Government Policies on Energy and Pipeline Projects

Well, it’s pretty on brand for the member who delivered the Kinder surprise to oppose oil and gas infrastructure. The Prime Minister had to put B.C. projects on a federal fast-track list because this NDP government has broken B.C.’s permitting system. The federal list includes LNG projects and now a new pipeline declared in the national interest. Meanwhile, the B.C. NDP excluded all oil and gas infrastructure in their own so-called fast-tracking bills. During Bill 15 debate last spring, the Infrastructure Minister said: “There are literally thousands and thousands of backlogged permits in government right now.” With that in mind, permits for LNG projects and pipelines will languish at the back of the line. Why is this Premier risking B.C. jobs and making Canada weaker by standing in the way of getting our nation’s energy to global markets?

138 words

Peter Milobar

BC Liberals

10/23/2025

Government Action on Infrastructure and Social Issues and Funding for Residential Care Facilities

Once again no timeline, no firm commitment from this government on anything today. “Much work to do.” “We have to continue the hard work.” “We are aware of the hard work.” That’s what we hear. That doesn’t get schools built. That doesn’t get schools that have been under the threat of being demolished, being decrepit or burned down, and a minister that’s unaware of which schools we are even talking about in this province. Yet Bill 15 was supposed to expediate those schools being rebuilt. I come from a district that had a school burn down. It took five instructional years for this government to replace a school at a site that a school used to exist on. That’s the track record of this government — not previous governments, this government. In the middle of a housing crisis, in the middle of an affordability crisis, we asked the minister questions around a 92-unit housing project that still hasn’t opened its doors. He doesn’t even know what units we’re talking about, let alone a date for when those units might be open for people to live in. Again, I come from a city that has 42 units that were supposed to be open 2½ years ago. We still can’t get a date for those units either. That’s this track record. We have a government trying to lecture us about poverty reduction, yet they forget that they had a campaign promise that seniors were going to get bus passes. Where are those seniors bus passes, Minister? Where is the $1,000 grocery rebate? The list goes on and on, of broken promises from this government, no one else. Much work to do…

279 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I mentioned this in my second reading speech yesterday, I think it was. Could the minister outline if this comes into play with Bill 15 at all, in terms of if the minister would ever exercise authority to expropriate or to dispose of land as a minister’s initiative first outside of the request of the school board or district.

59 words

Bill 27 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 27, a piece of legislation which may at first glance appear modest but in fact raises important questions about the proper role of school boards, local governance, property rights and accountability in our province. I will be speaking to part 1 today. Bill 27 enacts a number of amendments. In part 1, it amends the School Act and the Expropriation Act. It clarifies when and how school boards and francophone education authorities may acquire, hold, dispose of or expropriate land for improvements. It also imposes new prior approval requirements for the minister. Additionally, bringing equal opportunities and requirements of francophone CSF district schools is warranted. These changes are worthy of support in principle because they aim to clarify boards’ authority to use land for educational and housing needs while introducing stronger oversight for significant actions like expropriation, which is a sensible balancing of local flexibility with accountability to taxpayers and the provincial government. A guiding principle for this side of the aisle is that decisions should be made as locally as possible by those closest to the communities affected. Yet decisions that can have large fiscal or property rights ramifications must carry appropriate checks. Bill 27 does this in several key ways. It enables school boards to acquire and hold land for improvements for truly educational purposes, including student or employee housing, outdoor spaces. That empowers districts to respond to local conditions. At the same time, when a board wishes to acquire land or expropriate land, Bill 27 requires prior ministerial approval. This is a reasonable check. The public interest, tax dollars and property rights are at stake. In short, local school boards are still enabled, but with oversight. Expropriation, taking private property for public use, is, by definition, a significant governmental intrusion. Bill 27 rightly emphasizes that such powers should not be used lightly. The new wording clearly states that a board may expropriate land within its school district. But then it says that the board must not expropriate land without prior approval of the minister. Moreover, Bill 27 ensures that this approval is not the same as the approval required under section 18 of the Expropriation Act, thereby preserving the legal safeguards surrounding expropriation. These are important protections. They prevent boards from unilaterally wielding expropriation powers without oversight. This is reasonable. Property rights matter, and taxpayers must have transparency when governments seek to take or transform property. Clarity of legislative authority and transparent decision-making also matter. Bill 27 replaces older, more tangled sections of the School Act and Expropriation Act with clear language defining “land” to include any interest, clarifying the board’s powers, specifying when approvals are needed. This clarity is good. When laws are understandable, boards can act confidently, citizens know what to expect, and accountability is higher. To strengthen transparency, we should insist that once land is disposed of, the proceeds be accounted for properly. They should not disappear into general budgets without trace. That kind of oversight ensures public trust. No bill is without its risks. From a conservative vantage point, several caution flags should be raised. The phrase “housing accommodation for students or employees,” which I believe is in part 2, actually, is laudable, but if left loosely defined, it could lead to boards expanding into real estate speculation or expansive employee housing that bears little relation to core educational objectives. The ministerial approval regime must be active, not passive. Even with oversight, expropriation remains a heavy tool. Boards will need to demonstrate actual need of public benefit. The process must protect landowners’ rights and ensure fair compensation. Subsection (5) allows disposal, subject to the orders of the minister, but what guarantee is there that realized value of disposed assets is reinvested in educational purposes rather than diverted elsewhere? I would like a clear framework. Proceeds stay in the educational system in the district in which they were acquired, are reinvested locally and are reported transparently. How does Bill 15 come into effect? Would there be motive or provisions for the minister to work outside the school districts to start an expropriation process? These are matters that I will bring up at the committee stage. To ensure that Bill 27 delivers its promise, I offer the following implementation recommendations. Boards proposing expropriation should be required to publish a clear rationale, cost-benefit analysis, alternatives considered, how the acquisition supports student outcomes and how they will protect landowners’ rights and compensation. When boards dispose of land or improvements, the proceeds should be assigned to a designated fund locally, with annual reporting on how the funds were used, ensuring public oversight. I would like to see that the minister carry out periodic audits of boards, land portfolios, acquisitions, holdings and disposals to ensure that boards are acting prudently, delivering on the educational purpose and avoiding excessive risk or speculation. In British Columbia, our schools are the bedrock of our society. They influence not only academic outcomes but community stability, teacher retention, student well-being and local identity. From my lens, enabling communities to build what they need, where they need it, without unnecessary red tape, is a positive move. But we must guard against unintended consequences. If left unchecked, boards might venture into real estate deals, landholding for speculative purposes or expropriation as a default rather than a last resort. We must keep the focus on students and teachers and not land portfolios. Additionally, the clarity about ministerial approval seeks to prevent jurisdictional confusion and unintended financial burdens on taxpayers. That is critical in a province where many school districts are already feeling stretched. Careful governance, transparent oversight and clear communication are essential. In conclusion, in principle I support Bill 27. It acknowledges important realities that schools need land and improvements, that boards require flexibility, that property rights must be respected and that oversight matters. That said, support must come with vigilance. My call to the government, the minister, school boards and this Legislature is the following. Let us ensure that ministerial approval processes are robust. Let us track and report every major acquisition and disposal with public performance metrics and outcomes for students and the community. Let us safeguard property rights and ensure expropriation remains a tool of last resort, subject to full accountability. Let us focus relentlessly on students and educators, because that is why we have school districts and boards and pass laws like these in the first place. If we do these things, Bill 27 can indeed become a positive step, enabling smarter infrastructure and better educational environments. If we fail to exercise appropriate guardrails, we risk mission creep, tax burden and diminished trust. I will be supporting second reading with a clear understanding that with great flexibility comes great responsibility. Let us ensure that the power is granted to lead to tangible outcomes tomorrow — better classrooms, better support for students and teachers, responsible stewardship of public assets and a stronger commitment to local communities. I look forward to the committee stage work, to work with colleagues to refine and implement these changes.

1179 words

Hon. David Eby

BC NDP

5/29/2025

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

I don’t know totally where to start. There was lots of ground covered there. Oh, hi, everybody. I’ll start with the kids. That’s a good place to start, as always. We have St. Francis Xavier School. Your MLA from Strathcona welcomes you to the House. It’s nice to see all of you. This is a group of 28 grade 5s and their grownups. Nice to see you. Welcome to the House. Let me just start with the premise that 51 percent of the House was opposed to the approach of the government and that there was this unified agreement. It couldn’t be further from the truth. Obviously, the Green Party has their perspective, which was articulated by the member, that there needs to be additional consultation with Indigenous groups, there needs to be additional consultation with municipalities, that time needs to be taken. But to assume that that perspective is shared by the remainder of the members who voted against it is not correct. This is what the leader of the Conservative Party tweeted, his perspective about how to get projects done. He is opposed to the bill because “the B.C. NDP is giving First Nations an absolute veto over whether or not projects in B.C. can be given priority status by government. This Premier’s veto….” He uses my last name, but I’ll just say “Premier’s” instead. “This Premier’s veto is part of a larger pattern, and it’s not normal. “British Columbians are in agreement on reconciliation, having respect for First Nations culture and rights, including title. However, B.C.’s provincial government is supposed to govern for all British Columbians. The Premier’s NDP should not be giving any special group veto on whether or not projects are prioritized by B.C.’s government. “Two, veto powers over land rights and access rights on privately owned property in B.C. Three, veto over access to and use of public lands in B.C. The B.C. NDP’s veto approach is setting back reconciliation, driving away investment, undermining B.C.’s economy and breaking down trust between British Columbians.” The member says that he wants to get to consensus, he wants to get to, as I understood it, some sort of additional process here because 51 percent of the House voted against it, which is not correct. The majority of votes voted for it. The actual challenge here is that the people that the Green Party aligned with…. Their perspective is that there shouldn’t be consideration of trying to get to consent with First Nations, that that approach is handing a veto to First Nations and therefore is wrong and therefore should be opposed. The other objection is around our work to protect wild spaces, which the Leader of the Opposition confirmed yesterday, which he called nonsense, the idea of protecting 30 percent of our land base by 2030, outlining his concern that it was a conspiracy that the World Economic Forum was directing policy in British Columbia. The executive director of the Conservative Party tweets, “Do we live in a racial oligarchy? This is getting wildly out of hand,” talking about working with First Nations in partnership on the regulations for Bill 15. So please don’t pretend that the Conservative Party agrees with the very rational perspective put forward by the Green Party that Indigenous People need to be involved directly in partnership in projects on the land. They view that as a racial oligarchy. The majority of this House supports progressive relations with Indigenous People. While we may have points of disagreement about how to get there through particular initiatives, it is not correct to suggest that the opposition is united on this. The second issue is that there are, in fact, nations that we’re working with directly. I mentioned earlier the work that we did on Monday with three nations in the northwest on a remarkable opportunity to lift up communities, to lift up a region and, also, to lift up the province and the country as a whole: our partnership with the Tāłtān, the Taku River Tlingit and the Kaska First Nation. Also, I am holding a letter here from the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government, which wrote to me, saying: “Given the economic uncertainty introduced by the new trade policies of the U.S., NLG, Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government, fully understands the need for British Columbia to move swiftly on these matters and is well placed to provide meaningful input in expedited circumstances. In fact, we have been advocating for a more efficient and effective regulatory regime for some time now, and we have valuable input based on our ongoing experiences through various regulatory processes for the projects.” I welcome the correspondence and the offer of involvement because that is, in fact, our commitment. The member asked: “How do we want to ensure accountability around the regulations?” Under these acts, our commitment is to engage with nations, with local governments and other key stakeholders as we develop the regulations to ensure that the legislation actually does what we intend, which is to speed up projects across the province. I was grateful to get a letter from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade supporting this initiative. Maybe the member hasn’t had this experience. I’d be surprised if it were true. But I regularly have people coming and saying: “Look, we’re really excited about this new school in our community” or “We’re excited about this new hospital. Is there anything that can be done to get it done faster?” “Our business has this project. We’re dealing with the province; we’re dealing with the city. Is there anything we can do to get this done faster?” Just again and again. The member says he recognizes it but, at the same time, wants us to delay. He says three months. It’s four months before we sit again. I don’t know how long the process is that he envisions for the fall session. And then additional legislation, additional provisions. And then further engagement process on the regulations. This is an urgent matter. The hits to our economy from just seafood and softwood lumber actions by the United States are significant, and more are coming. As people’s jobs are directly affected by this, the urgency will be quite profound. We have to move before we start to see really terrible impacts. We can already see the slowdown of businesses, saying: “Well, hold on. Before we invest, let’s get certainty about where the Americans are going with this. Let’s get some stability in the relationship between Canada and the U.S.” That’s also impacting our economy. We’re seeing that globally as business leaders make important decisions about investment that affect all British Columbians and all Canadians and certainly people around the world. Finally, the member read out a list of mayors from the CRD who don’t understand why this bill is needed. I would think the mayors of the CRD, if anywhere, would know. These mayors the member consulted with — I certainly don’t hold them responsible. I don’t think they were around at the time. But they surely know the story of the Victoria sewage treatment plant. This was in the ’90s. Washington state was threatening a tourism boycott of British Columbia because we were flushing raw sewage from Victoria into the harbour. In 2004, Victoria was directed — I say Victoria, but it’s actually the CRD — to put in a sewage treatment plant. It took 16 years to put in a sewage treatment plant. It didn’t open until 2020. It’s an example of the challenge that we can run into, where we have a whole bunch of different municipalities and they were debating about who was going to pay what. The delay continued and continued to the point that Victoria, despite being full of people who are quite committed to environmental protection, was the last remaining major community to pump raw sewage into surrounding waters in Canada. Members might remember Mr. Floatie, which was a seven-foot-tall — well, members can imagine — mascot that tried to bring attention to the fact that this issue was not getting resolved. These are the kinds of things we’re talking about. They’re not minor issues. They’re serious issues. If your school can’t get built in the community, if your sewage treatment plant can’t get built, if your housing can’t get built, if your business is struggling with processes even though all of the officials involved support the project and it’s stuck, which can happen…. We’re fixing the underlying provisions as well, and I look forward to having additional legislative amendments come forward to the House around the underlying processes. But in the interim, we’ve got to get building here. We added 300,000 people in the last two years to this province. That is huge. Three months, four months, six months, eight months may not sound like a lot to that member, but it is a long time if you’re waiting for approval for your business. It is a long time if you’re waiting for construction to start on your new school. It can be a whole school year for a student. I look forward to the member’s feedback on the regulations. That’s our commitment to the Green Party: to work with them. I am sure we’ll be able to come to consensus about how to support British Columbians.

1550 words

Hon. David Eby

BC NDP

5/29/2025

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

Hi there. My apologies for the delay. We wanted to get some information for the member. The member’s question related, I think, to recent statements by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, related to Bill 15. I understand the role of UBCM as a lobby organization for municipalities. They’re an important stakeholder for the province. We work with them closely on a number of different initiatives. But as Premier, I have to hear from mayors directly about their frustration when projects in their communities get held up, whether by provincial permits or by municipal permits. I’m going to give the member some examples. On the municipal side, we had a post-secondary student housing project that couldn’t proceed until the local municipality made an amendment to their official community plan. It added a year to that project. A school seismic project was stalled due to a lengthy wait time to receive a municipal permit, delaying completion by six months and missing the students being able to attend in the new school. Another post-secondary student housing project, a delay of up to one year on road permits. It’s not just the cities. It’s also the province and some of our permits that can hold things up, even when the project itself has been approved. A transmission line project from the Interior to the Lower Mainland was delayed due to wait times to receive a licence of occupation and a licence to cut, even after the environmental assessment certificate was issued. And a new elementary school was delayed more than a year due to a delay in a provincial permit under the Water Sustainability Act. So I get calls from mayors. I hear from mayors who are frustrated. They want these things done. This is why Patrick Johnstone, mayor of the city of New West, said: “The Infrastructure Projects Act is a good step towards accelerating the infrastructure our communities need to support growth. It will allow for greater collaboration between the province and municipalities so we can work together at delivering the schools, hospitals and other critical infrastructures our residents demand.” The mayor of the city of Grand Forks: “After our catastrophic flooding in 2018, our main focus was on taking care of the community. In the years following, we completed over 40 different permitting processes to build back stronger. I hope this legislation can be used to help more communities rebuild what they’ve lost in a faster and more streamlined way.” The mayor of the city of Prince George: “I was really glad this bill came forward. I think government realized Bill 44,” which is a housing bill, “ain’t going to work unless infrastructure — the water, sewers, the roads and all the infrastructure to support these housing densities — is there. So I see this legislation, for us, as a positive thing.” It is a balance. Not everyone agrees all the time. But what I think most people in the province agree on is that they would like their schools, their hospitals, their roads faster. They would like our economy to grow. That was our priority around Bill 15, and we’ll continue to work with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on engaging on the regulations and on their important role in the province. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

555 words

Ian Paton

BC Liberals

5/28/2025

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

I’ve been to the Peace many times. I go up there every summer. I inspect all the farms, and I see the massive amount of farmland up in the Peace. I understand, and I’ve seen it all. What I’d like to know is if the minister recalls what we did back in 2018 here, Bill 52 and Bill 15. Bill 52 was going to solve all the issues of losing farmland in British Columbia, so was Bill 15. Bill 15 also said that the only people that could apply for these rules in the land commission for soil deployment, non-farm uses and subdivision of land would be municipalities or regional districts or First Nations. Why is government suddenly able to storm troop in and be able to do these things that even Bill 15 said only municipalities, regional districts or First Nations could make application to the land commission for these particular things we’re talking about?

156 words

Hon. Members, it being 7:50, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, the committee will now proceed to final clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 15, intituled the Infrastructure Projects Act. In accordance with the time allocation order, I will now put the question on all remaining clauses on the bill. Members, pursuant to the time allocation order, a division on the remaining clauses and the title cannot be called. But in accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage on division. With that, we will proceed.

94 words

Seriously running out of time here. I will cross-reference after the fact on that act to convey that. I met with a number of environmental organizations this morning that had serious concerns with Bill 15 as well. This particular clause is where they raised a whole bunch of points in conversation. In the interest of time, I’m going to read a series of questions into the record, and some of these…. We’re going to answer them right now. I’m hoping to get some answers so that these groups will have some answers after the fact. Under 8, subsection (2)(b), if the minister can dictate permit conditions, will those conditions automatically incorporate any Indigenous-led environmental management plans approved under some other approval mechanism such as DRIPA, or can they be ignored? That was one question. Number 2…. And I know these will all be available in Hansard later. Thank you to the good folks at Hansard. Under 2(c), the phrase “other reasonable conditions” seems to me that it is pretty wide open. So I’m wondering if cabinet can publish a template of baseline conditions, whether these be, for example, bonding, public access easements, reclamation, security — those are examples — so the proponents can know the playing field that’s being contemplated here. On subsection (5), what minimum public notice period will regulations mandate before an order is issued so citizens aren’t blindsided? Again, that accountability matters to folks, especially when we’re talking about an environmental assessment process, because that’s when decisions, again, are durable. I go back to that word all the time we’ve used. Since, under this clause, obviously there’s a fast-tracking for these cabinet-preferred projects, will neighbouring property owners receive an equal statutory right to seek injunctions if they can show irreparable harm? And I used the landowner example previously, but I think that full status of legal options would be good for these stakeholders to understand. These are things that are usually in an EA process. A lot of times, some of these discussions actually form part of conditions, for example. If clause 8 order forces issuance of a water licence, will it still respect existing senior water rights under the Water Sustainability Act? And again, I met with streamkeepers this morning and groups that are involved in watershed security, and they’re very concerned with what this means for their participation in the EA process to be able to ask these questions. Similarly, can the minister confirm that an order under 8 subsection (2) cannot override conditions attached to an EA certificate that protect critical habitat for species-at-risk listed wildlife? And this is a very important example. Obviously, we talked about LNG projects, for example. We talk about anything to do with caribou, and this really comes into a very important point for how proponents are going to move forward. Again, are these decisions going to be durable? Are we going to end up in court, or is the federal Species at Risk Act going to come in and take over basically? Because we do know that there are those override powers if they deem that B.C. is not managing caribou properly. I’m rushing through these questions, but it’s very challenging…. We’re going to get closure on this bill, but we’re only on clause 8 of a 48-clause bill. This is some serious work that we still need to get through because this Hansard record is also public information about what the public can expect. And we’re getting closure on a bill, and it’s very challenging to see that….

591 words

Hon. Bowinn Ma

BC NDP

5/28/2025

I want to make it clear. Section 8(4), the entire subsection (4), is not unique to Bill 15. The wording is replicated from section 37(2) under the Environmental Assessment Act to say that the issuance of the approval of the provincial permit under the other act made by the minister in this section is considered to be final and binding and is not subject to review or repeal under that other act. However, we have confirmed from the environmental assessment office that even under the Environmental Assessment Act section 37(2), those decisions are still subject to judicial review.

98 words

I would want to dig into that a little bit further but I’m going to run out of time, so I want to ask a question. It is related to what the minister described. Subsection (4), despite another enactment…. That really is one that some folks have raised some concerns with. I’m going to point to the B.C. Cattlemen, who have raised concerns overall with Bill 15. For example, a rancher downstream who fears the work associated with an approval under this section may lead to well water contamination. Because an approval under section 8 is final and binding, do they have any route for appeal? It says the right of appeal is stripped only from citizens and property owners, not from the proponent creating a…. This could create a one-way legal street. Do they have only the judicial review route in this case, or what is their appeal mechanism if something does happen to their property?

157 words

Hon. Bowinn Ma

BC NDP

5/28/2025

In terms of the streamlined environmental assessment process, section 8 is not that. In the interest of time, I do want to assure the member that yes, project proponents want a durable process. We want a durable process as well, which is why a streamlined environmental assessment process is not at all about changing the standards of what an EA…. It’s not about changing standards; it’s about adjusting the process to meet shortened timelines. That being said, section 8 is about the issuance of minor provincial permits or lower risk provincial permits where a project that is reviewable under the Environmental Assessment Act has successfully achieved a certificate. This is an authority that already exists in the Environmental Assessment Act itself. So the Environmental Assessment Act allows this under section 37. The Environmental Assessment Act does…. Again, it allows the minister responsible for that act to do this. By including it in Bill 15, it basically extends that authority to projects that are designated under Bill 15.

167 words

I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order. We are on clause 7.

22 words

Hon. Bowinn Ma

BC NDP

5/28/2025

The member may be interested to know that the Ministry of Infrastructure’s portfolio is well over 1,000 projects, of which 80 are over $50 million and three are under community benefits agreement. The UNBC project that the member referred to is not a CBA project. I know that the member for Langley–Walnut Grove also asked this question during estimates. It’s an alliance model contract. It’s very different. We’re happy to share more about that. For greater comfort, those projects that are designated for access to streamlining tools under Bill 15, particularly the section 7 tool relating to prioritization of provincial permits for those projects…. Unionization on those projects will not affect their permitting prioritization under this section.

117 words

Hon. Bowinn Ma

BC NDP

5/28/2025

I want to thank the member for so clearly articulating his concern so that I can better understand his experience of these projects and where he’s coming from. I have nothing additional to add from what I had provided in my previous response, except to repeat again that we acknowledge that Bill 15 doesn’t address all of the issues, all the problems that important projects in our province may face. And we have more work to do across the spectrum. I do really appreciate the opportunity to better understand where the member is coming from here.

96 words

Hon. Bowinn Ma

BC NDP

5/28/2025

The member may be interested in knowing that, in terms of projects in the oil and gas sector, they already get access to streamlining tools and have had access to streamlining tools for quite some time through the B.C. Energy Regulator, formerly known as the Oil and Gas Commission. Given the member’s interest in that sector…. They already actually get quite a substantial access to streamlining tools. In regards to the tool under section 7 of Bill 15, to provide greater assurance, this tool does not allow government to take a project and deprioritize it. It only allows it to take a project that’s been designated and prioritize it. Given the scale that we’re talking about and that we’ve referenced, handfuls of projects versus thousands of permits in a pile, the material difference for a project that is being prioritized is significant. But the material difference for the rest of the projects that remain in the big pile is not as significant. They’re there. They do move a few steps down. But given the scale, you can see how the prioritization of several handfuls of projects is kind of felt and distributed across the rest of the permits. But having said that, it speaks to the importance of the systemic work and the other solutions that government is also working on. This is not a one-and-done kind of solution. It is helpful in the immediate term, but we still have work to do, and that work continues on the entire permitting system to move projects, all projects, through the system more quickly.

262 words

Really it is about trying to dig into how the tool will work in relation to the work of these other ministries and their capacity. I do actually agree, very much so, with those durable permitting solutions. I think that work needs to happen, and actually that is what the opposition has been saying pretty clearly. Instead of Bill 15, that would be the focus of work that we would prefer to see go ahead to streamline permitting across the province. But anyway, back to it. I’m just trying to understand, in relation to this clause, that work that the other ministries need to do to make this clause actually beneficial to the overall objectives of prioritization of permits in this case. Does that make sense? Okay, I’ll try to re-ask it. How will the prioritization of permits work with those other ministries who are doing that work for durable permitting solutions to actually operationalize that priority queue?

158 words

Hon. Bowinn Ma

BC NDP

5/28/2025

Thank you to the member for the question. What the member is observing is absolutely true. I don’t know if the member actually said it specifically, but I believe this is the point that the member is raising, which is that certainly prioritization of provincial permits under section 7 is not a magic tool that suddenly clears backlogs. It doesn’t create capacity out of nowhere. In that way, it is a self-limiting tool. The more infrequently it is used by government, the more effective it is. The more frequently it is used by government, the less effective it is, because if we have a pile of permits waiting to be seen and every single project is prioritized in some way, you still end up with a pile of permits. So it is a self-limiting tool, in that way, and not a durable solution. More durable permitting solutions are all of the other work that government is doing in order to try to speed up timelines and permits for all projects. This tool in Bill 15, recognizing that there’s longer-term work to be done, allows government to prioritize those critical projects now, in the meantime. Again, speaking to the limitation of this format, where sometimes I forget the rest of the question by the time I stand up, I’m happy to take the next question and go down this conversation that I think the member is headed.

236 words

We appreciate the hot dog recess earlier. Somehow, I didn’t get any mustard on my shirt, so it was a success. But it’s pretty wild around here. I saw members walking down the hallways with pizza in their hands, so it’s a bit of a wild time here in the Legislature. But let’s get back to clause 7 debate here on Bill 15. Clause 7 might appear technical in nature, but I think it is, again, pretty consequential to the overall bill. We’re talking about permit queues and coordination behind the scenes for the public service. At its core, this is really a highly subjective framework, and that’s one thing that we need to dive into here. It’s repeated many times that one of the concerns that the official opposition has is the government’s ability to pick winners and losers, and this is a tool that will give government and cabinet the ability to do that. It gives government the power to fast-track some permits, while others may wait indefinitely. They may actually be held up because they’re not getting through the system. They could get gummed up because others are moving ahead in the queue. So my constituents and the public, I think, deserve to know on what basis this government will be prioritizing some of these permits. I want to ask us some questions in regards to that. Maybe to start off, how will this tool be used in practice to prioritize the projects that are designated? How will they jump up in the queue in practice? If the minister could describe that maybe to open up the discussion here.

272 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

5/28/2025

All right. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order. We are on clause 7.

22 words