Peter Milobar

BC Liberals

12/2/2025

Government Action on U.S. Tariffs and Procurement Initiatives

There’s a snapshot in time we’re never going to get back, but I digress. This is the problem with this government. They made a big deal about Bill 7 in this House. They made a big deal about all the action they were taking. Yet when they’re pressed to actually deliver and show the results, they can’t. Maybe they don’t want to have an example of a Conservative government in Ontario taking action, so let’s look at what the other NDP government in Canada has done in Manitoba in that same time frame — not review; the actions they have actually taken. They formally banned U.S. companies from government contracts. They did not renew two electrical contracts to export 500 megawatts to the U.S. You know what they did instead to support other Canadians as part of Confederation? They redirected 50 megawatts of that to Nunavut, and they have plans for the remainder to go to Saskatchewan. That’s an NDP government that’s actually taking action, not just providing performative words. Again, when will this government actually provide a detailed list of all of the U.S. contracts that have been cancelled or not renewed or changed or anything other than the typical “we’re reviewing it” but actually taking action?

208 words

Peter Milobar

BC Liberals

12/2/2025

Government Action on U.S. Tariffs and Procurement Initiatives

Now, Ontario actually passed a real law to protect local jobs, while this Premier can’t even tell British Columbians if a single contract has actually changed, let alone been cancelled. Why did this Premier make such a big show of Buy B.C. and Bill 7 and all the requirements this government needed when he didn’t follow through on any of it?

61 words

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act

I rise today in support of my colleague’s Bill M217. My colleague has provided elaborate discussion on why we need to have this legislation, and I agree with my colleague on that. I’m pleased to rise today in support of my colleague’s private member’s bill, M217, the Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act, 2025. This is a clear, concise and practical piece of legislation that strengthens road safety across British Columbia while imposing only minimal cost and burden on commercial operators. This bill does exactly what good legislation should do. It identifies a real problem, proposes a simple solution and outlines responsibilities that are easy to follow and easy to enforce. I’ll briefly go through the bill. The first section deals with definitions. There are two main definitions. The two definitions refer to the dashboard camera, as well as to commercial vehicles. “Commercial vehicle” is defined in line with the Commercial Transport Act, so this legislation shows some consistency in terms of dealing with previous legislation. But in terms of dashboard camera, it defines “dashboard camera” as a device capable of continuously recording the view through the vehicle’s front windshield whenever that commercial vehicle is in operation. This matters because it ensures consistency. Every commercial vehicle, regardless of size or type, is using the same core safety tool, a forward-facing recording device that captures what actually happens on the road. The bill goes further in section 2. It talks about installation and maintenance. This section establishes a clear responsibility. Commercial vehicles must have a dashcam installed and maintained. If the vehicle is owned, the owner is responsible. If leased, the lessee is responsible. This is a practical approach, placing responsibility with the party who manages the vehicle’s day-to-day operation. The cost of compliance here is truly minimal. Dash cameras today can be purchased for as little as $36. This is not a financial barrier for commercial operators, large or small, but the value that the dash cameras provide is immeasurable. It’s going to really help road safety. Section 3 goes into operation. This is the heart of the bill. It requires that dash cameras must be recording at all times the commercial vehicle is operated and that the camera must not be obstructed. This provides for a clear view, making sure there is no partial recording. This type of legislation that will provide for dash cameras throughout the commercial industry has a lot of benefits. It will help resolve liability issues. It’ll help solve false accusations in terms of how accidents have happened. It’ll support ICBC insurance assessments, and it’ll also give the investigators clarity in moments when eyewitness testimony simply isn’t enough. Dashcams don’t take sides. They don’t guess. They show what happened. That is why they are valuable. Now, the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville raised some points about this legislation. To the extent that the member talked about road safety, I agree. Road safety needs to be paramount. I agree that we need to do more, and the government has been doing stuff in terms of road safety. I think this legislation goes in line with that to further road safety. I don’t agree with the concerns raised, because I think this legislation actually deals with those concerns already. In terms of privacy issues, we already have seen legislation that has come in this House — for example, in Bill 7. Bill 7 dealt with tolls and talked about…. The inference was that there would be some data collection already as a result of that. This government was fine with Bill 7 when it came to data collection and privacy issues there. Why is there an issue now to talk about commercial vehicles? There’s already legislation that has come here and been passed here. I don’t see how those concerns make sense when the government has already introduced legislation that the government has passed that has already dealt with privacy issues. Other issues. We already have a precedent with dashcams. A lot of people already have dashcams. It’s already happening. So it’s nothing that’s really new. It’s happening already. A lot of people have access to them, and the aspect of the argument from the other side saying that requiring people to have it might be onerous…. It’s something that’s already happening. It’s not like a new innovation. It’s been around for, like, probably a decade. A lot of people use it. My past experience has been in civil litigation law as a lawyer. I’ve dealt with a lot of motor vehicle accident claims. I know, when the discussion comes forward, it’s always encouraged to deal with dash cameras, because dash cameras can actually help prevent accidents. When more people know what’s happening on the roadways around them, and they know that certain images are going to be caught, people are less likely to drive recklessly. That’s the whole thing behind why we have traffic enforcement. When people know there’s traffic enforcement along the roads, people are less likely to drive recklessly. So dashcams provide an important purpose, and we’re talking about providing dashcams in the commercial setting. This doesn’t address the general public. It talks about commercial vehicles. There are already rigorous regulatory frameworks in terms of commercial vehicles. So this is in line with that. This is in line with making sure the drivers that are in commercial vehicles are safe and safer, and also in line with the people that are from the general public driving around these commercial vehicles. They are also safe, because there are dash cameras to keep the safety in check. As for the concern that was mentioned in terms of cost, I just mentioned you can get a dashcam for as low as $36. Just imagine how much money that will save commercial drivers or commercial businesses. If they can get the proper footage of how the accident happened, they can prove to the insurer, they can prove to ICBC that they never caused the accident. That may actually save them thousands of dollars in premiums, so $36 versus thousands of dollars in premiums. It makes sense to have consistency with dashcams and having this in the industry. Now, another example was mentioned by the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville, that there are a lot of other jurisdictions that don’t have legislation to make dashcams mandatory. Well, B.C. has the opportunity to become a leader here. I think that’s in line with what B.C. has been doing in the past. The member for Nanaimo-Lantzville stated that B.C. has done a lot for road safety, and B.C. has played a role in being a leader. So this goes in line with all of that. All in all, I feel that this legislation is much needed. It will protect British Columbians. The cost for doing it is very low, and it can actually end up saving British Columbians money in terms of increases to premiums, say, if they didn’t have dashcams. I’ll be supporting this bill.

1161 words

Sorry. Yes. Absolutely. That’s part of the intent of this motion — thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance: to provide confidence in the oversight of why this is being done. It’s not the first time that we’ve had concerns with oversight — Bill 7, Bill 14, Bill 15 and now Bill 31, each representing a further step toward centralizing decision-making within cabinet, with the potential for diminishing independent oversight. Again, I’ve already spoken to that, but that is the intent of this motion, to provide confidence to the public and to the stakeholders that oversight will be respected. Each step that is taken in this direction erodes institutional checks and balances that once gave investors, Indigenous partners and ratepayers confidence in the fairness of our system. Bill 31 appears to grant cabinet authority to determine which industries may receive electricity, to set rates by regulation and to designate projects outside of normal regulatory review. This may represent a shift from transparent regulation to discretionary governance. If the government believes that such powers are justified, then six months is not too much time to publish the empirical and economic rationale to justify those decisions. That is what this motion is asking for. B.C. Hydro has long been a cornerstone of our provincial economy, a public utility designed to provide reliable power, not designed to be a political instrument. Under Bill 31, Hydro appears to be placed at the intersection of politics and commerce. The proposed Indigenous equity arrangements under section 12.1 are well-intentioned. The potential concern is the induction of long-term fiscal and governance risks that have not as yet been publicly quantified. Again, the purpose for this amendment is to give time for that to occur. The question would beg itself: who bears the cost if a project overruns or underperforms? Will ratepayers alone be asked to absorb debt on assets on which they no longer have full ownership, or will Indigenous partner groups be asked to shoulder a portion of that cost? Will Hydro’s credit rating be affected by these contingent liabilities? I would suggest that these are not entirely rhetorical questions. I believe there’s validity here. These are material concerns that deserve a full Treasury Board review before this House votes the bill into law. Again, the rationale behind introducing this motion. The B.C. Utilities Commission was established precisely to ensure that political priorities do not distort electricity planning and pricing. There is concern that Bill 31 is challenging that principle. Again, the concern is that Bill 31 empowers cabinet to prohibit or restrict the use of electricity for entire sectors. We’ve talked about cryptocurrency. We’ve talked about artificial intelligence. And we’ve talked about hydrogen export. This will occur with minimal public process. This would suggest that, in effect, we are governing through regulation, by order in council rather than through legislation. This motion intends to provide time for ample consultation with stakeholders, allowing for their input and to avoid that concern. To my knowledge, no other energy jurisdiction in North America has given this level of authority to cabinet without a requirement for independent review. I would love to be corrected on that if I’m not correct, but it does appear to be the case. A six-month delay would allow comparative analysis with Alberta, Quebec and federal regulatory models to confirm, in fact, that we are not isolating British Columbia from future investment and innovation. Investors in clean technology and energy-intensive industries make decisions long term — ten-, 20-, 30-year horizons. They need to know that regulatory frameworks are stable, predictable and transparent. When rules can be changed without notice or appeal, as potentially could happen through cabinet, investor confidence evaporates. Already we have seen digital infrastructure and data processing proponents express concern about moving projects out of this jurisdiction to other provinces. This motion, again, allows the opportunity for those stakeholders to reassess their investments and to provide input to the government. A six-month pause would permit an independent economic impact study by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, an open, transparent evaluation of how those powers might affect jobs, tax revenue and industrial diversification. I do want to state, as I did previously, that the official opposition does support Indigenous participation in energy development without question. Section 12.1 retroactively deems prior agreements authorized and valid, and I did speak to this last time I was before the House, yet this House has not been shown those agreements. Again, opaque versus transparent would be my concern there. No fiscal model has been presented, no risk disclosure has been presented, and no audit mechanism has been presented or discussed. Six months, as proposed by this motion, would provide the time to ensure that those partnerships, if not already structured, are structured transparently and that Indigenous communities gain lasting benefit without inheriting disproportionate risk. I will state that reconciliation should not be used as a shield against scrutiny. Accountability is respect. Bill 31 is presented as part of CleanBC, yet its mechanisms may or may not — I will leave that open to future interpretation — inadvertently hinder decarbonization, potentially restricting access to clean electricity for sectors like hydrogen and data processing. Those restrictions could push industries toward high-emission jurisdictions. Meeting our climate targets by exporting emissions elsewhere is not, in my opinion, the British Columbia way. We can have that discussion. I would go on to state that public trust, as we all know, is fragile. In fact, I was just responding to an email that would suggest very much that that’s the case. Each time legislation bypasses independent oversight, or appears to, public trust is further eroded. Bill 31 would potentially allow cabinet to both design and approve regulations that directly affect the cost of electricity for every British Columbian household. I think that’s without question. Many would suggest that that is too much concentration of power to pass and gather into one place without comprehensive public scrutiny. That, again, is the intent of this motion: to provide that opportunity for that scrutiny. A six-month delay, as provided by this motion, would require the government to return with a transparent plan, including full disclosure of fiscal impacts to B.C. Hydro’s balance sheet, publication of all intended regulations under section 21.1 and confirmation that the B.C. Utilities Commission will retain its mandate to protect ratepayers. I would suggest that this is not obstruction. It is governance. I would go on to state that we have found ourselves here before. Bill 14 and Bill 15 were advanced as technical adjustments. Again, on their basis, coming from my background, there is merit to those bills. The public perception is such that substantial implications for public accountability could exist. This motion, as we’ve already stated, is such that we would avoid that potential situation with Bill 31, or hope to. In both cases, of Bills 14 and 15, the House was asked to trust cabinet’s assurances, with details defined later on through regulation. Is that the government that we are looking to establish? Is it through regulation, or is it through legislation? Again, through the motion, a six-month deferral is our opportunity to learn from that pattern and to reassure the public that things are being done openly and transparently. It invites the government to demonstrate that the intent of Bill 31 can in fact withstand the daylight of technical and fiscal review. If the bill is as sound as it appears to be or that it is claimed, it will emerge stronger six months from now. Mr. Speaker, this motion to defer is not an attempt to bury Bill 31. It is a motion, in fact, to strengthen it, to ensure that when we legislate on energy, that we do so with integrity, foresight and full public confidence. I would suggest very strongly that energy policy in British Columbia is too important to be decided in haste. B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Utilities Commission, Indigenous governments, industry and the public all deserve the opportunity to examine this bill’s implications in detail. I’d like to welcome Madam Speaker to the chair. I may have referred to you as “Mr. Speaker” in my last address. Welcome, and I apologize. I would go on to state that six months hence, as proposed in this motion, this House could return with clarity, with fiscal transparency, environmental modelling and genuine consensus. That is, I would suggest, a responsible course. I would very strongly suggest that that is a democratic course. I will go on to state that the official opposition will stand firmly in support of this motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

1441 words

I rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 — legislation that, in my view, raises serious concerns about transparency, about governance and about the long-term stability of British Columbia’s energy system. I had a situation that happened in Abbotsford West during Thanksgiving weekend. On the south side of the freeway near McCallum Road, we had a power outage from about eight in the morning until about seven in the evening. Had we been doing our turkey, we would have been eating raw turkey, but luckily, we had ours on the Saturday. It just made me realize how fragile our system is. In this grid that was without power was the Abbotsford Centre of entertainment, University of the Fraser Valley, several large chicken operations. I think people need to know that there’s a secure source of power at all times, and we rely on it heavily. I know we did. At its core, this bill makes substantial and unnecessary changes to the operations of B.C. Hydro, changes that could fundamentally alter the role of our publicly owned utility and how electricity is governed in this province. One, unnecessary legislation for a project B.C. Hydro can already build. Let’s begin with the basics. The government says this bill is needed. It’s necessary to move forward with the North Coast transmission line, a $6 billion project meant to connect new industrial developments in the northwest. It was $3 billion. Now it is $6 billion. But B.C. Hydro already has all the authority it requires to build transmission infrastructure. This legislation is not required to construct that line. So why is Bill 31 here? Why, indeed. Possibly because this government wants to change who owns it. Possibly because this government wants to change who benefits from it. This same government has long claimed to champion the idea of public utilities, of keeping power generation and transmission in public hands for the public good. Yet now, through Bill 31, it is opening the door to selling off portions of B.C. Hydro’s assets to other entities, even if indirectly through limited partnerships. It is one thing for B.C. Hydro to purchase power from independent producers, but that has always been a matter of contract and supply. But it is quite another for B.C. Hydro to sell off portions of its own transmission infrastructure, especially a project of this scale. We have to ask some questions that demand answers. What happens when our public utility becomes a partial landlord to private investors? What happens when ownership of the grid itself becomes fragmented? Who controls the system? More importantly, who is accountable to British Columbians when costs rise or priorities change? Two, Indigenous partnership — important, but not a shield for poor policy. Now, to be clear, we support meaningful — key word “meaningful” — Indigenous partnership and ownership in energy development. The principle of reconciliation through shared economic participation is essential. However, that principle should not be used as a political cover for poor legislative design. This bill conflates genuine Indigenous equity participation with the major reconstruction of B.C. Hydro’s legal and operational authority, something that deserves more public scrutiny than it’s been given. We must never allow the government to use Indigenous co-ownership as a shield to avoid oversight and as a shield to justify decisions that would otherwise be controversial. Three, a better option for the North: small modular reactors. We support economic growth in B.C.’s northwest. Long overdue. But we also believe there are better, more affordable, more reliable ways to generate electricity needed in that region instead of spending $6 billion or more, because cost overruns and cost delays on many of the previous projects of this government are a reality. Instead of spending $6 billion or more on a transmission line that may double in cost again before it’s completed, the government should look at small modular reactors, SMRs — modern, scalable nuclear technology that can provide clean, stable, local power at a fraction of the cost, with far fewer environmental impacts. SMRs could meet the energy needs of mining and LNG projects while creating high-quality jobs and maintaining full public control of generation. But this government refuses to consider innovation in nuclear energy, preferring instead to pour billions into long-distance wires and political deals. Four, cabinet power to pick winners and losers. The second half of Bill 31 gives cabinet extraordinary powers over who can and who cannot access electricity in British Columbia. Cabinet will now have the ability to regulate, restrict or even ban electricity use for entire categories of industries, including cryptocurrency mining, data storage and processing, including AI. AI is a huge growth area. We need to think well in advance. Do we have the capacity? The production of hydrogen for export…. Let’s remember that this is the same government that only a few years ago was encouraging all of these industries to set up in British Columbia. In 2018, B.C. Hydro was actively trying to entice cryptocurrency miners to the province, offering discounted rates to attract investment. Their own business development manager said: “We need to get in the game. This rate will help B.C. Hydro compete with other clean jurisdictions.” That was only six years ago. So what has changed? B.C. Hydro’s own 2021 electrification plan identified crypto mining, data centres and hydrogen production as key opportunities for industrial growth. It stated explicitly that B.C. Hydro needed to be “more proactive and customer-facing to attract and secure investment by emerging energy-intensive industries.” Fast forward to today. Those same industries are now being told they’re not welcome here anymore. They’re being regulated out of existence by the very government that once courted them to come here. That’s not sound energy planning. That is policy whiplash. It sends a message to investors that B.C. is not a reliable jurisdiction for long-term industrial investment. We have seen and heard money leaving this province, and here we go again. Five, a dangerous centralization of power. Bill 7, 2.0; Bill 14, 2.0; Bill 15, 2.0. This bill also represents a troubling centralization of decision-making power within the cabinet. Under Bill 31, cabinet can unilaterally — which means no public consultation, no public debate in this House by elected officials — set or change electricity rates for certain sectors. It can also decide who is eligible for service. It can also impose limits or caps on total electricity availability. They can even force utilities to collect lost revenue from other ratepayers. In other words, the government will have the power to pick winners and losers in the energy economy, not through open competition, not through regulatory process but through ministerial decree. That is control. To make matters worse, if that is possible, the bill overrides the B.C. Utilities Commission, our independent and non-partisan regulator. Decades of public policy have been built on the principle that energy decisions must be evidence based. They must be transparent. They must be subject to independent oversight. This bill unplugs that principle and plugs it into political discretion and backroom regulation. Six, what this bill really admits. The real story behind Bill 31 is that B.C. is running out of power. Despite years of promises under the CleanBC plan, this province has not built the generation capacity required to support both electrification and industrial growth. Today, October 2025, B.C. Hydro is importing as much as a quarter of its electricity, at a cost of $2.26 billion. Often generated by what? Fossil fuels in Alberta and the U.S. I’ve got to repeat that. Hang on. B.C. Hydro is importing as much as a quarter of its electricity, at a cost of $2.26 billion, generated from fossil fuels in Alberta and the U.S. Isn’t that interesting. The connection queue for new industrial projects now stands at more than 7,000 megawatts, six times the capacity of the Site C dam. Instead of confronting this reality and developing new generation capacity, the government has chosen to ration what little electricity that remains, deciding who gets connected and who gets cut off. This bill is about rationing, not innovation. It’s about managing scarcity, not solving it. Seven, questions for committee stage. We have many questions at committee stage. I’m just going to throw out a few that we’re going to ask for answers on. We want to get them on record, the questions, and we want the answers on record. Why is this government granting itself the power to override the BCUC and set rates by regulation? Why is this bill necessary to build a transmission line that B.C. Hydro already has authority to construct? What safeguards are in place to prevent the sale or transfer of public transmission assets to private hands? Why does this government continue to mismanage electricity planning, shifting from promotion to prohibition in a matter of years? These and many other questions will be asked. British Columbians deserve clear answers. No slogans about clean growth while our utility is forced to import dirty power to keep the lights on. I scanned the internet and looked at responses to this bill. First, I want to see what the newspapers are saying is the government’s position. Our Premier frames the bill as economic and climate strategy to electrify resource industries, reduce emissions and generate $1 billion in annual revenue and 10,000 jobs. The NCTL is described as a nation-building project to unlock industrial development in northwestern B.C. and strengthen reconciliation through Indigenous partnerships. Cabinet oversight is justified — it’s justified — as a way to accelerate approvals and to ensure strategic use of limited electrical supply. Let’s see what industry or the experts’ response to this is. Analysts say Bill 31 acknowledges an energy shortage, with 7,291 megawatts of unserved demand, six times the capacity of Site C. Critics describe the bill as rationing electricity rather than expanding generation, warning it would deter new investment in hydrogen, AI and digital infrastructure. Calls continue for B.C. to leverage domestic natural gas and diversify its energy mix rather than rely solely on hydroelectric capacity and imports. Even the opposition and environmental people have concerns. The B.C. Greens and watchdog groups argue the bill weakens oversight by sidelining the B.C. Utilities Commission and consolidating decision-making in cabinet. They warn of reducing transparency, potential political influence in power allocation. Environmental advocates question the NCTL’s root impacts and the decision to bypass environmental assessment processes. In closing, Bill 31 is not a vision for the future. It’s a confession of past failures. It acknowledges that this government has not planned adequately for power demands it has created through its own policies. It weakens public oversight. It risks the integrity of B.C. Hydro and politicizes electricity allocation in ways that could haunt this province for decades. We all support reconciliation. We all support clean energy and regional growth. But we cannot support a bill that uses those goals as a cover for poor planning, political control and creeping privatization of our public utilities. British Columbia built B.C. Hydro to serve the public, not to serve the political convenience of the government of the day. For that reason, we’ll be raising serious concerns with this legislation and holding the government accountable at every stage of the debate.

1877 words

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

We’ll continue talking about the energy supply crunch that has occurred in this province. Where I was going with this that is the government is trying to manage scarcity by changing the rules of the game. Under this bill, the old principle that B.C. Hydro must treat industrial customers equally is being thrown out. As I said, I want to see changes at Hydro. But what we’re seeing here is the same road we’ve gone down before with the government overreach bills last spring when we talked about Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15. These are overreach. That is not a small adjustment to how we do business in this province. It’s actually a fundamental shift in how we’ve managed energy in this province for decades, in how we’ve managed projects in this province for decades, in how we’ve managed all of the decision-making of government. We need to have a rules-based system. The Globe and Mail, when they reported on this, noted, “The government intends to scrap the rule to provide electricity equally to industrial customers,” as I’ve said, “and start picking which sectors deserve priority,” so in plain terms, only selecting the projects that have the blessings of the cabinet. Only those ones will be on the government’s list, and you’ll get your power connection fast-tracked. If you’re a project like a sawmill, a pulp mill, a data centre or another type of employer that, perhaps, maybe for whatever reason doesn’t fit the government’s current definition of a priority, you could be waiting a long time. Now the government says this is about efficiency, using limited power wisely. I understand that instinct, but fairness still matters. Transparency still matters. When government has the power to choose winners and losers, British Columbians need to see the rules up front, not after the fact. Investment capital also needs to see the rules up front. These are global players that can invest anywhere in the world. They prefer clear rules to make those decisions, not rolling the dice to see if their lobbying pays off. Overall, the public and investors…. With this change, we’re seeing a shift in how decisions get made in this province, who makes them and how much daylight the public will get on that process. The sad thing is that even the merits of this bill have flaws because the government has really broken our permitting system. This is something I canvassed with the government last spring in those overreach bills that we talked about. I was questioning the Minister of Infrastructure during Bill 15 debate. The Infrastructure Minister admitted: “There are literally thousands and thousands of backlogged permits in government right now.” That was a real quote coming from this government about the permitting system and what’s flawed and what’s going wrong in the way projects are being developed. In that same debate, we talked about 7,800 water permits being backlogged, for example. The government’s supposed fixes, like this bill, don’t actually fix that problem. All they do is reorganize the project queue based on NDP preferences. So instead of fixing the system for everyone, the government is creating a shortcut for some while leaving others behind. British Columbia doesn’t need a system based on political preference. We need a permitting regime that is fair, accountable and transparent, and one that evaluates all projects based on merit, not ideology or politics. That means streamlining processes across the board. It means fixing backlogs at their source, supporting ministries and regulators with the capacity they need, of course, and giving communities and proponents clarity about what’s expected. It also means simply stopping the requirements to do certain things that don’t matter in the first place. That’s one of the problems that has got us here to where we are today. This is a problem to continue watching, and it’s something I’m going to be taking into account as I watch the progress of bills like this one now and in the future. I’m going to shift gears now and talk a bit from a labour standpoint. The stakes are high in that area as well. The North needs to see benefits from projects, including new transmission projects, if the North Coast transmission line indeed goes ahead. Any project in northern B.C.’s backyard should have workers from the region. We need to pull from the whole province, of course. We need the skilled tradespeople from across the province, but we also need those apprenticeship opportunities in northern B.C. and contracts for businesses in northern B.C. No one disputes the potential that these projects can provide local, but it has to happen. I just met with the IBEW Canada this week and appreciate the efforts that the union is making on apprenticeship in particular. The question for this bill is whether those benefits will actually land in local communities. Will they pass us by in northern B.C.? Too often when projects are political or they don’t have that accountability, the promises of local hiring and training may evaporate. Contractors come in from, sometimes, out of province. Oversight slips, and workers who live near the project are left standing on the sidelines. I attended B.C. Hydro’s open houses for the North Coast transmission line. It goes right through land of landowners, properties of many of my constituents. They need to be treated fairly, and people in my community should benefit from a project like that. I told B.C. Hydro directly that procurement should be designed with local priority. It sounds like they’re proposing Indigenous contracting participation. I actually think that’s a very good thing. But they actually need to score certain joint ventures higher in their procurement. A JV with a Prince George or Burns Lake business is very meaningful. It needs to be scored higher in those procurement scorecards when they’re making award decisions. Otherwise, a company from Edmonton will end up partnering with the nation just to bring in their own workforce, and both the nation and the local communities are left upset about the lack of employment benefits. I have seen this on projects, so I expect that Hydro and government proponents will take a serious look at this. That trend needs to be recognized and cut back in procurement. If the government is going to take more control over who gets power and how projects proceed, it also has to take on responsibility to make sure those projects create lasting, high-quality jobs for British Columbians. That means ensuring there are clear expectations for local hiring, proper apprenticeship ratios and safe working conditions. It means that every time a project is advanced under this system, the public should be able to see how many jobs were created, how many apprentices were trained and whether commitments to workers were actually kept. That will now maybe bring me to accountability, because that’s how some of these things actually occur. Bill 31 gives cabinet, of course, the ability to bypass the oversight normally provided by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That’s something we’ve canvassed here already. The BCUC’s role is to ask tough questions on behalf of the public to make sure the big decisions about power supply are based on evidence and not on politics. Removing that layer of scrutiny only increases the risk of mistakes and poor planning. When the Energy Minister was the Energy critic in opposition days, I recall him making that very same argument, actually. I believe in transparency, and this government shouldn’t be afraid of that oversight. Any new discretionary power should come with clear reporting obligations. When cabinet issues a directive under this bill, it should also have to publish the rationale, the criteria and the expected impacts, including how the decision supports local employment and economic development. But transparency isn’t a strong point at this point, and that’s what we’re seeing with this bill. I think that the government should also publish the impact to ratepayers. Right now that will be bypassed under this, and the government is hiding the cost, the true cost, of the North Coast transmission line from ratepayers. I think we need to dive into that. It’s also hiding the true cost of Site C, and we’ve known that. It’s going to be more than $16 billion, and ratepayers need to know what actually is going on. We need more accountability to build trust among the public, to get solutions, to get things done and to get the power generation and the transmission that we need. Another important, broader concern is reliability of our energy systems and the ability to keep the lights on and industry running. This should be much more clear in energy legislation. We often talk about affordability and sustainability, and both are essential, but if we don’t have enough reliable power to keep our industries operating, our affordability targets will collapse under their own weight. Reliability must be the foundation on which everything else stands. We used to have self-sufficiency legislation in this province, but that was taken away. So if reliability is now in question, British Columbians deserve to see the real numbers. In a perfect world, the public would be able to see how much electricity we’re producing, consuming, importing or exporting at any given time. That level of transparency would go a long way towards rebuilding confidence that the government is being straight with people about the state of our power system. Quite frankly, it would also help the decisions of the investment community and the business community on which power projects actually make the most sense. It would help us attract investment capital. From the perspective of northern and Interior communities, this bill sits at the intersection of opportunity and risk. We want development, certainly, in our region. We want the transmission lines and the industrial projects that bring jobs and revenue. We also want to make sure that those benefits don’t come at the expense of fairness or local input. Mackenzie, in my riding, has had power allotment actually taken away from them without a say in that process. B.C. Hydro did not give them a say whatsoever. There’s so much potential in Mackenzie, but they can’t do proper economic development, unfortunately, without power. There is a data centre now in Mackenzie, Iris Energy, and it could expand into more AI data processing in the future. As Canadians, we should be looking at data sovereignty and not relying completely on U.S. servers. That’s a real problem that we’ll have to tackle in another bill. Mackenzie is actually a perfect place for data storage to be taking place because of the lower ambient temperatures and proximity to fibre lines. This government should focus on self-sufficiency so we can actually expand data centres to protect Canadian data and not limit them like this bill does. The reason Mackenzie had its power taken…. Once the Canfor pulp mill shut down, that energy was actually allotted elsewhere when it wasn’t being used. Mackenzie had no say in that whatsoever. All of a sudden, that just disappeared. The former Canfor pulp mill site…. Fortunately, it was just purchased by a redevelopment firm last Friday, and that is a very good thing, a chance for the community to turn the page on some tough economic times. Power is a constraint. To see new industries develop, B.C. Hydro’s current policies and plans are a barrier to Mackenzie’s potential, and that needs to change. This bill doesn’t fix any of that, any of the problems for Mackenzie, and I want to see that happen. If the government wants to prioritize energy allocation, then maybe it should also look at prioritizing the people who live in the regions and consult with communities properly on this. Fairness in allocation should go hand in hand with fairness in opportunities for communities like Mackenzie. Now, I want to be clear. This side of the House believes in securing B.C.’s energy future. We all understand that the province needs more electricity and a modernized system to manage it. We actually believe we should be self-sufficient, and if the government wants to make this legislation stronger and fairer, there are straightforward ways to do it. Let’s maybe start in looking at changes that could be potential here. Let’s start by actually anchoring reliability into the law. The system is required to keep the lights on for everyone, not just for a few preferred industries. Let’s make the allocation rules public so every employer knows the criteria and every citizen can see the decisions based on evidence, not on lobbying. Let’s pair the fast-tracking of projects with firm expectations around worker safety, training and local participation. There should also be more protection for the independence of the regulator, particularly for public trust, when billions of ratepayer dollars are on the line here. Those kinds of improvements wouldn’t weaken the bill. They’d make it more credible, they’d make it more fair, and they’d show British Columbians that this government can walk and chew gum. Let’s move fast but do it transparently and responsibly. British Columbia’s success has always depended on getting energy policy right. We’ve talked a lot about W.A.C. Bennett and his legacy and what he has given us as a gift in B.C.’s natural advantages. We have natural advantages, including that legacy of clean power that has attracted investments, supported communities and kept our economy competitive. But that advantage only lasts if we protect it. We have to actually make things better for investment, not worse. We actually have to plan ahead for energy needs, with more realistic assumptions. Bill 31 acknowledges that there’s actually a real problem and that the government has played a part in creating it. Our province doesn’t have enough power for our needs. The challenge now is to fix that problem in a way that doesn’t undermine the legacy and values that built our system in the first place. Also, fairness, transparency and respect for the people who keep the lights on each and every day — those workers, the line technicians that I talked about earlier in my remarks. This bill is flawed as we see it currently. We don’t need the NDP in charge of economic decisions. These are market decisions that should be made. On this side of the House, we believe in free enterprise and competition. If the government had that as a focus, maybe they’d see more support on this side of the House, because at the end of the day, my priority is for my family and for my communities, providing hope for the people in the province again. To do that, we need reliable power, good jobs and a future where British Columbia’s workers and communities can thrive. Thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.

2465 words

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

No? A few more jokes in there will keep you awake. Moving ahead, I’m going to skip to clause 2. Section 2, I would suggest, is a new section, and it’s the heart of the bill, which is the most consequential. It grants cabinet authority to regulate, restrict or even prohibit electrical services, which again was spoken to, but I do need to understand that better. We’ve already talked about cryptocurrency. We’ve talked about data processing, and I do agree. I agree with the minister’s comments in those respects. Cryptocurrency — I’m not sure I necessarily agree. With my proposal, with the ability to scale the power generation significantly more quickly and, I would suggest, at a lower cost, it would potentially allow us to maintain, once the numbers are run, that component. I don’t know what the economics are behind it, but anything that will bring economic prosperity to this province…. Boy, you’re going to have a tough time getting me to argue against it. We’ve talked about the delegation of power. That’s something, again, that we do need to more fully understand in this House. It’s something that we all recall, what we went through with Bill 14 and Bill 15, and there is a perception already that there is a similar concern. We do need to address that, the concern, obviously, being what I’ve already stated, that the debate would not happen in this chamber. It would happen behind the closed doors of cabinet. The people of this province need to be aware. There are probably 20 or 30 of them watching us right now, but they can always go back and watch us later on. They’ll know exactly what the minister said. They’ll know exactly what I said. They have the right to do that. They absolutely have the right to do that. Making those very important decisions behind closed doors is concerning. It’s concerning to me. I already talked about Bill 7. I don’t want to rehash old things. Well, old things — all of, what, six months or eight months old? It expanded ministerial direction, powers over B.C. Hydro’s resource plans. Bill 14 also quietly inserted provisions into the Environmental Management Act and other laws, allowing cabinet to bypass regulatory steps in the name of efficiency. I’m an engineer. I am all about efficiency — 100 percent about efficiency. We need oversight, and we need transparency when we do it. Similar comments around Bill 15. I don’t want to repeat myself too many times, but the…. I lost my train of thought there, so I will move back to the written word. I would say that each of those bills, as is this one, was justified as a modernization. Again, a person from a background like mine, how could I argue modernization? What I would say, though, is that we have to be very careful that modernization does not become a synonym for centralization. I’d also like to consider the practical implications. Section 21.1 empowers cabinet to prohibit electrical service for specific industries, not temporarily, not conditionally but for a specified period or indefinitely. I know the example was given of the crypto. On its face value, without seeing the numbers, I will admit…. I admit when I know things, and I admit when I don’t, and I’m not familiar with that industry as much as I could be. The problem I see there is that if we permanently prohibit that industry, once we do supply the power, have we taken the ability for this province to benefit from that industry? They’re going to go somewhere else. That potentially means that entire sectors employing hundreds or even thousands of British Columbians could lose access to power on the stroke of a pen. Again, I think that assurances around how these powers are going to be applied is something that would be of benefit to all of us. In this case, I would suggest that we imagine an AI data centre investing millions to build near Prince George. Actually, I’m going to change that to Dawson Creek, so I’m sorry, Prince George. The data centre, an amazing, beautiful thing near Dawson Creek, is planning to hire 200 local technicians. Under this bill, potentially, the cabinet could decide tomorrow that such activity no longer aligns with political priorities, and the facility could lose its electrical service authorization. I would love to explore that. I’m glad to see your head shaking because I would love to…. That is a concern, and I would love to get that on the record, that that’s not a possibility or not a concern. I would suggest that that same concern that I would love to explore further, potentially, could apply to a hydrogen producer or a cryptocurrency operator. I would love to dig into that a little bit deeper. Again, perhaps we can, during the committee stage, assuage these concerns, but my concern would be investor confidence. We need to be absolutely clear that in X plus Y, the cost of X is X, the cost of Y is Y, and it adds up to Z. Investors need to know what that Z number is, and they need to make the decision whether they’re going to invest their billions of dollars in this beautiful province or whether they’re going to go somewhere else. They need certainty. They beg it. They deserve it. I would go further to say that the Conservative Party believes in energy certainty, in a stable, transparent framework that encourages innovation rather than punishes it. I think we can get there together, and I’m very willing to do the work, without question. There is a concern…. Well, you know what? I already have said it. I don’t necessarily disagree with limiting a particular high usage just because we do have a limited supply. What I would suggest, and I already have said it, is that my concern is the transparency of how that is done. I would suggest an opportunity for those who may be affected to have a chance to consult — that those from the opposition who have an interest, representing the people, have an opportunity to consult, and the people, the citizens, who may or may not be affected by the loss of infrastructure, the loss of jobs by banning that particular industry, have an opportunity to consult. I believe that that’s our duty as people that stand in this place of honour to remember who we report to. It’s the people of this province. I don’t want to belabour lessons from Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15. I think we’ve already talked about those at length. The retroactivity clause is another one that I’m looking forward to digging into. That raises some questions in my mind as to why it’s necessary and why it is something that…. If things were done in the proper manner as they were done, why do we have to pass laws to cover them retroactively? That does concern me. That makes me think that there’s something there that we need to look at significantly deeper, just for the simple fact: why are we doing that? It doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not sure why we have the ability to do that. What are the boundaries around it? Can we go back and retroactively legislate something to 1969? Is that appropriate? What happens to the people that were abiding by the law of the day? We change the law retroactively; what peril might they be in? I would love to get into that a little bit further on and understand it better. I would also say that one of the…. I do agree with this, grid stability. Again, there are many components to this that I do agree with. Grid stability, without question, is going to be very important, without arguing. The technical challenges deserve technical solutions, would be my suggestion, as opposed to political ones. I provided a very viable and, I believe…. I haven’t run the numbers, but instinctively, I’m quite convinced that the solution that I provided at the beginning will provide ratepayers with a much more scalable version of electricity, at a much lower cost. I may be wrong, and I haven’t run the numbers, but I think why we’re going a route of spending $6 billion, that we know of, before we put a shovel in the ground, on a power line which would be questionable whether there’s any power to send through it, relative to utilizing the cleanest source of natural gas on the planet that’s already there, paid for by industry…. We’re subjecting the ratepayers to that $6 billion bill, that we know of. Therein lies the concern for me, or one of the concerns. I would go on to say that grid management should rely on tools like dynamic pricing, which already does happen; time of use rates, which already does happen; infrastructure. I would suggest from the previous statements that I made in the last few minutes that there is a concern that we could be drifting from responsible energy planning to politicized energy control. That’s something I’m very interested to work with the minister to dissuade. It may very well just be a perception, and I hope that it is, but it’s something that I feel that we should be looking into. I’ve already talked about the retroactive validation. The precedent is a concern. I used the extreme example of going back to 1969. Clearly, I don’t expect that, and I think that is a ludicrous number, but it’s used as an illustration of potentially what could happen. If it’s not, I would love to understand that mechanism as to how it’s not possible. Part of that I’ve already spoken to, legal irregularity automatically erased. If we do it here, if that is a potential and if it happens here, where does it stop? How do we stop it from happening? I won’t beat that one to death. You’re lucky you only have me for six more minutes. I would further state that our party’s vision is grounded in accountability, transparency and respect for both economic opportunity and environmental stewardship. I know that I’ve heard more than the minister say, on the opposite side, that we produce the cleanest natural gas on the planet. I know we do. That was the industry I worked in for 30 years. I am proud of that industry. What is being portrayed in certain areas of the media is not what’s happening on the ground. I live there. It’s not happening. I work there. It’s not. We have a world-class supply of the cleanest natural gas on the planet, and it’s already at the coast. I would say — which I already have; I’ll repeat — that I do not reject the goals of this bill. I have concerns with the method about which it goes, and I hope I’ve done a reasonable job of illustrating that. I would suggest that any arrangements that are undertaken with this bill are overseen through transparency, that they’re reported publicly and that they’re reviewed regularly. I think that’s quite reasonable. I do believe in regulating high-load electricity consumers. I would suggest, which I already have, that that needs to be done through an open process and not necessarily driven by political ideology. I know what I do for a living. I’m not ignorant to that fact. I know that political ideology is a part of our life, but I’m also a very strongly science-based person. I’m willing to forgo politics to make sure that the people of this province get the best that they can, and I think everyone in this room knows that. So this is one of the things that…. I will repeat this for the sixth time because everybody loves hearing it. Most of us have agreed we produce the cleanest natural gas on the planet, and it already is at the coast. I could keep repeating that for the next three minutes, I guess, if you like. I would suggest that the B.C. Utilities Commission should remain the impartial forum for such determinations that we’ve already talked about and that cabinet is providing policy direction only, not case-by-case authorization. That’s something I’d love to delve into. I don’t know the answer to that at this point, but that’s part of the process. That’s what I’d love to….

2076 words

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

Well, perhaps. Perhaps it will come to me. I could say something about hiring someone to write jokes for me, but I won’t. I’d like to make a couple of statements before I do get into my written remarks. My experience in the House over the last year has been quite varied. I would suggest that one of the things that I’ve been most surprised with is how many things that the minister and I agree on when it comes to the energy file. I would say on its basis, the bill that is before us is something that I would not disagree with. However, I do have issues with it, and that is something that I’m going to be speaking to today. The minister did talk about the importance of getting energy out to the west coast. Wow. I’m a northerner, and I’m industry-based. How could I not agree with that, especially given the fact that we’ve had a net import of 15 percent of our energy from neighbouring sources over the last three years? Where my concerns would come in…. I’m also a massive supporter of the hydrogen industry. I do. I look forward to owning a hydrogen-powered vehicle at one point in my life. I would very much enjoy doing that. I do have, again, some concerns. I know some of these, hopefully many of them, will be addressed during committee stage. The minister did talk about it in his remarks around the perception of choosing winners over losers. I am very much looking forward to digging into that process of competitiveness and seeing how that works and understanding very clearly how those decisions are made. I do appreciate the fact that he did indicate…. Sorry, is that parliamentary language? I can say he or she? Sorry. I don’t know why I flustered myself on that one. There’s your joke for today. At any rate, I would suggest that the collaborative approach is very much appreciated. That’s something that I would look very much forward to doing. The ratepayers are of significant concern to me, and that is something that the minister did mention in his remarks as well. As many will know that have listened to me speak before, Site C is in my riding. One of my concerns is the volume of power that Site C would actually be able to produce to send through this line to the northwest. That leads into my next statements. I have said this publicly — that the minister and I agree that British Columbia has the cleanest natural gas on the planet, bar none. I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that in this House. Industry, private money, has already spent the equity to deliver massive quantities of that incredibly valuable product to the west coast. That product represents an economic value to this province of a minimum, and I’ve said it in here before, of $1 trillion. That’s a t, not a b. Without going down a rabbit hole, which I’ve been accused of doing once or twice in the past, I have done reservoir engineering in my youth, and I can assure you that that one t is a minimum. The real number is likely to be — I can’t promise anything — significantly higher. The value to this province to fund health care, to fund education, to fund forest recovery is monumental. Industry has already paid for the transmission line out to the coast. Part of why I brought Site C up is, as an engineer, I followed the construction, the design, very closely, especially because it’s in my backyard. The first number I recall hearing for construction costs was, and I do have a good memory, but don’t hold me to it, I want to say in the order of $2.8 billion. That was before there were obvious issues around foundations. It jumped to…. It was either $6 billion or $8 billion. I can’t remember the first jump. I want to say $6 billion. Then it went to $8 billion. Then it went to $12 billion, and then it’s ending up around $16 billion. Why that’s important for me to speak to is…. I don’t know where the first number came from on the North Coast transmission line, but the first one that I recall hearing was $500 million. I could be wrong on that, but I did hear it. I don’t know where it came from. The second number I recall was $3 billion. Now I’m hearing $6 billion. My concern is cost control and where this will end up at the end of the day as far as cost is concerned and with respect to ratepayers. That’s a significant concern of mine. I will further reiterate that what I’ve already said is that private industry has already paid for that line to go to the coast for the world’s cleanest natural gas. It is exceedingly easy to buy, if not off the shelf, nearly off the shelf. You’re shaking your head at me, Minister. Perhaps we will explore further in estimates. I’m quite certain that I am correct on that, but I love to debate, so we will debate. Back to my thought process around the gas. If we’re not utilizing plug-and-play…. It’s a very easy design for a gas fuel system for electrical generation. It’s very scalable, and it’s something that the beautiful people of this province own. They own the resource. They get paid by the resource. Those revenues pay for health care. They pay for forestry. It’s an incredibly important, underexplored resource in this province. That being said, that is going to be the crux of…. Well, that and others, as I get into my written remarks. Where I had a challenge in outright supporting the bill is that there are components here which…. We have noticed a similarity from Bill 7, Bill 14, Bill 15. I know the minister did address some of those in his remarks around picking winners and losers. Again, I very much look forward to understanding that process much better. I will suggest that the perception of a potential for government oversight or excessive government oversight is the same language that has existed in the previous bills. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I think that perception is still there. That’s something that I would, again, be very much interested in and looking forward to delving into. I will get into my…. I’m sure not everyone wants to sit here and listen to me speak for the next four hours, or do you? That’s a thumbs-up. You might get what you’re asking for. Well, apparently I have 22 minutes left, so you won’t get four hours out of me. Into the written remarks. I will say that at its surface, as I’ve already stated, this bill does look like any other administrative update. It is four pages and one sentence — no doubt. I can’t argue that. It appears to be a tidy piece of legislation adjusting the Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1996, and the Utilities Commission Act. When we do read the provisions carefully, as I’ve already stated previously, there is a perception of the continuation of a pattern that emerged in our spring sitting, with the bills that I had mentioned, that being the steady concentration of decision-making power within the cabinet, potentially sidelining independent regulatory oversight. Again, that’s something I would very much be looking forward to delving into. This, for obvious reasons to many, could be construed as a troubling tendency to govern energy by executive order. Bill 31 grants cabinet sweeping authority to decide…. Again, the minister…. I’m not saying it’s incorrect, and I would love to delve into that deeper. The perception could be that the decision is made of who will receive the electricity and who won’t. Again, understanding the process, I’m not necessarily opposed to that. We need the electricity, and we have to be reasonably intelligent on how we allocate it. I would further say that Bill 31 validates, retroactively, agreements between B.C. Hydro and First Nations in the North Coast transmission line project, and it authorizes B.C. Hydro to enter into future co-ownership arrangements without returning to this Legislature for approval. Those may sound like administrative efficiencies, but as I’ve said many times in this House, efficiency without oversight is a danger. There is a concern there that, and I truly do believe this, when we take the decision-making ability out of this House and we allow bureaucrats to make those decisions without oversight or direct input from those who are elected by the people and are responsible to the people…. I have concerns with that. Perhaps those are concerns that we can assuage during the committee stage. I won’t go through the clauses. Again, you’ve got me for 19 more minutes. You don’t have me for four hours, so I might skip around a little bit here. I will say that this line stretching from Prince George through Fraser Lake and Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake is a major piece of infrastructure. As a northerner, obviously, I can’t for a second…. In fact, I applaud the fact that we’re looking at investing in the North. The North deserves it, without question. I would say on its face, this clause — this is clause 1 that I’m referring to — reflects an admirable intent. It appears to ensure that Indigenous communities have a direct equity stake in the development and the governance of key energy projects. I would go on to say that while this clause has commendable aspects to it, I might also suggest that it potentially fails in how it structures that authority. The designation of these agreements is left entirely to cabinet, which again is another concern that I have brought up in the past. I’m going to skip ahead because I think I’m starting to put some folks to sleep. [Interjection.]

1665 words

John Rustad

Conservative Party of British Columbia

5/29/2025

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

I want to thank the leader of the Green Party for coming in and doing his periods of questions. It’s interesting following some of the questions and some of the responses. I want to start with a little summary of some of the things that we talked about last night, yesterday afternoon. We talked about opening up new mines without a serious plan on ports. We talked about energy production in this province and the shortfall that we have. We talked about the fact that energy prices are likely going to go up dramatically, although the Premier won’t admit that or won’t come clean to the people in this province. We also talked about a number of other issues associated with getting our economy going. What I want to focus on just for the moment actually is the purpose of moving forward things like Bill 7, which was the tariff response, the response to Trump. The Premier came and started when all this stuff happened. He talked about elbows up: “We’re going to do everything we can. We’re going to be part of Team Canada.” Then on April 10, the Prime Minister dropped all of our counter-tariffs. Elbows down. It’s left me wondering what part of the anatomy the Premier does have up in the air when it comes to dealing with Trump. When I look at…. Well, you might have had your foot up. I don’t know. What do you think ends up in the air, Mr. Premier? I think that was perfectly fair language to use in this chamber. And if you don’t like it, well, I’m sorry. What could I say? The reality for the Premier is he talks about being on Team Canada. He has a large Canadian flag out in front of the building. He’s wrapping himself in the flag. I’ll just simply start with one very simple question. We need a new oil pipeline to the west coast. We need a new oil pipeline from the middle of this country out to the Pacific Ocean. We need extra capacity, more than the Trans Mountain capacity that has been built. Does the Premier support a new oil pipeline from Canada, from the Alberta provinces, out to our west coast?

374 words

Hon. David Eby

BC NDP

5/29/2025

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

I disagree with the member’s characterization about the bills in front of the House. These are bills that were developed to respond to an unprecedented threat to our economy and to our country by the President of the United States, or I guess unprecedented in modern times, and to put forward a number of mechanisms around internal trade, strengthening our economy and sending a message back to the United States that we don’t find their conduct acceptable. What the member may see as failure, I see as flexibility. There was a provision in Bill 7 that raised concern of some members in this place and outside of the House as well. We had a look at the provision and made the decision to pull that section of the bill. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the provision could be necessary, but it did mean that the level of concern that was raised about it meant that we were prepared to try to seek support for the bill without it, going forward. Of course, that support never showed up, but the bill still passed. Fortunately, because we have to remove internal trade barriers across the country, the bill enables us to do that. I want to underline that this activity by the President started almost immediately after our election and required all members in this place to consider how that impacts agendas, whether as opposition or as government, what positions we were going to take and how we were going to best support British Columbians. It required the public service to move very quickly as well. I’m very grateful to the work of the public service. The plans that we had for where we were going to be going in the session were upended by the President’s activities and the need to respond in a meaningful way. It required many late nights from the public service to assist in delivering that. It required great support and cooperation of a huge number of people to be able to deliver this meaningful framework that is going to enable us to build British Columbia into the economic engine of Canada’s future, the new Canada that is emerging from this moment, a Canada where we stand on our own two feet. We wouldn’t have been able to achieve that without the amazing work of the public service, and I wanted to thank them on the record for that.

405 words

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

It’s the day after the passage of Bills 7, 14 and 15 by the narrowest of margins, with 50 MLAs, representing 51 percent of the popular vote, voting against these bills; with over 200 First Nations across the province calling on the government to take the summer to get this right; with, as the Premier has mentioned, local governments, as represented by the UBCM, calling for taking the summer to get this right; with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, representing thousands and thousands of businesses, calling for taking the summer to get this right. And since we are actually seeming to go back down into the weeds, I just want to make sure for the record that it’s recognized that it’s not just the representative organizations that are raising these concerns. We, too, talked to mayors. Victoria mayor Marianne Alto, Saanich councillor Nathalie Chambers, Esquimalt mayor Barbara Desjardins, View Royal mayor Sid Tobias and Sooke mayor Maja Tait are all opposed to Bill 15. The opposition isn’t that we don’t need this type of legislation. The opposition is in the way in which the legislation is structured and the need to take time to get it right. The Premier will well know that regulation power within the power of cabinet, without a whole lot of detail in the legislation, is at the core of the concerns of First Nations, local governments, the chamber of commerce and others. So here we are the day after. It’s actually a great day. It’s a great day for lawyers, and it’s a great day for lobbyists. For lawyers, it’s a great day because the First Nations in this province have been very clear that they expect to have to go to court to ensure that the legislation is implemented in a way that respects their right, title and interests. It’s a great day for lobbyists because what we’ve done through this legislation, particularly Bill 15, is we’ve set up a two-track process where, if you can get designated as a provincially significant project, then you’re going to have access to priority tools to move things along faster. I’ll come to the question momentarily, but I just want to make it clear, too, that none of the groups that are calling for taking an extra three months are not sensitive to the fact that there’s a need to deal with the types of challenges the Premier has mentioned on schools, hospitals and roads. But would the world come to an end if we took a few more months and actually built consensus rather than locking in division in a key area of governance? Nobody is trying to step back from the need to deal with crisis. Nobody is trying to step back from the need to, in certain specified circumstances, be able to move more quickly. But the legislation, as we discussed in the time we had, has some real flaws that can be and could have been addressed. The question I’d like to pose to the Premier: in the absence of legislative oversight…. In the case of Bill 7 we have an all-party committee oversight. In Bills 14 and 15, we have none. In the case of Bill 7, we have the publication of regulations plus rationale in a way that is publicly accessible. In 14 and 15, we don’t. In Bill 7, we actually have a sunset clause on these. In Bills 14 and 15, we don’t. In the absence of the types of transparency and legislative oversight protections that the government could have included in these bills, particularly 14 and 15, what is the Premier’s vision for ensuring accountability for the implementation of this legislation?

613 words

Hon. David Eby

BC NDP

5/29/2025

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

To say I disagree with the member’s characterization of our government and the way we’re operating is probably an understatement — but especially the leader of the Green Party, for Pete’s sake. I mean, we just issued a report together, as the member will recall. I understand he’s got a narrative he’s trying to push, but the report that we both…. I’m looking. It’s got both our signatures on the bottom here, the executive summary, that reads: “The cooperation and responsible government accord between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat caucus reflects a shared commitment to working collaboratively on issues that matter to people.” Skipping down: “The key accountability measure within the agreement is a requirement to report out on a quarterly basis on progress in meeting these accord commitments. We’re pleased to report that a number of policies have been implemented, and reviews have gotten underway within the first quarter of the accord, including the delivery of enhanced rental housing supplements for low-income seniors and families, $50 million to support improved access to heat pumps for low- and middle-income households. “Both parties agree that the relevant implementation provisions in the accord have been put in place and were consistently applied during the reporting period. Likewise, legislative efficacy provisions in the accord are largely being carried out, and when challenges arise, both parties are working to address them in good faith. “We look forward to continuing to work constructively together to achieve our shared goals and look forward to providing further update on our work together.” Second quarterly report, 2025. The member asked this question, and I don’t know if he wants to clip it for people who don’t know what we’ve committed to, what we’re actually doing with the Green Party. “The Government House Leader will” — No. 1 in our agreement — “regularly meet with the B.C. Green caucus House Leader to discuss business of the Legislative Assembly in an agreed-upon cadence; provide a list of the government’s projected legislative agenda to the B.C. Green caucus House Leader for each legislative session, at the earliest opportunity, that includes the number of bills and a description of legislation. This will also specify the last day of introduction for legislation that is intended to be passed. “The Government House Leader will keep the Green House Leader updated of any changes in a timely matter, discuss with the Green House Leader any legislation that could be eligible as exposure to legislation.” It continues: “Provide the Green caucus briefings that include technical and consultative drafts of each piece of proposed legislation, provide advance notice of the legislative week, provide 24-hour notice of planned….” I could go on, hon. Chair, but I think you get the picture. I’ll say this. We have not seen Green Party support on a number of bills that have come through this House, despite that commitment. We’re maintaining the commitment to the Green Party, because we do have a commitment to work with them. To hear the member suggest that somehow he and his colleague have been deprived the opportunity to influence the government’s agenda on behalf of their constituents and all British Columbians is a bit much. I would add to that that one of the bills that he specifically listed as being so offensive to him includes Bill 7, where there was an amendment brought forward by the Green Party to establish an all-party legislative committee to review regulations that are brought under Bill 7. This was their proposal, which we adopted and put into the bill. The select standing committee will review any regulations made, will ensure that there is a summary of the regulation, the rationale for it and any other prescribed information. I think there are two things happening here. One is that we’re working very closely with the Green Party on our shared priorities, where we can make a coordinated difference for British Columbia. I think it’s very positive. I think it’s very positive for British Columbians and positive for democracy. I think the Green Party should publicly acknowledge that. They have, in the report, and so did we. The other thing is that we actually firmly believe that we need to grow our economy. We need to build schools and hospitals and roads faster. We need to ensure we’re supporting British Columbians in every corner of this province. We have to do those things in order to be able to deliver services for people that people are counting on, including health care and other issues that are of crucial importance, I know, to the Green Party members. That is what Bills 14 and 15 were about. I know the members voted against them. I know they voted against our amendment for Bill 15. That’s okay. They’re representing their constituents as they believe best. I want the members to also know that just because the government doesn’t agree with them about a particular policy or a particular direction, it does not mean that it is inherently antidemocratic. It just means we don’t agree. Where we do agree, I think we’re doing very good work. We’re supporting British Columbians, and I hope that cooperation continues.

865 words

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

The issues with consultation and cooperation that I brought up before the break reflect a broader concern over the Premier’s consolidation of power in cabinet. Throughout this session, this government has repeatedly attempted to consolidate more power within cabinet and the Premier’s office, to much public criticism. We saw this with Bill 7, then Bill 14 and again with Bill 15 — each a measure giving sweeping powers to cabinet at the expense of necessary legislative debate and process. The Premier said, “In extraordinary times, we need extraordinary powers,” yet doing so overrides central functions of democracy. Every British Columbian deserves to have their beliefs represented by an elected legislative body. This is especially relevant given the fact that this was one of the closest provincial elections in recent times. Instead, this government gives quasi-legislative powers to a select cabinet at the expense of this diverse Legislature chosen by the electorate. Every strong and trustworthy government must have accountability measures in place. If this government finds it necessary to replace legislative debate with cabinet orders, what equivalent mechanisms will be implemented to ensure accountability and transparency?

186 words

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

I rise to move an amendment to clause 19.2 in my name, adding text which, again, similar to the amendment of Bill 7, would task a select standing committee of this assembly to be referred all regulations made under this act. I will be quite clear in that I support the idea of streamlining renewable energy projects, but….

58 words

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

I’ll just speak very briefly to it a little bit more. Simple transparency. I’ll note it’s the same provisions as we put into Bill 7, which I’ll note the Third Party just voted in favour of at third reading. Bill 7 required some transparency. Well, I will say that if this is good enough for the Attorney General, this should be good enough for this bill. I would urge members to vote in favour of this simple transparency measure for regulations that are yet to come on this legislation.

89 words

It would have been better to present it earlier, but I’d like to present it now. There are 1,687 paper signatures. There were 29,264 online signatures for a total of 30,951 signatures to have Bill 7 withdrawn. I’d just like to present this.

43 words

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

I ask leave to present a petition on Bill 7.

10 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

5/28/2025

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

Members, Bill 7, 2025, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act has been read a third time and has passed.

18 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

5/28/2025

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

Members, you heard the question of third reading of Bill 7, intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.

17 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

5/28/2025

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

Hon. Members, it being 4 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, the House will proceed to the consideration of third reading of Bill 7, intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.

38 words