First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, October 27, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 90

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

Members’ Statements

Down Syndrome Awareness Week

George Chow

Mussallem Family

Lawrence Mok

Burnaby Intervention Support Team

Janet Routledge

Nation2Nation Conference in Kitimat

Claire Rattée

Whalley Little League

Amna Shah

Student Leadership and Achievements of Suhana Gill

Bryan Tepper

Oral Questions

Obstetric and Gynecological Services in Kamloops and Government Action on Issues

Peter Milobar

Hon. Josie Osborne

Interior Health Authority Staffing Issues and Call for Review

Kristina Loewen

Hon. Josie Osborne

Impact of Public Service Labour Dispute and Government Action on Services Backlog

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Government Handling of Public Service Labour Dispute

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Government Advertising and Economic Relations with U.S.

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Government Position on Trade with China

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Interior Health Authority Management and Staffing Issues

Gavin Dew

Hon. Josie Osborne

Psychiatric Care Staffing and Access to Services

Anna Kindy

Hon. Josie Osborne

Funding for Youth Mental Health Services in Northern B.C.

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. Josie Osborne

Access to Mental Health Supports in Northern B.C.

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Funding for Mental Health Programs

Trevor Halford

Hon. Josie Osborne

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Amendment to Standing Orders for October 28 Sitting Hours

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Second Reading of Bills

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

Pete Davis

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Jeremy Valeriote

Elenore Sturko

Tara Armstrong

Tony Luck

Hon. Randene Neill

Brennan Day

Gavin Dew

Claire Rattée

Hon Chan

Reporting of Bills

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon Chan

Peter Milobar

Bryan Tepper

Bruce Banman

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M213 — Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 19 — School Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Lisa Beare

Heather Maahs

Korky Neufeld

Scott McInnis

Lynne Block

Sheldon Clare

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Donegal Wilson

Steve Kooner

Gavin Dew

Misty Van Popta

Monday, October 27, 2025

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block : I would like to introduce Declan Williams, co-chair of the B.C. Youth Council; Jacqueline

Leung; Erin Sweeney; Tish Sera Josep; and Daryn Elizabeth Dolatre.

The B.C. Youth Council is an organization dedicated to bridging the gap between youth

and politics. Through regional youth councils, they work to connect youth to the Members

of the Legislative Assembly.

Recently the B.C. Youth Council has begun their series of MLA interviews. I highly

encourage all my fellow MLAs on both sides of the aisle to accept their offer to be

interviewed and connect with the youth of your riding.

Please give a very warm welcome to the visiting B.C. Youth Council.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I’d like to welcome today members of the Chardikala Brotherhood Welfare Association.

We have members Jaswinder Singh Dilawari, who is the founder and president; Harpreet

Singh Manktala, who is the vice-president; advocate Avtar Singh Dhanoa, who is a legal

adviser; Malkiat Singh, media coordinator; and Damanjit Singh Basi, the IT coordinator.

They do work throughout the community, including blood donations, community cleanups

and raising funds for flood relief. I just want to thank them for coming, on behalf

of the government side.

Can everyone please make them feel welcome.

John Rustad : From time to time, it’s a great pleasure to be able to have somebody come down and

visit, especially when it’s my wife, Kim. She doesn’t get an opportunity to come down

very often, and it’s always really appreciated. Her support and her love are so much

appreciated.

I love you, Kim. Thank you for coming down and being here today.

Will the House please make her welcome.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I see a constituent of mine, Vinay Sharma, is here in the House today.

Vinay, of course, is head of Times of Canada. I think his greatest gift to Delta,

to British Columbia, is actually his children. Both of them are phenomenal, amazing,

and he’s got an amazing family.

I want to welcome him and his guests today to the House. I hope the House can make

them feel very welcome.

Misty Van Popta : I had to write this down so that I didn’t choke up.

Today in the House is one of my five pillars, my youngest daughter, Amelia.

I’m not really sure how to appropriately speak of my children in the chamber, especially

when they have become brave and courageous advocates for their own stories.

She’s fierce. She’s creative. She’s fiercely creative. She’s one of the strongest

and coolest people I know, although it is she that steals my clothes, so clearly,

the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

May the House make her feel welcome.

Janet Routledge : Joining us in the gallery today are members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees,

Local 2278.

CUPE 2278 represents over 4,000 academic workers at the University of British Columbia

and the University of Northern British Columbia. Their members teach, support curricular

activities, research and run programming and outreach at both universities. Through

their work, these members are creating world-class research and knowledge at two of

Canada’s top universities.

They are Jessica Wolf, vice-president; Daniel Crook, secretary-treasurer; Sam Connolly,

member advocate; and Jessica Orcutt, CUPE communications representative.

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

Steve Kooner : I see a constituent up there, Tusheer Kapila.

I’d like to welcome him, as well as some friends, Vinay Sharma, Shubha Chaudhury,

Amrit Pal Dhot, as well as Jaswinder Dilawari.

Please welcome them.

Sunita Dhir : Today I have one of my besties here in the House, and her name is Shubha Chaudhury.

Shubha continues to inspire me with everything she does, along with raising two beautiful

daughters. She’s also popularly known as the mortgage queen of the Lower Mainland,

as she is the founder of Keyways Mortgage. She’s the managing partner of the Times

of Canada, and she’s also a director in the Lakshmi Narayan temple in Surrey.

I also have Mr. Tusheer Kapila, who is a dear friend of mine, a licensed real estate

professional as well as a property developer. He is the founder of Kalakar Junction,

and he supports a lot of arts and culture initiatives in the Lower Mainland.

Both of them are known throughout the Lower Mainland for their community service.

Can I please request everybody on both sides make them feel welcome here.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Anne Kang : I would like to give a warm welcome to my two special guests in the gallery today,

Komil Mamajanov and Sitora Azimova.

I met these two generous philanthropists at the SUCCESS Gala. They won the live auction

bid for an exciting visit to the Legislature with Richard Zussman, Keith Baldrey and

myself.

Unfortunately, I’m not able to be there today, but I understand that the Minister

of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services had lunch with them on my behalf,

stepped in and wonderfully entertained them. They both work at University Canada West.

They toured with Richard and Keith today. I understand that they are big fans and

watch Keith’s noon hit on Global.

Many thanks to everyone who makes them feel very welcome. Would the House please join

me in making them feel very welcome today.

Amna Shah : I know that the Minister of Jobs was quick to intro, but I have to as well. I’d like

to welcome Vinay Sharma here, founder of Times of Canada and board member of Lakshmi

Narayan Mandir in Surrey.

I also want to give a shout-out to Vinay’s daughter Geetanjli Sharma, even though

I don’t see her up here. My understanding is that she’s kind of taken over the Times

of Canada, which is great. Lots of young energy and spirit.

Hello to Geetanjli, wherever she is.

Bryan Tepper : I’d just like to follow up as well.

First of all, I think I would argue that the mortgage queen is my bestie as well.

To follow up on the Chardikala Brotherhood Welfare Association, they only formed in

July. They’ve already had several great fundraising efforts where they donated $5,000

worth of toys to the B.C. Children’s Hospital. They’ve had a community cleanup at

Cloverdale with 80 pounds of garbage. They’ve had two blood donation drives and the

flood relief in Punjab as well. They’ve managed to raise over $11,000 for that.

Their future plans of tree planting, Christmas toy drives and another food drive are

in the works.

Thank you for being here.

A big round for them.

Susie Chant : I would just like to say a big thank-you and a welcome to His Excellency the consul

general for the U.K., who was here today and had a luncheon for us. I’m just very

glad to support and sustain those relationships with the U.K. that we already have

in place and we continue to mutually benefit from.

I’d just like to make him feel very welcome.

Thank you for lunch.

Bruce Banman : Abbotsford is very blessed in the fact that we have, in my opinion, one of the greatest

hospices in British Columbia, which includes Dave Holmberg House, the hospice and

grief centre.

We are very privileged today to have the executive director, Andrea Critchley, who

is here.

Would you please stand?

Would the House please give her a huge round of applause for taking care of loved

ones in their last few days here on earth.

Thank you for all the work that you do.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : In the House today, we have members from the Belonging Network, Anne Tower and Brianna

Brash-Nyberg.

The Belonging Network provides a range of services for adoptive families. As an adoptee

myself, I am really grateful for the work that you’re doing in British Columbia to

provide support to adoptive families.

Thank you so much.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Members’ Statements

Down Syndrome Awareness Week

George Chow : Today, October 27, to November 2 is Down Syndrome Awareness Week in our province.

This week serves as a dedicated period to enhance knowledge and raise awareness of

the rights, capabilities and contributions of individuals with Down syndrome and to

recognize the inclusion of people with disabilities like Down syndrome who share their

gifts, talents and abilities that make our community stronger, richer and better.

They make valuable contributions to B.C.’s community every day.

[1:45 p.m.]

Approximately one in every 800 babies born in Canada has Down syndrome. It affects

all races and genders equally. Research and early intervention have dramatically improved

the lifespan and potential of those who are affected by Down syndrome, but more research

is needed.

Individuals with Down syndrome benefit from loving parents, early medical and educational

attention and positive public attitudes. Children with Down syndrome have a full complement

of emotions and attitudes, are creative and imaginative and grow up to live independent

lives with varying degrees of support and accommodation needed.

Inclusion of individuals with developmental disabilities like Down syndrome, in all

aspects of community life — home, school, work and social settings — is seen as empowering

for everyone. They deserve to be celebrated and to have the opportunity to be active

participants in educational, occupational, social and recreational activities.

On behalf of government, please join me in celebrating the life and successes of people

with Down syndrome.

I’m grateful to them and all the family and professionals who make our community more

empowering and inclusive.

Mussallem Family

Lawrence Mok : Today I would like to tell the story of the Mussallem family of Maple Ridge.

In 1897, Solomon Mussallem immigrated to Canada from Lebanon after escaping imprisonment

by the Turkish authorities. Eight years later he married Annie Besytt, and they had

seven children. Solomon started looking for a place where he could bring up the family

and where they would have a lot of freedom and a pleasant environment. He finally

found Maple Ridge as an ideal place to settle down.

Solomon later founded the Haney Garage, in 1919, which later became a General Motors

agency. This business became a significant part of the community for almost 90 years.

Solomon was an active member of the municipal government, serving 23 years on city

council, 21 of those years as mayor.

Solomon’s eldest son, George, was involved in the automobile industry and in 1966

was elected to the provincial Legislature, serving four terms as MLA until 1983.

Solomon’s daughter Dr. Helen Mussallem was considered to be one of the top nurses

in the world. She was a highly decorated nurse in World War II, earning nine medals,

making her Canada’s most decorated World War II nurse. Her list of honours includes

the Companion of the Order of Canada.

Solomon’s great-grandson David Mussallem was a pilot for Canadian Pacific Air Lines

and Wardair. He was an aeronautical engineer and a mechanical engineer. David loved

the Fraser Valley and the mountains that surrounded it. He spent his younger years

working in forestry as a surveyor.

David recently passed away after a life well lived, and I give my condolences to his

family.

Burnaby Intervention Support Team

Janet Routledge : May I tell you about Frank, an older man who’s been homeless for years, struggling

with poor health and addictions. Then he met the Burnaby intervention support team,

who patiently built a relationship with him. With their help, he moved into permanent

supportive housing, where he continues to thrive today.

The Burnaby intervention support team provides a compassionate and trauma-informed

approach to homelessness. They provide voluntary access to necessary supports that

break the cycle of homelessness.

The team is deeply familiar with Burnaby’s homeless population. They know that there

are 97 unsheltered people in Burnaby today, more than twice as many as there were

ten years ago. They know that many of them experienced childhood trauma or abuse,

have a mental health or substance use disorder, are alone in the world, lacking spousal

or social support, have been underemployed and may have been incarcerated.

[1:50 p.m.]

They know that 34 percent of the youth on the streets experienced homelessness for

the first time in 2025. They know that 22 percent of the homeless population are seniors

and that 47 percent of the unhoused seniors became homeless for the first time after

the age of 50, likely due to a health or financial crisis later in life.

The team refers people to available housing and shelters, helps them obtain ID, refers

them to health professionals, helps them apply for income assistance, provides access

to detox or drug and alcohol treatment programs and helps them find free or low-cost

food, clothes, hygiene items, showers and laundry. They do not forcibly remove people

from property or treat homelessness as a criminal matter.

So if you see someone who appears to be living in a park or doorway in Burnaby, don’t

be afraid. Be a good neighbour and call 604-294-7944 or email homelessness@burnaby.ca.

Nation2Nation Conference in Kitimat

Claire Rattée : Last week Kitimat had the honour of hosting the ninth annual Nation2Nation conference,

an event that continues to grow in importance each year. The theme this year was “Stronger

economies,” and it could not have been more fitting.

For three days, leaders, business owners, industry leaders and community members from

across the country came together to share ideas, build partnerships and discuss how

we can continue strengthening our regional economies. What stood out most was the

clear message that real progress doesn’t start in Ottawa or Victoria. It starts locally.

It starts when people work together, set politics aside and focus on practical solutions

that benefit everyone.

The success stories highlighted at Nation2Nation are proof of that. The Haisla, Gitga’at

and Nisg̱a’a Nations are leading the way, showing the province — and, indeed, the country — that

true reconciliation isn’t about symbolic gestures. It’s about shared prosperity and

decision-making power. It means equity participation, not token consultation.

The success stories that we talked about — LNG Canada, Cedar LNG, HaiSea’s electric

tugboats, Ksi Lisims LNG, Rio Tinto B.C. works and the Kemano dam — didn’t happen

by accident. They were built through collaboration, vision and years of hard work

by people who believed in the region and refused to be told what wasn’t possible.

Projects in our region are setting world-class standards for environmental stewardship,

resource development and community benefit.

Another strong theme throughout the conference was trust. Trust is the foundation

of every successful project — trust between governments, industry and communities.

It’s built through transparency, collaboration and accountability. When that trust

exists, opportunities follow — better work and training opportunities, local benefits,

stronger regional economies and the space for more growth.

The North has the expertise, the innovation and the resilience needed to lead. From

LNG to tourism, forestry and small business, our region has shown that when we are

empowered to lead our own development, the results speak for themselves.

I want to thank the organizers, local leaders and all the participants who made this

year’s Nation2Nation conference such a success.

When the North succeeds, British Columbia succeeds.

Whalley Little League

Amna Shah : I am pleased to recognize a remarkable institution in the heart of Surrey called

Whalley Little League, a cornerstone of community spirit, youth development and athletic

excellence since 1956.

For 70 years, Whalley Little League has provided children as young as four with an

accessible and inclusive environment to learn the game of baseball and, importantly,

to develop character, courage and loyalty. These values are not only displayed on

the field but carried by players into schools, workplaces and our communities.

Located just two blocks from Surrey city hall, the league’s home, Whalley Athletic

Park, features seven groomed diamonds, two indoor training facilities and a senior

baseball stadium.

It is a world-class facility, but its true strength lies in the people who bring it

to life: the coaches and the parents who volunteer their time, who ferociously cheer

through rain or shine, and the young athletes who give it their all every single game

— coaches like past president Mark Deshane, who spent 25 years selflessly serving

the league and our community; and volunteers like Karen McGregor, with her years of

dedication, including holding up the concession stand now known as Karen’s Kitchen.

Whalley Little League’s impact extends well beyond athletic success. Through initiatives

like their fall food drive, which has collected thousands of pounds of food and diapers

for the Surrey Food Bank, and inclusive programs like the B.C. Girls League and mini

division, Whalley Little League ensures that every child, regardless of background

or ability, has a chance to grow through sport.

[1:55 p.m.]

Whalley Little League is not just building athletes who will make it to the big leagues.

It is building community champions. It is fostering hometown pride, resilience and

a sense of belonging.

So here’s to a happy 70th anniversary and many, many more years of excellence to come.

Student Leadership and

Achievements of Suhana Gill

Bryan Tepper : Ladies and gentlemen, trailblazers and changemakers, get ready for the future walking

in today, or more appropriately tomorrow, when she will be in this building, Suhana

Gill. Born and raised in Surrey, B.C., Suhana graduated at 15 and stormed into university.

Now she’s powering through her political science degree at Kwantlen Polytechnic.

While most teens were picking prom themes, she became the youngest-ever elected women’s

representative for 22,000 students across all five KPU campuses, chairing the student

governance and university affairs committees with fire and focus. Suhana lights up

CBC panels, amplifying youth voices on Canadian politics and elections. She sparks

founded Bluer and Greener, a youth-led movement for action and impact.

As deputy director to Climate Cardinals, she rallies 16,000 volunteers across 134

countries, reaching 11 million people with one clear call: get in the game. Her Instagram

has 22,000 followers, millions of impressions, every post a megaphone for what matters.

Crowned Miss Southern B.C. and Miss Fundraiser Canada in 2023, she raised big funds

and bigger hope for Make-A-Wish Canada.

In 2025, she joined Surrey’s environment and climate change committee as its youngest

member, bringing sharp ideas to Canada’s fastest-growing city. As ambassador for One

Tree Planted, she’s growing solutions. She mentors elementary students, building confidence

in kids who will one day change the world.

Selected for the prestigious Bill Lewarne Memorial Scholarship in political science,

her leadership is already award-winning. The honours roll in: Drishti Magazine ’s Influential Woman of the Year 2025, Soroptimist International Ruby Award, Surrey’s

Top 25 under 25, youngest recipient of the top 15 Women of Influence Breaking Barriers

award.

That is Suhana Gill, Surrey’s rising star, youth’s fearless voice. She’s not waiting

for permission.

Oral Questions

Obstetric and Gynecological

Services in Kamloops

and Government Action on Issues

Peter Milobar : On the weekend, hundreds of Kamloops residents — women, men and children — all rose

up and made their voices heard about the critical shortage and crisis in ob-gyn services

in Kamloops, looming with the resignation of seven ob-gyns, the whole complement,

in Kamloops over the next few months.

Can the minister please explain to this House and, most importantly, to those residents

of Kamloops what exactly the plan and the timeline is to solve this crisis?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and his continued advocacy for people in

his riding and in the surrounding region.

We know that these ob-gyns have submitted their resignation letter and that Interior

Health is working closely with them on a transition plan. To be clear, anybody who

is expecting a child, has an imminent birth coming, is facing an at-risk pregnancy,

should always present at the Kamloops hospital, at the Royal Inland Hospital, to receive

care there.

Interior Health continues to work with this group of physicians on a transition plan.

They have 90 days to undertake that work, but they are at the table. They are listening.

They are talking to each other. At the same time, Interior Health continues to recruit

and is talking with up to 12 physicians who may choose to move to the Kamloops region,

because we know that women and their families need the security of the care, the services

they need.

We are determined to support Interior Health and these physicians as they work together

to resolve these issues so that we can provide that secure, long-term continuity of

care for people in the region.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Peter Milobar : Well, it’s not just myself that keeps saying this has been going on for years. It’s

not just the seven ob-gyns from Kamloops that say this has been going on for years.

It’s actually now a letter that the minister has in hand of 130 ob-gyns as a signatory

to the letter saying that they support the seven ob-gyns in Kamloops because they

have been prompted by untenable and unsafe working conditions and a lack of meaningful

response from the health authority and government.

We have also raised alarms about this looming maternity crisis only to be similarly

dismissed, say the 130 ob-gyns. Surgical wait times will grow. Care for high-risk

pregnancies will be disrupted and existing providers, including those outside of Kamloops,

will be stretched even further. When ob-gyns are undervalued, so, too, are women and

their health across B.C.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’ll ask the minister, again: what is their plan for ob-gyn services not just in Kamloops

but the whole province?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Again, this is why the work that Interior Health is doing with this group of physicians

and more broadly is so important — to hear the concerns, to listen to them. My message

to those doctors and to Interior Health is that I expect them to be together, to work

at the table to work through some of these issues.

It also speaks to some of the bigger issues we are seeing in the strain of the health

care system and facing a shortage of physicians in this province. That is why we have

taken such extraordinary steps, like opening up a brand-new medical school in Surrey,

like continuing to streamline the credentialing of physicians who come from other

jurisdictions, who choose to work here in British Columbia.

This is the work we have to do to continue to strengthen and bolster not just ob-gyn

services but other specialty services — family practice, primary care — because that

is what British Columbians need and deserve, and that is what this government will

continue to prioritize and work on every single day.

The Speaker : Member, second supplemental.

Peter Milobar : It’s almost like the ob-gyns never get listened to by this minister. We raised concerns

about the 12 phantom new ob-gyns last week. The letter raises concerns, yet in her

first answer today, the minister clung to these 12 ob-gyns coming in as new recruits.

Here is what the letter says from 130 ob-gyns, including the vice-president and the

past president of the Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology of B.C. It says:

“The provincial ob-gyn community is small and closely connected. We are alarmed by

the short-sighted reliance on locum physicians as stopgaps and an unrealistic plan

to recruit 12 new ob-gyns to a community where current staff have been unsupported

and exposed to unsafe working conditions.

“The use of these short-sighted stopgaps rather than negotiating fairly with the current

ob-gyn group has not gone unnoticed. We will not be participating in these temporary

coverage plans or in the supervision of new hires under these conditions.”

That’s 130 ob-gyns, not a politician speaking. What does the minister have to say

to that?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Those negotiations take place at a table, not here in this House, not during question

period. That is why it is so important that Interior Health continues to sit down

with these ob-gyns, with other ob-gyns.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Because….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, shhh.

Minister will continue.

Hon. Josie Osborne : First and foremost, the priority must always be the patients, the families, the people.

It is my expectation of these physicians and my expectation of Interior Health that

they will come together to talk through these issues, to undertake the negotiations

that are underway right now, holding the patient at the centre of the work they do.

I am confident that if they do that, they can come together.

My commitment to them and to Interior Health is to listen to them, to support them

and to do everything that we can to support maternity services, not just in Kamloops

but in every community across this province.

Interior Health Authority Staffing

Issues and Call for Review

Kristina Loewen : Kamloops is not the only region driving out B.C.’s health care practitioners.

Four psychiatrists resigned from Vernon Jubilee Hospital on Thursday, citing overwhelming

workloads and a lack of support.

Will the minister order an independent public review of Interior Health and deploy

emergency recruitment and retention measures today, yes or no?

[2:05 p.m.]

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

First, I just want to say thank you to the psychiatrists in Vernon who have provided

exceptional service for years. Now, we know that four of them are changing their work.

One is stepping down completely. The other three are changing the type of work that

they do for various professional and personal reasons. Interior Health is actively

working with those psychiatrists, again, to finalize their transition plans.

At the same time, there are an additional six psychiatrists in Vernon who are ensuring

that those services are there for people. It’s vitally important that people know

that that care is there for them and that they should present at the hospital should

they need it.

Interior Health will shortly be undertaking a recruitment campaign specifically for

new psychiatrists in Vernon. That work will be announced soon. That will be part of

building the team, again, so we can continue to see the building, the bolstering,

the strengthening of our health care workforce here not just in Vernon but across

B.C.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kristina Loewen : We have a retention problem. They are citing workload and lack of support.

First the pediatric ward in Kelowna, next the ob-gyns in Kamloops and now the psychiatrists

in Vernon. Families are losing access to care, front-line workers are burning out,

and the Minister of Health is still pretending it’s under control.

Will this minister immediately launch an independent review of management and oversight

within this health authority, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne : It is no secret, I know, that the health care system is under strain, that things

are hard. That’s why we need to do everything we can to support every single physician,

nurse, nurse practitioner and allied health professional out there who is working

their heart out to support the people of this province. We’re going to continue that

work to support those health care workers and to continue to build and strengthen

the system.

I know the member understands that we have undertaken a review of all health authorities,

looking at administrative spending, looking to redirect resources to the front line

to support the work that people are doing so that British Columbians get the care

when they need it and where they need it.

We will continue that work. It will not end.

Impact of Public Service Labour

Dispute and Government Action

on Services Backlog

Jeremy Valeriote : I want to start by wishing all BCGEU employees the best on their first day back after

eight long weeks and also acknowledge the damage done by the longest public service

strike in B.C.’s history.

This government wants us to be the economic engine of Canada. Well, in West Vancouver–Sea

to Sky, our engine is tourism. Whistler-Blackcomb is facing two critical delays: recruiters’

licence renewal needed to hire 60 foreign workers and essential equipment stuck in

the Port of Tacoma.

Across B.C., prospective parents are at risk of missing the window for IVF treatment.

Single moms didn’t receive their affordable child care benefit. Restaurants and bars

are reporting $250 million in loss of sales. The length of this strike means that

BCGEU and PEA employees will now be buried under an avalanche of backlogged work.

To the minister, what is this government’s plan to address the backlog created by

the strike, not just putting liquor back on the shelves but making sure that people

can access the essential services they’ve been denied for over eight weeks?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We are, of course, pleased that we have a tentative agreement reached between the

BCGEU and the PSA and, also, that things are looking positive with the PEA and that

folks are back to work.

Our government respects the next stage of the process, which is the opportunity for

ratification and the democratic process that this union must now go through. I’ll

hold back any comments that I may have until after that process is complete.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Government Handling of

Public Service Labour Dispute

Jeremy Valeriote : It’s integrity week in the Third Party caucus, and the damage this strike has done

will be felt for months. And for what? Beyond the headlines and negotiations, this

strike exposed something deeper, how fragile British Columbians are when the government

forgets who it’s here to serve.

With a leadership review imminent, I wonder about the governing party’s political

motivations in ending this strike. That mediation was required has cast doubts on

this government’s ability to lead.

I’ll ask the government: was it the need to bring the labour movement back onside

before the B.C. NDP’s convention in November that finally broke the logjam on this

strike?

Interjections.

[2:10 p.m.]

The Speaker : Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : From the beginning of this labour action, our government has been clear that there

have been two objectives: to ensure a fair agreement for these workers that deliver

really important services to British Columbians and, at the same time, to protect

the bottom line and to ensure that we’re being fair to all taxpayers.

We are very pleased that we have reached a tentative agreement, and I’ll hold back

any further comments until after the space has been created for the unions to go through

the democratic process and make their decision about the agreement.

Government Advertising and

Economic Relations with U.S.

Dallas Brodie : He threw a rock at Donald Trump and got bulldozed. Ontario Premier Doug Ford antagonized

President Trump by running attack ads against him in the United States. As a result,

Trump raised tariffs by 10 percent and ended all trade talks with Canada.

Having humiliated himself, Ford pulled the ads, but the damage was done. It was a

reckless move. Unfortunately, not to be outdone by Mr. Ford, our Premier is even more

reckless. He’s now launching his own anti-Trump attack ads in the U.S. These ads give

Trump an excuse to retaliate with even more tariffs against B.C., when we’re already

hurting.

Is the Premier’s personal hatred for Donald Trump more important than our economic

safety?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s vitally important that all provinces make the case to Americans when there are

tariffs and duties put in place that are unjustified and that impact workers and families

in our communities. It’s vitally important that we make sure that all Americans, our

friends across the border, understand that right now the tariffs on British Columbia

and Canada are higher than they are in Russia.

It’s vitally important for our friends in the U.S. to understand that every time they

raise tariffs on British Columbia and Canada, it’s going to increase the cost of housing

for them in their communities. We’re going to continue to do that advocacy. We’re

going to continue to raise the noise to the federal government that we need strong

action and that we need it immediately.

Of course, we welcome any supports that will help workers transition, but our number

one priority is to keep people working in our communities. We will not apologize for

raising our voice to fight for workers and fight for families here in British Columbia.

I welcome all sides, all members in this House to join us in that fight.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Government Position on

Trade with China

Dallas Brodie : The Premier is not defending B.C. businesses through this move. B.C. exports rely

on American markets, and 75 percent of all trade from Canada is with the United States.

His petty ads will impede efforts to repair our relations, thus hurting B.C.’s economy.

He criticizes Trump, but you know who the Premier will never criticize? The dictator

of communist China, Xi Jinping. China interferes in our elections, holds our citizens

as hostages and has even imposed 100 percent tariffs on our canola and seafood sectors.

Chinese tariffs have decimated B.C. businesses. Instead of retaliating and railing

against China, like he does with Trump, the Premier rewarded our economic enemies

in China with a multi-billion-dollar B.C. Ferries contract.

My question is for the Premier. Since he’s denouncing our biggest trade partner, the

United States, will the Premier also denounce communist China and its dictator, Xi

Jinping?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We continue to make the case to our friends in the U.S. that the tariffs on our forest

sector are having a disproportionate impact not only on workers and families on our

side of the border but also across the border.

I don’t know why this member continues to deny that that impact is hurting families

in our communities. It continues to hurt families in our communities. I think all

of us should be standing up for forestry.

I know, because when I look across the way and I talk to colleagues across the way,

they understand how important these jobs are to our communities. We continue to make

the case for all communities to lower trade barriers. The Premier has made several

trips to Asia to make sure that we can strengthen our trade opportunities.

[2:15 p.m.]

On top of that, we have committed to all of our partners across the country that we

will do our part to make sure, when their goods are coming to British Columbia, that

we help them find new markets as well. We’re not going to apologize for fighting out

for workers in British Columbia.

I certainly hope that the members can turn their heads away from being so pro-Trump

so they realize that they also represent people in this community and this province.

Interior Health Authority

Management and Staffing Issues

Gavin Dew : We gave the new CEO of Interior Health the benefit of the doubt, but nothing has

changed.

It’s still the same regime, the same broken trust, the same service interruptions,

as doctors walk away. It’s clear there has been a failure to reset the system.

What is the Minister of Health going to do today to start actually rebuilding confidence

and trust for the doctors, nurses and health care professionals who work in Interior

Health and for the people and families who depend on it?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Interior Health continues to work hard each and every single day at the work of strengthening

the health care system, of delivering care — excellent, exceptional care — in our

publicly funded universal health care system here in British Columbia. The leadership

team at Interior Health has my confidence, and I know that the new CEO is working

hard each and every single day, as is every health care worker in the Interior Health

system.

Over the past months and years, Interior Health has made some extraordinary strides

in physician recruitment. They have hired 1,165 net new regular positions into all

of the occupations in one year alone — just this year, 2025. They continue to hire

regular, active and casual staff. They have 94 signed offer letters from physicians

who are choosing to provide care in Interior Health, four signed offer letters from

psychiatrists and three signed offer letters for ob-gyns.

This is a health authority that continues to do the work, and I will continue to support

them in the work that they are doing.

Psychiatric Care Staffing and

Access to Services

Anna Kindy : Burnout is driving resignations across health care, from ob-gyns in Kamloops to psychiatrists

in Vernon. Front-line health care workers are simply becoming demoralized.

There are 147 psychiatrist postings listed on the government’s own website, ten pages

of vacancies, proof that this isn’t isolated. It’s everywhere. Now we’re up to 151.

The reality of not having psychiatric care means more suicides, more deaths on the

streets, more encampments and more safety issues for everyone, from streets to homes.

All these issues will spill over, from Vernon to Kelowna to the Downtown Eastside.

When will the Premier, the leader of the so-called universal health care, take access

to psychiatric care seriously?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Psychiatrists are an incredibly important part of the health care system here, providing

care unlike any other specialist that people need. That is why we continue to take

every step that we can to recruit more psychiatrists, other specialists and family

practitioners into our health care system here in British Columbia.

From the U.S. recruitment campaign to streamlining credentialing and reducing the

administrative burden that psychiatrists and all other physicians face, this government

is going to continue to take steps.

When it comes to the U.S. recruitment campaign, we are seeing enormous successes.

We’ve had over 1,800 job applications. This includes 163 applications from doctors,

from nurses, from allied health professionals, and it includes psychiatrists too.

We’re going to continue to do this work to build out the system, and we are making

progress. We are hiring physicians and nurses at unprecedented rates. We are seeing

new family physicians, over 1,000 new family physicians. We have tripled the number

of nurse practitioners. This is a sign of the progress that we need to continue to

make, and we will not let up.

[2:20 p.m.]

Funding for Youth Mental Health

Services in Northern B.C.

Rosalyn Bird : A local mother, Leanne, a former nurse whose 17-year-old daughter’s life was saved

by Saplings, gave a simple warning: “We are going backwards, not forwards.”

Saplings Mental Health in Fort St. John has been credited for saving young lives,

yet this government is cutting its funding. Those cuts mean that after a youth is

discharged from hospital, there will be no immediate in-person mental health support

left in this community.

Will the minister restore this funding or admit that under this government, in the

North, youth do not deserve access to suicide prevention?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The member brings up an incredibly serious topic, and that is the work of suicide

prevention for all people but particularly, in this case, youth.

The loss of any young person is deeply tragic, and that is why this government has

been so focused on the work that we will be undertaking to develop a young adult suicide

prevention framework. The supports that children and youth need are absolutely vital,

and that is why, again, we have put so much into building out a system of care, of

mental health and substance use supports, of primary health care for youth in this

province.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We’re going to continue to do that work — expanding the Foundry system, expanding

the integrated child and youth care teams, expanding PreVenture funding in schools

— to help young people identify the issues that they face and appropriate ways to

be able to deal with those.

We’re going to continue this work because we know just how important it is.

Access to Mental Health Supports

in Northern B.C.

Claire Rattée : It’s really not good enough is the problem. People can’t access mental health care

anymore in this province, especially in the North. I don’t understand why this government

can’t see that.

One of my constituents, Cliff, suffered from a botched surgery that left him permanently

injured. As a result, he lost his livelihood, his hope and his dignity. He has tried

for years to get physical and mental health support from Northern Health in vain.

He has tried everything he can think of.

I have had other health professionals that have worked on him come into my office

and tell me that his surgery was severely botched. He can’t get any kind of compensation.

He can’t get any serious help. Nothing is being done for this man.

Frustrated and defeated, he came into my office recently with a suicide note in his

hand. It was addressed to the Minister of Health and Northern Health.

Nobody should feel like they have to resort to that. My staff shouldn’t have to be

doing that. They shouldn’t have to be counselling people that are ready to commit

suicide because they can’t get access to basic health care in this province. The response

that my office got from Northern Health? “Nothing we can do about it.”

Do people in B.C. now need to resort to dying by suicide to get this government to

pay attention to them?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The subject of suicide is a highly sensitive and deeply personal thing, and it impacts

families and communities across this province. I think we need to be extremely careful

about the way we speak and the way, of course, that we support people.

To the member, the situation she describes for her constituent sounds absolutely terrible.

I want to assure her that I would be very willing to work with her to determine what

supports are available for this constituent and also ensure that he knows what avenues

are available to him. If he needs to talk to someone about the quality of care that

he is receiving, there are processes for that, and it’s important that the member

knows, as an MLA, and important that people know.

This is why our government continues to invest in community counselling, bringing

down the cost and making it easier to access mental health supports. That’s why we

continue to build out the mental health and substance use continuum of care.

I know that the member has had the opportunity to visit some of these facilities and

tour this. I look forward, in just a couple of weeks from now, to spending time with

her in her riding up North so that we can discuss in more detail these very issues

and be able to visit some of the facilities and programs that she raises.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s incredibly important that we support people at that time, and that is why our

government will continue to invest in mental health supports for people of all ages

across this province.

The Speaker : Member for Skeena, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : Northern Health has been aware of this case for almost two months. I brought this

note to their attention and tried to get follow-up and tried to get some kind of resolution

for this man.

As the Health Minister, you should have been aware of it. Northern Health should have

brought that to your attention. I was waiting to see if they would. It’s like pulling

teeth to get responses from them on stuff.

I just need to understand how on earth he is supposed to access care when he gets

turned away every single time that he goes to the hospital. There are no mental health

supports in my region.

I know the minister is coming up to visit. I can’t wait to show her that there are

no mental health supports. People can’t access them.

Hon. Josie Osborne : It is the responsibility of health authorities to undertake these conversations and

to ensure that any patient or person who contacts them is aware of the avenues that

are available to them, like the patient care quality office, should a person want

to make a complaint or ask a question about the care that they have received.

I am committed to working with the member to ensure that she knows about those avenues

and that she can help direct this person and any person that approaches her office

about that channel.

Funding for Mental Health Programs

Trevor Halford : Interior Health is in crisis. We have seen seven ob-gyns walk out in Kamloops. Now

we’re seeing psychiatrists leave in Vernon.

Fraser Health — well, we know the stories there. They’re horrific. It’s 12- to 14-hour

wait times at Surrey Memorial; Delta emergency, closed numerous times; Langley, eight-

to 14-hour wait times. Now we hear the stories about Northern Health.

I fully agree with the minister when she talks about the seriousness of suicide, and

I believe she’s very genuine in that. The problem, on this side of the House, is that

when it comes to making commitments on programs such as Saplings, that have been proven

to save lives, this government, this minister, has made a choice to cut those programs

that are saving lives.

How can the minister justify her comments when we are seeing a program that has worked

and her government, her ministry, her Premier, have chosen to close the doors and

cut this vital program? Will the minister step in and provide that funding today,

yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne : We will choose to invest in our public universal health care system every single

day. We will choose to continue to build more hospitals, more urgent and primary care

clinics. We will choose to build more cancer centres.

We will choose to build the Road to Recovery. We will choose to expand that out across

every health authority in this area. We will choose to add more family physicians

into our rosters. We will choose to add more specialists.

We will choose to go to the U.S. and…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …invite physicians, nurses and health care workers to come and practise here.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, it’s a very…. Members, shhh.

The member asked a very serious question — shhh — and he deserves an answer.

The minister is going to continue, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne : What we will never choose to do is build a two-tier private system.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Members, let the minister finish.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Those are the choices that British Columbians have to make when they choose their

representatives. This government stands up for public universal health care. We will

do that every single day. We will continue to build out mental health supports for

children and adults.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker : Members.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Amendment to Standing Orders

for October 28 Sitting Hours

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1), the adjournment time of the sitting of

the House commencing at 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, be modified to 4.15

p.m.; and,

That this modified time of adjournment extend to the application of Standing Order

3 and to the

interpretation of the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House

in Motion 20, adopted by the House on April 30, 2025, establishing the Sessional Order

for certain proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call third reading, Bill 17.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma : I move third reading.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : Bill 17, Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a

third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 19, School Amendment

Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. We’ll call this House back to order and ask people to move outside

to continue their conversations.

We are going to continue debate on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Pete Davis : I rise today to speak on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

I have to be honest. Every time I think about what this government is trying to do

with our power system, I get concerned. The reality is that we keep hearing grand

promises, but the hard truth is that their actions don’t match their words.

Every time the Premier or any of his ministers stand in this House, or in front of

cameras, saying they support the mining industry, about building a clean energy future,

about all these projects and initiatives, it sounds great. It sounds inspiring. It

sounds like vision. But words don’t keep our lights on. Actions do.

[2:35 p.m.]

Let’s talk about action, because this is where it gets serious. The Minister of Mining

stood in this House talking about 17 mining projects in B.C., projects that could

create jobs, fuel communities and build this province for decades. They talk about

these projects like trophies, proof that B.C. is leading the world. And as the opposition

Mining critic, I want to see these projects move forward, and I want to see our B.C.

mines thrive.

But here’s the problem. This government is piling on more demands all the time. They’ve

demanded that every new vehicle sold must be electric by 2030. They’re pushing heat

pumps in every new home. They want it all.

Here’s the reality. Every one of these things needs electricity — every mine, every

heat pump, every electric vehicle. They all need power. Yet while this government

talks about the future, they haven’t told the people of British Columbia where that

electricity is going to come from. That’s the question.

They talk about windmills and solar panels like they’re a solution. Don’t get me wrong.

These things have a role, but they’re a side-add to the grid. They’re a nice headline

for a photo op, but they don’t provide the steady, reliable electricity that families,

communities and industries depend on every day. That’s the truth.

We’re already importing 25 percent of our electricity today. That’s right. We’re buying

power from outside our borders just to keep the lights on. Yet this government wants

to pile on even more mandates, more demand, on our already stretched power grid. The

scary thing is they haven’t put forward a credible plan to actually generate the power

needed to make all this possible.

Now, that should concern every single person in this province, and here’s the proof.

They’re already feeling the pressure. With Bill 31, this government gives them authority

to decide who gets power and who doesn’t. That’s right, because they know the supply

isn’t enough. They know it.

Their solution? They are moving toward picking and choosing who gets electricity and

who doesn’t. Today it’s cryptocurrency mines, hydrogen producers and data centres.

But what happens next year, or the next year after that? Once you start picking winners

and losers in electricity, there’s no limit to who can be left in the dark. No pun

intended. Who’s next? Mining projects? Forestry? Manufacturing? The odds are endless.

This is the same government that claims to support fairness and opportunity, but what

we see here is the exact opposite. This is a government choosing which industries

get to succeed and which do not. This is a government taking control over something

that should be impartial, something that should be public, something that everyone

depends on and turning it into a tool for influence. That’s not leadership. That’s

not vision. That’s control, as far as I can see.

Make no mistake. If we don’t address this, if we allow this to become the norm, it’s

going to get worse with every mandate this government introduces, with every new demand

they pile on and with every promise that they make.

This is the turning point for our province, I think. Bill 31 isn’t just about minor

technical changes. It’s about who decides the future of electricity in British Columbia.

And right now with this government’s approach, we’re heading into uncertainty and,

frankly, some scary times.

This government keeps talking about the North Coast transmission line. First, they

told us the estimate was going to be about $3 billion. Well, surprise, they were wrong.

Then it jumped to $6 billion.

Mark my words. This will cost even more before it’s done, all to move electricity

hundreds of kilometres through remote, rugged and difficult terrain. Old, inefficient

technology that is extremely expensive for the people of British Columbia. That’s

money we could have spent on smarter, faster, other ways and used this money to actually

deliver results for British Columbians in different areas.

[2:40 p.m.]

So why not do something that actually makes sense? Why not build small natural gas

plants right here, where the electricity is needed, in the communities, industries

and regions that will actually use it? Natural gas is abundant here in B.C. It’s clean,

it’s reliable, and it’s ready to go. By generating electricity locally, we create

power. We’re not just moving our power around with the power that we have — or should

I say, we don’t have.

This is a safer, cheaper and more efficient way than massive transmission projects.

It produces real reliable electricity that grows with our province and supports homes,

businesses, mines and industries. This is practical. It’s cost-efficient. It’s common

sense. Yet under Bill 31, this option is ignored, and the people of B.C. are paying

the price.

It reminds me of the Site C dam situation. This same government fought it every step

of the way, called it unnecessary, called it wasteful, opposed it relentlessly. Now,

suddenly, they praise it. Let’s be honest. Where would we be today without Site C?

How much more electricity would we have to import from outside our borders? How many

more families and communities and industries would struggle without the power?

This lesson is clear. Ignoring of practical solutions comes at real cost. We have

to stay ahead of this stuff.

Now let’s talk about B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro itself. This is a public utility built

by the people for the people, and Bill 31 quietly moves the province closer to selling

pieces of it off. This is not just about ownership. This is about control. Once you

start selling transmission lines or other parts of our public electricity system,

you lose control. You lose accountability. Most importantly, you put the reliability

of this service at risk.

Reliability is not a small concern. It’s the foundation of daily life. People need

to be able to turn on their lights, heat their homes, run their businesses and power

their communities without having to question whether the electricity will be there

when they need it or not. That is the last thing British Columbians should ever have

to worry about.

Selling off pieces of B.C. Hydro or moving towards privatization puts all of this

at risk. It turns a public service into a commodity, and it puts people and communities

in danger. That’s the realness of this.

Now, I’m going to say it here. You know what? If this government isn’t willing to

act with common sense, with practical solutions, then maybe they need to step aside

and let those of us who will get these things done lead. The people of this province

deserve real action. They deserve real results and a real plan for a secure, affordable

and reliable energy future, because without electricity, everything else is going

to stop.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I rise to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

I’d like to start with a quote from our Premier: “B.C. will be the economic engine

that drives a more independent Canadian economy, powered by clean energy, built through

partnership with First Nations and driven by the hard work of British Columbians.

This legislation will help us move faster on the North Coast transmission line, a

nation-building project that will deliver clean electricity to responsibly power industrial

growth and job creation and to increase prosperity for families, communities, our

province and country.” What a vision.

[2:45 p.m.]

This is what this bill does. It advances British Columbia’s economy, which is about

using and leveraging our clean electricity to drive economic growth, to drive diversification

in our economy, to unlock the potential of the northwest of our province and support

the growth of key sectors that benefit all of British Columbia.

The need to drive clean energy in our province, in our world, at a time when clean

electricity is becoming more affordable, not less, is what this is about — the role

that it can play, the role that B.C. Hydro can play, the role that B.C. Hydro has

played, particularly in the 1960s, to drive the next generation of economic growth

right here in British Columbia.

We do believe that we can become the economic driver. Clean energy is key to this.

It’s our competitive advantage to support the next generation of clean growth. The

North Coast transmission line, which is dealt with in the first

section of this legislation,

will enable us to unlock the growth potential of the electricity-constrained northwest.

Now, I had the privilege, just ten days ago, of being in the northwest. I was able

to visit the north coast, to visit Terrace and Kitimat and Prince Rupert. There is

so much going on in this area. There’s so much economic activity, and there’s so much

room for more.

I visited LNG Canada. I visited the Haisla Nation and learned more about Cedar LNG,

which is such a wonderful example of how we can unleash future prosperity to the benefit

of nations, creating jobs, creating clean energy and doing it in a way that benefits

the region and benefits nations.

I visited the Prince Rupert port. It’s the third time I’ve been up to the port since

being elected. It’s incredible. Every single time I go there, it’s bigger and there’s

more going on. It’s driving prosperity, and it will continue to do so. It’s extraordinary

to see what’s happening there, the jobs that are available in Prince Rupert and the

economic value that they continue to drive, not just for British Columbia but truly

across Canada.

I met with the members of the chamber. I met with the Gitxaała as well. I got to do

a couple other things. I saw the expansion of the Prince Rupert emergency department

and gave out a Medal of Good Citizenship. I just got to have a bit of positive stuff

while I was there. But really, what stood out for me, even more than those two enjoyable

pieces, was all of the economic activity and opportunity for continued growth and

jobs for British Columbians.

You know, it’s important that when we’re driving economic growth, it also benefits

the places where these resources are being pulled from. That is also part of the design

of the work that we’re doing, benefiting the communities in the North. But it’s also

true that when the northwest is successful, British Columbia is successful.

The North Coast transmission line is a generational opportunity — it’s nothing less

— to unlock a golden triangle of mining opportunities; expanding our world-leading

and cleanest LNG sector with Indigenous-led projects like Cedar, featuring the northwest;

ensuring, in fact, that we are, consistent with government policy, electrifying our

LNG, something that the world wants.

It’s showing its benefits everywhere. It’s electrifying future port expansions to

increase and diversify trade, not just in communities such as Prince Rupert but also

in Stewart. The North Coast transmission line is truly a nation-building project that

will unlock this potential. That’s in this bill.

We also must ensure that B.C. Hydro continues to adapt to evolving market conditions,

including new sources of electricity demand that can scale quickly. This is not new.

Jurisdictions across North America and across the world are dealing with the challenge

of providing more electricity.

Here in B.C., we’ve taken action to protect our grid. We’ve done this historically.

We took action to protect our grid in regard to cryptocurrency mining, instead choosing

to allow energy to be available for industries that drive more economic growth and

that are driving jobs here in British Columbia. That type of protection is strategic

and smart.

[2:50 p.m.]

You see this similar protection here in Bill 31. Bill 31 will enable a new, unique

and innovative approach to enable data and AI centres to proceed in a way that’s pragmatic,

in a way that supports the projects that provide the greatest benefit to our province

in terms of data sovereignty, in terms of job creation, in terms of support for our

economy. This is how we become the economic engine of Canada.

Jeremy Valeriote : Thanks for the opportunity to speak to Bill 31. I’ll note that I’ll be the designated

speaker for this. I don’t expect to speak for 90 minutes, but I might go a touch over

30, depending on how much I rush.

Before diving into the details of this bill, I want to take a step back and talk about

what’s at stake in this debate. At its heart, this is not just a conversation about

transmission lines, megaprojects or technical amendments to the Utilities Commission

Act. It’s about how we make decisions in a time of profound change, decisions that

will help shape British Columbia’s energy system, our economy and our climate legacy

for years to come.

British Columbians expect that when governments make multi-billion-dollar investments,

those decisions are grounded in evidence, transparency and fairness. They expect that

public oversight, Indigenous rights and environmental stewardship are not afterthoughts

but essential parts of responsible governance. They expect that when we talk about

building a clean energy future, we actually mean it.

What we have before us today raises serious questions about whether those principles

are being upheld, because the technical language of this legislation belies a major

shift, one that changes who gets to make critical energy decisions, how those decisions

are reviewed and whose voices are heard in the process. It’s a shift that moves authority

away from independent regulators and public scrutiny and concentrates more powers

in the hands of cabinet, which operates in confidence. It’s a shift that comes at

a moment when British Columbia urgently needs clarity, accountability and vision in

our energy planning, not more uncertainty or political discretion.

I’ll speak first about the North Coast transmission line. The main impetus for this

bill is the desire to twin the North Coast transmission line, a proposed 450-kilometre,

$6 billion megaproject being framed by the government as a catalyst for clean energy,

reconciliation and economic development. But when we look more closely at the process

being used, at the legislation surrounding it and at who truly benefits, the picture

becomes far more complex.

The North Coast transmission line would cut across over 100 private properties, including

agricultural land, traplines and woodlots. It would cross rivers and creeks that serve

as habitat for at-risk white sturgeon, pass within 200 metres of archaeological sites

and impact critical winter habitat for moose.

Normally a project of this magnitude would undergo public review through the B.C.

Utilities Commission under the Utilities Commission Act. That review, called the certificate

of public convenience and necessity, exists to determine whether a project is truly

needed, is in the public interest and is consistent with broader energy system goals.

It’s also a process where Indigenous nations, local communities and stakeholders can

present their perspective.

For this project, the government is choosing to bypass that process. Rather than allow

the B.C. Utilities Commission to assess the evidence and evaluate public interest,

the government will use legislative authority to simply direct the commission to issue

a certificate of public convenience and necessity. A process that would normally take

12 to 18 months, bringing transparency and public accountability, will be replaced

by a directive from cabinet.

True reconciliation is not simply about co-ownership opportunities or economic partnerships.

It’s about respecting Indigenous law, title and decision-making authority.

I want to speak for a moment specifically to phase 3 of this project, because it seems

to have been added in haste. It isn’t shown on the official infographic map of the

project. Our red flags have gone up because it doesn’t seem like proper consultation

has been done.

The Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, whose territory would be directly impacted by phase

3 of this project, stated clearly: “Gitanyow has not been properly consulted under

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and has made it clear that

without proper assessment, these projects will not be recognized in Gitanyow territory.”

Gitanyow has unceded title to their lax’yip along a portion of phase 3 of the North

Coast transmission line. Gitanyow voiced concerns in opposition to Bills 14 and 15

prior to their passing in the Legislature and informed Premier Eby that because of

the failure to invoke and uphold DRIPA in this legislation, they will not apply in

Gitanyow territory.

Gitanyow is not in any discussion for equity or ownership on phase 3, and before this

can occur, a full assessment of the project in Gitanyow lax’yip is needed under the

Gitanyow wilp sustainability assessment process.

[2:55 p.m.]

In

summary, Gitanyow was not consulted in accordance with DRIPA on Bill 31. True reconciliation

must go beyond joint ventures. It must respect sovereignty law and stewardship.

I’m going to speak about the BCUC role in all this. Because B.C. Hydro has no competitors,

it is overseen by the BCUC under the Utilities Commission Act, which Bill 31 seeks

to amend. Bill 31 doesn’t just facilitate a transmission line. It has consequences

for how electricity is allocated in B.C.

Under our current system, new industrial customers apply through B.C. Hydro’s interconnection

queue, and they’re assessed on a first-come, first-served basis. Projects that require

new infrastructure are expected to pay for it through a long-standing policy known

as tariff supplement 6. This protects existing ratepayers by ensuring that new users

cover the full cost of the expansion they trigger.

The government now says industrial users served by the North Coast transmission line

will pay “the same electricity rates as other large customers.” But that phrase suggests

something different, that they may not be required to pay the full incremental cost

of new infrastructure. That’s a big departure from existing rules, and it could leave

everyday ratepayers footing part of the bill.

It’s my understanding that ordering the BCUC to issue a certificate of public convenience

and necessity opens the door for an amendment to tariff supplement 6 that could see

ratepayers pick up some of the cost, which sounds like a subsidy to me. I’m open to

other

interpretations, but we’ll be asking some hard questions about this in committee.

The BCUC’s role is published on their website: “We make objective, well-reasoned,

evidence-based decisions that are legally binding. We facilitate fair, transparent

and inclusive processes, and we value input from all British Columbian ratepayers.”

Now, I’m not saying that politicians, ministers and cabinet can’t make objective,

well-reasoned, evidence-based decisions with fair, transparent and inclusive processes,

but when these all unfold behind the cabinet doors, how do we know?

We all know the risk. Without impugning this government or this minister, we all know

the risk that these decisions can be made subjectively without proper evidence and

without being fair, transparent and inclusive.

Instead, this government is proposing a different model, one that gives cabinet the

authority to decide who gets access to scarce electricity, what rates they’ll pay

and which industries are excluded from access altogether or have access limited to

just a few megawatts of electricity.

This is a significant shift in regulatory power, moving decisions from the independent

body of the BCUC to the cabinet table, where political priorities can override technical

and financial considerations. The fact that former Premier Horgan restored the power

to set rates to the BCUC after the B.C. Liberal government’s interference speaks volumes

and adds more credence to the question I’ve been asked more and more. Have the B.C.

NDP become the B.C. Liberals? It raises important questions about fairness, transparency

and long-term planning.

The process to decide who gets rationed electricity will also no longer follow a regulated,

queue-based model. Instead, B.C. Hydro will design a new allocation system, possibly

involving an auction, but again, this will be developed by cabinet instead of by B.C.

Hydro or the BCUC, without oversight.

The minister, in his comments, pointed to Quebec, Oregon, Utah, New Jersey and Ontario

but did not mention analogies much closer to home: central Washington public utility

districts of Chelan and Grant, which have abundant capacity and have had to address

demands from cryptocurrency and data centres while protecting existing ratepayers.

These public utility districts have had no problem empowering their commissioners

to set distinct rate schedules by customer and industry type, negotiate special contracts

with some industries and balance needs without government intervention. Because the

commissioners’ sole job is to oversee long-term sustainability of the utility, they

are nowhere near as likely to be buffeted by political considerations outside of the

narrow focus of the utility.

Who will ensure that the public interest is protected in these agreements? As we know,

this government has a poor track record of being transparent when it comes to First

Nations matters. The BCUC appears to have no oversight role here, as it will not be

reviewing the proposed project, which would have looked at whether the proponent in

the joint venture was suitable.

In the spirit of true debate — and I miss that about municipal politics, in terms

of the give-and-take of listening and receiving — I have listened carefully and reviewed

Hansard , and I’m grateful for the respectful and thoughtful commentary provided thus far.

I’ll outline some of the comments I’ve heard.

The member for Peace River South fears we are “drifting from responsible energy planning

to politicized energy control” and says that technical challenges need technical solutions,

not political ones. I agree.

[3:00 p.m.]

He also says he believes in decarbonization but wants to supply AI and data centres

by turbines generating electricity from “the cleanest natural gas on the planet.”

I agree with the member on transparency and efficiency but not on economic growth

at all costs, doing everything we can to produce prosperity. If we did this with only

a short-term view, we could all be tremendously wealthy for five to ten years before

the economy and the environment collapse. The mantra that they will go somewhere else

is not justification for abandoning our principles to attract investment.

The member for Peace River North also wants to use gas turbines for power because

everything is dirty. Well, I would argue that it’s all a matter of degree. Different

energy sources have different levels of cleanliness.

Since we’re talking about scale and scalable industries, the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap

wants to know who gets swept into the same regulatory class with vague

definitions

that would later require legislative change to fix unintended consequences.

Making decisions from Victoria on who protects ratepayers, the risk of innovation

moving to other jurisdictions…. The BCUC is a safeguard against arbitrary decisions.

Putting this into cabinet confidence replaces open hearings with confidential discussions.

“Trust us,” rather than “show me the evidence.” This has the unwanted consequence

of reducing investor confidence.

I agree with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, who says cabinet directives should

be published with rationale, criteria and impacts to ratepayers, and with the member

for Boundary-Similkameen, who says industries we want could be scared to invest if

we prejudge industries like AI and data centres. We need to build an innovation economy

with certainty, not flipping the switch on and off at cabinet discretion.

Flexibility can be achieved without secrecy. BCUC already has tools to fast-track.

At minimum, annual public reporting is needed on regulations, including fiscal summaries

and rationale.

As discussed, to protect ratepayers, large industrial customers that require new infrastructure

are expected to pay their fair share through tariff supplement 6. However, industries

are already being offered subsidies. Cedar LNG gets $200 million from B.C., matched

by another $200 million from Ottawa.

With the North Coast transmission line, the government wants the public, not industry,

to shoulder the $6 billion price tag. That’s $6 billion or more on top of the $16

billion we’ve already spent on Site C, all to enable electrification of LNG and mining

projects.

This isn’t about clean energy. This is about state-sponsored fossil fuel expansion,

greenwashed and fast-tracked under the banner of economic reconciliation. From a climate

standpoint, the implication of Bill 31 raises further concerns. Liquefied natural

gas is extremely energy-intensive. It takes massive amounts of power to chill gas

to minus 162 degrees and ship it overseas.

All new LNG terminals in B.C. were required to be net zero by 2030, but earlier this

year the rule was weakened. LNG facilities now only need to have a plan to be net-zero-ready

by the end of the decade if electrical grid supports aren’t in place. It isn’t the

responsibility of taxpayers to ensure fossil fuel companies have the electrical resources

needed to decarbonize. Yet the province has said LNG proponents will not be penalized

for factors beyond their control.

The first phase of LNG Canada will use natural gas turbines for compression. But the

rest, every LNG facility currently in planning or under construction, is expected

to rely on electricity from the grid. This is how it is expected to be low-emission

or net-zero LNG, at least before it’s burned in Asia.

A 2023 report from the Pembina Institute found that electrifying B.C.’s oil and gas

sector would require 42,700 gigawatt, or 43 terawatt, hours per year, the equivalent

of 8.4 Site C dams. Even just LNG Canada phase 1 and Woodfibre would double B.C.’s

2030 emissions target for the oil and gas sector. If all proposed projects proceed,

emissions could triple the target.

Jurisdictions who extract and sell fossil fuels are facing increasing liability for

the serious and irreversible harm these products cause. This was highlighted by a

recent ruling by the International Court of Justice, a ruling that British Columbians

would be wise to pay attention to. Quote: “Failure of the state to take appropriate

action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions, including through fossil

fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration

licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies, may constitute an internationally

wrongful act which is attributable to that state.”

[3:05 p.m.]

British Columbians are one of the world’s most aggressive extractors of climate-polluting

fossil fuels per capita. Under current policies, B.C.’s fossil gas extraction is projected

to jump 50 percent by 2035. Under this government, B.C. is deeply entrenched in a

frenzied LNG boom, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

Despite this government’s best efforts, labelling B.C. LNG as “the cleanest in the

world” is nothing more than a desperate attempt at greenwashing. Natural gas is methane,

a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, up to 80 times over the short

term and still much worse over the long term. From the upstream emissions to methane

leaks along the pipeline to powering the liquefaction of fossil fuels, there is nothing

clean about fossil gas or liquefied fossil gas, LNG.

Fracking is highly destructive, uses billions of litres of fresh water when communities

cross the province are in drought, and it leads to earthquakes and poisons communities.

Yet the fracking industries are allowed to take billions of litres each year, and

they’re paying pennies for it.

We need to look at the full picture. That includes examining the health impacts of

fracking, plus the impacts of LNG flaring and venting. Moreover, the affordability

and economic impacts of developing LNG are worrisome, and the public needs to be informed

of the unstable future this province is driving us towards.

LNG exports will worsen affordability for individuals and businesses by exposing us

to global gas markets, whereby consumer prices will go up. To date, the federal government

supports the LNG industry with an estimated $1.8 billion per year in public financing

and infrastructure funding, while B.C. alone has tabled a total of $2.16 billion to

back LNG through direct subsidies, favourable tax rules, reduced electricity rates,

electrical infrastructure development and carbon tax exemptions, according to a new

report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

The LNG sector is being pitched as one way to diversify exports beyond the United

States and to boost Canada’s economic resilience to U.S. tariffs. Developing the sector

will cost billions, but demand in Europe and Asia, the target markets for Canadian

LNG, is not as strong as advertised. Additionally, most Canadian LNG projects likely

won’t come online until after the end of the decade, arriving late to the party in

a saturated market. This could leave taxpayers holding the bag with significant stranded

assets and unmet climate targets.

By pledging public funding for LNG, it makes private investors more likely to follow

through with projects that would otherwise be abandoned due to risk. This is irresponsible

for countless reasons, least of all the climate-altered future our children will inherit

if this government keeps gambling on LNG.

We have to ask: how does expanding LNG and fracked gas production align with CleanBC,

with our net-zero targets, with our broader commitments to decarbonization, with the

province’s liability, with a healthy future for British Columbians and with fiscally

responsible governance? In 2024, British Columbia imported 25 percent of its electricity,

a significant share of it from fossil fuel–based sources in Alberta and the United

States. We could be living in an upside-down energy world where we use gas-fired electricity

to liquefy gas for export by tanker to produce electricity on the other side of the

world.

In what kind of perverse economy does this make any sense? Only an economy with subsidies

for an entrenched industry and only one that ignores the true externalized costs of

fossil fuels. That’s the only way this works, and at that, it’s a balance sheet built

on a house of cards.

Even in the best-case scenario, we’re using renewable energy to liquefy gas when there

might be dozens of higher and better uses for that clean energy that we haven’t considered

or even contemplated yet. Yet we are locking in cheap, subsidized electricity to climate-warming

activities for generations to come. Short-sighted doesn’t even begin to describe the

scenario we are setting up for ourselves.

To try to address the growing shortfall, B.C. Hydro issued two separate calls for

new power in 2024 and 2025. Let’s be clear. This isn’t a problem that will be fixed

overnight, and we’ve lost a decade already. It will take years to close the gap between

our rising demand and available clean supply. While the gap grows, the government

continues to approve new industrial loads, further straining the system. The government

continues to promote the North Coast transmission line as the key to unlocking an

economic boom, promising it will usher in billions in new investment for LNG mining,

port expansion and more.

We’ve heard this before. We love to point to theoretical billions in investment in

jobs, GDP and prosperity to justify massive public investment in resource infrastructure.

The question we must ask is: billions for whom? Who benefits, and who pays, and how

does this fit into a serious long-term climate and energy plan?

Projects like Ksi Lisims LNG are being sold to the public as job creators. Yet compared

to LNG Canada, which had more than 9,000 workers employed during construction, the

number of long-term jobs at Ksi Lisims will be minimal. It is only expected to employ

450 workers for construction, because all of the fabrication and most of the assembly

work will be done in South Korea using Korean steel.

[3:10 p.m.]

Woodfibre LNG will result in only 100 permanent jobs. While British Columbians fund

the infrastructure, the profits are set to flow to international investment firms,

including many with direct ties to Wall Street investors and Trump-era financiers.

This province earns more revenue from liquor and gambling sales than it does from

oil, gas and mining combined, so when this government frames LNG’s expansion as an

economic necessity, they’re selling a fantasy, one that benefits corporations far

more than communities.

This isn’t a long-term climate strategy; it’s a short-term push for resource expansion.

The rhetoric of nation-building projects as economic engines frames large-scale developments

as essential to national progress and economic growth, yet critics remind us that

this narrative proliferates colonial logic and reproduces historical patterns of dispossession

and ecological harm under the guise of modernization and progress.

If being the economic engine of Canada means subsidizing large transmission projects,

sidelining independent review and prioritizing fossil fuel exports over ecological

resilience and Indigenous rights, then we need to rethink the direction we’re heading,

because the economy of northern British Columbia doesn’t run on LNG alone. It depends

on healthy lands, clean water and thriving salmon populations. It depends on ecosystems

that are already under immense pressure from droughts, warming rivers and industrial

activity. You can’t put salmon back in the river once their habitat is gone. You can’t

rebuild trust with communities once you’ve ignored their rights and voices.

We can do better. I want to speak about the part of this bill that has, I believe,

some potential to right the ship: the allocation framework and the criteria that would

go around it.

We need robust, evidence-based planning that looks ahead, not just one or two years

but decades into the future. The government is rushing ahead with massive, irreversible

infrastructure investments without a clear sense of how we’ll meet future energy demand,

how we’ll reduce emissions or how we’ll prioritize limited electricity in a fair and

transparent way.

That’s why we’re calling for a pathway assessment. A pathway assessment is not a new

idea. It’s a comprehensive study of all credible energy pathways to achieve net-zero

objectives at a given point in time. It helps to evaluate choices and trade-offs,

understand costs and bring key stakeholders together for an evidence-based discussion

about a jurisdiction’s future energy mix.

It brings together utilities, governments, Indigenous nations, regulators and the

public in a transparent way. Pathways assessments are independent from political influence,

transparent in their assumptions and process, inclusive and evergreen to ensure new

information is incorporated. They are current, relevant and robust.

This is how we build an affordable, orderly transition, not by patching together policies

that cater to the loudest lobbyists in the room. Other provinces are doing this. Quebec

and New Brunswick have already completed theirs. Ontario has one underway. But British

Columbia, when we claim to be an energy leader, has none.

An electricity allocation framework is a start. I support getting ahead of the potentially

disruptive AI and data centre boom. But we need to be making long-term decisions,

not reactively picking and choosing industries on subjective information and adding

piecemeal to the legislation every time an emerging industry poses a threat. We need

to be more nimble than this. After all, we only sit six months of the year, so there

are times when we won’t be able to react quickly.

This government’s failure to meet climate targets or plan a path to doing so, failure

to see LNG for what it is, a climate bomb, is why this caucus ensured a review of

CleanBC in our cooperation agreement with the government. So how can we be assured

that CleanBC review recommendations will be incorporated into electricity allocation

criteria?

The minister said in his remarks that he would like to involve the opposition in developing

the criteria that would be used to make electricity allocation decisions, prohibiting

some industries setting rates, limits and schedules. Some of the criteria mentioned

so far: local employment, government revenue, climate, Indigenous reconciliation,

data sovereignty. I’m heartened to hear the minister mention all these criteria, but

particularly climate, more than once. I think we see it differently, but it’s certainly

a platform for discussion.

Rather than using electricity to liquefy methane, we see a future where, if the criteria

is set objectively and takes climate costs and benefit into account, it will become

very clear that gas production and liquefaction is not the most beneficial use of

our limited electricity supply.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would be excited for the opportunity to contribute to these criteria, but it feels

like an empty promise. What mechanism does the minister see for the Legislature to

contribute meaningful input to these decisions? Isn’t the government already down

this path by specifying limits to AI data centres and hydrogen export? Where’s the

objective criteria that justifies this and a process to back it up?

If there is a willingness to take input from outside of the cabinet table, how about

one of these options? Either let a committee of the Legislature set these all-important

criteria under public scrutiny, or let the BCUC do it in a publicly transparent process.

Cabinet is the only place where the reasons for these criteria will be discussed in

secret with no provision for a public conversation. This is why the CleanBC review

needs to be incorporated into the criteria, but the way this legislation is written,

there is no way of assuring this unless the minister wants to invite us, on the opposition

side, into the cabinet room for this discussion.

In closing, the North Coast transmission line is a huge investment, financially and

otherwise. I want to be very clear that we support Indigenous co-ownership of this

infrastructure project and others.

However, this legislation reshapes how electricity is allocated, how costs are distributed

and how decisions are made. Yet instead of subjecting it to independent review, this

government has taken the extraordinary step of ordering approval, bypassing the BCUC

entirely. It’s not how a responsible government works, and it’s not how climate leadership

works. If that engine is powered by unchecked extraction, corporate giveaways and

regulatory shortcuts, then it’s not the one we should be proud to drive.

This isn’t an economic strategy rooted in local prosperity, sustainability or long-term

resilience. It’s a short-term industrial push, one that puts B.C.’s climate targets,

Indigenous rights and ecological integrity on the line.

Northern B.C. already powers this province through salmon-bearing rivers, rich ecosystems

and the stewardship of Indigenous communities whose lands are too often treated as

sacrifice zones. True economic strength comes from long-term vision, from protecting

what makes our regions resilient, from investing in people and from ensuring our energy

future is grounded in justice, sustainability and public accountability. Let’s stop

gambling on short-term extraction and start investing in the long-term public good.

We in the Third Party are happy to support the electrification of our province and,

as I said, the construction and co-ownership of the North Coast transmission line.

But my goal is to make sure the electricity we produce and consume is for the greatest

benefit of British Columbians, and I don’t see how I or anybody in this Legislature

can do that the way this bill is currently written.

I’m very interested in working with the minister to make changes to the legislation

that provide this transparency to the members of this House and for all British Columbians.

This caucus will support moving this to the committee stage on the assumption of good

faith and the possibility that there is a path forward here that allows transparency,

commission oversight on behalf of the public and a common understanding of where our

public clean power is best directed for future generations.

Elenore Sturko : I rise today also to speak about Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, which

is legislation that aims to expedite construction of a new power transmission line

to help develop future LNG and critical mineral projects.

Bill 31 also seeks to prioritize and power natural resource projects and limit the

expansion of AI data centres and hydrogen for export. Those industries will now be

forced to go through a competitive process for accessing power.

This legislation is specifically meant to expedite construction of B.C. Hydro’s North

Coast transmission line, NCTL. So it’s a lot like many other NDP government projects,

with the cost of the NCTL already skyrocketing. The cost of the transmission line’s

first two stages has ballooned from $3 billion to $6 billion.

The Energy Minister said that the province is seeking financial support from the federal

government. However, we don’t know if it will receive that funding and what portion

of that funding that might represent. And at the end of the day, whether it’s federal

cash or provincial, these contributions are coming out of taxpayer pockets.

First Nations that take an equity stake in the project are also expected to put up

capital for the transmission line, but what that will look like is still being determined.

So it appears once again that the provincial government is giving itself a blank cheque,

legislating a project built on assumptions about cost-sharing.

There are also concerns that the NCTL, being fast-tracked by Bill 31, won’t have enough

power for projects that it means to energize. University of B.C. economist Werner

Antweiler said the problem for this province might be that there’s not enough electricity

available to power the projects through this transmission line.

[3:20 p.m.]

Mr. Antweiler told the Vancouver Sun in a recent interview: “B.C. Hydro has been trying to bring on more power over the

next decade with calls for wind power projects, but even when combined with the electricity

brought online by the Site C dam, B.C. might fall short.”

He said: “LNG is extremely power-hungry. An LNG plant that produces 13 million tonnes

per year would need about 600 to 700 megawatts of constant power. If the capacity

on the new transmission line is something like 2,200 megawatts, it fills up pretty

quickly.”

B.C. has been a net importer of power for the last several years and is having trouble

meeting current demand, let alone future demand.

Bill 31 also exempts the North Coast transmission line from the rigorous oversight

of the B.C. Utilities Commission. This strips away independent reviews that ensure

projects like the NCTL truly serve the public interest and not just special interests.

In a media interview, former B.C. Utilities Commissioner Richard Mason said: “The

public would have been well-served to have the BCUC go through the process to determine

whether projects like this have the right to move forward.”

Mr. Mason said: “The BCUC will not have any say in things like the route that it would

take, whether it’s even necessary, whether there would be better alternatives, in

a public process where people can air their views and potentially be heard on issues

that this government is never going to hear about now.”

The exemption legislated in Bill 31 builds on a troubling pattern of NDP government

fast-tracking that silences voices from communities, farmers and environmental stewards

who deserve a say and that will keep the power in check. Once again, the government

is legislating away the accountability that we owe to every resident in this province.

Then there is also the shift on how we allocate electricity, with Bill 31 handing

sweeping powers to the NDP to decide who gets to keep the lights on. We’re talking

about a system where the NDP, not markets or merit, pick winners and losers. Traditional

resource projects are getting a green light, while innovative sectors like artificial

intelligence and data centres are shackled with caps, and 300 megawatts every two

years is far from enough to fuel the jobs of tomorrow.

I do believe most British Columbians want to see electricity flowing to natural resource

projects, but this government’s absolute mismanagement of energy in this province

over the last eight years is putting us at a disadvantage, forced to limit the technology

sector when instead we should be able to grow it.

In Bill 31’s efforts to create certainty for the natural resources sector, it creates

uncertainty for another, giving the government the ability not only to restrict the

use of public-utility electricity for data centres, including AI, but to prohibit

it indefinitely.

These choices don’t just stifle innovation. They betray our economic promise by favouring

a few at the expense of high-growth tech and diverse opportunities. Bill 31 risks

the very advancement that could create thousands of good-paying jobs for British Columbians.

We’re capping potential, not harnessing it — all while ignoring real solutions like

diversified energy sources, including nuclear, to deliver affordable, reliable power

for all.

Instead, this bill locks us into a fragile grid, vulnerable to blackouts and imports

that drive up costs for everyday ratepayers. Worse still, it’s residential users who

are going to foot the bill. With exemptions from proper scrutiny and vague cost-sharing

assumptions, we’re only one cost overrun away from seeing billions in additional costs

dumped onto household bills.

Without ironclad safeguards, this $6 billion project might become a ticking time bomb

for taxpayers, confirming once and for all that we do truly lack the clean electricity

abundance that we’ve been promised.

I look forward to seeing this bill advance and having questions to ask for committee

stage.

Tara Armstrong : Bill 31 is a Soviet-style bill that centralizes power over the energy supply, picking

industry winners and losers. The winners? NDP allies. The losers? Everyone else. Let

me explain.

[3:25 p.m.]

Energy is the base layer. It is the foundation of how you build prosperity. At the

dawn of civilization, the mastery of fire and simple heat power freed humans from

the constraints of cold winters, raw food and primitive tools.

Then the shift to coal made possible the Industrial Revolution in Britain, massively

expanding energy available for work, heat motion and manufacture.

Next the ascendancy of oil, and fossil fuels more broadly, powered the postwar American-led

boom and transformed global society.

In each era, what really drove human flourishing was the jump in accessible, affordable

energy that enabled innovation, trade and the advancement of civilization. In short,

the harnessing of abundant, reliable and affordable energy is what drives civilizational

progress, but here in B.C., we are heading backwards.

After decades of mismanagement, British Columbia now needs six more Site C dams just

to meet the current demand. Rather than fixing the underlying issue by generating

more cheap and reliable power — more dams, more natural gas plants and even nuclear

power — it amends the Utilities Commission Act and other statutes, allowing the provincial

government to control who gets what’s left of B.C. power and who doesn’t.

Bill 31 has taken direct aim at two of the fastest-growing industries in the world,

artificial intelligence and crypto. While the NDP are shutting down these booming

industries, Danielle Smith and Alberta are aiming to have $100 billion worth of AI

data centres under construction within the next five years.

Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix said we need to “avoid the mistakes

of other jurisdictions by rationing power.”

Deputy Speaker : Member, we’ll refrain from using members’ names.

Tara Armstrong : Okay, my apologies.

That’s harebrained. We don’t need to ration scarce power. We need to generate abundance,

something this government has no idea how to do.

The entire clean energy initiative is an ideological pet project that is crippling

our energy productivity. All it does is make it more expensive and more time-consuming

to produce our own natural gas resources.

This self-imposed energy shortage threatens the security and the sovereignty of our

province. Unbelievably, the Premier of this province wants to spend tens of millions

of taxpayer dollars on ads to dunk on our southern neighbour, while he simultaneously

makes us dangerously dependent on U.S. power.

Energy abundance and energy independence is the path forward. Bill 31 is a disaster

for British Columbia, and I’ll be voting no to this bill.

Tony Luck : I appreciate the opportunity to stand today and talk to the Energy Statutes Amendment

Act, Bill 31. It’s a real privilege to be able to do that. I don’t want to say I’m

speaking for my constituents, but if I were to poll them, they probably would have

some concerns about it. So I appreciate the opportunity to stand for them.

This bill has been recently introduced into the Legislature of British Columbia. I

want to emphasize one recurring theme throughout this bill — the erosion of accountability

of elected officials and how oversight by this Legislature is being systematically

reduced.

I would like to thank previous colleagues that have sat and spoken about some of the

nuances of this bill. I really appreciate it. There is an ongoing theme through all

these bills that have been introduced this year in the House. It seems like we’re

going to be beating a dead horse, but if there’s smoke, there’s usually fire for some

of the things that we’re looking at.

Let us begin with a short overview of what Bill 31 does and why it matters so much.

The legislation is aimed at accelerating energy infrastructure projects — in particular,

the North Coast transmission line in northwestern British Columbia — but also at revising

how industrial electricity is allocated across the province. I thought that was B.C.

Hydro’s job. Now we’re getting somebody within government here, our bureaucrats, to

do that. It doesn’t make sense.

[3:30 p.m.]

On its surface, speeding up infrastructure makes it easier for industry to access

power, access on offering ownership stakes for First Nations — all objectives that

sound reasonable on the surface. Yet as usual, the devil is in the details. Those

details reveal a legislative design that concentrates power, limits transparency and

weakens the checks and balances that we rely on for democratic accountability.

My argument today is that Bill 31 cuts out key oversight responsibility of our Legislature

and of elected officials, thereby reducing democratic accountability, and we must

interrogate the implications of that radical shift.

Let’s begin with the first point, which is the centralization of power in the executive

and the attendant loss of independent oversight.

Bill 25 significantly strengthened the authority of the provincial government, via

the cabinet or minister, over how B.C. Hydro allocates electricity, how ownership

arrangements for transmission are made and how major projects proceed. For example,

under clause 2 of

part 1, cabinet may, by order, designate an agreement by which B.C.

Hydro and a First Nation hold an ownership interest in part of the NCTL.

What that means is that key decisions about project ownership, structuring, management

and service delivery are being moved to discretionary orders by the cabinet, rather

than subject to the kind of public scrutiny and legislative oversight that one might

expect. The process becomes less transparent and less accountable to the Legislature.

The bill also alters the role of the British Columbia Utilities Commission, which

we’ve always believed is sacrosanct — that it is the commission that is looking after

the interests of the Legislature, the interests of the public and interests of business,

quite frankly. Under the Utilities Commission Act amendment, the cabinet can set or

require special electricity rates, establish limits, select an eligible person for

service and delegate matters to the commission or public utility.

More importantly, Bill 31, as reported by independent media, removes or sidesteps

the requirement that BCUC conduct a full public review of project necessity and public

interest in certain cases. The government says the initiative is in the public interest,

so the standard process isn’t needed. Really? Then ask the public.

What does that mean for oversight? It means that decisions which historically would

undergo public hearings, stakeholder input or review of cost benefit and public interest

are now being pushed through with lesser scrutiny. The accountability of decision-making

to the Legislature and the public is, once again, in this bill, like other bills,

diminished.

In another worrying dimension, the bill allows retroactive powers and board

definitions

under clause 1, and agreements under subsection (2) are cemented by retroactively

granting legal power to Hydro or the authority to enter into ownership agreements.

When retrospective powers are granted, when the criteria for decision-making are vague

or delegated and when oversight mechanisms are weakened, the result is a weaker accountability

framework overall.

In

summary, these features reflect a pattern where major decisions about industry

infrastructure are being shifted away from the transparent, deliberative oversight

of elected representatives and the regulatory bodies towards executive discretion.

That shift inherently reduces accountability. But you know what? Somehow we knew this.

When Bill 15 was passed in this House this last spring, many of us knew exactly where

we were headed, and it continues with this bill.

Let us explore how these design features translate into specific accountability gaps.

One is environmental oversight and consultation process. While the bill includes First

Nations equity participation, critics note that genuine free, prior and informed consent

may not be fully secured. Likewise, by fast-tracking infrastructure and moving away

from full environmental assessment review, the bill replicates a pattern of reduced

oversight seen under earlier legislation, like Bill 14.

The risk is that decisions about major transmission lines — which cross Indigenous

lands, ecologically sensitive zones, traplines, waterways and agricultural land —

may be made without full public scrutiny. The ability of communities to hold decision-makers

accountable is much lessened.

The bill prioritized electricity access for sectors like mining, LNG, ports and resource

extraction over emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence, clean technology

and other future-oriented industries, just as some of my other colleagues have mentioned

here.

[3:35 p.m.]

It kind of doesn’t make sense. If these are the industries of the future, why are

we limiting them coming onto the power line? We must not be able to fully implement

the amount of power that we need if that’s what’s happening here.

While economic growth is important, the shift raises questions about whether long-term,

sustainable development and community benefits are being sufficiently weighed. Accountability

demands that elected officials justify why some sectors are favoured and others are

not. The bill provides less room for such public inquiry.

The government projects large numbers. The numbers are overwhelming. I can’t even

fathom some of the numbers here. As one of my colleagues already mentioned here, it

starts out at $3 billion, then it’s $6 billion, and I will take bets that it will

probably wind up being closer to $8 billion or $9 billion by the time this is done.

Will it be on time? That’s something we’re forgetting as well.

Nearly $10 billion annual GDP contribution and 10,000 direct jobs for the NCTL project.

However, details of how these benefits will be distributed, how risk and financing

are shared and how communities will be protected are unspecified.

Here are some metrics and processes we might want to look at to assess value for money

and check whether they are actually present in this project.

One of the things we try to look for, and I tried to do some quick reviewing on, is

trying to find a cost-benefit analysis, a full cost-benefit analysis, showing capital

costs, operating costs, decommissioning, benefits. Are the jobs there? Is the GDP

there? Is the revenue there — environmental savings, avoided costs — compared to a

do-nothing or alternative baseline? We could not find any real, hard data on that.

It would be nice to see some of that.

But I want to quote somebody from a long time ago. You know, the government wants

to trust us here. Somebody once mentioned…. I think it was Ronald Reagan who once

said: “I trust, but I want to verify it.” It needs to be verified, and it’s time we

got more verification on a project like this.

Transparent assumptions. What load is expected? What projects will connect? What timeline?

What happens if uptake is lower than expected? What if we put $9 billion, $8 billion,

$6 billion, $7 billion into this and the uptake is a lot lower? We need independent

regulatory review. A body like the B.C. Utilities Commission should review all of

these projects.

We need cost-benefit public interest. If that is bypassed, our truncated accountability

is much reduced. Risk management and contingency plans are important. How will cost

overruns be managed? Who bears the risk? What happens if the industrial demand falls

short?

We need a clear framework of how benefits flow to communities, how Indigenous equity

stakes are governed, how jobs and local procurement are delivered. We need after-construction

reports. There should be performance audits. Are costs on budget? Is utilization as

expected?

We have a history in this province with this government that, well…. Do we know any

project that has been on time or on budget? It makes sense that we have all those

reports in place so the public knows. These are big numbers that are being thrown

around, lots of nice headline-grabbing information, but we really need to have that.

The other one is transparency in ratepayer and taxpayer impact. If public money or

public utility is involved, customers need to know how this affects their bills or

how taxpayers’ exposure will be managed.

So given the evidence, the project has a plausible rationale. The transmission system

on the north coast is nearing capacity. We know that. There is industrial interest.

Economic benefit is claimed. However, because a full, independent cost analysis is

not publicly available, or at least not easy to find, and because oversight mechanisms

appear to be reduced, the level of confidence we can have that the public is truly

getting full value for money is moderate at best.

Without transparency, it is hard for the public to hold officials to account for whether

promised benefits are delivered or whether risks and costs are borne disproportionately

by local communities or taxpayers.

Concentrating investment in power infrastructure in the northwest of British Columbia,

while seemingly beneficial for that region, may widen economic disparities with other

parts of the province if not managed properly. The Legislature and public deserve

scrutiny of whether those trade-offs are justified or how regional equity is being

addressed. With further formal oversight processes, that scrutiny is diminished.

[3:40 p.m.]

Because the bill allows regulation to override other provisions of the act and mandate

compliance by public utilities, even where previous decisions exist, the legal certainty

of affected parties is much reduced. For example, a public utility or the commission

must comply with a regulation made under this section, despite a previous decision

by the commission.

Fewer opportunities for public hearings, appeals or independent review mean elected

officials and regulators are less answerable to the public and less subject to checks

and balances, which again undermines accountability and destroys the trust of the

general public and the taxpayers and the voters and the ratepayers in that group.

I want to bring this back to the core theme though. What does this mean for accountability

of our elected officials? What happens when large-scale decisions are handed off to

executive discretion with limited legislative scrutiny? When cabinet powers expand

and regulatory oversight is reduced, the role of elected representatives — the MLAs,

the committees — and the public hearings become less central. The voters may still

hold an MLA or elected representative accountable, but the decision-making path is

less transparent, making accountability more diffuse.

The Legislature traditionally holds the executive to account via debate, question

period, committee review and requirements for public interest justification and oversight

of statutes and regulations. When a bill reduces or bypasses these mechanisms, the

legislators’ ability to supervise is much weakened.

An infrastructure project like Bill 31, of this magnitude, affects land use, environment,

Indigenous rights, public financing and regional economies. If the public sees major

decisions taken without visible checks and processes, trust in governments declines,

and when trust declines, so does the legitimacy of both process and outcomes.

Bill 31 does not exist in isolation. It follows earlier legislation, as I mentioned

before. Renewable energy projects like Bill 14, which gave board powers to cabinet

and reduced environmental regulatory assessments…. If this becomes the norm — faster

infrastructure, fewer checks, more discretion — then our democratic safeguards gradually

erode. That is a systematic risk to accountability and good governance.

Supporters of the bill will make important points. B.C. needs to get ahead of industrial

demand for electricity. The NCTL could unlock jobs and growth. First Nations participation

is a positive step. The world is moving fast, and we must act. Many of these arguments

have merit, but they do not excuse weakening oversight mechanisms. A robust democracy

can do both, move quickly and maintain accountability.

For example, the government argues that existing regulatory processes would take up

to 18 months and delay nation-building infrastructure. They argue that access to clean

electricity will unlock tens of billions in GDP, thousands of jobs and reduce emissions.

Once again, a cost-benefit analysis would be able to lay that out, and we would really

know all the numbers and facts.

My point is the why doesn’t justify the how. When full review and consultation are

what slow things down, the solution is to reduce and reform those processes, not to

bypass them completely. Our concern is not just about speed but about ensuring that

when decisions are made, they have been properly reviewed, publicly debated and that

elected officials remain accountable.

What should we demand? This is a call to action. Given the concerns, what should we

as citizens and civic actors demand for our Legislature, our MLAs and our government?

Here are a few things to consider about this bill, and maybe we can look at some amendments.

B.C. Hydro is given discretion, but there must be published criteria, transparent

processes and documentation of how decisions are made. Voters need to know how decisions

were arrived at, not just the outcomes. Given the scale of this project and its context,

First Nations’ rights, land use and environmental risks, the process must allow meaningful

input and consent, not simple token participation.

Effective oversight mechanisms — whether through the Legislature, standing committee,

independent regulators, like the BCUC or others — must be able to review the capacity

to challenge decisions and accountability measures if promises are not kept.

[3:45 p.m.]

Information on project jobs, GDP contributions, risk allocations, financing costs

to taxpayers, how First Nation equity stakes will work all should be disclosed and

subject to oversight.

Regional equity and balanced decision-making. The province must ensure that benefits

and risks are fairly distributed across regions and sectors. One region receiving

big infrastructure should not mean others are left behind.

Having spoken about the amount of money that’s being put in, what other infrastructure

is going be put to the side because this one is going to gobble up so much cash? We

have municipalities and cities around this province that have huge infrastructure

deficits. I think the last number we saw was around $100 billion in infrastructure.

How will this crowd out some real work that needs to be done, as well, within our

small communities? Speed is important but not at the expense of democratic norms.

Elected officials must remain visible, accountable and subject to public and legislative

scrutiny.

In closing, Bill 31 represents an important moment for British Columbia. I don’t think

any of us want to doubt that at all for a minute. I think it’s really important that

we improve our infrastructure. One of my colleagues earlier today talked about smaller-footprint

power generations. I think that’s the way to go. We should be thinking outside the

box, looking at more alternatives rather than this very, very expensive power line

here that may not be as robust as it could be compared to some smaller units that

are more regionally built.

In closing, though, Bill 31 represents an important moment for British Columbia, a

chance to build large infrastructure, to modernize energy policy, to partner with

First Nations and to make the province a cleaner, stronger economic actor. But it

also represents a serious challenge to how our democracy works.

By reducing the role of the Legislature and shifting major decisions into executive

discretion and regulatory bypass, the accountability of our elected officials is weakened.

When oversight is diminished, so too is public trust. When decisions are made behind

closed doors or under orders rather than a public hearing, communities lose their

ability to hold decision-makers to account. That is not just a policy issue; it is

a governance issue, a democratic issue.

We must not conflate urgency with exempti