First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, May 15, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 67

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

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of Comments Made in the House

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Tributes

George Humphrey

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Amelia Boultbee

John Rustad

Á’a:líya Warbus

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Adrian Dix

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Peter Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act (continued)

Scott McInnis

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Á’a:líya Warbus

Trevor Halford

Rob Botterell

Amelia Boultbee

Kiel Giddens

Thursday, May 15, 2025

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of Comments

Made in the House

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : First, in question period, the member for Skeena…. I had thought the member said

“emergency weather shelter,” but she in fact said “emergency shelter.”

I will withdraw that piece from my comments.

Tributes

George Humphrey

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Also, I want to share some sad news. We’ve lost an amazing person named George Humphrey,

and I want to send condolences to his family.

On behalf of the Ministry of Housing, I want to acknowledge that George enriched the

building industry in many ways — specifically, his service on the Building Code Appeal

Board.

George graciously chaired the board starting in 1990 and served on the board for 25

years, providing the industry with resolution on over 500 disputes. His amazing legacy

lives on and continues to inform the industry professionals as they navigate the B.C.

building code that George knew so well.

I want to send heartfelt gratitude for George and many thoughts to his family on everyone’s

behalf at the Ministry of Housing as well as the province.

The Speaker : Thank you, Minister, for withdrawing your comments during question period.

I consider the point of order raised is now resolved.

Orders of the Day

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

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 15.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects

(Streamlined Permitting) Act

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Members. We will call the House back to order, where we will

continue debate on Bill 14 this afternoon.

Amelia Boultbee : When British Columbians hear talk of streamlining energy permitting, they expect

commonsense reforms — updates that cut unnecessary red tape while still protecting

the environment, upholding safety standards and ensuring communities have a say in

what happens in their backyards. Unfortunately, that is not what Bill 14 delivers.

[1:05 p.m.]

Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act has been dressed

up by the government as a much-needed response to a permitting system they themselves

made nearly unworkable.

For years, they layered on rules, hurdles and complexity, choking off investment,

driving projects away and leaving communities frustrated by delay after delay. Now

faced with the consequences of their own mismanagement, they want to present as the

fixers of a problem they created.

But let’s be clear. This is not a thoughtful correction. This is not about carefully

balancing efficiency and transparency. What this bill actually does is hand over sweeping

authority to cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator, cutting the public and this House

out of the process entirely.

Bill 14 is not reform. It is yet another attempt from the NDP to stretch into overreach.

It sidelines local voices, removes essential environmental and safety safeguards and

gives a small group of decision-makers the ability to push projects forward without

the accountability British Columbians expect from their elected leaders. It removes

the checks and balances that give communities, Indigenous nations and everyday British

Columbians a voice. It undermines the safeguards that ensure projects are built safely

and responsibly, and it concentrates far too much discretion in the hands of cabinet

behind closed doors.

If this government is serious about accelerating renewable energy, they would need

to do it in a way that brings people along, not shuts them out. Unfortunately, Bill

14 does the latter. It is a heavy-handed piece of legislation that will cause more

harm than good.

Over the course of my remarks today, I will walk through the troubling aspects of

Bill 14, beginning with its overreach in defining what counts as a renewable energy

project, its dangerous exemptions from environmental assessment and its unparalleled

granting of authority to the regulator to rewrite its own rules without this House’s

oversight. At the heart of this debate is a simple truth: democracy, transparency

and accountability cannot and must not be sacrificed in the name of expediency.

Let us now examine how Bill 14 begins its overreach, right from the very

definitions

it sets in

part 1 of the legislation. While the government frames this bill as focused

on nine wind farms and the North Coast transmission line, the language embedded in

the text tells a different story. The term “renewable resource” is defined so broadly,

covering everything from biomass, biogas, geothermal, hydro, solar, ocean to wind,

that it leaves the door wide open for cabinet to sweep in nearly any project they

wish, simply by regulation.

They don’t need to bring it back to this House for debate. They don’t need to ask

the public’s permission. All they need is an order in council, and suddenly, the project

is deemed streamlined and exempt from the usual safeguards.

And if British Columbians take comfort in the idea that hydro dams, at least, are

supposedly excluded, they shouldn’t. The only place where this exemption exists is

in briefing materials, not in the bill itself. There is no explicit protection in

law stopping cabinet from extending these powers to hydro dams or any other form of

infrastructure they may later decide fits their agenda.

This is not a targeted reform of the permitting system. This is the writing of a blank

cheque. It gives cabinet the latitude to designate, at any point and with no public

process, any renewable project as streamlined regardless of its size, its location,

its impact or its controversy. That is deeply dangerous. It eliminates the predictability

and transparency that businesses, communities and Indigenous governments rely upon.

It puts at risk the hard-won consultation processes that have been established to

give communities a say in developments that directly impact them.

When a government centralizes decision-making behind closed doors, it erodes public

trust. It invites conflict. It risks legal challenges, project delays and public backlash,

the very problems this bill claims it is trying to avoid.

British Columbians expect better. They expect that if a major project is going to

be designated as streamlined, that decision will be made openly, transparently and

with clear justification, not hidden behind regulation or cabinet orders that escape

public scrutiny.

[1:10 p.m.]

One of the most glaring and dangerous aspects of Bill 14 is how it dismantles environmental

review processes in British Columbia, processes that communities in regions like mine,

Penticton-Summerland, rely on to protect their environment, their livelihoods and

their way of life.

Clause 14 disapplies the Environmental Assessment Act for specific wind projects and

the North Coast transmission line. The government argues that this is a necessary

step because the existing environmental framework does not adequately address wind

energy. While the current framework may need modernizing, the response from this government

is apparently to throw the entire process out the window.

I want to be clear. Environmental assessments are not just procedural steps. They

are the mechanism by which we carefully evaluate the impacts of major projects on

our land, water, wildlife and communities. They provide a structured, transparent

opportunity for public input and scrutiny.

For the people of the South Okanagan, this is not a theoretical issue. We know the

importance of ensuring that large-scale projects do not threaten sensitive ecosystems,

agricultural lands or water resources. We expect our voices to be heard when our environment

and our future is at stake.

Bill 14 grants cabinet the unilateral authority to exempt projects from environmental

assessment, and it allows them to do so without consultation, without local input

and without any independent evaluation of the risks. Respectfully, this is not responsible

governance. It constitutes silencing of local communities, Indigenous peoples, environmental

stewards and those who will live with the consequences of these decisions long after

the projects are completed.

What message does it send to the people of Penticton-Summerland and surrounding communities

that their knowledge of the land, their concerns about their environment and their

right to participate in decisions that affect them are secondary to the government’s

timelines?

We cannot allow that message to stand. British Columbians deserve a permitting system

that is both efficient and inclusive. We can streamline processes without stripping

away the critical safeguards that protect our communities and our environment. Bill

14 abandons that balance. It replaces thoughtful review with unchecked approvals.

This is a recipe for conflict, environmental harm and long-term economic and social

costs that our communities will be forced to bear.

Another deeply concerning aspect of Bill 14 is the way it erodes long-standing protections

for agricultural land in British Columbia, land that is the backbone of communities

like those in my riding of Penticton-Summerland.

Clause 15 of the bill grants the government authority to override the Agricultural

Land Commission Act for projects deemed streamlined under this legislation. This means

that renewable energy projects approved under Bill 14 will have unprecedented power

to repurpose, subdivide or fundamentally alter agricultural land, all without the

oversight, consent or even input from the Agricultural Land Commission.

For the people of the South Okanagan, this is not just a policy detail. This is a

direct threat. Agriculture is not simply an industry in our communities. It is a way

of life. It supports local jobs, food security, tourism and a deep connection to the

land.

Bill 14 jeopardizes all of that by giving the government and the B.C. Energy Regulator

the power to authorize non-farm use, subdivision or the dumping of soil and fill on

ALR land without consulting farmers, ranchers or local governments. There is no requirement

in this bill for public consultation or even notification.

My opposition to this bill is not to oppose renewable energy. Our farmers and communities

support responsible clean energy projects, but they expect those projects to respect

the land, the environment and the people who live and work there. Bill 14 makes a

mockery of that expectation.

By bypassing the Agricultural Land Commission and centralizing decision-making in

the hands of cabinet and the regulator, the government is disregarding the very safeguards

that have protected our most precious agricultural lands for generations. That is

a betrayal of rural British Columbia, of food producers and of the values we hold

dear in Penticton, Summerland and the entire South Okanagan.

[1:15 p.m.]

This House must stand up for agriculture, it must stand up for rural communities,

and it must reject Bill 14’s reckless disregard for both.

If we needed any further proof that Bill 14 is more about consolidating unchecked

authority than responsibly supporting renewable energy, we find it in how the legislation

extends into areas far beyond energy permitting. Clauses 16, 17 and 18 empower the

B.C. Energy Regulator with sweeping discretion to bypass critical laws that were never

designed to be optional.

The legislation allows the regulator to suspend the application of the Safety Standards

Act, ignore the Heritage Conservation Act and overrule protections in the Wildlife

Act for any project pushed through the highest level of fast-tracking under Bill 14.

To say this is overreach would be an understatement. The regulator, whose mandate

is supposed to be technical oversight of energy activities, is suddenly handed the

authority to make determinations about cultural heritage, public safety and wildlife

management, with no obligation to consult the people affected.

In my riding and many others, outdoor recreation, fishing and hunting are more than

just activities. They are part of our local identity, supporting businesses, tourism

and family traditions passed down through generations, yet under this legislation,

the regulator would have the power to revoke these rights overnight.

Hunting, trapping and fishing licences — which were earned, paid for and are vital

to rural life — can be cancelled at the whim of the regulator with no notice, no hearing

and no path to appeal. This is not streamlining; this is the sidelining of local communities

from the decisions that shape their own backyards.

It is equally disconcerting that Bill 14 places heritage determinations into the hands

of the regulator and allows them to appoint an individual of their choosing to decide

whether a site holds cultural or historical value. Respectfully, that is not a safeguard.

That is a rubber-stamp system designed to fast-track approvals, which could erase

the voices of those who live on these lands.

On the matter of safety, the bill sends the chilling message that when projects are

politically prioritized, the safety of workers and the public is negotiable. This

is a betrayal of basic governance and an affront to British Columbians, who expect

and deserve safe, responsible development in every sector.

Beyond the heavy-handed encroachment on safety and heritage, Bill 14 ventures even

further into the realm of fiscal overreach and democratic erosion. Clauses 11 and

12 of this bill grant the B.C. Energy Regulator unprecedented powers to impose fees

and levies on renewable energy projects.

It’s not just the imposition of new costs that is concerning. It is the fact that

these fees can be applied retroactively, reaching back to 2024, regardless of when

a project was approved or commenced. Retroactive taxation is not standard policy.

It is an extraordinary measure that throws fairness, predictability and business certainty

out the window.

Companies that followed the rules of the day, that invested based on known regulatory

frameworks, could now face the possibility of having new, unforeseen costs applied

after the fact, simply because the regulator or cabinet decides to change the rules.

What message does this send to potential investors in British Columbia’s renewable

sector? It tells them that no project is ever truly secure, that no agreement or permit

is ever final, and that the goalposts can and will move without warning. At a time

when British Columbia is striving to attract private investment in clean energy, this

is the worst possible signal to send.

It’s not only economically reckless; it is fundamentally undemocratic. Clause 13 goes

even further by allowing cabinet to amend the Energy Resource Activities Act, the

law that governs the regulator itself, by regulation. That is to say, the very body

responsible for implementing the law is being given the power to rewrite it without

ever returning to this House for scrutiny, debate or vote.

[1:20 p.m.]

This is a violation of the basic principles of legislative democracy. If a government

wishes to change the law, it must do so openly, through the democratic process under

the watchful eye of the people’s representatives. Bill 14 sidesteps that entirely,

handing cabinet the ability to reshape the governing framework of energy regulation

at will and without transparency. This is not governance for the people. It is governance

around the people, and British Columbians will not stand for it.

Clause 21 of the bill is another example of the government’s disregard for lawful

governance. It retroactively validates any actions the regulator may have taken, dating

back to April 1, 2024, even though this legislation had not yet been passed. In plain

terms, the government is attempting to grant itself the power to legalize actions

that under the current framework could well have been outside the law.

This is not responsible conduct that should be defending the rule of law and instead

is an attempt to shield the government and the regulator from scrutiny, from accountability

and from the legal consequences of their actions. And if clause 21 weren’t alarming

enough, clause 23 doubles down on this approach. This clause allows the government

to cancel existing environmental assessment certificates — certificates that communities,

First Nations and project proponents negotiated over years, often through hard-fought

discussions aimed at balancing development with environmental stewardship.

What does that say to the community groups who spent countless hours reviewing projects,

voicing concerns and negotiating protections? It says, quite bluntly, that those efforts

no longer matter. This is more than administrative overreach. It is the rewriting

of history. It sets a precedent that no certificate, no permit condition and no community

agreement is secure under the government — that any deal made today can be undone

tomorrow without so much as a phone call or a public announcement.

This is a government that once campaigned on transparency, on respect for Indigenous

rights, on protecting farmland and the environment. Yet with Bill 14, they have crafted

legislation that violates all those principles and does so retroactively. This House

should not allow that precedent to stand.

As I conclude my remarks today, I urge this House to step back and see Bill 14 for

what it truly is, not as a narrow attempt to fix delays in renewable energy permitting

but as an all-encompassing power grab that touches every corner of our governance,

our communities and our environment. This is not governance that serves the people

of British Columbia. This is governance that serves the interests of the few, while

silencing the voices of the many.

The people of Penticton-Summerland, like communities across this province, want to

see renewable energy developed, but they want it done in a way that respects our values,

our lands and our democratic institutions. They want to know that when a project is

proposed, it will go through an open, fair and rigorous process, one that considers

environmental impacts, listens to local communities, upholds safety standards, protects

farmland, honours Indigenous rights and ensures public transparency every step of

the way.

They do not want to wake up and find that those protections have been swept away by

a bureaucratic decree or a cabinet order made without debate in this chamber. Bill

14 fails the test of good governance, it fails the test of transparency, it fails

the test of accountability, and above all, it fails the test of respect for the people,

for the land, for Indigenous peoples, for the democratic process that should guide

every decision we make in this place.

I respectfully call on every member of this House to stand against this legislation,

not because we oppose renewable energy but because we stand for the principles that

must govern its development: fairness, balance, integrity and, above all, respect

for the people of British Columbia.

[1:25 p.m.]

Let us reject Bill 14, and let us begin the real work of building a permitting system

that works for everyone.

John Rustad : It’s an honour to be able to have an opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 14. I

know the minister is going to get a chance to respond to many things that have been

said, and I look forward to hearing some of those responses. I may not agree with

those responses, of course, but that’s fair enough. That’s what politics is about.

When I think about Bill 14, I often think about my riding. There are a number of wind

projects and opportunities in my riding, which I think are interesting projects to

see moving forward. I always am honoured to have an opportunity to stand up and speak

on behalf, of course, of my riding of Nechako Lakes.

When I look at the wind projects that are going through the process, though, I often

wonder: why has there been such a delay in the process of getting these wind projects

going? Why wasn’t there a call for these wind projects to move forward, say, since

2017? Oh yes, that’s right. We had a change of government, and they stopped going

after these projects. So it stopped these things from coming forward.

Meanwhile, now we’ve waited eight years, and in that process of waiting eight years,

we have seen the environmental assessment process become so onerous, so problematic,

that you can’t get things done. You’ve seen other legislation and components come

forward by this government that make it virtually impossible to get things done. You’ve

even seen changes to the agricultural land reserve, which this government did, which

they’re now, of course, going to throw out as part of Bill 14.

You know, I get that they’re embarrassed about all the things and all the barriers

and all the problems they’ve created over eight years to actually see projects move

forward, and they’re looking for a way to save themselves. I get it. It’s fine. But

the consequences of what they have done over that time can’t just be solved with Bill

14 or even Bill 15 or even Bill 7.

You look at, for example, the mining sector. It takes up to 15 years to get a mining

project through the permitting and through the process — 15 years. That’s like you’re

going as a board to your shareholders and you’re saying: “We want to invest a significant

amount of money, potentially $1 billion or $2 billion, on a project, but we will get

to mine it for the next generation.” It’s crazy to think it takes that long to get

a project going.

It’s no wonder why we have seen, for example, exploration dollars decline by 27 percent,

why we’ve seen the number of metres drilled decline by 40 percent, why we are considered

a jurisdiction where people don’t want to invest in things like mining. Bill 14 and

its sister bill, Bill 15, don’t solve these problems.

But let’s take a look at, maybe, what other jurisdictions are doing. You look at,

for example, Sweden — solid left-wing government, solid environmental standards. They

get it done in two years. Two years. How come it takes us this long? If you want to

just have a quick look at housing — and that has, obviously, nothing to do with Bill

14 — it can take three to five years to see a major housing project go through. You

go to Denmark — which is a left-wing government, high environmental standards — and

it takes two months.

The problem is not needing to go through with a bill like this to trample democracy,

to trample the rights of input, to make sure that standards, environmental stuff is

being bypassed. No, no. The problem is what they have created over eight years to

get to this point. The problem is they need to go back and actually rip out all of

that stuff that they’ve done so we can get projects moving through in a timely way.

Just last year we had somewhere between 10 and 20 percent net of the electricity we

consumed in this province coming from the United States. The year before it was around

10 percent. This year, to date, we’re already around 6 percent of the power we’re

consuming, and it’s climbing. And now, suddenly, they’ve got a problem. They want

to get projects moved forward. Well, seven or eight years ago, they actually removed

the requirement for British Columbia to be energy self-sufficient when it came to

electricity. They didn’t move forward asking for projects. They didn’t get stuff happening

in the hopper. Now we’re short. Now they’re in a panic.

That is not how to govern. That is not how you get things done in this province. You

have to have the foresight. You have to look forward. You have to be moving things

in a timely way, so that they can move forward, understanding that there’s a process

that goes forward.

You know, when I think, for example, of wind projects…. I mean, when I think of up

in your riding, Mr. Speaker, or even in my riding, why won’t cattle stand under a

wind project? Interesting question. Obviously, there’s noise, there are components.

What about migratory birds? Have you ever looked underneath large windmills to see

how many birds were taken out? It’s an interesting question.

[1:30 p.m.]

These are all important environmental issues that should be brought forward as part

of a process, not to mention the many, many kilometres — tens, if not hundreds of

kilometres — of power lines that need to be built and what that does for wildlife,

what that does in impact on the land base and what that does with First Nations rights.

That’s all part of what a wind project will be.

On top of all of that, this government has refused to answer the question of exactly

what this is going to cost the ratepayer. You think about it. They’re going to build

a power line now from the northeast to the northwest. They don’t have the electricity

to put in it, because we’re importing power from the United States. But let’s set

that aside for a second. They’re going to build this power line. It’s going to be,

they say, $3 billion; I say $5 billion. They haven’t built anything, ever, once, in

a project on time.

So $5 billion. That is now — what? — 30 percent of the cost of Site C? How much is

Site C adding to the cost of electricity in the province of British Columbia? How

much will this power line add to the cost of electricity? And who’s paying for the

power line? Guess what. That’s going to be the ratepayers of British Columbia that

are paying for it, not the proponents.

There’s a simple solution. For one-tenth of the cost, you could have all the power

you want to the northwest, without having to put that cost on ratepayers in British

Columbia — one-tenth of the cost. Don’t you think that would be the right thing to

do? Half the population of this province is within $200 of going under and not making

their bills. How much is this going to cost the ratepayers in British Columbia, in

the rate increases for the power line alone, not to mention all of these wind projects?

When I was in cabinet, we looked at wind. We looked significantly at the potential

of wind and at all of the projects that were, let’s say, tier 1, where many of them

move forward in British Columbia. Many of these projects are not tier 1. They’re down

even lower, so their efficiency and their return are less.

We looked at the cost associated with it, whatever it was. It was $95 to $115 a unit

to build that out. It was more than a decade ago when we looked at it. The costs have

obviously gone up since then. The issue is that they only give you 15 years, or 25

years if you’re lucky. At 15 years, they start degrading. By 20 years, you’re lucky

if you’re getting more of it. Then you’ve got to rebuild it.

What does that mean for environmental assessment? What do you do with the windmill

blades? What do you do with the product? How do you deal with that? Do you dig a hole

in the ground and bury them? They aren’t recyclable. So how does that work with environmental

assessment and that process, going forward? What does that cost, not just for today

but for 40 or 50 years out, in having to replace the windmill once, twice, maybe even

three times, for that amount of power?

Here’s the other problem with wind. Wind has to be part of the mix; don’t get me wrong.

I think it’s important to be able to have it as part of the mix, but when we are at

minus 30 or 35 in weather throughout most of British Columbia last winter, guess how

much power was being generated by wind. Close to zero. When we need the energy the

most, it is the energy that is not available. That puts tremendous pressure on the

whole system to make up the additional energy.

Now, we’ve got our heritage dams. We’ve got site C coming on. That helps to firm up

the power, which is a good thing, but you cannot be in a situation where you’re losing

so much of that energy potential because it’s not generating power. Depending on how

much wind projects come on, they’re usually in the 25 to 40 percent range of what

their capacity is, on an annual basis. They peak up; they go down. They need to be

firmed, obviously, by dams.

You’ve got to build twice as much wind power, if not three times as much, to match

other sources for the stability that you need within the grid. Once again, what is

the cost to ratepayers? By how much are rates going to have to go up for these projects?

It’s something conveniently ignored by this government. With proper assessment and

proper scrutiny going through the House, going through that, we’d come out with those

numbers, as opposed to just cabinet saying: “We’re going to move forward with these

projects regardless.”

It’s important to be transparent to the people in British Columbia. It’s important

to make sure that we know what our costs are going to be. I think about what we need

to get done in this province, in opening up our mines. There are 27 mines that are

ready to be going as projects, which represent a $100 billion investment. LNG opportunities

— there are stupendously more if we can get rid of these emission caps and these other

problems that governments put in the way.

We got to get our feet back under our forest sector. We got to drive investment in

businesses in B.C., because at this point, investor confidence and business confidence

are at all-time lows, practically, in this province.

[1:35 p.m.]

There’s so much that needs to be done. Adding costs, overriding the process, is not

the way to build confidence. Adding uncertainty on power is not the way to build confidence.

Getting rid of all of the barriers and the process that this government has put in

place over eight years is the way to go — streamlining it so that anybody can move

a project forward — not just projects handpicked by a Premier who has said it has

to be Indigenous-owned.

I fully support economic reconciliation. I support Indigenous bands being involved

in projects and companies. I think that’s great. That is the path we have to go. In

saying that it has to be, it means that any other project can’t go forward, certainly

not in a timely way. They’ve got to get mired in this long bureaucratic process that

this NDP has created over time.

That’s not the way to build an economy. That’s certainly not the way to build confidence.

And that’s certainly not the way, in my opinion, of making sure that the ratepayers

of British Columbia are protected. At the end of the day, we are talking about the

people in British Columbia needing electricity on an ongoing basis.

We are already in a shortfall. We need to make sure that we do everything we can to

expand our electrical grid. We need a 50-year-plus plan showing where it’s going to

come from, what those costs are, what those options are.

This government’s not doing anything associated with that. They’re just moving forward

projects that they have handpicked to say, “Yes, we want these things to go forward,”

as opposed to going through a competitive, open-market process that should happen.

Again, that’s the way this government does everything. Just look at the community

benefits agreements and their approach to favouring unions, which really are not community

benefits. I would argue that you can’t see any community benefits, except for accelerated

costs and massive delays.

Regardless of that, we need to be able to see that kind of confidence in British Columbia.

That’s what we’re going to be trying to do. That’s what, certainly on our side of

the House, we’re trying to do. Which is why when we look at Bill 14, when we look

at Bill 15, when we look at Bill 7, we’re opposed to this type of overreach by government.

We’re opposed to this anti-democratic process that “government knows best.”

Ask yourself this: can you name anything that this government has been doing, over

the last eight years, that has improved? Certainly not on health care, on homelessness,

on drugs, on our economy, or when it comes to our forest sector or any other major

sector that we have in this province, on housing or on affordability.

“Don’t worry,” the government says. “Trust us. We know best. We’re going to handpick

projects. We’re not going to have a competitive process. We’re not going to allow

for the kind of entrepreneurial innovation and cost savings that is needed. No, no,

we know best. We’re just going to approve projects.” Well, that is not how you build

an economy in B.C., how you build confidence in the province or how you look after

the people in British Columbia.

We stand opposed to these bills. We stand opposed to this overreach because it is

the wrong way to go. You need to have this House respected, to have democracy respected

and to make sure that at the end of the day, we always keep the people as our primary

interest.

What is the cost going to be for them? What is this going to look like? How are we

going to meet those long-term needs? Most importantly, how do we assure people they’re

not going to have blackouts, which are now being warned for places like the Okanagan,

because we’ve had a government that has been ignoring this problem for eight years?

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words, always, on behalf of my riding of

Nechako Lakes, and I look forward to the response from the minister.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise today to oppose Bill 14 and to bring in a few perspectives that I think are

very important, especially in the climate we’re in right now, within reconciliation,

and considering the speeches that we heard from First Nations leaders, young women,

on the steps of the Legislature building today, who are speaking about the invisibility,

the silence, all the important recognition that needs to happen from this government.

I think this bill is the example of how that gets ignored.

[1:40 p.m.]

I look at some of the statements that have been made by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,

who just yesterday and today are calling upon this government, and directly to the

Premier, in regard to Bill 14. This is the vice-Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs:

“We want you,” speaking to government again, “to hear from us directly that the Chiefs

and leadership on this call,” which happened just this morning, “are unanimously opposed

to the bills, both 14 and 15. We are also in agreement that we will be taking action

to ensure they are not passed, but if you do manage to force them through, despite

our collective opposition, we will be exploring every avenue to kill them.

“You did not follow your own law and processes, you did not respect our rights, and

that has resulted in legislation that is not redeemable in the present form.”

Jody Wilson-Raybould, a former Attorney General and an Indigenous lawyer, also states:

“You don’t make good law by breaking the law.” This is in regards to Bills 14 and

15. “They violate

Section 3 of DRIPA, this government’s own recognition of consultation

with Indigenous and First Nations across British Columbia. You don’t drive economic

growth by setting the stage for conflict in the courts and on the ground. First Nations,

industry and all British Columbians will be the victims of the government’s pursuit

of this bad law.”

Again, the UBCIC put out a statement that said: “Fix the bill, or kill the bill.”

I quote, again, their words: “Don’t dare say, ‘Trust us.’”

I think, in bringing all of this, it’s very clear that a pause, to ensure that legislation

we bring forward in this House is done in good faith with Indigenous communities,

as outlined in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, needs to happen.

Taking the time to ensure that that process is followed is not going to impede the

sense of urgency that we’ve been made to believe exists.

Speaking to Bill 14 in particular, on the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting)

Act — it’s there in the name, a streamlined process — we’re told repeatedly that Bill

14 will unlock the province’s economic potential.

Again, on this side of the House, we support that, but we also support the government

following its own laws and finding a way to do this in partnership with Indigenous

people, who are going to benefit from having a say and gaining the economic opportunities

that are afforded to everybody else in this province.

“We recognize that the timeline that we had for engagement on this bill was shorter

than we’d have liked.” That is a direct quote from this government’s own minister

in relation to Bill 15, and it applies here to Bill 14 as well.

If this legislation from its onset, from its inception, from the very creation is

going to infringe upon Indigenous rights that this government has made a commitment

to, then I’m not sure why we’re still here debating it. There needs to be a recognition

that it be afforded the time it takes to have the alignment with DRIPA and that Indigenous

leaders are going to be on side with any changes to legislation that’s going to affect

them. That’s very clear.

[1:45 p.m.]

Bill 14 consolidates authority and decision-making on renewable energy projects, but

it also restructures the administration of power in a way that does not prioritize

accountable or transparent governance.

British Columbians themselves have all come out from different levels of government,

not just Indigenous, to say that they do not feel represented in this legislation,

that there’s no need to rush past the consultation phase they should be afforded.

And this side of the House feels that because closure was imposed and we organized

ourselves to debate these bills in a certain way for the shorter time that the government

afforded to us, we’ve made a lot of concessions in terms of democracy and shorting

the opportunity for proper debate by every member in this House who deserves that

time.

Those concessions were made because of closure. But now we’re hearing an uproar and

an arising of voices from British Columbians, Indigenous and business owners and municipalities

and even industry, who are saying: “Just pause. Just hold for one minute so that we

can have the opportunity to ensure that this legislation is going to be moved forward

in a good way.”

I cannot support this bill in good conscience. We cannot, on this side of the House,

support this bill in good conscience. There is too much at stake when we begin to….

The Chair : Member, I just need to ask you to pause just for a very brief moment while we recognize

the member for Burnaby North.

Janet Routledge : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Member.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge : We are joined this afternoon with a grade 5 class from St. Helen’s School in Burnaby

North.

Not only is St. Helen’s in Burnaby North; it’s in Burnaby Heights. They are valued

neighbours of mine, and in fact, one of their number, Gianluca, lives right next door

to me. This is our future of democracy here to observe and participate in democracy

at some point in the future.

Please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Á’a :líya Warbus : In getting back to the debate and what we’re talking about here, I think we could

go for a very long time and get into the details of how…. Again, this side of the

House is absolutely on board with getting industry and economy going in this province.

We’ve needed it for a long time, and there have been processes missing. There have

been discussions and real, I think, collaboration timelines, deadlines that have been

missing and lost so that government can ensure and have the ability to be in close

contact with any Indigenous community or nation that’s impacted.

Because there are no clear determinations in these broad powers afforded by this bill,

who’s to say really? It’s that uncertainty that’s the premise of what I’m saying and

what I’m speaking out about. This trend is not just Indigenous leaders that are noticing.

Again, the public is noticing.

[1:50 p.m.]

Vaughn Palmer said: “On closer examination, the two bills do not actually repeal any

of B.C.’s heavy regulatory burden. Rather, they give the cabinet arbitrary powers

to override existing rules, regulations and procedures on projects favoured by the

NDP.”

That ability to have flexibility…. What it actually does is skip over some very important

processes. The public’s noticed, and this side of the House has noticed.

Yes, we campaigned on cutting red tape. We still believe in that. But cutting red

tape means coming up with processes that are going to work for everyone in a democratic

way. It does not mean cutting corners. It means clearing out the bureaucracy that

slows down good projects, not gutting the safeguards that protect our land, our communities

and our democracy.

There’s a stark difference between efficiency and recklessness. To take these big

swings from how long we’ve waited for projects to go forward and be approved and make

a difference, create jobs for all of British Columbia…. Now we’re going to speed it

up to the point where no one can be in support of that kind of process and that kind

of governmental, centralized power.

I’ll just close with this. We absolutely want to grow our economy. We want to see

Indigenous communities benefit. We want to see that self-determination happen, absolutely.

But it has to start on the right foot. If we can’t do that, then I think we need to

take a pause in the process, take a look at how to right the ship and ensure that

everybody in this province is moving together in one direction, paddling the same

canoe.

Let’s get the process right before shovels hit the ground so we are not forced to

clean up after policy failures later on.

Misty Van Popta : Glad to be here to speak to Bill 14. I just want to talk a little bit about my community,

about Langley. We’ve got some energy needs there. We’re one of the fastest-growing

municipalities in British Columbia. We’ve got needs for a new substation in my community.

When I look at Bill 14, I don’t see how those needs will be met in my community.

There’s lots to say. My colleagues here have spoken to the different pieces of Bill

14. I thought I would actually kind of jump in a little bit further into it, just

talk about some of the pieces that I see in regards to recovery and fees — things

like that. Riveting information here.

I’m going to jump in with clause 12 of Bill 14. It authorizes the B.C. Energy Regulator

to impose levies retroactively. The effective date for those levies is set as April

1, 2024, a full year before this bill comes into force.

The mechanism is straightforward. The commissioner issues a certificate to the project

proponent, public or private, requiring them to pay a specified amount. That amount

is determined unilaterally. Once served and published online, it becomes enforceable.

No appeal process is outlined.

Clause 11 expands on this by giving the board authority with Treasury Board approval

to increase, decrease or disapply fees entirely. The board can make different determinations

for different projects or classes of proponents, in effect a flexible fee structure,

discretionary in both amount and application.

These are not incidental powers. They redefine the financial relationship between

government, regulator and industry. The regulator becomes both the adjudicator and

creditor with little transparency required beyond the posting of a certificate.

[1:55 p.m.]

The question is not whether levies are appropriate. The question is whether they are

predictable, proportionate and subject to independent oversight. In Bill 14, they

are not. There is no formula laid out, no public framework for how costs are calculated,

no requirement that fees reflect actual environmental burden, project scale or public

input. Just a levy, issued at discretion, potentially backdated by more than a year.

This creates uncertainty, not just for project proponents but for communities like

mine. When regulator costs are unstable, the consequences cascade. Capital is relocated,

timelines shift, and project designs change, all of it without public input. We are

legislating risk into the system, not operational risk but regulatory unpredictability.

British Columbians who ultimately bear the economic and environmental consequences

of these projects are left without a clear map, without recourse, without context.

This may be legally sound, but it is structurally flawed. Sound regulation depends

on two things: clear rules and credible process. Bill 14 provides neither. It introduces

a “pay now, explain later” model, it makes financial obligations retroactive, and

it places critical fiscal powers into the hands of a regulator whose core mandate

is approvals, not financial fairness. There is no built-in auditing function, no mechanism

for reviewing the scope or impact of a levy once imposed, no assurance of parity between

projects of similar scale.

Again, this is not about intent. It’s about structure. Once a precedent is set for

retroactive fees, once we grant a regulator the right to rewrite financial obligations

after the fact, we are no longer operating under a rule book. We are waiting for the

next memo. Legislation should never leave the public or private sector guessing, but

in this case, both are left to speculate. That is not streamlining. That is improvisation

at a legislative level.

Bill 14 is not an isolated case. It must be understood within a context of a pattern,

one that is beginning to define this government’s legislative posture. It follows

Bill 7, which sought to grant extraordinary authority to the Minister of Housing to

override local governments and to rezone land at will. That bill was rightfully scrutinized

for its centralization of power.

Now Bill 14 extends a similar authority structure into the energy and environmental

space. The mechanism is different, but the trajectory is the same: move decision-making

out of sight, away from public processes; concentrate it within the regulatory or

executive discretion; reduce legislative debate; minimize local input; and sideline

oversight.

This bill allows cabinet, by regulation, to determine which projects are exempt from

environmental assessments, which lands can be used outside of agricultural purposes,

which fees will be imposed and which parts of standing legislation will apply or not

apply. It also allows the B.C. Energy Regulator to alter or ignore conditions set

under other statutes without needing to seek legislative amendment, without public

hearings and without direct accountability to this House.

This is not just a question of policy design. It’s a question of legislative culture.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, it’s the kind of shift that happens quietly until one day we

look up and realize how much has moved behind closed doors.

Now, let me be fair here. I do not believe every member across the aisle is comfortable

with this. I believe some are as concerned as we are about what it means to give regulators

the authority to bypass environmental law, heritage protections and long-standing

land use frameworks.

[2:00 p.m.]

In fact, I suspect many feel the weight of this in their own constituencies when farmers,

fishers and rural residents ask what protections remain when a project is classified

as streamlined, when Indigenous leaders ask what consultation truly looks like under

this bill, when community stakeholders read clause 13 and realize how easily foundational

acts can be rewritten from inside cabinet. This is where the bill becomes more than

a document. It becomes a decision.

Embedded in Bill 14 is not just a set of permissions. It’s a philosophy, a governing

approach that says urgency justifies expedience, that the right people with the right

tools don’t need the same guardrails, that if the goal is good, the process can bend.

But good intentions are not good governance, and even good outcomes cannot excuse

bad precedents. We were not elected to manage the outcome alone. We were elected to

steward the process, to ensure that the path we take is as legitimate as the result

we seek.

Once we accept the idea that fundamental frameworks — environmental review, land protection,

public input — can be turned off when they become inconvenient, we create a future

that is governed by exemption. That’s what’s at stake here, not just the projects

outlined in this bill but the precedent it sets for every project that follows. Excellent

guidance.

I’ll strike a deeply thoughtful, grounded tone, appealing not to party lines but to

shared conviction. I’m really struggling. I’m really struggling with a lot of things

that have happened today. We’ve heard a lot of words in these chambers, especially

over Bill 14. I’ll mention Bill 15 just briefly, even though it’s before the House

— not what’s being said in the chambers but outside.

I’m really scared for a lot of these bills and the tones that they’re setting and

how we got to a place in this chamber where we’re given the tools by our constituents

and those who have voted for us to act responsibly, to not bypass procedure, to not

bypass standing orders to get things done.

There are moments in this House when the weight of a vote exceeds the weight of legislation.

This is one of those moments. While Bill 14 is presented as a renewable energy framework,

it is, in truth, a referendum on how much authority we are willing to concede for

convenience, for pace, for process. Every member of this Legislature will have to

live with the decision they make here, not only politically but personally.

I want to be very clear. The questions I’m about to pose are not partisan; they are

principled. They are the questions any thoughtful legislator on either side of this

House should be asking before voting in favour of a bill like this.

First, why does this legislation allow a regulator to act retroactively? Why is it

necessary to validate actions that were taken before the law existed, unless those

actions would have otherwise been challengeable?

Second, why is the Environmental Assessment Act being deliberately disapplied, instead

of updated to accommodate renewable development? If the government believes in clean

energy, why not pursue clean governance alongside it?

Third, why does this bill override agricultural land protections, heritage, oversight,

safety standards and public access to wildlife regulation, silently through delegation

rather than transparently through debate?

[2:05 p.m.]

Fourth, why are fees and levies enforceable by certificate followed to be imposed

retroactively without a clear methodology or appeal process?

Perhaps most important of all, why does cabinet require the power to apply, modify

or disapply entire sections of the Energy Resource Activities Act by regulation, without

legislative approval?

These are not minor queries. These are structural questions. Every one of us in this

House has a duty to ask them, because the people we represent cannot ask them for

us, not once the vote is cast.

You see, this is what it means to govern — not just to stand for outcomes but to uphold

the process that brings them about, not just to chase the goal but to protect the

ground we stand on while we do it. That’s where the tension of this moment lives.

If we vote to pass this bill, we are not just voting for renewable energy. We are

voting to accept that the ends justify the means, that because we like the label on

the front of the bill, we’re willing to overlook what’s written inside.

Some may choose to do that, but that choice will be remembered. It will be remembered

by local governments who find themselves sidelined on permitting decisions. It will

be remembered by Indigenous nations who read the fine print and find consultation

replaced with delegation. It will be remembered by farmers who discover their land

use protections evaporated through cabinet regulation. It will be remembered by families,

workers and industry who realize too late that oversight was traded for speed.

We did not run for office to make decisions in the absence of scrutiny. We came here

to serve, to steward and to stand for something that holds and to make the tough decisions.

When we cast our votes on Bill 14, that’s exactly what we will be doing — standing

for something, either for the integrity of process or for the convenience of bypassing

it, either for a vision of renewable development that includes the public or one that

edits them out.

I urge every member of this chamber, before the votes are called, before the lines

are drawn, to remember what you came here to do. The public may not remember every

clause, but they will remember where we stood. I, for one, want to be found standing

on the side of clarity, of accountability and for the people who trusted us to hold

the line.

I want to close by returning to something simple, something that shouldn’t be controversial.

British Columbians deserve good governance — not perfect governance, not effortless

governance but good governance. Measured, principled, accountable. It’s the kind that

doesn’t hide authority behind regulation, the kind that doesn’t trade away process

for expedience, the kind that doesn’t sell the promise of progress while writing off

the protections that give progress its meaning.

Bill 14 does not reflect that standard. It may contain elements of positive intent.

It may streamline development. It may even enable projects that are, on their own,

worthwhile. But taken as a whole, this legislation crosses a line and does so without

apology. It centralizes authority. It suspends oversight. It dilutes land protections.

It weakens heritage conservation. It creates retroactive powers with no natural limits.

It rewrites legislative frameworks without requiring legislative debate. Not once

does it offer a credible answer to the question: why must this be done this way?

We are not opposing this bill because we oppose renewable energy. We are opposing

it because the means matter, because democracy is not just what you say; it’s how

you move.

[2:10 p.m.]

When the public stops recognizing the system they’re being governed by, you lose more

than their consent. You lose their trust. This isn’t a partisan objection; this is

a principled one.

The principle is this: climate solutions cannot come at the cost of democratic erosion.

The residents of British Columbia are not just asking for clean energy. They’re asking

for clarity and for confidence, for a government that doesn’t force them choose between

progress and participation. If this House passes Bill 14 as it stands, we are telling

them that their say is secondary, that decisions affecting their land, their water,

their safety and their future can be made by regulation, exemption and delegation,

that accountability is negotiable when the project is big enough.

I reject that message, because clean energy deserves clean government, and clean government

demands more than speed. It demands scrutiny. It demands structure. It demands laws

that can be trusted not just to deliver outcomes but to reflect the values we promised

when we ran for office in the first place.

Today we can choose to stand for something deeper than efficiency. We can stand for

balance. We can stand for transparency. We can stand for the long view, for the idea

that how we build matters as much as what we build. That’s the vote.

I believe when the dust settles, when the details are remembered, when the public

looks back and asks who stood up and said, “This is too far,” they’ll find those of

us who voted against this bill not because we’re obstructionists but because we were

builders too — builders of trust, builders of good governance, builders of a future

where the public still has a seat at the table.

I urge this House to take the harder road, the road of restraint, of reform and of

respect. I will be saying no to Bill 14. Say yes to something better.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call on the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions

to close our debate on Bill 14.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Thank you to all the members of the House who participated in the debate on all sides.

Bill 14 is important legislation. It, essentially, assists us in doing what we need

to do, which is to build in this province, to build clean energy projects and to make

the way we deal with clean energy projects, in terms of how we regulate them and how

we address them, more efficient.

Members of the House will know, and I’ll just say, that I’ve been a long-time member

of the House, and I believe in the role of opposition strongly in the House. But I

think there is an obligation to be factual. There is an obligation to not, I think,

mislead — inadvertently, perhaps, but mislead nonetheless.

Deputy Speaker : Member, we are always careful around that kind of language.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I know. That’s why I say that, hon. Speaker, because I think we have legislation

here that is consistent with legislation that has been passed in this House for decades.

The legislation in this bill, this legislation, puts renewable energy projects under

the B.C. Energy Regulator.

You know what else is under the B.C. Energy Regulator? Oil and gas companies. You

know when we started doing that? 1998. You know what happened in the House? It passed

unanimously.

All of these issues, all of these responsibilities that are now being assigned to

renewable energy projects, essentially, have been dealt with in the oil and gas industry

by the same regulator for 25 years. We have an experience with this. So when people

talk about new things and ignore the fact that they supported that…. And they support

it.

Would anyone on that side of the House suggest that we should eliminate the B.C. Energy

Regulator from oil and gas? Surely, the member for Kamloops Centre isn’t arguing that,

that we didn’t….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker : The minister has the floor.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, hon. Speaker, the member for Kamloops Centre and his former party, profiles

in courage…. He moved to a new party just before the election.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Here he is, and that’s good. And here I am.

The B.C. Energy Regulator has had that in place for 25 years.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker : Member, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix : We debate the estimates every year. And even though the B.C. Energy Regulator has

some responsibilities for the ALR under its legislation, not once has any member of

the opposition raised any issues about how they dealt with that. Not once in all that

time.

We have the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, which I’ll start with. He says

the opposition cares about ratepayers. Well, before we got here, 16 years before we

got here, he was part of that government. In his long period as a Liberal activist

and MLA, we saw B.C. Hydro rates increase 54 percent above the rate of inflation over

that period.

Do you know what has happened to them since this government has come to office? They’ve

declined 12 percent below the rate of inflation.

I heard them all say it: “We’re in favour of renewable energy.” But transmission is

critical to renewable energy. Transmission projects are renewable energy projects,

and they’re against the North Coast transmission line. They’re against the line that

brings renewable energy, produced in the North, to the northwest. They’re against

that. How do I know that? Because they’ve said so. They want to put an immediate stop

to that project, and the Leader of the Opposition opposes it. Are they against renewable

energy? You bet they’re against renewable energy.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests: “Well, we’re not really against wind power.”

But what does he actually say? What does he actually think about wind power? When

we heard, “We’re in favour of wind power, just not this wind power,” or not this way

for wind power. What does he say about wind power? It’s a dream. He says: “It’s a

dream. It’s a fantasy. You might as well be running the country on unicorn farts.”

Not my words, but the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who says he’s in favour

of wind energy.

He’s not in favour of wind energy. He’s not in favour of renewable energy. The opposition

is not in favour of wind energy, and they’re not in favour of renewable energy. That’s

fair. They can oppose the bill, I suppose, on that basis. But I think — and I say

this with all due respect, as the members of the opposition said from time to time

in their speeches — that the discussion from the Leader of the Opposition and members

of the opposition about their support for the Environmental Assessment Act….

They started this session by saying, and I quote: “We should suspend all but the essential

requirements in the Environmental Assessment Act.” They want to gut the Environmental

Assessment Act. And they spent days here, 37 speeches here, saying they’re in favour

of the Environmental Assessment Act. They’re against it. They want to immediately

provide, under that act, a ten-year extension to already permitted natural gas pipeline

projects. So I guess for some projects they’re against, and for some, they’re in favour.

They’re either against or mostly against.

In fact, these are their party policies. Can you believe you would advocate for gutting

the Environmental Assessment Act at the beginning of the session and then end the

session saying you’re the big supporters of the Environmental Assessment Act? No one

on earth will be fooled by that.

Now, we did have a chance…. My friend from Kamloops referred to the fact that I listen

to speeches in the Legislature. Yes, I do, because when my bill is before the Legislature,

I like to listen to members speak. I’d say there were two different sets of speech

notes. The member for Peace River South gave a speech. I don’t agree with a lot of

what was in his speech, but there was nothing…. There were moments of disagreement

on matters of policy. He’s a serious person who knows a lot about energy. I have a

lot of respect for him. He didn’t make any inaccurate statements in his speech.

The member for Kamloops Centre — I disagree with a lot of what he said, really profoundly

disagree on points of history and everything else. I think we’d say we disagree. We’d

have a good debate about it. He didn’t say any inaccurate things. He didn’t use the

speech notes everyone else did.

[2:20 p.m.]

Everyone else, 161. Let’s call them, respectfully, inaccuracies, 161. Now, this is

a bill about streamlining process, so it would be wrong for me to go through all 161

inaccuracies. I’ve decided to group them. I decided to group them in the name of streamlining.

So 22 members of the opposition made allegations, I guess you’d call them, about worker

safety. They include the members from Surrey–White Rock, Richmond Centre, Prince George–North

Cariboo, Abbotsford South, Bulkley Valley–Stikine, Surrey-Panorama Ridge, Salmon Arm–Shuswap,

Kelowna Centre, Langley-Willowbrook, Abbotsford-Mission, Maple Ridge East, Kootenay-Rockies,

Chilliwack North, Surrey–Serpentine River, Boundary-Similkameen, Prince George–Mackenzie,

Fraser-Nicola, North Island, Comox-Courtenay, Abbotsford West and, yes, Penticton.

And I don’t want to forget my friend from Langley, who finished it. It was after I

finished the list.

They said…. Let me just give you what the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine said:

“Another deeply troubling provision in Bill 14 is its removal of the Safety Standards

Act.”

Bill 14 does not reduce any safety requirement — not one. All of those members…. There

were 22 of them. What they said wasn’t true. There are not overlapping safety regulators

in a facility that is permitted and regulated by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Section 17 of the bill disapplies a select provision of the Safety Standards Act related

to gas systems, pressure piping and refrigeration equipment at renewable energy facilities,

to ensure that Technical Safety B.C. and the BCER are not regulating the same equipment.

This is the same model that is currently used for oil and gas and hydrogen facilities.

By legislation, the hydrogen bill was passed three years ago. I say this to the member

from Kamloops South. He was here. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to that legislation.

He didn’t raise this issue because it is not an issue.

Work site safety is regulated by WorkSafeBC under the Occupational Health and Safety

Regulation. The bill does not change, in one iota, WorkSafeBC’s responsibilities or

the requirement for worker safety. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie said that

this was one of the main reasons, this issue of worker safety, that he can’t support

the bill, so I’m glad to clear that up for him. Maybe he will vote for it at the end

of the day.

If the legislation was doing what they said it was, you would have to believe that

there is no worker safety law or protections in oil and gas, which is absolutely preposterous.

You know who said that it was absolutely preposterous? Well, he didn’t use those words.

The member for Peace River South, who knows something about the industry, said that

the safety standards in oil and gas are exceptional, in contradiction to 22 of his

colleagues. Exceptional, by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

The BCER….

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The BCER…. I’m happy that…. I’m just bringing supporters to my cause, I say to the

hon. member from Kamloops.

The BCER…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix : …has been overseeing safety in the facilities that it regulates since 1998. They

should know that before they try and scare working people with statements that are

not correct.

The BCER has a dedicated compliance and enforcement staff and emergency response that

work with the public industry and public safety agencies to prevent accidents and

ensure safety. I think the oil and gas industry — surely, we all agree — does a good

job under the direction, of course, of WorkSafe and of the BCER. That argument, which

22 members used, is just false.

They talked about the Heritage Conservation Act. I won’t list off all the members,

but there were a lot of them. There were a lot of them who spoke about the Heritage

Conservation Act, which, of course, continues to apply as it applied before. So 18

of their members…. Oh, wait, 20 of their members, as I have to bring it up to date

to today, talked about the Heritage Conservation Act.

Bill 14 gives the BCER the same powers under the Heritage Conservation Act that it

already has for oil and gas. How about that? These statements that were made…. It

allows, of course, the Minister of Forests to delegate additional authorities to the

BCER, as is the case now. The Ark of Katie project, which is before us — lots of issues

around archaeology dealt with by the BCER, applying the Heritage Conservation Act.

[2:25 p.m.]

The member for Abbotsford-Mission, for instance, said: “The bill is a profound degrading

of the way things currently are, of what we protect and who gets to decide.” It’s

exactly the same. In exercising delegated powers under the Heritage Conservation Act,

the BCER would be subject to all the constraints that the minister or ministry officials

would be.

The member for Richmond-Bridgeport said: “Chinese pioneer burial grounds and archaeological

zones could be bulldozed.” Imagine saying such a thing when it’s just not true. Imagine

trying to use such a tactic to scare people. There’s a debate to be had on this legislation.

There always is. You don’t need to do that. You don’t need to bring forward information

that is wrong. You don’t need to frighten people about issues that clearly aren’t

issues. Everybody knows they’re not issues. Everybody who sees them are not issues.

In fact, in terms of the Heritage Conservation Act, there is no change. And the system

that’s in place has been in place with the BCER since the Heritage Conservation Act

was in place, something the members of the opposition should know, because they have

a duty in our system as well.

The Wildlife Act. I can’t even list off the number of inaccurate statements made about

the Wildlife Act. An effort, and I’d say this…. You, hon. Speaker, in your speech

in the Legislature, talked about the real concerns people have in communities about

the application that guide-outfitters have and hunters have. There are real issues

out there. We don’t have to find issues. We don’t need to create issues that aren’t

there. There are real issues to debate and discuss and serious ones. Thirty-three

members of the opposition spoke about this, and their assertions are simply wrong.

For example, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, my friend, went so far as to

tell his constituents that it includes powers to arbitrarily cancel hunting, angling

and guide-outfitter licences without hearing. That’s an end quote. I’m not sure why

misinformation would be provided to constituents, but I’m happy to correct the record.

The issuance and administration of hunting and other licences are authorized under

separate powers of the Wildlife Act and not included in Bill 14, something that had

people attended briefings that were offered they would have known. These authorities

remain with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

The B.C. Energy Regulator is regulating the proponent of a renewable energy project

and the authorizations of that proponent. The regulator will not be able to cancel

or suspend permits issued to someone that is not the proponent of a renewable energy

project. That is exactly the opposite of what 31 members of the opposition said.

Again, you can disagree with this bill without saying things that are completely untrue

and trying…. I suppose it’s in the interests of the opposition to promote uncertainty

and confusion and problems in its own sort of private interests, but it sure as heck

isn’t in the interests of the people who live their lives and care profoundly about

the Wildlife Act.

The first provisions about suspension and cancellation for cause in the Wildlife Act

were put in place in 1966. I was two. W.A.C. Bennett was the Premier of British Columbia.

They stayed in place under every government. The only thing that really fundamentally

changed in that time was a provision about the opportunity to be heard, which was

added by the Glen Clark government in around 1999. They continued to be in place under

all the NDP and Liberal governments that followed, and they stay in place today.

The fact of the matter is Bill 14 does not remove any existing requirements or processes

under the Wildlife Act, and Bill 14 does not allow the BCER to cancel hunting or other

licences. This is just a fact, contrary to what 31 members of the opposition said.

Another large number of members of the opposition, 27 of them, talked about agricultural

land. Now, the provisions around agricultural land mirror the provisions that are

already in place for the BCER, because the agricultural land reserve, like all the

other acts I talked about, still apply. When you go to one-window regulation, which

we have for oil and gas and which we’re going to have, if this bill passes, for renewables….

That’s the issue we’re talking about here. The legislation here gives the BCER delegated

authority to approve non-farm use for the purpose of facilitating oil and gas projects

under the act, and that is currently the power that they have now for the oil and

gas industry.

[2:30 p.m.]

The proposed legislation, again, supports a one-window approach by extending the BCER’s

authority over agricultural land to renewable energy and transmission line projects.

In similar ways, the existing Agricultural Land Commission delegation agreement, under

which the BCER already makes decisions regarding non-farm use of agricultural land….

This is a delegated authority that has been in place for years. I have been in this

Legislature for 20 years, and I have never heard anyone challenge that in this Legislature

— not one time. The act applies. It should apply, and of course what we’re doing here

is applying it in the same way to renewable energy, effectively under the B.C. Energy

Regulator, as we do now for the oil and gas industry.

Now, if members want to get up and say we shouldn’t do that with the oil and gas industry,

that’s fair enough. But they can’t say, “Oh, we support renewable energy,” and then

say, “We shouldn’t do that,” or that there’s some principle that they’re defending

agricultural land. I’ll tell you who defends agricultural land in this Legislature.

That’s the people on this side of the House.

A bunch of people….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members, we’ll call for order. Calling for order.

Calling for order, Member.

Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Several of the members of the opposition, 16 of them, suggested that…. I’ll just quote

the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap, because many of the speeches were extremely similar.

“It gives regulators the power to rewrite primary legislation.”

As the member for Kamloops–North Thompson stated — I’m trying to spread it out, I

say to the member — “They can rewrite whatever they want.” That’s what he says. This

is absolutely false. There is nothing in this bill that gives the BCER the ability

to rewrite acts, just nothing.

We’re in front of the Legislature to determine whether the BCER will become the regulator

in new areas, which is something we did three years ago with hydrogen, and it was

unanimously supported in the Legislature. All the same issues apply. The Leader of

the Opposition spoke in the debate. He didn’t oppose the legislation. They are now,

because there are politics for them involved, but not the public interest involved.

This is not a power that the BCER has on its own or a power that it can have on its

own.

There was a lot of talk about cost recovery and how this was somehow bad for the economy.

Well, that’s how the BCER functions, right? That’s how it functions. One of the reasons,

and there’s an argument for it, is that it makes it an effective regulator.

The proponents, the industry, through fees for actions of the BCER, pays for the BCER.

And in this case, in cost recovery, we’re saying that renewable energy providers or

applicants will pay for the application process. That’s what we’re saying. These are

routine mechanisms that address clarity.

There’s one part of it that’s one of my favourite parts, where the members of the

opposition talk about retroactive levies, and they make extraordinary statements about

them. I’ll tell you what it is, how it works and why it’s in place.

Oil and gas producers would have a legitimate concern if the BCER, which is funded

not by government directly but through fees, was paying for the regulation of renewable

energy. In the period when the BCER is addressing renewable energy, before the act

comes into place, we put in provisions to allow them to pay for that so that the oil

and gas industry doesn’t have to pay for it. You have a circumstance where the applicant

pays for the regulation.

Those being regulated pay for the regulation, not the taxpayer. That makes sense.

It has been supported in the past. It has been supported by the Conservative Party

in the past. And it allows them, also, because it’s a one-window regulator, to do

full-cycle regulation.

We heard a lot about what happens when windmills have to be taken down or they’re

abandoned. It’s a full-cycle regulator just like in oil and gas. People who work in

those areas will know exactly what I’m talking about. Those provisions are in place

in the transitional period to ensure that the people who get the benefit from the

regulation, those applying for renewable energy projects, pay for it and not, say,

other people who pay for the BCER, like oil and gas companies. That’s what it’s for.

[2:35 p.m.]

When people say…. As the member, my friend for West Kelowna–Peachland, because I’m

trying to spread it around a bit, says: “Let’s talk about retroactivity. Bill 14 grants

the government retroactivity. That means a person or business — be it a guide-outfitter,

a landowner, a small clean energy operator or even a local First Nation — can find

themselves subject to new rules, penalties or obligations for actions they took before

those rules even existed.” That is just completely untrue.

That is the application. That is the so-called retroactivity, and that’s what we’ve

been talking about in this legislation. We have heard speech after speech say: “It’s

contrary to the rule of law. It’s authoritarianism.” It’s ensuring that the people

who are being regulated pay for that regulation and not people who aren’t being regulated.

That’s the purpose of it. Again, not a mistake the member for Peace River South made,

because he read the legislation and understood it. He criticized the legislation effectively

without doing that.

I spoke earlier about environmental assessment. I’ll just say one thing about appeals,

because there are claims, on the opposition side, of some change around how appeals

are handled. Bill 14 does not change any existing appeal frameworks under any act.

By adding renewable energy projects under the ERAA framework, there may be some additional

decisions that become appealable. In other words, more appeals, not less.

While the decisions respecting agricultural land, and the member will know this, under

the proposed act are not appealable, those specific decisions are not appealable now

under the Agricultural Land Commission, as the member well knows.

I guess, finally, we have to talk about renewable energy. We’ve understood in these

161 inaccuracies, let’s call them, about heritage conservation, about agricultural

land, about retroactivity, about how the B.C. Energy Regulator functions. That has

been the basis of all of the speeches.

All of the speeches included this one thing: “We believe in renewable energy but just

not this. We believe that renewable energy should be subject to a multiministry regulation

but not oil and gas. We believe that renewable energy is a great thing. Really, we

do. We’re in favour of the North Coast transmission line. Really, we are.” Except

they’re not.

It’s their position that they’re opposed to the North Coast transmission line. They’re

opposed to people in the northwest benefiting from energy produced in the North, the

people who want to see more mining and more critical minerals and more activity in

the Port of Prince Rupert and, yes, more LNG in the northwest done in the northwest.

We always hear how they support the North. This isn’t supporting the North. Opposing

transmission lines across the North to bring energy to the northwest is not supporting

the North. It’s damaging the interests of the North in the partisan interests of the

Conservative Party.

I repeated earlier — I won’t repeat them again, because the comments of the Leader

of the Opposition might well be unparliamentary — how he describes what he believes

about wind energy. Well, here’s what we believe. Here’s what we believe about transmission

lines and renewable energy. We believe it’s part of the economic future of B.C., as

it has been part of the past, as it is part of the present.

We saw that there was — and I’m talking back to 2000 — a 3½-year average for environmental

assessment for projects that largely had the same results through environmental assessment.

So we’ve changed that. We’ve come to the Legislature, and we’ve changed that.

We’ve maintained and are strengthening the permitting regime. It makes sense to have

a single permitting regulator. It makes sense. That’s why we did it in 1998 for oil

and gas. That’s why we did it three years ago, with the support of the Conservative

Party, for hydrogen. That’s why we’re doing it now.

We need to go as a province. This is a critical moment in our history as a province.

We are being challenged. The basis of our economy and, yes, our sovereignty is being

challenged by the President of the United States — no small thing. We need to diversify

our economy and ensure we have the electricity to build that growing economy in the

future.

[2:40 p.m.]

We’ve never had this many requests for energy or this much hope around economic development

in the northwest, and everywhere else. And we are acting in a way consistent, I think,

with what’s happened in the past, consistent with the best possible regulation, consistent

with the principle that we need to build our province and create wealth in these times,

that we need to address climate change in these times.

We have a Leader of the Opposition that doesn’t believe in the science of climate

change. Well, we believe in the science of climate change. We have a Leader of the

Opposition that doesn’t believe in renewable energy. Well, we believe in renewable

energy.

The Leader of the Opposition, when we named 18 priority projects, was against 12 of

them. We believe in building British Columbia. Bill 14 helps build British Columbia.

I ask all members of the House to support it.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question before this House is second reading of Bill 14, intituled Renewable

Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Division has been called.

[2:45 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : Members, the question before the House is second reading of Bill 14, intituled Renewable

Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

G. Anderson

Blatherwick

Elmore

Sunner

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Davidson

Kahlon

Parmar

Gibson

Beare

Chandra Herbert

Wickens

Kang

Morissette

Sandhu

Krieger

Chant

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Higginson

Routledge

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Begg

Greene

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Chow

Glumac

Arora

Shah

Phillip

Dhir

Lore

NAYS — 43

Sturko

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Rustad

Banman

Wat

Kooner

Halford

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Gasper

K. Neufeld

Day

Block

Bhangu

Paton

Boultbee

Chan

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Rattée

Davis

McInnis

Bird

Luck

Stamer

Maahs

Tepper

Mok

Wilson

Clare

Williams

Loewen

Dhaliwal

Doerkson

Chapman

McCall

Valeriote

Botterell

Hon. Adrian Dix : I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

The Chair : We will call the chamber back to order, and we will call on the minister to move

the vote and give us some opening remarks.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $426,950,000.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you for the opportunity to make opening remarks. We’ll be discussing Budget

2025 and a number of the important measures that are included. This is essentially

a budget that was brought forward during, perhaps, the most economically consequential

time in recent history, with the threat of unjustified tariffs coming to us from the

south.

This budget stands strong for British Columbians and focuses on protecting public

services and at the same time managing our finances carefully, ensuring that every

dollar lands to the best benefit of British Columbians.

This budget supports businesses that create jobs and focuses on economic growth in

our province. We’re diversifying where we sell our products and our resources, and

we’re growing a more self-sufficient economy, all in partnership with First Nations,

with business, with labour.

While we are focused on economic growth, we are also protecting the services that

are so deeply important and core to British Columbians. For example, this budget added

$4.2 billion over three years to health care to continue growing the capacity across

our health care system — more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals and supporting

the SFU medical school.

Adding to the historic $1 billion in mental health care investment, there is $500

million over the fiscal plan. This will help us to continue to support made-in-British-Columbia

models of care like Road to Recovery, the Foundry centres for youth and Indigenous-led

treatment recovery and services. And $15.5 billion over three years to continue to

build hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities. Publicly funded and universally

accessible quality health care is part of who we are as Canadians.

Budget ’25 also included $370 million over three years to hire more teachers and support

staff, including special education teachers, psychologists and counsellors; $172 million

over three years to support more children with autism, with serious disabilities and

complex care needs; $4.6 billion to build, systematically upgrade and renovate schools

and playgrounds throughout the province; $16 billion to build more bridges, roads

and transit for people to get to and from work and, so importantly, to ensure supply

chain resiliency, keeping both people and, importantly, goods moving.

In Budget ’25, we’re also increasing the speculation and vacancy tax to turn more

empty homes into homes for people. There are 90,000 already underway or delivered,

not through speculation but through the builds that we’re doing. Speculation brought

in about 20,000 homes so far, and 90,000 additional homes are underway and/or delivered

throughout the province.

We’re reducing costs for families by making housing more affordable: $1.1 billion

over four years, including $318 million for BC Builds. We’re focusing on making communities

safer: $325 million over three years for justice and public safety, including $24

million to provide timely access to justice.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’re building up B.C.’s critical infrastructure. So $45.9 million of capital funding

over the next three years will deliver more, really, of everything — housing, schools,

health care facilities, and so on.

This is a time when we have to do two things simultaneously. We have to make sure

that every dollar is being well spent, carefully spent and reviewed, and we need to

make sure that we’re protecting services for British Columbians.

I look forward to discussing and to answering the questions of the member opposite

as we get into the estimates for Finance.

The Chair : Thank you very much, Minister. We will be contemplating the Ministry of Finance budget

estimates this afternoon.

Peter Milobar : Thanks to the minister for the opening comments, and thank you to the minister’s

staff for being here over the next several days as we delve through the budget.

I’ll leave my opening remarks to that. I probably said enough during the budget speech,

the Bill 5 speech or committee stage of Bill 5 on some of the background.

Just jumping straight in, I’m wondering if the minister, in last year’s fiscal plan….

Of course, these are three-year fiscal plans, so last year’s fiscal plan had a projection

for this year of the 2025-26 budget.

Did those projections include provisions for the new collective agreements that need

to be negotiated this year with the public sector? Were those potential costs factored

into the ’25-26 projection in last year’s fiscal plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Yes, and thank you to the member for the question.

We did plan for the mandate in last year’s projections for this year, and those figures

were held in contingency.

Peter Milobar : Thank you for that.

Last year there was a projected deficit of almost $7.8 billion for this fiscal year,

but that was predicated on a 2.3 percent GDP growth, which is obviously lower this

year. How significantly does the interplay of GDP growth and the deficit interconnect?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : To the member’s question, in regards to the interplay of budgeting and projections

of GDP, of course, it’s a very important factor as we’re looking at revenue projections

and a key driver for revenue impact. As we receive economic data, of course, we do

quarterly updates.

Peter Milobar : Just so I’m clear then, if GDP growth was to drop a bit, of course, it’s not unrealistic

to think that a deficit might grow if spending stayed, to try to protect some of the

core services and things that the minister has talked about.

Can the minister confirm then, in the fall economic update — the six-month check-in,

as it were — that the projected GDP growth for this year had been downgraded from

that 2.3 percent down to 1.9 percent already?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m happy to share this information with the member opposite in regards to GDP projections

for 2025.

In Budget 2024, the projection was for 2.3. In the first quarterly, in 2024, the projection

was 2. Fall 2024 update, which was in early December, was 1.9.

Peter Milobar : So it went from 2.3 to 1.9. Projected deficit was originally $7.8 billion, based

on that 2.3. Certainly, the government must have been expecting that the deficit would

be growing, given that GDP was dropping quite significantly.

Can the minister, then, confirm…. I think it’s pretty straightforward, but just so

we get it on the record. This year’s fiscal plan…. Last year projected at 2.3. At

the six-month check-in point, 1.9 percent GDP growth. And this year’s fiscal plan

was actually built around a 1.8 percent GDP growth, which means, essentially, almost

the same as the six-month check-in.

[3:15 p.m.]

At that point, had the government already realized their projections from the previous

year were not going to be met and the deficit would indeed be much higher than the

$7.8 billion projected, heading into this fiscal?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : For the member’s benefit, I’ll describe a number of factors that led to the change

to $9.4 billion. It’s not, of course, one factor, and it would be wrong to suggest

that GDP is isolated in this way.

I have in front of me what we refer to as a “waterfall chart,” which shows ups and

downs that explain changes that we see in the first-quarter report, ‘24-25.

So $391 million down was related to lower corporate income tax than had been predicted;

$146 million, lower sales tax revenue; $193 million, lower natural resource revenue;

$146 million, higher investment earnings; $392 million to the positive, higher commercial

Crown net income; $130 million to the negative, other revenue changes; $118 million

to the positive, fire management costs; $225 million to the negative, statutory and

other expense changes.

All of those factors together led to the $9.4 billion prediction.

Peter Milobar : So here’s the problem I have. We have the minister saying that GDP growth plays a

significant part or is an important

part in projecting revenues of government. I can

appreciate that. We have GDP growth that went from a predicted 2.3 percent down to

1.8 percent.

Yet government revenues in that same time frame went from a projected $82.8 billion

to $84 billion. So despite a declining GDP, the government decided, in this budget,

to ramp up revenue projections. At the same time, we have expenses projected at $90.6

billion, now at almost $95 billion.

[3:20 p.m.]

So when the minister says that this is a budget that’s keeping a keen eye on expenses

and the dollars and spending and making sure we’re not undermining, and it’s supposed

to be predicated on GDP growth playing a significant

part in projections, at first

blush you would think, well, we went from a $7.8 billion projected deficit to $10.9

billion because of GDP growth slowing down. But the revenues don’t indicate that.

We went to a higher deficit despite higher revenues, which is totally contrary to

a sinking GDP.

Now, the interesting thing is if you take that extra $4.3 billion of spending and

subtract off the extra $1.16 billion of extra revenue the government has projected,

you wind up with $3.1 billion of extra expense. If you take that $3.1 billion of extra

expense, add it to the $7.8 billion projected deficit from last year, lo and behold,

you come out at exactly $10.9 billion, which is this year’s deficit.

So at a time when we’re struggling to get any clarity around certainty on these numbers,

can the minister explain? Was it just a mathematical quirk? Was it just blind luck

for the government? I mean, we’re talking about a potential fudge-it budget here.

We have GDP growth that’s plummeted by almost 25 percent of what was projected — quick

math off the top of my head. It might be higher; it might be a little bit lower. I

think it’s a little lower than that, maybe 20 percent. You have record spending. You

have revenues actually going up despite dropping GDP.

It appears it was just a simple calculation, one document to the other. Well, let’s

just take our revenue and expenses, add them together. If it’s positive, we have a

surplus. If it’s a negative, we have a deficit. Don’t worry about those other indicators

down below, things like GDP growth, debt-to-GDP ratios, nominal GDP growth, real GDP

growth. We’ll just do a top-end revenue expense, plus and minus, and call it a day.

Can the minister explain how, all of a sudden, in this year’s budget, GDP growth seems

to be completely detached away from the revenues and expenses to create our deficit

when, your first answer on last year’s projection, it was heavily tied to those projections

at 2.3 percent?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m not entirely sure I understood where the member had pulled his numbers from,

so I will ask for clarity there.

If he’s asking the simple question of if government revenue minus expenses equals

deficit, obviously the answer is yes. But the framing of GDP as being this all-encompassing

driver of revenue is not the correct framing. It’s an important aspect, but certainly

not the only one, which is why I responded to the member’s question with showing a

waterfall chart that walked through a number of the different puts and takes that

lead to the numbers that we have.

Perhaps for the member’s benefit, he might consider looking at last year’s chart 1.2

and comparing it to this year’s chart 1.2. I think that would help the member understand

the further complexity of what revenues are impacting.

Peter Milobar : My point is that it seems highly interesting that when GDP is actually dropping,

revenues are still actually going up to government. That’s an interesting take.

[3:30 p.m.]

I know, obviously, to get on page 1, to get to a deficit, I’d have even more questions

if it didn’t reconcile with A plus B equalling C. So in the interest of time, I’ll

continue to move on.

In terms of last year’s projections to this year’s projections, the minister has referenced

tariffs, for obvious reasons, in her opening comments in this book and throughout

the months leading up to today. How much in contingencies is set aside for tariff

response?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to point out that the member is saying GDP is dropping. Of course, we’re

talking about the rate of growth, so it’s not an absolute that’s dropping below zero.

This is a rate of growth and, of course, continues to be on the positive side.

In regards to the question about how much of our contingencies are specifically allotted….

The contingencies are $4 billion a year over the three years of the fiscal plan, and

there are a number of different uses for contingencies, one of them being…. Should

we need to fill in gaps from the federal response to the impact of tariffs on particular

businesses and people, then we’ll draw on those contingencies.

Peter Milobar : I’ll loop back. We’ll keep, probably, coming back every question on GDP at this rate.

The point being that GDP in last year’s — for this ’25-26 fiscal plan — projection,

the revenues used a 2.3 percent GDP growth to get to $82.838 billion. Again, GDP is

significant when it comes to revenues. GDP is the only indicator that we actually

use on page 1 to help explain some of the revenues that are coming into government

and a high-level, quick projection.

When I said GDP dropped, the projection the government then used for this year’s fiscal

plan had gone from 2.3 percent to 1.8 percent. I’m not disputing that, but that is

a drop of a projected GDP over the year. However, the government’s projected revenues

went from $82.833 billion to $84.003 billion.

That says to me that even though the government is acknowledging GDP is dropping on

their fiscal plan compared to what they thought last year, they’ve decided to show

revenues going up. It makes it very questionable where we’re going to land on our

first quarter update based on these types of projections, given that last year the

government was confident they’d be in the $7.8 billion deficit range, and this year

we’re already starting at $11 billion, and I haven’t even got close to touching on

carbon tax, as the minister is well aware. We’ll get into that later.

Now, the question on contingencies wasn’t everything else in the basket. It was certainly….

To get to a $4 billion number, the minister must have agreed to a notional number

that might be needed to help with tariff response. What was the number, the dollar

figure attached to tariff response? Not the exact programs that would be used, That’s

why it’s in contingencies, so it can have flexibility. I understand that. But there

had to have been a dollar figure to go into a calculation to get to a $4 billion contingency

fund.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’m not ready to stop talking about the question of GDP that the member has raised,

because it’s my belief that he’s incorrectly framing it.

It is true that an important consideration and modelling tool involved in predicting

our revenue is, of course, GDP and the advice that we get on what we expect GDP to

be. But it is also true there are other factors that are driving government revenue,

specifically natural gas. Commercial Crown and federal contributions are up, so that

is the explanation of why you’re seeing this increase in revenue.

I will direct the member to page 149, table A9 in the appendices, which clearly spells

that out and will help the member understand this point.

In regards to the contingencies question, it’s too early in the year for us to disclose

the specific contingency allotment. We do report on how they are used. We did increase

the contingencies number, and we’re also working to limit and reduce the way that

contingencies are used in a number of different ministries. We’ll be updating the

contingency use each quarter.

Peter Milobar : Well, I find that answer troubling. Again, it’s meant to be just a cumulative of

what this government is anticipating as potential tariff relief.

[3:40 p.m.]

This is a government that’s tried wrapping itself in the tariff war. There are responses

that are going to happen. Almost every piece of legislation, somehow, is getting tied

to tariffs and the urgency of needing it, no matter how long it has taken the legislation

to come to this chamber to be introduced or not, how long it has taken to action.

In fact, the only piece of legislation that moved quickly through this was to remove

carbon tax. That took 14 hours. Everything else has taken forever, even to hit the

floor.

I’m simply asking…. I don’t need to know what programs are being envisioned for tariff

response. I won’t be following up with those types of questions. I’m not asking for

any of that. I’m not asking for the timelines of when it might be disbursed. But we’re

talking about a budget that starts at an $11 billion budget deficit and is slated

to grow and grow.

The minister talks about getting spending under control and sharpening our pencils.

Surely, there needed to be a pencil that was pretty sharp for coming up with a number

to insert into contingencies that this government was contemplating. Within the basket

of issues within contingencies, there would be a projection for wildfire. There would

be a projection for flood disasters and things of that nature that happen. The minister

has already said that public sector bargaining is part of contingencies.

I am not understanding how we cannot get an idea of the order of magnitude, the dollar

figure within contingencies, that this government came up with. That would be the

one thing that has been added into contingencies from last year that didn’t exist:

the tariff war.

What was the dollar figure the government used to arrive at and put into the contingency

dollars?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : As the member knows, over the fiscal plan, we have $4 billion in contingencies each

of the three years, for $12 billion of contingencies. There are a number of different

uses for those contingencies that can come up during the year.

We don’t disclose that in advance, and we will be updating on it quarterly. It includes

a number of things that have variability — for example, the cost of wildfire response;

and it also will include any response that we need to initially respond to tariffs.

I do also just want to take issue with the member’s framing that somehow our government

has wrapped ourselves in…. I think the direct quote was that we wrapped ourselves

in the tariff war.

I just want to make it very clear for anyone listening: no one on this side and, I

imagine, in this House has any interest in a tariff war. This is not something we

want. This is not something we went looking for. But we do find ourselves in these

circumstances, and it’s imperative that we respond in a way that’s prudent and that

protects British Columbians. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

Peter Milobar : Well, if the minister doesn’t like “wrapping themselves in the tariff war” as a phrase,

I’m not sure what other phrasing would be more amenable to her. The reality is that

this budget….

In fact, page 1: “Budget 2025 is being released in a time of unprecedented uncertainty

and significant economic and fiscal risk posed by the ongoing threat of U.S. tariffs.

The potential impacts of tariffs on jobs, businesses, communities and people throughout

British Columbia are significant. Budget 2025, “Standing strong for B.C.,” is a plan

to secure a brighter future by building on the province’s strengths.”

[3:45 p.m.]

It goes on and on. The opening lines of the budget document are about tariffs, yet

when you ask very general questions of this government about what provisions are in

this budget book specifically for tariffs, the answer is, “We can’t divulge that,”

even though I’m not asking for exact programs.

I’m not asking for what it would be used for. I’m not asking if it would be used for

industry, if it would be used for individuals — none of that. I’m simply asking for

a dollar figure that this government has notionally put aside to help respond to tariffs.

They had no problems doing that for COVID. They had no problems doing that to identify

for CleanBC. In fact, CleanBC in last year’s projection was still $320 million in

this year’s contingencies, a defined line item for contingencies that said CleanBC,

$320 million.

It’s shocking to me, because last year’s budget showed a little over $3 billion in

contingencies for this year. I would have thought the simple answer for the minister

would have been $980 million, because the only thing that has actually changed between

last year’s budget and this year’s budget is the tariffs.

I tried giving the minister every opportunity to acknowledge that this government

has put away almost $1 billion for tariff response. All we can conclude from the evasion

by this minister around the question is that it’s substantially less, and the government

doesn’t want to acknowledge that.

Is that substantially less because the government has now realized that for the public

sector bargaining, which is a part of contingencies at $532 million per 1 percent

of agreement, they actually need more money to solve the public sector bargaining

than they first anticipated last year? Is that why the minister is unable to just

give us a clear answer as to what would be in contingencies for tariff response?

Lawrence Mok : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Lawrence Mok : This afternoon in the gallery, we have students from the Garibaldi Secondary School

with their teachers and parents visiting the parliament building and the Legislature

for the first time. So please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

The Chair : Welcome to everybody in our gallery today. It’s nice to have youth with us for sure.

[3:50 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member began by pointing out that I didn’t like the framing “wrapping itself

in the tariff war” when referring to our government and very generously asked what

wording would be more amenable. I think the truthful wording would be “responding

appropriately to this significant threat.” That’s what this government has been doing,

and that’s what this budget does.

There are a number of different ways that the considerable economic threat of tariffs

from the President Trump administration shows up in this budget, and there are a number

of things that we’ve done to respond already in regards to this very significant threat.

We have a three-part response to President Trump’s tariffs.

The first

part is really focusing on strengthening British Columbia’s economy. We’ve

identified a number of major projects, including a significant number of clean energy

projects, that are being accelerated in timeline. Not only is it about identifying

projects that are close to being complete, through their assessment and permitting

process, and pulling them forward; it’s also about taking learning from where those

particular projects were slowed down and applying that learning throughout the system

to ensure that we can accelerate the timeline to getting projects done.

There’s a group of students that are here today. I just wanted to greet them and share

with them that we’re doing estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

Welcome to the chamber. The member opposite is asking questions, and we’re having

the opportunity to respond as we explore the expenses in this place. You’re welcome

to enjoy.

The important piece here is that there are many different components. One is really

focusing on the growth of the economy.

We’re also deeply focused on diversifying trade markets, and that happens in a number

of different ways. It’s not just about focusing to the east and the very strong opportunities

we have in markets such as our third market, which is Japan, and our fourth market,

Korea, which is deeply important — we’re doing that work; in fact, a trade mission

was announced just yesterday — but it’s also about bringing down the trade barriers

across Canada. There’s work happening in many different ministries with many different

ministers to bring those barriers down.

We’ve also been responding with strong countermeasures, which the member opposite’s

leader and group were very much against. For example, we took the measure to remove

alcohol from red states off of the shelves, something that the opposition opposed.

But we do know that it had impact. It was not a political measure; it was a strategic

measure.

When we took the strike against Kentucky bourbon, we know, for example, that in a

vote in the U.S., a number of Democratic leaders were joined by members of the Republican

Party to stand up against tariffs, two of whom were, in fact, from Kentucky, because

they were experiencing the harm that these tariffs were causing.

We are taking action on tariffs. It’s deeply, deeply important. It’s not a make-believe

issue. It’s not something that we chose. It is a very significant economic threat

that we are taking seriously in a number of different ways, including having the ability

to have initial response to tariffs in our budget through the use of contingencies.

Now, it’s true that the initial response will come from the federal government. That

is for the simple reason that the federal government has the tools and is the leader

to be able to put forward counter-tariffs. They will collect money, and it’s appropriate

that money be spent on the businesses and the people that are impacted by these tariffs.

What we’ve been very clear about, and what the money that we’ve put in contingencies

is for, is to fill any gaps.

Peter Milobar : Well, to be clear, we said it should be all states, including the blue states that

Kamala Harris’s party would have been represented by that this minister had no problem

campaigning for during the federal U.S. election, trying to encourage those expats

living up in Canada that could vote to make sure they voted for that side of the ticket.

[3:55 p.m.]

The reality is that the question, despite the lengthy meandering non-answer, was around

dollars put into contingencies for tariff response. It’s important because the projection

in last year’s budget for next year’s fiscal and in this year’s fiscal is for $4 billion

in contingency. It’s $4 billion in this year’s, but last year was $3.73 billion. So

the actual wiggle room for tariff response over the length of the term of the President,

by this government, is actually diminishing. Again, tariffs certainly weren’t on the

radar screen last year for next year’s fiscal. That’s the problem.

The answers of deflection…. The minister referred me to table A10, which is really

just a percentage of growth rates and per capita. If she had gone up to table A9 on

the page above, despite her saying natural resource revenues are up, she’d actually

see that compared to projections for last year, based on their own table A9, natural

resource revenue is actually down $435 million in this year’s budget compared to last

year, at least how I read it. It’s $2.977 billion. Last year was $3.432 billion. That

would be a drop of $435 million.

We have a budget that is predicated on tariffs, according to the minister. She talks

about programs in the budget and dollars set aside in contingencies, but none of that

is allowed to be discussed publicly. Businesses don’t know what type of supports they

can expect, what level of supports they can expect. Individuals don’t know.

The minister just said that of course, the bulk will come from the federal government,

not the provincial government, in terms of supports, at least in the early days, if

and when those ever trigger in with countervailing tariffs that add any substance.

Sticking with contingencies, can the minister explain, with carbon tax gone, which

funded CleanBC, and CleanBC having $320 million worth of contingencies in this year’s

budget and a stated want to tighten the belts…? Is there still the $320 million available

for CleanBC initiatives, or has that been removed?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to clarify a couple of things before I respond to the last part of the

question.

In 2024, the budget included $3 billion in contingency. In 2025, it’s $4 billion.

I don’t think the $3.7 billion was accurately quoted.

I do also want to point out that in contingencies, there are, again, puts and takes.

Sometimes there are things that move into base budget from contingencies. A specific

example is Budget 2025 supports the final compensation adjustments pursuant to the

2022 mandate, including providing nearly $1.5 billion over three years to ministry

budgets for the cost of collective agreements.

Lastly, in regards to the question for CleanBC and contingencies, I think it’s important

to recognize that there is a review of CleanBC underway, and some contingencies would

still be available to fund CleanBC initiatives.

Peter Milobar : Can the minister explain, then, why the government is able to have a direct line

item of contingencies for things like CleanBC? It’s projected at $320 million for

this year. It’s actually projected, based on last year’s budget, at $130 million for

next year.

To be clear, last year’s budget showed a $3.02 billion contingency for this coming

fiscal, which is now $4 billion. I’m not disputing that. That’s why I said $980 million

is unaccounted for, but the minister refuses to say that’s for tariffs. One can only

assume it’s for the collective agreement that the minister has acknowledged is part

of contingencies as well.

[4:05 p.m.]

In that same budget projection for ’26-27, it’s $3.73 billion. This year’s budget,

’26-27, is now $4 billion, which is only $270 million difference. The only thing that

would have changed between those years and this would have been tariffs.

It’s not exactly a planned, robust accounting for tariffs, moving forward, knowing

that President Trump is likely just getting started and going to be there for four

years — that, or the government is optimistic it will be dealt with in short order,

and we won’t be under tariffs. I think everyone would hope to not be under tariffs

for any length of time.

In terms of the contingencies. Why I’m trying to get into this is because the government

has characterized this budget as…. The minister has called it a point in time. Well,

every budget is a point in time. The government has tried to portray this as how it

was next to impossible to anticipate what the road ahead looked like under tariffs,

and that’s why this budget reflects those strong actions being taken by this government

to weather the tariff storm, and that’s why we’ve built in a robust response. But

we can’t have a dollar figure attached to that robust response.

It’d be nice if there was even a program, but there’s not and not even a dollar figure.

Yet for COVID, there were COVID contingencies — actually said it. Yet the tariff war

has been likened to the last time we had to meet a challenge like this, which was

COVID. This was the same government at the time. They’ve decided a different way to

budget, a different way to frame. Some, dare I say, wrap themselves in the issue.

We have contingencies that have gone up compared to last year, but only for this year.

Next year’s are notionally about the same. And $230 million or $70 million is a bit

of a rounding error when you’re pushing $100 billion worth of spending. You have one

year of a bump. We have a collective agreement that is part of that contingency, at

$532 million for every 1 percent of settlement.

You have CleanBC in the mix, but the minister can’t even commit today that despite

the fact that there is no more carbon tax and a $2 billion hole in our budget and

an unknown way forward and Ministers of Environment and Energy that have announced

things like the end to EV rebates and other programs that are part of CleanBC…. The

government today, despite the minister in charge of telling every other minister to

tighten their belts and find spending efficiencies, can’t even commit to the fact

that there might be $320 million of CleanBC contingencies we don’t actually need for

CleanBC. That’s still in the budget.

We have GDP growth in this year’s budget, which was projected six months before this

budget came out in the second-quarter update. The second-quarter update had GDP growth

for this year at 1.9 percent. This budget is now at 1.8 percent. That second-quarter

update was developed before any Trump tariff threats were out there. So no GDP growth

adjustment for tariffs in this budget. GDP growth dropped compared to the projection

last year. Deficit went up compared to the projection for last year. That has nothing

to do with tariffs.

Can the minister point me, in this budget document, to the specific areas where they

have addressed the tariff issue compared to last year’s projected budget or, more

importantly, the second-quarter update from last year as well? To actually address

and deal with tariffs. All I can find is an unknown sum of money in contingencies.

This government doesn’t want to tell us what that is either.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to point out that this budget came out on March 4. That was the very

same day that tariffs were to come down on Canada. It is absolutely appropriate to

use contingencies as a tool to respond to something in such flux, and contingencies

are put aside for exactly that reason. That’s appropriate.

It wouldn’t be appropriate to put in programming without thorough analysis of what

was happening. It requires planning to respond, and the tariff situation has been

constantly moving. So in order to respond in a way that allows us to be there for

people and there for businesses, putting money in contingencies in this budget is

a good decision.

It’s also appropriate that the federal government lead that response. It’s appropriate

because the federal government will be collecting counter-tariffs. That will be the

lead response. As these tariffs have been put on and taken off and put on and taken

off in one sector, another sector, negotiations, this has been a very fluid situation.

We need to respond to what rolls out from the federal government. Having money in

contingencies to do that work is an appropriate decision. We have enough money to

be able to respond appropriately for British Columbians to fill in any gaps that happen

in response to these tariffs.

Peter Milobar : How much money is enough money, and how much is in contingencies?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Budget 2025, over the three-year fiscal plan, has $12 billion in our fiscal plan,

in our contingencies. That includes $4 billion over each of the next three years.

Some of that money will be available to respond to the tariff threat. As we find out

the specific implications, we will be able to respond.

Peter Milobar : How much of the $4 billion this year in contingencies is set aside for tariff response?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The member well knows that’s not how contingencies work. If it were a line item,

it would be in the regular budget.

Peter Milobar : How much money is set aside in this year’s contingencies calculation for CleanBC?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’ve answered this question once already, which is that Clean