First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 65

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Elenore Sturko

Members’ Statements

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia and Support for Community

Stephanie Higginson

Avtar Singh Dhillon

Mandeep Dhaliwal

National Police Week and Support for Officers

Amna Shah

Cherub’s Inn Maternity House

Reann Gasper

Local Government

Steve Morissette

Larry Wiebe

Bruce Banman

Oral Questions

Whistleblower Protection and Investigation into Disclosure of Information on Safe

Supply Diversion

John Rustad

Hon. David Eby

Bruce Banman

Permitting Process for Resource Projects and Response to Subsequent Project Changes

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Hon. David Eby

Government Hiring of Consultant on Downtown Eastside Issues and Former Role with Legal

Aid B.C.

Trevor Halford

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Government Hiring of Consultant on Downtown Eastside Issues

Steve Kooner

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Rosalyn Bird

Korky Neufeld

Reann Gasper

Kristina Loewen

Sharon Hartwell

Peter Milobar

Government Hiring of Consultant on Downtown Eastside Issues and Former Role with Legal

Aid B.C.

Peter Milobar

Hon. David Eby

Question of Privilege (continued)

Harman Bhangu

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills Committee , Bill M205, Mental Health Amendment Act, 2025

Amna Shah

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Macklin McCall

Jody Toor

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Tony Luck

Lorne Doerkson

Brent Chapman

Lawrence Mok

Kiel Giddens

Elenore Sturko

Rosalyn Bird

Bruce Banman

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Steve Kooner

Ian Paton

Amelia Boultbee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Misty Van Popta

Rob Botterell

Amelia Boultbee

Trevor Halford

Á’a:líya Warbus

Scott McInnis

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Mandeep Dhaliwal.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis : I’d like to welcome to the gallery today the summer tour guide group, as well as

the Parliamentary Players.

I had a wonderful meeting with them yesterday. They’ll be busy all summer touring

visitors around the precinct, as well as some of the re-enactments that take place.

I had, again, a great meeting with them yesterday. They wanted to know a little bit

about MLA life.

I’d like to welcome them all to the House today. Please join me in making them feel

welcome.

Hon. David Eby : We’re joined today by 35 constituency advisers from across the province of British

Columbia who work with government MLAs every day. They are the front line of our offices.

I know the opposition and Third Party are well aware of the important role of these

amazing people.

They are constantly met by people who are there to thank them for the amazing work

of our government, so it’s largely a feel-good job.

No, they often meet people who are profoundly upset about challenges they’ve had with

provincial government. There’s just a disconnect in a program, or they’re not aware

of an opportunity, or they need advocacy. So it’s a really hard job. They take a lot

of challenging cases and support people across the province.

I want to thank them so much for doing that incredibly hard work every single day,

with a smile on their face, welcoming everyone in the community. I’m so grateful to

all of them for their amazing work.

Susie Chant : Today we have some distinguished guests — and I hope to be able to say my friends,

as well — joining us in the gallery. I am honoured to welcome the members of the Consular

Corps of British Columbia, who are taking

part in a series of ministerial briefings

today.

The Consular Corps represents over 80 countries and four international organizations.

These dedicated individuals serve as vital bridges between their countries and our

province, providing assistance to their citizens. They also play an important

part

in fostering trade and investment, supporting people-to-people ties and building cultural

connections.

I would like to acknowledge the dean of the Consular Corps, Ricardo Arredondo, consular

general of Argentina, and all members of the Consular Corps who have joined us today.

I ask that all members of this House join me in offering a very warm welcome.

Sheldon Clare : Today I rise to welcome the representatives from Deafblind Community Services, affiliated

with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and representatives from CNIB

as well: Penny Bennett; Mindy Tang; Brenda Stellar; Sherry Grabowski, vice-president,

Deafblind Community Services; Janine Tucker, manager, Deafblind Community Services;

Brenda McAlistair, my constituent from McLeese Lake; David McGregor; Elizabeth Dagg;

Brenda Tough; Lisa McCarron; Patrick Milne, the chief operating officer of CNIB; Jane

Savidant, the chair-elect of CNIB’s national board; and Alice Clark.

While some of those members are not able to see or hear this introduction, they are

joined with interveners who will help them, and you will see them around the precinct.

I wish that you would give them a very warm welcome.

I would advise that they gave a wonderful presentation to the opposition caucus earlier

today.

[1:40 p.m.]

I thank them for their advocacy and their efforts in helping the deafblind community.

Hon. George Chow : Today I have the pleasure to introduce Dr. June Francis, who is in the gallery. Dr.

Francis is the chair of B.C.’s anti-racism data committee. She is also the honorary

consul for Jamaica in Vancouver. I always appreciate getting together with Dr. Francis

and a great conversation.

Would the House please make Dr. Francis feel very welcome.

Steve Kooner : I’d like to take a moment to introduce two guests in the gallery.

Peter Si, the legislative assistant to myself, as well as my colleague here for Richmond-Bridgeport,

as well as my other colleague for Kamloops Centre, as well as my other colleague for

Kamloops–North Thompson.

We all appreciate Peter Si very much. We developed a good partnership with him. He

keeps us on our toes and makes sure we are on

schedule wherever we have to go in the

Legislature. It’s a great honour to have Peter here in the Legislature, in the gallery,

to witness question period in person.

He’s here with his mother, Wendy, and she’s also witnessing question period for the

very first time.

Can the House please make them welcome.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I also want to welcome the interveners for the CNIB Deafblind Community. My ministry

is very proud to partner with them and be one of their funders.

Also in the gallery, my ministerial adviser, who supports both me and the Parliamentary

Also from Nanaimo, my friend and amazing volunteer and campaigner, Mackenzie Frost.

She’s 15, I think, and really giving back to community.

With her is her superstar mom, my constituency adviser, Kirstin Mahaffy.

Will the chamber please make them all very welcome.

Amelia Boultbee : I would like to extend a warm welcome to Mayor Doug Holmes, who is here with us in

the gallery today, joining us from the beautiful district of Summerland in Penticton-Summerland.

I am very lucky to have a great working relationship with Mayor Holmes and his council.

Will the House please join me in making him feel very welcome?

George Anderson : I rise to recognize an outstanding young leader from Nanaimo, in my riding, Rocky

Sloan, a student from Dover Bay Secondary, who is just one of 36 recipients of the

prestigious Loran scholarship.

There are thousands of people who apply for it, and Rocky is one of those lucky individuals.

The Loran Foundation looks beyond grades to find students of character, young people

who lead with purpose, integrity and service, and Rocky embodies all of that. He founded

his school’s first French club, serves as student council president, started a non-profit

for seniors to live independently and launched a fundraiser for B.C. Children’s Hospital.

Also, he plays the piano, the flute and tennis, proving that some people really do

get more than 24 hours in a day.

Rocky is a remarkable young British Columbian, and we are proud to celebrate him today.

I hope the entire House will join me in making Rocky feel welcome.

Welcome, Rocky.

Brennan Day : I’d like to welcome a group of grade 6s and 7s and future leaders from Queneesh Elementary

School, which is situated on the traditional territory of the K’ómoks First Nation,

along with their teacher Wes Mann, from the beautiful Comox Valley.

I hope they enjoy their time today here in this beautiful building, seeing democracy

in action, and that it shapes their future, as it certainly shaped mine many years

ago.

Please let this House make them feel welcome.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I have two sets of groups that are here today.

[1:45 p.m.]

We have visitors from the Home Builders Association of Vancouver, members and their

board of directors. I want to recognize Alisa Aragon-Lloyd, Cheri Stefanucci, Henri

Belisle, Jonathan Meads, Sandro Stefanucci and Stephanie Meads.

As well, from the Ministry of Housing, we’ve got some folks here visiting from the

corporate planning office. We’ve got Sally Eshuys, Shannon Mullen, Kash Akinkuowo,

Cory Scott, Morgan Hurn, Alicia Mijares and Sarah Richer.

Can the House please join me in making all of these folks welcome.

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m very honoured to introduce the House to my parents, Mary and Gene Valeriote,

loving parents and grandparents in our family. You might all be very surprised to

learn that they are both chemists.

My dad worked 20-plus years for Cominco, now Teck Resources, on battery technology.

My mom had a celebrated teaching career and wrote a book in the 1970s called Controversial

Chemicals, the beginning of a trend.

They imbued in me a faith in science and public institutions, and they helped me develop

the skills that I need to fill this role.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Mable Elmore : I join the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke to welcome the new summer cohort of

parliamentary tour guides and Parliamentary Players here with us in the gallery. They

are 17 university students from across British Columbia that join the permanent tour

team for our busiest summer months. They welcome visitors each summer to parliament

buildings, lead tours of the historic precinct and lead performances around the exteriors

of the building.

On the parliamentary tour guide, we have Grace Wiebe, Lawson Farman, Hannah Link,

Louisa Whitmore, Sol Eisenhauer, Samar Jain, Niloofar Riazibeydokhti, Kennedy Halwa,

Madison Irwin.

On the parliamentary tour guide team lead, we have Pascale Grenier, Ryan Kniel; and

Parliamentary Players Eric Barnes, Sam Frew, Annalyn Kind, Rodel Frazer, Makayla Madill

and Jack Storwick.

I ask everybody to give them a very warm welcome for the work that they do to make

us all very welcome.

Hon. Lisa Beare : In the Legislature today, we have two grade 7 classes from Pitt Meadows Elementary.

They’re not here yet, but will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Darlene Rotchford : I want to recognize two very important people in the House today, especially during

Local Government Week. I would like to welcome Duncan Cavens — I had the pleasure

of sitting beside him during my time on local government; as well as, more importantly,

his daughter Joelle, who is equally excited to be here because she’s a political dork,

kind of like the rest of us in the House. She got a bit of a tour today and is super

excited to be here for question period.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Joining us today, later on in the afternoon, are 27 grades 9 and 10 students from

Alcuin College. They are accompanied by three parents and their teacher Jan De Beer.

Alcuin College is an independent K-to-12 school in North Vancouver. They foster curiosity-led

learning and empower students to think critically and explore with purpose.

Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Pete Davis : I would like to welcome some students that are in the building but not in the gallery

here with us yet from Flex Academy in Kelowna with their teacher Joe Eapen.

Please make them feel welcome.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Elenore Sturko : I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege with respect to an ongoing

investigation ordered by the director of police services into information presented

to me as MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale and the official opposition critic for Safety and

the Solicitor General.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members’ Statements

International Day Against

Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

and Support for Community

Stephanie Higginson : Saturday, May 17, is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.

We will join people around the world to recognize the many hard-fought gains that

2SLGBTQIA+ communities have achieved.

This year the theme is “The power of communities.” It reflects the diversity and richness

within the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities and highlights the strength and resilience that

emerges from collective solidarity.

On this day, we reaffirm that hate and discrimination have no place in British Columbia.

Everyone has the right to live without fear of violence or discrimination, and our

government is committed to protecting the rights of 2SLGBTQIA+ communities. Society

has made progress, but discrimination and stigma continue to cause inequity and marginalization

for 2SLGBTQIA+ people.

In some countries, and even in some parts of Canada, we have seen a re-emergence of

increasingly regressive policies that are targeting 2SLGBTQIA+ people and, in particular,

transgender communities. Alberta recently passed three pieces of legislation that

are specifically targeting the ability of trans youth to fully participate in health

care, education and youth sports. Unfortunately, in recent months, we have seen these

same hurtful attitudes be perpetuated by some members of this very House. Equality

rights should not be up for negotiation.

This government is driven by the core belief that B.C. is better because of our diversity.

We have and we will continue to work relentlessly to advance equality and safety throughout

B.C. for the two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning, intersex and

asexual-plus communities of this province.

We see you, you matter to us, we stand with you in solidarity, and we will fight every

day for equality with you and for you.

Avtar Singh Dhillon

Mandeep Dhaliwal : Mr. Avtar Singh Dhillon was recently awarded the King Charles III award for community

service for his work with the Sikh Motorcycle Club. He came to Canada in 1970 and

has spent over 50 years raising awareness about Sikh lives and the importance of the

turban. He worked hard to protect the rights of Sikhs to wear turbans at work and

in daily lives.

From 1977 to 1999, Mr. Dhillon led efforts to change the law so Sikhs could ride motorcycles

while wearing turbans. After many efforts to change the law, in 1995, Mr. Dhillon

filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Commission. Two years later, in 1999,

the B.C. Human Rights Commission ordered the B.C. government to amend the motorcycle

helmet law.

Thanks to Mr. Avtar Singh Dhillon’s dedication and his tireless efforts, Sikhs in

B.C. can proudly wear their turbans while riding motorcycles. For this achievement,

he was honoured with a gold medal by the top Sikh authority in Amritsar, India.

I am so happy today with Mr. Avtar Singh Dhillon and his family in the gallery.

Will the House please join me in thanking and welcoming Mr. Avtar Singh Dhillon and

his family.

National Police Week

and Support for Officers

Amna Shah : I rise today to recognize National Police Week and to honour the courageous men and

women who serve in uniform across our province.

From urban centres to rural towns, police officers are there not only in moments of

crisis but in the quiet work of community-building. Whether supporting victims, responding

to emergencies or walking neighbourhood beats, police officers endeavour to uphold

public safety with professionalism, compassion and resolve.

It’s important to note that in this House, we are guided by those who know this work.

The Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Minister of Community Safety

and Integrated Services and the MLA for Burnaby South–Metrotown are all former police

officers who have served valiantly. Their service in law enforcement brings a deep

understanding of the realities facing both police and the communities that they serve.

[1:55 p.m.]

In today’s world, policing is more complex than ever. The toxic drug crisis, mental

health and community safety concerns require multidisciplinary responses. That’s why

we’re backing our words with action. We’ve increased police academy training seats

by 50 percent. We’re investing $230 million into RCMP hiring across the province.

And we’re putting $100 million each year into gang enforcement, forensic investigations

and community-based crime prevention programs. We’re also partnering officers with

mental health professionals through mobile integrated crisis response teams because

we recognize that public safety and public health are intertwined.

As we mark National Police Week under the theme “Committed to serve together,” let

us renew our collective promise to build safer, more resilient communities for everyone.

To all officers serving across British Columbia: thank you for your service, your

sacrifice and your commitment. We stand with you.

Cherub’s Inn Maternity House

Reann Gasper : Everyone wants to live in a community where people look out for each other, where

support isn’t just available in theory but actually shows up when it matters most.

In Mission, we’re fortunate to live in that kind of place. One of the clearest examples

of that care in action is Cherub’s Inn maternity house, a safe haven where young expectant

mothers find not only shelter but dignity, support and hope for their future.

Cherub’s Inn was founded by Sharlene Brooks, a woman who knows what it means to live

through hard seasons and still choose compassion. Raised by a single mother who carried

more than her share and still showed up with love, Sharlene learned resilience not

as a choice but as a way of life. She saw up close the strength it takes to keep going

when the odds are stacked against you.

When Sharlene’s daughter became a teen mom, it became deeply clear to her just how

many young women face that journey alone. Her daughter had support, something that

many others don’t. And the more Sharlene recognized the gap, the more certain she

became that she had to do something about it.

That’s what sparked Cherub’s Inn, a place where young expectant mothers can feel safe,

supported and not alone. Today, Cherub’s Inn is a home to young women, some still

in their teens, who need a place to stay and a fresh start. They get more than a roof

over their heads. They get 24-hour support, access to health care, parenting help,

life skills, baby supplies and someone to walk alongside of them as they take their

next step.

This is what community looks like: not just talking about care but living it out.

And at Cherub’s Inn, they don’t just believe in second chances. They help make them

happen one room, one mom, one story at a time.

Local Government

Steve Morissette : It’s local government week in British Columbia, and I want to take a moment to say

I love local government. Truly the hardest decision I had to make when I chose to

run for MLA was knowing that if I were successful, I’d have to step away from local

government. There’s not a more transparent, connected or accountable level of government

than the one closest to the people.

When you serve in local government, whether as a school trustee, councillor, mayor

or regional district director, every decision you make is public. And I mean very

public. You’ll be asked about that zoning change in the grocery store, that budget

vote at the hockey rink or that bylaw while walking your dog in the park. There’s

no separation between the people you represent and the life you live because your

constituents are your neighbours, your friends and your family.

I want to give a special shout-out to our regional district rural area directors.

They carry responsibilities similar to mayors without the support of a council. They

do a lot with very limited resources, and my hat goes off to them.

To all the incredible folks in local government across this province: thank you for

the countless hours, the hard conversations and the heart you put into your communities.

You make democracy work where people feel most close to home.

Happy local government week.

[2:00 p.m.]

Larry Wiebe

Bruce Banman : Today I rise to honour the life and legacy of a man whose name may not be widely

known but whose impact was felt across this province and beyond: Larry Wiebe, who

passed away, sadly, May 2, 2025.

If you’ve consumed a dairy product in British Columbia, chances are it got to you

on one of Larry’s trucks. Vedder Transport picks up milk from dairy farms across British

Columbia and delivers it to milk plants for production. Larry was one of the quiet

builders of our province, one of the pioneer families of Abbotsford who started with

humble beginnings and built something extraordinary.

Larry took over the helm of the Vedder Group and through hard work and vision, helped

build it into a multi-million-dollar success story. Under his leadership, the company

expanded and modernized, switching their trucks to run on natural gas long before

others were thinking about sustainability.

But for all of his business achievements, Larry Wiebe was, above all else, a humble,

gentle and kind man. I had the privilege of knowing Larry personally, first meeting

him when I was a student working as a waiter and later getting to know him better

when I became the mayor of Abbotsford.

In spite of building an empire, Larry never lost touch with his roots: born in Chilliwack

in 1951 and having to learn to drive a truck at the age of 13. Other than golf, vacations

and spending time with family, one of his favourite things to do was to go to climb

behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler and hit the road. That’s where he felt at home —

behind the wheel, not behind a desk.

At just 73, Larry was taken from us far too soon. As we mark dairy week in British

Columbia, it seems a fitting time to celebrate a man whose life’s work was deeply

tied to that industry and to the people who depend upon it.

Abbotsford and British Columbia have lost one of the quieter types but a giant nonetheless.

May he rest in peace.

Oral Questions

Whistleblower Protection and

Investigation into Disclosure of

Information on Safe Supply Diversion

John Rustad : Earlier this year the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale released internal documents showing

that taxpayer-funded safe supply opioids were being trafficked by organized crime.

The government initially denied it, then claimed they’ve changed the policy.

But instead of thanking the whistleblower, an investigation into how the leak occurred

was ordered.

Will the Premier confirm today that his police service director violated the NDP whistleblower

protection law by referring this case to an investigative branch?

Hon. David Eby : This is an important matter. I thank the member for raising it.

First of all, let me say it’s important that the House recognizes that the member

for Surrey South was doing her job. I spent some time on the opposition benches. I

recognize effective opposition work. This was certainly a case of that. If I had had

those documents on the other government, I wouldn’t have hesitated. She shouldn’t

get a phone call from police for doing her job. She was sent here by British Columbians

to do a specific job. That she was doing.

I just want to correct the Leader of the Opposition. The document was part of a set

of documents related to an extensive criminal and administrative investigation of

pharmacies in the province. There was no denial.

In fact, there was an active investigation, both by the College of Pharmacists as

well as police. This was the briefing of police to say: “Keep your eyes out for this.

If you’re seeing this, bring it back to us. Share information with us. We want to

get to the bottom of it.” That’s the priority. That’s where police should be spending

their time and efforts.

I understand the thinking behind the member of the public service, the director of

police services. He shared some information with police. It was released publicly.

But I’ve got to say, in terms of just my own opinion about this thing…. I’m extremely

reluctant to weigh in on where police put their resources.

I really hope that there is more effort going into investigating these pharmacies

rather than anything related to the member and what she did in this House.

The Speaker : The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

John Rustad : Even though the Premier didn’t answer the question…. The Premier, at one point, was

a champion of whistleblower protection law, promising government employees would be

safe from retaliation for exposing wrongdoing. Yet when the leak revealed the criminal

diversion of safe supply drugs, leading to an apparent policy reversal, a police probe

into the source was launched. This government is actively trying to put a chill on

anybody who speaks out against them.

To the Premier, does the Premier honestly think that the public would believe that

his police services director acted independently, and can he confirm that no direction

was given to the police service director by anyone from his office or anyone from

any of his ministers’ offices?

Hon. David Eby : The director acted independently, as is required under the statute that he acted

under. The police, in doing the investigation, are acting independently.

I canvassed to try to understand whether we were able to intervene in this ongoing

investigation and to say that resources would be better directed elsewhere. I was

advised that we are not able to. Police are independently doing this investigation.

I’ll just correct the member. We did not direct this investigation. This was initiated

independently. It’s being conducted independently by the RCMP.

Bruce Banman : Last summer a Victoria firefighter was disciplined for writing an open letter about

the public safety crisis occurring just steps from this very Legislature. The Premier

said then, and I quote: “If someone gets in trouble for bringing me that information,

I’m going to stand up for them, and I’d say, ‘Yes, bring me the truth from the street

that you see, and that will help me be a more effective representative for you.’”

However, we have now learned that the director of police services disagrees and will

direct police to harangue whistleblowers who embarrass this government.

To the Solicitor General: will you fire director of police services Glen Lewis for

initiating this witch-hunt?

Hon. David Eby : We introduced legislation to protect whistleblowers. We support whistleblowers bringing

forward information that can assist us all in understanding what’s happening in the

province on the front lines.

Part of our review around health authorities is around shrinking the gap between front-line

health workers that have information and the government so that we can deliver a more

effective health care system. We want this information.

This specific case involved documents, photographs, information shared with police

by the director of police services about an active criminal and administrative investigation

of the College of Pharmacists.

I haven’t talked to the director yet, but it’s my understanding that it was the leak

of that information related to those investigations that resulted in him issuing this

direction. That’s something that exists under his authorities for him to do independently

under a law that has existed under both sides of this House. We are not able to direct

the police to investigate or not investigate that.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Bruce Banman : The only whistleblowing we seem to hear around here is the Premier blowing Dixie.

The Speaker : Member.

Bruce Banman : The opposition has heard many stories from doctors, nurses — I personally have heard

them — teachers, parents, municipal elected officials, Indigenous groups and many

more who have serious concerns about what the B.C. NDP government is doing to their

province. They’re terrified to speak out because they see how this government treats

people who raise questions about their precious policies.

To the Premier: will you fire the director of police services, Glen Lewis, before

he initiates more retaliatory police witch-hunts against British Columbians who just

want to speak out against this government and improve this province?

Hon. David Eby : The independent director has an important role to play in our system. That independence

is part of it. The head of the Public Service will contact him and will understand

the intention and what the plan was, and so on.

[2:10 p.m.]

The bottom line is if we interfered with that independence in a way that the member

thought was favourable or not favourable to the government, he would be very upset

about that. There is a reason why he has this independent authority. There is a reason

why we cannot direct the police on this.

Let me say that it was important, the work that the member for Surrey South did, to

bring this information forward. But I also want to recognize the context — that there

were active police investigations, active College of Pharmacists investigations, all

of which were supported by this government.

It was a briefing of police officers saying: “Bring us more information. If you’re

seeing these kinds of things, tell us. Help our investigation along.” The exact opposite

of what the member is alleging.

Permitting Process for Resource

Projects and Response to

Subsequent Project Changes

Jeremy Valeriote : We learned recently that Woodfibre LNG is looking to add a second floating hotel

or floatel, which is a repurposed cruise ship, for construction workforce accommodation.

They’re planning to add it to the waters of the Átl’ka7tsem/Howe Sound UNESCO Biosphere

Reserve. The floatel would accommodate up to an additional 900 construction workers,

as it speeds up construction to squeeze the last profits out of this sunset industry.

The previous Environment Minister forced the first floatel into place by using the

environmental assessment office’s compliance and enforcement division to override

the permit requirements of the district of Squamish, which is the local government

tasked with protecting the interests of its residents when it comes to housing availability,

public safety, waste management and some limited environmental impacts.

Will the new Minister of Environment commit to a process with more integrity for a

second floatel, consultation with the local community and respect for the permitting

authority of the local government?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : Thank you to the member for the question.

The B.C. environmental assessment office has a comprehensive review process that examines

any potential human health and environmental impacts for large projects such as this,

and Woodfibre is no different.

To protect the environment and to support a strong economy, our government introduced

a strengthened Environmental Assessment Act. The EA process was improved to make sure

a strong, transparent process is in place.

In 2019, the environmental assessment office introduced specific housing requirements

following concerns about impacts to local housing and community safety. After a multi-year

assessment and extensive engagement with Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation, the district of Squamish, various NGOs and the public, the EAO approved the

use of the floatel as an alternative housing option. This was the first time that

the environmental assessment office introduced this kind of requirement.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : Thank you to the minister for the answer and the highlighting of updating the EA

process in 2019, which leads me to wonder why it’s being sidelined now by bills in

front of this House.

The fact is this community never asked for this project, and it’s not in its vision

of the future. Unleashing an extra 900 workers into this small community was not a

preferred option, so the floatel may be a solution.

However, this is an example of industrial proponents’ bait-and-switch, a familiar

strategy. They lowball estimates of the number of workers and overall impact then

move the goalposts once the project is approved, trampling on the quality of life

of long-term residents of a community.

How will the minister empower EAO compliance and enforcement officers to ensure that

project description specifics are accurate and reflect true project impacts and that

there are consequences when the numbers are adjusted for the convenience of oil and

gas multinationals?

Hon. David Eby : I think one of the challenges with this project was that a lot of people were anxious

about the workers taking housing in Squamish, where there’s already a shortage of

housing. The creative solution that was come up with was to put people on a cruise

ship, keep them out of town, support the growth and prosperity of our provincial economy

and minimize impact on the city of Squamish.

Now they’re saying they want twice as many workers. They want to hire twice as many

people. They want to create more jobs in our province, and they still want to minimize

impacts.

Now, it’ll go through the environmental assessment process around an additional floatel

for workers, but I do have to wonder about why we would be opposed to additional workers

in British Columbia earning additional money in our province, building our economy

and minimizing impact on the local housing market in Squamish. I can’t imagine the

member suggesting these workers should be housed in the community, impacting that

housing market.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s hard for me to understand the member’s perspective in opposition to what seems

to be a pretty pragmatic solution that also increases the prosperity and growth in

our province.

Government Hiring of Consultant

on Downtown Eastside Issues

and Former Role with Legal Aid B.C.

Trevor Halford : We now know that the Premier helped Michael Bryant secure the job at Legal Aid B.C.

We now know that the Premier directed the Minister of Social Development to secure

a contract with Michael Bryant for $175,000.

But in between that, on April 9, 2024, a very simple news release went out from Legal

Aid B.C. about Michael Bryant’s departure. We are also hearing of some very troubling

allegations about Mr. Bryant’s behaviour that led to this sudden departure.

My question is a simple one to either the Premier or the Attorney General. Is he aware

of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Bryant’s departure on April 9 from Legal Aid

B.C., yes or no — to the Premier of this province?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : As we discussed yesterday in question period, the investments that our government

has made across every element of areas of care that people in the Downtown Eastside

have identified that they needed — increased access to addiction treatment, employment

services, housing….

We asked for some outside perspective to be able to look at what gaps remained in

service delivery and, especially, to have an outside perspective on the kinds of systemic

changes that we might have overlooked to an area that’s been suffering from systemic

problems.

Michael Bryant has held many roles, as we canvassed in the House yesterday, that bring

that unique perspective to this work. These are all valuable perspectives to us. Based

on his advice and also what we hear from those on the ground, we’re going to continue

to invest in people in the Downtown Eastside to make it better for those who live

there and safer for community members.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford : Leadership matters. It does. The fact that we just had the Minister of Social Development

get up in this House…. With all due respect, the question was to the Premier.

The Premier was the one that advocated for this individual to get the job at Legal

Aid B.C. It is the Premier, in his own words, that directed the Minister of Social

Development to execute this contract — to execute a contract with no terms of reference,

no clear mandate — for his friend, for $175,000. None of this adds up. None.

The fact is that the Premier himself has now given a contract to one of his friends

and will not even stand up and defend it. And the fact is that the Premier knows why

this man is no longer the CEO of Legal Aid B.C. but still chose to direct his minister

to execute this contract. The fact is he has done that under the guise of the tragedy

that is going on in the Downtown Eastside, and that is absolutely disgusting. I guess

we could all wish to have a friend like the Premier.

My question to the Premier is a simple one. Will he get up today and answer the question

on why — why he chose to award Michael Bryant this contract, knowing exactly why he

left Legal Aid B.C. and knowing exactly that there are no terms of reference, no consultation

done whatsoever?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, come to order.

The executive council has the prerogative. Whoever they want to answer the question,

they will do it.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Stay quiet, Member.

Minister.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because our government has invested in a way that no other government has, since 2017…

[2:20 p.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Order, Members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : To support people living and working in the Downtown Eastside, opening 624 net new

housing units and 40 new shelter spaces just over the last two years; renovating existing

SRO units to improve health and safety; housing close to 100 people who were living

in Crab Park in housing, meeting their individual needs — this is unprecedented investment

in people. And to bring an outside….

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To hire Michael Bryant based on his experience with his own struggle with addiction

and recovery, his work as a lawyer, his work with Legal Aid — these are all valuable

perspectives that he brings to the work. That’s why both myself as minister and all

the members of the cabinet committee on community safety are glad and looking forward

to receiving his advice.

Government Hiring of Consultant

on Downtown Eastside Issues

Steve Kooner : Can the Premier confirm whether the city of Vancouver was consulted in the hiring

of his friend Michael Bryant?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : The work that Michael has been doing already involves interviews with more than 100

people with lived experience. He met within his first month of work with many officials

in the mayor’s office, with police, with other workers in the Downtown Eastside.

I was very glad yesterday to get a letter….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very glad to get yesterday, the Premier and I, a letter from the mayor of Vancouver

indicating that Mr. Bryant had already engaged with his office, with senior city leadership

and had very generously offered to loan him office space to carry out his work. We’re

grateful for that partnership and that offer of continuing to work together.

Rosalyn Bird : So that’s a no.

Did the Attorney General or the Premier know why the Premier’s friend Michael Bryant

was fired from Legal Aid?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I think we’ve talked quite a lot about his credentials. I think we’ve already said….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, the minister has heard the question. Let her….

Members. The minister will answer.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : As the members well know, human resource decisions between an employer and an employee

are not a matter for this Legislature.

Korky Neufeld : Well, the chamber question period seems to be like Groundhog Day around here. Let’s try this again.

Michael Bryant worked under the Attorney General’s portfolio just last year. Did she

know why the Premier’s friend was removed from Legal Aid?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Thank you to the member for continuing to give me the opportunity to describe some

of the outcomes of our government’s investments in the Downtown Eastside, since I’ve

answered all their other questions.

I’m really glad to be working — my ministry — with the Lookout Society in the Downtown

Eastside. Their ethical employment program LEAP integrates supportive housing along

with comprehensive employment services. For me to be able to meet people formerly

homeless and addicted who have gone through the work that we have funded but has been

delivered by organizations on the ground, to hear people that are now housed, now

have more than full-time employment and are so proud of the work that they have done,

that is one person at a time a sign of the investment that we have done in the Downtown

Eastside.

There is much more work for us to do, and I look forward to Michael Bryant’s advice.

Reann Gasper : At the heart of this issue…. This question is about to hit the heart of this issue.

As government, they need to be accountable for this. These are not wasted questions

that we’re just repeating.

[2:25 p.m.]

How does the Attorney General feel about working in a government that promotes a friend

of the Premier accused of misconduct while claiming to be a champion for women?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I’ll take this opportunity to say how very encouraged I am to see two new data sets

for outcomes in the Downtown Eastside. Up to March of this year, compared to one year

prior, we have 3 percent fewer people in the Downtown Eastside on income assistance…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : …and we have 7 percent fewer people who are unhoused. That is a sign that our investments

are making a material difference in people’s lives. We know there is more to do.

Kristina Loewen : The lack of answers here in covering for their friend is kind of embarrassing.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity. Does she support

the hiring of the Premier’s friend Michael Bryant as the Downtown Eastside czar?

The Speaker : Member, questions should be directed to the executive council members, not to the

parliamentary secretaries.

Kristina Loewen : I’ll direct it to the Premier then. Thank you.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Again, I’m grateful for the opportunity to talk about investments in the Downtown

Eastside.

There are people receiving health care in the Downtown Eastside today because of the

work that we have done to help more people access addiction treatment and care. Opening

the new Road to Recovery treatment centre at St. Paul’s was one. Expanding the Hope

to Health clinic to increase capacity to help 50 percent more people with complex

mental health and addiction challenges…. That was a $25 million investment.

That’s what the debate in this chamber is about on our side. It’s about investing

in people and getting outcomes that change people’s lives.

Sharon Hartwell : This is kind of symptomatic of what’s going on in this House, that we can’t get answers

from ministers when we’re asking the questions relevant to the people that we’re supporting.

Does the Premier believe the Premier’s friend, accused of misogynistic behaviour,

should be reviewing services for vulnerable women? I would like the Premier to answer.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Also, as another way to invest in community safety and support for people in the

Downtown Eastside….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : We’ve been working with police and Crown counsel to keep repeat offenders off the

street and stop criminal gang activity in the Downtown Eastside, more than doubling

funding for victim services and crime prevention after the old government cut it,

standing up to organized crime and money laundering that has fuelled the toxic drug

crisis and gang violence, and hiring more sheriffs to keep courts open and safe.

We know there is more to do. We’re going to keep working to support people, and we’re

going to keep bringing in outside perspectives to identify the gaps in systems that

remain.

Peter Milobar : Well, it appears the only person on the Downtown Eastside whose life this government

has changed for the better is the Premier’s friend Michael Bryant, over the last few

months, who received his $175,000 contract to review the spending that this government

is doing because they don’t want to admit it’s failing.

Does the minister think it’s wise that Mr. Bryant should be reviewing non-profit agencies

while actually working out of office space provided by those same non-profit agencies?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : To be clear, Michael Bryant is not reviewing the operations of not-for-profits, but

he is looking at systemic patterns and ways that we can, as a government, better deliver

service.

I do appreciate Mayor Sim’s offer of space. Michael Bryant has been working out of

a number of different locations, and we’re certainly open to new space if that is

more comfortable for the partnership with the city.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Government Hiring of Consultant

on Downtown Eastside Issues

and Former Role with Legal Aid B.C.

Peter Milobar : Well, the lack of answers and, more importantly, the body language from the Attorney

General, from the Premier and from other members of the cabinet says it all. We have

a Premier that said he had all the answers when he became the Premier on how to fix

the Downtown Eastside. We now have a review happening that the government is so proud

of they kept it secret and only actually acknowledged it, finally, once the media

started asking questions months later.

We find out it’s for $175,000 for six months. We find out it’s a friend of the Premier’s

who the Premier not only recommended to go work at Legal Aid, then got fired from

Legal Aid under a cloud of suspicion around potential misogynistic behaviour…. But

that wasn’t good enough for the Premier. He still recommended and actually ordered….

We can use the words “recommended” all we want, or “suggested,” if it’s the Premier

telling a brand-newly appointed minister who to hire in a role. The Premier told the

minister to hire his friend for $175,000, not caring about the allegations in the

background. Talk about some kind of hiring process.

Again, to the Premier, why would he recommend his friend — should have known full

well the situation around Legal Aid, at a bare minimum — to take on to try to clean

up his mess that he created as the Premier in the Downtown Eastside?

Hon. David Eby : There’s an issue that got me into politics, which was the state of life of people

living in the Downtown Eastside — crucially important to me for deciding to run for

office in the first place.

In my time as Attorney General, as Premier, I’m not seeing the conditions in the neighbourhood

improve. We made significant investments in housing, supporting people in different

ways, but there is a cohort of people in the neighbourhood that are served by non-profit

organizations, the city, the federal government, by our government, by private charities.

The metrics, the outcomes, the improvements for that specific group — I just don’t

think we’re seeing them.

I didn’t know Michael Bryant before. He was hired independently by Legal Aid B.C.

Worked with him as Attorney General….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby : The members have been wrong about 15 different things today. I can’t correct them

all. But he was hired….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. David Eby : If I rose on privilege on every dumb thing they said today, we would be here all

afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, just have some patience. It’s almost done.

Hon. David Eby : I didn’t know Michael Bryant. He was hired by Legal Aid B.C., independently of me.

But I saw his work at Legal Aid B.C. He worked with Indigenous people. He worked with

poor people, with people who are struggling, to get them access to justice in a meaningful

way. There’s some big restructuring there. I need him to use those skills in the Downtown

Eastside to find ways that we can provide better supports for people.

He’s struggled with his own addiction and recovery. He’s got empathy. He’s literally

working out of spaces where I think a lot of British Columbians might not feel totally

comfortable. But for many Downtown Eastside residents, that’s the only place they

feel comfortable.

You hear from them firsthand. That’s a point of critique. It’s been raised over and

over again. He’s got experience in law; he’s a lawyer. He’s got experience in government;

he was a former Attorney General. He understands the challenge at play.

I look forward to seeing his report — I agree with the members on this — to be judged

on the results of the impacts on the Downtown Eastside, an issue that has been too

long overlooked. I’ll also accept their critique that we’ve got a heck of a lot more

to do there.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Bruce Banman : I rise on a point of personal privilege, of an important matter before this House.

I’d like to clear it up, if I may.

The Speaker : Proceed.

Bruce Banman : It’s very serious. A cat has gone missing.

The Speaker : And are you apologizing?

[2:35 p.m.]

Bruce Banman : I think we need to clear this up, Mr. Speaker. My good name has been questioned in

this House. It’s even gone to the extent where a tabloid reporter, I believe, has

been hired to be a commissioner and has allegedly wrecked a $350,000 Lamborghini.

With a car expense like that, you’d think he’d be working for the Premier’s office,

but I digress.

The Speaker : Member, come to the point.

Bruce Banman : I will get to the point. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point is…. The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that I did go into your office, looking

for you. What did I find?

The Speaker : You found a cat, and you took it away.

Bruce Banman : I found a cat, with no food, no water — there wasn’t even a litterbox — surrounded

by kittens.

The Speaker : And they’re waiting for their mother to be returned.

Bruce Banman : Clearly, Mr. Speaker, good pet owners know that they should spay or neuter their

pets. But I digress again.

Mr. Speaker, as I recall the events, said cat practically jumped into my arms because

it felt abandoned. As all cat owners know, we do not own the cats. The cats pick who

they want.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the cat has had a wonderful time. It has travelled around the

Legislature. It has travelled this province. It’s been in the cockpit of a plane.

It’s been in the bridge of one of the B.C. Ferries. It’s gone for dim sum. It even

went to your office, Mr. Speaker. But sadly, the door was locked, and nobody was home.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, Macey is thrilled that you have promised to make a donation to

the SPCA.

The Speaker : Too late.

Bruce Banman : Well, if the cat returns, that will be on you then, Mr. Speaker.

We don’t pick the pets; they pick us.

I will make a donation to my local SPCA.

The Speaker : It’s about time.

Bruce Banman : I encourage all members of this House to make a donation to their local SPCA and

all cat lovers to do the same.

The Speaker : Thank you, Member. Have a seat.

Bruce Banman : Mr. Speaker, one more thing. If you will graciously honour your donation — and in

addition to that, Macey has expressed that she would like to see all 93 ridings of

this great province — I am sure that she will be back before you return from your

chair to your office.

The Speaker : Member, for your information, I don’t listen to people who steal cats.

Question of Privilege

(continued)

Harman Bhangu : I rise in response to the question of privilege raised on Monday by the Minister

of Housing and Municipal Affairs. While I respect his right to bring this matter forward,

I want to provide some context.

Over the past several months, I have received numerous phone calls from truckers and

company dispatchers who have raised serious concerns about the union’s operations,

including what they describe as unfair labour practices.

While I do not believe this rises to the level of breach of privilege as defined by

the precedents of this House, I remain open to any direction you may provide and trust

in your judgment to rule appropriately.

Now, I understand that my use of the words “blatantly corrupt” and “systemic nepotism”

are the focus of this question of privilege. In order to address this concern, and

out of respect for the rules of this House, I withdraw these comments without reservation.

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and

Private Members’ Bills Committee

Amna Shah : I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Private

Bills and Private Members’ Bills on Bill M205, intituled Mental Health Amendment Act,

2025. The committee recommends not to proceed further with this bill.

The Speaker : Members, the committee’s report on Bill M205, Mental Health Amendment Act, 2025,

will be considered at report stage during the next private members’ time.

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill

[2:40 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects

(Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025

(continued)

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

be continuing debate on Bill 14.

Macklin McCall : I rise today, not with hesitation but with firm resolve, to speak on a matter that

I believe strikes at the very heart of our democratic principles and the integrity

of governance in this province. Today we are being asked to consider and debate Bill

14, 2025, the so-called Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, a

piece of legislation that on its surface may appear to be an innocuous administrative

reform, a harmless efficiency measure. But let me be absolutely clear. This bill is

anything but harmless.

This is not merely a question of process or red tape. No, this is a fundamental question

of values, of how we as legislators respect the rights of the people we were elected

to represent. It is about the relationship between government and citizens, between

the state and the communities — especially rural and remote communities, who will

bear the brunt of the consequences if this bill becomes law.

The government, under the Premier and his NDP caucus, is attempting to sell this legislation

as a streamlining of approvals for renewable energy projects. But that word “streamlining”

is a clever euphemism. What it really means in this context is centralization of power,

reduction of public oversight and the silencing of local voices.

This bill hands unprecedented authority to bureaucrats and unelected officials. It

bypasses essential checks and balances. It dismantles environmental reviews and Indigenous

consultation protocols that took decades to establish. It does so not in the name

of progress but in the name of expedience — expedience at any cost. Let us not mince

words. That cost will be borne disproportionately by rural British Columbians, farmers,

foresters, ranchers, small-town mayors, Indigenous communities — people who have lived

on, worked on and cared for the land for generations.

I do not rise today merely to oppose this bill. I rise to defend democratic accountability,

to protect rural livelihoods and to sound the alarm about the dangerous precedent

this government is attempting to set. We should all be deeply concerned that, in the

name of environmental virtue-signalling, the NDP is prepared to bulldoze our democratic

institutions, trample on local autonomy and gamble with the livelihoods of the very

people they claim to champion.

This bill is not just bad policy; it is an affront to the democratic values we hold

dear. Over the next 30 minutes, I will outline in clear terms why Bill 14 is a betrayal

of due process, a threat to rural communities, a distortion of environmental stewardship

and a power grab that every member of this chamber should be alarmed by, regardless

of party stripe. If we allow this kind of legislative overreach to go unchallenged

today, what message are we sending about the future of governance in this province?

[2:45 p.m.]

I will not stand idly by while this government attempts to sideline local decision-making

and erode the rights of British Columbians under the cover of renewable energy policy.

I urge all members to listen with open minds and critical hearts. This bill deserves

nothing less than our full scrutiny and, in my view, our complete and total rejection.

As we delve deeper into the details of this deeply flawed legislation, I must draw

the attention of this House to one of the most shocking and dangerous elements contained

within its pages,

section 18(1)(d). Now let me read this

section into the record for

the benefit of the House and for the people of British Columbia who may be watching.

Section 18(1)(

d) empowers the government to suspend or cancel licences and permits,

including those for hunting, fishing and guide-outfitting, without a hearing, without

warning and without compensation. This is not just problematic. It is an affront to

justice, a slap in the face to due process and a betrayal of every British Columbian

who plays by the rules, pays their fees and depends on their licence for their livelihood

or way of life.

Let me be clear. This clause hands unelected bureaucrats the power to destroy businesses

and lives with the stroke of a pen, with zero accountability, zero transparency and

zero recourse for those affected. We are talking about hard-working people, guides

and outfitters who have built family businesses over generations, whose licences are

not just pieces of paper but the very foundation of their incomes, their reputations

and their identities — people who live in remote communities and whose livelihoods

depend entirely on their ability to operate legally, predictably and with the security

that only due process can provide.

Under this clause, these licences can be stripped away without a hearing, without

so much as a phone call, a letter of explanation or an opportunity to respond. Not

only that, but there is no mechanism for compensation, no pathway for appeal, no checks,

no balances. It is astonishing to me that in a free and democratic society like ours,

in a province that prides itself on fairness and equality before law, we would even

entertain the idea that the government can revoke someone’s ability to make a living

without due process.

Due process is not a luxury. It is not optional. It is a fundamental pillar of our

legal system and our democracy. It exists to protect the citizen from the state. It

exists to ensure that governments, regardless of their intentions, are bound by law,

accountable to the people and restrained from acting on a whim. Yet this government

is asking us to casually toss aside that fundamental safeguard, all in the name of

streamlining and efficiency.

Well, I say no. Efficiency without justice is tyranny in disguise. What happens when

someone loses their licence, not because of misconduct but because a project nearby

is deemed more politically expedient? What happens when an outfitter is stripped of

their permit because a large corporation wants to develop wind turbines on that land

and the government would prefer to clear the way quietly? Where does it end?

Let’s be honest with ourselves. This clause is not about environmental management.

It is about control. It is about eliminating opposition, removing inconveniences and

silencing those who might stand in the way of the government’s preordained agenda.

We should not be turning our backs on the very people who steward the land, who live

closest to it and who know it best.

These are not faceless operators. They are fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, business

owners and members of our rural communities. What message does it send when their

licences, issued by this very government, can be revoked without warning, without

cause and without compensation? This clause is a violation of fundamental rights,

and it must not stand. It should never have made it into the draft of this bill, let

alone a tabled version before this House.

That is why I say, with complete conviction,

section 18(1)(

d) must be removed. It

is incompatible with our democratic values, it is corrosive to the rule of law, and

it sets a precedent that should chill every British Columbian to their core. I call

on all members of this House, regardless of where you sit or what party you represent,

to stand up for due process, stand up for justice and stand against this overreach.

[2:50 p.m.]

I now turn to what may be the most constitutionally troubling aspect of Bill 14, and

that is the sweeping, unchecked powers it grants to both the B.C. Energy Regulator

and cabinet, allowing them to override legislation, sidestep democratic debate and

implement consequential decisions without ever returning to this assembly.

Let that sink in for a moment. With the passage of this bill, we would be empowering

cabinet ministers and unelected regulators to do what should only ever be done in

this House — make law. This is not merely poor policy; it is a direct threat to the

principles of parliamentary democracy that this Legislature exists to uphold.

We have seen this movie before. Those of us who were here during the outcry over Bill

7 will recognize the playbook immediately. That infamous piece of legislation, which

met widespread backlash across this province, attempted to expand ministerial discretion

in ways that sidestep transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

Now the same heavy-handed, centralizing instincts have returned, resurrected and repackaged,

under the guise of environmental urgency. Bill 14 allows cabinet, without public consultation,

without debate in this chamber and without oversight, to make decisions that can affect

land rights, regulatory obligations, Indigenous consultation, environmental exemptions

and more. This is legislation by executive fiat, and it has no place in a democratic

society.

When we grant regulators the authority to override legislation, when we place that

much power in the hands of agencies that are not elected, not accountable to voters

and not subject to the scrutiny of this House, we are undermining the foundation of

responsible government.

The B.C. Energy Regulator, as capable as its staff may be, is not a democratically

elected body. It is not answerable to the people in the way we are. Yet under this

bill, it would be given the ability to circumvent laws that were passed through democratic

processes, laws that were debated, amended and voted upon by elected representatives

from every corner of this province.

What is the point of having a Legislature if the decisions that matter most can be

made behind closed doors, by order in council or through regulatory discretion? This

chamber is not a rubber stamp. It is the beating heart of democratic debate in British

Columbia. It is where the people’s business is supposed to be conducted with honesty,

with scrutiny and with accountability, yet Bill 14 treats it as an obstacle to be

bypassed. It treats democratic oversight as an inconvenience. It treats your voice

and the voices of your constituents as optional.

We are not here to serve as a ceremonial body. We are not here to ratify the decisions

of cabinet after the fact. We are here to debate, to challenge and to hold power to

account. That is the essence of what it means to serve in a parliamentary democracy.

Let us be clear-eyed about where this road leads. If we normalize this kind of broad,

discretionary power, if we normalize cabinet overriding legislation without returning

to this House, then we are no longer operating under the rule of law. We are operating

under the rule of decree. That is not democracy. That is not British Columbia. And

it is not something any of us, regardless of party, should be willing to tolerate.

We are the stewards of this institution. We are the guardians of democratic practice

in this province. It falls on us to say no when a government, any government, asks

for the power to bypass the very system of accountability that gives this institution

its legitimacy. This House must not cede its authority. It must not surrender its

constitutional role, and it must not allow Bill 14 to pass with these dangerous provisions

intact.

If we fail to act now, we may find ourselves looking back in a few short years wondering

how we allowed this shift — this quiet, incremental erosion of democratic norms —

to take hold. We must draw a line. We must stand up for the sovereignty of this assembly,

and we must reject any attempt, however subtle or well packaged, to govern from the

shadows.

As if the unchecked powers and environmental exemptions and the erosion of democratic

oversight were not enough, Bill 14 contains yet another deeply disturbing component

— the use of retroactive provisions and the removal of traditional appeal mechanisms.

These two elements, buried deep in the legal framework of the bill, might not make

headlines, but their implications are nothing short of profound and dangerous. They

go to the very core of how law should function in a free and democratic society.

[2:55 p.m.]

First, let’s talk about the retroactivity clause. Bill 14 grants the government the

authority to apply decisions, fees and levies retroactively. That means a person or

business — be it a guide-outfitter, a landowner, a small clean energy operator or

even a local First Nation — could find themselves subject to new rules, penalties

or obligations for actions they took before those rules even existed.

This is not just problematic; it is a fundamental violation of legal certainty, a

principle that is the bedrock of civilized legal order. If the rules of the game can

be changed after the game has already been played, then we no longer have the rule

of law. We have the rule of whim. How can any citizen, any business owner, any community

leader plan for the future, make decisions in good faith if they live under the looming

threat that the government can reach backward through time and penalize them retroactively?

Retroactive law-making is something we typically associate with authoritarian regimes,

not with responsible democratic governments. In fact, legal scholars and constitutional

experts around the world regard retroactive laws with deep suspicion. They undermine

trust, they create uncertainty, and they send a chilling message: your rights today

may not protect you tomorrow.

But it doesn’t stop there. Not only does Bill 14 allow retroactive decision-making;

it also removes established appeal mechanisms that are meant to provide fairness and

accountability in our legal system. Under this bill, British Columbians affected by

key decisions such as the denial of permits, the seizure of land access or the imposition

of levies would have no right to appeal in the traditional sense — no tribunal, no

administrative review and, in many cases, no route to justice at all.

This is outrageous. Appeal rights exist not as bureaucratic nuance but as a vital

safeguard against error, abuse and overreach. They ensure that decisions made by regulators,

ministers and bureaucrats are subject to scrutiny and correction when needed. They

uphold fairness. They prevent miscarriages of justice.

To remove these rights, especially in a bill that already centralizes power in the

hands of cabinet and regulators, is to leave British Columbians defenceless in the

face of government authority. It is to tell them, effectively: “You have no recourse.

What we decide is final, and you will live with the consequences — retroactively,

if necessary.”

This is not merely poor legislation. It is not just a case of political overreach.

It is, quite frankly, a violation of the rule of law. It strips British Columbians

of predictability, security and the right to be heard. It erodes public trust in institutions,

and it sets an alarming precedent for how future governments of any stripe might treat

the law as a tool of convenience rather than a structure for fairness.

To every member of this chamber who believes in justice, regardless of your political

affiliation, I say this. Today it is Bill 14. Tomorrow it could be something else,

and the day after that, it could be your constituents who are left without recourse.

This House must never allow legislation to be used as a blunt instrument, especially

not legislation that operates in the shadows of retroactivity and silence. British

Columbians deserve a government that operates under the law, not above it. They deserve

decisions made openly, prospectively and with mechanisms in place to ensure fairness.

They deserve to know, if they are wrong, that they will be heard, not dismissed.

The retroactive provisions of this bill must be struck. The appeals mechanism must

be restored. This House must reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law, the right

of appeal and the principle that in a free society, justice must not be done. It must

be seen to be done.

One of the most distressing and, frankly, infuriating aspects of Bill 14 is the way

it disproportionately targets and harms rural British Columbians. It is as though

the architects of this legislation looked across the vast, diverse landscape of this

province and decided that rural people, the men and women who live closest to the

land, could simply be written off as collateral damage. This is not just bad policy;

it is a betrayal.

[3:00 p.m.]

Let me be very specific. This bill puts at risk the livelihoods of guide-outfitters,

ranchers, hunters, trappers, Indigenous and non-Indigenous landowners and the small

business owners who are the backbone of rural communities. These are people who are

not just workers. They are stewards of the land, community leaders and cultural keepers.

Many of them have lived in these areas for generations. They understand the rhythms

of the land, the importance of balance and the deep relationship between people and

nature.

What does this bill say to them? It says their licences — whether for outfitting,

guiding, hunting or operating on Crown land — can be revoked without notice. It says

their access to land can be curtailed without compensation, their family’s businesses

dismantled by fiat and their way of life sacrificed for someone else’s political timeline.

This bill treats rural British Columbians not as partners in the future but as obstacles

to be managed as expendable.

From the Cariboo to the Peace River, from the Kootenays to the Chilcotin….

Deputy Speaker : Members, could I ask you just to keep it down a little bit at the back of the room?

We’re listening to West Kelowna–Peachland. Thank you.

Macklin McCall : I’ll move back a bit here.

From the Cariboo to the Peace River, from the Kootenays to the Chilcotin, this bill

lands like a hammer. I have heard directly from the people it would impact: outfitters

who fear losing everything they’ve worked for, ranchers who are being kept in the

dark about the future of their grazing land, families who feel voiceless in their

own province.

To them, I say: I hear you, we hear you, and we will not let this go unchallenged.

This government has tried to frame Bill 14 as a forward-thinking piece of legislation,

streamlining, modernizing, advancing the green economy. But what is modern or forward-thinking

about writing off entire communities? What is progressive about ignoring the voices

of people who live with the real-world consequences of these policies?

Jessie Sunner : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Jessie Sunner : Today we have students visiting us in the Legislature from the Alcuin College. They

were introduced earlier by the MLA — for North Vancouver–Seymour, maybe? They’re from

North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

I just want to say that I see them seated in the gallery now, so if we could all just

give them a warm welcome, please.

Deputy Speaker : Indeed, welcome to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

Macklin McCall : Let us not forget that the rural economy is not a footnote in this province. It is

a pillar. It feeds our cities. It fuels our economy. It supplies our natural resources,

and above all, it reflects the very spirit of British Columbia — resilient, resourceful

and rooted in the land.

When we introduce legislation that devastates rural livelihoods, we are not just harming

individuals. We are damaging the social and economic fabric of entire regions, communities

that already face disproportionate challenges in health care access, infrastructure

and investment.

This damage is not hypothetical; it’s real. Under this bill, an outfitter with decades

of investment can lose everything overnight. A family farm can find itself flanked

by industrial energy corridors they were never consulted about. A trapline passed

down for generations can be rendered useless, not by nature, not by mismanagement

but by the careless stroke of a bureaucratic pen.

We should be supporting these communities, not sidelining them. We should be empowering

local voices, not stripping them of agency. We should be consulting, not imposing;

partnering, not punishing.

Bill 14 sends the opposite message. It says: “We in Victoria know best. We’ll decide

what’s important. And if your life, your land or your legacy gets in the way, well,

too bad.” That is unacceptable. This House has a duty to all British Columbians, not

just to urban voters, not just to developers, not just to politically aligned stakeholders.

Our duty is to every family, every small business and every community across this

great province.

Right now rural British Columbians are being told, in effect, that their voices don’t

matter, that their contributions are invisible, that their concerns are inconvenient.

That’s not the British Columbia I believe in. That’s not the kind of leadership this

Legislature should be endorsing.

We must stand with rural communities. We must reject the notion that progress must

come at the expense of fairness. And we must ensure that no government, this one or

any future one, has the authority to sweep away the rights and livelihoods of rural

families under the cover of streamlining.

[3:05 p.m.]

This bill sends the wrong message; let this House send a better one.

As I move to conclude this address, I do so with both a heavy heart and a firm resolve.

British Columbians deserve a cleaner energy future. No one in this chamber disputes

that. But they also deserve something that is important, something foundational. They

deserve justice. They deserve due process. They deserve respect.

Bill 14, in its current form, violates every single one of those principles. It pretends

to be about progress, but it is built on exclusion. It claims to empower the province,

but it silences the people. It wears the mask of green policy, but behind that mask

is a quiet erosion of democracy, rights and accountability.

Let us be clear about what this bill really is. It is not a roadmap to responsible

development. It is not a framework to fair regulation. It is a document of executive

overreach, bureaucratic arrogance and deeply flawed priorities. With its sweeping

powers, it casts aside the role of this House. With its retroactive provisions, it

undermines the rule of law.

With its removal of appeals, it denies people justice. With its exemptions from environmental

and cultural protections, it puts land, heritage and ecosystems at risk. With its

impact on rural communities, it sends the message loud and clear that those who live

outside the urban centres are second-class citizens in their own province.

That is not leadership. That is capitulation to expedience. That is what happens when

ideology replaces dialogue and when process is discarded in the pursuit of headlines.

This House must be more than a chamber of political convenience. It must be a safeguard

of principle, a place where legislation is not just pushed through but where it is

scrutinized, debated, tested and, when necessary, stopped.

We are not here to serve the short-term ambitions of a Premier. We are here to protect

the long-term rights of the people. We are here to ensure that every British Columbian

— urban, rural, Indigenous, non-Indigenous, business owner and land user — has a voice,

a fair process and a government that listens before it acts.

We must not sacrifice democracy on the altar of expediency. We must not let political

urgency trample constitutional principle. We must not let green become the excuse

for unchecked government power. Clean energy is not the enemy, but injustice in the

name of clean energy is. So I say, without hesitation and with great conviction, that

this House must reject Bill 14 in its current form, or at the very least, we must

amend it substantially, seriously and transparently to restore the principles of fairness,

accountability and democratic oversight.

We must do better for the ranchers in the Peace, for the outfitters in the Kootenays,

for the citizens who still believe that this Legislature is their Legislature and

not just a rubber stamp for cabinet.

History will remember what we do here. Let it remember that we chose principle over

pressure, that we defended process over power, that we stood not for the party but

for the people. Let us do the right thing. Let us stand up for the people we serve.

Jody Toor : I rise today to speak on Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting)

Act, a bill that on its face promises to accelerate our shift to clean energy. But

beneath the surface, it raises serious questions about democratic accountability,

oversight and the role of local communities in shaping the future of this province.

Let me be clear from the outset. I support renewable energy. Our communities support

renewable energy. We understand the need to transition to a more sustainable and secure

power grid. We welcome projects that create jobs and strengthen energy independence.

But that transition must be done right, with transparency, consultation and respect

for the rule of law.

[3:10 p.m.]

Bill 14, in its current form, fails on all of those fronts. The government is asking

British Columbians to hand over extraordinary authority to cabinet and to the B.C.

Energy Regulator without offering clear guardrails, timelines or accountability. They

are doing it in the name of speed, speed that comes at the expense of proper process.

Yes, let’s support our growing economy, but let’s not pretend this bill is just about

energy. This is a governance bill. It rewrites how decisions get made in this province

and who gets left out. In ridings like mine, Langley-Willowbrook, people care deeply

about both energy and process. They want responsible development, but they also want

to know that their local councils, agriculture protections and environmental safeguards

are not being overlooked in the rush to build.

As Vaughan Palmer put it in the Vancouver Sun : “But on closer examination, the two bills do not actually repel 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.”

We support reducing red tape, but this is not about clearing red tape for everyone.

It’s about granting the Premier and the cabinet the power to choose winners and losers.

When you centralize that kind of discretion behind closed doors, you don’t just undermine

trust; you invite abuse.

Clean energy must not come at the cost of clean governance. If we get this wrong,

we will not only weaken the public confidence but risk leaving communities behind.

In this House, it is our duty to ensure that doesn’t happen.

The government has framed this bill as a narrow and necessary tool, something designed

to fast-track nine wind farms and a transmission line from Prince George to Terrace.

That’s the story British Columbians are being sold, but the text of this legislative

bill tells a very different story.

Clause 2 of Bill 14 gives cabinet the ability to delegate any projects as streamlined,

not through debate in this House but quietly through regulation. There is no obligation

for consultation, no requirement for disclosure and no procedure for review.

Clause 1 expands the definition of renewable resources so broadly that the cabinet

can add new energy resources at will — not just solar and wind but biomass, biogas,

geothermal, ocean and, profoundly, any resource the government may later prescribe.

This means the list of projects eligible for fast-tracking is not fixed. It’s endless,

and it’s entirely at the cabinet’s discussion.

This isn’t about the nine projects. It’s about the ones to come, projects that could

be added without notice, without debate and without consent.

Let me be clear. We want more energy in this province, but we don’t want it delivered

through a process that sidelines communities and concentrates power in a small circle

of insiders. That’s the real risk here — not just the projects themselves, but, as

we have already heard many times in this House, the precedent this bill sets.

Who decides what counts as renewable? Who decides what projects get special treatments?

And who gets left out of this process? Right now the answer to all those questions

is the same: cabinet. Not communities. Not Members of the Legislative Assembly. That’s

exactly why this bill cannot go unchallenged. If we surrender our role in shaping

which projects move forward and how, we are not governing.

One of the most troubling aspects of Bill 14 is its treatment of environmental oversight,

not by strengthening it, not by even reforming it but by discarding it entirely for

certain projects. Clause 14 of the bill allows cabinet to exempt appointed renewable

energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Act. That includes the nine wind

farms and the North Coast transmission line initially identified.

It also includes any future projects the government decides to fast-track. This clause

doesn’t just bypass environmental review; it sets a precedent for skipping it altogether.

What does this mean in practice? It means no comprehensive analysis of accumulated

impacts, no enforceable consultation obligations and no independent scrutiny of how

these projects might affect our water, land, species at risk or climate.

[3:15 p.m.]

It means limiting one of the few tools communities and stakeholders have to advocate

and hold the government accountable. The Premier says in this bill that it’s about

energy security. But what kind of security do we offer future generations if we’re

willing to strip away basic safeguards?

Langley-Willowbrook residents understand the importance of thoughtful, balanced development.

We’re a community that has worked hard to preserve green space, protect farmland and

plan our growth. But Bill 14 takes that decision-making out of our hands and our communities.

It removes the requirement for public input, bypasses public scrutiny and concentrates

environmental decision-making within cabinet and a single regulator.

That’s not a partisan critique. It’s a warning. It’s a warning that when you exempt

powerful interests from transparency and oversight, you don’t just streamline a project.

You erode the public’s ability to evaluate whether it’s in the public good.

The people I serve, and British Columbians more broadly, deserve energy frameworks

that represent and respect governance, community input and integrity. On all of those

counts, Bill 14 fails, and we cannot afford to get this wrong. Bill 14 isn’t just

about permitting timelines, regulations or expertise. It touches the very heart of

what defines our communities, our farmland, our cultural heritage and our public lands.

Let’s begin with farmland. Clause 15 of this bill weakens the protection under the

Agricultural Land Commission Act by allowing the B.C. Energy Regulator to approve

non-farm use or subdivision of agricultural land reserve, ALR, land for renewable

energy projects. That’s not practical. That’s a direct threat to the long-term advantage

of B.C.’s farmland — the same farmland we rely on for food security, climate resilience

and generational stewardship.

Langley-Willowbrook is built on agricultural heritage. Farmers here aren’t just growing

crops. They’re anchoring an entire way of life. They’re feeding families, supporting

local economies and preserving open space. We’ve already seen development pressures

bring farmland to the edge. Now, with this bill, cabinet can authorize ALR land to

be carved up with minimal oversight and no public hearing. That is unacceptable.

Clause 16 goes even further, undermining the Heritage Conservation Act by giving the

B.C. Energy Regulator the authority to determine whether heritage protection applies

to a site. Even more concerning, the regulator also gets to appoint the decision-maker

who makes that determination.

In plain language, that means a single unelected body can decide what counts as a

heritage site, including sites of Indigenous cultural importances, and who has the

power to make that judgment. There is no requirement for public consultation, no requirement

for cultural expertise and no requirement to respect existing protection if the regulator

demands them inconvenient.

Let’s not forget that my riding is home to protected heritage corridors, historical

farmsteads and ecologically sensitive land that we fought hard to preserve. The people

care deeply about legacy — not just their land but what they pass on to future generations.

When the government strips away local input and heritage safeguards, they’re not just

rushing projects. They’re erasing local identity in the name of speed.

Yes, we want energy, but not at the expense of bulldozing necessary farmland, not

at the expense of dismissing the cultural voices who have fought to protect dedicated

land and not at the expense of losing the character and identity that make our communities

unique. Once we open this door, once you allow cabinet and a single regulator to rezone

farmland, override community planning and redefine heritage, there is no guarantee

where it will stop. That’s not renewable energy policy. That’s overreach.

[3:20 p.m.]

If there is one area where British Columbians expect clarity, it’s safety. Yet Bill

14 introduces sweeping provisions that remove or weaken safety standards, not just

for workers and contractors but for entire communities. Clause 17 allows for the Safety

Standards Act to be disapplied for certain level 3 streamlined projects. That’s not

an administrative detail. That’s an intentional choice to exempt high-impact projects

from core safety laws. There is no explanation in this bill for why safety protocols,

fire prevention systems or equipment standards should be considered optional and no

transparency about which projects will be granted this exemption.

Let me ask plainly. Would this government ever suggest waiving fire codes for a school

build or lift electrical standards for a hospital expansion? Of course not. Why is

it acceptable to do so here simply because the projects carry a renewable label?

As I said before, my riding is not opposed to renewable energy, but our residents

expect a basic protection. Fast-tracking a wind turbine installation doesn’t mean

fast-tracking past safety obligations, especially not when those are buried in back

pages of bills with no process for public notice or review. The NDP claims to be the

party of workers, yet they’re drafting bills that let safety standards be stripped

away for convenience.

The scope of government overreach doesn’t end there. Clause 18 of this bill gives

the B.C. Energy Regulator the power to cancel hunting, trapping and angling permits

at its discretion, without any obligation to hold a hearing or provide justification.

These aren’t just recreational permits in many cases. They are how families feed themselves,

maintain their culture and practices and steward the land.

In regions like ours, where rural and urban meet, these rights matter. Families have

lived for generations off the land, working in partnership with nature. To hand unelected

regulators the power to cancel those rights without appeal is more than bureaucratic

arrogance. It’s a direct threat to the values and freedoms many British Columbians

hold dear.

Let’s be clear. This isn’t about opposing progression; it is about defending due process.

A government that can cancel safety rules or revoke public rights without explanation….

What’s missing from this bill are the guardrails that prevent abuse. There are no

thresholds, no public hearings, no automatic reviews, no reassurance that decisions

that can be made by the regulator will reflect the interests of people who actually

live in those communities, such as mine. In short, there is no accountability, and

where there’s no accountability, there is no safety.

One of the most dangerous aspects of Bill 14 is not just what it enables, going forward,

but what it retroactively excuses. Clause 21 of this bill validates any action taken

by the B.C. Energy Regulator since April 1, 2024. That means the government is reaching

back in time to declare that anything done even potentially outside of existing law

is now suddenly legal, no matter the impact, no matter the public consequences.

This retroactive authority is a direct attack on legal certainty and public accountability.

When a government can change the rules after the effect, it sends a chilling message

to communities, to investors and to every citizen who believes in due process. The

rules are whatever the cabinet says they are, even if you followed the law at the

time. This is not a good governance. It is democratic oversight. It is bureaucratic

retrofitting designed to cover tracks, not build trust.

Clause 13 is equally alarming. It allows cabinet to amend, disapply or apply key sections

of the Energy Resource Activities Act through regulation. That means major legislative

powers are being shifted from this chamber, from the people elected, representatives,

to executives. It gets worse. That power can be delegated further to the B.C. Energy

Regulator or even to any person assigned by the minister. In theory, one unelected

official could be handed the power to rewrite the law without ever coming before this

House.

[3:25 p.m.]

This government has approached this bill as though oversight is a liability and public

consultation is an obstacle. Let’s be honest about what this bill does. It gives this

cabinet the ability to declare any project as streamlined, and it gives the regulators

the ability to waive or rewrite laws that would otherwise require legislative debate.

This bill doesn’t just move fast; it moves behind closed doors. It centralizes power

in a way that is incompatible with open government, and it sets a precedent that future

governments of any stripe could use to override laws without a vote, without a hearing

and without the public ever knowing what changed.

If we allow this kind of retroactive, unaccountable governance to become the norm,

we risk eroding the very foundations of our democracy. The strength of our system

isn’t measured by how quickly a law can be passed; it’s measured by how well that

law serves the people it’s meant to protect.

One of the most unsettling trends emerging from this government is its quiet but deliberate

dismantling of local democratic authority, and Bill 14 is yet another step in that

direction. This legislation also paints a clear picture of a government that no longer

sees municipal government as partners but as obstacles to be bypassed. Bill 14 allows

cabinet to fast-track renewable energy projects and allows entire permitting pathways

through regulation without input from local governments, without consistency from

official community plans and without accountability to the people who live in these

communities.

Let’s be clear. This isn’t doubtful. The government has already signalled its intention

to centralize power over land use. This bill strips local governments of the opportunity

to represent their ridings on issues that directly affect them, whether that’s transmission

lines, crossing farmland or a wind farm impacting rural habitat and property values.

In Langley-Willowbrook, our residents take local planning seriously. Our official

community plan wasn’t created overnight, and it was developed through public consultation,

with care, collaboration and compassion. That’s how planning should work, but under

Bill 14, that entire process can be overridden at a stroke of a pen.

This government claims to value consultation, but how can that be true when local

leaders, planners and citizens are systematically excluded from decisions that will

reshape our communities? If this bill is so benign, so targeted, so limited in scope,

why hand the power to sidestep every layer of local regulation to unelected regulators

or a cabinet? We know what happens when this kind of authority is abused. We’ve seen

it in other sectors. Centralized control means centralized mistakes. When local knowledge

is ignored, the consequences are always felt on the ground.

Municipal authorities are not a barrier to progress. They are a safeguard of democracy.

Our communities should not have to fight their own provincial government just to have

a say in their future. Yet this bill sets up that exact conflict, and it does so with

no checks, no timelines, no reassurances that the local voices will ever be heard.

We cannot allow this kind of bill that disrespects the work of councillors, planning

departments and residents who give their time and energy to shape where and how we

grow. Bill 14 undermines that work. It undermines the principle that those most affected

by a project should have a seat at that table.

Another deeply troubling feature of Bill 14 is its lack of guardrails around levying

fees and financial decision-making. Specifically, clause 12 and clause 22 grant the

B.C. Energy Regulator authority to improve any levy or financial obligations on projects

retroactively and without a clear formula. This is not how you build a fair, competitive

energy market. It’s how you create a two-tiered system, one that’s ripe for political

favouritism.

[3:30 p.m.]

What’s to stop a well-connected developer from securing a sweetheart deal while a

competitor down the road is hit with an arbitrary fee? What protections exist to ensure

these financial decisions aren’t influenced by lobbyists, donors or political insiders?

There are none. That’s what this is about: picking winners and losers behind closed

doors.

Under subsection 22(2) of the bill, the regulator can issue a certificate requiring

to pay any amount of fee, not based on impact, not based on scale, not based on a

clear framework or legislation — just any amount. This lack of financial transparency

opens the door to inconsistencies, favouritism and even abuse.

When power is this centralized and unaccountable, the public starts asking fair questions.

Who gets fast-tracked? Who gets exemptions? Who gets a break on fees? And without

mandated reporting or public disclosure, we won’t know.

The chamber warned that such sweeping powers should not be justified simply by involving

urgency. Yet here we are again. A different bill, but the same dangerous approach.

If you want to create a business climate that encourages investment in renewable energy,

this is not the way to do it. Investors need clarity. Communities need fairness. British

Columbians need accountability. Bill 14 offers none of those things. Instead, it grants

a small circle of unelected officials the authority to impose costs, modify obligations

and rewrite the rules, all without having to explain themselves. That’s not how you

build confidence; that’s how you erode it.

When governments ask for extraordinary powers, they owe the public an extraordinary

level of transparency. Bill 14 does the opposite. It centralizes the power, avoids

legislative scrutiny and buries decision-making behind bureaucratic doors. Even if

the intentions are good, and let’s give the government the benefit of doubt, the process

matters. Public trust is not something you demand; it’s something you earn. And this

government is spending that trust like it’s disposable.

My riding of Langley-Willowbrook, like so many across this province, cares deeply

about both the future of energy and the integrity of those decisions made. They believe

in responsible development, but not at the expense of safeguards that have long protected

our environment, our farms and our democratic institutions. It’s rooted in real experience

of closed-door decisions of developers with privileged access of rural and suburban

communities left out of conversation.

People need to know that their voices matter, that their concerns will be heard, that

their local government and regional plans still mean something. Bill 14 sends the

opposite message. It says: “We’ll decide. We’ll delegate. We’ll exempt. And you will

find out later, if at all.”

This bill validates decisions made before this bill was even introduced. It gives

cabinet the ability to rewrite rules retroactively. It lets the regulator override

community plans, safety laws and heritage protection, at will. They are not just technical

changes. They are systematic shifts in how power is used in this province.

Our democratic work doesn’t work unless people believe it’s working for them. When

government begins sidelining communities, ignoring First Nations and rushing bills

through without meaningful oversight, that belief starts to demolish.

We are not opposed to building things. We are opposed to sidestepping the process

that protects people, in the rush to build. Bill 14 is not just about energy. It’s

about governance. It’s about the values. Most of all, it’s about who gets a seat at

the table when decisions are made that affect everybody.

Let us be very clear that British Columbians deserve energy, but they also deserve

accountable government. This House has a choice, a choice between endorsing a bill

that centralizes power, undermines community consultation, weakens environmental oversight

and opens the door to political favouritism or choosing a better path, a path that

reflects the values of fairness, transparency and democratic integrity.

[3:35 p.m.]

The NDP wants to frame this debate as splitting support for clean energy or a stand

in the way of progression, but that’s a false choice. We are here today because we

support clean energy. What we do not support is a blank cheque handed to a cabinet

and an unelected regulator to operate without meaningful limits, without checks and

without public accountability.

This bill is not about whether renewable energy should be built. It’s about how. Under

Bill 14, the how is dangerously vague, open-ended and politically convenient. This

isn’t red-tape reduction for everyone. This is red-tape reduction for those who have

political connections to fast-track their projects while others wait in line. We cannot,

in good principle, support a piece of legislation that sacrifices due processes, invites

regulator inconsistency and leaves our communities voiceless in decisions that affect

their land, their livelihood and their legacy.

We owe it to our communities and to the future generations to get this right. I reject

Bill 14 in its current form, and I urge every member of this House to do the same.

At the end of the day, our job is not just to build projects; it’s to build trust.

And we cannot do that with this bill that integrates power at the expense of people

who are elected to represent. Let’s prove to British Columbians that we can grow our

energy future without abandoning the integrity of governance.

Donegal Wilson : I rise today to speak to Bill 14, the Renewable Energy (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Before we dive into the technical details of this bill, I want to take a step back

and talk about what’s really at stake here.

Bill 14 is not just about renewable energy; it’s about authority. It’s about who gets

to make decisions, how those decisions are made and who gets left behind in the process.

This legislation hands sweeping powers to cabinet and to the B.C. Energy Regulator,

bypassing environmental oversight, overriding existing legislation and weakening the

role of this very Legislature.

It allows cabinet to unilaterally determine which projects are in and which are out,

which projects deserve full scrutiny and which get a free pass. That’s not due process.

That’s a government picking winners and losers behind closed doors.

We are told that this bill is meant to streamline the permitting process for nine

wind farms and one transmission line. But the legislation doesn’t stop there. It gives

cabinet the ability, at any time, to designate any renewable energy project as streamlined

through regulation — no legislative debate, no oversight, just a stroke of the pen

to bypass the laws of our province.

Then we look at how those projects will be treated. Environmental assessments? Optional.

Safety standards? Suspended. Agricultural land use rules? Waived. Heritage designations?

Delegated to a regulator who can choose who decides whether something is significant

or not. To me, this is not regulatory efficiency; it is regulatory erasure.

Even more concerning, this bill applies retroactively. What message does this send

to project proponents, to Indigenous nations, to communities and to landowners? It

tells them: “Make your application, but the rules can be changed at any time, and

you’ll have no say in it.”

What message does it send to industry? Unless your project is politically convenient,

your permit might be stuck in limbo, while someone else’s project leaps ahead with

a government blessing. This is not how you restore investor confidence in British

Columbia. This is not how you promote sustainable development. And in my opinion,

it’s certainly not how you govern this province.

[3:40 p.m.]

I want to be clear. I support the idea of reducing duplication in the permitting process.

I support timely decision-making, and I support renewable energy development. I campaigned

on those items, but the path to those items and outcomes cannot be through unchecked

authority, retroactive validation and the systematic dismantling of oversight. The

rules and process should be fair, transparent and understood by all. This bill gives

too much power to too few people, and that should concern every member of this House,

regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on.

Let’s talk about the structure of this bill, specifically the three-tiered streamlining

system that it creates. Bill 14 divides energy projects into three classes: level

1, level 2 and level 3. On the surface, that might sound like a reasonable way to

organize things, but when you look at the actual application of these levels, a troubling

pattern emerges. The lower the number, the more regulation applies. The higher the

number, the fewer rules, the less scrutiny and the more discretionary authority is

handed to cabinet and the regulator.

Let’s start with level 1. This is the base category, essentially a catch-all for projects

that haven’t been specifically designated by cabinet. These projects still require

permitting processes, and the regulatory framework remains largely intact. But the

government has made it clear these are the less preferred projects, the ones not on

our priority list.

We move to level 2, currently designated for the North Coast transmission line and

any other projects cabinet decides to add later. Here entire sections of the Energy

Resource Activities Act are suspended. It appears that the regulator is no longer

bound by permitting requirements, and key provisions around records, public investigations

and dormant site obligations are thrown out. Safety plans are not even necessary.

By the time we reach level 3, we are operating almost entirely outside the normal

bounds of oversight. These are the cabinet’s handpicked projects, and they are handed

a blank slate. The Environmental Assessment Act doesn’t apply. The Agricultural Land

Commission is sidelined. Safety standards can be waived, and wildlife permitting can

be cancelled.

It all happens with no guarantee of public transparency. Who gets to decide which

projects get this treatment? Cabinet. No legislative process, no published criteria

and no review panel. Just an order in council, and suddenly, a project is elevated

to elite status in B.C.

What’s worse, these levels aren’t based on risk. They aren’t based on size or location

or their environmental impact or to communities. They’re based on discretion, which

means two projects doing the exact same thing in similar locations could face completely

different regulatory burdens, simply because one was liked more by government.

Let’s call this what it is. It’s not a streamlining framework but a hierarchy of political

favour. It’s a system that fast-tracks favoured projects while leaving others buried

under red tape. It creates uncertainty for project proponents, distrust in the regulatory

system and a dangerous precedent where the rules don’t even apply.

I appreciate that the government has recognized that their current process is flawed,

but instead of fixing it to make B.C. investable again and create stable jobs, we

have chosen to handpick projects that can go around due process. If we’re serious

about streamlining, let’s do it for everyone. Let’s build a single, accountable, transparent

process that applies equally to all projects, regardless of who’s in the photo op.

We need to ensure that regulatory fairness is not up for political negotiation.

We’ve heard a lot of talk from this government about the need for faster permitting,

cleaner energy and job creation. But those outcomes will remain out of reach for many,

under a bill like this, because what this legislation really says is: if your project

isn’t politically aligned with government priorities, good luck.

We have small towns across B.C. that are struggling to get water treatment upgrades

approved, where basic infrastructure projects languish for years in permitting backlogs.

Just last week, in estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship,

we shared some of the backlogs we have on water licences and land applications. Combined,

we have thousands of applications that are waiting to be processed, with some going

back almost ten years.

[3:45 p.m.]

Bill 14 does nothing to address this backlog. We have ranchers, loggers, mill owners

and clean energy innovators who can’t get a straight answer from government on what’s

required to move forward. They’re just sitting in the queue in good faith while the

other projects, projects favoured by this government, will step over them and bump

them even further down the list.

Meanwhile, the Premier stands up and says, “We’re cutting red tape,” while creating

a system where only some projects get access to this so-called single window.

Let’s be clear. I support the concept of a single-window permitting process. I think

every project, big or small, should be able to navigate the system without hitting

the wall of interministry confusion and contradiction that exists today.

But that single window should be open to everyone, and under Bill 14, it’s not. In

fact, rural proponents are at an even greater disadvantage, because if your project

doesn’t make the government’s shortlist, if it isn’t one of the selected nine wind

farms or part of the North Coast transmission line, you’re still stuck navigating

the same fragmented, slow-moving, multiministry approval process that has plagued

this province for years.

Even worse, this bill creates the perception — and in some cases, the reality — that

urban or industrial-scale projects with political backing get special treatment, while

regionally critical projects are left behind. This creates real uncertainty for investors,

for local governments and for families who just want to see jobs returned to their

communities.

Let me say this plainly. If we create a system where the government arbitrarily decides

which projects move forward and which don’t, we will not rebuild investor confidence

in this province. We will not attract the kind of responsible, long-term investment

that creates the jobs that we need in rural B.C.

The result? Entire communities are left waiting for housing approvals, waiting for

energy connections, waiting for government to treat their priorities with the same

urgency and respect as those of a politically convenient wind farm.

My constituents don’t need special treatment. They need fair treatment, and a government

permitting process that is efficient, consistent and transparent, not one that leaves

them at the back of the line because they don’t fit the current narrative. This legislation

doesn’t deliver that. It widens the gap and, in doing so, further erodes public trust

in a system that already feels rigged against rural British Columbians.

In addition to creating a two-tiered permitting regime, Bill 14 goes much further.

It tears down some of our province’s most fundamental environmental and cultural protections

quietly, through exemptions, through discretionary powers and through the erosion

of our laws that have until now provided some measure of public accountability.

Let’s begin with the Environmental Assessment Act. Clause 14 of this bill outright

exempts the nine wind energy projects, the North Coast transmission line and any future

cabinet-approved projects from undergoing an environmental assessment. That means

no requirement to assess cumulative effects, no public consultation and no independent

review, even for massive, landscape-altering projects. Let’s call that what it is:

a rollback. We were told these projects are low-impact, but how can anyone judge impact

when the process to evaluate it has been deliberately removed?

Next I’ll speak to something close to my own riding, the Agricultural Land Commission

Act. Clause 15 allows for non-farm use, subdivision and even soil or fill dumping

on protected agricultural land. The Keremeos, Similkameen Valley, is full of wind.

Are farms going to be overridden with renewable energy windmills?

This will be done at the discretion of the regulator. No hearing, no notice and no

ALC oversight. In case there was any doubt, clause 24 amends the ALC Act to make it

clear that its rules do not apply to Bill 14 projects. This should be alarming to

every person in this province who believes in protecting B.C.’s farmland. Once you

carve exemptions like this into the agricultural land reserve, you weaken our entire

system, and we’ve seen before how hard it is to get our farmland back once it’s gone.

[3:50 p.m.]

Then we have the Heritage Conservation Act. Under clause 16, the authority to designate

and manage culturally significant sites can now be delegated to the regulator or even

an employee of the regulator. These are sites of historical, cultural or Indigenous

significance, and instead of being handled through the heritage branch or through

established protocols, that responsibility can now be passed to someone with no heritage

experience or, worse, someone that has been tasked with fast-tracking a project. Short-term

gain may irrevocably destroy an irreplaceable heritage site. That is a clear conflict

of interest, and it opens the door to political interference and irreversible damage.

Clause 17 weakens the Safety Standards Act, explicitly exempting levels 2 and 3 projects

from creating needed safety plans and provisions that exist to protect workers, communities

and the environment.

Clause 18, perhaps the most quietly controversial, delegates powers under the Wildlife

Act to the regulator, including the ability to suspend or cancel permits for hunting,

trapping and angling — possibly creating new lineal lines, contrary to the many investments

this government has had to rehabilitate roads and land for wildlife.

This is not a theoretical risk. The government’s own backgrounders admit these powers

are being granted, not requested, and there’s no requirement for justification, consultation

or public notice. That means entire groups — outfitters, First Nations or residents

— who rely on those permits could have them revoked, based on a decision tied to a

development project.

We’ve seen this tactic before in Bill 7, and British Columbia has pushed back hard,

because even if they support renewable energy, they don’t support trampling over our

environmental laws, our wildlife management or the cultural protections we have in

place. This bill repeats those mistakes.

I’ll say this again. I support renewable energy development but not if it comes at

the cost of the very values we claim to uphold, and not if it bulldozes over our food

security, our cultural heritage and our wildlife protections in the name of bureaucratic

convenience. Streamlining should not mean sacrificing stewardship. It should mean

clarity, certainty and consistency, not exemptions for the powerful and silence for

everyone else.

One of the most concerning aspects of Bill 14 is the vast and virtually unchecked

power it hands to the B.C. Energy Regulator and the complete absence of built-in accountability.

Let’s remember that the B.C. Energy Regulator is not elected, it does not report to

this House, and under this legislation it is being given the authority to rewrite

the rules it operates under, with little to no oversight from this Legislature. Let

me walk through what that actually means.

Under clause 13, cabinet can make regulations to apply, disapply or modify entire

sections of the Energy Resource Activities Act as they relate to streamlined projects.

The regulator can be authorized to disregard rules, even core regulatory functions,

if government so chooses. In addition, the regulator will be empowered to impose fees

and levies, including retroactive charges dating back to 2024. These can be imposed

not just by the regulator itself but by a person or class of persons with delegated

authority.

Is there any reporting requirement back to this House? No. Is there a

schedule of

fees subject to legislative approval? No. These costs could be imposed quietly, without

public debate and without recourse, or even waived altogether for projects identified.

The regulator will also be able to exercise powers under other acts, including the

Wildlife Act, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Agricultural Land Commission Act

and the Safety Standards Act. All of this is set out in clauses 15 through 18. In

many cases, the regulator can further subdelegate those powers to an employee.

This legislation is silent on who approves those appointments, who audits those decisions

or what qualifications they must meet. To me, this is not a model of efficient governance.

It’s a framework for regulatory capture. We’re giving one entity, the Energy Regulator,

the ability to override the rules, define new rules, and enforce the rules with virtually

no checks. The Legislature, where laws are meant to be debated and scrutinized, is

cut out entirely. That should concern every member in this chamber, regardless of

party.

[3:55 p.m.]

Today it’s about renewable energy projects. Tomorrow it could be the ability to override

municipalities and the people that were elected to manage them. To some, that may

sound like an unlikely example, but I can assure you that it’s not. As I stand here

today, in another chamber of this House a very similar bill to do just that is coming

through the Legislature. When governments centralize power this aggressively and when

independent oversight is removed, the public loses trust. And once trust is lost,

even good projects face opposition.

We have a duty to ensure that British Columbians can have confidence in how decisions

are made, not just what decisions are made. Bill 14 fails that test. It prioritizes

control over credibility, and in doing so, it sets a dangerous precedent for the erosion

of legislative authority in this province.

If there is one clause in this bill that every legislator in the building should be

deeply concerned about, regardless of how they feel about renewable energy or permitting

reform, it is clause 21, titled “Validation.” Let me read directly from the bill

summary.

“All things done by the board, the commissioner, the regulator or an employee or official

of the regulator….”

Pete Davis : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Pete Davis : We have in the House today with us a group of students from Kelowna, led by their

teacher Joe Eapen.

They’re from Flex Academy in Kelowna. My wife actually works with this school. Flex

Academy is a school that encourages students to explore their passions through flexible,

self-paced education. The school values independence and innovation.

What we’re doing here, students — if you guys can see me; I know you’re behind me;

there you are — is we’re just debating a bill right now that’s been put towards the

House. We have to have quorum, so we’ve got to have people on both sides of the House

to listen to speeches and to debate the bill.

Let’s make this group feel welcome.

The Chair : Thank you very much.

Welcome to everybody in the gallery today.

Debate Conti