First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 92

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Kristina Loewen

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Deputy Speaker

Second Reading of Bills

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

Lawrence Mok

Á’a:líya Warbus

On the amendment

Á’a:líya Warbus

Larry Neufeld

David Williams

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Adrian Dix

Sharon Hartwell

Korky Neufeld

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Hon. Niki Sharma

Misty Van Popta

Gavin Dew

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Good afternoon, everybody. We’ll call the House to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Terry Yung : In the chamber, I’d like to call second reading on Bill 31.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I’d like to call committee on Bill 20.

Point of Order

Peter Milobar : I’m just seeking some clarification or a point of order or something.

Before lunch, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation was the acting

Government House Leader. The committee Chair reported out progress and sought leave

to sit again on Bill 20. The Chair asked the acting Government House Leader, the Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, when they shall sit again. He said, “At

the next sitting after today,” not at the next sitting.

The opposition assumed, based on a minister of the Crown stating that Bill 20 wouldn’t

be up for debate until tomorrow, that it wouldn’t be coming up right after lunch.

I’m not sure how we reconcile that. I did check the Hansard . It does not have it in the Blues , but it was verbally said.

I don’t know if we need to take a short recess so that the video and the audio can

be reviewed instead. We’re not trying to play games here, but obviously, we do have

critics and that, and we would also need to know what the government’s plan was. We

weren’t sure if they were just planning on standing down the Douglas Fir for the rest

of the afternoon when the acting Government House Leader, the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation, had stated that.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Member. Perhaps we’ll do exactly that. We’ll take a three-minute

recess. Thank you.

The House recessed from 1:34 p.m. to 1:40 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much for your patience, Members.

We will call this House back to order, and I’ll call on the Government House Leader.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the member opposite’s raising the issue.

I will call committee stage Bill 29 in the Douglas Fir Room.

Peter Milobar : Just to clarify, I know it’s a different chamber, but will there be a few minutes’

grace so we can get the appropriate critics organizing all the…? The minister and

their staff must have to get organized too. I’m not even sure which ministers are

involved in Bill 29.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : The minister for Bill 29 has been informed and will be in there. And if members will

get in there, they will start as soon as they get there.

I appreciate your patience, Chair.

Deputy Speaker : We will continue debate on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act of 2025, in

this chamber.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Kristina Loewen : As is the case with many policy proposals that this government comes up with, there

appears to be potential for unintended consequences in this bill. This bill, Bill

31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, is yet another example of an attempt to do

one thing while creating more problems.

At first glance, this bill may appear to simply be a technical amendment aimed at

streamlining the operation of energy policy. But if we dig deeper, and when we do,

there are serious concerns that we need to address. These changes are not just technicalities.

They have the potential to drastically reshape the landscape of public utilities in

this province, the affordability of energy for families and business and the future

of renewable energy projects.

As we know, inexpensive, efficient energy is a cornerstone to providing quality of

life and prosperity to British Columbians. It’s key to British Columbians having rather

than being have-nots. Beneath the surface, this bill offers a set of sweeping changes

to the way in which B.C. Hydro operates, and that will have wide-ranging impacts for

B.C. residents and businesses. It has a range of implications to our province’s independence,

Indigenous partnerships, and it paves the way to government overreach.

To be clear, the B.C. Conservative caucus supports measures that advance energy innovation.

We support First Nations partnerships and the attraction of economically promising

infrastructure like hydrogen production facilities and data centres. For context,

from 2017 to 2021, so did this government when it came to promotion of energy-intensive

industries. Crypto, hydrogen, carbon capture, synthetic fuel production and new mines

were all industries that were listed as key load attraction opportunities in the B.C.

Hydro 2021 electrification plan.

Today this government has completely reversed course with Bill 31, providing cabinet

with the ability to essentially cut those sectors off from the grid. And they want

to do so by giving the Premier and his cabinet a host of new powers that equate to

blank-cheque authority with impunity.

The most pressing concern I have with this bill is its impact on B.C. Hydro. For years,

B.C. Hydro has been a trusted public utility providing affordable, reliable power

to B.C. and to British Columbians. The government has long championed the idea of

keeping our energy systems in public hands. But with this bill, we see that commitment

being questioned. Is this intentional or an oversight? Either way, it is concerning.

Bill 31 proposes allowing B.C. Hydro to enter into ownership agreements with First

Nations to build parts of the North Coast transmission line. While the intention of

these agreements may be well-meaning, this is a first step in what could lead to privatization

or fragmentation of a public asset that British Columbians have relied upon for decades.

[1:45 p.m.]

While this bill might be portrayed as necessary to build the North Coast transmission

line, the reality is that B.C. Hydro already has all the authority it needs to build

this line. So why rush to change the structure of B.C. Hydro at all? This feels like

a backdoor attempt to privatize public assets, to open the door to private ownership

and the management of critical infrastructure. And that’s a path we should be wary

of.

Let me be clear. It’s one thing to buy power from independent power producers. It’s

another entirely for B.C. Hydro to sell off portions of the transmission lines themselves.

Once we start fragmenting the ownership and control of such vital infrastructure,

it’s only a matter of time before we see prices rise and access become more difficult

for ordinary British Columbians. In short, we risk losing control over the very utility

we’ve worked so hard to build, and things are a lot easier to dismantle than they

are to build.

Most British Columbians cannot afford one more increase to the cost of living. They

are already stretched. They are already hurting, never mind what might happen if energy

costs were to rise significantly. That would affect everything — heating homes, growing

food, operating vehicles.

B.C. Hydro is one of our most valuable public assets that has ultimately been built,

over many decades, off the backs of taxpayers. As a result, that means that it shouldn’t

and cannot be hidden from public scrutiny by a government that continues to attempt

to escape basic accountability.

Bill 31 has two major parts. First, it would authorize B.C. Hydro to enter into limited

partnerships with First Nations for the North Coast transmission line, with phases

from Prince George to Fraser Lake to Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake. Second, it will expand

cabinet’s power to restrict or set rates for electricity used for projects within

the realms of cryptocurrency mining, energy production and information technology.

On its face, these seem like pillars for future economic development opportunities,

but I don’t believe it is as it seems. First, as I mentioned before, B.C. Hydro already

has full legislative authority to construct and operate the North Coast transmission

line. In other words, no new legislation is required for Indigenous partnerships to

be struck. That is mere smoke and mirrors for this piece of legislation. More concerning

is the back door to sweetheart deals it offers should it pass successfully in its

current state.

The fact of the matter is that empowering B.C. Hydro, as the government claims, will

instead create a secretive mechanism for partial privatization. What are the implications

of such measures? Well, by allowing limited partnerships, B.C. Hydro’s control of

transmission infrastructure can effectively be sold or have ownership transferred

to private or semi-private entities, which is a massive shift away from public utility

principles.

Worse yet is the bill’s facilitation of cabinet to designate agreements by order,

thereby bypassing public or legislative review. Let’s put this into stark perspective.

This would mean public or legislative review could entirely be eliminated for potential

agreements worth hundreds of millions of dollars in public assets.

It must be mentioned that when it comes to its record on upholding the public trust,

this is a government that continues to favour the interests of politically connected

or expedient insiders over British Columbians. Let me summarize just a few of the

most egregious examples in recent times.

Former NDP cabinet minister George Heyman received a sweetheart soft landing to advise

the government on public sector bargaining, which clearly isn’t working in light of

our current state of labour gridlock. A secret contract to former Ontario Attorney

General Michael Bryant, worth up to $300,000 annually, was only cancelled after public

outcry. They even doled out an obscene $450,000 contract to a joke writer for the

Premier’s speeches.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I might direct you back to Bill 31. Or at least, show me how it’s going to

connect to Bill 31, please.

Kristina Loewen : Which begs the question, Mr. Speaker. Why should anyone across the province have

faith that these agreements by order will ever favour the collective rather than the

governing party’s friends and allies?

But why would they even ask for this power? Why don’t they want the accountability

and the transparency, which have always been key components of North American democracies?

[1:50 p.m.]

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve that. They deserve transparency and

accountability, and quite frankly, I’m honoured to stand here today to demand that

for them.

What is super odd? It’s the government’s consistent rhetoric championing public power

for the sake of quality, consistent and reasonably priced energy for everyone. That

has now been completely upended with the introduction of a bill that quietly sets

a path that entertains and even reinforces selling pieces of the corporation’s ownership

off indiscriminately.

The danger lies in the precedent that the first deal that comes as a result of this

legislation will set. Once a portion of the transmission line is co-owned, there will

be little to no mechanism to prevent future incremental divestment of B.C. Hydro’s

entire portfolio of assets.

The Conservative Party of British Columbia has long championed market-based solutions

like nuclear energy generation, as well as wind and solar, as a departure from our

current monopoly model, always in the name of meeting greater demand at consistent,

reasonable pricing. In the context of what is contained in Bill 31, our caucus favours

alternative measures that advance the notion of shared property, reined in with clear

governance structures rather than vague co-ownership deals.

First, revenue-sharing or benefit agreements should ensure ongoing returns for First

Nations, without losing ownership control.

Small modular reactor projects or regional microgrids have proven successful in Saskatchewan,

Ontario and New Brunswick within transparent provincial-federal frameworks. In B.C.’s

case, they could be an alternative to building 500 kVA transmission lines across 700

kilometres of rugged terrain — construction that, as I’ve already mentioned, will

have its wheels greased by agreements that advance politics rather than the interests

of people.

We are here in this House today to represent all British Columbians and to speak up

for their interests. I’m not convinced that this bill represents their concerns at

all.

Along those lines, literally and figuratively, is the second major component of this

bill, which will repeal and replace

section 21.1 of the Utilities Commission Act in

order to ban, ration or set special rates for entire industries. This is far beyond

the concept of technical regulation that the government is trying so desperately to

convince us of.

Rather, in the governing party’s typical “centralized control of the economy” thinking,

the government, rather than the marketplace, will be able to pick winners and losers

in the energy economy, all through the hidden stroke of a pen.

It isn’t simply the fact that insiders will have a clear path to getting ahead at

the expense of average British Columbians. It’s the total and complete carte blanche

that this legislation will give to cabinet once again.

They would be able to ban or restrict the use of B.C. Hydro electricity for certain

activities. They’d be able to set their own rates without any recourse for reconsideration.

They would be able to cap, ration or select recipients for electricity services. But

the scariest part about all of this is the fact that Hydro would then be able to recover

lost revenue from taxpayers for any money-losing project investments that this government

deems viable.

B.C.’s already fragile economy does not need more incompetence from this government.

As I detailed earlier, this government picks and chooses champions in this economy

as often as the weather forecast predicts rain along B.C.’s coastlines.

AI and data-processing infrastructure is now no longer of interest to this government,

but that does not mean that their potential for long-term employment, tax revenues

and international technological investment have gone by the wayside. In fact, our

fellow partners in confederation in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are actively competing

for international investment in these industries that the NDP has suddenly lost interest

in.

Ironically, their turn away from hydrogen through potential export bans flies in the

face of the government’s own rhetoric on clean fuel production.

I want to mention the huge cost that the North Coast transmission line is slated to

cost, without any mention of a full cost-benefit analysis or load justification to

back up the government’s plan. British Columbians deserve upfront, transparent disclosure.

How much will this cost every home and every citizen?

[1:55 p.m.]

With B.C. Hydro’s capital debt already exceeding $27 billion and this province’s overall

debt tripling since this government took power, there are other choices that can be

made in the name of B.C. taxpayers. More specifically, politically motivated megaprojects

ultimately mean less money available to support greater affordability, local energy

security or investment in upgrading aging grid infrastructure.

As the MLA for Kelowna Centre, I know the importance of energy to our local businesses

and our families. In the Okanagan, we’re seeing an increasing demand for clean, affordable

power, especially as new technologies and industries continue to grow in our region.

Our wineries, tech start-ups and tourism-based businesses rely on reliable and affordable

energy to thrive. Just as we are working to diversify our local economy, we need to

ensure that our energy infrastructure is designed to support that growth.

That’s why I believe we must focus on the long-term sustainability of our public utilities,

and that’s why I’m concerned about the direction that Bill 31 seems to be taking us

in. We need to be cautious, and we need to make thoughtful decisions and prioritize

the needs of British Columbians, not the interests of private corporations looking

to profit off our public resources.

I want to make it clear that while I recognize the importance of modernizing our energy

systems and addressing the challenges of the future, I have serious concerns about

the direction this bill is taking. Bill 31 opens the door to the privatization of

B.C. Hydro, undermines previously successful policy initiatives for new industries

and raises questions about how we regulate emerging sectors.

As we move forward, I will continue to raise these concerns, seek input from my constituents

and work with my colleagues across the aisle to ensure that we make the right decisions

for the people of British Columbia and the communities of Kelowna and the Central

Okanagan. Together we can ensure that our energy future is sustainable and affordable

and controlled by the people of British Columbia. I look forward to engaging in further

discussion and hearing answers during the committee stage.

In closing, Bill 31 is unnecessary, overreaching and poorly aligned with B.C.’s potential

energy future. It risks privatization of public assets, political interference in

electricity markets and dampening international investment in favour of behind-closed-door

politics favouring the governing party. Simply put, public power must remain accountable

to the public interest, which should always supersede unlimited cabinet orders, political

interests or quiet partnerships signed away from scrutiny.

I strongly encourage the government to withdraw this power-grabbing bill entirely.

Let’s bring one that is better aligned with the notion of building an independent,

equitable and sustainable energy future in B.C. It’s paramount that we commit to bills

in this House today that make life better and more affordable for all British Columbians.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Deputy Speaker : Hon. Members, the Chair wishes to provide some clarity to the House with respect

to business that is being undertaken.

In

Section A, we had a little bit of confusion earlier. At the call of orders of the

day, the acting Government House Leader called committee on Bill 20 in

Section A,

and those proceedings got underway before the point of order that was raised by the

member for Kamloops Centre was resolved.

It appears that the responsible minister and critic are engaging in debate in

Section

A without further objection raised. Therefore, the item of business first called by

the acting Government House Leader, being committee on Bill 20, is permitted to proceed.

Now, continuing in this chamber with Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025,

debate, we will recognize our member for Maple Ridge East.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Lawrence Mok : I rise today to speak on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. As the

member from Maple Ridge and Mission, I represent families, workers and small business

owners in the eastern part of Metro Vancouver, people who already face high living

costs and rising B.C. Hydro bills.

[2:00 p.m.]

When we talk about major energy projects like the proposed North Coast transmission

line, we must be honest about who will be paying the bill. It will not just be the

people on the north coast. It will be every ratepayer across British Columbia, including

the hard-working families in Maple Ridge, Albion, Kanaka Creek and the communities

east of us, like Mission, Abbotsford and Chilliwack.

Bill 31 gives the government new powers to speed up the construction of the North

Coast transmission line, a 500-kilovolt, high-voltage line running hundreds of kilometres

from near Prince George to Terrace and beyond. The government says that two phases

alone will cost about $6 billion, before we even include the full extension towards

Bob Quinn Lake.

The government wants to move this project outside the full oversight of the B.C. Utilities

Commission, the independent body that normally reviews the need for and the cost of

major energy projects. That should worry every British Columbian who pays a hydro

bill.

When projects of this mega size go ahead without full review, we risk cost overruns,

delays and higher rates. Because B.C. Hydro spreads its costs across all customers,

that means every one of us pays, even the families in Maple Ridge and Mission who

will never see or use that line.

Let’s be very clear. The people in my riding will not get cheaper power or new, local

jobs from this project, yet the hydro bills may rise to help pay for it. I don’t think

that is fair.

We have learned from history that large, remote infrastructure projects like the Site

C dam can face huge cost overruns, environmental damage and construction delays. The

terrain between Prince George and the north coast is rugged and remote. Building and

maintaining high-voltage lines through mountains and forests will be very expensive

and risky. When storms, landslides or wildfires strike, repair costs will climb. Over

time, these costs add up. Again, every hydro customer across the province shares that

financial burden.

Before we spend billions more, we should ask a simple question: is there a better,

cheaper way to meet the north coast’s power needs? I believe there are smarter, more

local solutions that can deliver power where it is needed without forcing all of British

Columbia’s ratepayers to foot the bill.

Let me highlight three of these.

First, natural gas generation near the north coast. British Columbia has plentiful

natural gas reserves, especially in the North. Building modern, efficient, gas-fired

plants near industrial users like mines, ports and LNG terminals would create local

jobs, shorten build times and reduce the need for long transmission lines.

Cleaner natural gas technology can provide reliable base power while still moving

toward a lower-emission future. It makes economic sense to use energy resources already

in the region, rather than spending on costly power lines across half the province.

Second, wood waste and biomass generation. The north coast and Interior have many

mills and forestry operations that produce wood waste, such as sawdust, bark and chips,

that often end up burned or wasted. That material can fuel biomass power plants to

create clean, renewable energy close to where it is needed.

[2:05 p.m.]

B.C. Hydro’s own studies have shown that the province could generate thousands of

gigawatt hours per year from wood-based biomass. Using this local resource keeps dollars

in the community, reduces waste and creates jobs.

Third, small modular nuclear reactors. Across Canada, new small modular reactors,

SMRs for short, are being developed in Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick. These

units can provide 10 to 300 megawatts of clean, reliable energy. I’m quite familiar

with electrical energy sources. I, myself, am a trained electrical engineer.

Instead of one massive transmission line, an SMR located near the north coast could

power major industries directly with less environmental disruption and lower long-term

costs. SMRs can be built in factories, shipped to site and installed faster than large

hydro or transmission projects.

These local options — gas, biomass and SMRs — offer flexibility, resilience and fairness.

They’d serve the north coast needs without putting the entire financial burden on

hydro customers from Maple Ridge to Victoria, from Fort St. John to Mackenzie.

The families in Maple Ridge and Mission work hard. They already face higher grocery

bills, higher gas prices and higher interest rates. The last thing they need is another

jump in their hydro bill to pay for a project hundreds of kilometres away.

Yes, we must support development on the north coast, but we must do it in a responsible,

fair way. Every dollar B.C. Hydro spends comes from the pockets of British Columbians,

whether through their bills or through the provincial debt that Hydro carries. When

government exempts a multi-billion-dollar project from full review, it removes the

checks and balances that protect ratepayers. It puts political convenience ahead of

fiscal responsibility. That is not acceptable to the people of Maple Ridge, Mission

and the rest of the province.

What should we do instead?

First, the government should require a full, transparent cost-benefit analysis comparing

this long transmission line to local generation options, including natural gas, biomass

and small modular reactors.

Second, any future investment must ensure regional fairness, so that the costs of

industrial growth in one part of the province are not unfairly pushed onto households

elsewhere.

Third, the government should strengthen the B.C. Utilities Commission’s role, not

weaken it, so that independent experts can review major projects and protect ratepayers.

Finally, we must plan our energy future around diversity and resilience — smaller,

cleaner, locally controlled generation, not one giant, risky transmission line.

British Columbians deserve affordable, reliable power, not blank cheques for megaprojects.

We can and should help the north coast to grow, but we must do it wisely, in a way

that protects all B.C. Hydro customers, including the people I represent in Maple

Ridge and Mission.

Let us not rush into another multi-billion-dollar gamble that every ratepayer will

be forced to cover for decades. Let us pause, review and choose smarter local energy

solutions that serve both the North and the South, both industry and families.

The people of Maple Ridge, Mission and all British Columbians deserve nothing less.

[2:10 p.m.]

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise to speak today about Bill 31 intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025,

and the very similar nature that we’re seeing for bills like this coming from this

government in response to, I think, an outcry from British Columbians around the often

slow, confusing and arduous processes that have been holding up investment in British

Columbia. Not only that; we’ve seen many investors actually give up and have to relocate

somewhere else, so we actually lose their business forever.

This government, rather than take a look at those processes and bring forward legislation

that is thoughtful to address some of those measures that many sectors, many partners,

many Indigenous communities have said could be done in a much better way…. Their answer

is to then push forward legislation that, again, is very similar and, what we’ve seen

happen in the spring session, that completely goes in the other direction.

By doing so, what we see is a centralized power with cabinet to make regulations.

When we read and look into the legislation itself, really, it is an undefined set

of decisions that could be made or could not be made for a definite time or an indefinite

time, or charges to be paid for some and not for others. The language in here, honestly,

is so wide and giving so much leeway to cabinet that we would never know what they

are doing, really, if this legislation passes the way that it is written here today.

Not only is that concerning with regards to just the opening pieces when you open

it up and read what’s actually written here, but the idea that — as has been pointed

out by some of the critics out there looking at this legislation, as well, not just

within the House — the fact that a public utility would have the ability to collect

costs it incurs, of revenue forecasted to be lost, as a result of a regulation under

this section….

Reading into that also says that customers and our constituents, the people that we

represent, are also then going to be on the hook if any utility forecasts revenues

that, in fact, they don’t get.

Sounding the alarm on just a few things with regards to those pieces, it also seems

as though we’ve seen…. Time after time, we’ve pointed out the flaws in the consultation

process and the things that are missed as this legislation is rushed forward. We see

glacier speed on some things, and then the reaction is to come out like the Flash

so that no one can catch what’s actually happening. Neither really seems to be a fit

for the sector, for Indigenous partners, communities, leaders and for British Columbians.

When we take a look at some of the other high-level purposes of this legislation in

answering to the dire need for the ability for us to power ourselves with electricity,

we know that B.C. has been importing electricity for quite some time, at least 25

percent, up to 30 percent. So we’re relying on these external sources, and according

to the way we would put this legislation forward, this is an answer to that.

[2:15 p.m.]

Well, that’s all good and well. Except when you look at the timelines and you look

at what it purports to be able to deliver, we’ve been outpacing ourselves in electricity

for a long time to come. This warning has been the writing on the wall for a long

time, for this government to recognize and realize, and this is a drop in the bucket

in terms of what’s needed.

By the standards of CleanBC and some other targets that we’re made to believe can

be met, we’re not using our own resources to the fullest of our capacity. Because

while we’re limiting ourselves on the ability to use our own natural resources, natural

gas provided through LNG, it doesn’t really…. Again, the equation doesn’t quite add

up to me when I put all of the pieces together. Because as we limit ourselves, we

import electricity, while other countries get to benefit from what B.C. has to offer.

I cannot seem to put together exactly how this bill, the way it’s written and put

in front of us today, is supposed to be the answer to all of that, especially since

we look at some of the questions that have been brought forward and concerns brought

forward by members around the consultation process.

We asked again last session which First Nations have been consulted. If we’re going

to go by the standards that this government has set out, which again we pointed out

are maybe not the best mechanisms to prove consultation, free, prior and informed

consent: “Yes, we held a meeting. Yes, we put out a letter.” Who attended the meeting?

How many yeses? How many nos?

Then when you reach out to these communities and ask about the consultation process,

they either haven’t been consulted meaningfully, as the government states they have,

or they have no idea. And then what we find happens after the fact, by the proof that

legislation’s already been pulled from this session because of that concern…. Instead

of taking the ownership for not consulting properly on a piece of legislation, they

tried to put it on the head of the city when that own minister, who had that legislation,

had the duty to consult and didn’t.

So we’re scapegoating left, right and centre about how there are other entities out

there that should be consulting. But really, the duty to consult and to ensure that

the legislation that passes in this House has properly gone through the procedures

that they’ve outlined they need to go through, and then we find out they have not….

I point to, again, some very concerning legal challenges that have been brought forth,

now at a federal level, concerning projects that B.C. has assured us are green-lit.

Then we find out, through publication of APTN News , that in fact, two Indigenous nations are saying they have not been consulted properly

on this, although the province said that they were. This is a federal matter now that’s

bringing the federal legal system into this.

Why it matters and why it’s related is because Metlakatla clearly states that in all

consultations and dealings, the province has grossly understated the strength of the

Coast Tsimshian claim, grounded on erroneous analysis and conclusions of provincial

employees who lack relevant qualifications. So we see another project supposedly green-lit

by this government, only to have nations come forth and say that the consultation

was not done up to standard.

[2:20 p.m.]

I would bet…. And I’m not a betting person. Let’s be clear. I did not bet on the game

— maybe I should have — last night.

But I would bet that if we took a look at this legislation in its current form and

asked critical questions of all of the nations that will be impacted by the change

of regulation and the ability for cabinet to make these decisions by their hand alone

on who gets power when, by what amount and measure, and which projects they deem to

be economically viable, we may not see the consensus that is purported and reported

in the promotion of this legislation as it is right now.

So by that measure, and bringing forth those concerns with the legislation as it is

right now, we do have questions, some very specific questions that we’d be bringing

forward in terms of, again, meaningful consultation and the vast amount of land in

kilometres that this transmission line actually will cross and the effects that it’s

going to have and where Indigenous communities have been consulted and have been involved.

Then, of course, that’s all there.

But it does seem that we tend to gloss over that, again, by this government’s own

admission, any legislation brought forward that is going to directly affect Indigenous

partners or interests or their free, prior and informed consent…. By that admission,

they would have been thoroughly involved in how the legislation was formed and written

today. And not just the impact of the transmission line. I mean the legislation —

knowing that once it’s passed, decisions will be made and consultation is actually

by choice of the government.

It is in the spirit of those points that I have to make and some things that I was

able to take a look at, just briefly, in opening up the legislation myself and doing

a little bit of research and talking to stakeholders and people who may be affected

by this…. Again, looking at the evidence of legislation that we’ve seen come through,

which was then reported not to have been consulted…. We heard the outcry of Indigenous

leaders across British Columbia in terms of it.

I move:

[ That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 31) intituled Energy Statutes Amendment

Act, 2025, be amended by deleting the word “ now ” and substituting “ six months hence .” ]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member. I think what we’ll do is take a moment to consume the motion,

and we’ll call a brief recess to circulate that to our members.

We’ll just go into a quick recess, please.

The committee recessed from 2:24 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Members, we’ll call the chamber back to order.

We are currently circulating, to our members joining us online, the motion introduced

by the House Leader for the official opposition: “I move that the motion for second

reading of Bill 31, intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, be amended by deleting

the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence.’” We will now consider debate on

that motion.

On the amendment.

Á’a :líya Warbus : In proposing the amendment to this legislation, I just want to make it very clear

that this is not about holding our resources, projects, development or partnerships

or any kind of undue prosperity for British Columbia hostage. The idea, in coming

back to legislation and requesting a very brief stay and a six-month period to thoroughly

answer questions that members from this side of the House have, is really about accountability

and transparency.

[2:30 p.m.]

My worry and my concern…. Too often what we have in the kind of language that comes

through and in the effect of these types of legislation is that it’s seen as the ability

— again by cabinet, by this government — to pick and choose, through language that

is vague, and to be able to cherry-pick on partnerships or consultations that are

successful. While others that are either striving to be competitive, to be noticed

by this government, or have been ignored completely in a consultation process, as

we’ve seen and as we’ve heard — that those voices get a chance to be, at least, in

conversation, in a six-month period that would allow for necessary changes to legislation

such as this to be made.

And by that, being accountable to people who may have concerns, such as we’ve brought

forward, around the wide parameters that are afforded to a government to make, again,

these kinds of decisions today…. But who’s to say, with the language that’s outlined

here, that those decisions don’t drastically change in the other direction? There

are no guardrails there.

When a line directly from here says “can make regulations respecting provision” and

then lists cryptocurrency, electronic data, electronic data used for artificial intelligence

or to produce hydrogen for use outside Canada, what you don’t see is provisions for

what. To limit? To enhance? To curb? Because it’s so wide, it actually just grants

the power to make any provision. Today it could be one thing, and later on it could

be another.

That should be concerning for British Columbians. That should be concerning for people.

If we just let this type of legislation and decision-making pass, then again…. I point

to stakeholders, investors, municipalities, communities that are impacted, and not

just Indigenous communities. We’ve seen the record that this government has with municipalities

in terms of the conflict on where decision-making starts and ends and the encroachment

onto what many mayors and city councillors have said is within their purview. They

don’t feel heard.

So this six months, as I said, on the timelines that are outlined by the press release,

is really just an additional pause, a slight pause on pushing this forward until it

doesn’t see the light of day again, until no one can touch it because now it’s become

law. That, to me, again is….

If we don’t push back on that and we don’t provide a mechanism for really, really

important stakeholders to have their say in a timeline that, by this press release,

I think, says 2032, 2034…. That’s really just going to be so that the checks and balances

that we’re saying need to be addressed can be. And then there’s time later to have

the necessary steps be re-examined in a proper way.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think it’s only fair that that be heard and considered in this House and that we

give enough time to talk about, to debate, to ask the questions, to bring forward

the concerns, to speak on behalf of our stakeholders, because we all know, again,

as I highlighted before, what can happen if we steamroll ahead. We forget the little

guy, and then two months in, they come knocking at the door of government with a court

case in hand.

Then nothing’s moving forward. And sadly, that has been the record that we’ve experienced.

Not only does it hold up projects that are badly needed, a power supply that’s been

vastly underserved, but it hurts our bottom line as British Columbians. It hurts our

relationships and the trust. When we don’t do reconciliation properly and we don’t

give it the time and the air that it deserves…. And really, as I said, some very simple

things. Making sure it’s transparent, making sure communities know and they understand,

making sure that there are timelines.

It’s not about slowing down to the point where people are struggling and jobs are

leaving and money is flying out the door, but it is about timelines that are realistic

within a clear framework that everybody understands. People understand this is the

table. This is who needs to be here by when so that we can decide on this set of parameters.

And then they understand that if they’re not there or not able to make it…. But again,

that effort has to be concerted.

Meaningful consultation. The reason why that word is there…. Meaningful consultation

doesn’t mean you send an email and, “Oh, they didn’t respond,” or send a letter, as

we’ve seen, like I said, in spring session. Many communities not able to, didn’t have

the capacity, weren’t actually meaningfully reached out to. We heard that.

Then things like this legislation could pass. The government is granted these powers

to make these decisions. And unfortunately, it’s held up again in a lengthy court

case, and the decision does not become ours anymore in this House. The power is actually

pulled from the members who are elected to debate and make these decisions in partnership

with leadership across British Columbia, equals around a table that is set out clearly

with timelines that make sense so that we can make laws that everybody can get behind.

Deputy Speaker : Just a quick reminder that we are, of course, debating the motion to the second reading

of Bill 31.

Before we go to Peace River South, I believe we are going to look to our Minister

of State for Local Governments.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today is a very special day. Today my friend Emile turns eight years old. He is so

excited for his birthday party.

I just want to say happy birthday, Emile. You are such a fun, funny and wonderful

child to my best friends, Clarissa and Sebastian, and their daughter, Ida.

I hope you all have a wonderful time celebrating together. Your Auntie Brittny loves

you very, very much. Sending that over to Germany for you.

Thank you very much.

Will the House please give a warm welcome and happy birthday to Emile.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Minister of State.

Now shall the House give leave for that? Thank you very much.

Leave granted.

[2:40 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker : We are, of course, entertaining a motion on second reading of Bill 31. I would encourage

members to stay speaking on that topic.

We have had significant conversation about Bill 31 itself, but I would like to hear

more about the actual motion and the reason for the encouraged delay. I just want

to make sure that that is what we speak about today. We will have an opportunity at

some point, I’m sure, to return to Bill 31 debate.

Larry Neufeld : Last time I addressed Bill 31. In this case, I’m obviously addressing the motion

that was just introduced. I did suggest to the minister that I would provide a joke.

I did not have enough time to do that. My apologies again.

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld : Oh, well, touché.

Deputy Speaker : Perhaps we could get back to the motion, Member.

Larry Neufeld : By leave, we move that the motion for second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025, be amended, as already mentioned, by deleting the word “now”

and substituting “six months hence.”

This is not a motion for delay for delay’s sake. It is a motion asking for deliberation,

a necessary pause to ensure that this legislation, in act, will strengthen our province,

not weaken it. Why does six months matter? Six months is not an eternity. It is a

single construction season, and it is one review cycle for a public utility and another

opportunity to ensure that we get it right.

The government has advanced Bill 31 under the banner of modernization and climate

accountability. Yet the legislation raises issues of governance, transparency and

executive overreach.

A six-month deferral, as presented in this motion, would allow B.C. Hydro, the B.C.

Utilities Commission, Indigenous communities, industrial stakeholders and ratepayers

to be meaningfully consulted, not merely notified. It would permit an independent,

data-driven review of the fiscal exposure created by the new partnership and regulatory

structures embedded in this bill.

I know I did speak to that last time that I rose to Bill 31. One of the things that

has occurred to me since that last conversation, or speech perhaps, was that…. We

will delve into that in committee stage. I did not have an opportunity to seek these

numbers yet, but what I’m hearing colloquially is that we don’t have enough power

to put into it. And part of….

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld : Do we? Okay.

But it begs the question in my mind as to…. With the call for power, we are significantly….

Those generating units are going to be put in the northeast, with the addition of

a $6 billion — that we know of to date, without stage 3 costing — power line. Why

do we not relocate those not-yet-constructed facilities to the northwest?

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld : I can’t hear you.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I’d encourage you to speak about the motion, please.

Larry Neufeld : 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.

[2:45 p.m.]

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.

[2:50 p.m.]

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.

[2:55 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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.

David Williams : This amendment, a six-month hoist motion, is not about delay for the sake of delay.

It’s about accountability, about transparency and about sending a clear message to

this government that legislation of this magnitude should not be rushed through under

the banner of modernization when in truth, this bill will basically ration electricity

and centralize power in the hands of the minister.

This six-month hoist motion is not a motion of obstruction but a motion of prudence.

It is a safeguard, a pause to reflect and to strengthen a bill that carries far-reaching

consequences for our energy system and our economy.

Speed is no substitute for scrutiny. When billions of public dollars and decades of

energy policy are at stake, taking just a little bit more time through this motion

is

an act of respect for the people we serve and for the principles of good governance.

Our caucus supports this six-month hoist motion because Bill 31 raises some concerns.

It makes fundamental, structural changes to B.C. Hydro’s governing framework, altering

ownership models, oversight mechanisms and ratepayer protections that have underpinned

public confidence for generations.

To be clear, this bill is not required to build the North Coast transmission line.

B.C. Hydro already has that authority. As for the government that has long championed

public utilities, it is deeply concerning to see them now contemplating the sale or

co-ownership of core transmission assets.

It is one thing for B.C. Hydro to purchase electricity from independent producers.

It is another to divest ownership from its own network. That is why this six-month

hoist motion is essential. It gives this Legislature the breathing room to study those

implications before we set a precedent that could erode public control of our grid.

Bill 31 goes to the heart of public oversight. Since 1980, the B.C. Utilities Commission,

or BCUC, has been an independent guardian of ratepayers’ interests. It was created

to make sure that political enthusiasm never outruns fiscal reality. Whenever governments

have limited that independence, the public has paid the price. Let’s not have history

repeat itself.

We saw it on past projects. We saw it when Hydro was ordered to sign expensive power

purchase contracts without commission review. Now, through this bill, the same mistake

risks are being repeated, and that is precisely why this six-month hoist motion is

needed. My past experience in loss control says: “You know what? Prudence is always

a good thing.”

[3:00 p.m.]

Clause 1 allows the cabinet to designate ownership agreements for the North Coast

transmission line as valid and binding, notwithstanding any other law. Those five

words, “notwithstanding any other law,” effectively silence BCUC. The commission cannot

question costs, cannot review risk, cannot ensure ratepayers are protected. That’s

not modernization. That’s centralization. The six-month hoist motion gives us a chance

to correct that course, to restore independent oversight before it disappears under

executive order or to at least have a discussion about it.

The history here explains why this six-month hoist motion is necessary. In 2018, the

same government, B.C. Hydro rolled out a campaign to attract cryptocurrency miners.

Its business development manager told CBC News : “We need to get in the game.” That was back in 2018. Hydro received 10,000 megawatts

in new load inquiries, half of them from crypto mining. Then Hydro’s ’21-26 electrification

plan identified cryptocurrency, hydrogen production and data centres as key load attraction

opportunities.

Now, a few years later, those same activities are condemned as unacceptable uses of

electricity. What changed? Who was consulted? How many commitments were made? Those

are questions the public deserves answered before the cabinet is handed the new authority

to ration power. That is what this six-month hoist motion provides: time to obtain

real evidence.

Bill 31 empowers the cabinet to ban or limit service to entire sectors. That’s a breathtaking

concentration of power. The BCUC, which should independently evaluate load proposals,

is bypassed. Supporting this motion means saying clearly: “Before we rewrite B.C.

Hydro’s mandate, we must understand how we got here and what the consequences will

be.” Sounds reasonable to me.

The northwest transmission line, the project at the centre of this legislation and

one of the central reasons to back the six-month hoist motion…. This project began

as a $3 billion announcement. Now it stands closer to $6 billion, and construction

has not yet begun. If there is ever a time for due diligence, it’s now. That is exactly

what the hoist motion allows.

This government claims

part 1 of Bill 31 is about Indigenous partnerships. That goal

is laudable. But the mechanism — cabinet-designed limited partnerships, binding, notwithstanding

any other law — undermines transparency. Once designated, these agreements escape

BCUC review. No public hearings, no rate-impact study, no independent validation.

Again, this six-month hoist motion ensures that BCUC and the public can still do their

job, testing the costs, the governance and the long-term risks before taxpayers are

committed.

B.C. Hydro is not a private venture. It is a public trust. The North Coast transmission

line may well proceed, but it must proceed under the light of scrutiny, not the shadow

of a cabinet order. Supporting the six-month hoist motion is supporting B.C. Hydro’s

future integrity. Oversight is not red tape. It’s democracy in practice. We all like

democracy.

The BCUC was born out of the 1970s energy scandals precisely to stop governments from

cutting private deals behind closed doors. Every time we have ignored that lesson,

we’ve paid for it. The Site C exemption in 2010 — costs doubled. It forced IPP contracts

billions in above-market obligations.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, through Bill 31, we see another attempt to bypass oversight. That is why the

six-month hoist motion exists, to give the Legislature a chance to step back and reaffirm

that no government of any party will be able to place a billion-dollar project beyond

review. This motion is the Legislature’s alarm bell.

Let’s speak of emerging technologies. A six-month pause is not a setback. It may be

an opportunity. During that time, we can assess new technologies that might serve

the same goals at lower costs. Across Canada, we see growth in geothermal, biomass,

small hydro and small modular reactors, SMRs, now advancing at Darlington, Ontario.

Such reactors could power remote communities or industrial corridors for who knows

what costs.

This six-month hoist motion would give the province time to weigh those alternatives

carefully, to decide whether another massive transmission corridor is the only answer

or an expensive one. Innovation moves lightning fast. Legislation should not move

blindly.

Clause 1 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act — some concerns there too. Clause 1

creates a new section,

section 12.1, allowing B.C. Hydro to enter ownership agreements

with First Nations for parts of the North Coast transmission line. Partnership in

principle is positive, but the details require the six-month hoist motion pause for

proper review.

Cabinet can, by order, designate agreements for construction, ownership or transfer,

and those designations apply retroactively. That means cabinet can evaluate deals

even if Hydro lacked the authority when signing them.

It also allows payments from Hydro to limited partnerships, potentially shifting the

financial risk from government to ratepayers. I’m a ratepayer. Without BCUC scrutiny,

that risk goes untested. This six-month hoist motion ensures those agreements are

reviewed openly and independently before becoming irreversible.

Let’s speak a little bit about clause 2, the Utilities Commission Act. Clause 2 repeals

and replaces

section 21.1, giving cabinet power to regulate electricity supply for

cryptocurrency mining; data centres, including AI processing; as well as hydrogen

production for export. Cabinet may ban service, set special rates, impose bidding

processes or even redefine “cryptocurrency” or “mine.” That’s a sweeping delegation

of authority.

Under normal circumstances, such matters would go before the BCUC. Through open hearings,

the commission would weigh technical evidence and public interest. Bill 31 removes

that step. That is exactly why this six-month hoist motion is crucial. It restores

the window for legislative oversight that allows us to craft guardrails so that cabinet

cannot act without transparency.

In six months, this House could amend the clause to require BCUC review before any

cabinet regulation affects rates, publication of cost-impact analysis and automatic

sunset provisions on extraordinary powers. That is constructive reform, and that can

only happen if we support this motion.

This six-month hoist motion also creates space to align Bill 31 with Hydro’s integrated

resource plan and to do it with the realities of rural B.C. Communities like mine

in the Shuswap, the northwest and the Interior struggle with basic reliability, yet

this bill offers no guarantee that the billion-dollar transmission projects will improve

rural service.

[3:10 p.m.]

Historically the BCUC has protected small communities through uniform rate regulation,

ensuring fair access and prices. If oversight is removed, those protections weaken.

By adopting this hoist motion, we give Hydro time to consult rural governments, First

Nations and cooperatives so that any new structure truly serves the people who are

living along those corridors. Real inclusion takes consultation. Consultation takes

time. That is exactly what this six-month motion provides.

Ratepayers can expect that their hydro dollars keep the lights on, not fund political

experiments. Bill 31 claims to empower communities, but it really empowers cabinet.

The second part of this bill allows the government to decide who gets electricity

and on what terms. That’s a policy of control, not collaboration.

By contrast, this six-month motion empowers accountability. It says that before cabinet

takes on any new powers, the Legislature and the public must understand the consequences.

CleanBC should be about expanding opportunity, not rationing electricity through ministerial

decree. Transparency is not an obstacle. It is the foundation of public trust. This

motion restores that foundation.

Allow me to speak directly about the BCUC, because the case for this six-month hoist

motion rests largely on defending its independence. The BCUC is a quasi-judicial tribunal,

not a department. Commissioners swear an oath to the public interest. They conduct

hearings, they cross-examine experts, and they publish reasoned decisions. That independence

keeps borrowing costs low and maintains Hydro’s credit ratings, something credit-rating

agencies explicitly tie to BCUC oversight. I think that’s a good thing.

When Manitoba bypassed its regulator, costs ballooned. When the Ontario Energy Board

was overridden, taxpayers paid a hidden surcharge. We must not walk down that same

road. Supporting this six-month hoist motion reaffirms that no government should regulate

itself without an independent check. The commission is not a hurdle. It is our insurance

policy against expensive mistakes or oversights. It’s not always mistakes. Sometimes

there are just oversights.

This motion also safeguards fiscal integrity. Bill 31 could enable Hydro to move liabilities

into limited partnerships, off its main balance sheet. That might satisfy short-term

accounting goals, but that would expose the ratepayers later. We’ve seen it with past

deferrals, billions hidden in debt that re-emerged as rate hikes. A six-month pause

would give the Auditor General and the Finance Committee time to review these implications,

ensuring that Hydro’s books remain transparent and compliant with accepted accounting

standards. That’s good governance, not delay.

Let’s go, a little bit, on democratic principle and precedent. Every Legislature needs

precedent. I believe it’s based on precedent. If we allow cabinet to bypass the BCUC

today, future governments of any stripe will use that same precedent tomorrow. Today

it’s transmission; tomorrow it could be generation; the next time, the rates themselves.

Supporting the six-month hoist motion is about more than Bill 31. It’s about reaffirming

that energy decisions must face independent review. This is a line between executive

convenience and legislative accountability. Let’s stand on the side of accountability.

Supporting this six-month hoist motion is not just about rejecting progress. It’s

about perfecting it. It says that we believe in clean growth, Indigenous partnerships

and innovation, but we also believe in consultation, transparency and fiscal discipline.

[3:15 p.m.]

By adopting this motion, we give B.C. Hydro, the ministry and this Legislature time

to refine Bill 31, to re-embed the BCUC. We feel it’s a good idea to clarify costs

and to ensure the public remains at the heart of our energy system. When this bill

returns after six months, it should return ready, reliable and responsible, because

progress without prudence is politics without principle.

In closing, let’s take this short pause today through the six-month hoist motion so

that we can move forward tomorrow with confidence, building not only new transmission

lines but renewed public trust. For those reasons, I support the six-month hoist motion,

and I believe that is the right way to go.

Time is not of the essence today, but time to review things and take a look at the

big picture and take everything into account is probably a very, very prudent way

of doing things, a prudent way of doing business. You wouldn’t run a business and

do things haphazardly.

I believe in taking time, taking a little bit of a pause. Then come back, and let’s

debate it.

Donegal Wilson : I rise in support of this motion to delay second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025, for six months to allow all parties, stakeholders and communities,

to fully understand and submit comments on this bill.

In typical NDP fashion, they’re doing another fast, big swing. First, they block development

of new dams, and now, after failing to adequately plan for our energy needs, they’re

taking a swing all the way to the other side. They’ve gone from obstructing projects

to centralizing power to move only the projects and industries they like to the front

of the line.

This motion isn’t about delay for the sake of delay. It’s about getting it right.

When we legislate in this House, the decisions we make don’t just live on the paper

we vote on. They live in communities across this province. They determine whether

projects move forward or stall, whether businesses hire or close their doors, whether

investors start that project, and whether people in rural British Columbia feel like

they’re part of the province’s energy future or left behind by it.

That’s what this amendment is really about — giving government time to listen to those

voices, to consult and to make sure that what’s being proposed here actually helps

this province instead of hurting it.

Bill 31 makes substantive changes to how B.C. Hydro operates. It gives cabinet powers

to decide who can and cannot access power for certain uses. It alters ownership structures

in ways that open the door to uncertainty about who controls our grid. It introduces

the potential for government to pick economic winners and losers by regulation, all

without clear consultation, a transparent framework and understanding how this affects

rural British Columbia.

This bill is also unnecessary. B.C. Hydro already has full legal authority to build

the North Coast transmission line. There is no legislative gap to fill. B.C. Hydro

has the power to plan, finance and construct these projects today. So if we don’t

need this bill to build it, then we have to ask what this bill is actually intending

to do.

It’s one thing for B.C. Hydro to buy power from independent power producers. It’s

quite another for government to start selling off pieces of the public grid to private

partnerships. Once that precedent is set, it will be nearly impossible to undo.

This government, which once championed public ownership, is now opening the door to

a slow, quiet erosion of it. In my view, that’s reason enough to take a breath and

pause this bill for six months. Once these decisions are made, they cannot easily

be undone.

[3:20 p.m.]

Energy planning is about decades, not election cycles. The choices we make today will

shape the kind of province future generations will inherit. When we rush major structural

changes through this chamber, we risk overlooking the details that determine whether

a policy actually works on the ground.

For rural communities, that means the difference between being connected to opportunity

or being permanently left out of it. The smallest oversight here — a definition, a

regulation, a delegated power — can decide whether a new sawmill or greenhouse can

open its doors, whether a municipality can approve an industrial subdivision or whether

a First Nation partner can realize their economic plan. These are real consequences

that deserve more than a few days of debate.

We have to remember what B.C. Hydro represents to British Columbians. It’s one of

our greatest public institutions, a backbone that connects our province, quite literally,

through the transmission lines that reach nearly every valley, every community and

every home. For decades, rural communities have relied on their electricity providers

— B.C. Hydro, FortisBC and others — not only for power but for opportunity.

While B.C. Hydro does not directly serve all of the people in my riding, most homes

and businesses in the Okanagan and Boundary….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder to reference your remarks to the amendment.

Donegal Wilson : Okay. I believe that I am.

Deputy Speaker : Directly, in terms of the amendment to delete the word “now” and substituting “six

months hence” — not to repeat the second committee arguments.

Donegal Wilson : I think all of these tie into the reasons why we need to wait six months on these

particular things. I think I have tied that in, but I will try a little harder. Thank

you very much.

I think that we need to take six months to really look at why B.C. Hydro didn’t just

happen. It was built from a vision of public service. In the 1960s, when this province

bought out the private B.C. Electric Co., it did so to bring stability, fairness and

access to people who were being left behind. Many rural households were still without

electricity, and this bill is looking to change how that ownership is done. I believe

that we need six months to look at how that is.

Since then, Hydro has powered farms in the Fraser Valley, mills in the Cariboo and

homes in the North. It helped create the prosperity that allows British Columbians

to be clean energy leaders today. But when we talk about altering that foundation,

we should do so with respect for the history that made it possible and take the time

needed to really look at it.

Through Bill 31, that faith is being tested. This bill gives cabinet authority to

prohibit electricity being used for entire categories of work, for crypto mining,

data processing or hydrogen production for export.

Deputy Speaker : Member, thank you. Just a reminder. That’s Bill 31, and now we’re debating the amendment

for the motion.

Donegal Wilson : I feel like I am debating it, so could you provide some clarity?

Deputy Speaker : Yeah. Just clarity in terms of we’re now discussing the amendment, deleting the word

“now” and substituting “six months” and not debating arguments on Bill 31 itself.

Donegal Wilson : But I believe that these all lead into why we need to take six months to think about

what we’re doing here today.

Deputy Speaker : Your remarks now are exclusively on the amendment.

Donegal Wilson : I’m failing to see how they don’t tie together. I believe that my statement is about

how we’re fundamentally changing and need six months to think about it.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you. Just continue on the amendment, Member.

Donegal Wilson : I believe that’s why this amendment is so important. It’s not an attempt to derail

progress. It’s an attempt to protect it. We can’t have policies that say one thing

one year and another the next. We can’t be a province that courts innovation when

it’s politically convenient and then shuts the door on it when the winds change.

It wasn’t long ago that this same government and B.C. Hydro were actively trying to

attract cryptocurrency and data processing investments in this province. This six

months allows us to go and look at those industries and see and hear from them about

how this has the potential to impact. I’m hearing from the people in my riding that

it has significant potential impacts.

[3:25 p.m.]

To me, this bill demonstrates that this government is not planning for the long term

or supporting our economy by creating predictable investment opportunities. Supporting

a six-month delay allows us and the rural communities of B.C. to plan for this, to

provide input and feedback and to get this right.

In my own riding, we have many businesses that are looking for power. We have development

that is delayed. I have investors that are waiting to put in several projects, and

some of them will include data centres. I believe that this six months allows those

potential investors that may not have been stakeholders at the table when this bill

was developed the opportunity to also participate. Now that the bill has been made

public, people can review it and provide comments and feedback to this government.

I have a business in Okanagan Falls that has built a 19-lot subdivision and wants

to bring industry to our community. He has water. He has sewer. He has pavement. He’s

ready to go. He cannot get power, and he’s being told it could be ten years before

those jobs are realized in Okanagan Falls. I want to provide him the opportunity to

provide some comments and feedback on this bill.

Across Canada and around the world, AI is transforming how we analyze information,

manage infrastructure and deliver services to citizens. I want the opportunity for

those providers to provide input. This government spent a lot of time providing and

attracting those investments, and now it seems like we’re pivoting and saying that

this is no longer the industry that we want.

We depend on it. We want to be sovereign. We want to stand alone. We need to do that.

That means that we need this data processing and these servers in our province, and

we need six months to make sure that we can come up with a plan that supports that.

If we push these industries away, we don’t just make the demand for data disappear;

we make ourselves dependent on other countries to process and store. We risk losing

both the economic benefits and the technological capacity that would have served British

Columbians for decades.

Bill 31 raises legitimate concerns about ownership and control. I believe that six

months allows the people in British Columbia to have a look at what that looks like

and provide comments and input into what that transfer of public utilities to private

ownership looks like and to participate in it.

I want to be clear. Partnership with First Nations is a positive thing, and reconciliation

through shared ownership can strengthen communities. But when we do that, we must

ensure that the process is transparent, equitable and in the long-term public interest

to create the reconciliation that we need for this province. The way this bill is

written, those arrangements can be designated by cabinet order without clear legislative

oversight. Six months allows the people of B.C. to have a look and participate in

this together, to come to a solution together.

B.C. Hydro was made public because rural communities, farms and small towns would

never have been connected if left to private markets alone. It took public ownership,

collective investment and a belief that every British Columbian deserved lights, heat

and opportunity no matter where they lived. We need to provide an opportunity for

those people to have input on this bill.

The model has delivered for us. It built the infrastructure that allowed families

to start businesses in small towns, allowed mills to operate in the Interior and allowed

new industries to grow in places that private utilities would have ignored. It will

allow the AI, data processing and crypto businesses to thrive. We have many situations

in B.C. where these businesses would actually help us stabilize the grid, and we need

to provide them the opportunity and this six months for them to get that opportunity.

If we don’t take the time, we risk unintended consequences, higher costs, slower approvals

and an uncertainty that will ripple through the entire economy. We need investment

in new generation capacity and regional reliability. This bill, I am being told by

industry, signals the opposite. We have communities across this province that want

to participate in the data and AI technology. This bill signals that the power may

not be there when you need it and don’t invest here.

[3:30 p.m.]

Six months allows the government to fully understand what that means and what potential

investment we’re scaring away. This isn’t about ideology. It’s about balance and foresight.

Nobody in this chamber wants to see wasted power or environmental harm. Good stewardship

also means using the resources we have to create opportunity at home.

If government takes six months, as this motion proposes, to sit down with industry,

with local leaders and with citizens who understand both sides of the issue, we will

get a better bill and a stronger province overall.

The people in our rural communities are not opposed to clean energy or environmental

responsibility. They live it every day. They are the stewards. They do this every

day. They want to be part of the conversation and not an afterthought in a Victoria

plan. That’s why this amendment to defer second reading for six months is so important.

It’s a signal that we value listening over rushing, consultation over control.

I also know that I’m not the only rural MLA hearing those concerns. My colleagues

across the province from the North, the Cariboo, the Kootenays and the islands are

hearing the same stories of communities that want to grow, that have land zoned and

services, that have investors ready to go but are told to wait because the system

isn’t ready for them or investors want to see where this bill ends up.

This six months allows everybody to hear those stories. These communities deserve

better. They deserve a government that sees them as partners in building B.C.’s future,

not as problems to be managed. They deserve energy policy that reflects the full geography

of this province, not just the priorities of a few.

For those reasons, I stand with my rural colleagues in supporting this motion. Let’s

take the time to listen, to consult and to come back with legislation that truly serves

all British Columbians, from our largest cities to our smallest towns. Let’s get this

right.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I’m speaking in opposition to the hoist.

I think it would be useful for members of the House to understand the purpose of a

hoist motion. I think it seems pretty clear. Just to read from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , which is our guide in these matters, it says: “The objective of a hoist amendment

is to critically postpone the consideration of a bill at second reading or third reading,

with the intent that the delay will be fatal to the bill as a result of prorogation

or dissolution.” The reason six months were chosen in the B.C. Legislature is that,

effectively, six months is fatal to the bill.

The opposition, which opposes the North Coast transmission line…. Let’s be clear.

There’s a lot of talk about balancing things. The opposition has decided to oppose

it. Why do I say that? Because they said so. They propose to stop work toward a power

line from the northeast to the northwest and replace the project. That’s their position.

They’re against delivering a transmission line to members’ ridings. I mean Stikine.

I mean Bulkley Valley. I mean the North Coast. I mean Skeena. I mean those ridings.

The opposition wants to stop this project, and this six-month hoist is another means

to stop the North Coast transmission line, which they oppose.

Now, you may say they’re not opposed to transmission lines, and that’s true. The Leader

of the Opposition was part of a government that proposed the Interior–Lower Mainland

line that was built, that took power from the member for Peace River South’s community

down to Vancouver. That was okay. That wasn’t opposed by the opposition.

They support delivering northern power to Vancouver. I support it too. But they oppose

delivering northern power to the northwest. I don’t support that. Let’s be clear.

I support the North Coast transmission line, and they oppose it. This is a means of

opposing the North Coast transmission line.

I think they are wrong. I think that is not representing the interests of northern

B.C. I think people in northern B.C. urgently need the same level of service, and

that’s why I oppose this hoist. For their residential customers, as one of the members

proposing this motion said, service can be intermittent, for commercial customers

and for industrial customers.

I think people in the North deserve better service, and they deserve their projects,

their dreams, their aspirations not to be hoisted by an opposition motion. They deserve

that, and therefore, I’m opposed to the motion.

The member for Peace River South said: “Well, maybe in six months.” The intent of

the motion is to defeat the legislation. “Maybe in six months we can move projects

in the northwest.”

[3:35 p.m.]

There are projects in the northwest. There are many projects and more in the northwest,

in terms of the call for power, than in the northeast. That is a fact today. And that’s

good news for the province. There are projects in the northwest. There are projects

in the northeast. There are projects in the central Interior. There are projects on

Vancouver Island. That’s because we aren’t delaying.

There is plenty of time to have a legislative debate on this, and I look forward to

the clause-by-clause debate. I can’t wait. I genuinely can’t wait. But when you put

forward arguments like that….

We had a process that was laid out in advance and was overseen by an ethics adviser,

which came to decisions about where EPA should be launched. That then was overseen,

as is appropriate, by the BCUC, as this process will. That’s the role of the BCUC.

Then that makes sense.

In this case, we have a North Coast transmission line — which they want to stop, which

they want to block, which they want to delay; they want to use dilatory tactics in

this House to delay — that was announced. The intention to consider this line was

announced in 2023.

Every potential industrial ratepayer in the northwest was consulted at that time in

2023, and a determination was made that there was sufficient demand for a new transmission

line. My colleague the Minister of Health was Minister of Energy at the time. And

then later in 2023, a process of consultation with First Nations was developed, which

has been two years long. They don’t mention it, but it’s the case. Two years long.

Then in January 2024, the Premier and B.C. Hydro published their plan to proceed with

the North Coast transmission line — 2024.

And now here we are, having signed agreements, term sheet agreements, with many First

Nations on the route, not all but many, and really significant nations, in particular

in Bulkley Valley, in Stikine and in Skeena and other communities. After two years

of effort, they want to delay it more.

There’s another reason we don’t want to delay. I say this: people talk about consultation,

the support, for example, of the mining industry and the urgent need to proceed with

this “nation-building project that will bring clean electricity” — I’m quoting Michael

Goehring of the Mining Association of B.C. — “to mining projects in northwest and

central B.C. The North Coast transmission line will strengthen Canada’s position as

a leading global supplier of critical minerals and metals and unlock more than $45

billion in near-term economic activity for British Columbians and all Canadians. We

are pleased to support the province’s efforts to advance this important transmission

line towards construction.”

They support it because they know it serves the North. And I would think representatives

of the North should be supporting this legislation, not trying to block it or delay

it or undermine it or pretend they support reconciliation when, in fact, they do not.

That is something they are on record for as well. They don’t support the kind of reconciliation

we put forward.

So they oppose the North Coast transmission line. They oppose it. Clearly, they want

to get rid of it. We’ve heard some unusual ideas put forward. I will save my response

to the proposals that have been put forward by the opposition in this regard — which

are six, seven times more expensive — that they call inexpensive. Proposals made,

for example by my friend from Abbotsford West, that would increase the rates for people

in Abbotsford dramatically.

Somebody here has to speak for the people of Abbotsford, and I’m going to do that

in this debate. They would do that. We’ll save those for when I close debate. I’m

also looking forward to that.

I think one of the fundamental things about this project…. We’ve heard from the federal

government, the national government, the Prime Minister. We’ve heard from the Premier.

We’ve heard from the industry. We’ve heard from First Nations. We’ve heard from communities.

It’s a nation-building project that urgently needs to go forward now to unlock mining

potential. It has been noted here. I think that this is what we need to do now. There

is urgency now.

[3:40 p.m.]

Instead, the Leader of the Opposition says our economy needs urgent action, and then

he puts forward, on a critical project, on a national project, one that will unlock

jobs, a six-month delay. That’s what we’re proposing here. You bet I’m against it.

Talk about saying one thing and doing another, saying you’re in favour of action and

then proposing motions like this, which are a six-month delay. This is not what is

needed now.

We have, in detail, put forward legislation. I look forward to the debate at committee

stage that lays out an allocation framework. There is a framework now, as members

will know, and that framework is first come, first served in these areas. And we’ve

been specific. The legislation could have said, and this would be an argument that

would have been put forward, that it’s general. We give that power to the cabinet,

and that’s it. Then the cabinet could decide what areas it was doing….

That’s not what the legislation does. The legislation is specific, at our insistence,

that it be done, like legislation in dozens of other jurisdictions that we’ve considered,

in artificial intelligence data centres and hydrogen for export. We’ve done it for

the good reasons, as I’ve explained, that we’ll debate, I’m sure, at committee stage.

We could have said general. We were specific about that. If we want to change that,

we’d have to return to the Legislature. That’s what is making legislation specific

in this Legislature.

And the opposition’s response to that is, “Let’s delay; let’s create economic uncertainty,”

not be clear about what we need to do, which are competitive processes that are overseen

by an ethics adviser, where decisions are made by B.C. Hydro and reviewed by the B.C.

Utilities Commission on criteria, yes, set out by the government. I think that that

is a transparent and clear process. We do it in the RFP.

Those decisions which favour members in the House’s ridings, because projects in their

ridings went ahead…. The decisions in that process went through and, as Minister of

Energy, I found out on the day that the projects were announced where they were, because

you have an RFP process that’s based on criteria that are set out, and then you proceed.

So there is no need for delay on this five-section bill. There is no need for the

opposition, which is against the North Coast transmission line and against clean energy….

They have every right to be against it. They’ve made their position clear and on the

record. They are against improving electricity service to the northwest. They oppose

it. They’ve made that clear. This is another means of opposing it. They want to delay

it. They think their citizens should wait longer. They think that people proposing

projects, either in industry or commercial projects in the northwest, should wait

longer.

Well, we don’t think so. We have been working on this project for years, and we need

to proceed. We need to proceed, in my view, as soon as possible. In this case, shovels

on the ground next summer.

So no, we do not support a six-month delay. We do not support it because we believe

people in the northwest deserve action — that there is unprecedented economic opportunity

in the northwest of B.C., and we need to take action.

We think, at this time when our markets are being threatened by the President of the

United States and other jurisdictions, that we need to take action to ensure that

our critical minerals can get to other markets. We want action. They want delay. We

support major projects of national interest, and they oppose them.

I am not surprised to see this proposal, which has been indicated in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia as a way to stop things you oppose, because they oppose this action. They oppose

CleanBC projects.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I welcome the member back.

No, I was just referring to the Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia . Unfortunately….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, that’s what I’ve been doing. In that reference, I was referring specifically

to the discussion of hoist motions in the Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia .

I welcome the member to enter into the debate. It’s always a pleasure to have him

here and directly across from me. It’s not bad. It’s a pleasure.

[3:45 p.m.]

In short, we support the legislation. We support the North Coast transmission line.

I understand that people who are opposed to it, who favour dramatically more expensive

and impossible-to-complete projects, would be opposed to it, and the Conservative

opposition has not disappointed me in that regard.

I would suggest to all members of the House that we defeat this amendment and move

back to an important debate on this important piece of legislation.

Sharon Hartwell : I rise in strong support of the amendment before this House, an amendment moved by

my colleague to change the motion for second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025, by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

Although I can appreciate the passion from the member across the floor, he either

has a lot of rhetoric across the floor or he’s not really providing the whole picture.

Of course we support energy. Of course we support projects. That short phrase “six

months hence” may sound procedural to those listening from home, but in this place,

it carries great weight. It is a safeguard built into our parliamentary tradition.

It allows the Legislature to pause before enacting a bill that demands deeper scrutiny,

fuller consultation and a more careful weighing of the consequences. It is not an

act of obstruction. It is

an act of responsibility.

When a bill raises questions that government has not adequately answered, when there

are gaps in evidence and when there is a legitimate concern that haste will lead to

waste, the proper course is to grant the House six months to study the matter further.

That is precisely what we were doing here today with Bill 31.

This amendment is not about slowing process. It’s about ensuring that process is real,

accountable and in the public interest. Our role as Members of the Legislative Assembly,

on both sides of this chamber, is to scrutinize legislation on behalf of the people

who sent us here. We are trustees of their confidence and stewards of our dollars.

The six-months-hence motion gives us the breathing space to discharge that duty properly.

It acknowledges that the questions raised by Bill 31 are significant enough to warrant

more than a few days of debate sandwiched between other government priorities.

This bill touches the structure of B.C. Hydro, the integrity of our energy system

and the expenditure of billions of public dollars. Those are not matters to rush through

on a political timetable. When government tables complex legislation, it assumes a

responsibility to demonstrate why immediate passage is necessary. In this case, that

burden has not yet been met.

Ministers have said that this bill is required to build a new transmission line to

the north coast, yet B.C. Hydro already possesses full statutory authority to construct

transmission infrastructure. So if urgency truly exists, it has not yet been proven.

The more likely explanation is that government wishes to embed new ownership and partnership

arrangements before the public fully understands their implications. That is precisely

why we have the delay mechanism to say: “Stop. Slow down. Show us the evidence before

you change the rules.”

The six-month period is not arbitrary. It reflects a principle that the parliament

should not legislate in ignorance. Six months allows for public hearings, independent

fiscal review and consultation with industry, municipalities and Indigenous nations

along the affected corridor. It allows time for ratepayers, unions and environmental

groups to assess the long-term consequences of altering B.C. Hydro’s mandate. In other

words, it allows democracy to function as it should, openly and deliberately.

I know government members will say that this motion is a delay tactic, that every

day we wait and risk missing an economic opportunity. But let’s remember our history.

Rushed legislation has seldom saved money or time. More often, it has produced the

opposite.

We need only to recall Site C. Announced on time and on budget, it was, years later,

billions over budget. That project suffered from inadequate scrutiny at the front

end. If ever there was a lesson in why six months could save $6 billion, that was

it. To deny ourselves that reflection now would be to repeat the very mistakes we

claim to have learned from.

[3:50 p.m.]

The amendment motion also tests government’s confidence in its own proposal. If ministers

are certain their case is sound, they should welcome an additional review. If the

economics are solid, if the ownership structure is defensible, if the environmental

and Indigenous consultations are thorough, then six months will only confirm it. A

good policy can withstand sunlight; a weak one cannot. The amendment before us simply

invites that sunlight to shine.

Let me also speak to the constitutional and procedural importance of the motion itself.

Parliamentary democracy depends on two pillars, the right of government to propose

and the right of the Legislature to dispose. When a majority uses its numbers to curtail

debate, it risks weakening that second pillar.

This motion restores the balance. It reminds the executive that the Legislature is

not a rubber stamp. It ensures that the law-making process remains deliberate, not

automatic. Throughout the Commonwealth, from Westminster to Ottawa to Victoria, the

six-months-hence amendment has served as a respectful means for opposition members

to say: “This matter is too important for haste.” It is part of our inherited safeguard

against the tyranny of convenience.

We are dealing here with a bill that would alter how B.C. Hydro can partner, own and

regulate within the energy system. That is not a housekeeping amendment. That is restructuring

of one of our province’s largest public institutions. If anything merits a cooling-off

period, this does.

This motion gives government a chance to return in six months with a clear explanation:

why is this bill needed now? What exactly does it authorize that existing statutes

do not? How will it protect ratepayers? How will it preserve public ownership? Without

those answers, proceeding today would be reckless.

There is another dimension, the matter of trust. Public confidence in large infrastructure

spending is fragile. People see project after project exceeding their budgets, and

they wonder whether anyone is minding the store. When the government presents a bill

tied to a $6 billion transmission line and asks for immediate approval, they are asking

for trust that they have not yet earned.

Six months of open review would begin to rebuild that trust. It would demonstrate

that this House takes its fiduciary role seriously, that oversight is not an inconvenience

but a constitutional obligation.

Some members opposite will argue that deferring this bill sends a signal of uncertainty

to investors. I would argue the opposite. Predictability is built on a good process,

not on speed. Investors prefer jurisdictions where governments think before they legislate,

where rules are clear and consistent, where public agencies operate transparently.

A hurried law passed without full understanding creates more uncertainty than any

delay ever could. Six months of scrutiny leads to decades of stability. That is a

trade-off worth making. Let me remind colleagues that this motion is not unique to

energy policy. It has been used across party lines whenever the House has faced legislation

whose implications extend far beyond the immediate political moment.

Members on the government benches, when they once sat in opposition, used the same

tool to demand accountability on forestry reforms, on health restructuring and on

privatization initiatives. They recognized then, as we do now, that sometimes the

wisest course is to stop and think. Surely what was wise in opposition does not become

folly in government.

I’ve heard ministers insist that consultation has already taken place. If that is

true, then providing documentation of that consultation should be effortless, but

so far we have seen no evidence, no transcripts of meetings with northern communities,

no environmental impact analysis, no detailed cost-benefit projections. All we have

are assurances. “Trust me,” they say.

Assurances are not enough when billions are on the line. Six months will allow the

release of those documents, the presentation of independent reviews and the answering

of legitimate questions raised by every MLA in this chamber.

It is also worth noting that this motion is one of the few procedural tools available

to protect minority voices in a majority Legislature. When the government controls

the calendar and committees, the opposition’s ability to secure meaningful review

is limited.

The six-months-hence amendment rebalances that power. It ensures that even when a

government commands a majority of votes, it cannot command a monopoly on wisdom. It

is a reminder that good ideas improve under pressure, and bad ideas collapse under

it. If the government’s proposal is truly good, six months of scrutiny will only make

it stronger.

Let us be honest. The stakes here extend beyond one transmission line. They touch

on how we govern major projects, how we treat Crown corporations and how we safeguard

public ownership of critical assets.

[3:55 p.m.]

Once we normalize the practice of rushing complex energy legislation through the House,

it will become easier to do the same in other sectors — transportation, health, housing.

This motion draws a line and says: “Not this time. Let us do this one properly.”

The government should view the amendment not as an obstacle but as an opportunity.

In six months, it could return with detailed fiscal projections vetted by the Auditor

General, with completed consultations with Indigenous partners and with clear language

protecting public ownership.

If it does those things, the opposition will be in a stronger position to engage constructively,

but if it presses ahead today without that foundation, it will own every dollar of

cost overrun and every unintended consequence that follows. A wise government would

choose the first path.

British Columbians are pragmatic people. They understand that large projects take

time, that due diligence costs less than disaster. They expect us, their legislators,

to ask hard questions before signing the cheque. That is all the six-months-hence

motion does. Let’s press pause, ask those questions and come back when the answers

are in. That is not opposition for its own sake; that is accountability for the public’s

sake.

In closing, I want to emphasize that this amendment is entirely consistent with our

democratic tradition and in our duty to taxpayers. It respects the authority of government

to propose legislation while asserting the right of the Legislature to ensure that

legislation is sound. It reflects the belief that good governance requires both action

and reflection, and it stands on the principle that when billions of dollars and the

integrity of the public utility are at stake, time spent in scrutiny is never wasted.

For these reasons, I will be voting in favour of the motion to amend Bill 31 so that

its second reading can be postponed for six months hence. Let us take the time to

do what British Columbia sent us here to do: to think carefully, to question boldly

and to legislate wisely.

Korky Neufeld : I rise to address the motion before the House, the motion for second reading of Bill

31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, amended by deleting the word “now” and

substituting it with “six months hence.”

This is not a motion of delay for delay’s sake. It’s a motion of deliberation and

is necessary to pause to ensure what this Legislature enacts will strengthen our province,

not weaken it.

I’m a little confused. How does six months stop building the transmission line? Six

months is very clear. If I could break it down, six months is 182.5 days, 4,380-plus

hours or 262,800-plus minutes, a very clear timeline to pause and to resume.

This bill, while framed as a technical update to modernize B.C. Hydro’s authority,

in truth, actually represents a series of profound and troubling policy shifts that

deserve careful scrutiny — not a stop but a pause for six months, which is a very

clear, definitive timeline.

That’s what it takes to scrutinize something. It takes time. When you rush through

things, you miss things. When you rush through things, you break relationships. When

you rush things, you have unintended consequences.

Let me begin by saying what we on this side of the House believe in, responsible energy

development and responsible reconciliation with Indigenous People through meaningful

partnerships. Here is a principle that I think the other side of the House understands.

It takes time to build relationships with Indigenous People. You don’t rush things

through. In their culture, time is precious. Relationships are precious, not rushing

things through.

We believe in responsible and strong public accountability for B.C. Hydro, but this

bill raises serious concerns about transparency, about accountability, about long-term

integrity of our province’s public energy system.

We need to pause to get it right, and that’s why I support the amendment to delete

the word “now” and substitute it with “six months hence.”

[4:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers to the amendment, I’ll call the question.

The question is on the amendment to second reading of Bill 31, intituled Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025 — that it be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting

“six months hence.”

Division has been called.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

The Speaker : Members, the question is amendment to the second reading of the bill intituled the

Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Wilson

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Banman

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Brodie

Armstrong

Bhangu

Paton

Gasper

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

McCall

Stamer

Day

Tepper

Mok

Maahs

Kealy

Sturko

Boultbee

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Luck

Block

NAYS — 48

Lore

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Sandhu

Begg

Higginson

Phillip

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Morissette

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Chow

Dhir

Valeriote

Botterell

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[4:15 p.m.]

Susie Chant :

Section A reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker : Hon. Members, earlier today, following oral question period, the Leader of the Fourth

Party raised a point of order on the application of the rule of anticipation to debate

in the House, including oral question period. The Chair thanks the Leader of the Fourth

Party for her submission and is now prepared to rule on the point of order.

The rule of anticipation is a parliamentary practice that is designed to prevent discussion

or decisions on a topic that has or will be the subject of substantive debate in the

House during a parliamentary session. Its aim is to not pre-empt future debate and

to not risk duplication or contradiction of decisions of this House through subsequent

debate.

With respect to the application of this rule to questions pertaining to bills arising

during oral question period, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fifth edition, notes at page 324: “Questions may be out of order if they deal with the details of

a bill which stands on the order paper, or if they address proposed amendments. Such

matters should be canvassed at committee stage consideration of the bill.”

However, a question may be canvassed if it is of a general or high-level nature that

may relate to the contents of a bill. Furthermore, with respect to a bill that was

introduced and subsequently defeated at first reading, the rule of anticipation is

not relevant. Questions related to the bill, particularly in the context of its defeat,

are not prohibited under this rule.

The Chair appreciates the opportunity to provide this guidance and clarity to the

House and regrets any confusion that application of this rule created during oral

question period earlier.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 4:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt

Payment Act

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20 to order.

On clause 1 (continued) .

Misty Van Popta : Sorry. We adjourned mid-response.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thanks to the member for reminding me that I owed an answer.

Just to talk it through, there were three

definitions that I think were raised — notice

of adjudication, notice of non-payment and proper invoice — and how they’re set out

in the definition section.

First of all, the reason that they are noted here in

definitions with just a simple

reference to the

section is because it’s a signpost, as I think the term is, for readers.

“When you’re looking for this, refer to that section,” just for clarity and ease of

putting it together. There’s no material difference in that method or use of that.

All those three

definitions are very detailed things, and they’re pivotal to the process

of prompt payment. When you go to the sections referred to, it lays out exactly what

is meant by a notice of non-payment, for example.

[1:40 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta : When I was reading my notes again last night and I was just going through these two

items, I realized that I did make an error, in that notice of adjudication definitely

had more requirements on what a notice would look like — names, address of parties,

etc.

It was notice of non-payment that was a little bit more vague, in the sense that it

says, “specifies the amount and reasons for non-payment,” but it doesn’t talk about

what is actually required in terms of a written notice — name of company, things like

that —

whereas other parts of the bill are very specific as to the exact information

required on a notice.

So if the minister could just go back to, more specifically, notice of non-payment.

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s kind of a balance in terms of how the team looked at it, comparing with other

legislation — how much to write in the

section it refers to as being clearly required

and how much to leave more to industry, with the idea that you could have a regulation

if you needed to.

Any time it says prescribed, it gives you the ability to prescribe an actually standard

form. I think the comparison that the member is asking about, about proper invoices….

Proper invoices really lays out everything that you definitely need in that proper

invoice, because it’s such a kind of pivotal thing in the whole structure of the prompt

payment regime.

Then, for notice of non-payment, it says some clear things, right? You need to specify

certain things in your notice of non-payment and the clear timelines. It also gives

the ability to have, by regulation, a prescribed form. So we can work with industry

and understand how it’s going and set up a regulation that, if needed, puts some more

clarity in exactly what is needed for a notice of non-payment.

That was the kind of balancing act that was….

Misty Van Popta : Just switching gears a little bit, I really took a lot of time trying to understand

two of the

definitions in terms of the intent versus the

interpretation of them. Most

notably is the definition of “owner” and the definition of “person” and understanding

where the definition could hold….

A lot of the initial reaction to this bill was whether government and Crown corporations

were going to be exempted or possibly exempted from this legislation. Part of me was

really honing in on the term “owner,” and then, within the definition of owner, the

definition of person and seeing how that could be strengthened by including government

or Crown.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now that I’ve kind of digested what I’ve learned, I just want to put on public record

in regards to the

Interpretation Act, for “person” and then also “owner,” that government

entities and also Crown are encapsulated as an owner and/or, alternatively, as a person.

If the minister could just please rise for the record to clarify how that is to be

interpreted so that we have it on record. Thank you.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just maybe I’ll give a broad enough answer that covers different sections of the

act but also ties into this conversation.

First of all, with respect to the specific question about that definition, “person”

is inclusive of many things but also would include government entities. Then “owner”

is defined to be a very functional definition to interact with what that person is

doing, so who retains a contract to supply services. It’s very broad in the sense

of its application.

Just to make it clearer, the

Interpretation Act, as the member brings up, contains

all the

definitions that sometimes you don’t have to redefine in

an act.

[1:50 p.m.]

But when we get to

section 47(2), which is coming up, what you’ll see in there is….

Because we wanted to make it clear that this act applies to public and private entities,

that it just applies to all projects, you’ll see that

section 47(2) specifically exempts

a

section of the

Interpretation Act that is for a government exemption.

So we specifically put it in there to make sure that it was clear that this is broad

enough to apply to all.

Misty Van Popta : Thank you for clarifying that.

Is there any instance in which…? This, in my understanding, does include government,

but is there anything within the definition or the

Interpretation Act where the government

or Crown would be or could be, not necessarily that it is, exempt? Does the minister

have that ability to exempt a project or an owner?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Just in the interest of moving through the legislation, I am really happy to get

to the clauses related to applicability. They’re coming, and then we can get into

a deep conversation of further down clauses.

I can tell you that the

definitions right now, just like you’ll see in other parts

of the act, are making it clear that, which is what we heard from all of our round

table and all of our work that the team did to dig into it, the broadest application

of this, including public and private, is the way that you get at solving prompt payment

across the whole sector. Because all these companies are interchangeable. They do

projects across the board.

You’ll see that in different sections, and I’m happy to revisit that about how it

shows that it’s so broad.

Gavin Dew : Thank you to the Attorney General for that clarity around the inclusion of government.

Recognizing that we may ultimately revisit this significantly later in

section 51,

but since we’re simply on the topic, I would just like to get a little bit of clarity

as to whether there is any intent for the inclusion of government to be subject to

phased implementation.

Again, I recognize we’ll likely revisit this in 51, but I do just want to get to the

question since we’re just in it now momentarily.

Hon. Niki Sharma : No, and it goes into what I was saying before. What we heard from the sector and

the point of it is to apply to as broad a range of the whole sector so we can get

at the issue, which is making sure prompt payments happen.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate the answer.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’ll go back to

definitions. Again, I may explore this particular definition a little

further under subsequent sections. But just to lay the frame for that, when it comes

to the definition of “contractor,” is the intent of the legislation for a contractor

to mean a person or a corporate person, or is the intent for that to mean a consolidated

corporate person? For example, in the case of a holdco, opco or a joint venture structure.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes, it’s broad enough to include entities like the member is referring to.

Gavin Dew : Thank you very much. I may come back to that in more detail at a subsequent time

as we’re into sections where that becomes relevant, but I appreciate that initial

groundwork.

There are a few items that…. As I read through the bill, there are terms that are

not defined, and I am just curious to understand if there is a reason they are not

defined. So expect a series of questions related to a couple of items.

Could the Attorney General clarify why the term “prescribed information,” which is

used repeatedly, is not defined?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The term “prescribed” is found in the

Interpretation Act with, already, a definition.

Gavin Dew : For the sake of convenience, could the Attorney General provide that definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It means, and this is the whole thing, prescribed by regulation.

Gavin Dew : A similar question around prescribed interest rate. I assume that, again, the assumption

is that that will be defined by regulation. But as that could become quite material

at a commercial level to folks that are affected by this legislation, could the Attorney

General provide any initial indications as to how government intends to set about

defining the prescribed interest rate?

Hon. Niki Sharma : In setting the rate, I think the balance that you want to find is to have it be sufficient

enough to incentivize changes of beha