First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, May 12, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 62

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

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Art Charbonneau

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Statements

Chilliwack Chiefs Hockey Team

Darlene Rotchford

Introductions by Members

Speaker’s Statement

Removal of Legislature Cat from Speaker’s Office

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Misty Van Popta

Members’ Statements

Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Crossing

Amshen / Joan Phillip

Ski Industry in Columbia River–Revelstoke

Scott McInnis

Value of Local Newspapers

George Anderson

Mike Morgan

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat

Men’s Shed Society in Mackenzie

Kiel Giddens

Oral Questions

Government Response to Antisemitism and Police Investigation of Hate Crimes

John Rustad

Hon. David Eby

Hon. Niki Sharma

Access to Health Care Services

Ward Stamer

Hon. Josie Osborne

Affordable Housing Options and Rental Housing Vacancy Control

Rob Botterell

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Government Action on Youth Mental Health and Addiction Issues

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Á’a:líya Warbus

Justice System Staffing Shortages

Hon Chan

Hon. Niki Sharma

Attack by Repeat Offender and Action on Community Safety

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Garry Begg

Government Action on Sexual Assault of Women

Reann Gasper

Hon. Niki Sharma

Rosalyn Bird

Safety of Women and Support and Justice for Victims of Crime

Teresa Wat

Hon. Niki Sharma

Scott McInnis

Government Response to Community Health and Safety Issues

Elenore Sturko

Hon. Niki Sharma

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Management Committee, report, 2023-24

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills Committee , Bill M204, Perinatal and Postnatal Mental Health Strategy Act

Amna Shah

Tabling Documents

WorkSafeBC, annual report, 2024, and service plan, 2025–2027

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025 (continued)

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Linda Hepner

Brennan Day

Lynne Block

Scott McInnis

Kristina Loewen

Reporting of Bills

Bill 11 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025 (continued)

Harman Bhangu

Bryan Tepper

Anna Kindy

Claire Rattée

Gavin Dew

Reann Gasper

Heather Maahs

Reporting of Bills

Bill M202 — Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Heather Maahs

Trevor Halford

Amelia Boultbee

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 11 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Anna Kindy

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Macklin McCall

Donegal Wilson

Rob Botterell

Monday, May 12, 2025

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare : It’s my pleasure today to introduce my Prince George constituency assistant Johnathan

Raine, who’s down here this week.

Johnathan, if you would stand and be recognized.

I hope everyone here will make Johnathan feel especially welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today I rise to welcome representatives from the Canadian Propane Association, who

are joining us here in the gallery. Propane is an essential part of British Columbia’s

diverse and resilient energy system. From heating homes in remote and Indigenous communities

to fuelling equipment on farms and job sites, propane supports reliable energy access

across our province. It also plays a key

part in barbecue season.

Joining us in the gallery today are Katie Kachur, Clint Hillman, Curtis Kitchen, Cale

Runions, Courtney Seir-Todd, Sammy Malhi, Allan Murphy, Curtis Robinson, Willie Stephens,

Devin O’Neal, Ryan Hudson, Nancy Borden, Bill Gourley, Richard Charbonneau, Alan Penner,

Harry Singh, Tracy MacDonald and David Gulliver.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome and thank them for lunch.

Larry Neufeld : Apparently, I didn’t stand quickly enough, so I am going to echo the hon. member

in thanking and recognizing the presence of the Canadian Propane Association. I won’t

repeat the names, because we just heard them.

Again, please, from this side of the House, help me make them feel welcome.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Today we’re welcoming guests from EDF Power Solutions, which is a major international

renewable energy company. I want to welcome Cory Basil, who’s the regional senior

vice-president for Canada and U.S. northeast, and David Thornton, the director of

regulatory and legislative affairs.

Let the House make them welcome.

Brent Chapman : Yes, I am honoured to have some good friends join us here today. They are leaders

in the Bangladeshi-Canadian community. They are strong proponents of Bangladesh-to-Canada

and Canada-to-Bangladesh A solid Conservative federal and provincial candidate, Syed

Mohsin; also his wife, Razia Mohsin; and his mother-in-law, who joins us here today,

Syeda Khan, from Orange County, New York.

Please make them feel welcome.

Dana Lajeunesse : It’s my pleasure today to introduce to the House some very good friends of mine from

the South Island Prosperity Partnership, otherwise known as SIPP. Aaron Stone is the

chief executive officer of South Island Prosperity Partnership, formerly mayor of

Ladysmith. Dallas Gislason serves as the executive director of community economies.

Jason Goldsworthy is the executive director of the Centre for Ocean Applied Sustainable

Technologies, or COAST, a SIPP initiative focused on the sustainable blue economy.

Christina Clark is the inaugural executive director of the Indigenous prosperity centre,

an Indigenous-led initiative under SIPP that supports self-directed economic development

for First Nations.

Please give them all a warm House welcome.

Á’a :líya Warbus : It’s my pleasure to welcome today 50 grade 10 students from Sardis Secondary, which

is in my riding of Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. They will be here with Principal Lynnet

Schramm, their teacher Kevin Gambell and many chaperones that are going to be with

them.

I just want to highlight that I went to Sardis Secondary. The programs, the teachers

and the school are amazing. They have a great focus on agriculture and skilled trades

and are home to the Sardis Falcons Football team.

I’d also like to take a quick opportunity to wish my son, Kymani Seymour…. He’s 15,

and he goes to Sardis Secondary. He is the absolute light and treasure of my life.

Everything in my life changed the day that he was born.

Happy birthday, son. I love you.

[1:40 p.m.]

Tributes

Art Charbonneau

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I rise today with some sad news, and that is the passing of Art Charbonneau, who

was the MLA for Kamloops from 1991 to 1996.

Art also served as the Minister of Transportation and Highways, as it was known then,

as well as the Minister of Forests and of Education. I served with him in this House

for five years. I always remember him as someone who stood up for Kamloops, was very

thoughtful and had an amazing sense of humour.

I just want to give this news to the House and that we pass on our condolences to

his family.

Statements

Chilliwack Chiefs Hockey Team

Darlene Rotchford : I made a challenge to a fellow member in this House on Friday, to my fellow colleague

for Chilliwack North. I may have challenged her BCHL team to a friendly competition,

which, you can see, I did not win.

I would like to congratulate the Chilliwack Chiefs on their next round in playoffs.

Best of luck to you all.

Introductions by Members

Anna Kindy : I have the pleasure to introduce Dr. Rod Nugent. He’s a retired dentist and also

the chair and on the board of directors of Strathcona Connected Coast Network Corporation.

Also, Mr. David Leitch. He’s the chief administrative officer of the Strathcona Regional

District. David has almost 30 years of local government experience in the field of

engineering, administration, public works and utilities.

Together with City West, they are working to improve the north Island and coastal

B.C. internet services.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I have some very special guests in the Legislature today. Today in the Legislature

I have, visiting, Dave Taylor, Louise Witt and Catherine Taylor. Louise and Catherine

are both dedicated and hard-working social workers doing very important work in our

communities. Dave is a retired pilot who spends part of his retirement volunteering

and supporting families and organizations filling out their disability tax credit.

Fun fact: I came to the Legislature for the very first time of my entire life a little

over 14, 15 years ago with Louise. We wore t-shirts, and we were advocating to MLAs

at the time. It is a full-circle moment for her to be visiting me, in the Legislature,

as the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Would the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Heather Maahs : I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friend across the aisle for being

such a wonderful sport and proposing this wonderful bet. The Victoria Grizzlies did

a wonderful job.

It was a good game, but yay, Chiefs.

George Anderson : I would like to take a moment to recognize Jim and Eva Manly, who are celebrating

66 years of marriage. They were married May 9, 1959, and I think it’s a testament

to the love and the care that they have for one another to also build upon a great

community here in Nanaimo.

I just would hope that the House would join me in congratulating Eva and Jim on such

a remarkable milestone.

Rosalyn Bird : It’s my pleasure today to introduce Stefan Woloszyn, the CEO of City West, a full-service

telecommunications and entertainment provider in Prince Rupert. City West has partnered

with the city of Prince Rupert and the regional district to Connected Coast project,

B.C., Haida Gwaii and Vancouver Island.

Can everybody in the House please make him feel welcome here and throughout the precinct

today.

Jessie Sunner : It is not quite 66 years, but I would like to congratulate two very, very special

people in my life who just yesterday celebrated 39 years of marriage: my parents.

I want to thank them for all of their love, their support, for truly making me believe

and know that I can do anything in this life and for setting such a great example

of what a loving marriage looks like.

Congratulations, parents.

[1:45 p.m.]

Will the House please join me in a warm welcome.

Jordan Kealy : I rise today to welcome the Canadian Propane Association as well and Katie Kachur,

who is a good friend of mine that I have known for just about four years.

They are a fierce advocate for propane. Propane is an essential resource in so many

different ways in our lives. Without them, in the North, we would be left out in the

cold. For some, this is their only option for heat or energy. Propane is resilient,

heating communities, fuelling farms, and it also puts the sizzle in my steak.

Please join me in recognizing their leadership and contributions to B.C.’s energy

future.

Welcome to the Legislature, and thank you very much for making sure I have propane

for my barbecue, and the lunch you provided was wonderful.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Well, I rise to share some good news for British Columbia, news I think we all could

be very proud of.

Over this last week in Kamloops, it’s been the National Aboriginal Hockey Championships,

and I can tell you this weekend our B.C. young women’s team, they placed silver. They

won the silver medal, and I want to congratulate them and also congratulate the young

men’s team for doing very well.

Next year you’ll get them.

Go, team, go! Congratulations, B.C.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Joining us today in the gallery is Mr. Kevan Shaw, a Nanaimo constituent of mine and

president of the Victoria Crescent neighbourhood association.

Will the members please make him very welcome.

Speaker’s Statement

Removal of Legislature Cat

from Speaker’s Office

The Speaker : Members, about three weeks ago a member catnapped our Macey, and Macey has still

not returned home. Today I have appointed Rob Shaw as a commissioner to bring Macey

back home — not a real cat, just Macey.

If the cat returns by the end of the day, I will make a generous donation to SPCA,

so the catnapper is urged and encouraged to bring the cat back home.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M214 — Firefighters’ Health Act

Misty Van Popta presented a bill intituled Firefighters’ Health Act.

Misty Van Popta : I move that a bill entitled Firefighters’ Health Act, of which notice has been given

in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I am so pleased to present the Firefighters’ Health Act to the House today. This bill

is paramount to protecting the health of those who protect us on a daily basis.

It is noted that both the government and the opposition party committed to supporting

firefighters during the fall 2024 campaign, and it is my hope here today and moving

forward that we can work together to maintain our commitment to them. This is not

a partisan issue.

This bill is inspired by two men in my community. I will go into their stories further,

hopefully at second reading debates, but the crux of their stories is that they are

both younger than me. While their chances of dying from cancer are two to four times

higher than mine due to the very job they go to every day, they are not afforded early

screening for colon cancer due to their age. One man under the age of 50 has already

had life-altering cancer, while the other, also under 50, has a family history of

cancer, compounded to his occupational hazard of cancer.

We all know a firefighter. Some are even family. You know one. You know one. You know

one.

The topic of updating the list of presumptive cancers and the need for regular and

early health screenings is not new to either this government nor the last government.

It is time that we all here today stand and take ownership of making these important

changes to the health outcomes of the over 13,000 men and women firefighters who protect

this province.

[1:50 p.m.]

This bill is about updating the presumptive-cancers list and crafting a health plan

strategy for firefighters, which would include earlier and regular screenings. This

would be accomplished based on a collaborative approach with the BCPFFA, the Doctors

of B.C. and the ministers in charge.

I want to thank my Local 4550 for inspiring this bill and to thank all the union locals

that came to Victoria a few months ago and met with all of us.

May you never have to do that again. May you know that everyone here supports and

values your life always.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Misty Van Popta : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[1:55 p.m.]

The Speaker : Members, before we take the vote, I want to remind members that division is usually

called at the first motion at the first reading, not on the administrative side of

the bill. But today we will allow it.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I see that joining us in the House now is a grade 10 class from Gleneagle Secondary.

Really grateful that all of the students and teachers are here today.

I had a bit of a panic this morning when I was told that the Grade 10 social studies

class was visiting us. I thought that maybe I forgot to fill out a permission form,

and I texted my son and said, “Are you in the Legislature?” and he said: “No, that’s

the other Grade 10 social studies class.” I hope you all go back to Gleneagle and

tell Ashton that his mom said hi.

Please enjoy question period. I know my colleagues will all be on their best behaviour.

Thank you for being here.

Members’ Statements

Ironworkers Memorial

Second Narrows Crossing

Amshen / Joan Phillip : Today I rise to talk about the collapse of the Second Narrows Bridge, June 17, 1958,

while it was still under construction. While 79 workers plunged into the Burrard Inlet,

it caused the deaths of 14 ironworkers, two engineers, a painter and, later, a commercial

diver attempting a rescue.

[2:00 p.m.]

The accident remains the worst disaster in Vancouver’s history. A royal commission

determined that a miscalculation in the design of the temporary structure played a

significant role.

I was six years old at the time, driving down 3rd Avenue with my mother, when I looked

over and I said: “Look, Mom, the bridge is falling.” And I didn’t realize it was really

bad until she started swearing in two languages. By the time we got to Maplewood,

emergency vehicles were flying by us. When we got home on Dollarton Highway, my mom

and dad got into their 36-foot troller, gillnetter, and were fishing survivors out

of the inlet.

It is now called the Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Crossing to honour the lives

lost in that tragedy. Let us reaffirm our commitment to strong protections and a culture

that values the health and safety of all workers.

Huy ch q’u siem.

Ski Industry in

Columbia River–Revelstoke

Scott McInnis : Another wonderful ski season has come to an end in Columbia River–Revelstoke. I rise

today to express my deepest gratitude to the incredible individuals who power the

ski industry in the riding I am so lucky to represent — from lift operators, ski patrol,

instructors, hospitality staff, maintenance crews and countless others behind the

scenes.

Thank you. Your dedication, professionalism and hard work have formed the backbone

of a world-class tourism economy that supports families, small business and entire

communities across our region.

The riding I represent has the best ski resorts in the country, if not the world.

Revelstoke Mountain Resort, Kicking Horse, Panorama, Fairmont and Kimberley Alpine

Resort get knee-deep powder all year long that falls like sheets of paper from the

sky. Ask anyone who’s been there, and most certainly they’ll agree.

Our mountains are among the most iconic in the world, but it is the people, those

who work long hours in all weather, who greet visitors with a smile, who keep our

operations running smoothly and safely, that make the experience truly exceptional.

Whether it’s grooming the slopes before sunrise or serving a warm meal or a cold beverage

after a long day of skiing, your efforts do not go unnoticed.

I’d also like to thank those who work and support the back-country skiing experience.

Cat- and heli-skiing operations provide a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shred

powder like you’ve never seen before. These folks often work weekends without a break

and weeks on end, not because they need the money, necessarily, but because they love

the lifestyle and the camaraderie and, of course, the stoke, which this industry most

certainly provides.

Tourism drives opportunity in Columbia River–Revelstoke, and the ski industry is at

its heart.

We simply couldn’t do it without you. Your work brings joy to visitors, pride to our

communities and prosperity to our local economy. On behalf of my constituents and

all British Columbians who benefit from your service, thank you for all you do.

Now go grab your mountain bike, your golf clubs and your fly-fishing gear. We’ll see

you next year.

Value of Local Newspapers

George Anderson : Across British Columbia and Canada, printing presses, once loud with purpose, one

by one are falling silent. Over the past 17 years, 529 local publications across Canada

have shut down, and 76 percent of them have been community papers. With each closure,

something greater disappears, the heartbeat of our communities.

When I was a kid, I had a paper route and ensured that those papers arrived before

7 a.m., even with the dogs chasing me and people being upset that they weren’t getting

their papers on time. That being said, these presses printed the first photos of individuals,

and final farewells. They captured victories, losses, the ordinary moments of everyday

life, holding space for the stories that shape who we are.

Many might say we can just read the news online, but printing presses have never been

just about convenience; they’ve been about credibility and permanence. A printed page

can’t be quietly edited. A printed page doesn’t vanish behind a paywall or algorithm.

It stays, a public record of what we valued, debated and demonstrated who we were

in that moment.

Behind those pages were journalists and also real people, collators, who were doing

repetitive, labour-intensive work, stitching together the printed memories of our

communities.

[2:05 p.m.]

When a printing press closes, it’s harder for small-town voices to be heard, which

should concern all of us. Former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour once said: “The

search for truth is becoming more elusive.” And when we lose the tools for truth —

local news, public record, printed word — we risk blurring facts, erasing memories

and silencing communities.

To every collator, press worker and worker who kept those presses running: your labour

mattered. You didn’t just assemble newspapers; you assembled the memories of our local

communities and history.

So as the presses may be falling silent, we cannot, because when a community loses

the ability to tell its story, it risks losing its identity altogether.

Mike Morgan

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : My father-in-law, Mike Morgan, turns 90 today. He was born in 1935, and a lot was

happening that year.

May 25 Babe Ruth hit the last of his 714 home runs, in a Major League record which

would stand until 1974. Ruth retired on June 2. The world’s first parking metre was

installed in Oklahoma City, on January 16. September 13 Howard Hughes set a new airspeed

record of 354.4 miles per hour in his Hughes H-1 Racer plane. November 5 the Parker

brothers began marketing their recently acquired real estate game as Monopoly.

The Kit Kat bar, initially Rowntree’s Chocolate Crisp, was first launched in September

1935. In the U.K., Hoover dam was opened. Elvis Presley was born. The first canned

beer by Gottfried Krueger Brewing Company. The number one song in 1935 was “Cheek

to Cheek” by Fred Astaire.

When Michael was five years old, he was watching the Battle of Britain out his window.

When he was nine years old, his parents would pack him up and move to Canada from

England. They started in Nakusp, B.C., and they finally settled at the end of Mount

Sicker Road in Chemainus.

He would marry Barb Williams at the age of 21 years old. They had two sons, Douglas

and William.

One of his jobs in 1957 was as a carpenter at the Crofton pulp mill. His shop is full

of model airplanes that he built himself. He had a flyers club and people that came

as far as Victoria and Nanaimo. You could find him out on the field on Tuesday, Thursday

and Sunday. Another previous job would be travelling around and running a karaoke.

He attracted groupies that became known as Michael’s angels. You will still find him

enjoying karaoke on Wednesday afternoon at the Eagles’ hall.

Happy birthday, Mike.

Men’s Shed Society

in Mackenzie

Kiel Giddens : I know that men’s sheds have been talked about here in this Legislature, but I think

it’s important to talk about men’s mental health. Men are much less likely to seek

help and often suffer alone.

So today I want to share some of the inspiring mission and achievements of the Mackenzie

Men’s Shed Society. This is a growing movement in Mackenzie, with 44 men and counting,

with often more than 20 showing up at the weekly coffee chats. They get together and

discuss the community, and they come up with new ways to support their neighbours.

This organization is dedicated to building camaraderie, sharing valuable skills and

promoting overall well-being. They believe that by creating a welcoming space for

a cup of coffee, to volunteer together, to foster connection and growth, they can

empower each other to overcome challenges while giving back with their time and their

talents.

The group has really been collaborative with local organizations, like their partnership

with Mackenzie Community Services. Through their honey-do list, they assist seniors,

individuals with special needs and those facing limited resources with minor home

the belief that everyone deserves support and deserves dignity.

I had the chance to tour their new shed workshop space recently, and it’s really coming

together as a project hub in the community. The commitment of these men goes beyond

just assisting. They also host workshops that enable community members to learn new

skills and collaborate on various projects. One of their current teaching projects

includes the building of wooden beds for youth, and the goal is to donate these to

families and young individuals in need throughout Mackenzie.

[2:10 p.m.]

The men’s shed has really flourished recently, creating an inclusive environment where

men can foster good mental health while combatting social isolation.

Thank you to president Lucky McDonough and to Tony Vander Warden and Stacy Wengo.

I want to thank Knut Herzog for the recent tour and his community work. This guy is

a power volunteer in Mackenzie, a proud retired public servant and one of the most

kind people I’ve met.

I think all of us can recognize the importance of giving back in our communities.

Harman Bhangu : I’d like to request to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Harman Bhangu : A constituent of mine, John Hof, has his twin granddaughters in the gallery today

from Sardis Secondary in Chilliwack — Hannah and Olivia Ivany.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I also just wanted to, now that the guests are here, have the House make Sardis Secondary

and their teacher Kevin Gambell very welcome as they enter just in time for question

period.

Oral Questions

Government Response to

Antisemitism and Police

Investigation of Hate Crimes

John Rustad : Victoria-based hate preacher Younus Kathrada launched yet another antisemitic-laden

tirade against the Jewish community last Friday. Add this to the long list of Kathrada’s

disgusting sermons, where he called Jews “evil and filthy.”

On Friday, yet again, he violated

section 318 of the Criminal Code. Enough is enough.

Can this Attorney General tell this House whether there is an active hate crime investigation

underway?

Hon. David Eby : First of all, I want to stand with the Jewish community and recognize how disgusting

and deplorable these comments were, and this pattern of conduct from this individual.

This kind of hateful speech has no place in our province. We have given police tools

and support to ensure that hate crimes are investigated in our province — prosecutors

with new hate crime policy.

For people who are aware of conduct like this but reluctant for some reason to call

police, please don’t hesitate. We also have a racist incident hotline where people

can report this. It assists the province in eliminating hate in our province.

I’m glad that we can stand in this place against that kind of hate and all forms of

hate and discrimination in our province and, certainly, support the police and the

work that they need to do to investigate this and all incidents of hate.

The Speaker : Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad : I’m happy to hear the words from the Premier, although it has been 19 months of this

carrying on, and it’s not the first time we have called for this action to be taken.

The Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation sent a note and a letter to the Victoria

chief of police, Del Manak, yesterday. In that letter, they requested that Chief Manak

commence an investigation into the conduct of the hate preacher.

Unlike Charlotte Kates, which was never actioned by this government, despite the hate

crimes that this person indicated, if the police recommend charges, can the Attorney

General today confirm that they will actually act upon those charges?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We all need to be very concerned that the system is appropriately responding to hate

speech and condemning it when necessary.

We’ve put resources into making sure that police officers can get the training that

they need to learn how to investigate appropriately and respond to any hate crimes

that are happening in this province. I expect the system to take this action very

seriously. As the member knows, it’s not the Attorney General that approves charge

assessments, but it’s my job to make sure the system is tooled up to do the work appropriately.

[2:15 p.m.]

That means a series of things that we’ve done — the Premier talked about it — to make

sure the Crown prosecution service has a directive policy on antisemitism, to make

sure that police have proper training to respond to hate crimes that are occurring

in any of our communities and to make sure that the system is set up to respond to

people for the victim supports that they need if they’ve experienced an incident of

hate. That’s through the racist incident helpline.

I am always looking for ways that we can push on changing the Criminal Code to make

sure that we are responding appropriately when hate crimes happen in this province,

and it’s work that we always need to continue to do.

Access to Health Care Services

Ward Stamer : James Roland Mansell is a 68-year-old constituent of mine. His wife, who has just

recently passed, found him a doctor shortly after moving from Abbotsford. Eight years

ago, their doctor quit, citing the stress of running a doctor’s office.

What does this Health Minister have to say to James, who has utterly lost faith in

our health care system, still waiting eight years for a doctor?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

It is difficult to hear when somebody is having a hard time accessing a primary care

provider, and we know there are far too many British Columbians in this place. We

know that we are experiencing a global shortage of health care workers, and that includes

physicians. That is why this government has put so much effort and investment into

training and recruiting more nurses, nurse practitioners, doctors and health care

workers to build out our primary care system. The primary care system is the backbone

of our public universal health care system here.

To the member’s constituent…. I am certain that he has registered on the health connect

registry and is awaiting. I want to assure him that we are doing everything that we

can to connect him to a primary care provider and, in the meantime, that he has access

to the health care that he needs.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Ward Stamer : After 15 years of supporting James and Tracy, their doctor quit, leaving a community

reeling. Even worse, James told me that health care in Kamloops has gotten so bad

that his two grandchildren haven’t had a checkup in six years. Doing more of the same

over and over again and expecting different results is insanity.

How is it acceptable that this government, after eight years in power, is allowing

children and seniors to go without health care?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Doing more of the same wouldn’t work. That’s why this government has taken the action

that it has, by taking the opportunity to open a brand-new medical school; expanding

the seats at UBC; increasing the number of residency positions for family physicians;

increasing the opportunities for family physicians to move; and incentivizing them

to be in rural and remote communities out of the Lower Mainland, like where this member

is from.

That’s why we’re continuing to take the action, and it is showing results. We’re finally

starting to head in the right direction. We’re turning the corner. Since 2023, we

have hired over 1,000 new family physicians. We’ve connected 675,000 people since

2018. This is work we’re going to continue to do. I know that the member’s constituent

is waiting, and we are not going to stop until every single person in this province

is attached to a primary care provider.

Affordable Housing Options and

Rental Housing Vacancy Control

Rob Botterell : Last week the Minister of Housing lauded this government’s work on affordable housing.

He said that housing is central. Housing is health care. I’m sure we all agree.

But gaps in B.C.’s services continue to let people fall through the cracks. Available

spaces mean nothing if the units and services don’t meet people’s needs. Numerous

barriers to shelter persist: minimal storage space, limits to cohabitation, no pets.

Many people have a history of experiencing abuse or assault in shelter settings. Housing

options that meet people’s unique needs, that don’t replicate trauma, must be readily

available.

To the Minister of Housing: how are you providing housing options that actually meet

people’s needs?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I thank the member for the question.

Housing is central. One of the core beliefs that we have on our side is trying to

ensure that housing is available with the supports that each individual needs, their

unique needs — making sure that those are met.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member speaks about different types of shelters. He surely knows that we have

a whole host of different types of housing options available for individuals. We do

fund storage spaces for individuals that need to store their valuable belongings.

We do create units that have pet-friendly options. We do create options for people,

if they’re in a relationship, to be able to be in those units. We have teams on the

ground that are dedicated to this work, catering our supports for individuals.

If you see, for example, the work we did at Crab Park — close to 100 people, over

100 people there. It took almost a year for us to meet with every individual and ensure

that they had housing that met every individual’s needs. We’re doing that work in

Prince George. We’re doing that work in communities like Campbell River, Nanaimo,

Abbotsford, and the list goes on. We know we have more work to do, but we are making

some significant progress.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : This government has committed to expanding affordable housing. Last week the Housing

Minister committed to expanding rent supplements for young people so they can find

housing that they can afford. All members of this House can agree that we need to

create certainty so young people can stay in their communities.

Yet bad-faith evictions, renovictions and a profiteering rental market have created

immense uncertainty, especially for young people, families and people with disabilities.

Vacancy control is one tool this government hasn’t evaluated that could offer immediate

relief.

To the Minister of Housing, it’s been seven years. Isn’t it time for you to reopen

the Rental Housing Task Force to evaluate vacancy control?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There was a lot in that question.

I will share this with the member. We have taken considerable steps to ensure that

renters are protected and that decisions both for renters and landlords can be done

in an expedited manner. We went from some of the longest wait times for hearings,

before the Premier became Premier, to now the shortest time, because of the early

investments the Premier made when he first became the Premier of British Columbia.

We have been taking steps to ensure that we reduce bad-faith evictions. A new digital

web portal now ensures that people fill in basic information and verify that the information

is valid, ensuring that anyone that’s caught has a steeper fine so they’re discouraged

from doing this type of behaviour. And we’re seeing those numbers drop.

The member is talking about vacancy control. The member surely knows that we did have

an all-party committee. His predecessor was on that committee. They advised government

that vacancy control would not be a good option to proceed with. I appreciate the

member may have a different opinion than his predecessor.

We have been ensuring that we can do everything we can to support renters, by increasing

housing supply, by beefing up the rules to make sure that people are protected, and

we’ll continue to do that work as we go forward.

Government Action on

Youth Mental Health and

Addiction Issues

Claire Rattée : An Indigenous youth in the riding of Kootenay Central, whose father reached out to

me last week, needs help. She was turned away from Stepping Stones emergency shelter

because of her age, and the next morning the staff there found her dead on the front

steps. Dead, Mr. Speaker. She had to be revived with Narcan three times and is lucky

to be alive.

This young woman’s case is a catastrophic failure across multiple ministries with

numerous chances to intervene. Her father has pleaded for help from child and family

services, from the Ministry of Health; from the local MLA, the member for Kootenay

Central, but his pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

What will it take? Does this young woman have to die for this government to finally

intervene with compassionate care?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

It is terrible to hear of a story like this. I think all of us, our hearts go out

to the family and to people connected to an individual like this.

That’s why this government is taking every step that we can to connect people with

the care that they need: for youth, providing more supports in schools; establishing

Foundries, a safe space for youth to go to be able to connect with physical and mental

health supports, substance use supports; continuing to build the housing and provide

the wraparound supports for families in need.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’re not going to stop doing this work. We’re going to continue to do this in a place

where everybody has the potential to live a thriving life and the life that they deserve

to have.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : To say that you’re going to continue doing this work is completely unacceptable,

because clearly what this government is doing has failed this young woman.

She just turned 18. She has a paralyzed leg, a brain growth and untreated neurological

damage. Her father, a recovered addict himself, says that she has now lost all sense

of agency. She has been begging for help since she was 14 years old. There were moments

of hope, times she wanted treatment, but the system failed her every time.

She now sleeps in a tent in a drug camp. She has been repeatedly sexually assaulted

over the last four years. If she doesn’t qualify for intervention, then who does?

Why won’t this Premier bring forward compassionate care legislation to prevent tragedies

like this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can’t speak specifically to this case and this individual, but I can say, hearing

from the member, that it aligns with what we’ve been saying and what we’ve been hearing,

which is that encampments are not safe. They’re not safe for individuals living in

them. They’re not safe for the community at large.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member says that she was turned away from an emergency weather shelter, which

are usually operated by the local government. We provide the resources to them, so

we can certainly find out what happened in that particular case. People don’t get

turned away from shelter unless there was some issue, and we don’t know what those

issues are. We can look into them.

But I can tell the member that what we know for a fact is that there’s a lack of housing

options for people, in particular with special needs. Thanks to the work that my colleague,

the MLA for that riding, and many not-for-profits…. We’ve actually been targeting,

ramping up housing for those with special needs in particular.

I can share with the member that we’ve got a new 47-unit building that just opened

up there at the Lakeside Place redevelopment, another at 620 Nelson Avenue in Nelson

and another one at 535 West Houston Street in Nelson. All of those focus on people

who have, in particular, special needs.

I can’t, again, speak to the specifics of what the member refers to because, again,

the local governments operate the emergency weather spaces, but we certainly can make

sure that the different ministries can follow up.

Á’a :líya Warbus : This individual’s story unfortunately gets worse. When she was 17 and turned away

from the shelter, the technicality of her not being an adult ended up in the travesty

that we heard from the member for Skeena. But as a youth, she was also harmed within

the system.

She was molested in an Interior Health facility by a male nurse, and he was later

convicted. Despite repeatedly asking to not be placed under the care of male nurses

due to the horrific traumas that she has endured, she was repeatedly put in the care

of male nurses.

My question is this. Why does this government continue to retraumatize survivors like

her instead of respecting their most basic safety requests?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The safety and health of our youth has to be our top priority, the top priority of

every single person in this House. We cannot see youth and children suffering from

mental health issues, from substance use issues and from being traumatized by care.

That’s why this government takes this issue so incredibly seriously and will continue

to work in our health care system, eliminating all forms of racism, working with health

authorities and health care workers to build an integrated, culturally safe, trauma-informed

system of care for youth just like this.

I want to express my commitment to the member asking the question to continue to do

everything that I can to support people in situations like these and to continue to

work with her and other members on the other side of the House in this incredibly

important work.

[2:30 p.m.]

Justice System Staffing Shortages

Hon Chan : Speaking of justice denied, the NDP said they have graduated several classes of sheriffs

and have fixed the court sheriff shortage. But in the trial after the death of pastor

Tom Cheung, his family informed this side of the House that one of the reasons why

the sentencing was delayed was because of a B.C. chronic sheriff shortage.

How many more families will see delayed justice because this government cannot ensure

adequate staffing in our justice system?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to start by saying how grateful I am for the work that sheriffs do every day

in our court system. They truly are heroes of public safety and making sure that our

court system runs smoothly.

We have made gigantic strides in our sheriffs, and we are very close. I’m really grateful

for all the work that everybody has done to graduate more sheriffs. We’ve upped our

classes, upped the numbers, and we’re very close to being at the full complement of

sheriffs. We will continue to do that work to make sure that their much-needed services

are in the courtroom so trials can keep going.

I’m very grateful for all the team in my office that have put that work in, for that

progress that we’ve made.

Attack by Repeat Offender and

Action on Community Safety

Korky Neufeld : Well, here is the reality of Mother’s Day in British Columbia today. A mother was

walking her baby in a stroller through downtown New Westminster when a man shoved

her stroller and punched the mother in the face.

Now, the assailant was a repeat offender. Sound familiar? This was a completely random,

unprovoked attack in broad daylight, just crossing a crosswalk.

Through the Premier, what does it say about public safety in this province when even

a mother can’t safely walk her child in a stroller down the street without being assaulted?

Hon. Garry Begg : Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I said it before in this House, and I repeat. We all in this province want people

to feel safe where they live, where they recreate and where they do their things.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Garry Begg : The incident that you refer to is unfortunate, and my heart goes out to the people

involved. She deserves protection.

We have in this province a repeat violent offender program.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Garry Begg : It makes a difference so that people can get in control of their lives, unlike the

member opposite.

For example, the Prince George ReVOII is a good example of what we’ve done on this

side of the House by monitoring people who present a threat to the public. A former

ReVOII client recently stopped by the custody centre in Prince George. They shared

with the staff there how they’ve successfully completed addiction recovery and have

now been able to reconnect with their family.

Our actions are starting to make a difference. That’s important, and it’s important

that that continues.

Government Action on

Sexual Assault of Women

Reann Gasper : I’m sorry, but we’ve had eight years. These are real lives. These are victims.

In Abbotsford this April, a woman was walking alone in Mill Lake Park. She was lured

into a conversation and sexually assaulted by a stranger. Later that month another

woman was forced into a car and assaulted while waiting for a friend, again in broad

daylight. And this week women were sexually assaulted on a B.C. Transit bus in Victoria,

midday.

Why is the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity standing idly by while women

are assaulted daily on this government’s watch?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Sexual assault and how it shows up, particularly in the lives of women, is an issue

that I take very seriously as Attorney General of this province. That’s why I’ve asked

Dr. Stanton to do a full review of our justice system: to understand why it is that

so many victims of this type of assault don’t come forward with this abuse.

We’ve invested in front-line services for sexual assault centres across this province.

We’ve made sure that our gender-based action plan is in place, and the parliamentary

secretary is hard at work at that.

[2:35 p.m.]

On this side of the House, we want to make sure that we’re there for every woman that

experiences sexual assault, no matter where they are, and that the resources are in

place to do that. It’s something that I will continue to take very seriously, and

I know we will on this side of the House.

Rosalyn Bird : Another review. I’m sure that women in B.C. are very excited to hear about that.

Even when women come forward and charges are laid, justice may still slip away. In

Duncan, a sexual assault case involving two women was tossed out not because there

wasn’t enough evidence but because of delays. Delays. The judge said it had run out

of time under the Supreme Court’s 18-month ceiling.

How does this government expect survivors to trust a system when even a day in court

is not guaranteed? How can this NDP government achieve their mandate of gender equity

when women can’t even get justice?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The member raises a very serious issue, and that’s the Jordan stays and how Jordan

stays are in our justice system. We have been making strides in B.C. to reduce the

number of Jordan stays down to single digits. Compared to Ontario and other jurisdictions,

it’s a low number, but one is too many.

I’m working with every level of our court system, and we’re focusing on figuring out

how to make sure of the timelines, that when people come to court, they get access

to a trial within the time limit set by this country. We’ll continue to do that work

to bring down those numbers so we can reduce Jordan stays to zero.

Safety of Women and Support

and Justice for Victims of Crime

Teresa Wat : How can women, including myself, feel safe and secure when this government is just

talking the talk and not walking the walk?

Even when women report abuse, survive the justice system and ask for help, they still

aren’t safe. In one case, a survivor’s confidential files were allegedly accessed

by government employees without authorization, and her abuser may have learned what

was in them.

How can this government claim to support victims when it can’t even protect their

private information?

Hon. Niki Sharma : On this side of the House, we care about supporting victims of sexual assault. In

fact, we care so much that we had to restore the funding that was cut by the opposition

when they were in government — or some of them were in government and cut funding

to 34 sexual….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members. Order.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to talk a little bit about what that meant for people. I used to work and

volunteer at a centre that received women that had just been sexually assaulted. The

front-line groups of people that are there to support those women through the whole

system…. They cut funding to those centres, so over 30 had to shut down across this

province — 30.

So I find it really hard to take when they’re saying they care about victims on that

side. We restored that funding, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

Scott McInnis : Tatyanna Harrison, a 20-year-old Indigenous woman, was found dead, partially naked,

on a yacht in Richmond in 2022. No clear cause of death, no rape kit, no explanation

for how she got there. Her mother wasn’t told her body had been found until three

months later. It has taken three years and an external forensic review just to get

a coroner’s inquest.

How can this government claim to care when women must fight for years just to get

justice for their daughter’s death?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s vitally important that our justice system, from the front-line, which is the

RCMP officers, all the way to the court hearing, is equipped to deal with these very

important cases of sexual assault, to make sure that women feel safe to report and

to go through the justice system and that they get their day in court in a timely

way.

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s something that I care so much about as Attorney General. Dr. Stanton is tasked

with going around and speaking to all members of our justice system to make sure we

can understand how to make every system there respond in the way that it should be

responding. I’m going to be receiving that report in June, and I look forward to rolling

up my sleeves and doing the work.

Government Response to

Community Health and Safety Issues

Elenore Sturko : We’ve heard so many examples here today of failures by this government, failures

to protect the physical safety and the well-being of people across this province.

A young Indigenous woman left to overdose on the steps of a shelter. A family without

access to a doctor for eight years. A mother punched in the face while pushing her

stroller across the street. And yes, I did check the court services online. This is

a repeat offender who had already done an assault causing bodily harm and assault

P.O. less than a month previously.

Domestic violence victims having their privacy breached, possibly their safety compromised.

Sex assault trials tossed because of delays caused by NDP deficiencies. Seniors without

health care, no matter what ministry — whether it’s Health, Housing or the Attorney

General — NDP failures are placing people at risk.

How can this Premier assure British Columbians that they’ll be safe and that their

well-being will be cared for when so many ministries are failing under his watch?

Hon. Niki Sharma : On this side of the House, we care about investing in people, investing in the programs

that are going to show up to make a difference in people’s lives, to make it safer

for women that are going through the justice system, to make it safer everywhere in

our street.

When the Leader of the Opposition was in power, they cut programs to services. They

cut victim services programs continually.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, enough.

Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to stay focused on the investments that we know are making a difference.

We’ve had a chance, through this question period, to talk about how those programs

are making a difference.

Almost a full complement of sheriffs after decades of under-resourcing sheriffs. Reinvesting

in sexual assault response centres across this province for victims of sexual assault.

Making sure the ReVOII program is focused on repeat violent offenders in our system.

Reducing Jordan stays compared to the rest of this country.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, let the Attorney….

Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’re going to keep on doing that work.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the Legislative Assembly Management Committee

report, 2023-24.

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and

Private Members’ Bills Committee

Amna Shah : The Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills reports

Bill M204, intituled Perinatal and Postnatal Mental Health Strategy Act, complete

with amendment.

The Speaker : The Perinatal and Postnatal Mental Health Strategy Act will proceed to report stage

during the next private members’ time.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I have the honour to present the annual report of WorkSafeBC.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this House, I call continued second reading on Bill 14.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Children and

Family Development.

In the Birch Room, House C, I call committee stage on Bill 11, to be followed by Bill

[2:45 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects

(Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : I call the chamber to order.

Korky Neufeld : I was cut halfway in between on Thursday; we were so eager to get home. So I will

continue with Bill 14, streamlined permitting.

While we should be finding ways to responsibly streamline permitting processes, we

should never do it by cutting transparency. Decisions behind closed doors, with no

public scrutiny, don’t build confidence. We shouldn’t do it by ignoring legislation

and this Legislature — 93 elected MLAs. We are accountable to the public, not the

Energy Regulator. And it should never be done by silencing community voices, especially

those of Indigenous nations whose rights are directly affected. Streamlining should

never mean silencing.

This legislation fails the test of good governance. It hands sweeping authoritarian

powers to cabinet, to the Energy Regulator, and it undermines safety. It threatens

environmental and cultural protections, and it also opens the door to political interference

in land use and conservation decisions.

The NDP may sell this as a way to get wind turbines in the ground, but let’s not be

fooled. Bill 14 is not about building energy infrastructure. It’s actually about building

political power, unchecked power, unbalanced power and unaccountable power. I urge

this House to carefully study, review the implications of this bill and demand a real

pathway forward, one that supports renewable energy without sacrificing our democratic

institutions, and that is debate in this House, without removing environmental safeguards

which have been put in place and without losing public trust.

I finished with clause 13 on Thursday, and I will now continue with clause 14, application

of the Environmental Assessment Act. It carves out major projects from the EAA coverage,

weakening the province’s commitment to environmental due diligence. This clause enables

large-scale projects to proceed without cumulative impact assessments, ignoring broader

ecological consequences.

Clause 15, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, allows industrial uses, subdivisions

and exemptions on agricultural land, without needing justification through a land

use plan. This undermines the integrity of the ALR land protections.

Clauses 16 to 19, other statutes. Each clause successively limits the application

of otherwise robust statutes such as the Safety Standards Act, the Wildlife Act, etc.,

creating a patchwork of carve-outs that erode consistent regulatory application.

Here it gets really interesting: clause 20, cabinet regulations. Again, it resembles

bill 7, 2.0. It provides cabinet near-unfettered discretion to define the projects,

to define the eligibility, to define fee regimes and to define streamlining levels;

the ability to delegate to any public servant or agency, further centralizing control

with minimal oversight mechanisms. You know, this is like putting lipstick on a pig.

The pig is still a pig. This is Bill 7 with lipstick on it.

[2:50 p.m.]

Clause 21, validation. Retroactive validation of past action undermines legal certainty

and may shield improper regulatory conduct from challenge.

Clauses 22 and 23, transition provisions. Permitting cancellation of existing environmental

assessment certificates without due process effectively voids already established

environmental obligations. It’s like with a pen, you’re just cutting through what

has been in place for years, these environmental obligations. Replacing them with

vague new conditions opens the door to less stringent and selectively enforced requirements.

Clause 24, the Agricultural Land Commission amendments. This embeds statutory preference

for energy projects over agricultural protection. This potentially sets a dangerous

precedent for prioritizing development over food security. This bill does nothing

to protect farmers who put food on our tables.

Clauses 25 to 26, the delegation and facility

definitions. Delegation to the B.C.

Energy Regulator without oversight increases risk of inconsistent and unreviewable

decisions. If they make a decision that impacts someone, there’s no opportunity for

recourse. You need to accept it because we need just to trust them.

Clause 27, commencement, allows government to delay enactment indefinitely. You heard

it right. It allows government to delay enactment indefinitely, which introduces uncertainty

for stakeholders and project developers alike.

I guess the question needs to be asked: how will this attract long-term investment?

Investors rely on certainty to put millions and billions and years and years of investment

in our province.

Now I want to read from an

article that was written this last Thursday, May 8, by

Jacqueline Gelineau. Here it states:

“The B.C. Wildlife Federation is flagging major risks over the K2 wind energy project,

a large-scale wind farm proposed for the Pennask Mountain area west of Peachland.

“The B.C. Wildlife Federation argues that the province’s approach neglects critical

environmental safeguards. The K2 project site lies within the Pennask watershed, home

to the world’s largest known run of wildlife trout, it stated in a media release.

These trout have been the primary source for B.C.’s hatchery system since 1927, supporting

the stocking of approximately 150 lakes across the province.

“The B.C. Wildlife Federation director highlighted the need for a thorough environmental

review.” He said: “It is essential that test excavations and a full environmental

review be conducted before this project breaks ground.” The same executive director

referenced “a study commissioned by a local fish and game club, done in 2014, that

warned of significant risks to the watershed’s habitat and trout populations due to

potential metal leaching and acid rock drainage.”

Here it gets really interesting: “The B.C. Wildlife Federation also points to a historical

precedent. In the late 1980s, construction of Highway 97C, near the same area as the

proposed wind farm, led to acid rock drainage and metal leaching, causing long-term

environmental damage. The B.C. Ministry of Transportation was prosecuted under the

Fisheries Act, and remediation efforts have cost taxpayers millions over the years.”

They push things through without proper process, and then it costs the taxpayer. It

doesn’t cost the government; it costs the taxpayer.

“The ministry has since constructed a water treatment facility to treat the water

that has been affected.” How many millions of tax dollars will be spent because of

ramming through projects? This is why we do not recklessly move ahead with projects

without the process.

“Construction of the K2 wind energy project is slated to begin in 2028.” End quoting

from the

article by Jacqueline Gelineau, May 8.

You see, ramming through projects without proper consultation and process can cost

the taxpayer, similar to the way Highway 97 construction cost the taxpayer millions.

This bill represents a significant centralization of authority. Here’s the problem.

They dress it up with wind turbines. Actually, it is bill 7, 2.0 — extensive regulatory

carve-outs, a reduction of environmental, agriculture and public oversight protections.

[2:55 p.m.]

While streamlining may support project efficiency, the extent of deregulation risks

undermining sustainability goals, public trust and long-term environmental stewardship.

This side of the House looks forward to the committee stage, where we’ll be asking

this government to clarify the intent behind this bill.

I want British Columbians to know something. Your B.C. Conservative MLAs have consistently

requested commonsense amendments to the government bills over the last month and a

half, amendments that would protect your rights, only to have every one of them voted

down. But they’re on record, and we will bring them back up.

We look forward to the committee stage, where we will dig deeper into this bill, uncovering

the intention of this bill, talking about the glaring errors of this bill and talking

about the overreach in this bill. We’ll get answers for the public, because that’s

our job.

Introductions by Members

Deputy Speaker : Before we go to our next speaker, we have students from Sardis Secondary School here.

I want to welcome teacher Kevin Gambell and folks from the school, on behalf of your

MLA, the MLA from Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. We’re here debating Bill 14, the Renewable

Energy Projects Act.

I ask everybody in the House to please give them a very warm welcome here.

All right. We’re continuing with our debate and discussion. I recognize the Minister

of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

Debate Continued

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome to the students.

For me, in the work that brought me to this place, this is pulling on a lot of threads.

On graduating university, for five years, I worked for an organization called Energy

Probe. It was a time of enormous expansion of the electrical system in Ontario — 16

new nuclear plants, 15 new coal plants, natural gas and a lot of new hydro dams, almost

universally opposed by First Nations — still with no permanent waste disposal system

for nuclear power, let alone that at that time the cost of megaprojects was skyrocketing

electricity prices.

These were all-hands-on-deck stop projects, and a lot of it was so that we could make

room for the kind of renewable energy projects that I now have the great honour of

being part of on a team in government that is building.

Following that work I spent 12 years working in local government, where, my goodness,

we went through the minutiae of local government zoning, of land use plans, line by

line, piece by piece. I had, honestly, community members saying: “Look, we just want

to build the youth centre. Why can’t we just do that work? We have the intention,

we have the donation, we have the land, and we certainly have the need. Let’s just

get the work done.”

Let me say, just so briefly, that at the moment that we are in, where we have had

a lot of really big power projects, many that we did not initiate ourselves but that

a whole bunch of people in the province were working on — the Kinder Morgan TMX pipeline,

for example — we’ve got skilled people ready to do work, with those federal projects

finished.

We have got a lot of ambition, a lot of imperative, a lot of need to build the solar,

to build the transmission lines, to move clean electricity in British Columbia. Knowing

British Columbia’s deep reserves of clean hydro dam storage, it’s perfect twinning

with our ambition around building more wind power, which is already happening across

British Columbia.

The call for power has been so extremely successful, almost all of it with some kind

of Indigenous partnership. This is an imperative for our government, to see First

Nations not just agreeing with projects but also actively involved in their construction

and design, because they’ll feel the most local impacts, and then also being investors

and beneficiaries.

[3:00 p.m.]

Let me say, just so briefly, before I pass it back to the minister, that the imperative

for us is not just to sign the contracts, to have the ambition and the vision to build

up renewable energy and clean power in British Columbia; it’s also to get the work

done.

We have got enough familiarity with the impacts of wind, solar and transmission line

projects that we’re confident about the ability to keep…. Notwithstanding the work

that we’ve already done to streamline permitting and authorization systems to get

faster, more efficient permitting, driving towards better outcomes, we know that that

outcome can be either a yes or a no. But the slow maybe is, I understand, extremely

frustrating for energy power developers.

With this legislation, Bill 14, we’re making progress towards permitting more quickly,

but absolutely maintaining environmental standards and doing the systemic overhaul

to fix some of the really complex regulatory processes that have slowed the actual

construction and realization of some of our ambition around renewable and electrical

energy.

We have been reviewing permitting processes to make sure that we’re getting high-priority

projects such as housing, hospitals and connectivity permitted faster by eliminating

duplicative processes, focusing resources and seeking solutions. This particular legislation,

focusing on wind and solar projects in the near term, will enable our existing B.C.

Energy Regulator to oversee those projects, to cluster within one decision-making

body, the one-window approach that will accelerate permitting of those critical renewable

energy projects.

Hydro, big dam projects are excluded. We’ve also heard widely that oil and gas are

not part of this either. We’re really focused on the kind of projects that we can

foresee the impacts. For wind power, the impacts are very well understood.

Acceleration of the process doesn’t necessarily mean project approval, but streamlining,

getting a timely decision to either a yes or a no, is what we’re hearing very much

from British Columbians that we need to get.

Environmental protection and collaboration with Indigenous people remain fundamental

to every decision that we make as a government, and rigorous permitting that will

include socio-economic impacts, including the construction impacts — what happens

with communities when construction is underway, let alone operation.

This is a time, big picture, that we are needing to generate revenue within the province;

needing to employ people within the province; and, especially, needing to have that

imperative around self-sufficiency, internal resource reliability, given the great

pressures and the threats from the American president. This is a time for us to declare,

as we have been over the last seven years and in this fall’s election campaign….

British Columbians know what our intentions are around climate action, around energy

self-sufficiency. With Bill 14, this is our way to get the decisions reached at quickly

and then to get the construction in place as quickly as we can so that British Columbians

can get the benefit of this work.

With that, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I’ll end my time.

Linda Hepner : I rise today in opposition to this bill, a bill that would fundamentally weaken our

democratic oversight and community input by allowing a single-step approval process

for renewable energy projects, particularly wind energy projects, and implementing

a process that allows the government regulator to change the Energy Resource Activities

Act.

Let me be clear on what that does. That allows the regulator to change their own regulations

without approval from the Legislature. On the face of it, that may sound expeditious.

Or, on the side of reality, it just puts the cat among the pigeons.

[3:05 p.m.]

Let me be clear. I am not opposed to renewable energy. I support a responsible transition

to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. But I cannot support a process that

prioritizes speed over scrutiny and blanket approvals over balanced local decision-making.

This bill focuses primarily on wind farms. It strips away the vital layers of consultation

and review that ensure these projects are not only environmentally sound but also

socially responsible, economically justified and locally supported. The purported

holy grail of clean energy, wind farms, despite their benefits, are not impact-free.

They alter landscapes. They affect local ecosystems. They raise concerns about noise,

land use and even human health in some communities.

Yet under this bill, such concerns would be swept aside with a single signature. That

is not good governance; that is expediency masquerading as progress.

Let’s talk about the environmental impacts that are too often ignored with wind farms.

The more well-known impact is that the wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of

birds and bats every year, many of them protected or migratory species. These projects

disrupt local habitats and fragment ecosystems, especially in rural or sensitive areas.

However, there are lesser-known impacts. Beneath every turbine lies a massive concrete

foundation, sometimes up to 60 feet deep, made up, often, with up to 1,000 tonnes

of concrete and steel. These are permanent scars on the land, and the turbines themselves

contain hundreds of gallons of petroleum-based lubricants — that’s right, fossil fuel

— which must be replaced regularly. And then when these machines reach the end of

their life, which I understand to be around 20-25 years, their blades, made of non-recyclable

composite materials, are sent to landfills, where they remain forever.

So yes, wind energy reduces emissions at the point of generation, but let’s not pretend

these projects are environmentally invisible or impact-free.

Notwithstanding those comments, worse still is the policy overreach built into this

bill. In the name of streamlining, cabinet is now empowered to approve new projects

at its sole discretion. No hearings, no local impact, no environmental review, just

a rubber stamp from the top down. No government should be charged with the omnipotent

power of picking winners and losers in the energy arena.

They’re calling it streamlined. Let’s be honest. It’s a power grab. It’s a dangerous

precedent when a few ministers can override community opposition, sidestep scrutiny

and impose infrastructure without meaningful consent. This isn’t efficiency; it’s

erosion, erosion of regulatory consistency, erosion of local democracy and erosion

of public trust.

This government would never allow fossil fuel projects to move forward with such little

oversight. They have vehemently opposed that in the past. So why should wind energy

be treated differently? Because, I think, this government is relying on the public’s

blindness about any environmental impacts regarding wind farms in the hope that they

can tick off the box for speed on energy advancement, a plan that could have been

advanced some eight years ago. Now, when we are facing a real energy shortfall, the

caped crusader arrives as if it’s a brand new phenomenon.

In Surrey, we have been asking for a stronger power grid in Campbell Heights for years.

In fact, I met just recently with businesses there, and the problem has now grown.

A local food services business looking to expand in Campbell Heights, with more than

500 jobs, cannot be accommodated. That’s not good planning or any exercise of economic

priority.

[3:10 p.m.]

There’s an old saying: “The arsonist doesn’t deserve applause for showing up with

a bucket of water.” Yet that is exactly what this government is asking for. For years,

this government has piled regulation upon regulation and treated every economic activity

as something to be micromanaged from the top down, imposing complex permitting systems,

procedural delays, bureaucratic bottlenecks. Infrastructure has stalled, and investment

has fled.

Now, miraculously, they say they’ve seen the light. They’re calling it efficiency,

streamlining, even common sense. But let’s be clear. This is not the product of vision.

It’s the product of failure, a failure they now want to repackage as reform. They

created a problem, let it fester and now expect congratulations for cleaning up the

mess they made.

Yet their idea of streamlining isn’t consistent or fair. It’s selective. They haven’t

proposed comprehensive reform to remove burdens across the board. They’ve simply chosen

a few pet sectors, like wind energy, to fast-track. Instead of fixing the system,

they’re playing favourites. That’s not responsible governance; that’s convenience

disguised as principle.

Let me ask you this. Where was this sudden clarity when energy producers were strangled

with compliance rules and outright disdain for many years? This government has had

every chance to listen. It chose control over collaboration, and it chose delay over

delivery. Now, under pressure and failing public trust, they want to flip the script.

We welcome any government that is finally willing to reduce red tape, but you cannot

forget the years of damage caused by the very policies they now quietly abandon. We

won’t allow them to trade one form of overreach for another, pushing through large-scale

projects without oversight simply because the reality of their previous position has

had to shift, out of pure necessity.

True reform means accountability. It means consistency. It means applying that same

fair, transparent rule to everyone. What this government is doing is not reform; it’s

rebranding, and the public knows the difference. So no, they don’t get to call themselves

heroes for walking away from a fire they helped ignite. And they certainly don’t get

to centralize more power in the name of fixing a broken process they designed.

We need real regulatory reform, not selective deregulation. We need leadership, not

damage control, and we need to stop pretending that political convenience is the same

as political courage.

The urgency of energy action does not now give us licence to abandon that good governance.

We must reject the false choice between clean energy and democratic accountability.

We can and must do both. This bill, in its current form, undermines local voices,

bypasses environmental oversight and concentrates far too much power in the hands

of a few. It dresses up central control as efficiency and calls it progress. But progress

built on exclusion, overreach and unchecked authority is not progress at all. It’s

regression.

Let’s support renewable energy the right way — transparently, responsibly and with

the people, not against them. This bill in its current form is a Trojan Horse. It

rides in on the promise of sustainability, but once passed, it delivers deregulation

by fiat.

It hands sweeping unprecedented authority to cabinet and to the B.C. Energy Regulator

— authority to change rules without legislative oversight, authority to override heritage

protections, authority to scrap environmental assessments, authority to cancel angling

and trapping permits, and all of it done behind closed doors with no input from the

people who will actually live with these projects in their community.

[3:15 p.m.]

Let’s review

definitions. The bill defines renewable resources to include wind, solar,

geothermal, biomass, biogas and ocean-based energy. Here’s the catch. Cabinet can

expand that list by regulation. That means the scope of the legislation is not fixed;

it’s fluid. It can grow at any time without returning to this House, without any public

debate. What does that mean in practice? It means this bill may start with wind projects,

but it won’t end there. In fact, the government has already signalled its intention

to use it for the North Coast transmission line and any other project that it deems

convenient.

The Environmental Assessment Act is explicitly disapplied to these projects. That’s

not an oversight. It’s not an error. It’s a choice. We are talking about removing

environmental review for industrial-scale infrastructure across vast swathes of British

Columbia. Wind farms, transmission lines and beyond. No assessment. No studies. No

accountability. Just go.

Clause 2 of the bill designates the nine wind farms and the North Coast transmission

line as streamlined projects and gives cabinet the power to designate any other prescribed

renewable project the same status in the future. That may sound harmless, in fact

even inviting in some cases, but in practice it allows cabinet to bypass consultation,

to fast-track projects and exempt entire developments from any democratic review,

all by regulation.

It’s important to understand what “streamlined” actually means here. It means exempt

from public inquiry. It means stripped of obligations under the Environmental Assessment

Act, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Heritage Conservation Act and the Safety

Standards Act. And perhaps most alarming of all, it allows the regulator to amend

the very act that governs its own activities. That’s right, under this bill, the B.C.

Energy Regulator can unilaterally change the Energy Resource Activities Act without

seeking approval from this Legislature.

We are not just delegating authority here; we are abandoning it. And levels 2 and

3, streamlining under Bill 14, remove key sections of the Energy Resource Activities

Act, sections governing environmental protection, sections that define how long permits

last, sections that deal with abandoned or orphaned sites, sections that define who

owns what, sections that let the public request investigations — gone.

It doesn’t stop there. The regulator can suspend Safety Standards Act for certain

projects. Yes, the same Safety Standards Act meant to protect workers, ecosystems

and communities. It can suspend or cancel hunting, trapping and angling permits —

think about that — without notice or process. The regulator could suspend traditional

land use rights that have existed in some communities for generations. Why? To make

room for a project the community had no say in, no environmental review of and no

recourse against.

Clause 15 allows renewable energy projects to proceed on agricultural land reserves,

including exemptions from the soil and fill restrictions that protect our farmland.

Again, this may sound technical — in fact, it does sound technical — but the implications

are real. Our most fertile and protected agricultural lands are now open to being

carved up by cabinet order. The irony is rich. The NDP spent years telling us that

they were the protectors of the ALR, and now with one stroke of the pen, they’ve turned

those same protections into Swiss cheese.

[3:20 p.m.]

The bill also allows for the creation of a new orphan fund for renewable projects,

similar to the fund that exists for orphan oil and gas wells. But here’s the problem:

it offers no structure, no rules, no limitations on liability, just a blank cheque.

And who pays for it? That’s also left open.

The regulator can impose fees, levies and taxes, even retroactively to 2024. Imagine

that your company followed every rule in good faith, and suddenly you’re handed a

retroactive tax bill. Is that the kind of business climate we want in B.C.?

Bill 14 uses renewable energy as a shield to hide a deeper agenda: centralized control,

deregulation by stealth and the erosion of public accountability. We owe it to our

communities, our workers and our future to call this bill what it truly is. It is

not a clean energy plan but a dangerous blueprint for regulatory overreach.

As I continue my remarks on Bill 14, I want to focus a little bit about what this

legislation means at the ground level for residents, for municipalities, for businesses

and for anyone who believes in transparent governance. This bill doesn’t just weaken

our laws; it undermines our process.

Let’s be clear about what happens when you remove environmental assessments, public

consultations, ministerial accountability for major energy infrastructure decisions.

You silence communities, you silence landowners, you silence those that have a right

to speak, and you replace democratic oversight with unilateral discretion.

Streamlining — let’s unpack that term. The government claims it means cutting red

tape. But what they really mean is that it’s cutting the public out of the process.

Under clause 2, the government can designate any future project as streamlined at

any time. This is not a one-time list of nine wind farms and a transmission line.

It’s an open-ended pipeline — no pun intended — for unreviewed, unconsulted projects

to move forward without regard to who they may impact.

Let’s think about that from the perspective of a local government — a mayor, a town

council, a community that suddenly finds a 100-metre wind turbine project or a high-voltage

transmission corridor being fast-tracked through their agricultural zone beside a

residential development. Under Bill 14, that community has no official say. There

is no environmental assessment, no public hearing, no requirements to consider the

cumulative impact on wildlife, infrastructure or water system. That is not how you

build public trust; that is how you destroy it.

Clauses 4, 7 and 10 allow the Energy Regulator to not only administer the act but

to delegate its functions even further, down to individual employees or outside contractors.

So not only does cabinet get to make decisions behind closed doors, but now the regulator

gets to offload key decisions to people who may or may not be public officials at

all.

What’s next? Letting consultants sign permits? Letting project proponents police themselves?

This is not administrative efficiency. This is a system designed to avoid responsibility,

a system built to shield decision-makers from scrutiny when something goes wrong.

Let’s be clear. Something will go wrong, because when you remove environmental reviews,

when you ignore land use policies and exempt projects from safety regulations, the

risk cannot help but multiply.

Now I want to spend a moment on clause 12. This provision allows the government to

impose levies — effectively, new taxes — retroactively, which I spoke of earlier.

[3:25 p.m.]

Let that sink in. The Legislature is being asked to give the regulator the power to

bill project developers the past costs they had no knowledge of, based on rules they

didn’t even know existed at the time, and those fees don’t need to be approved by

the full House. They can be set by regulation or sub-delegation.

How is that fair? How does that promote investment certainty? What kind of a message

does that send to renewable energy investors looking to do business in British Columbia?

Let me tell you. It says: “We’ll change the rules after the fact, and you’ll pay the

price.” This is a surefire way to drive investment out of the province, especially

when there are jurisdictions across Canada and around the world offering better regulatory

certainty, lower permitting risks and higher levels of public support.

Then we come to clause 13, perhaps the most constitutionally concerning clause in

the entire bill. It allows cabinet to make regulations modifying the Energy Resource

Activities Act itself, not just how it’s administered but how it legally applies to

projects.

I don’t want to sugar-coat this. We’re saying, for the first time, that the executive

branch can change the application of a provincial statute without bringing a bill

before this Legislature. We are saying that cabinet can override sections of a statute

or even disapply them entirely by regulation.

That is not how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. Statutes are written

by legislators, not regulators. Accountability must run through this House, not around

it. This is executive overreach, plain and simple.

If it’s allowed here, who’s to say it won’t be used again or on other statutes, in

other sectors, on other projects? Today it’s energy. Tomorrow it could be housing,

health or education. We are setting a precedent that undermines the foundation of

legislative oversight and authority.

If you’re a rancher, a farmer or a guide-outfitter who relies on stable access to

land, then this bill makes your life more uncertain too. If you’re a rural resident

who fought for years to preserve a wetland or a wildlife corridor, you’ve just been

erased from the conversation. This is not progress; this is regression dressed up

in renewable clothing.

Let me close by saying that the NDP government wants to say this bill is about renewable

energy, but at its core, it’s about cutting people out of the decision-making process.

It is not consistent with the principles of sustainable development or reconciliation.

If we allow it to pass in this form, we are not only undermining environmental protection,

we are undermining the very legitimacy of the Legislature.

Let’s confront what I see as a double standard in this bill. If an oil and gas company

asked to build a pipeline through ALR land without an environmental assessment, every

NDP MLA in this chamber would be on their feet in outrage. But under this bill, a

transmission corridor for a wind farm can run through farmland, disrupt wildlife,

impact heritage sites and override local zoning, all with the stroke of a pen.

Suddenly, that’s good. We’re supposed to cheer. That’s not environmentalism; that’s

ideology masquerading as energy policy. We must hold all energy projects to the same

standard. Renewable does not mean invisible. Green doesn’t mean good by default.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I want to return to where I began, not with the

technical flaws of this bill — though there are many, as I see it — but with its deeper

implications for how we govern.

[3:30 p.m.]

Bill 14 is not just a bad piece of legislation; it’s a betrayal of the very principles

that should guide public decision-making in this province. The NDP will tell us this

bill is about renewable energy, about climate action, about seizing the future. But

I would challenge every member in the chamber to ask: “At what cost?”

The cost here is high. We are being asked to hand over unchecked authority to cabinet;

to allow the B.C. Energy Regulator to rewrite its own rule book; to exempt major projects

from environmental review, land use restrictions and Indigenous consultation; to validate

retroactive decisions that would never stand up to scrutiny in real time.

This is not bold vision; this is legislative cowardice behind green branding. We lose

transparency. We lose accountability. We lose the confidence of communities that have

worked hard to protect this environment, the economy and their rights.

Worst of all, we lose credibility. When we say we believe in clean energy projects

but push them forward with the same heavy-handed tactic we would never accept from

other energy suppliers, we send a message: process only matters when it is now politically

convenient. We undermine the very environmental movement that you claim to support.

The transition to renewable energy has got to be rooted in respect for communities,

for the rule of law and for science. Bill 14 turns renewable energy into a simple

blank cheque. It tells the public: “Trust us. We know what’s best.” It tells municipalities:

“You’re no longer needed.” It tells First Nations: “We’ll call you when the bulldozers

arrive.” And it tells this Legislature: “Don’t worry. We got this.”

This is not good government; this is executive fiat. If we allow it to pass unchallenged,

unamended, unchecked, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the public turns

and says: “Why were we never consulted?” British Columbians deserve better than this.

What could we be doing instead? We could modernize the environmental assessment process

to be more efficient without eliminating it entirely. We could develop a true regional

planning framework for renewable projects, ensuring that development aligns with local

needs and ecological capacity. We could invest in grid reliability where it’s actually

needed, like Campbell Heights, the Kootenays or north Vancouver Island. We could build

participation with Indigenous communities into energy development from day one, not

as an afterthought. We could make renewable energy a source of pride, not division.

But that takes work. And most of all, it actually takes humility, the humility to

admit that fast isn’t always fair and progress isn’t always streamlined.

History tells us what happens when governments overreach, when they ignore process

in the name of speed, when they cut corners and call it courage. We end up with legal

challenges, with environmental damage, with projects stalled by public backlash, not

advanced by public support. We’ve seen it with Site C. We’ve seen it with Coastal

GasLink. We’ve seen countless megaprojects rushed through without proper process,

only to be mired in controversy for years.

Do we really need to repeat those mistakes, or can we not learn from them?

Brennan Day : I rise today to speak against Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined

Permitting) Act, a piece of legislation that, on the surface, claims to promote renewable

energy development but, underneath, reveals a troubling pattern of centralized control,

legislative overreach and democratic erosion. It’s simply Bill 7 in steel toes and

a vizi-vest.

[3:35 p.m.]

On the topic of PPE, the members opposite probably want to stick on their hearing

protection now.

This government wants British Columbians to believe that Bill 14 is about progress,

about clean energy and about the future. Let’s not be fooled by the branding and title.

This bill isn’t about wind turbines and transmission lines. It’s about consolidating

power in the Premier’s office a second time this session and slapping a green label

on it to make it go down a little bit easier.

After eight years of saying no to development in this province, they are trying desperately

to rebrand themselves as the party of yes. But they can’t decide whether they’re wearing

work boots or Birkenstocks.

The NDP is the party of no. Site C? No. LNG Canada? No. LNG Canada 2? No. Trans Mountain?

No. Only after being pushed and prodded did we get these at all, not because of the

NDP but despite them. These are projects that, despite government opposition, managed

to keep our anemic provincial economy breathing — barely.

Now the same folks who wanted to cancel or delay everything that moved a few short

years or months ago are trying to rebrand themselves as champions of investment in

the province of British Columbia. As our former speaker referred to, it’s the arsonist

with the garden hose showing up with a bucket when the fire is already started.

This is not a miraculous pivot by this government; it’s a power grab by the Premier’s

office. Bill 14 hands sweeping authority to cabinet to designate projects as streamlined.

Translation: exempt from environmental assessments, Indigenous input, local government

input, safety standards and, in some cases, basic logic. This isn’t streamlining;

it’s scorched-earth administration. It is a Humvee with a Green Party sticker slapped

on the back, and it’s almost as subtle.

But the good news: just like a Humvee in the parking lot, this bill is extremely hard

to ignore. This bill divides projects into three tiers of streamlining. Think of it

as a pyramid scheme for regulatory exemptions. The higher up the ladder, the fewer

rules you follow and the less likely it is anyone gets to ask why.

If you’re thinking that surely there must be some oversight baked in, allow me to

introduce the B.C. Energy Regulator, formerly a neutral referee, now fully deputized

as Rule Writer-in-Chief. Under this legislation, the regulator can rewrite the Energy

Resource Activities Act, because apparently, the Legislature is now just a suggestion

box. That includes all the members outside of the Premier’s office.

Now they can waive safety standards — as if industrial accidents are just, maybe,

character-building moments — unilaterally decide what is not heritage land, cancel

hunting, trapping and angling permits on a whim and impose taxes and levies retroactively

— which, last I checked, was frowned upon in most democracies.

If you’re wondering whether this bill comes with a sense of proportion, it doesn’t,

but it does come with a staggering sense of entitlement. The Legislature exists for

one very specific reason: to prevent this exact kind of legislative overreach, to

ensure that the rule of law isn’t written behind closed doors by whoever holds the

pen in the Premier’s office.

Yet, here we are debating a bill that essentially puts an entire class of industrial

activity on an express train to cabinet approval. Journalist Rob Shaw said it best:

“Bill 7 in a safety vest.” Just a small cabal of decision-makers in the engine room,

hands on the throttle, are going to wave at democracy as they speed past.

Given the red tape and stagnation this government has become famous for, this should

be a step in the right direction. But in typical fashion, the NDP is going to try

and maintain control and try to pick winners and losers as they flail to meet even

the most basic emissions targets and struggle to explain exactly how we get to net

zero in this province.

[3:40 p.m.]

This government has perfected announcements. Hordes of communications people in the

background prove that. But they always come up short on a real plan to actually get

us there.

The definition of renewable resources in this bill is elastic. It includes solar,

geothermal, wind and biomass — all good things, especially here on Vancouver Island,

where we desperately need to look for sources of more renewable power. But it also

leaves the door wide open for cabinet to add anything else they like by regulation

— not by legislation but by regulation.

Today it’s nine wind farms and a transmission line. Tomorrow, who knows? Maybe we

should streamline the definition of “streamlining” while we’re at it. At least then

we’d all be playing by the same rules, from the same rule book.

Here’s what’s not a joke: this bill takes a chainsaw to local government authority

and throws meaningful Indigenous consultation straight into the biomass generator.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities, not exactly a radical group or typically offside

with this government, has sounded the alarm, loudly, about this overreach. They’ve

said this bill strips communities of the ability to determine what happens on their

own land, from zoning and land use to public safety and environmental risk.

These are the same municipalities that already have to fight tooth and nail for infrastructure

funding and housing support. Now they won’t even be part of the conversation about

major projects in their own backyard. That is quite the pivot.

I’ll take a bit of a detour here because I’ve observed something that this government

seems to be struggling to recognize. With an $11 billion deficit, they’ve seemingly

run out of carrots to hand out to municipalities that toe the line and meet cabinet

targets. So now they’re relying solely on the stick.

Bill 14 is just that. It is all stick and no carrot. We ask municipalities to manage

wildfire response on the front lines, the homelessness that plagues our communities,

emergency services, health care, infrastructure and climate adaptation. But when it

comes to massive energy infrastructure in their backyard, the message from this cabinet

is clear. The Premier knows best.

Joining UBCM is the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They’ve raised an equally damning

critique of this legislation. This bill enables the B.C. Energy Regulator, not the

First Nations whose territory is affected, to decide what is or isn’t a site of cultural

or spiritual significance. One person appointed, no consultation required. That’s

not reconciliation; that’s regression. That’s 19th century colonial governance with

a Green Party sticker slapped on top of it for cover. Have you really no shame?

To put it charitably, the government’s environmental values since the election have

been extremely flexible — perhaps, maybe, since 2021 leadership, when they elected

a Premier offside with the will of the party.

We say we want to honour Indigenous rights, but this legislation strips away input

from nations before the first shovel hits the dirt. This government constantly tells

us, “Nothing about us without us” until it gets inconvenient.

We need to work through permitting challenges and delays along with our First Nations

partners, not in spite of them. Is there work to do on restoring investment stability

in British Columbia around this issue? One hundred percent. Both sides can agree that

that work needs to happen. But this is not the way to have that conversation. All

stick, no carrot. All pomp, no plan.

Let’s review what we’re actually doing here. No requirement for environmental assessments,

because fast is more important than responsible. ALR protections? Gone. Farmland is

now just future space for solar panels instead of sweet potatoes. Safety standards?

“We’ll see.” Heritage and cultural protections? Left to the discretion of a regulator.

Community input? “Meh, we don’t need that either.” Legislative oversight? Not by this

government. God forbid somebody points out the flaws in this bill: “How inconvenient.”

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s a Green Party bumper sticker on a Humvee. But don’t worry. It’s all fine because

it’s “green.” Apparently, that word now means whatever cabinet wants it to mean, whenever

they need it to mean something. Great job with the new communications department hires.

They are certainly earning their keep with the flip-flopping principles of this government.

They are certainly earning their paycheque, trying to figure out what exactly the

position of this government is from day to day.

What exactly is the point of having a legislative process, of gathering in this chamber,

debating, amending and voting if the government can simply rewrite the rules after

the fact with the stroke of a regulatory pen?

We’re going to talk a little bit about clause 13. This clause grants cabinet the power

to amend, disapply or reapply entire sections of the Energy Resource Activities Act

retroactively, if they so feel. That isn’t legislation; it’s a choose-your-own-adventure

book where every ending is being ghostwritten by the Premier.

And clause 21? That one takes it even further. It validates any regulatory action

taken since April 1, weeks before this bill was even introduced to this House.

So let me get this straight. They’ve already acted like this bill was law, and now

they want us to rubber-stamp it after the fact to apply retroactively. I know this

government is fond of invoking the Wayback Machine when it suits their messaging.

We heard it earlier today in question period. They love a good stroll down memory

lane when they can spin it in their favour. It all lands flatter these days, since

they are the previous government. And they are asking us to trust them to fix their

mistakes. I don’t trust them.

But using retroactivity to cover their own backsides for regulatory overreach they

didn’t have the authority for in the first place? That’s not nostalgia. That’s legislative

fraud dressed up as efficiency, wearing a Green Party bumper sticker. Is this law,

or is it improv theatre? I truly would like to know. Most days I cannot tell.

I ask with all sincerity: is this what democracy looks like in British Columbia? Decisions

made behind closed doors, authority concentrated in cabinet, this House and this Legislature

neglected as a ceremonial afterthought, brought in only to retroactively justify whatever

the Premier has already decided.

British Columbians deserve a lot better than that. They deserve a renewable energy

policy that is transparent, accountable and rooted, truly rooted, in local and Indigenous

consultation, not a pipeline of politically favoured projects rammed through by insiders,

exempt from scrutiny, competition or even basic logic.

If this government truly believes in renewable energy, and I genuinely hope they do,

then build the public trust to match. Let the projects stand on their own merit. Let

the communities be heard. Let the public actually see the process, not just the press

release after the fact, not just the bumper sticker slogan. When you exempt projects

from scrutiny, you don’t speed up progress. You speed up skepticism, and I am certainly

skeptical.

When you concentrate every meaningful decision in one office, you don’t just remove

accountability. You also centralize blame. So yes, at least we’ll know exactly who

to blame when this bill delivers exactly the fallout we’re warning about today. This

is not hidden. The stakeholders have been very vocal about their opposition to this

bill. We on this side are speaking up for those stakeholders, hoping somebody over

there doesn’t have their hearing protection in today.

Let’s be honest. We’ve seen this movie before. The government pushes through legislation

without meaningful consultation, and then when the backlash hits, when the unintended

consequences of failed consultation start piling up, they feign surprise, blame the

feds or the President or, frankly, whoever is convenient, and spend a fortune trying

to spin their way out of it. Bill 14 will be no different.

[3:50 p.m.]

When all else fails, no problem. Just give the bloated government comms team another

budget bump, hire a few more well-connected advisers and start work on a fresh distraction

for next week’s news cycle.

As a British Columbian and a student of political science, the practice and the theory

of politics could not be further apart in this province. This bill is yet another

symptom of a broken system. While they’re managing optics, it’s the people on the

ground, the farmers, the local councils, First Nations and small business owners who

are going to ultimately pay the price for this bill.

I think some members may know of the wind turbine on Hornby Island, if you’ve ever

been to Ford’s Cove. It’s the perfect example of green policy in action in an area

where we have division — Hornby Island, an extremely progressive region. I have many

friends from there. I love the area, love visiting Tribune Bay, an absolute gem in

the Gulf Islands.

It took them eight years, on Hornby Island of all places, to get a privately built

quarter-million-dollar wind turbine active at Ford’s Cove, to meet the regulatory

requirements, because there was opposition. There were other considerations. This

legislation would absolutely sidestep those considerations for expediency and not

safety. When we marginalize the very people that this House is meant to represent,

we do more than sideline their voices; we make a mockery of this chamber.

I won’t stand here and pretend every regulation we have is perfect. We’ve tied the

hands and feet of economic development in British Columbia in red tape for way too

long. We need to unwind ineffective and economically damaging regulation and overreach.

Lord knows we’ve got red tape in places we didn’t even know we had places.

B.C. has a serious efficiency problem, but the answer isn’t to light the whole framework

on fire, call it streamlining and hope the flames distract everybody from the actual

problems — unless, of course, arson is now being considered a renewable resource,

unless that’s the new renewable resource this government is pushing.

Burning public trust for fuel seems to be, certainly, in demand. That’s easy. This

government is pretty happy to run around with a can of gas and figure out how to put

the fire out later. How about we try and avoid lighting it in the first place?

There are certainly amendments to this bill that could be made by this government

to fix the problems of their poor consultation in advance. I often hear members praising

the Nordic model, the cradle-to-grave social safety net of Scandinavian countries.

It’s become something of a touchstone for this government. What’s consistently left

out of that conversation is how those countries actually afford it. Bill 14 attempts

to start to square that circle.

Norway, Denmark and Sweden didn’t build world-class public services by accident. They

built them by establishing a clear and honest social contract that responsible resource

development is not a threat to progress but a way to fund it. They understood that

you can’t have a robust public sector without a thriving private one. They didn’t

shy away from developing those natural resources. They embraced it, regulated it properly

and used the revenue to build social infrastructure that works for everyone.

We should be doing the same here in British Columbia and across this country, but

this bill doesn’t come close to doing that. It avoids the hard work of reforming the

regulatory maze that is a massive problem in this province. It ducks the tough conversations

about normalizing responsible resource development across all sectors, not just the

ones the Premier’s office finds politically convenient at the moment.

Instead, this bill gives the illusion of action, a handful of handpicked projects

pushed forward under the guise of climate policy, while the government waves a green

flag in one hand and buries its economic failures with the other. We need to do better

not just for the economy but for the integrity of our democratic institutions and

for the long-term sustainability of the public services that British Columbians count

on and that rely on resource revenue.

[3:55 p.m.]

This bill doesn’t strengthen democracy; it simply bypasses it. This bill doesn’t improve

the permitting process; it eliminates the process altogether for the politically favoured

few. It doesn’t lift the burden of red tape across the board, which desperately needs

to happen in this province. It shifts decision-making into back rooms, into cabinet

meetings and into corridors, where public scrutiny has no access and where accountability

has no seat at the table.

Let’s not forget what else this bill does. I’ll just remind everybody. It neuters

the Environmental Assessment Act. It strips decision-making away from municipalities.

It empowers unelected regulators to impose fees and levies retroactively. It allows

the Premier’s office to decide, alone, which projects matter and which ones don’t.

This is pay-for-access politics at its absolute worst.

It gives the regulator the ability to override protections for cultural heritage,

agricultural land and even basic safety standards if it feels fit. It hands the government

the power to act first and legislate later, then retroactively validate it through

clauses like clause 21.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Through it all, it completely skirts meaningful consultation with the very people

this is going to affect the most: not the downtown Vancouver people, not the downtown

Victoria people, but local communities in rural B.C. and Indigenous communities across

this province, who will end up eating the sandwich of this government’s failure. That

isn’t how you build trust with rural British Columbia. That’s not how you demonstrate

leadership. That isn’t even how you govern in a functioning democracy.

Bill 14 is not good for democracy in British Columbia. It’s not good for municipal

autonomy in British Columbia. It is not good for reconciliation in British Columbia.

It’s not good governance, and it’s not a good bill.

This bill won’t bring regulatory certainty. It does bring more regulatory manipulation.

It does not create fairness in our system; it institutionalizes favouritism in B.C.’s

energy industry. It does not support investment; it creates confusion and distrust,

the very things that investors and capital fear most and the thing that they most

bring to my attention when they look to invest in this province.

While the Premier’s office may see this as getting things done, what they’re really

doing is cutting corners and cutting out the very people who are supposed to have

a say. I urge all members here in this House to vote against Bill 14, because this

bill isn’t about streamlining; it’s about strong-arming. This bill isn’t about green

energy; it’s about greenwashed authority. It is a bumper sticker on a Humvee.

Once you accept this kind of overreach in the name of convenience, you normalize a

style of governance that treats the rule of law as a suggestion and this Legislature

as a formality. If the shoe were on the other foot, I ask the members that are here

and paying attention, would you support this bill?

We can do better. I know the other side of the House can do much, much better. The

people of British Columbia — every community, every First Nation and every citizen

who expects transparency and fairness from their government — deserve nothing less.

Lynne Block : Well, we are here today to discuss a piece of legislation before us, Bill 14, the

Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. Its stated purpose, as you

can gather from the title, is to provide for the regulation of renewable energy projects

by the British Columbia Energy Regulator at different levels and to accelerate the

approval process through streamlining. This is achieved, supposedly, by modifying

or disapplying the application of the Energy Resource Activities Act and other statutes

in relation to these projects.

[4:00 p.m.]

While the goal of accelerating approvals might sound appealing on the surface, the

method employed by this bill has drawn significant criticism, and rightly so. It is

seen as a form of fast-tracking that bypasses democratic checks and balances, consolidates

power with the regulator and reduces public and local government oversight.

What are some of the key mechanisms within this bill that lead to these concerns?

First, and perhaps most fundamentally, the bill dictates that the Environmental Assessment

Act simply does not apply in relation to specific, streamlined projects. This is alarming,

especially if you’re an environmentalist or a person of the Green Party. This includes

projects like the selected wind energy projects, the North Coast transmission line

project and certain prescribed wind energy or related electric transmission line projects.

For existing wind projects that become level 3 and are prescribed, any existing environmental

assessment certificate is outright cancelled. The conditions from that cancelled certificate

are then merely deemed conditions under a permit issued under the primary act. This

wholesale bypassing of the standard environmental assessment process is significantly

watering down environmental protection and oversight. This is egregious.

Beyond the Environmental Assessment Act, the bill also provides for the disapplication

of crucial provisions from the primary act, the Energy Resource Activities Act, for

level 2 and level 3 streamlined projects. Subject to regulations, entire sections

and divisions of this act, which are normally intended to provide oversight and accountability

for energy resource activities, simply will not apply. Again, egregious.

Consider what this means in practice. For level 2 projects, the general permit requirement

itself may not apply. Provisions related to permit expiry or obligations upon cancellation

also may not apply. Specifically, for both level 2 and level 3 streamlined projects,

subject to regulations, several key provisions of the primary act generally do not

apply.

Which ones are they? They’re 7(2), 10, 55 and 59. Division 2.1, expanded responsibility

Part 3, does not apply — specifically, 7(2)(f), 10(c), 56, 60 and 91. What about

Part 3.1, regarding dormant sites? Doesn’t apply — specifically, 7(2)(g), 10(d), 56,

60, and 91. And

Part 4, regarding orphan sites, again does not apply. What specifically?

It’s 7(2)(h), 10(e), 57, 60 and 91.

These specific parts and divisions of the primary act are typically the established

mechanisms that ensure responsibility for the cleanup and the reclamation of abandoned

sites. Their non-application for level 2 and 3 projects means that the standard framework

for addressing dormant or orphaned sites and enforcing expanded responsibility for

sites is bypassed.

Why is that? What are the consequences when there is no responsibility for cleanup?

What are the consequences when there is no responsibility for the sites and reclamation

of abandoned ones?

While the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the power to make regulations, including

potentially applying

Part 4, regarding orphan sites, or establishing a fund similar

to the fund for orphan sites under the primary act, specifically 13(1)(c), 20(3),

64 and 75, the default position for level 2 and 3 projects as stated in this bill

is the non-application of these critical provisions, again specifically 7(2), 10,

55, 59, and 91.

[4:05 p.m.]

This disapplication creates a significant gap in future accountability for the potential

environmental impacts and the required cleanup and reclamation of sites associated

with these streamlined projects. The NDP claim that they care about the environment,

but how can they say this when this bill completely negates this?

In addition, the disapplication of the public request for investigation provision

under the Energy Resource Act for level 2 and level 3 streamlined projects under this

bill has significant implications for public consultation, people’s voices and accountability.

Specifically, for both level 2 and level 3 streamlined projects, Division 3.1, “Public

Requests for Investigation” of

Part 5 of the primary act generally does not apply,

subject to — what regulations? — 13(k), 16(f), 57(k), 60(

f) and 91.

This provision is part of the standard framework within the Energy Resource Activities

Act. Its non-application is cited as an example of how the bill could be seen as reducing

oversight and accountability by bypassing existing rules for energy resource activities.

In practice, the non-application of this provision means that a specific formal avenue

for public voices and oversight regarding the activities of these streamlined projects

is removed. Within the typical regulatory structure governed by the primary act, the

public request for investigation mechanism would presumably allow members of the public

to formally request that the regulator investigate potential non-compliance or other

issues related to energy resource activities.

By removing this mechanism for level 2 and 3 streamlined projects, the bill directly

limits the ability of the public to initiate such formal inquiries. Again, this is

egregious. This contributes significantly to the concerns raised by critics that the

bill’s streamlining processes lead to reduced public and local government, which that

includes municipalities and landowners, oversight and involvement.

The ability of the public to request investigations is a form of accountability, allowing

external stakeholders to trigger regulatory action when they perceive issues. When

this ability is removed, the accountability framework shifts, relying more solely

on the regulators’ internal processes or other, potentially less accessible, avenues

for raising concerns.

Furthermore, this reduction in formal public input mechanisms, alongside the disapplication

of other provisions related to environmental protection and site cleanup accountability,

fuels the broader criticism that Bill 14 involves bypassing democratic checks and

balancing and involves consolidating power in the regulator. Established statutory

processes, often including mechanisms for public input and investigation, are bypassed,

reducing layers of review and transparency.

This also touches upon concerns regarding the province’s commitments to the alignment

of laws with UNDRIP, which is relevant given that streamlining processes could impact

consultation with Indigenous peoples.

Therefore, the removal of the public request for investigation mechanism is a tangible

example of how the streamlining under Bill 14 can reduce the formal avenues available

for the public — including directly affected residents, landowners and farmers — to

engage with and ensure accountability from large energy projects. There is no avenue

for the public, no framework for the public, no ability for any public member to be

able to voice concerns or issues. Or should I say “no public oversight”? Or should

I say “unhealthy” or “non-democratic” processes?

In essence, the removal of the public request for investigation provision means that

part of the public’s potential role in holding project proponents accountable through

formal, regulatory process is diminished for these specific, streamlined projects,

leading to concerns about the overall level of public oversight and the health of

democratic processes in relation to these projects.

[4:10 p.m.]

For level 2 prescribed projects, even sections concerning environmental protection

and management under the primary act may not apply. The disapplication of the public

request for investigation provision for level 2 and level 3 streamlined projects under

Bill 14 has significant implications for local residents, landowners and farmers,

affecting their ability to participate in consultation, have their voices heard and

ensure accountability.

Specifically, for both level 2 and level 3 streamlined projects, division 3.1 of

part

5 of the primary act generally does not apply. Subject to these regulations, within

the standard