If this becomes the norm — faster infrastructure, fewer checks, more discretion — then our democratic safeguards gradually erode. That is a systematic risk to accountability and good governance. Supporters of the bill will make important points. B.C. needs to get ahead of industrial demand for electricity. The NCTL could unlock jobs and growth. First Nations participation is a positive step. The world is moving fast, and we must act. Many of these arguments have merit, but they do not excuse weakening oversight mechanisms. A robust democracy can do both, move quickly and maintain accountability. For example, the government argues that existing regulatory processes would take up to 18 months and delay nation-building infrastructure. They argue that access to clean electricity will unlock tens of billions in GDP, thousands of jobs and reduce emissions. Once again, a cost-benefit analysis would be able to lay that out, and we would really know all the numbers and facts. My point is the why doesn’t justify the how. When full review and consultation are what slow things down, the solution is to reduce and reform those processes, not to bypass them completely. Our concern is not just about speed but about ensuring that when decisions are made, they have been properly reviewed, publicly debated and that elected officials remain accountable. What should we demand? This is a call to action. Given the concerns, what should we as citizens and civic actors demand for our Legislature, our MLAs and our government? Here are a few things to consider about this bill, and maybe we can look at some amendments. B.C. Hydro is given discretion, but there must be published criteria, transparent processes and documentation of how decisions are made. Voters need to know how decisions were arrived at, not just the outcomes. Given the scale of this project and its context, First Nations’ rights, land use and environmental risks, the process must allow meaningful input and consent, not simple token participation. Effective oversight mechanisms — whether through the Legislature, standing committee, independent regulators, like the BCUC or others — must be able to review the capacity to challenge decisions and accountability measures if promises are not kept. Information on project jobs, GDP contributions, risk allocations, financing costs to taxpayers, how First Nation equity stakes will work all should be disclosed and subject to oversight. Regional equity and balanced decision-making. The province must ensure that benefits and risks are fairly distributed across regions and sectors. One region receiving big infrastructure should not mean others are left behind. Having spoken about the amount of money that’s being put in, what other infrastructure is going be put to the side because this one is going to gobble up so much cash? We have municipalities and cities around this province that have huge infrastructure deficits. I think the last number we saw was around $100 billion in infrastructure. How will this crowd out some real work that needs to be done, as well, within our small communities? Speed is important but not at the expense of democratic norms. Elected officials must remain visible, accountable and subject to public and legislative scrutiny. In closing, Bill 31 represents an important moment for British Columbia. I don’t think any of us want to doubt that at all for a minute. I think it’s really important that we improve our infrastructure. One of my colleagues earlier today talked about smaller-footprint power generations. I think that’s the way to go. We should be thinking outside the box, looking at more alternatives rather than this very, very expensive power line here that may not be as robust as it could be compared to some smaller units that are more regionally built. In closing, though, Bill 31 represents an important moment for British Columbia, a chance to build large infrastructure, to modernize energy policy, to partner with First Nations and to make the province a cleaner, stronger economic actor. But it also represents a serious challenge to how our democracy works. By reducing the role of the Legislature and shifting major decisions into executive discretion and regulatory bypass, the accountability of our elected officials is weakened. When oversight is diminished, so too is public trust. When decisions are made behind closed doors or under orders rather than a public hearing, communities lose their ability to hold decision-makers to account. That is not just a policy issue; it is a governance issue, a democratic issue. We must not conflate urgency with exemption from accountability. We can act quickly, but we must not act without transparency, without public review, without the Legislature’s oversight and without ensuring that elected officials remain answerable. Let us remember that infrastructure is not just about steel and cables. It’s about people. It’s about communities, about land, rights and future generations. Decisions we take now will shape who we are as a province for decades to come. If we cut corners on accountability, we may build fast, but we may build poorly. I urge all members of the Legislative Assembly, the government, the opposition, Indigenous partners and public to use committee stage of Bill 313 to ask hard questions, to require clear rules, demand transparency, insist on oversight and ensure that the voices of affected communities are heard and respected. Let us build B.C.’s future, but let us build in a way that honours our democratic values, respects our Indigenous partners, protects our environment and ensures that our elected officials remain really accountable to the people who elected.

2939 words

Importance of Kindness

In the late 1990s, a group of American officials gathered in Washington state to make a decision about the Nooksack River — a river that, while never crossing into Canada, has shaped the fate of thousands of British Columbians. They decided to do nothing. They knew then what we know painfully well today — that when the Nooksack River floods its banks near Everson, Washington, its waters don’t stop at the border. They surge north into the Sumas Prairie, into Abbotsford, into our homes, into our barns, into our lives. That fateful decision to ignore the problem was made more than 20 years ago, but its consequences were felt this November 2021 when those same waters breached our dikes, swallowed our farmland and turned the valley floor into a lake. Let’s remember what that flood meant — 1,100 homes evacuated; thousands of animals lost, Highway 1 submerged, cutting off goods and services to the rest of the province; hundreds of millions in damage to farms and infrastructure; and the community left fighting, literally, to keep its head above water. But the 2021 flood wasn’t a surprise. It was a warning fulfilled. Experts, engineers and local leaders had long raised that alarm. They knew that the Nooksack’s overflow north into Canada wasn’t a fluke of nature. It was a predictable outcome of neglect. It was the result of decades of political paralysis, both in Washington state and here at home in B.C. and Canada. Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley are not just dots on a map. They are the heart of British Columbia’s agriculture economic hub, responsible for $3.8 billion in annual activity and more than 16,000 jobs. Dairy farmers in B.C. contribute $1.2 billion in provincial GDP by themselves, and 65 percent of dairy and eggs for the province comes from here. Berries, vegetables, plants and flowers come from here. They feed our province, sustain our food security and drive our rural economy. Highway 1 is the main artery that connects and sustains the rest of the province and, I would say, Canada. Yet despite this enormous contribution, Abbotsford farmers and families live under the constant shadow of another flood. The science is clear, the hydrology is clear, and the risk is clear. The time for more studies, more reports and more international working groups has long passed. We need investment, and we need it today. We need it now. The Barrowtown pump station remediation has been completed, but it only protects one-third of the Sumas Prairie. We need to complete the work. Phase 3 needs investment. By investing to reinforce our dikes and complete the Sumas Prairie flood mitigation plan, and there is a plan, by investing to rebuild resilience of our farms, roads and critical infrastructure and by investing in cross-border collaboration with the American neighbours…. Rivers don’t stop at political boundaries. Neither should common sense. Would this not be a project to be deemed emergency infrastructure under Bill 14 and declare this of provincial significance under Bill 15? This government has given itself the power to do this, but will it? Let’s be clear. The Nooksack floods are not purely an American or a Canadian issue. They are an international problem that requires bilateral solutions. Every dollar we fail to invest in prevention today will cost tenfold in recovery tomorrow. The cost of investment back in 1990 was $1 billion. But in 2021, the damages alone were $2.4 billion. Let’s complete phase 3 of the flood mitigation plan. Let’s start today. We cannot allow another generation to pay for the inaction of the past generation. This isn’t just about infrastructure; it’s about people. It’s about families who still remember standing knee-deep in freezing water, watching everything they worked for wash away. It’s about farmers who lost herds they had raised for years. Second and third generation farmers still do not know their future moving forward. It’s about a city that fought to protect itself with sandbags and sheer determination, one inch from losing Barrowtown pump station. If it hadn’t been for that, the water would still be there today. All that was really needed was sustained investment and political will. Abbotsford has done its part. It has rebuilt, it has studied, and it has planned. But it cannot and should not be left to face the next flood alone. Every year that passes without action increases the risk that history will repeat itself. The next atmospheric river will not wait for a budget or bureaucrats to catch up. Let’s not make the same mistake those officials made in the 1990s, the mistake of doing nothing. Let us act with urgency, with unity and with foresight. Let us invest in the flood defences that will safeguard the Fraser Valley, protect our food supply, keep our goods and services flowing and honour the resilience of the people of Abbotsford. Because the next flood is not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when. And when it comes, and it will, we have to be ready.

837 words

I don’t know that I have explicitly stated this in the House before, but I will do it now. I do believe in decarbonization. I do. I don’t believe in it being done at the expense of competitiveness. I don’t believe in it being done overly expeditiously. That costs people their ability to pay their bills. I do not believe in the economics of not taking advantage of a gift, a financial gift, that this province has that is sitting under our soil. I would further state that British Columbia’s path to a sustainable energy future lies in innovation, not prohibition. I do believe that this Legislature, not cabinet, should remain the ultimate authority on the province’s energy direction, until I sit on that side of the House. I’m going to move ahead here. Bill 31 is presented as an energy modernization bill and, to a certain extent, it is such. I would say in substance, though, that there is another chapter that I’ve illustrated, or hopefully have, around the concern of increasing centralized control. I know for efficiency, there are rational thoughts why that is being done, and on a certain level, it’s difficult to argue that. But I think there has to remain a very strong oversight and a very strong ability for clarity and transparency. What I’m going to state is that certainly, on this side of the House, we do support the principles of reconciliation, sustainability and grid reliability, without question. Where I find the challenge in endorsing the bill is the potential trade of accountability for authority. I think that’s something that we can dig into in committee stage. The minister is likely to remember that those were many of the questions I had during Bill 14, and I will admit that most of them were answered to my satisfaction at the time. I would ask that the government reconsider its course, through amendments, and reaffirm the role of this assembly and the B.C. Utilities Commission in protecting the energy grid and the energy process. With that, I will grant everyone here the privilege of me sitting down.

353 words

Hon. David Eby

BC NDP

5/29/2025

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

The statutes enabling regulations from executive council are not unusual. They are quite common. They enable government to move quickly. There are transparency mechanisms attached to it. They are published and publicly available. Government is accountable for regulations as much as they are for laws. Members can feel free to raise issues with regulations in this place, and they often do. Beyond that, the member is asking why. “Why would you do this? Why not have it all passed through legislation?” Well, the regulation enables us to address specific — let’s start with Bill 15 — individual projects that are facing unnecessary delays. Everybody agrees that they are unnecessary, but we didn’t have the tools to be able to allow them to proceed. An example: two post-secondary student housing projects, desperately needed student housing in the province. Everybody wanted them to be built. One was held up for a year by provincial heritage and road permits. One was held up for a year because of an amendment that was needed to an official community plan, even though it was supported by the local government. A school seismic replacement project that was delayed by six months, with all the costs that that brought with it, is waiting for a municipal permit. The school is supported by the city. The Water Sustainability Act delayed a new elementary school for more than a year. The regulations allow us to address these individual projects and the specific circumstances of the delay that are preventing the public from enjoying these important amenities and also, incidentally, driving up the cost, which is why we have support from the mayors of cities. A good example of a city that would require regulation…. The mayor of the city of Grand Forks talks about the catastrophic flooding the city faced in 2018. He explains that “in the year following, we completed over 40 different permitting processes to build back stronger,” so 40 different processes. With the regulations here, the province could support the city in not having to go through 40 different processes. That’s why he says: “I hope this legislation could be used to help more communities rebuild what they’ve lost in a faster, more streamlined way so municipalities can stay focused on supporting people and not lengthy or overlapping approval processes.” Mayors also support it in relation to housing and hospitals, as the mayor of the city of New West talked about, or infrastructure like pipes and sewers, as the mayor of Prince George talked about. That’s Bill 15. That’s why we need those regulations. That’s why we need that regulatory power. For Bill 14, I think the member, having stood in this place, including today, raising concern about climate change, the urgency of renewable electricity and the desire that we transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources of energy…. Seeing the Green Party vote against Bill 14 was a surprise to me because Bill 14 doesn’t exempt projects from oversight and due process. It passes it to the B.C. Energy Regulator, which already regulates oil and gas in the province. It has done so for 25 years. It’s regulated hydrogen for four years, a very similar provision around hydrogen we passed four years ago with the support of this House. Now we want to give the Energy Regulator the ability to regulate transmission lines and wind farms, and suddenly it’s become a great affront to democracy. That’s not the case. What it does is allow us to do these things faster on the pace that we have to, both for economic competitiveness but also for reducing emissions and costs as we transition to an electrified province. Just to reassure the member about that bill, the environmental impact of these projects will still be reviewed as part of the permitting process, maintaining high environmental standards. That includes their team of biologists, engineers, hydrologists, agrologists, archaeologists that are all well versed in reviewing energy projects and have done so, successfully, for many years, almost 30 years, in the province. Environmental impact is a crucial part of the work that they do. I hope the member can now, with some additional explanation, understand why it is that there are regulatory powers here, what they are intended for, what they will do, how the different bills work, and why it would be impractical to come back to the Legislature for every additional school project that we are working with the municipality to try to deliver.

746 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

5/29/2025

Langley Arts Council and Funding for Theatre

Hon. Members, on Wednesday, May 28, the member for Prince George–North Cariboo and the member for Kamloops Centre raised points of order regarding the application of Standing Order 8(2). With respect to a member participating remotely in the division on the motion for third reading of Bill 14, the Chair ruled that members participating in that division did not contravene Standing Order 8 or the guidance of members participating in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly remotely, issued by the Chair under Standing Order 8(3)(b). The Chair deems the matter concluded. However, the Chair wishes to offer some reflection for the benefit of the House. Voting is one of the most consequential responsibilities of a member of this House. Disallowing a member to vote is not a decision that the Chair takes lightly, but it is an authority granted to the Chair under Standing Order 8(4)(b). Since Standing Order 8 was amended in March 2024 to enable remote participation by members on a permanent basis, the Chair has disallowed a member from voting in two instances. In both, the member joining remotely was in a vehicle, which is not an acceptable venue from which to participate in parliamentary business. The Chair has never disallowed a member from voting in other instances. As it pertains to the use of virtual backgrounds, based on the submissions made to the Chair yesterday, there appears to be difference of interpretation of what that entails. Throughout this sessional period, the Chair has observed members participating remotely using a blurred background on several occasions, without objections raised and without the Chair intervening. In the view of the Chair, a blurred background does not constitute a contravention of the guidance for a member participating in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly remotely. This is because a blurred background has never given doubt in the Chair’s mind on the whereabouts of a member. In contrast, if a member was using a virtual background, artificially setting the member in the tropics or in nature, it would indeed cast doubt in the Chair’s mind on the member’s whereabouts and would render the member ineligible to participate in proceedings of the House. Standing Order 8(3)(b) requires the Chair to consult with the House Leaders or the Whips when establishing the rules, expectations and requirements for remote connectivity and participation by members. Given that the current guidance appears to have left room for doubt on the expectations of the members, the Chair will engage with the House Leaders prior to the fall session period and issue updated guidance, if required, so that all members are clear on the expectations for remote participation in parliamentary business. Thank you.

443 words

Members, noting the hour, I’ll put the question on the amendment before the committee proceeds to finalize clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6.

42 words

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act (continued)

I’m calling the committee back to order on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. On the amendment from the Leader of the Third Party, the amendment is deemed out of order. I can tell you the reason why. It’s due to the fact that there is no energy resources amendment act.

53 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

5/28/2025

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act (continued)

The legislation doesn’t change how the Wildlife Act operates. Instead, it allows the decision-maker to be changed to the BCER for the purpose of supporting the one-window model. Bill 14 does not remove any existing requirements or processes under the Wildlife Act — none — including the ones discussed by the member. The bill enables the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship to delegate select regional manager and director powers under the Wildlife Act to the BCER, as we’ve done in the single-window model, through the range of legislation. This provision is needed to support a one-window approach, as a project proponent may now need permits under the Wildlife Act to proceed with their projects. In exercising delegated powers under the Wildlife Act, the BCER has to follow the same processes and make the same considerations as if they were the official named in the Wildlife Act. For example, if the B.C. Energy Regulator were delegated section 25(1) of the Wildlife Act, which provides for the cancellation or suspension of permits, they would still have to make decisions according to the Wildlife Act, including only suspending or cancelling the permit if the cause was sufficient, providing the permit holder with an opportunity to be heard and informing the permit holder of a period of ineligibility. Essentially, this is the application of the Wildlife Act as it is now, with a role in the regulation of renewable energy projects for the B.C. Energy Regulator. There was a lot of discussion in second reading about the risks to hunters and trappers and guide-outfitters. None of that is correct. This is the same Wildlife Act restricted narrowly to regulating renewable energy resources regulated by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

286 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

5/28/2025

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act (continued)

What is a mockery is that the member, when the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission Act have been for 20 years regulated with respect to oil and gas by the B.C. Energy Regulator, in all of his years as critic — his 250,000 words in this House — has not raised one issue about the B.C. Energy Regulator until his second reading speech on Bill 14. Not a single time — not in estimates, not anywhere else. We are committed to the agricultural land reserve. What this does…. It’s one-window regulation, as it has been for oil and gas. They want this for oil and gas. They want this for nuclear energy. [Interjections.]

116 words

Ian Paton

BC Liberals

5/28/2025

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act (continued)

This’ll be my last statement. It is absolutely gutting of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission with Bill 14. If the chair of the land commission and the executive director and all the commissioners and staff at the Agricultural Land Commission were watching this today on television, they’d be slumped back in their seats going: “What the heck? What has come over our Agricultural Land Commission?” My final question to the minister: what is the future of our Agricultural Land Commission in British Columbia after this bill, if it passes this evening?

95 words

Ian Paton

BC Liberals

5/28/2025

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act (continued)

I just want to close out on clause 15. I just want to have it go on the record, as the critic for Agriculture for my party, that I am flabbergasted that Bill 14 and clause 15 is going to be voted on this evening without even having met, the minister has admitted, with the B.C. Agriculture Council, which represents 32 different farm products in the province, or the actual commissioners, the executive director and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission.

82 words