Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 153

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

Medical Laboratory Week

Susie Chant

Rutland Community Cleanup in Kelowna

Gavin Dew

Canada Book Week and Indigenous Authors

Amshen / Joan Phillip

Okanagan Forest Task Force and Action on Illegal Dumping

Kristina Loewen

Sookarama Community Connection Event in Sooke

Dana Lajeunesse

Tumbler Ridge Outdoor Recreation Association

Larry Neufeld

Oral Questions

Government Position on Oil Pipeline Proposal and North Coast Tanker Ban

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Adrian Dix

Energy Supply and Costs

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Adrian Dix

Woodfibre LNG Project Expansion Proposal and Wastewater Regulation

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Adrian Dix

Energy Supply and Silversmith Power Generating Station

Bruce Banman

Hon. Adrian Dix

Government Energy Policies and Attendance at Oil and Gas Industry Conference in Houston

Gavin Dew

Hon. Adrian Dix

Government Position on Pipeline Projects

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Adrian Dix

Extension of Contract for Health Care System Adviser and Health Authority Review

Trevor Halford

Hon. Josie Osborne

Blessings and Acknowledgements

Diane Sam

Elder Tax’ayee / Anne McDames

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Kitselas Treaty Act

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Address by Indigenous Leaders

Cyril Bennett-Nabess

Ministerial Statements

Kitselas Treaty Act

Hon. David Eby

Claire Rattée

Rob Botterell

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Ward Stamer

Stephanie Higginson

Kiel Giddens

Dana Lajeunesse

Sharon Hartwell

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat

Donegal Wilson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Sheldon Clare

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food (continued)

Ian Paton

Hon. Lana Popham

Gavin Dew

Misty Van Popta

Jordan Kealy

Committee of the Whole

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Claire Rattée

Hon. Christine Boyle

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Heather Maahs.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I have not been able to locate him in the House yet, but joining us all the way from

McLeod Lake Indian Band is Chief Harley Chingee. I had an opportunity, as I know some

of my colleagues, to be able to meet with Chief Chingee, an outstanding partner, a

strong steward in the forest sector.

Would the House please join me in making him feel very welcome here today.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Today in the gallery, we have two representatives from the Gastrointestinal Society

here to meet MLAs. Joining us are CEO Gail Attara and the health policy and outreach

manager, Jaymee Maaghop.

The G.I. Society supports people in B.C. who are living with digestive and liver diseases,

through evidence-based education, advocacy and collaboration with their health care

system. You can learn more about them at badgut.org.

Would the House please help me make them feel very welcome.

Ward Stamer : I’d like to welcome the entire board of the Truck Loggers Association, members that

were here earlier today. I know that they met with the Minister of Forests, and they

met with our caucus.

I’d like to recognize their new president, Bob Marquis, and their general manager,

Peter Lister.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I have the honour of not introducing any dignitaries but people who are incredibly

important to me.

Would the House please make welcome my parents, Bill and Cindy Brooks.

Stephanie Higginson : I stand today to help recognize members of Innovative Medicines Canada, who are joining

us in the gallery. Innovative Medicines Canada represents Canada’s research-based

pharmaceutical sector and plays an important role in advancing innovation, supporting

clinical trials and improving patient access to new therapies.

Please help me welcome their delegation to the Legislature and thank them for their

ongoing partnership in supporting a strong, sustainable and innovative health care

system in British Columbia.

Claire Rattée : I hope you’ll indulge me, because it’s not very often I get this many people from

my riding here in the chamber. I have quite a few that I’d like to introduce.

I’d like to start off by introducing Cyril Bennett-Nabess. He is the Deputy Chief

of the Kitselas Nation. Unfortunately, Chief Councillor Glenn Bennett was not able

to be here today, so he is here in his place.

We also have Gerald Nyce, Jericho Collison, Jorden Squires and Cheryl Campbell — they

are all Councillors for the Kitselas Nation — as well as Dr. David Try, who is a Kitselas

Elder and senior negotiator; and Linda Morven, who is also a Kitselas Elder and their

CAO.

Sean Bujtas, who, I said yesterday, of course, is the mayor of the city of Terrace.

We also have Stan Bevan from the Kitselas Nation; Roberta Quock from the Kitselas

Nation; Susan Bevan, George Chinn, Angeline Chinn, Anne McDames, Crystal Wright, Mercedes

Seymour, Marissa Seymour, Audrey Bennett, Sharon Bennett, Stella Wright, Freda Wright,

Matilda Henry, Bonita Young-Mercer and Debbie More — all from the Kitselas Nation

as well. Many of them are staff members with the Kitselas Nation, and I appreciate

all of their hard work for their community.

We also have some members from Kitsumkalum here today. Troy Sam is the Chief of the

Kitsumkalum. Then we have, from their council, Anona-Marie Budden and Wayne Bolton;

and from treaty communications, Julie Nyce and Jenniefer Bolton.

I would ask that the House make them all feel very welcome, please. I appreciate having

them here today.

Anna Kindy : I rise today to welcome, as well, the representatives of the Gastrointestinal Society

who are in the gallery today. It is a pleasure to recognize Gail Attara — she is the

chief executive officer of the G.I. Society and president of the Canadian Society

of Intestinal Research — along with Jaymee Maaghop, who is the health policy and outreach

manager.

Gail made an excellent presentation to our caucus this morning that was very informative.

I want to commend Gail and her team for their strong advocacy on behalf of those living

with inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis. The G.I.

Society plays an important role in supporting patients and advancing practical solutions

to improve care across our province.

Please join me again in making them feel welcome today.

George Anderson : I rise today to recognize Brian McFadden, the president of Vancouver Island Military

Museum, who was fittingly honoured with the city of Nanaimo’s Honour in Heritage Award

yesterday. He is a former member of the British Royal Navy Reserves.

[1:40 p.m.]

Brian has given decades of service to the museum since first volunteering in 1998,

through his leadership; hard work; and true, deep sense of duty. Alongside the commitment

of past and present volunteers since the museum’s founding in 1986, the museum stands

as a testament to this community’s enduring commitment to remembering our veterans.

I hope that the entire House will join me in congratulating Brian McFadden.

Hon. Randene Neill : It is my pleasure today to welcome the incredible folks from the B.C. Watershed Security

Coalition to the House today.

Water, as we know, is the cornerstone of our province. It powers our economy. It feeds

our fish, our forests and our wildlife. Our food, our crops and the very health of

each and every one of us depends on the safety and security of our watersheds in this

province.

I want to welcome to the gallery today Coree Tull, Tim Morris, Roberta Webster, Abby

Morris, Tricia Brett, Aaron Hill, Dave Zehnder, Kat Hartwig, Andrea Barnett, Kyle

Visvanathan, Vickey Brown, Oliver Brandes, Neil Fletcher, Zita Botelho and Rosie Simms.

A big round of applause for all of the advocacy and work you do to protect our watersheds.

Scott McInnis : I’d also like to welcome in the gallery today several members from the Lax Kw’alaams

First Nation, which we had an opportunity, in opposition, to discuss some issues with

yesterday.

I would like to welcome here to the House today Mr. Garry Reece, Mr. Rodney Henry,

Ms. Tammy Dudoward, Mr. Ted White, Mr. Vernon Alexcee, Mr. Andrew Tait, Mr. Stan Dennis,

Mr. Stan Dennis Jr., Mr. Rob Hughes, Mr. Don Wesley, Mr. Kelly Sampson and Mr. Joey

Wesley.

Thank you all for the opportunity to discuss and meet yesterday.

Would the House please help me make them welcome today.

Gavin Dew : On the precinct today, we have a group from Innovative Medicines Canada, led by Charles

Brown, director of government affairs.

The work of Innovative Medicines Canada focuses on building strong partnerships, supporting

effective policies and improving Canada’s regulatory environment. They’re committed

to ensuring Canadians can access the treatments they need while helping to strengthen

and sustain our health care system for generations to come.

I would ask members of this House to please join me in making them very welcome.

Donegal Wilson : I would like to welcome on the precinct today Mayor Johansen, here from the town

of Oliver, advocating on behalf of his community for work on the agricultural canal

in his region, as well as for some expansions at his local airport.

I appreciate the time of the ministers and the meetings that we have today.

Members’ Statements

Medical Laboratory Week

Susie Chant : First of all, I would like to acknowledge today that I’m speaking on the lands of

the Songhees and xʷsepsəm People.

When I’m in North Vancouver–Seymour, I live and work on the lands of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations. I’m always grateful for the opportunities to walk alongside, learning as

I go.

I’d like also to welcome our health care system partners and their guests who are

with us today. I’m glad to see you here. This week we join communities across Canada

in celebrating Medical Laboratory Week from April 12 to 18. Here in British Columbia,

we are especially proud to mark the fifth year of formally proclaiming this week,

recognizing the essential role that laboratory professionals play in patient care.

This year’s national theme, “Every patient, every test, every stage of life,” speaks

to the profound role that laboratory professionals play at every point in a patient’s

health care journey. Across the lifespan, from prenatal and newborn screenings through

infectious and chronic disease management to end-of-life care, laboratory tests and

results inform between 50 and 70 percent of all clinical decisions.

In B.C., more than 290 laboratory facilities are approved to provide publicly funded

services under the Laboratory Services Act. These services, whether provided in our

hospitals and emergency departments or in the 200-plus outpatient collection sites,

rely on the expertise and dedication of highly skilled laboratory medicine professionals.

[1:45 p.m.]

In 2024-25 alone, more than 63 million outpatient laboratory claims were processed

in B.C., demonstrating the enormous volume and critical importance of the work.

The celebration of Medical Laboratory Week also aligns with the province’s commitment

to strengthening and sustaining a resilient health care workforce, care that can meet

the growing and evolving needs of people across British Columbia.

Congratulations and happy Medical Laboratory Week.

Rutland Community Cleanup in Kelowna

Gavin Dew : I rise today to recognize an outstanding example of community spirit in Kelowna,

the Rutland Spring Community Clean-Up. On March 29, dozens of volunteers gathered

at Rutland Lions Park, rolled up their sleeves, picked up garbage grabbers and got

to work serving their neighbourhood.

In advance of the main event, organizer Chris Bocskei and a small group of volunteers

had already removed hazardous debris from an area west of McCurdy Road, including

hundreds of needles, tents, bikes and other discarded items.

What stands out about these cleanups is not just the work itself but who shows up

to do it. In Rutland, community cleanups are regularly attended by councillors, the

mayor, the MLA and Members of Parliament — all of whom put in honest work alongside

local residents.

What I find especially meaningful about these cleanups is that they reflect two truths

at once.

First, people are frustrated and rightly so. They want help from government. They

want safer streets, cleaner public spaces and a basic sense of order.

Second, the people of Rutland do not simply wait for someone else to fix things. They

take matters into their own hands. They show up. They help their neighbours. They

remind us that strong communities are built not only by government but by citizens

willing to act.

For me, personally, I really like doing it. It’s real work. It’s redemptive work.

It is a reminder of what my constituents in Rutland put up with every single day.

In fact, I’m quite proud that my first intergovernmental meeting after being elected

as an MLA was cleaning up garbage in Rutland with the mayor.

I want to thank Chris Bocskei, every volunteer and every local leader and resident

who took part. Their work made a visible difference, and their example deserves recognition

in this House.

Canada Book Week

and Indigenous Authors

Amshen / Joan Phillip : I rise today in celebration of Canada Book Week, because reading is what? Fundamental.

British Columbia buys more books per capita than anywhere across the country. Canada

has a 99 percent success rate, but we can’t rest on that success alone, because better

is always possible. Having a lower literacy limits your ability to find secure, well-paying

jobs, with some notable exceptions.

Now, the very first book I ever read from cover to cover was called The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck. But I’d like to celebrate the work of Indigenous authors from across

the country. As you may be aware, I come from a long line of talented artists and

authors.

My grandfather, Chief Dan George, wrote works of poetry. My older sister, Lee Maracle,

wrote multiple books, including Bobbi Lee Indian Rebel , an autobiography as a political and politicized Indigenous woman. Jody Wilson-Raybould

wrote a book, “Indian” in the Cabinet: Speaking Truth to Power , a very powerful memoir. There are so many talented Indigenous writers in this country,

and Canada’s culture is richer when we can appreciate their work.

It is difficult to find a time to read, but it is worth it. I would encourage everyone

to read a book by an Indigenous author. It may even change your outlook a little bit.

[1:50 p.m.]

Okanagan Forest Task Force

and Action on Illegal Dumping

Kristina Loewen : The Okanagan Forest Task Force began ten years ago, simply and powerfully. A group

of outdoor enthusiasts refused to accept the growing crisis of illegal dumping in

our forests. At their very first cleanup, just 15 volunteers removed over three metric

tonnes of garbage from a single site.

Today this entirely volunteer-driven organization has grown into a movement. Over

1.3 million pounds of garbage and scrap metal from the Okanagan backcountry — waste

pulled out of forests, lakes and natural spaces that should never have been polluted

in the first place.

They are restoring ecosystems, protecting wildlife and preventing forest fires by

removing flammable debris and hazardous materials left behind in our backcountry.

They are safeguarding communities across the Okanagan. Their impact is so profound

that wildlife has returned, and places are safe, clean and thriving again.

Through their documentary, What Lies Behind the Trees , they are shining a light on what many people never see: the hidden environmental

damage in our forests and the power of everyday citizens to step up and make a difference.

There’s a dark side to this story: the fact that the housing crisis and the opioid

crisis has pushed some of our homeless into the forest. It sounds wonderful, in a

way, but the truth is that housing is far below adequate, and they leave behind abandoned

vehicles, trailers, garbage, clothing, sewage — so much waste and destruction, born

out of very real need and desperation. One couple chose to squat in the forest in

order to afford their medication. She drove out daily to work.

OFTF volunteers give up their weekends to haul out garbage. They care deeply about

the land we all share. They are driven by responsibility. They show us what is possible

when a community comes together with grit, grace and heart. They aren’t just cleaning

up forests. They’re bringing awareness and telling the story with compassion and authenticity.

Thank you to Kane Blake, David Ouwendyk, James Mayers, Eli Coburn and the many, many

volunteers.

Sookarama Community Connection

Event in Sooke

Dana Lajeunesse : Each year the Sooke Lions Club brings the community together through one of their

many well-organized and much-loved events, Sookarama. It’s a celebration of community

and a powerful reminder of what’s possible when people come together with a shared

purpose.

This year Sookarama takes place this coming Saturday, April 18, and I can’t think

of a better way to spend a weekend afternoon. Nearly 100 local non-profits, community

groups and businesses will be on site, each with their own booth, proudly sharing

the incredible work they do in the community of Sooke and the surrounding region.

It’s a chance to connect, to learn and to be inspired.

I’ve had the pleasure of attending Sookarama for the past two years, and both times

I’ve been truly inspired by the dedication of volunteers, by the creativity of local

organizations and the deep sense of care that people have for one another in the community.

Sooke is often referred to as the “Volunteer capital of Canada,” and this event certainly

lives up to that reputation.

Sookarama isn’t just about displays and information. It’s about relationships. It’s

about discovering a new cause to support, finding a way to get involved and strengthening

the connections that make the community so resilient and welcoming.

As the MLA for Juan de Fuca–Malahat, I’m proud to share that my constituency office

staff and I will once again have a booth at this year’s event. I warmly encourage

you to stop by, say hello, share your ideas and let us know what’s on your mind.

If you’re looking for something meaningful to do this weekend, I invite you to drop

by the SEAPARC Rec Centre, located at 2169 Phillips Road, between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

to support local organizations and experience firsthand the heart of the community

at Sookarama. I hope to see you there.

Tumbler Ridge Outdoor

Recreation Association

Larry Neufeld : It gives me pride today to stand in this House of honour and speak of the beautiful

jewel of a community of Tumbler Ridge. This is a positive. They deserve it, they need

it, and here it comes.

There is a wonderful organization in my constituency of Peace River South that is,

in fact, headquartered in the beautiful town of Tumbler Ridge. It is in fact called

the Tumbler Ridge Outdoor Recreation Association, TRORA.

[1:55 p.m.]

During my most recent time in the community last week, I had the opportunity to spend

a significant amount of time with residents, speaking with community leaders, this

time not about politics, not about tragedy but something equally important — connection,

community and positive momentum of the path forward.

TRORA is a non-profit organization that plays a unique and essential role. It does

not replace local recreation groups; it unites and strengthens them. It brings together

snowmobilers, mountain bikers, Nordic skiers and ATV users under one coordinated vision

in order to provide sustainable outdoor recreation. It supports tourism, and it promotes

safe access to our back country. Most importantly, it fosters stewardship, ensuring

that our natural landscapes remain protected for future generations.

Beyond infrastructure, TRORA is about people. It’s about youth engagement, volunteerism

and building a sense of pride and belonging in this beautiful rural community. This

spring TRORA is launching a bike bus, bringing children together to ride safely to

school, promoting health, confidence and connection. That is one of the many things

that they are involved with this summer.

I am proud to recognize the extraordinary work of the Tumbler Ridge Outdoor Recreation

Association and the positive impact that it is having, which is exactly what the Tumbler

Ridge area needs now more than ever.

Oral Questions

Government Position on

Oil Pipeline Proposal

and North Coast Tanker Ban

Kiel Giddens : An October 2025 internal briefing note was recently obtained by the media. The FOI

revealed internal government documents that showed a secret, coordinated effort by

the B.C. NDP to stop a new Canadian pipeline project.

These documents show that while this government was publicly dismissing a proposed

northern pipeline as fictional, staff were privately directed to mobilize opponents

to the project. Many of those opponents, I’m sure, are friends of many members of

the government benches.

Can the minister confirm: is this government mobilizing staff to kill a pipeline while,

at the same, time telling the public that it doesn’t exist?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, it’s always good when you get your question period material from the Western

Standard.

I’ll just say this. The pipeline proposal doesn’t exist, at least not yet. There’s

been a lot of talk of it. B.C. has expressed its position. The member will know that

we’re opposed to the lifting of the tanker ban on the north coast and that we’re,

of course, working closely with other jurisdictions in all of these matters.

But it seems to me reasonable, when people put forward a project that will greatly

affect British Columbians, that the British Columbia government be informed and develop

evidence with respect to that project. That’s precisely what we’re doing.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens : The NDP has spent decades blocking pipelines and other energy infrastructure that

will make Canada and B.C. more prosperous and more secure.

The Prime Minister; the Premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick,

Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador; and even Wab Kinew, the NDP Premier of Manitoba,

all support pipelines because they are in the national interest. And 65 percent of

British Columbians support a pipeline, yet this Premier and the NDP government are

the ones who oppose it.

When will this government do the right thing, align with the rest of Canada and support

a new Canadian pipeline?

Hon. Adrian Dix : As the member will know, there is no proposal. There is no proponent. There is no

route. There is, as yet, no plan. British Columbia has put forward its views on this

question because we’re frequently asked our views.

Obviously, the province of Alberta, which in its MOU with the federal government on

broad energy issues missed a number of deadlines on April 1, has its own issues and

is engaging in its own strategy.

[2:00 p.m.]

I would say this, though. As a member from the North, I’d like to ask why the hon.

member is against the North Coast transmission line, which will unleash the economy

of the North.

They are against real projects. They’re against mining projects. They’re against bringing

electricity to the north coast.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix : They’re against clean energy projects. They’re against projects that will build the

economy of this province and create jobs in the North, real projects.

They talked about LNG. We deliver projects, in partnership with First Nations. The

party of zero, the party of no, over there, is opposed to real projects. We’re driving

real projects forward — working, yes, with the federal government; working, yes, with

First Nations; working, yes, with business — and we are succeeding.

Energy Supply and Costs

Larry Neufeld : B.C.’s vulnerability to global energy price shocks did not arrive without warning.

For years, this government has had opportunities to expand pipeline capacity and build

critical infrastructure, including additional refining capacity that would have diversified

our supply. They chose ideology over prudence. Now British Columbians are paying the

price.

Will this government admit that this price crisis was preventable?

Hon. Adrian Dix : In the course of this legislative session and past legislative sessions, I’ve heard

the opposition blame the government for lots of things.

The member will be aware that the most recent spikes in the price of gas are related

to the terrible circumstances in the war between the United States and Israel and

Iran. They are affecting British Columbians as they’re affecting many countries around

the world.

It’s why, here in British Columbia, we have developed renewable energy sources that

the opposition opposes, that they’ve made clear that they’re opposed to, over time.

It’s why we’ve seen to upgrade the value of our natural gas so we can export it and

diversify our markets around the world. We’re going to continue to do so.

People talk about pipeline proposals. The member will know that since 2022, the amount

of oil transported from Alberta through British Columbia has increased fourfold because

of the development of the TMX pipeline. There are other opportunities on that line

to increase capacity for the province of Alberta.

We have been working with other jurisdictions on realistic, real proposals to see

that that happens. I think that’s the right approach — to go from zero LNG projects

to six and to build clean energy around B.C., which everybody in the world, with the

exception currently of the Trump administration, is doing.

I hope the opposition will start to support these efforts.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental.

Larry Neufeld : Yes, I’m very aware of what’s affecting gas prices. My question was addressing what

this government has done to address that on behalf of British Columbians.

What I will suggest further, for my next question, is that a task force will not lower

gas prices. It will not harden supply chains that are already under pressure. It will

not reverse years of obstruction that we’ve just discussed.

What specific action — not study, not coordination, not consultation — will this government

take in the next 30 days to protect British Columbia from energy price volatility?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Hon. Speaker, as you know, I’m looking forward to debating legislation that’s before

the House now that will provide assistance to many British Columbians. In that respect,

we’ll have the opportunity, the hon. member and I, to debate that shortly.

What British Columbia needs to do is take what we have been taking, which is changes

that were brought in by this administration — five conditions for LNG development,

for example — that focus on the needs of local communities, of First Nations, of the

economy of the province, addressing issues of climate change and giving alternatives

to British Columbians.

We’re going to continue to expand opportunities to save energy, to save electricity

and to reduce household costs through Power Smart programs that are available through….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix : You know, hon. Speaker, we hear this every day. They claim they want to have a debate,

but they don’t really want to have a debate or a discussion of issues that I take

very seriously.

There’s a global energy situation, which the opposition has asked exactly no questions

about. They’re opposed to clean energy. They’re opposed to giving people alternatives.

They don’t understand that B.C. has the lowest electricity rates in the world because

we have a public B.C. Hydro system. We are going to continue to take steps to give

British Columbians alternatives.

If anything, with the intermittence of fossil fuels as a result of what’s happened

in this terrible conflict far away from us, we should be doubling down on clean electricity.

Why are they opposed to it every single time?

Woodfibre LNG Project Expansion

Proposal and Wastewater Regulation

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m so glad to be on topic today and present a different perspective on the fossil

fuel debate from my riding.

Since Woodfibre LNG was first proposed more than ten years ago, communities in Átl’ka7tsem–Howe

Sound have worried that it would be larger, dirtier and more damaging than advertised.

Now it looks like Woodfibre has been planning from the beginning for much more than

the two-megatonne export it was permitted for, a classic Trojan Horse strategy.

Fortis and B.C. Hydro seem to have known for a while, because they’re overbuilding

pipeline and electrical infrastructure to accommodate greater capacity. Then, three

weeks ago, the federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister lets the cat out of the

bag, speaking in Texas, of all places, about a potential doubling or tripling of gas

exports. More tankers; more water, air and climate pollution than were ever discussed

with those affected.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. How long has this government

known about this gas export scope creep?

Hon. Adrian Dix : It appears that all of the opposition parties are asking about projects that don’t

currently exist.

I’m interested in that discussion, but the member will know that B.C. Hydro is building

a transmission line. They made that known to residents in his riding in January. They

briefed the hon. member. We had a public meeting at the end of March — I think it

was March 31 or around there — where we heard from more than 100 local residents about

that issue.

We’re talking, in that case, about ensuring that electricity, clean electricity from

B.C. Hydro, fuels that plant, resulting in the lowest-emission LNG in the world. That

process, the process engaged by B.C. Hydro on a real project that’s necessary — I

think everyone in the area would say is necessary — to increase the amount of electricity

in the area, is going ahead. It’s going ahead with full consultation.

If the member wants any briefing on that question, he’ll certainly have it. I encourage

him — I think he has — to visit Woodfibre LNG and to see the work they’re doing, including

work with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation on the project. That’s an open public process. I invite the member and his

constituents to take part.

B.C. Hydro is working hard to respond to questions from people in the area about an

important transmission project by B.C. Hydro.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : We talked quite a bit about B.C. Hydro, although that wasn’t my question.

Meanwhile, FortisBC is building a pipeline from Coquitlam to supply Woodfibre and

has been exceeding its wastewater permit for over a year, discharging high levels

of contaminants into Átl’ka7tsem–Howe Sound. Instead of fixing the problem, they’re

now asking to amend the permit to allow higher discharge volumes and weaken water

quality protections. This is how we deal with rulebreakers. If they have enough lobbyists,

we just change the rules to suit them.

I’ll be at the semi-annual Howe Sound Community Forum on Friday. It’s a remarkable

gathering of local leaders from over 20 jurisdictions and First Nations surrounding

our southernmost fjord, which is also a UNESCO Biosphere region and the site of an

LNG plant.

My question is on their behalf and the thousands of residents who deeply value Howe

Sound and its recovery from a century of water quality abuse.

The B.C. Energy Regulator answers to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Will he instruct them to reject any further permit amendments and ask FortisBC to

figure out the water treatment under their existing permit?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Again, the B.C. Energy Regulator is an outstanding regulator. It takes its job very

seriously. It’s represented not just in Victoria and in Vancouver but all over the

province. It continues to work on issues. If people want to seek amendments, they

have to go through a legal process that is strict and highly regulated.

[2:10 p.m.]

I encourage the member and his constituents to engage with the B.C. Energy Regulator.

I don’t give direction to the B.C. Energy Regulator. If I did, that would be a problem.

They’re an independent regulator, as the member will know.

They do an outstanding job. I encourage him and his constituents to engage with the

Energy Regulator and, certainly, would be happy at any time to meet with him and his

constituents about the issue myself.

Energy Supply and Silversmith

Power Generating Station

Bruce Banman : Silversmith Power and Light, Canada’s longest continually operating green hydroelectric

facility, for 129 years, is at risk of closure in less than five months. They are

a locally owned, run-of-the-river hydroelectric utility in Sandon, British Columbia,

yet today they are being pushed rapidly toward shutdown due to a series of government-controlled

policies and decisions that have left them with no sustainable path forward.

This is not just about one facility. It reflects a broader and growing problem in

British Columbia’s electrical system.

At a time when B.C. faces electrical shortages and is increasingly importing power

from the United States, why is this government forcing out local clean, green energy

producers like Silversmith Power and Light?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member, as usual, is late and inaccurate in his analysis.

As the member will know, water levels are very strong this year for B.C. Hydro. We’ll

be exporting more power than we import, to the benefit of British Columbians — in

fact, as has been the case in nine of the last 16 years. So when you premise your

question on inaccurate information, I think it’s important to bring accurate information

to the table.

There are a number of projects, and presumably, the member is talking about electricity

agreements.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I am answering the question. The member made a number of incorrect assertions, and

I’m simply correcting them, which is part of my role in his life.

But with respect to the project, absolutely happy to meet with proponents.

B.C. Hydro’s task, I think, is to act in the public interest and the interests of

people in B.C. That means, with respect, for example, to projects, many projects,

that were contracted some decades ago, when their time of the contract is over, to

renegotiate those contracts. That, presumably, is the process that’s underway.

That’s a process as between an independent power producer and B.C. Hydro, and I presume

that it’s desirable for everyone that it continues to be that way.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Bruce Banman : Thank you for that long-winded response, which really didn’t answer the question.

I want to show the minister how the policies are affecting this producer. For April,

they are being offered 0.06 cents per kilowatt for their electricity. It’s a small

fraction of what B.C. Hydro customers pay and far below what is required for sustainability.

The minister will try to say that this rate is independently determined.

However, to make matters even worse, the province agreed to sell the land the powerhouse

sits on, which is former CP property, way back in 1996. Thirty years later they’re

still waiting. In the meantime, they could have expanded five times the size, but

because they don’t own the land, the banks won’t lend them a penny. It’s a never-ending

cycle of bureaucratic idiocracy.

They are now one of the very last locally owned hydroelectric operations remaining

in the province — a historic one, 129 years of proud service. The current system does

not support local producers, and without immediate change, local green generation

in British Columbia will disappear.

So I’ll ask the minister one more time: why is this government prioritizing American

energy over local, clean Canadian producers?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The answer is we’re not. We have….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, you have finished asking your question. Let the minister answer now.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member, one, refers to B.C. Hydro customers, who pay the lowest electricity rates

in the world, along with Manitoba Hydro and Quebec hydro. They do that because we

run a serious Crown corporation at B.C. Hydro that does an excellent job for the people

of B.C.

Two, the members are opposed to this, but we are increasing the amount of electricity

produced in B.C. through energy purchase agreements with independent power producers.

Three, as I noted in my first answer, I’d be happy to meet with his constituents and

people any time.

Four, B.C. Hydro….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member can take up his issues with Gordon Campbell later.

I would say that B.C. Hydro does an outstanding job, that they’re building the province.

This is a critical moment for us to develop our energy independence, and B.C. Hydro

is leading the way, in spite of the opposition from the B.C. Conservative Party, and

will continue to do so.

As I noted in my first answer, happy to meet with anybody at any time on electricity

issues.

Government Energy Policies

and Attendance at Oil and Gas

Industry Conference in Houston

Gavin Dew : The minister has rightly said that it’s a critical time for us to develop our energy

independence, and it’s critical how international capital markets see us.

The Premier has said: “Projects like LNG Canada are the reason that B.C. will be the

economic engine of a more independent Canada. It creates good jobs, opportunities

that let young people build a life here in the North, and generates the revenue we

need to improve public services everyone relies on.”

If natural gas is so central to the government’s economic vision, why were they absent

from CERAWeek in Houston, the largest and most influential oil and gas conference

in the world?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, I’m always interested. When members of the government travel to conferences,

they frequently get attacked in this House for travelling to conferences. And now

when we don’t travel to a conference, people in this House, in the opposition, are

attacking us for not going to those conferences.

Of course, I’ll be looking….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I’ll be looking forward to a third option that I’m sure the member will propose in

his supplementary question.

Members of the House will know about the commitment we have to working with energy

partners everywhere. They’ll know about my frequent trips to Calgary to meet with

the industry there and the meetings I have on a regular basis with the industry everywhere.

The Houston conference is an important conference. We decided not to go this year

because we have issues that we’re delivering on the ground, that I’m delivering on

the ground. I thought that the most important thing for us to do right now is not

to travel to the United States at this time but to defend British Columbia and advance

British Columbia projects here in British Columbia.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Gavin Dew : I have to admit I’m a little confused about the ever-changing position on travel

to the United States when we have cabinet ministers travelling to Boston and New York

and spending $6,000 on limousines. I just don’t understand it. Look….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, shhh.

Gavin Dew : Market signals matter, and industry notices when you don’t bother to show up. We’ve

heard the government even directed B.C. energy regulators not to attend CERAWeek.

I wonder if that’s because nobody from the government wanted to face hard questions

about pipelines or listen to why international investors are losing confidence in

B.C.

Leaders from around the world attended the conference, including the Premiers of Nova

Scotia and Alberta. Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources spoke. Alberta’s

Minister of Energy spoke.

Why wasn’t the Premier or the Energy Minister there as a champion of B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix : There you have it. They’re in favour and opposed to ministers’ travel.

You can have it your way, but you can’t have it both ways.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Oh, there they go.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Minister has the floor.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix : Our commitment to growing our industry here in B.C. is evidenced by results. Under

the minister’s former party…. He’s one of the members of the make B.C….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Please continue.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member is one of the “make the B.C. Conservative B.C. Liberals” faction of that

party.

He’ll know that when the NDP took office in B.C., there were exactly zero LNG projects.

There are now six because our five principles and our approach are working. That is

hundreds of thousands of construction jobs and revenues to the province.

He’ll know that we are engaging in the most significant expansion of B.C. Hydro’s

resources since the 1960s. He should know, because he’s against it. We’re not against

it.

Our results — electricity purchase agreements, an advancement for B.C. Hydro and building

the province and transmission lines and new LNG plants and production in the northeast.

That’s the record of a government. That’s what matters to people, not who’s at a conference

but the results that we’re delivering every day for the people of B.C.

Government Position on

Pipeline Projects

Misty Van Popta : On this side of the aisle, we’re opposed to $6,000 limo rides, not to growing our

industries.

Increasing pipeline egress for Canadian oil and gas to export ports is one of the

ways for Canadians and British Columbians to benefit financially from a world that

wants more responsibly produced Canadian oil and gas. Oil and gas can substantially

support our social investments, and it can be a wonderful opportunity for Indigenous

economic reconciliation. But when it comes to economic reconciliation, this government

has missed the mark.

Will the minister get out of the way and support the prosperity of all British Columbians

and engage in more discussions to get more export pipelines to B.C.’s coasts?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, that is exactly what the North Coast transmission line supports, which is the

diversification of B.C.’s natural gas markets.

They’re against it for reasons that I do not understand. They represent most of the

area along the line and most of the constituents who directly benefit from it. Yet

they’re against it because they prefer right-wing marginal ideology to making progress

for the people of B.C. That’s the reason why that happens, unfortunately.

We are delivering at every level here in B.C. And we’re talking about pipeline development.

They’ll know that the current TMX pipeline has increased from the previous maximum

now to the current maximum. It was 880,000 barrels a day. There were about, on average

last year, 770,000 barrels a day.

There’s an opportunity on that line, as everybody knows, to optimize that project.

We are not standing in the way. In fact, we’re working with TMX on that question.

We’re actually improving the situation, not just bringing up rhetoric in the House

about projects that don’t exist yet but delivering for people in B.C.

People in B.C., though, also understand the economic value of the tanker ban on the

north coast. People in B.C. understand the economic value to the people of B.C. of

growing our economy in consultation with First Nations. People in B.C. understand

that we need to continue to grow our economy. We are for that, and they’re against

it.

Extension of Contract for

Health Care System Adviser

and Health Authority Review

Trevor Halford : Another day, another contract extension for the government’s friends and insiders.

Today we learned that Penny Ballem, who has actually billed taxpayers for over $2

million in the past five years, has just received another contract extension for $180,000

to provide strategic advice on health care to government. Imagine that.

You would think that a nearly $200,000 contract would be full-time. Not according

to this government. Her contract work is part-time. Imagine that, finding a part-time

job for $180,000 in this climate.

Ms. Ballem was originally contracted due to a review of the health authorities. An

extension of her contract signals that review will not be completed any time soon.

[2:25 p.m.]

My question is simple. Why are the taxpayers being billed $180,000 for part-time advice

from Ms. Ballem when this government still has nothing to show for her work already?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I am so glad to have the work of Dr. Ballem continuing to advise government and work

with us on the incredibly important work of streamlining the administration, reducing

it, eliminating the duplication and redundancies in the health care system so that

we can redirect resources to the front line.

Dr. Ballem is a well-respected health administrator, physician and Order of B.C. recipient

who has decades of experience under different administrations of different political

stripes, providing advice and working with the health system here.

Dr. Ballem has been working most recently as the interim CEO of the Provincial Health

Services Authority. She has helped with the review of that organization. She has been

helping to guide and advise government as we establish a shared services organization,

one that was stood up on April 1.

But the work under the health authority review started well before then. Already 1,100

positions within the health authorities have been eliminated, left vacant or unfilled,

at a savings of $60 million a year. Further, the health authorities have undertaken

work in their cost-management exercises, finding $260 million further of savings.

The new shared services organization will find hundreds of millions of dollars more

to redirect to the nurses, to the doctors, to the medical lab technologists, to the

radiographers that we need in the health care system delivering health care today.

I am glad to have Dr. Ballem’s assistance and to continue working with us on this

part-time basis for a year.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental.

Trevor Halford : If it’s convenient for the minister, I’ll ask her a question here.

You would think that we would know all the things that the minister just cited if

there was actually a report that the minister was able to table on the work that Ms.

Ballem has assumingly done, but there’s nothing to show for it.

At a time when we have multiple ER closures all over this province, we have maternity

wards all over this province…. We have people that can’t access family doctors. We

have people….

The Speaker : Member, just ask a question now.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

The member will ask a question.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford : Unless you’ve got to go work on your leadership campaign, we’ll wait for the question.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Trevor Halford : How does the minister justify the fact that taxpayers have already paid $2 million

to this individual, nothing to show for it? And this minister says: “You know what?

We’ll top you up with another 200 grand.”

How does this minister justify that to taxpayers?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’ll easily justify that through the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being

saved in health authorities, that are being redirected to the front lines of health

care in this province.

Investment is required sometimes to do this work. That’s why we went to the U.S. with

a recruitment campaign that that side of the House opposed. A recruitment campaign…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …that has brought over 500 health care workers who have already accepted job offers.

They opposed it.

The Minister of Energy started off our oral questions today telling us all…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : …they are the party of no. They have proved it once again. They are the party of

no.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m just rising on a point of order.

I know that you enforce the rules around no electronic devices in this place. The

member for Kamloops–North Thompson was caught on Hansard video using his device —

it looked like taking photos — during this chamber. I’m hoping that you can reinforce

to this House that that’s not a practice. That is prohibited.

The Speaker : Thank you, Member, for advising us.

Ward Stamer : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did take a picture.

What it was, was that it seems, very conveniently, that when Hansard is taking pictures

of this side of the House, conveniently where the person is doing this and showing

the hearing-impaired thing, it’s blocking out our pictures but not on the other side.

The Speaker : Member, no justification is needed because taking pictures in the chamber is absolutely

not permitted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Given the acknowledgement that pictures were taken, I would request that you request

anything that was taken against the rules be deleted.

The Speaker : Yes, I was going to say that. Thank you, Government House Leader.

Member, the Chair asks you. Any picture taken, any recording taken, must be deleted,

not to be used in any way, shape or form.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Could you rise and state that?

Ward Stamer : Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree.

The Speaker : Thank you.

Members, the House will now be in recess until 2:45. We’ll come back after a short

period of time. Thank you.

The House recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : I call the House back to order. Please take your seats.

Please rise as we welcome Diane Sam of the Songhees Nation and Elder Tax’ayee and

Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Nabess-Bennett of the Kitselas First Nation into the

chamber.

Thank you. Be seated.

I invite Songhees community member Diane Sam to offer a territorial welcome.

Blessings and Acknowledgements

Diane Sam : [lək̓ʷəŋən was spoken.]

Good afternoon, everybody. I just introduced myself as səwəyələq and [an Indigenous language was spoken], and those two names are very important to

me. They came to me from my late grandpa Pally here from Songhees and my late grandma

Sarah from Ahousaht. It’s really, really important for me to share those names so

that I can ground myself and also just in case I might have some family in the room.

That has happened.

I’d like to send regrets on behalf of Songhees chief and council.

I’d also like to take a moment to acknowledge Skip Dick’s family and Bangus George’s

— sorry, Frank George’s — family. Songhees has gone through some incredible loss of

some tremendous Elders in the last little while, and I think it’s really important

to acknowledge that leadership within our community.

I’d like to welcome all of you to the lək̓ʷəŋən territory on behalf of my community; my leadership; our Elders; but, more importantly,

my ancestors. I do acknowledge our visitors here today. I know that we have a community

here from Kitselas, and I really hope I pronounced that right.

Welcome to our territory.

Translated, lək̓ʷəŋən is “place of smoked herring.” Historically, protocol…. In the words of my uncle Skip,

he would say: “Protocol is not a new thing.” Historically we would have the canoes

come into the harbour, and we would know whether or not people were coming in with

good intentions in the way that their canoes were facing.

So I invite the Kitselas community to come in and tie your canoes and celebrate this

momentous milestone with your community. I’m very honoured to be part of it, and I

thank the organizers for including me.

I’ve been learning my language for about ten years now and instilling it with my granddaughter.

I have to share this one because my daughter talks about it. The one word that we

use often is ləléʔn̓əŋ’. Can you try and say that? ləléʔn̓əŋ’. It means “listen.” My granddaughter is six. So there’s your lək̓ʷəŋən language for today.

həysxʷq̓ə for allowing me to be here, and I welcome all of your guests. I also just want to

acknowledge that Songhees is continuing to do the good work that we’re doing, much

like our other relatives and our visitors here today.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’d also like to acknowledge the leadership and the other Elder that’s here today.

Again, thank you for allowing me to be here. həysxʷq̓ə.

The Speaker : Thank you, Diane Sam, for acknowledging the territory and the land that we gather

on. Thank you so much.

Now I invite Elder Tax’ayee of Kitselas First Nation to offer a welcome song. Please

stand.

Elder Tax’ayee / Anne McDames : Before I sing this song, the song I’m going to share with you is the “Peace Song.”

The “Peace Song” is very sacred to our community, our members.

We think of those that are hurting right now. It could be you. It could be you, but

you’re holding it in. This is the “Peace Song” for you to know that you’re not alone.

You’re not alone. We are here for each other. We uplift each other. We give each other

strength.

With this “Peace Song,” I think of all of you and the ones that we have lost in our

communities. We think of the families. So I share this peace song with you.

[“Peace Song” was sung.]

The Speaker : Thank you, Elder Tax’ayee. Thank you so much for this “Peace Song.”

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Kitselas Treaty Act

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

a bill intituled Kitselas Treaty Act.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I move that the Kitselas Treaty Act, 2026, be introduced and read a first time now.

I wish to recognize the Kitselas delegation here today. I want to thank Deputy Chief

Councillor Cyril Bennett-Nabess, on behalf of Chief Glenn Bennett, for being here

with us. I want to thank all community members, Elders, negotiators, everyone who

has put your heart and soul into bringing us to this day — Senior Negotiator David

Try, treaty team leadership members.

I also want to acknowledge the late Mel Bevan and his family for their commitment

to this process, and the Bennett family, who I know are grieving a loss in their family

right now.

I want to acknowledge Chief Councillor Troy Sam, Jenniefer Bolton and Julie Nyce with

the Kitsumkalum, who are here, who have walked in this long path together with their

neighbouring nation, Kitselas, at the same negotiating table, and soon will have their

treaty introduced to this House for ratification in the future.

I want to thank, of course, as I mentioned, Sm’ooygit Satsan. I want to acknowledge

his son, who joined us here today, and the many who have dreamed of this who may not

be with us anymore.

Everyone watching at home, hello. Congratulations.

We’re joined by representatives, staff and the good people of the city of Terrace;

the mayor of Terrace; the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine; our friends at the

B.C. Treaty Commission, who worked so hard with us, with Canada, with Kitselas together,

to find our path together. I want to thank them, honour them and, of course, my team

with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as well.

[2:55 p.m.]

And of course, many other ministries have had a hand, have had involvement. Ministers

as well.

We’re here today because of all of you.

This moment is a historic moment that I hope becomes more common here in this House.

But to this day, it has not become common enough. That is the introduction of treaty,

a path of honour, a path of trust, a path of togetherness that will lead to prosperity

for all of us here in B.C. and Canada.

I want to thank the team at Kitselas. This act establishes the legal status of the

treaty and, if fully ratified, will be one of the first, along with K’ómoks, comprehensive

treaties to come into effect since ɬəʔamɛn in 2016. It secures a bright future, and it recognizes the long-sought-after rights

and responsibilities, title, that Kitselas have known they’ve had since time immemorial

and have worked so hard to get governments here and in Canada to recognize and acknowledge.

I’m proud to take this stand with all of you, to take the next big step with Kitselas

to build that long, bright future together. We all benefit when we see each other,

respect each other, lift each other up and focus on that hard work and joyful work

of togetherness.

It’s my great honour to rise to put forward the first reading of this legislation.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of this House after today.

Motion approved.

The Speaker : Members, pursuant to Standing Order 25C(1)(a), I invite Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril

Bennett-Nabess of the Kitselas First Nation to address the House.

Address by Indigenous Leaders

Cyril Bennett-Nabess : Wai, sm’gheghyet, sig’idimhanok, lik’eghyet, kabba’walsik, Luust’biixnoots di’whi’uu,

gitaws Gitselasu dis’idzu, na waaps Dz’wilaaks Ganhada, ada na waaps Laktiil.

[Sm̓algya̱x text provided by Cyril Bennett-Nabess.]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Cyril Bennett-Nabess, and I am honoured

to speak here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Our people are watching.

Our people are here. On behalf of our community, I would like to thank and acknowledge

the hard work of the province in carrying out this work, not only on behalf of Kitselas

but on behalf of all British Columbians.

What this treaty does for our people, what this treaty will do for our people…. It

will provide a means forward, a path forward, a path that will be followed by our

community — and when I say “community,” I mean Kitselas, British Columbia and Canada

— a path that we can carve together and move forward together as one, as I believe

our forefathers intended.

I really want to thank and acknowledge the hon. members of the House and especially

those who contributed so much to our work over the years. When Kitselas signed our

agreement-in-principle in 2014, the individual that initialled our agreement-in-principle

was the hon. member, Mr. John Rustad. I raise my hands to you. I thank you for your

work.

[3:00 p.m.]

I also thank the work of Minister Chandra Herbert, for continuing that work, because

that showed to our people that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is willing

to move forward with our people in a good way and move forward and carry out these

negotiations in good faith.

We are seeing that result today. We are seeing the positive change within our communities.

As we work toward the second, third and the future final readings, Kitselas, we welcome

your questions. We welcome your inquiries. This will not only be a document that will

be used to define our future relationship, but it will spell out how we will move

forward together as one, a community, a people, not only as Kitselas but citizens

of British Columbia, this great province in which we live.

When Kitselas began this work in 1993, it was initially led by not only Sm’ooygit

Satsan but also Winnie Wells, whose signature is on the Kitselas statement of intent.

Many of our people who began this process, just like within the province of British

Columbia, have, unfortunately, passed on. They have begun their next journey.

The sombre note in my voice recognizes and acknowledges the losses within our communities,

the losses within Kitselas, most recently my sister. I am fortunate today to have

the support of my community, of my council, of my friends to help carry out this important

work on our community’s behalf.

Our people see this as a means forward, a means of progress, a map which we as a people

can follow together, that we have drawn together.

I want to acknowledge our people that are here as well as the people that have moved

on and the people that have passed on and continued to their next journey. It is because

of those people we are here and you are here. They are also your constituents. They

are also your citizens of this great province.

What our treaty has done today and what it will do in the future — it will continue

to bring us closer together. It will continue to help guide our work together. It

will continue to help us to create and establish a strong economy together — not an

economy for Kitselas, not an economy for northern British Columbia but an economy

for us all, something that we can help contribute to now because of the work that

has been carried out.

I look at the faces in this room. I think about the people you represent, and I thank

you for carrying out the work that you do on behalf of the province.

and he talked about working together. But he also said that in government, there has

to be an opposition. There have to be two parties, because, if there’s not, then something’s

going wrong.

[3:05 p.m.]

So I appreciate all of the work collectively of not only one party but all of the

parties and the independent MLAs that are represented here.

Your work, your people are important. We are watching, and we thank you. From the

bottom of my heart, from the people of Kitselas, I thank you. I raise my hands to

you and your honourable work that you have carried out today.

Nt’oyaxsn. Thank you all.

The Speaker : Thank you, Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Nabess-Bennett. On behalf of all members,

please accept our sincere appreciation. We are honoured that you are able to address

this House today on this special occasion. Thank you so much.

Now, Members, pursuant to Standing Order 25C(1)(b), I will recognize the leader of

each recognized party or their designate to offer remarks.

Ministerial Statements

Kitselas Treaty Act

Hon. David Eby : It is a great honour for me to rise today in the Legislative Assembly in this historic

moment of a recognition of a formal agreement — a treaty act, the Kitselas Treaty

Act — between the province of British Columbia and the Kitselas First Nation.

First and foremost, I want to offer my congratulations. Congratulations, Kitselas

First Nation, for your work, more than 30 years of work, to get to this moment.

So many people involved. It’s difficult to know where to begin, but thank you, Deputy

Chief, for your very moving words this morning. Thank you for being here on behalf

of Chief Bennett.

Thank you to the senior negotiator and the entire negotiation team for enduring, persevering

and delivering this agreement for the provincial government; the federal government;

and, of course, for the nation.

Thank you to all the Elders, the Hereditary Chiefs, the councillors who served over

the many years, all the community members, the treaty team, past and present leadership.

It is your strength, determination and commitment that brought us to this state.

Thank you, Diane Sam, for the welcome to the territory. It’s so good to see you. Thank

you for the language lesson.

Thank you, of course, to Elder Anne for the beautiful “Peace Song.” What a wonderful

way to start.

This was 30 years in the making, but of course, for the Kitselas People, the path

to this day has been much longer than that. Kitselas People have lived in the Kitselas

Canyon area for at least 5,000 years. Their nation is rightly proud of their heritage

and achievements. They define resiliency and strength.

They have continued to fight for their rights, for their land, for their title for

generations. They have continually sought agreement with the government to be able

to move forward together. We heard about that today from the Deputy Chief. Today,

as in every year past, the people of the canyon stand strong and united, and it is

an honour to stand with you.

The Kitselas treaty is the second treaty in as many days to reach this important milestone,

with the introduction yesterday of the K’ómoks Treaty Act. This marks a significant

step forward for both nations, for the province and for the treaty process as a whole.

I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again. This is what reconciliation means. It

is the way forward to certainty, to shared prosperity, to the best future for all

people in British Columbia. This agreement is a major step forward in repairing damaged

trust and building a foundation that we can grow together.

Once it’s ratified by all parties to the treaty…. It doesn’t begin and end there.

It is a living agreement. It can be updated so that it remains current, innovative

and inclusive.

When it is ratified, this provides the foundation for the revitalized relationship

between the Kitselas First Nation, the provincial government, the federal government,

local governments and a government-to-government relationship that will create jobs,

opportunity and prosperity for not just the Kitselas People but for the entire region

and for our province.

[3:10 p.m.]

It will provide certainty. It will provide a framework for sharing the land. It will

create a foundation for cooperation and partnership.

I’ll say it again. This is the way forward, and I thank the Deputy Chief for reminding

this House. I thank the former Leader of the Opposition for his work in 2014, helping

set this path as part of its 30-year journey.

Unlike other parts of Canada, most of our land in B.C. was never covered by treaty.

This was a deliberate decision by the governments of the day. There were some historic

treaties, but they were the exception, not the rule. That was the case until about

the year 2000, when the Nisg̱a’a treaty began the work of the provincial government to see modern treaties as a way

to find a path forward.

In the absence of treaty, courts have consistently recognized First Nations rights

and title in this province, rights and title that cannot be erased by any government.

Despite this, we have seen successive governments fight against this reality. That

has resulted in conflict, in uncertainty and in what feels like endless court battles.

This modern treaty is indeed the path forward. Once fully ratified, Kitselas will

join eight other modern treaty nations in British Columbia. This makes a path of healing

and relationship, an affirmation of the rights of the people who always insisted those

rights be recognized. This is the path towards lasting and true recognition and reconciliation.

It is my honour, on behalf of the government, to stand up and speak in support of

the Kitselas Treaty Act. May we continue the path together. We have much work to do

in the years to come, government to government, building a stronger future for all

British Columbians in this amazing province we call home.

Claire Rattée : It’s an honour to rise in this House today to speak to the introduction of the Kitselas

treaty.

I want to begin by acknowledging the Kitselas Nation, their leadership, their Elders,

their negotiators and all of the community members who have worked so tirelessly over

the course of decades to bring us to this moment, many of whom are in the gallery

today.

I really don’t think that it can be overstated how long of a process this is. I think

my math on this is correct. I’m pretty sure I was one when this started, and Cyril

there probably was just born, so it’s a very long time in the making. This is not

just a milestone that’s built over years but is the result of generations of vision,

perseverance and commitment.

I also want to acknowledge the profound loss and grief that their community is grappling

with, the loss of Randi Mae. I know that some of her family is here in the chamber

today, and I want everyone that has been affected by the painful loss of this young

woman to know that I am grieving with you. I know your community has experienced a

great deal of tragic loss, and my prayer is that today is the first step towards a

brighter future for your community to address the inequities that you and all northern

communities have faced for far too long that have contributed to these tragedies.

I want to tell members of the House a little bit about the Kitselas Nation. Kitselas

means “people of the canyon” in the Tsimshian language of Sm̓algya̱x. There is a long history being keepers of the canyon. I’m not going to pretend that

I can recite it verbatim, because Chief Bennett does a much better job than I do.

But I would really encourage that anybody that ever has the opportunity to go there

and visit do so.

I was very fortunate over the last summer that I was able to come out there with a

number of my colleagues, and members of the Kitselas Nation very graciously toured

us around and actually took us by boat down into the canyon. I think it was one of

the most remarkable days of my life. I think it was for many of my colleagues as well.

We really appreciated the opportunity to be able to experience that, to go through

the longhouses, to see all of the tradition and the history — and just the most gracious

hosts.

Today represents something profoundly important, not just for the Kitselas Nation

but for our entire region. For those of us who live in the northwest, this work has

never been abstract. It has been real, it has been local, and it has been built on

relationships.

I’ve had the privilege of working closely with Kitselas leadership, and I’ve seen

firsthand the strength of the partnerships that they have built, not only with myself

but with the city of Terrace, the regional district, neighbouring nations and partners

across both the provincial and federal governments.

[3:15 p.m.]

These relationships matter. They are the foundation of what makes agreements like

this meaningful and lasting.

Kitselas has also demonstrated, time and time again, their commitment not only to

their own community but to the broader region, through initiatives like the K5T program,

or the Kitselas Five-Tier approach, which provides employment and skills training

for our entire region — it’s so desperately needed and places focus on things like

agriculture, which have long been overlooked in our region and are desperately needed

— or their persistence in recruiting a doctor for their community and their tireless

joint efforts with other nations and municipalities to finally see our first clinical

treatment centre open in our region.

They have made real investments in people, in opportunity and in long-term prosperity

that extends far beyond their nation, and that kind of leadership strengthens all

of our communities.

I want to talk a little bit about how hard the Kitselas Nation worked on this. I don’t

think there was a single event that I attended throughout our riding where they didn’t

have someone present, often multiple people, making sure that they were connecting

with their membership, making sure that they were aware, making sure they were educated

prior to the ratification vote.

I think that’s really a testament to the fact that they had 86 percent ratification.

They had a far better turnout than we typically get in any of our elections, and it’s

really a testament to the hard work and the perseverance and the entire Kitselas treaty

team. Again, I know many of them are here in the gallery today, and I really do praise

the hard work that they put into this entire process.

I remember at one point, just leading up to the ratification vote, I was listening

to a podcast, and there was an ad that came up about the Kitselas treaty ratification

vote. That’s how hard they worked to make sure that they had an excellent turnout.

They knew full well that this was something that their people wanted and supported

— very high levels of engagement. Like I said, this has been going on for over 30

years now.

This moment is also one that carries reflection, because there are many people who

have worked towards this day who are not here to witness it — people who have dedicated

years, decades, of their lives to this process. I want to specifically acknowledge

the late Mel Bevan, and I know that his son is here today as well to witness this.

Mel Bevan’s contributions and commitment to this work will not be forgotten.

Today stands, in part, as a testament to his efforts and to the many others who walked

this path before us. This is what makes today both meaningful and emotional. It is

a culmination of the past but also a foundation for the future.

That future extends beyond Kitselas. It extends to Kitsumkalum, whose own treaty will

come forward in time. It extends to the broader northwest. It extends to every community

that benefits when we build strong, respectful and collaborative relationships that

are grounded in certainty, mutual respect and shared opportunity.

I want to take a moment to express my personal gratitude. The Kitselas community has

been incredibly welcoming to me. They have made me feel that I belong in their community,

and that is something that I do not take lightly. It is a reflection of who they are,

a nation that is grounded in strength, generosity and leadership. To be here today

to witness this moment is a privilege.

I offer my sincere congratulations to the Kitselas Nation, to their leadership, to

their members and to all those who helped make this day possible. This is a significant

step forward not just in process but in partnership, and as your MLA, I look forward

to continuing to walk that path together.

Rob Botterell : Colleagues, honoured guests, it is a true honour to bear witness as the Kitselas

Treaty Act is introduced in this House.

Today is a proud day for this province. With this modern treaty, we are choosing collaboration

over conflict. We are addressing the past wrongs of the Crown, establishing a new,

living agreement that will bring prosperity and a brighter future to everyone who

lives on these lands and for everyone throughout the region.

As we’ve heard, work on the Kitselas treaty began in 1993. It has taken over 30 years

of careful work, public consultation and respectful conversation to bring us to this

historic day. I offer my gratitude and congratulations to all those who have dedicated

their lives to this process.

[3:20 p.m.]

I won’t by any means be able to name everyone, but I’d particularly like to recognize

Deputy Chief Councillor Cyril Bennett-Nabess, the B.C. and Kitselas treaty teams,

the B.C. Treaty Commission and everyone in the Kitselas community who has supported

this process over many years.

I have borne witness to the incredible hard work of nations and treaty teams when

building a bright future for your people, so I want to congratulate you all on reaching

this milestone.

This work, though, takes us away — all of us, when we do this treaty work, when you

do this treaty work — for days on end from our families, our partners, our children,

our loved ones, everyone who are the most important people our lives. I want to especially

thank them for supporting Kitselas and the teams that worked on this so hard so this

can be done through all those years.

Treaties are a path forward. With these modern treaties, we’re establishing a new

process for structured decision-making, consent, cooperation and a bright future.

We’re showing the world what good neighbours can be and what good neighbours can accomplish.

To the people of the canyon, congratulations.

The Speaker : Thank you all the speakers. Again, I want to thank Songhees community member Diane

Sam; Elder Tax’ayee, also known as Elder Anne McDames; and Deputy Chief Councillor

Cyril Bennett-Nabess and the many guests who have joined us here today.

Thank you so much for each and every one of you who are coming here today.

The House will take a brief recess now, and we will be back soon. Five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:28 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : I call the House back to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call, in this chamber, continued second reading on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment

Act.

In

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

Assessment Amendment Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply for the estimates for the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

[3:30 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. Now that we have quorum, we will get underway here in the chamber.

We are contemplating Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Ward Stamer : In British Columbia, people are used to working hard for their money. They expect

the government will do the same. But Bill 14 asks them to believe in something difficult

— that the government can take on more responsibility and deliver better results than

the private sector can.

Now, over the course of the next two hours, I’m going to be able to, in my opinion,

delve into what BCTS is being asked by their task force and the 54 recommendations

that the government is now in the process of implementing and the reasons why the

Forests Minister believes it’s necessary to bring forth amendments to the Forest Act,

specifically Bill 14.

Again, as I said yesterday, there are many good parts of what BCTS is going to be

looking forward towards in the future — everything from reforestation; enhanced forest

management and forest stewardship; and wildfire interface opportunities, possibly,

whether it’s an integration with B.C. wildfire service or some of the FESBC funding

that has been occurring in the past.

So there are many good objectives in what BCTS is doing, and they have dedicated people

that have worked in that organization for many years. I know that they do their very

utmost to be able to move that organization forward.

My focus, in my two hours, will be looking at the specific questions on why we are

looking at changing the law, the Forest Act, when, really, all that’s necessary in

moving BCTS forward is specific costing changes to allow BCTS other ways to invest

in their business. There’s other language in this bill, and we will be able to discuss

that once we get to committee and, possibly, with opportunities for amendments because,

in some cases, it is not very clear on what the reasoning is behind these legislative

changes.

These are laws. This affects the Forest Act. Yes, we know, as the minister alluded

to, the Forest Act goes all the way back to 1912. The last major work that was done

was 30 years ago. I agree that was a long time ago. During that time, there was also

the introducing of the Forest Practices Act, which made significant changes to our

environmental assessments and standards in this province that, as we would all agree,

are some of the strongest environmental standards in the world.

As I mentioned, the minister talks about the transition in the forest industry, but

unfortunately, not a whole lot of planning is being explained on how we’re supposed

to be able to achieve that in the BCTS world. There are expectations that simply don’t

hold up. I’ll use examples of what the minister and the ministry has shown us because

it’s very short on detail on how this is actually going to occur.

[3:35 p.m.]

One of the main things that we can see in this legislation is there will be a total

shift from B.C. Timber Sales being designed and the mandate of deriving income from

our forests to more of a forest stewardship role where there isn’t really a lot of

emphasis on costing.

That has many members in our industry concerned because you’re going to be competing

on a world market where margins are incredibly tight, and now, all of a sudden, you’re

going to be introducing a new way of doing business in the forests without a plan,

without any cost certainty, no determination on how a lot of this work is going to

be described or even paid for.

Again, the Ministry of Forests is continually being subsidized by taxpayers’ dollars.

The Ministry of Forests is no longer self-sustaining like it used to be in the past,

so many of us have concerns on how much it’s going to cost, going forward, with these

initiatives.

Bill 14 is built on a series of assumptions: that outcomes will improve, that efficiency

will increase, that additional fibre will be made available again. Lofty numbers thrown

out there — 800,000 cubic metres, 500,000 cubic metres of wildfire salvage, thousands

of truckloads of wood, but no real, tangible timelines or ways that that’s even going

to be delivered. And nowhere do we see clear evidence that these assumptions are actually

grounded in reality.

We’ve seen this pattern before. Government has set ambitious goals, expectations are

raised, costs to government and taxpayers go up, timelines are non-existent or constantly

changing, and again, there’s no accountability. The plan was based on what sounded

good, not on what was achievable. When we hear expectations are unrealistic, the consequences,

unfortunately, are predictable.

This is what we’ll hear if we don’t get those outcomes: “Unfortunately, we didn’t

meet these expectations. Unforeseen challenges were experienced. Market conditions

limited our effectiveness. Circumstances out of our control.” Those are going to be

some of the buzzwords that we’ll hear if there isn’t success at the end of this tunnel.

Forestry is where policy meets reality fast. There is no buffer. If the numbers don’t

work, mills don’t run. If the supply isn’t there, jobs disappear. We hear that time

and time again — certainty of supply. That’s what we need in this industry. And if

decisions are made without understanding the full picture, entire communities feel

that impact.

We’ve already seen mill closures — 21 since 2023 — and 15,000 jobs lost. Reduced fibre

availability. We’ve gone from 51 million cubic metres harvested in 2021 to just over

31 in 2025. We’re also seeing shrinking investment, specifically over the existing

timelines that we’ve had in the past.

And yet, policies have continued to assume that government knows better. Transition

would be seamless, impacts would be temporary, and outcomes would improve quickly.

But that’s not what’s happening, because these expectations are not grounded in the

operational realities of forestry. Bill 14 carries the same risk, setting expectations

without demonstrating how they align what’s actually happening on the ground.

Again, let’s talk about the costs, because that’s what’s critical. Bill 14 assumes

that the government can take on a greater role in delivering outcomes. But when government

takes on work that is typically done by industry, local operators or experienced stakeholders,

not only do costs not go down — they go up — but competition is affected as well.

Because government doesn’t operate the same as private industry, it doesn’t have the

same efficiency, flexibility or cost discipline. So what we end up seeing, as we’ve

also seen in Bill 14 — we’ll talk about that a little later — is that there are more

layers of administration. There are more rules and regulations. There are going to

be higher overhead costs going through this process. Really, in forestry, that matters,

because, again, margins are extremely tight.

Let’s again remember that some of these things that are being proposed in this proposal

from BCTS, as I mentioned yesterday, have been tried before.

[3:40 p.m.]

Unfortunately, they failed miserably, particularly when it comes to sort yards and

marketing logs.

Again, we haven’t seen anything in the literature that has been provided that shows

us anything that’s been different and any learning from the past in a plan, moving

forward, just assumptions. That lack of experience can amplify the problem, because,

in forestry, decisions require precision, timing, practical knowledge. Without that

experience, mistakes can be made, resources can be misallocated and the cost can escalate

exponentially. What might just seem like a small miscalculation on paper can add up

to millions and millions of dollars.

As I mentioned just a little while ago, the Ministry of Forests is being subsidized

by the taxpayers of British Columbia. It is no longer self-sufficient. We have many

concerns on this side of the House on exactly how we’re supposed to make this work

when we are constantly subsidizing this ministry.

Then we talked about timelines or lack of timelines. I’ll show a flip chart here that

was brought out. It’s a request for legislation on B.C. Timber Sales, and we’ll go

through that. Again, the timelines are kind of negotiable, but it’s not really etched

in stone. In forestry, we can’t shortcut harvesting cycles or the transportation logistics

and also the readiness in the workforce.

Forest communities’ high costs and failed expectations translate to fewer jobs, reduced

economic activity and increased uncertainty. When government policies don’t deliver

as promised, communities are left with the consequences. When government costs drive

are risen, it makes the entire sector less competitive, which puts even more pressure

on those communities.

The government and the minister say that these changes will allow communities to create

more economic opportunities with more public engagement, and these were identified

through BCTS. However, we are also discussing changes in the Forest Act, and that’s

really what we want to talk about today.

It also comes down to credibility. As long as the government continues to set unrealistic

expectations and possibly take on roles that they cannot efficiently deliver and underestimate

the costs, then public trust erodes. People begin questioning whether the government

truly understands the industry that it regulates, the communities that it affects

and the consequences of its decisions. That puts all of us in B.C. at risk.

Now, the minister has talked about adding more value to the marketplace. The minister

talks about the value-added sector, especially the value-added sector portion that

does not have tenure — that they don’t seem to have access to the fibre they require

in this province.

Now, I know many of them are having extreme pressures in getting fibre from not only

the B.C. Timber Sales program but also from primary manufacturing. But it was only

a year ago when B.C. Timber Sales changed their value-added category from cat 2 to

cat 4 to increase this. It’s only been one year. So now is the minister saying that

this isn’t being effective, that this isn’t working? That’s what this was intended

to do.

The minister talks about the amount of volume that has gone through the B.C. Timber

Sales program. He mentions that from Q3 a year ago to Q3 the next year, we’ve got

a rise of 30 percent. But again, BCTS isn’t even coming close to their targets. Whether

you use the one set of 20 percent of the allowable cut or even the expectation of

20 percent of the harvesting cut, they are significantly less than what should be

achievable. And this has been for many years.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’d like to shift gears just a little bit and talk about why we’re here. It relates

directly to the BCTS task force review and the need for that review. I just want to

bring this up because I have time. A lot of people don’t understand the history behind

it. So I just want to read a couple of things, if I may. It’s in direct result of

Bill 14 and why it’s necessary for the government to change some of the laws.

B.C. Timber Sales has faced significant undercutting in its annual harvest targets

over the past five years. That’s from 2019 to 2024, long before President Trump and

his tariffs and additional tariffs were put on this province. Culminating in a projected

underachievement of its five-year business cycle goals, performance reports indicated

that by the end of year 4, BCTS had only sold 72 percent of its rationalized appointment,

with significant shortfalls driven by reduced harvest volumes; lower market demand

for certain timber types; and operational challenges, which are not specified.

In 2023-2024 fiscal year shortfalls, BCTS reported massive revenue shortfalls, including

being $45 million under budget on $130 million worth of revenue by the end, due to

a decline in harvest volume. There was another noted $60 million shortfall in revenue

and significant undertarget expenditures due to lower activity. This has been happening

for years.

One of the main reasons listed in this…. Again, it goes back to certainty of supply,

as these are the key factors that they listed as a direct result in why they were

not able to bring enough fibre to the marketplace.

Old-growth deferrals. The establishment of deferrals for high-risk old-growth forests

has significantly restricted the timber volume that BCTS can develop, auction and

harvest.

Market and operational issues — lack of demand for specific products, i.e., mountain-pine-beetle-impacted

wood; First Nations treaty obligations; and species-at-risk decisions — have reduced

the available land base.

Then this one, log arounds, whatever that means. Increased environmental and social

constraints have reduced the overall area available for logging.

In response to these challenges and the need for a more resilient forest sector, the

BCTS model is undergoing review and transition. Through it all, they’re saying that

there are new targets. The province has set ambitious targets, including expanding

the volume to nine million cubic metres by 2029. There’s no plan on how that’s actually

going to occur, but that is what their goals are.

Now, when we like to talk about numbers…. It says right here, right off their website:

“B.C. Timber Sales manages 20 percent of the B.C. public timber harvest.” That’s supposed

to be 20 percent of the allowable cut. We know that the cut is incredibly undercut,

about 50 percent. Realistically, you would hope that it would be 20 percent of the

harvestable cut, which would be about $6 million. Consistently it has been around

$3½ million. Now, I think last year it was $4.2 million, significantly less than what

is actually mandated in BCTS.

Again, no reduction in operating expenses and a significant drop in revenues. Many

of us on this side would hope that it would be run as a business. It may not necessarily

be so.

This leads me to some of the information that we’re receiving along the way. When

I talk about costing, I’m a little bit disappointed, inasmuch as one year ago, in

my first year of estimates, I specifically asked the Forests Minister about some changes

that we’d heard about in forest stewardship with BCTS. I asked the minister, specifically:

“How much is this going to cost?” The minister said he wasn’t sure, because they hadn’t

finalized the plan. I said: “Fair enough.”

Then this year in estimates, I asked the same question to the Forests Minister. If

there are going to be changes to the forest stewardship plan, how much is it going

to cost? Is it going to be coming off the existing budget? Is there going to be new

money spent? What actually is going on in the budget?

[3:50 p.m.]

The minister said he didn’t have any idea. He didn’t have any updates to offer me.

Then the very next day, after estimates were completed, we got Bill 14 on our laps.

Why is that? I would have hoped that the Forests Minister would have at least told

us that there were some significant forest stewardship plans coming down the pipe.

And even if the minister didn’t have the opportunity to actually finalize what those

costs were, he could have told us that it would mean significant changes to the budget

of BCTS. Now, after estimates are over, I can’t even ask specific questions on how

much it’s going to cost.

Just yesterday the minister mentioned that this was all going to be internal money,

money that was going to be redirected in his ministries. Yet we have no idea of what

money is coming from where because, again, my estimates are over, and I don’t get

the opportunity to ask those questions.

This is what I have. This is the next piece I’d like to talk about. I could punch

up a two-hour speech, but I’d rather get into the nuts and bolts of this just to be

able to explain what we’ve got for information and try to figure out how the government

is planning forward in these changes, because they are significant changes.

Again, BCTS is the largest licensee in the province. They’re larger than any of the

majors. They’re supposed to represent 20 percent of the allowable cut.

As the minister alluded to yesterday, our First Nation partners have already got 20

percent of the tenure in their possession, and that’s great news. We want to be able

to move forward. But if BCTS, which is a government entity, is going to continue to

move forward, we’ve got to have accountability and transparency on how this government

is being run and this entity of the ministry is being run.

This was a request for legislation, so this was the flip shot that we got just after

we got handed Bill 14. It shows a flow chart of when…. It starts back in January 2025,

when the review was announced, then the task force engagement, policy exploration,

recommendations last summer, a roadmap and then the September recommendations announcement

at the UBCM.

It talks about their mandate. “B.C. Timber Sales is a trusted, transparent organization

that stewards British Columbia forests for the long-term benefit of all people.” There’s

a flow chart. Then there’s a background on their mandate.

These are the four cornerstones of BCTS: thriving communities, manufacturing diversity,

strong partnerships and resilient forest ecosystems. “For this successful work to

be undertaken, we are proposing legislative changes to the Forest Act and the forest

ranges act.”

It says the BCTS special account…. And this comes back to the reasoning behind the

changes to the law — the expenditure of budgeted funding. There are many things that

are being asked of now in the BCTS organization that are not currently approved by

law, so that’s why we’re changing the law, because we need to be able to spend money

in other places. And we understand that.

This is what it says about BCTS’s special account. “It’s a self-funded program and

revenue generated by auctioning timber.” Well, it’s not self-sustaining, because we

know that it’s at a deficit every year, especially for the last five years.

“The Forest Act governs revenue generation into and expenditures from the BCTS account

and a special account under the general revenue fund. If revenue sources and expenditures

are not outlined in the Forest Act,

section 109, then BCTS is not authorized to expend

those funds.” Hence, Bill 14.

“Currently, the spending authorizations granted in S105 of the Forest Act impacts

the BCTS’s ability to achieve the government’s objectives.”

So then this is the plan.

Deputy Speaker : Member.

Ward Stamer : I’d like to go over the plan a little bit if I can.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I’d ask that you not show it as a prop. You’re certainly welcome to explain

what it is, but I would prefer that you don’t show it as a prop.

Ward Stamer : All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the clarity. It’s just that this

is a government publication, and this is the information that was provided as a follow-up

on Bill 14. There are no other summaries other than Bill 14 and some of the work on

the clauses, but I certainly trust in your judgment, and I’ll continue to use this

as a guide because, really, that’s all we’ve got in the plan.

[3:55 p.m.]

We have got no costing on what contract logging is going to be. We have no costing

on reforestation costs. We have no costing on thinning. We have no costing on anything.

Basically, we have to guess on what it’s actually going to cost this fiscal year in

what BCTS is trying to accomplish.

In this guide, it says it enables BCTS to direct harvest operations to sell more logs

as opposed to standing trees. So that’s the purpose of the contract logging. It’s

that instead of allowing somebody to turn around and purchase that block and determine

the merchandising of that timber on that block, we’re now just going to hire a contractor.

Again, I’m trying to figure in my mind — and I’ve got 40-plus years of logging operational

experience, from stump to dump — trying to determine what that work is actually going

to look like.

In most cases, whether it’s a logging block through a licensee or a logging block

for the B.C. Timber Sales, there’s cruise data. It shows all the fibre that’s there,

what is going to be logged, what is going to be left, all the environmental challenges.

It shows you a breakdown of the species of wood, the quality of the wood and the products

that you may or may not be able to make with that wood. That’s what occurs in the

bush. It’s basically an outdoor manufacturing facility without a roof. That’s really

what logging is all about.

In some cases, you may totally manufacture that log from a tree to logs, so the entire

tree is utilized. In some places, it may not be, depending on availability of length

of logs that can be transported, steepness of grade. There are a whole bunch of variations

to that.

This is a significant shift in what BCTS currently does. Trying to determine revenue

from a block after looking at this cruise data, looking at what the timber is and

what they feel it’s worth, and then putting it out in the open market, with an open

bidding process, with an upset stumpage. Then it’s a bonus bid on top of that, and

having some costs occurred through BCTS, possibly in the layout, possibly with some

temporary roads.

But as we mentioned yesterday, they don’t do a lot of roads anymore. It’s very expensive,

and it’s something that they’ve gone away from in the development phase.

Now we’re going to be switching over to a contractor that has no authorization in

the logs themselves. Their own purpose is to cut the tree down and then do something

with the tree, with the main purpose of trying to merchandise that tree better than

the industry is doing today.

Now, there are many on this side that disbelieve that that’s even going to occur.

Again, it’s under the auspices of getting more value to our value-added sector, and

I get that. I know there are challenges out there in different species, different

values and what the market is willing to bear on some of this stuff.

At the same time, I’m unsure what the government is actually wanting to do with that

logging contractor. Even if you took that full log length at 75 feet, you’re going

to have to cut it off at 55 feet to put it on a highway, so there’s already going

to be additional manufacturing.

Then when you bring that log in, is it going to be absolutely clear at the butt? Is

there going to be any rot in that butt? Are you going to eliminate the rot? And by

doing that, you’re sacrificing other opportunities with the first piece of that log,

that could be a pulp log. I mean, there are a lot of unknowns when you’re trying to

maximize a stand.

I was on the Island two weeks ago with Mosaic, and they were doing a piece of private

land. They had 24 customers for the products that were being manufactured on that

block — 24 customers. And they were doing it efficiently.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m very curious to hear from the minister how he expects BCTS to be able to market

in the same way as the private industry does and to be competitive and to not have

extended waste because of interruptions in the fibre flow of that.

And where that tree that’s 55 feet long may go to a sort yard, then what are you supposed

to do with it? When the value-added person comes along and says, “I would like something

that’s 16 inches at the butt, and I want it 20 feet long,” what do you do with the

other 35 feet?

If the answer is just sell it to the primaries, well, the primaries may not be interested

for a couple of reasons. It may not be the right length. It may not be the right quality

or the right species. It also may not be of the right grade, because maybe that log

sat there for too long a time. So there are all these factors that go into play in

our industry.

When you’ve got margins that are razor thin, my question to the minister is: what

makes you think that you’re going to be able to do a better job than what the private

industry is doing right now? That’s really what we’re talking about at the end of

the day.

By removing the clause in Bill 14 that specifically says that BCTS’s responsibility

is revenue, now, all of a sudden, the parameters are gone. BCTS’s focus isn’t making

money. It’s doing all these other things that weren’t originally part of their mandate.

So if that’s true, then the minister can admit to that and say, “Yeah, we’ve totally

changed it. We don’t really care if we make any money now, because that’s beside the

point. It’s all about forest health, it’s all about forest stewardship, and it’s about

having this for seven generations to come,” instead of not looking at the other part

of the industry that is already doing that.

The minister talks about rotating crops. He talks about the full rotation of the cycles.

Well, that’s already a legislative requirement from all the licensees in the province

to do that. If the minister wants to enhance that, that’s great. There are other licensees

that are doing the same. But to say that isn’t going on right now in this industry

is disingenuous, because it is. I can show him many advantages — that that’s actually

occurring. So that’s not really the real reason why they’re doing this.

There are always those little buzz words too. I love this one: “The right log to the

right mill.” We’ve heard that about a dozen times in the last couple of weeks. Absolutely,

we want to be able to get as much value as we can in every single piece of fibre in

this province. We all know that we’re not getting enough for a wide variety of reasons.

But it’s only a slogan, because, at the end of the day, we have to be able to incentivize

our licensees to be able to get the right log to the right mill. That’s what it’s

all about.

That’s in the first proposal. Proposal 1 is to change the law so that BCTS can now

do contract logging and spend money in other areas.

Then the second part of it, and this is proposed legislation 2, is to be able to expand

everything from silviculture treatments, share data. There are requirements to be

able to go beyond the free-growing obligation, as the minister has alluded to. Again,

enhanced reforestation, which I totally agree with. That also includes some of the

other work that’s being done through other funding models — thinning, spacing, pruning,

brushing and fertilization.

Then again, the ultimate goal is to grow resilient future forest ecosystems, wildfire

risk reduction around communities and stable and valuable wood fibre in the future,

100 percent.

Also in this document, and one of the things the minister alludes to, is that they

have projected targets of an additional 500,000 cubic metres of fibre to be recovered

from wildfires. In our estimates, we talked about wildfire salvage regs, and we looked

at the wildfire salvage manual. There are already the rules in place. We don’t need

any changes to laws so that we can get an additional 500,000 cubic metres from our

wildfires. All we need is a change in direction from the Forests Minister to actually

make this happen.

[4:05 p.m.]

From my perspective, only recovering 10 percent from our wildfires is totally unacceptable.

We should be able to salvage considerably more. Many things that have been released

by the ministry, talking about speeding up the process with Bill 14….

Bill 14 has nothing to do about speeding up the processes, unless I’m missing something

in the language. If I’m missing something in the authorizations, if I’m missing something

in possibly who’s actually behind and approving these authorizations…. Nothing right

now is stopping the minister from making this happen.

Then, at the end, it talked about the engagement and the opportunities with consultation

throughout the province. Again, yes, I believe that everybody on the list was consulted.

But in just about every single instance, there is one group that seems to be left

out just a little bit less than they used to be in the past, and that’s the major

licensees.

I know the minister and I have talked about this at length — that without our primary

manufacturing, we don’t have any secondary manufacturing in this province. So any

significant changes to the Forest Act can negatively impact those industries as well.

Now, when we got the notification from the minister that this was coming down the

pipe, B.C. Timber Sales released a

summary. I want to read from the

summary and then

respond to it. This is the

summary.

“New timber sale licences will provide a wider range of fibre-generating and forest

stewardship activities, supporting jobs for logging contractors and increasing harvest

volumes by moving local logs to local mills.” There’s that “right log to the right

mill” again. “Salvage licences will speed up harvesting of damaged trees and create

economic opportunities while building a wildfire-resilient land base.”

These legislative changes would empower B.C. Timber Sales to manage working forests

for multiple values, building on B.C.’s position as a leader in the highest-quality

sustainability and environmental practices of the world.

It says that these legislative amendments will empower B.C. Timber Sales to improve

access to fibre, create more opportunities for loggers and contractors and deepen

partnerships with our First Nations and strengthen stewardship roles in B.C. forests.

So again, this is where we get into the slogans. “Our path forward means that B.C.

Timber Sales will be able to move fibre faster, create more opportunities” and, again,

local logs going to local mills. There’s also what they had to say, that changes matter.

“They matter to the workers grinding it out every day in the bush. They matter to

the worker on the mill line. They matter to the local economies.” Of course they matter.

Absolutely, they matter.

There isn’t anything in this documentation that actually shows a path on how it’s

going to unlock more fibre for our industries. These are lofty goals. But does it

talk about streamlining process in permitting? Does it talk about reduction in bureaucracy

and red tape? Does it talk about streamlining the approval and consultation process

with First Nations?

All these things have been asked for in the industry to try to not only reduce our

costing in this province, which everyone knows is the most expensive in North America,

but to streamline the process so that we can actually get more fibre moving. Instead,

the minister is basically putting more regulations in place for this to occur, because

they’re adding more stringent regulations to the laws.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ll get into that a little bit later, asking the minister why that is necessary.

When we talked about additional fibre to value-added…. We talked about changes to

category 4. Category 4 is now, from what the minister said, up to 22 percent of the

total harvesting in B.C. Timber Sales. That’s great. That’s excellent news. But again,

we are still way behind the mandated targets of 20 percent of the harvest levels.

All the other licensees have reduced their harvesting levels as well, because, as

a reminder, we’ve gone from 51 million cubic metres, with an allowable cut of 61….

Now we’re only cutting half of that, at 31. So BCTS has still not shown us how they’re

going to even get to their mandated target of 20 percent, at least 20 percent, this

year or next year. All they’re saying is that this may or may not increase fibre supply.

Another part of this, in this handout, after seeing the right log to the right mill

three times, is full rotation. So these are some of the opportunities BCTS has mentioned

that could help strengthen the business model of the British Columbia Timber Sales

program.

Commercial thinning. Again, the minister…. We were talking yesterday, and the minister

now says that there are up to six licences, six permits that are coming along — three

that have already been approved, three that are coming into the bidding process for

commercial thinning. Yet nowhere does it say that we’re going to continue with just

bidding on these projects. Nowhere in any of this documentation that I’ve seen are

we going to continue to be even looking at straight bidding on any of the work.

My question would be: why is that? Why are we going away from cost certainty, where

we know approximately what the wood is worth, the work is worth? Why are we going

away from having certainty in our costing to now making it totally discretionary on

BCTS and the Forests Minister to determine how that work is going to be done?

I think it’s a legitimate question, and I’d like the opportunity to be able to ask

that question to the minister further on, because I certainly don’t see cost certainty

when that’s going to occur.

The other improvement that the minister has mentioned is wildfire risk reduction.

Now, we already know that in many of the prescriptions already — whether it’s thinning;

whether there is spacing, commercial thinning — many of the wildfire fuel reduction

and mitigation efforts are already transcribed into our operating plans today. Whether

it’s at a licensee level or whether it’s at a BCTS timber sale level, that planning

is already occurring. So why is this very specific that now we need to change the

law so that we can continue to do this? This work is already continuing.

As I mentioned yesterday, many of the assumptions and many of the plans that the minister

is planning in BCTS don’t need to change any laws. It’s already under the existing

Forest Act, and it’s under the authority of the Forests Minister to be able to change

those policies and those regulations without looking at wholesale changes to the law.

When we talk about full rotation, because that’s the new buzzword, we want to be able

to enhance not only the free-to-grow, which is where the tree is determined to be

able to grow by itself and doesn’t need any other assistance…. That frees up a lot

of liabilities to the licensee — whether it’s a major company, whether it’s a community

forest, whether it’s BCTS.

There’s money always set aside in the piggy bank, in the bank account, in case there

has to be additional reforestation, there has to be thinning, there has to be brushing.

Those obligations already have a target. And once that regrowth is to a certain level,

it’s being predetermined that we don’t have to do anything more with it, and we’ll

continue through that.

[4:15 p.m.]

Now, obviously, when we get to a certain point in that reforestation life of that

block, as we’ve seen now in blocks that are 40 and 50 years old, many of the trees

are starting to slow down in their growth because there are too many trees. So by

commercial thinning not only will we be able to increase the health of that forest;

we’re able to retrieve volume and be able to utilize that volume through our manufacturing

facilities.

That’s already occurring on the land base. As the minister alluded, I think it was

December when the first one came out, so this year is the start of BCTS being able

to offer bidding on commercial thinning projects so that that will occur.

We talked about fast-tracking salvage of damaged trees. Changes to the timber sale

licences will make it easier for the forest sector to quickly access timber that was

damaged by wildfire or natural disturbance, such as windstorms or insect outbreaks.

So they’re talking about a new streamlined licence opportunity. Well, again, where

is it? I know we’re supposed to be talking about the bill in here, but where is this

new streamlined licensing opportunity?

The minister talks about undeveloped licensing opportunities to be offered along with

the changes in Bill 14. Well, we’ve already had that in the past. Maybe not through

the BCTS program, but we’ve certainly had it through the Ministry of Forests. We’ve

had undeveloped areas that have been damaged by wildfire that were offered up for

sale on a bidding process, either a non-renewable forest licence or a SNRFL — there

were about three or four other acronyms that were used — where exactly what the minister

is asking to do has already been done in the past.

So my question to the minister would be: what’s different now than what was able to

be done in the past? If you’ve already had the authority to do it before, what changes

to the law are necessary for that to occur, going forward?

One of the parts that the minister identifies in the wildfire salvage is the opportunity

for pulp blocks. We would both agree that, unfortunately, that is one of the downfalls

of our wildfires — the amount of time a tree will deteriorate until it is no longer

a sawlog or a value-added log, and it becomes a pulp log.

Unfortunately, the way it works today is that in many of our areas that are being

burnt, if it isn’t logged, it isn’t replanted. That’s the cost structure we have.

By speeding up and having more opportunities for salvage, of course, that’s going

to give us more opportunities for replantation and reforestation. But again, the tools

are already in the toolbox for the Forests Minister to make this happen. We don’t

need legislative changes for that to occur.

Now, I mentioned earlier that I had a heading for this bill of unintended consequences,

because normally, if you’re going to change a law, there has to be a really good reason

to change the law. So I’m hoping to be able to spend some time and be able to talk

about some of the parts of the bill that in committee, again, we’ll have an opportunity

to flesh out.

Obviously, there is some housekeeping in this bill. I’ll agree to that. We are certainly

going to be looking forward to those opportunities, when we get to committee, to be

able to ask very specific questions on the changes and hopefully some amendments that

the Forests Minister and the government would accept in defining the language and

some of the language changes in this act.

When you look at the original Forest Act, 270 pages, and you’re looking at the specific

sections where these changes are going to occur, there is specific language that has

changed. In some cases, it’s changed the intent of that statute or that

section of

the law.

[4:20 p.m.]

The contract logging authorization, as an example — there are no explanations on the

work, but no explanation on how the work is going to be done.

In the B.C. Timber Sales world, there’s a bidding process, and there’s a determination

of what work is actually going to happen on that licence. Again, if there have to

be development costs, those costs are determined on the legal document. And then the

person that is successful in that licence, that is their responsibility, and that

is their cost. Now we’re going to totally change how that occurs.

Now, it hasn’t been explained what the percentages are going to be. Many in our industry

are asking the minister and the ministry: is it 10 percent? Is it 20 percent? Is it

30 percent? Is there going to be a negative impact to the existing contractor base

that is currently bidding on B.C. Timber Sales?

And now, all of a sudden, you’re going to change the parameters, and some of those

sales will no longer be bidded sales. They’re going to be controlled by B.C. Timber

Sales, and there will be a separate contractor that’s going to be doing work on that

sale. Then that fibre will flow somewhere, somehow, and that will be marketed differently

than it is being marketed today.

There are significant concerns in our industry on what that plan is, related to the

amount of volume that B.C. Timber Sales is currently offering for sale this year,

because it’s significant. There are many operators that run their livelihood with

B.C. Timber Sales. Now, all of a sudden, the parameters are changing on the work that’s

actually going to occur on that sale.

Again, I totally understand why BCTS would like to get more volume or more value out

of some of the volume that they offer for sale. I understand that. The industry understands

that. We all understand. We want to get more value per cubic metre in this province

— particularly if, through sustainability, our allowable cut, including all the other

constraints that I mentioned earlier with the old-growth deferrals, protected areas,

First Nation concerns…. If we’re going to be going down, we, obviously, want to be

able to get more value for that fibre.

At the same time, we had a mandate letter a year ago, from the Premier to the minister,

that talked about the drive and path to 45. Even in some of the acceptance replies

after the announcement came out, with certain organizations, that was foremost in

the congratulations: “You’re moving BCTS forward, but please don’t take your eye off

the ball, because we still need 45, not 31, not 35. We need 45.”

That’s important when we’re asking the question…. If BCTS is going to change some

of their focus away from revenue…. I’m not saying all. I know that he’s changing the

language in the law. What are those percentages? There are, obviously, concerns out

there on how that is going to be addressed.

There is another one that I’ve got a question for, and I am hoping that somebody on

the government side of things can spell it out for me. When I look at the Forest Act

and I am looking at all the

definitions in the Forest Act, I do not see a definition

for “standard-making bodies.”

Now, that may seem trivial, but unfortunately, when I google it, it’s very vague in

the determination on what actually is a standard-making body.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I’m hoping that the minister or the government can bring us a little bit of clarification,

because I think it’s important, in the documentation on what specifically is a standard-making

body.

[4:25 p.m.]

The reason I’m saying that is because there are going to be some changes in the parameters

on, I believe, authorization. I’m going to find it right now, and we can discuss that

a little bit at length.

Now, in one of the handouts that we received from BCTS, they showed a

section in there

about First Nations engagement. There’s a line in there that specifically says “as

directed by First Nations as needed.”

It also says, in the language in the changes to the law, when it comes to the timber

sales manager, the timber sales manager needs an operational plan before he can authorize

the contract harvesting. It’s mentioned three or four times in this bill, so there’s