Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, April 13, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 150

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M241 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026

Elenore Sturko

Members’ Statements

Artemis II Lunar Mission

Dana Lajeunesse

Sage Transition House

Lynne Block

Farkhunda Muhtaj and Refugee Resettlement

Rohini Arora

Seabridge Gold and KSM Mining

Sharon Hartwell

Whalley Little League

Garry Begg

Cancer Awareness

Jody Toor

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Government Priorities and Confidence of House

Trevor Halford

Hon. David Eby

Gitxaała Mineral Rights Court Case and Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Scott McInnis

Hon. David Eby

Funding for Long-Term-Care Facility and Affordable Housing in Squamish

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Hon. Christine Boyle

Cowichan Hospital Replacement Project Workers and Cowichan Tribes Contractors

Bruce Banman

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Health Care Facilities and Government Management of Capital Projects

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Government Management of Capital Projects for Highways and Infrastructure

Lorne Doerkson

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Government Financial and Project Management and Federal Infrastructure Funding

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Tabling Documents

K’ómoks First Nation Treaty, February 20, 2026

Kitselas Treaty, February 27, 2026

Question of Privilege (continued)

Hon. Josie Osborne

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Randene Neill

Sheldon Clare

Hon. Brittny Anderson

Larry Neufeld

Misty Van Popta

Á’a:líya Warbus

Gavin Dew

Lorne Doerkson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Christine Boyle

Claire Rattée

Rob Botterell

Linda Hepner

Bruce Banman

Anna Kindy

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport

Hon. Anne Kang

Brent Chapman

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Scott McInnis

Jeremy Valeriote

Monday, April 13, 2026

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Scott McInnis : Unfortunately, she’s not able to be here in the gallery today, but I know that she’s

watching at home. A very special constituent in the town of Revelstoke, Mrs. Helen

Anderson, turned 103 years old yesterday.

I know she has put on a smiling face and is already planning a big party for her 105th

birthday.

If the House would help me in wishing Mrs. Anderson a very happy 103rd birthday.

Darlene Rotchford : I have two guests in the House today. One is Coun. Ken Armour, and his stepdaughter

is Leah Massine-Folliott.

I had a lovely time spending my time in local government with Councillor Armour, and

now I get to work with him in another capacity.

I’m always excited to see our local government in the House, so hopefully, everyone

can give them a big welcome to the House.

Mandeep Dhaliwal : I would like to wish my son, Diltaj Singh Dhaliwal…. It’s his 12th birthday.

So can the House please welcome and make him feel special.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I have a few sets of introductions today.

First, I would like to introduce somebody who is a fierce, fierce advocate for working

people in this province. Karen Ranalletta, the president of CUPE B.C., is here with

us today.

CUPE is literally in every community, in every sector, helping us to build strong

communities. I am so grateful for the work that every single CUPE member does across

our province.

[1:35 p.m.]

I want to thank Karen for being here. She’s joined today by the new legislative coordinator

for CUPE B.C., Caitlin Gilroy.

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

Also, somewhere in the House — I don’t see him yet, but I know he’s going to be here

— is somebody who is very special to me, a dear friend and former colleague, Baljit

Sandhu, who is the regional vice-president of the Interior for the Hospital Employees

Union. Baljit works at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. He is a care aide. He has been a good

friend and a strong ally for many, many years.

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

Finally, I have to say I see the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour

in the House, Hermender Singh Kailley.

Welcome, Hermender.

Larry Neufeld : I know that I’ve introduced my beautiful bride of — I like to say — 360 years. Those

of us that have been married that long might appreciate that inside humour.

The last time that we sat in this beautiful place of honour, I was alerted on my phone

to a tragic event where my beautiful bride did attend the emergency room twice over

a very short period of time. At the fear of encroaching upon some type of a copyright

issue, I would say to the effect that you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.

Please help me welcome Tammy Neufeld.

Amna Shah : I am absolutely honoured to introduce three very special people in this House.

Today we are joined by my parents — my father, Syed Ashiq Ali Shah; my mother, Shahr

Bano — and my brother Syed Raihan Ali Shah.

I don’t think that my parents nor I would have imagined that 20 years after we arrived

to this country, their mildly opinionated daughter would somehow end up in the B.C.

Legislature. As I examine their life, their sacrifices and their experiences, my challenges

and my experiences absolutely pale with regards to their sacrifices that they’ve made

for me, my brother and my sister in this country.

I just want to give them a huge thank-you. Thank you for giving me the courage, the

strength and the teachings to always speak in the face of injustice and to stand for

what’s right in every aspect of my life. Thank you.

Harman Bhangu : Last Friday, April 10, was my daughter Audriana Bhangu’s birthday. She’s just been

a guiding joy throughout the whole time. Now she’s six, but my son is seven. So you

all know that what I’m going to hear non-stop is the six-seven.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M241 —

Interpretation

Amendment Act, 2026

Elenore Sturko : I rise to introduce the

Interpretation Amendment Act, which is on the order paper

in my name, the

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026. I ask that it be read a first

time now.

The

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2026, aims to repeal

section 8.1 of the

Interpretation

Act. The

Interpretation Act is a crucial piece of legislation in British Columbia

that outlines how laws should be interpreted and applied. It includes

definitions

and rules that apply to all statutes and regulations in the province. In 2021, the

act was amended to include

section 8.1, which makes it a legal requirement that every

act and regulation must be interpreted in a way that does not derogate from the declaration.

Section 8.1 has already contributed to court decisions, including the Quw’utsun decision.

While the

Interpretation Act was not the only basis on which she reached her decision

on Cowichan Tribes v. Canada , Justice Young relied on this to support her conclusion that the Land Title Act does

not protect property owners from Aboriginal title claims.

[1:40 p.m.]

Her exact words were: “I find support for the view that the indefeasibility provisions

in the LTA do not apply as against Aboriginal title in

section 8.1 of the

Interpretation

Act, which directs that legislation be interpreted in a manner that does not derogate

from Aboriginal rights. To construe it otherwise would also be inconsistent with UNDRIP.”

Interpreting all laws and regulations so that they must be consistent with the Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act will fundamentally change how reconciliation

is carried out. It is taking the power away from negotiations with government and

placing it directly into the courts. For this reason, I believe

section 8.1 of the

Interpretation Act must be repealed.

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

Division has been called.

[1:45 p.m.]

Members, it seems like all the members are in the House. Is there any wish to waive

the time? All right. We’ll continue, I guess.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members, the question is first reading of the bill introduced by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

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

Elenore Sturko : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Nina Krieger : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Nina Krieger : It is my honour to welcome the emergency service dispatchers who are joining us in

the House today and to recognize 911 awareness week.

These professionals provide such a vital link in our public safety system in the service

of all British Columbians. In moments of fear, uncertainty and confusion, they provide

vital information and play such a key role in keeping our community safe. It’s my

honour to thank them on behalf of the province for the work they do every single day

to keep our communities safe.

With us we have Krista Morrison, who is E-Comm 9-1-1’s operational manager.

I invite you to stand. Thank you so much.

Adrian Dawson is E-Comm 9-1-1’s operations support supervisor. We have Janine Vasilakopoulos

and Troy Goodger, who are emergency call takers and police dispatchers; Simon Lay,

who is an emergency medical dispatcher; as well as Krysta Stafford and Megan McMath,

who are both alarm dispatchers with Saanich fire.

I invite everyone to join me in please making them feel very welcome.

Members’ Statements

Artemis II Lunar Mission

Dana Lajeunesse : Many of us will still remember gathering around the TV with family to watch grainy

video imagery of the Apollo moon missions. Now 54 years later, over the past week

or so, the appropriately named Artemis II mission came to a successful completion.

[1:55 p.m.]

For those who may not be aware, according to Greek mythology, Artemis was Apollo’s

twin sister — a symbolic reflection of how times have changed over the past half century,

a fact that is evident in this chamber.

Artemis II’s capsule, Integrity, transported its crew of four, which included Cdr.

Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, mission specialist Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen.

Notably, Glover, Koch and Hansen not only represent the first Black person, the first

woman and the first Canadian to travel safely to the moon and back but, in doing so,

also set another historic milestone. As the ship completed its arc around the dark

side of the moon, it reached a peak distance of 252,757 miles from Earth, a distance

greater than any human had previously travelled.

Friday evening, as I watched Integrity splash down into the Pacific Ocean, memories

of gathering around the TV with family to witness Apollo missions came flooding back.

During a later press conference, the day after their safe return to Earth, the crew

of the Artemis II mission each delivered emotional speeches as they described their

experiences. When Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen stood to reflect on his experience,

he concluded by gathering his fellow crewmates together and relayed to the audience:

“You’re not looking at us. You’re looking at a reflection of yourselves.”

I suspect what he meant was the Artemis II mission signifies the beginning of a new

era in space exploration, and it is a true indication of the unlimited potential of

our species when we endeavour to work collaboratively and when we refuse to place

limits on our capacity for innovation.

As we celebrate historic as well as recent triumphs, let us also continue to expand

the boundaries of our ingenuity as we strive toward a future better for all humankind.

Sage Transition House

Lynne Block : Today I rise to take a moment to acknowledge an extraordinary place in my riding

— a sanctuary, a lifeline, a true haven for women and children in crisis — Sage Transition

House.

For decades, Sage Transition House has quietly provided safety, support and hope to

women and children fleeing situations of abuse and violence. Its exact location remains

confidential — even I had trouble finding it; it’s so well hidden — because safety

is paramount. This is a place where women can finally breathe, feel secure and begin

to rebuild their lives without fear.

At Sage, the focus is on healing and empowerment. Women and children are welcomed

into a warm, supportive environment with access to comfortable living spaces, counselling,

educational programs and essential resources to help them regain independence. From

meals to mentorship, from emotional support to practical guidance, every aspect of

Sage is designed to nurture both safety and self-confidence.

What makes Sage truly remarkable is not just the services it provides but the people

who bring it to life — the dedicated staff and volunteers who offer compassion, guidance

and hope when it’s needed most. For the women and children who arrive, often at their

lowest points, Sage is more than a shelter. It’s a lifeline, a place where fear begins

to lift and hope takes root.

The work of Sage Transition House reminds us of the power of community and care. It’s

a quiet, steadfast hero on the North Shore, saving lives and giving families a chance

to start over, stronger and safer than before.

For anyone visiting or supporting Sage, the message is simple. This is a place of

courage, compassion and transformation. And for the women and children who call it

home, it is nothing short of life-saving.

Farkhunda Muhtaj

and Refugee Resettlement

Rohini Arora : Last month at the Darpan’s IWD event, I was introduced to an amazing woman panellist,

Farkhunda Muhtaj. A professional soccer player and coach from Calgary, she’s captain

of the Afghanistan national team and shared her story as being a key figure in evacuating

the girls’ youth team from Afghanistan following the Taliban’s takeover.

[2:00 p.m.]

To say I was incredibly inspired would be an understatement. I asked her if she wanted

to share a message with us, and I’ll read directly from what she had to say.

“I would like legislators to know that although Canada has historically been supportive

of resettling refugees, we cannot forget about the root cause of this crisis. We cannot

contribute to the displacement of people through war economies and then also seek

to manage the displacement of those same people.

“As beautiful as Canada is, people around the world don’t want to be forced out of

their homes to rebuild a life here. What they want is peace and to be able to live

in a dignified manner in their own countries. Ultimately, we need to be more serious

about the refugee crises by actually reducing the conditions that create them and

not being complicit in the crimes against humanity, regardless of which nation is

committing it.”

I would be remiss if I didn’t take a moment to say Halat chetor ast ayn to the MLA

for Surrey City Centre’s parents for being here. As you can see, Afghan women lead

the way again and again.

It is a pleasure to be working with your daughter.

Seabridge Gold and KSM Mining

Sharon Hartwell : Seabridge Gold holds 100 percent interest in several North American gold projects.

Their principal asset, the KSM project, is in northwest B.C. in Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

The northwest of the province is rich in resources and opportunities. The government

is setting their attention to these prospects.

And 2026 marks a milestone for Seabridge Gold. They are celebrating 25 years of investment

in the northwest. During this time, they have invested $1.2 billion in their property

here in the northwest. This success at KSM has defined one of the world’s largest

copper and silver projects, containing 19.4 billion pounds of copper and 414 million

cubic ounces of silver. The combined gold, copper and silver constitute an outstanding

economic opportunity.

Being leaders in their sector, the subsidiary KSM Mining has received the AME David

Barr Award for excellence in mineral exploration health and safety. The awards celebrate

remarkable individual and team achievements, contributions and innovation in mineral

exploration and recognize excellence across the industry, including health and safety

and innovation.

KSM Mining earned its distinction for its pioneering efforts to foster collaboration

and enhance emergency preparedness across British Columbia’s remote Golden Triangle.

In fall of 2023, they launched the Golden Triangle emergency response coordination

meeting, bringing together emergency response and safety professionals from multiple

projects and organizations.

Rudi Fronk, Seabridge chair and CEO, said: “I’m very proud of our team for establishing

a collaborative approach to regional safety capabilities, including supporting community

emergency responses. This is our commitment to safety and community.”

AME president and CEO Todd Stone said: “On behalf of the AME board of directors, we

congratulate and thank all 2025 AME award recipients. Their leadership exemplifies

the spirit of mineral exploration and will continue to develop minerals that are essential

to our future.”

Whalley Little League

Garry Begg : They have been to the World Series seven times — 1947, 1973, 1978, 1997, 2005 and

2024. They are recognized well as the powerhouse in Canadian baseball. They, of course,

are the proud members and alumni of the Whalley Little League, and the World Series

they have participated in are Little League World Series.

On Saturday, I was pleased and proud to attend the opening of their 70th season for

those dedicated athletes and their parents and friends at Whalley Athletic Park —

the atmosphere was electric and festive — hosted by president Clint Stewart. I know

it meant a great deal to the players, families and volunteers, who showcased to Surrey

the strength of our community and the positive impact of youth in sports.

The official Little League motto is: “Character, courage and loyalty.” Added to the

official logo in 1960, this motto serves as a guiding principle to develop well-rounded

citizens and instil lasting values through baseball and softball.

[2:05 p.m.]

The motto emphasizes building good character, fostering courage and promoting loyalty

in participants. The courage and commitment of the supporters from all over Surrey

is a testament to the value of that sport. Often recited before games, there is a

pledge that reinforces those values. “I trust in God. I love my country and will respect

its laws. I will play fair and strive to win. But win or lose, I will always do my

best.”

Whalley Little League, you always do your best, and I hope that this is the best year

ever.

Cancer Awareness

Jody Toor : As a cancer survivor, I know firsthand the emotional and physical toll this illness

can take. Cancer does not discriminate. It touches people of every age, every background,

every family. The reality is severe. One in two men and one in three women will face

a diagnosis in their lifetime.

Right here in our community, there are individuals and families walking this road

today. Some are in the middle of treatment. Some are waiting for answers. And some

are learning how to live again.

This is where I want us to stop for a moment and not just listen but truly take stock.

Think about someone you know — a friend, a family member, a neighbour and, maybe,

even yourself — and decide how you want to respond. Maybe you respond differently,

because this month is not just about awareness.

It is about truly being aware, aware in a way that asks you to pause and consider

where you might not be paying attention right now. It’s about looking and booking

that screening you may have been putting off. It is about making that phone call to

check in on someone who is fighting. It is about choosing small daily habits that

protect your health. I have seen firsthand how those small decisions can make a meaningful

difference.

We also need to recognize that this journey is not just physical. It is emotional.

It is financial. It can also feel very isolating. That is why community matters, compassion

matters and showing up for one another matters.

As your MLA, I am committed to advocating for stronger support systems, better access

to care and continued investment in research that brings hope to those who need it

most. Progress happens when we keep pushing forward together.

This month reminds us that every story matters. Every life matters. So let’s not simply

acknowledge April being Cancer Awareness Month. Let’s respond to it. Let’s stand with

those who are fighting, support those who are grieving and take real steps to protect

our own health and the health of those around us.

When we turn awareness into thoughtful, intentional action, we do more than just raise

awareness. We change outcomes, we strengthen one another, and we save lives.

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker : Members, following oral question period on Wednesday, April 1, the member for Nechako

Lakes raised a point of order regarding words spoken by the Attorney General during

oral question period. The Chair advised the House that the matter would be taken under

advisement so that the Hansard transcript and audio could be reviewed.

Having now done that, in the view of the Chair, the Attorney General’s language approaches

the margins of what is ordinarily considered acceptable parliamentary language. While

the Chair will not direct the Attorney General to withdraw any particular phrase,

the Chair again encourages all members to exercise care in their choice of words.

Parliamentary debate is most effective and least likely to cause disorder when it

is framed in terms of policies, arguments or their consequences rather than language

that could be perceived as questioning the intentions of other members.

Although the point of order is not upheld, the Chair offers these comments as guidance

to remind members to be temperate in their language.

[2:10 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA

and Government Priorities

and Confidence of House

Trevor Halford : In December 2025, the Premier said: “A court decision creates a legal crisis requiring

immediate action.” I want to stress the word “immediate.” April 1 of this year, the

Premier said: “Amendments are non-negotiable.” Non-negotiable. “We have to get these

through.” He said that three times.

He also said: “We are working with the Chiefs to find a path forward. We have to do

it, and we will do it.” Then he said, on April 2: “Changing British Columbia’s declaration

of the rights of Aboriginal Peoples act is non-negotiable, and it will be pushed into

law.” That’s what the Premier said on Wednesday, April 2, 2026.

Another word the Premier used multiple times was the word “confidence.” I want to

stress that word, the word “confidence.” I think it’s important because it’s very

clear that this Premier no longer has the confidence of members of this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Trevor Halford : My question to the Premier is: what changed? What changed? I thought that the crisis

that we were in — the legal crisis that this Premier articulated, where immediate

action was necessary to come into this House and do the changes that the Premier said

would legally protect property right owners — was a matter of confidence. A matter

of confidence. Today, as expected, he has backed down. What has changed?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby : I know the member is really wanting to see a draft of the legislation that we’re

proposing around the Declaration Act. I understand the urgency. He has a right to

see it as quickly as possible. I’ll just assure the member that what we’re doing right

now is what I told the member and the public we’ve been doing for a while. We’re trying

to find a path forward with the Chiefs.

These are important partners for us in the work we have to do to grow our provincial

economy and to address long-standing injustices in this province. If we can find a

path forward that is less invasive, we’re going to do it. But we will be introducing

legislation.

If the member is concerned about the level of confidence this House has in the government,

we can always introduce a motion of confidence. There will be budget bills. But I’ve

spoken to the House Leader, and he’s prepared to introduce a motion if the member

is concerned.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental.

Trevor Halford : Let’s be clear. The Premier is trying to find a path forward to save his job. That’s

the path forward he’s trying to save.

At the end of the day, the biggest problem that we’ve had on this file — I’ve said

it before, and I’ll say it again — is that the Premier will go into one room and say

one thing, he’ll go into another room and say another thing, and it just keeps going,

and it keeps going, and it keeps going.

At what point does the Premier actually back up what he says when he says that there

is extreme legal liability right now, that there are over 20 court decisions that

could be pending right now and that we need immediate action to make sure that British

Columbians, property right owners, are protected?

He promised that he’d have that legislation. He promised that he would get that passed

in this House. He promised that he would protect property right owners. And today

he has backed down on all of it because he does not have the confidence of his caucus.

When is this Premier going to do the right thing, put this legislation forward, put

it to a vote and have the confidence of this House?

Hon. David Eby : What the member says simply isn’t true. We’ll be introducing the legislation.

I understand his desire that we get it into the House as quickly as possible. I will

assure the member and all members that we will make sure, through the House Leader

and their House Leader, that there is the time needed to debate this, and all members

will get to fulsomely debate and discuss this. This is an important issue for the

province. I’ve underlined that on multiple occasions.

If the member is seriously interested in a confidence motion, we can bring that motion.

But I think what the member is seriously interested in is becoming Premier without

a leadership race. The people of British Columbia are not….

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, order. Order, Members. Shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members. The Premier has the floor. Members, come to order.

Hon. David Eby : Our caucus is strong. Our caucus is united. We have the confidence of the House.

Every member of our caucus understands the crucial importance of this work and the

challenging moment that it’s in but the need for it to continue.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to repeal the Declaration Act, causing chaos, the

loss of thousands of jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, wait for your turn, please.

Hon. David Eby : There are two mines alone that represent thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of

investment, that rely on the very act that he is proposing to repeal.

There is a clear difference in opinion in the House. We have the confidence of the

House. We will introduce the bill as quickly as we can.

Gitxaała Mineral Rights Court Case

and Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Scott McInnis : Chaos? This is chaos.

After nine long years of staunchly supporting the Declaration Act, we see that the

NDP’s tone has shifted, maybe.

The Gitxaała decision from December is an extremely serious one. It states that all

B.C. laws must immediately be in line with the Declaration Act.

Can this government guarantee today that any type of pause, or whatever other idea

they may come up with, will actually reverse that reality?

Hon. David Eby : The member glosses over, of course, the fact that this was voted on by all parties

that were in the Legislature at the time and many members that currently sit with

the Conservative Party who voted in favour of the Declaration Act.

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby : Well, those that weren’t here were staff.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member for Abbotsford South will come to order now.

Hon. David Eby : I know it’s upsetting for them to hear that, but it’s true.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. David Eby : The Gitxaała decision does have a serious implication for the province. We are working

with Chiefs to try to find a path forward that is the least invasive way to address

that litigation risk for the province and supports the work that we have to continue

to do with First Nations to grow our economy, create jobs and opportunity in this

province.

It is crucially important work. We stand by it. We’ll be introducing legislation.

I hope, if the member is concerned about this, that he will support it.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : I think everybody is forgetting that the Premier stopped debate after a whole 14

minutes for the

Interpretation Act, which is why we’re in this position today — 14

minutes.

This legislation has been flawed from the beginning. Legal experts from around the

nation have been warning since 2019 that we would be in this position today. There’s

no plan; no certainty, moving forward; maybe, a pause. Litigation is coming fast and

furious at this province — a promise that the Premier said DRIPA would avoid.

Will this NDP government do the right thing for B.C. and repeal the Declaration Act

once and for all?

Hon. David Eby : Here it is. Without any explanation for how the Conservatives would deal with the

fact that multiple billions of dollars of investment in this province is built on

the Declaration Act, is built on agreements enabled by this act….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. David Eby : Their proposal would repeal not just the act. It would repeal those jobs and those

opportunities.

What about the crucial agreements…?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, wait for your turn, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, you have already asked the question.

Hon. David Eby : What about the crucial agreements between the province and First Nations about children,

about the children of First Nations in this province who are in need of the support

of their culture and language and strong communities — the agreements struck, again,

under the Declaration Act?

They gloss over all of that and the very serious and important issue that this province

was settled without, for a large part, treaties.

Section 35 rights are a big deal

that we have to work with, with First Nations to grow the economy, especially in rural

and remote areas of this province, where some of the largest opportunities are.

[2:20 p.m.]

Their proposal would cause the loss of jobs. It would cause major economic damage,

and they ignore that.

We’re doing the hard work, the important work…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby : …that should have been done a long time ago.

Funding for Long-Term-Care Facility

and Affordable Housing in Squamish

Jeremy Valeriote : Once a quiet forest and rail community, Squamish is now a bustling regional hub;

centre for innovation, outdoor recreation, tourism and the new B.C. economy.

I’ll also mention it’s a shining example of reconciliation and action with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation.

Squamish is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. After decades of neglect,

Squamish was just inching onto the radar of this government, to their credit to be

fair. Unfortunately, they were the first to be dropped when money got tight.

Squamish Hilltop House long-term-care facility was slated to be completed in 2030.

This government gathered community leaders for a 2024 election campaign announcement

but has now pulled the plug, along with six other facilities, with 2030 scratched

out and replaced with “to be confirmed.”

My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Squamish can’t wait. The demographic

pressures are real and growing by the day. When will the desperately needed new Hilltop

House be open for the seniors of the Sea to Sky?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I want to thank the member opposite for his question, for standing up for his community

and advocating for the seniors in his community.

I absolutely agree and our government also agrees that seniors need support and that

communities right across the province require more long-term-care beds. That is exactly

why the work that we’re doing right now is so incredibly important, because when we

have projects coming back with cost estimates of upwards of $1.8 million per bed,

we know that we can’t deliver at the scale that communities really need.

We’re looking forward to the work that is already underway with health authorities

— within my ministry and in partnership with the Ministry of Health — to get those

costs down, to find ways so that we can actually deliver the number of beds that communities

require.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

don’t believe it’s the job of the opposition to figure this out. So $1.8 million per

bed. There have got to be creative solutions to that.

Anyway, the same scenario in Squamish applies to the community housing fund. Non-profit

Housing Squamish’s Government Road housing project intended to take advantage of construction

synergies with a B.C. Housing project next door. This project application went in

last June, with a response expected in September and then December — strung along

only to be cut on budget day.

Housing Squamish is now left holding the bag, having invested half a million of its

own dollars, expecting a go-ahead that never came. Again, the rug pulled out after

nine months of the province of B.C. being counted on as a reliable partner in housing.

I’d like to ask the minister, with the utmost respect, if we can skip past the part

about the work that’s been done — 95,000 units delivered or underway, rents decreasing

— and that the community housing fund is not dead, only paused or mostly dead. I’d

like to skip to the part where the minister can tell us how she’ll honour the work

of this community non-profit housing society and make Housing Squamish whole.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I am happy to speak both to the historic investments that we’ve made and the path

forward.

I was glad to be up in Squamish recently, and Sea to Sky with the member, announcing

Squamish being part of phase 2 of the government’s HEART and HEARTH programs, working

together with the district of Squamish to bring people out of encampments and indoors.

There are good, tangible programs that we’re doing in partnership with Squamish on

that front.

I don’t mean to be glib here. I don’t think it is skipping past to speak to the significant

investments that our government has made in delivering housing in communities across

this province, including Squamish. It’s 333 student housing beds, 54 supportive and

transitional homes, 84 low-income homes, 137 affordable rental homes, 31 shelter beds

plus the HEART and HEARTH programs we’re working on.

After years and years of underinvestment from the members opposite, when many of them

were in government, we are stepping up and investing, because we know what a difference

it makes. I know there are projects that we’re looking forward to funding out of last

fall’s community housing intake. We continue to work with project proponents and,

in our work with the federal government, to see more dollars come in to continue those

investments, because we know it matters.

[2:25 p.m.]

Cowichan Hospital

Replacement Project Workers

and Cowichan Tribes Contractors

Bruce Banman : I want to revisit a topic from a couple of years ago, specifically the Cowichan Hospital

replacement project.

Jon Coleman, who is actually sitting in the gallery today, was cut out of working

on that project because of this government’s exclusionary policies.

My question. How does the minister justify hiring temporary foreign workers on the

Cowichan Hospital instead of hiring Indigenous Quw’utsun contractors like Jon Coleman?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I’d like to take this question on notice, given the context that they provided here.

The Speaker : The member has a different question?

Bruce Banman : Actually, I do.

The government really needs to look into the mirror when talking about temporary foreign

workers.

Maybe this government wouldn’t need to increase the number of temporary foreign workers

by 110 percent since 2018 if they stopped shutting out British Columbian construction

workers.

My question….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Minister. Minister, please.

Bruce Banman : How does the minister justify shutting out British Columbians, construction workers

when the Cowichan Hospital is now $5.6 billion over budget?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : Thank you to the member for the question.

I’m just rolling back to this morning, when we had an opportunity to stand outside

with members from the B.C. Building Trades — people who literally build this province

and who are extraordinarily concerned about positions that the opposition has taken,

discussion that is happening in this House and outside of this House, that would literally

reach into their pockets, harm their families, take work away and ship it outside

of our province.

I just want to be really clear here. And I’m going to speak about projects….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Members. Come to order. Come to order, Members, please.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : We on this side of the House are investing in our communities. We are investing in

skilled trades. We are investing in jobs in our communities.

I can speak to my own community. I can speak to the work done on the stal̕əw̓asəm Bridge. Ninety-three percent of the labour force on that bridge was homegrown. They

came from B.C.

Likewise with the Royal Columbian Hospital, the oldest hospital, where we are building

a brand-new, beautiful hospital that will dramatically increase beds.

I want to just tell a quick story that we heard this morning about Cowichan…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : …where because of the work that we are doing, investing….

The Speaker : Take your seat, Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Health Care Facilities

and Government Management

of Capital Projects

Misty Van Popta : Wow, it appears that some members of the government are not aware of the unintended

consequences of their policies. Jon Coleman is a direct result of how exclusionary

procurement has left out First Nations on contracts.

We know this government has horrible track records when it comes to completing capital

projects, and now, instead of being transparent, this government is going to hide

all major projects that are less than $125 million. That’s most schools, expansions

into the health care system now hidden from scrutiny.

[2:30 p.m.]

You know what this government’s record is though? It’s $17 billion over budget and

158 years of delays. That’s the legacy of construction policy under this NDP government.

Will this government admit that they failed at delivering projects on time and on

budget, like the Richmond Hospital redevelopment project that is $1.1 billion over

budget and two years behind schedule?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Our government is proud of the investments that we have made in capital infrastructure

across the province. We have been implementing the single…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : …largest capital infrastructure investment in B.C. history, working to catch up on

decades of infrastructure deficits left behind by previous governments.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Member for Kamloops Centre and the Leader of the Official Opposition will come to

order.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Members, both sides, come to order. One member at a time. One minister at a time.

The minister will complete.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We’ve been building record levels of infrastructure — schools, hospitals, transit

— to meet the needs of British Columbians. And while we are doing that, we have been

taking a responsible approach to re-pacing some projects so we can continue to build

what people need.

The members opposite talk about debt and servicing costs, which is certainly…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : …a serious issue that needs to be managed.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : But I really think that members opposite need to figure out what their fiscal plan

is, because they have spent entire question periods accusing us of not taking the

deficit seriously, demanding cuts to services….

Interjections.

The Speaker : The minister will continue.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : They have spent entire question periods demanding cuts to services, cuts to health

care, cuts to education, cuts to projects….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Minister, please conclude.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Then they turn around, go into communities and demand that we carry on with projects

regardless of how over budget they are, regardless of how expensive they are. They

criticize us for the work that we’re doing to try to manage projects. I really think

that members of the opposition need to get on the same page about how they actually

want to fiscally manage this province.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental.

Misty Van Popta : I hear that they’re proud of their record investments in infrastructure, yet they

cut $7 billion from the capital plan in this year’s budget.

As a result of this government’s mismanagement, they now have to cancel projects because

they’ve run out of borrowed money. That includes cancelling long-term-care facilities

that are desperately needed.

When the government mismanages capital projects, everyone is infected, including union

and non-unionized workers.

The Burnaby hospital phase 2 was approved for $180 million, and I am told that the

latest estimated cost is $180 million, yet it is still on pause.

When will this government get serious and stop with the exclusionary procurement processes

and get projects in B.C. built on time?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : If the member of the opposition, the critic for Infrastructure, believes that you

can build an entire hospital tower for $180 million, I would really seriously think

that they have to….

Interjections.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : The work that we are doing right now is to take the time to work with health authorities

to ensure that we can actually deliver projects sustainably — work that the public

expects us to do.

The member opposite wants to go into communities and tell people that we need to build

long-term-care homes even if it costs $1.8 million, $2 million, $2.5 million per bed.

That is her prerogative.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We’re going to do the work that it takes to be strong fiscal managers….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I can’t hear myself think when everyone is screaming.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Continue.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma : This is important work. We’re proud of that work. We’re going to continue to do that

work for British Columbians.

Government Management of

Capital Projects for

Highways and Infrastructure

Lorne Doerkson : Let’s be clear. Management of projects by this government is absolutely abysmal.

If a 34 percent budget overrun on the Kicking Horse Canyon isn’t bad enough, how about

a 143 percent overrun on the Illecillewaet highway — budgeted for $35 million, now

costing $85 million?

My region was once promised a complete four-laning of the Cariboo connector, and the

government cancelled it. Infrastructure in my riding is in horrendous disrepair. It

is literally crumbling, and in areas, it’s unsafe.

Will this government stand up and support the residents of Cariboo-Chilcotin and get

serious about the improvements to our highways and infrastructure, yes or no?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : It’s been interesting hearing the questions from the opposition on infrastructure

investment in the province of British Columbia.

You know what? We’ve said yes to building the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, it’s your time. You want to continue to waste it? Be my guest.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : We’ve said yes to investing $195 million in northwestern British Columbia — $195

million to open up billions of dollars in mining exploration and jobs for British

Columbia. We are investing over $35 million on Highway 97, $105 million on another

part of Highway 97. We’re spending over $90 million on the Kicking Horse bridge replacement

in Golden. We’re spending money in the Okanagan, Trepanier Bench intersection improvements.

All in opposition ridings, and they complain about the expenses. It’s jobs that are

being built by this province, something they don’t seem to understand.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. If you let him answer, he will. Please.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

I’d also like to make this point, given the questions that have been asked, because

they’ve been talking about the workers in this province. Well, let me remind this

House: when the members on that side, some of them, sat on this side of the House,

what did they do? They….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Actually, no. It’s one, two and three over there and a staff member for your leader,

and other staffers probably.

But the bottom line is this. They so weakened labour standards in this province that

other provinces were refusing to recognize the Red Seal program in this province,

because the people that that member’s private bill benefits wanted to do just that.

Guess what. On this side of the House, we’re building infrastructure. We’re training

apprentices. We’re training more Indigenous apprentices. We’re training more women

apprentices. We’re training the future of this province, and we’re going to continue

doing that.

Government Financial and

Project Management and

Federal Infrastructure Funding

Kiel Giddens : Unfortunately, it’s the workers…

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh. Let’s hear the question.

Kiel Giddens : …in this province that will have to pay for the three credit rating downgrades the

province has just had in the last couple of weeks.

The federal government released their streams for build Canada strong. It includes

a program that matches provincial investment in areas like housing and health care.

While our cost of borrowing is going up, this government has mismanaged the capital

plan so badly that we could end up leaving federal funds on the table because we can’t

afford to match.

Dawson Creek hospital, $212 million over budget. Cowichan Hospital, $560 million over

budget. This has led to cancelled health care infrastructure, like phase 2 at Burnaby

Hospital, cancelled long-term-care homes. When projects actually do go ahead, they

are billions over budget.

[2:40 p.m.]

In the real world, project managers would be fired for this kind of mismanagement.

Well, it’s about time we fire the NDP.

Can the Minister of Finance guarantee that British Columbians will not lose out on

federal infrastructure dollars for much-needed long-term-care homes and health care

infrastructure because of this government’s credit downgrades and capital project

mismanagement, yes or no?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : There is nothing more ludicrous than that question, the idea that this side of the

House will leave federal money on the table. We will not do that.

But the biggest threat….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, if you don’t stop heckling and interrupting others, the Chair would have

no choice but to ask the member to leave the House.

The minister will complete.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I know the member really would like to find a way to become Premier, but I want to

assure him this House is not going to collapse. The member on the other side, to his

right, is going to be able to participate in a leadership race, and he may or may

not win.

But the bottom line is this. We do not leave money on the table. The only threat to

projects and the only threat to workers is the policies and the ideas of that side

of the House. We’ve seen it in the past, where they stripped away workers’ rights,

where they ensured that we didn’t have the apprentices that we need to build the projects

in this province.

They stripped away the qualifications of workers. We received reports that that government

received, when they sat on this side of the House, that said we were in danger of

not having our Red Seal certifications recognized. That’s the danger to the building

of this province — not ensuring that we’ve got trained, skilled, well-paid, unionized

workers building British Columbia in every part of this province.

[End of question period.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m sitting here in the House, in the middle of question period, and my aunt and

uncle walk into the House. I don’t know. They didn’t tell me. I don’t know what that

says about me.

I want to recognize Poli and Gurbaksh Kular, Inderjit Hayer and Pinder Hayer, from

my community. My uncle Poli played with my dad on the field hockey team for many,

many years. He coached me when I was a kid. His son went to the Olympics with me.

I’m just surprised to see them here.

I’m hoping the House can please join me in making them really welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Mike Farnworth : A couple of things.

First, I rise to inform all members that pursuant to Standing Order 25C, I have formally

advised you, hon. Speaker, and all House Leaders of the two forthcoming addresses

to the House with respect to treaty-related business.

The first address, by a representative of the K’ómoks First Nation, will take place

on Tuesday, April 14.

An address by the Kitselas First Nation will take place on Wednesday, April 15.

In order to inform the House and in anticipation of the forthcoming items of business,

by leave, I move that the K’ómoks First Nation treaty and Kitselas treaty be tabled.

Leave granted.

Question of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. Josie Osborne : I rise to respond to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for

Skeena.

The raising of a question of privilege and the finding of a prima facie breach of

the individual and collective rights of this place is the most serious undertaking

that you must consider.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you provide me with a little bit of latitude to outline the

two elements in my reply for your consideration.

The issue at hand is regarding Dr. Somers and previous Speakers’ rulings around the

form and completeness of engaging in Standing Order 26. Regarding Dr. Somers’s research

data, since 2005, the inter-ministry evaluation database, or IMED, was an integrated

data set consisting of governance from a multiministry steering committee of B.C.

citizen data that was housed at Simon Fraser University and shared with Dr. Julian

Somers.

[2:45 p.m.]

In March 2021, following months of discussion and in alignment with the expiry of

IMED information-sharing agreements and with the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act,

section 33(h), the data was transitioned to the province’s new data

innovation program. This action was taken to ensure appropriate stewardship and because

it is standard practice with all research agreements that provide access to and the

use of B.C. citizen data.

Any published findings produced with this data and any data Dr. Somers personally

collected were not impacted by this order, and they remain in Dr. Somers’s possession.

The principal effect of the transition is governance-related. Dr. Somers is no longer

the sole custodian of the data, consistent with public sector data stewardship and

equitable access principles.

To be clear, the data continues to exist. The request was for Dr. Somers to transition

the data to the DIP and to destroy his copy of this data housed within the IMED, consistent

with general practices around provincial data on B.C. residents at the end of a research

project.

As I stated in the House, the data set continues to exist in the data innovation program

and is now, in fact, accessible to other researchers. It is being used by researchers

both inside and outside government to this day.

Now, regarding the procedures around a question of privilege, I believe that I’ve

addressed the concerns the member for Skeena raised in an effort of being transparent

and open and not by engaging in debate.

However, I would be remiss to not address the procedure for raising a question of

privilege under Standing Order 26. Parliamentary Practice in B.C., fifth edition, lays out the procedure and essential elements of raising a question

of privilege in

chapter 17, pages 399 and 400.

“The essential elements when raising a question of privilege are (1) a brief written

statement of the matter prepared by the member, which cites relevant authorities;

(2) a copy of the offending article, if applicable.

“Three, a copy of the motion that the member intends to move, should the Speaker find

a prima facie breach of privilege has been established, must be tabled.

“Four, as a matter of practice and courtesy, members are encouraged to give prior

notice in writing to the Speaker of the intention to raise a matter of privilege.”

In addition, Parliamentary Practice in B.C. continues on page 400, “If a question

of privilege involves another member or includes an allegation of another member,

that member should be present when the question is raised,” as found in the B.C. Journals , June 26, 1991, p. 62.

Further, Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary Practice in B.C. , 17.8.4 on page 404….

The Speaker : Minister, maybe you can submit a submission to the Speaker. You don’t have to read

it here.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Yes, I can absolutely do so. I have documentation to submit the government’s position

and will submit that now. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment

Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 11, Residential

Tenancy Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture estimates.

[2:50 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment

Amendment Act, 2026

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

going to contemplate Bill 15, the Environmental Assessment Amendment Act of 2026.

I would call on our Minister of Environment to introduce the bill.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : I move that this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce for a second time the Environmental Assessment Amendment

Act, 2026. The 2018 act was a landmark piece of legislation designed to support and

create durable decisions. It introduced requirements to seek consensus between the

province and First Nations at key steps in the environmental assessment process, and

it provided dispute resolution provisions to support that when necessary.

We have heard from First Nations and industry that this aspect of the act has not

been working as intended. That is why we are taking action today to revise the dispute

resolution framework so it can better support consensus-seeking, predictability and

trust.

Over the past six months, we have done extensive consultation and cooperation with

46 First Nations and engaged with First Nations organizations, industry representatives

and project proponents. We have listened. We have learned. And we have reflected.

We heard strong interest in focusing on early issues resolution to support consensus-seeking.

Meaningful collaboration should begin early in a way that respects Indigenous governance,

knowledge and decision-making. When issues are not resolved early, they accumulate,

creating pressure points and impacting timelines late in the process. The message

was clear. Improving issues resolution reduces the need for formal dispute resolution.

We’ve also heard that the existing legislative framework requires more structure to

bring clarity to dispute resolution provisions. The amendments address this input.

The first major amendment is the creation of a new tool, the issues resolution protocol.

This protocol is designed to facilitate early issue resolution and support consensus-seeking

throughout environmental assessments. It will be grounded in a standard issues resolution

protocol which has been co-developed with B.C. First Nations.

First Nations that are participating in the environmental assessment can use it as

a template, starting at the first phase of the process, customized to their specific

governance context. This protocol will clearly outline how issues are discussed, escalated

and resolved, and when the other parties should be involved.

The protocol is directly responsive to input from First Nations consulted during the

development of these amendments.

It is a new tool under the act, but it is not a new concept for First Nations or the

environmental assessment office. First Nations and the environmental assessment office

have used this kind of approach to successfully resolve issues, government to government,

for many years. It supports early identification of issues, respectful discussion

and collaborative resolution. This brings more transparency, certainty and predictability

to the process along with the flexibility to incorporate First Nations governance

systems and legal traditions.

The second major amendment revises

section 5 of the act to update the dispute resolution

process. The revised provisions clarify how dispute resolution is initiated, when

it is available and what issues it can address.

Dispute resolution will be available at early phases of the environmental assessment

only, used by mutual agreement and focused on issues within the scope of the act.

It will no longer apply during the effects assessment or recommendation phases, as

experience has shown it is not effective at this late stage of the process. Instead,

at those stages, outstanding issues can be addressed through the issues resolution

protocol.

The intent is to resolve issues early and prevent the need for dispute resolution

in the first place. The amendments also strengthen transparency for all participants

in the environmental assessment.

[2:55 p.m.]

At its core, this legislative package supports consensus-seeking, provides clearer

pathways for issue resolution and ensures that dispute resolution remains a constructive

tool. It also supports predictability for all participants in the environmental assessment

process, helping to ensure that environmental assessments remain timely, transparent

and effective.

This brings us to the third amendment. Relationships with First Nations located in

B.C. are a priority and a core focus of this government. The Supreme Court of Canada’s

Desautel decision in 2021 confirmed that Indigenous groups located outside of Canada

with a credible claim to Aboriginal rights in Canada may be owed a duty to consult.

That ruling clarified that where the province has a duty to consult, that consultation

may be different from consultation with First Nations in Canada.

We’re introducing updates to the Environmental Assessment Act to support the environmental

assessment office’s ability to differentiate its consultation with U.S. tribes. Consistent

with recent orders under the Environment and Land Use Act, the legislation will clarify

that U.S. tribes cannot participate in the environmental assessments as participating

Indigenous nations.

We take very seriously our obligations to consult with Indigenous groups who may be

impacted by a proposed project. That consultation with U.S. tribes will take place

outside of the participating Indigenous nation framework. This ensures a clear approach

that respects the unique relationship B.C. First Nations have with the province, while

upholding our consultation obligations to U.S. tribes.

These amendments reflect consultation and cooperation with First Nations, engagements

with other parties that participate in environmental assessments and collaboration

on the path forward. This shared commitment to improving environmental assessments

in British Columbia was clear throughout our discussions. These amendments respond

directly to what we’ve heard from First Nations, industry and participants across

the province.

For First Nations, they offer a process that respects governance and treaty rights

through early consensus-seeking and issues resolution. For industry, they provide

increased transparency, predictability and the certainty needed to invest in British

Columbia. For the public, they give assurance that our natural resources are managed

through a fair, rigorous and predictable system.

With the introduction of these amendments, we are fostering reconciliation and building

a stronger, more economic future for all British Columbians.

Donegal Wilson : I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 15 as the designated speaker for the opposition

— legislation that proposes changes to British Columbia’s environmental assessment

framework.

Environmental assessment is one of the most important responsibilities entrusted to

this Legislature. It is where we make decisions that shape how development proceeds,

how landscapes are protected, how watersheds are safeguarded and how communities understand

their place in the future of this province.

These decisions are not abstract. They affect whether projects move forward with clarity

or uncertainty. They affect whether communities feel heard or left behind, and they

affect whether British Columbians continue to have confidence in the systems that

guide land and resource decisions across our province.

As the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I approach this legislation

from the perspective that environmental assessment must do two things at the same

time. It must protect what makes British Columbia extraordinary — our landscapes,

our water and our wildlife — and it must provide a clear, stable pathway for responsible

development to move forward.

[3:00 p.m.]

These are not competing objectives. They are complementary responsibilities and something

that we must figure out for the prosperity of British Columbia. Environmental assessment

exists to ensure that projects proceed in a way that respects ecosystems, supports

communities and provides certainty to those making long-term investments and jobs

in our province. That balance matters, especially in rural British Columbia, where

many of these projects exist today.

In the communities I represent, environmental assessment is not a distant administrative

process. It is part of our everyday reality. I come from a region rich in mining,

forestry, water, recreation and all of the things that require environmental assessments.

It shapes whether infrastructure is built, whether resource projects proceed, whether

employment opportunities expand and whether environmental values that define these

regions are protected for our future generations.

When we consider legislation that proposes changes to how environmental assessments

operate, we’re not simply debating process. We’re debating how those decisions are

made, and we’re debating today who participates in those decisions. We’re debating

whether the framework we create today will provide the clarity British Columbians

expect tomorrow.

I want to acknowledge at the outset that the Environmental Assessment Act review process

did include engagement with Indigenous governments, local governments, proponents,

environmental organizations and communities across British Columbia. That work was

completed last year. Participants identified areas where the system could be strengthened,

particularly with respect to early issue resolution, coordination between decision-makers

and clarity in how those assessments move forward.

I believe this Bill 15 is an attempt to work towards those goals. They are important

objectives. They are objectives that deserve careful attention in this House.

Bill 15 proposes to respond to some of these priorities. But as legislators, our responsibility

is not only to consider what a bill is intended to do but what the actual outcomes

it creates are. We are to examine how clearly those intentions are reflected in the

legislation itself.

Predictability in environmental assessment does not come just with intentions. It

comes from structure. It comes from timelines. It comes from transparency in the process

overall. And honestly, it comes from clarity about how those decisions will be made

in practice and applied in every single project equally.

Many of the changes proposed in this bill introduce new mechanisms intended to support

that coordination and earlier resolution of issues within the environmental assessment

process. Those mechanisms may prove useful — I believe they could — but many of the

details that determine how they will operate remain to be defined through regulation

at a later date rather than established directly in statute.

That distinction, I believe, matters, because environmental assessment functions best

when communities understand how the process works before it begins, not after it has

already started. It also functions best when proponents understand the sequence of

decisions they will face with attached timelines. Investors need to know how long

they’re planning for. It also needs to function with Indigenous governments, local

governments so that the public can see clearly how their participation shapes that

outcome.

Today my remarks will focus on three questions that I believe are central to understanding

the legislation before us.

First, how does Bill 15 respond to what participants identified during the Environmental

Assessment Act review process? I think that’s a really valid question.

Second, where does the legislation strengthen the environmental assessment framework?

Are those timelines clearly defined?

Third, where does the bill leave important operational details to regulation that

will need further examination as it moves forward through committee stage? Regulation

doesn’t have that,

whereas statutes do. We need to understand in committee stage what’s

being moved to regulation and what that’s going to look like, going forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

Environmental assessment is one of the places where this Legislature most directly

shapes the long-term future of British Columbia’s land, water and communities. It

deserves careful attention. It deserves thoughtful scrutiny. It deserves legislation

that provides the clarity that British Columbians expect from the framework that guides

the most important decisions in our province.

With that in mind, I would like to begin by speaking about the role environmental

assessment plays in protecting British Columbia and the natural resources and landscapes

that define it.

Environmental assessment is one of the most important tools this province has so that

development proceeds responsibly and the landscapes British Columbia depends on are

protected for future generations. It is where environmental protection and economic

opportunity meet. It is where long-term stewardship is translated into practical decision-making,

and it is where the province demonstrates how it intends to balance growth with responsibility.

Bill 15 is an important tool to try to meet that responsibility. As the critic for

Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I see environmental assessment as part of a

broader system that protects the natural foundations of our province — our watersheds,

our forests, our wildlife habitat and the landscapes that define both.

It is not simply a procedural requirement; it is a safeguard. It ensures that projects

are evaluated not only for what they build but what they will affect for this generation

and the generations that follow. It ensures that cumulative impacts are understood

before decisions are made. It ensures that our drinking water, our fish habitats,

our agricultural land and our species at risk are all considered in that decision-making

to influence outcomes. And it ensures that decisions made today do not create unintended

consequences for future generations.

That is why I think Bill 15, introducing the dispute resolution earlier in the process,

really helps us in this process. British Columbia’s natural environment is not only

central to our identity as a province; it is essential to our economic future.

We need to figure out how to get this right. We need to figure out how to bring that

investment to our province. That comes from predictable timelines with known processes

for all investors and companies in British Columbia. We also need to support our landscapes

for tourism, recreation and other economies that exist within our landscape. We need

to support biodiversity that is recognized around the world as one of our defining

strengths in this province.

Environmental assessment plays a role in protecting all of these values and is why

we have worked so hard over many years to make sure this act learns and grows. It

also provides the framework that allows Indigenous governments, local governments

and the public to participate meaningfully in decisions.

I think that Bill 15 is aspiring to create that framework but is lacking in the public

and proponent sections. I look forward to digging into that in committee, because

I think that those are two key things that seem to be missing in this legislation.

I know in many rural communities, major projects are not abstract discussions. In

my own communities at Princeton, we’ve been on a long journey together as a community,

as Princeton has looked to expand their copper mine. We have seen views from all sides.

Hudbay Minerals has worked very hard to get through the environmental assessment and

to bring the community along. We are thankful to see that the permit has come through

but, at the same time, feel sad that not all communities came out and supported it,

in the end.

The Lower Similkameen Indian Band has come out with a letter. They do not support

this project. I don’t know whether this bill would have prevented that or what that

looks like, going forward, but my hope is that this bill would have caught that and

solved it much sooner and not created that instability for my community.

I lived in Princeton in the 1990s when the copper mine closed the first time, and

I can tell you the devastating impacts it had for that community. More than half the

community lost their jobs. We lost doctors. We lost dentists. We lost everybody who

supported that industry. It became somewhat of a ghost town. So I am fearful that

the boom and bust will again come to Princeton if we can’t get this solved. If this

bill helps prevent that, then I look forward to committee stage to learning how that

could happen.

In many rural communities, major projects are not abstract policies. I just shared

what it means for one community. I have many other mining communities in my riding.

I have Greenwood, which has built a whole legacy on mining.

[3:10 p.m.]

I have forestry. I have recreation. I have tourism. I have community forests. I have

all of these things that go through environmental assessments. It’s really important

that we figure out how to get this right, because they do shape employment opportunities

and infrastructure investments long term.

They also shape land use decisions that affect entire regions for decades. They shape

whether development proceeds in a way that strengthens communities or creates uncertainty

within them. Environmental assessment helps ensure that those decisions are made carefully.

It helps ensure that development proceeds with awareness of the long-term impacts.

It helps ensure that British Columbians can have confidence that projects moving forward

have been reviewed through a structured and accountable process.

It also plays an important role in supporting reconciliation. It creates opportunities

for Indigenous governments to participate in decision-making that affects their territories.

It supports collaboration between governments, and it helps establish processes through

which knowledge, priorities and stewardship responsibilities can be reflected in project

review. I am hoping that Bill 15 will be able to move that process through sooner

so that we don’t have these communities in disagreement at later stages of the project

that create more uncertainty.

I believe that environmental assessment works well when it protects ecosystems and

it supports communities. It strengthens public confidence. I believe the minister

said that in her opening remarks. I did hear her say, specifically, that providing

public confidence was a key thing in this particular piece of legislation.

I look forward to committee stage, where we’re able to dig into that a little bit,

because I don’t necessarily see how communities do participate in this process, how

proponents participate in this process. I see a government-to-government protocol

agreement, but I don’t see how the rest of the people involved in the decision are

brought into that process. So I look forward to digging into that in committee stage.

But I know what happens when environmental assessments lack clarity, when timelines

are uncertain, when participation structures are not clearly defined or when operational

details are left unresolved. Uncertainty does not remain contained within the assessment

process itself. That rolls out into community. It rolls out into investments. It rolls

out into housing.

In Princeton we have a large number of unhoused people, largely because of the uncertainty

of that permit in Princeton. People did not move their families and purchase properties

or build new town and community housing because they didn’t know whether employment

would continue long term. It had a lot of social implications to that permit being

held up for many, many years.

I hope that this process, without a timeline in it defined within the statute, isn’t

going to just add a length to that but will actually translate into quicker decisions

on the ground. But I do know that it does spread outward.

It affected the community greatly. It affects proponents. Definitely Hudbay spent

I don’t know how much time trying to bring the community along in their process, trying

to educate people — open houses, one-on-one meetings — trying to get through the process

of the environmental assessment.

It did affect the confidence of British Columbia’s system as a whole. It is an unknown

— a lot of the environmental assessment process. We outlined that it’s going to be

180 days, but there have been many mechanisms to pause it. This process, actually,

is before the 180 days start, and there is no timeline with that. So this could take

years, and those investors have no idea how long that timeline is, how long they’re

going to be out that money or whether they can actually invest and move forward in

British Columbia.

I think that’s why we need to figure out a predictability in this environmental assessment

amendment. I think the changes proposed in Bill 15 deserve really careful attention

as we consider how they will shape that framework going forward.

[3:15 p.m.]

Before turning to the specific changes proposed in Bill 15, it is important to recognize

that British Columbia’s environmental assessment framework already reflects many years

of development, experience and improvement. We’re not writing this on day one. We

know exactly what we have learned. We went and we consulted. We have a whole report

on what we heard on what the changes need to be to the Environmental Assessment Act.

So we’re not starting from zero. It is a system that has evolved over time in response

to lessons learned from projects; from communities; from Indigenous governments; and

from those responsible for implementing the process itself, our staff here at the

ministry. It is also a system that already contains important strengths. We have some

strong winds within that legislation.

I think that the what-we-heard report outlined some key recommendations that we need

to bring forward to make this act really work for all British Columbians. My concern

is that this particular Bill 15 is only one of the many recommendations that are included

in this act. I did not see or hear from the minister her plans to implement or introduce

more legislation to implement the changes requested by community and industry.

I believe that the commitment to early engagement is a great commitment. I believe

that it is a necessary commitment. I hope that the government actually implements

that, that it’s not just lip service — that we just put this in legislation and then

we end up in court later and find out we knew we had to consult, but we didn’t.

It’s similar to what has happened in Okanagan Falls, where they knew that the First

Nations should be consulted on their incorporation, but at the same time, they just

kept pushing it off and saying: “Yeah, we’ll do that. Yeah, we’ll do that.” Well,

they sent it to referendum without including First Nations and then sent it to First

Nations after a decision was made.

Not surprisingly, the First Nations have some concerns. They have things they want

to see implemented into those changes. But it was already after the referendum, after

the community thought they decided on something. So now we are in a perpetual conflict.

There is anti-Indigenous sentiment in my communities. People don’t understand what

is happening. We have moved to tables.

I bring that up because Bill 15 talks about moving into tables. How do people in communities

know what is happening at these tables? How do we understand when we are not there

to hear the history, to hear what we are going to do and why we’re doing these decisions?

All we get is a decision at the end.

I did not see in this Bill 15 anything that talks about reporting out to the public

about how that decision was made. It says: “to the parties.” How do the rest of us

understand how those decisions were made and what happened at those tables? I’m concerned

that they’re separate tables. These aren’t community tables. They’re Indigenous tables.

I understand the government-to-government relationship, but by not including the proponent

and, possibly, the local elected officials in those tables, we are setting our communities

up for division because we can’t bring them along. We can’t include them in why these

decisions were made.

I went a little off script there. That’s okay.

I think it’s important that the communities stay engaged, that they know what’s going

on, and I’m hoping that this Bill 15 can be adapted to allow that participation, that

it isn’t just government to government with a final decision and the rest of us have

to live with it.

I think that there’s a real need to bring community along. Reconciliation includes

the people that live in the community and where the project is taking place, the people

that work at that particular business that are going to be impacted by it, both negatively

and positively. Everybody needs to be brought along so that they understand the decisions.

Over time, our framework has evolved to better reflect the importance of Indigenous

knowledge, Indigenous priorities and government-to-government relationships within

project assessment. I know that work continues, and it remains an essential component

of building a system that reflects the realities of decision-making.

It also supports coordination across ministries and agencies. It’s supposed to be

kind of a one-window application process, but we can see clearly in the engagement

that that is not how industry feels. They don’t feel like they’re dealing with one

particular agency on the environmental assessments. They are being sent all over —

into WLRS, into Environment, into Forests, into Mining — and they don’t know where

they’re going next or what the steps are. I’m hoping that Bill 15 will help to clarify

some of that, but I’m concerned that it just adds another layer and doesn’t provide

that clarity.

Environmental assessments often require decisions from multiple parts of government.

As I just said, the environmental assessment office plays an important role in bringing

all those decision-makers together and ensuring those assessments proceed within a

structured framework rather than through disconnected approval pathways. That is our

stated goal — structured framework.

[3:20 p.m.]

But I think the reality on the ground is disconnected approval pathways. That is what

we heard in the what-we-heard report. It doesn’t seem to matter which what-we-heard

report. Whether it’s on the Environmental Assessment Act or any of the other bills

that we’ve heard in this House, the disconnected approval pathways continue to be

the number one concern.

I was at COFI last week, and we heard that clearly. Disconnected government processes,

the unknown, not knowing the pathway, not understanding how permits necessarily go

through decision. Yes, once they get to a certain point, they go into the timeline,

but it’s all the steps prior to that that are really unknown.

I think that this environmental assessment process has the ability to build public

confidence if we do make it public and we do bring them along. I believe that there

need to be clear participation opportunities that are understood, that communities

are better able to follow the decisions that affect their regions and that transparency

supports trust, not just in individual project decisions but in the broader framework

overall.

People need to understand the framework, how it works, when they can expect to be

updated and what those updates look like. I think environmental assessments intend

to provide better project outcomes, and I think that in those what-we-heard reports,

that is the desire but, obviously, not our current practice. We heard that, clearly,

in there. It allows technical issues to be examined before they become barriers later.

I’m hoping that Bill 15 allows us to get to that.

I think that engaging participants during the environmental assessment doesn’t require

wholesale change. I think it’s there. It’s in the act already. I think it’s creating

that framework for how we are going to deliver on it.

The participants in the what-we-heard report called for targeted improvements. They

asked for earlier issue resolution, which we’re discussing here today. They asked

for clearer timelines, which is not in this legislation.

This is actually one of my biggest concerns going forward. What are the timelines

for this new process? We introduced it, but we have not attached any kind of timeline

to it.

They asked for the better coordination across approvals. They want that one window.

They want a single point. They want to understand the framework of how their decisions

are made, when they’ll know and how they will be communicated with. Bill 15 responds

to a couple of their requests but is pretty silent on some of the big ones.

Again, I’m going back. I did not hear from the minister when she introduced this bill

if this is the first of upcoming legislation changes that will implement the what-we-heard

recommendations or whether we’re just cherry-picking a couple. The question becomes,

then: if you only do part of it, is it enough? I hope that, in her response at the

end, she will clarify whether there’s more legislation coming.

As part of the Environmental Assessment Act review process, the province undertook

engagement across the province. I’ve mentioned before that it included Indigenous

governments, local governments, industry, environmental organizations, technical experts

and members of the public across B.C.

These participants were not asked whether this should exist. That is a given. The

environmental assessment process must exist. They were asked how it would work better.

What could they do or what could they implement to make things better?

The responses were remarkably consistent across British Columbians. They asked for

predictability in timelines. It was their number one ask. They asked for clarity about

how decisions move forward and when those decisions can be expected. Are you sensing

a theme? This is coming forward in this speech.

They asked for transparency in how issues are raised, discussed and resolved during

assessment. They asked for clearer participation structures so that everyone involved

in the process understands their role and their responsibility. They asked for earlier

resolution of issues so that concerns are addressed before they become barriers later

in project review. That’s No. 5 in what we’re talking about today.

In No. 6, they asked for better coordination across ministries and agencies, recognizing

that environmental assessment does not operate in isolation of other approvals. They

asked for consistency across projects so that expectations do not change depending

on sector, region or individual assessment pathways.

[3:25 p.m.]

We don’t want to see different decision pathways with different facilitators. We don’t

want to see the huge differences from region to region, or we risk that decision framework,

that investment, because nobody knows…. “If I’m going to this region, it’s different

than if I go to that region.” It’s important that the framework is consistent.

In No. 8, they emphasized the importance of meaningful Indigenous participation throughout

the environmental assessment and a foundation of the decision-making, moving forward.

I think that one, as well, is what we’re discussing here today.

I don’t think these are abstract policy observations. They were operational concerns

raised by people working within our system and participating in it directly. These

are the people on the ground. Participants were describing how environmental assessment

functions in practice. They want to know how this looks, how it feels, what it looks

like on the ground. They were describing where improvements could make processes more

understandable, more efficient and more predictable for everyone involved.

Predictability emerged as one of the strongest themes throughout the engagement. I’m

hoping that Bill 15 actually introduces clear predictability for proponents, for the

people in the community, so that we can all understand how this is going to work and

what the timeline attached to it is.

I believe that the people that made those recommendations believe that we need all

eight. I don’t think that only addressing two of the eight recommendations will necessarily

create the improvements on the ground that they want. I acknowledge this is a first

step, but I hope to hear from the minister that there’s more legislation coming, that

she is going to signal in committee what’s happening in regulation around timelines

and what those changes to those timelines could look like, what pauses a project.

Participants indicated that they understand how assessments move forward and when

decisions are expected. It is essential not only for their proponents but for their

communities, for their investors, for their local governments and everybody affected

by those decisions.

Transparency was the other consistent theme. While this bill talks about transparency

and the reporting, that reporting seems to live within the tables. It doesn’t necessarily

go out to the proponent, that I can see, in the wording that has been provided, and

it certainly does not speak to the public. So I’m interested to dig into that at committee.

I think that participants emphasized that environmental assessment works best when

the processes are clear, visible and understandable for everyone. That’s not laid

out in the legislation necessarily, the whole process, and I’m hoping that, again,

the minister can speak to that in committee — what this will look like on the ground

in regulation.

She spoke to having a template that they would pick up. I’m hoping she’ll be able

to table that template for us to consider at committee so that we can really see how

this works or is intended to work, understanding that there are differences between

nations and governances and that it’s not going to be the same for everyone, but the

template and the framework should be similar.

I believe that earlier issue resolution was also one of their clear priorities, and

that’s why we’re here today. I believe this government is trying to meet that. I do

feel like it falls short, and I look forward to perhaps making some amendments at

committee or at least getting clarification on the record of the minister’s intent

during that process.

I believe that coordination across approval systems was also raised consistently.

Not waiting for one permit from one ministry that cascades to another permit for another

industry, which cascades to needing some kind of archaeology, which cascades to….

It just keeps going.

I also think that I’ve seen on the ground that for many of the professional members,

whether they’re engineers or whatever, their credentials are not necessarily accepted

these days, and I wonder where that is going as a government overall. These are people

that are qualified, and we have people within government staff not necessarily with

the same qualifications yet that have decision-making over these items. I could go

into that, but I’d be down a rabbit hole of us talking about docs and other things,

which I won’t do today.

I believe that aligning assessment timelines with permitting decisions needs to happen,

and it needs to happen to strengthen the process overall. Participants indicated that

stable expectations across sectors and regions strengthened confidence and that confidence

will translate into investment, jobs, economic opportunity for our communities.

[3:30 p.m.]

I believe that the maintenance of the public confidence…. That is lacking. It was

so lacking in our incorporation in Okanagan Falls. It’s so detrimental to our community.

We have an open house coming up. After a year, the people in Okanagan Falls are going

to find out what’s happening. I know that it’ll be a respectful discussion, but it’s

really late in the process, considering that those letters patent have to be approved

so they can have an election this fall. My understanding is it’s by June, from the

minister, so I don’t know how much input the public is actually going to have at this

point. I’m a little disappointed in that.

I’m hoping that this Bill 15, if it had been there…. I know that’s not an environmental

assessment, but the core beliefs of this…. The minister said in her opening remarks

that they use this process in other applications. I hope she takes that to heart,

and the other ministries as well, that we need to do this stuff earlier. We need to

figure it out. But they can’t be tables isolated from community and from the proponent.

I think that the one area where Bill 15 doesn’t respond directly to engagement feedback

is the request. Clearly, Bill 15 is trying to do it, but I feel like we didn’t hit

the nail on the head with the issue resolution.

I see that the First Nations have a way to escalate into this process, but how does

the proponent have a way to escalate into this process? If they get into a stalemate

where they’re not able to move forward, how do they escalate into a process?

I’m not terribly familiar with the Environmental Assessment Act. Perhaps that exists.

But I think that the proponent also needs to be able to move into this framework if

they are also feeling like something is being flagged and not being addressed — that

government, First Nations or proponent can initiate the tables to start this. I look

forward to committee to be able to ask those questions, whether that’s something the

minister would consider.

They’re looking for predictable issue resolution, predictable timelines, predictable

structure. What does that look like? None of that is outlined in the bill. Again,

the minister referenced a template that I’m hoping can be tabled during committee

stage for us to have a review so we can better understand what implementation on the

ground looks like.

Predictability is one of the strongest and most consistent themes in the what-we-heard

report. We need to know what the timelines are. I can’t get past that. Without knowing

the timelines, this could create a two-year process to do these tables properly.

I don’t know if I’m allowed to speak to the treaties because they’ve been tabled.

Theoretically, there are some treaties coming. I believe that the need for those tools

to operate in practice is necessary.

Transparency is the priority identified repeatedly through this engagement. They emphasize

that environmental assessment must remain understandable to communities affected by

project decisions.

If I look at Princeton, what does that look like? We saw an announcement by the minister.

Everybody celebrated for about one hour. Then we get a letter from the Lower Similkameen

Indian Band that says they do not support it. What does that mean? The people in Princeton,

again, don’t know what’s happening, what’s going forward. Is the Lower Similkameen

Indian Band not supporting it enough to stop the application? We don’t know.

I don’t know whether this process or these timelines will do that. But the treaties

took 15 years, some of them 30 years, to get to where they are today. Yet this process

could be the same. We don’t know how deep the resolution or the issue is that we’re

trying to resolve.

So what is the timeline? Do we say that you have six months to get through this process?

Do we actually put some framework around it? My fear is that without framework or

a timeline around the process and the tables — they’re consensus tables — we may never

get there. So what does that look like?

[3:35 p.m.]

It also doesn’t establish any reporting expectations to the public or to the proponent.

I think the decision will be communicated, but the reasons for decision may not be.

It may be communicated at a very high level.

We were at a First Nations presentation last night over at the museum, which was an

amazing opportunity to celebrate with First Nations and hear their concerns. It was

a great opportunity. But how do we ensure that those opportunities for our communities

continue? How do we make sure that our communities stay intact, neighbours to neighbours?

These assessments involve multiple decision-makers. If we go to these tables and the

technical table doesn’t have the technical expertise it needs to make a decision,

then what happens? Do we have to wait another month to get the technical expert? What

does the timeline look like? I think that is going to be key for how this bill moves

forward.

I invite the minister to put a timeline in an amendment into this bill. I would support

that 100 percent. I believe that we need to put some framework around this. Otherwise,

these could be ongoing, never-ending tables where we try to get to consensus and can’t.

What does that mean for the project proponent who is sitting there waiting and waiting

to get into the 180-day window to get into the…?

We could go on about all the reasons they pause and all the things that happen after

that. I think an average application right now is three to five years, with some of

them going as long as ten. What is this going to add to that window? Is it going to

shorten it, or is it going to make it longer? I think we need clarity around that.

I think that the environmental assessment must align more clearly with other provincial

decision-making processes so that projects do not face unnecessary duplication or

uncertainty.

What do these tables look like? What is the information they are going to require?

Is it included in the original application? Are we looking at another huge bundle

of preparation for the proponent of data and information that they need to bring forward?

We need to provide some guidelines around that for the proponents when this comes

into implementation.

I don’t think that this bill describes how these mechanisms interact with approvals

outside of the framework. I think that that’s typical within government. We move within

silos, and this bill could really become its own silo, where it sits outside of the

other decision-making. But all the other decision-making is likely to be held up while

that silo is working.

How do we make sure those silos don’t start, and how do we address them, going forward?

I think that many of these details would allow communities to understand how the processes

operate and figure out how they can be involved in it.

I think that this bill reflects some of the direction identified through engagement,

particularly around earlier issue resolution and structured collaboration between

governments. But I think most of the most important expectations identified in the

report remain deferred to regulation rather than established in this statute. I don’t

know that that is just a detail.

I know why we do things in law versus regulation, but I think that the framework itself

needs to be in law so that we can clearly understand what the timelines are; what

the structure of this is; and how it will fully integrate and not become its own siloed,

stalled process, where we still can’t get projects done in B.C.

I think that the predictability…. I must have said it ten times. I’m sure someone’s

got a little ticker going over there on how many times I’ve said it. I need my colleague

here who keeps a running ticker.

The reality is we need to do these things and we need to ensure that this bill gets

it right. I think the participants were clear about what they wanted.

I keep going back to why this is the only piece that we’re working on in this sitting.

Is there more coming? That was not mentioned in the minister’s remarks. I’m hoping

there’s more coming, because there was a lot more in that report than this one little

piece.

We need to make sure, in order to make the improvements that people need, that we

implement the changes they requested. We engaged them. I’m not familiar but I’m going

to guess, having participated in many other engagements, that government, industry,

non-profits and ENGOs probably all had countless hours, days, travel, written comments

and everything into this report.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now what government does with it, I think, is key to signal to those people that what

they did matters. It actually fed into a decision. We didn’t just take one thing out

of your — I’m going to guess — year’s worth of work and make that happen. We actually

heard you, and we’re going to implement it all.

I believe that Bill 15 does support several mechanisms that will get to earlier issue

resolution. It doesn’t include what the issue is. There are no guidelines around what

kind of issue can be lifted. That may be a positive, but it could also, perhaps, have

unintended consequences. We may go into this dispute resolution process about title

that may be not anything to do with the actual environmental assessment. We may end

up, in that process, trying to solve something that’s actually not part of the environmental

assessment.

I look forward to hearing the minister in committee share a little bit around how

she sees that and how they’re going to limit the scope of those tables to the actual

project they’re working on and not have a creeping scope on those tables, which could

further delay the time that they have.

I believe that those statutory timelines have to be included. I feel like if we don’t

put some timelines around this, we actually could just be adding more to the process.

We could be driving away more investment and jobs in British Columbia. We are one

of the hardest jurisdictions to do business in, in Canada and, I would challenge,

maybe North America.

We do have a complicated land base. We do have unsettled land claims. We have reasons

for those complications. But we are seeing jobs and investment flee this province.

We need to solve it, and I don’t know that Bill 15 alone can do that. I hope that

it doesn’t just add another regulatory burden, another consultant report that is required,

another eight months of legal requirements from the proponent to participate in these

tables and that government properly resources the tables and the people participating

at the tables to get to a resolution, that we don’t just strike the table and set

it up for failure. It is integral that those tables are set up for success, especially

with a timeline that’s attached to it.

I think distinction matters. I think legislation provides certainty. Regulation provides

flexibility. I get the difference between the two. I think we should signal to our

investors that…. We need to have a defined timeline on these tables so that we can

signal to our investors exactly what is expected. That should be in law; it should

not be in regulation. I hope the minister will either introduce it or accept an amendment

in committee that adds a date to the legislation.

I don’t think that the timelines eliminate the complexity, but I do think that it

will provide assurance to investors and people that are…. It’s not even necessarily

investors. Snowmobile clubs, ATV clubs, cross-country ski clubs — they all do environmental

assessments as part of their trail-building. Many outdoor water recreation groups

also do environmental assessments. House-building. Just about everything we do in

British Columbia requires some kind of environmental assessment.

Speaking of properly resourcing, what are we going to do if this gets triggered on

every environmental assessment we have currently in B.C.? What does that look like?

What does the resourcing for that look like? How do we plan for that? How do we make

sure that this process is reserved specifically for resolution of items that are big

and that need to be resolved, that not just every single environmental assessment

gets triggered into this process? Some of that would, I would suspect, come from the

uncertainty that we have on the land base in British Columbia.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think that it’s not clear, also on the timelines, whether this pauses the other

processes. The investor goes through the environmental assessment, and they think

that they’re going to be 180 days to the first phase decision. Lo and behold, this

pops up. Does that pause the 180 days, or does this have to be completed within the

180 days? My belief is that it’ll pause it, but I think that we need some clarity

on that in committee.

I think, again, that it creates an unknown. How long is that pause? What does that

mean as an investor in B.C.? You think you’re finally at the 180 days to getting to

a decision and — poof! — a new process pops in, and you’re now on an unknown timeline

again for what investment in British Columbia looks like.

I believe that this does provide predictability by doing it before the process begins.

Maybe this all happens before the 180 days. But I think, from reading the legislation,

that it could be brought in at any point as a dispute resolution. It doesn’t say primarily

that it can only happen at the beginning, though there is other dispute resolution.

I did hear the minister speak specifically about another dispute resolution process,

so maybe this is only the pre-process and then they go into the other dispute resolution

once they’re in the 180 days. I’ll look for some clarity on that in committee.

I think that predictability depends on understanding the structure of a process before

it begins. Environmental assessment does not operate in isolation from the broader

approval system. Projects move forward within financing windows. They move forward

within construction seasons. They move forward within regulatory sequences that involve

multiple ministries and multiple governments.

When they’re undefined, the uncertainty created within that process extends outward

into those broader decision-making systems. Looking, even, at the Indigenous governance

system, many of their elections happen, I think, every two years. What does that look

like for these tables if the decision-making bodies of government are changing as

well?

Bill 15 introduces a structured issue resolution pathway between governments. But

again, where is the proponent? How does the proponent participate in these tables?

I think that we need to understand who has authority at each stage of the process

and where this particular Bill 15 legislation fits into that legislation.

I think details may emerge later through regulation. I believe, in reading this….

There’s not enough in the bill to actually implement it, so there must be lots coming

within regulation. I hope that the minister is able to speak to some of that regulation

in the committee stage, as we move forward, on what that looks like. Because I think

that without knowing those regulations and what it looks like on the ground, this

bill, standing alone, does not create the necessary steps to create that certainty

in British Columbia.

I think that multiple agencies and multiple interests need a process, and I’m hoping

that that regulation outlines what that is. I think that that matters for Indigenous

governance as well. I think that they need to understand, again, what the timeline

and expectations are for them and what resourcing requirements they should be asking

for to participate in these processes. I believe that creating the pathway between

the governments without proper resourcing could have a negative effect for all of

us.

The consistency across assessments. I think I want to talk about this a little bit.

This is specifically the regional nuances between these processes. As each of these

tables are set up, they’re going to be local, project-specific tables. I think that

the possibility exists for precedent-setting to happen between table and table. We

could see, again, that creeping scope where we don’t know…. The decision-making in

the North went really smooth, and we were done in 21 days. The decision-making in

the Kootenays took two years.

[3:50 p.m.]

How do we make sure that that comes together and becomes workable for the people of

B.C.? I think that we need confidence in that timeline and what the process is going

to look like that’s going to be outlined in regulation later. I think that consistency

doesn’t mean it has to be identical. It doesn’t have to be the same for every single

project, but it does have to have a structure.

It has to have that framework, and I’m hoping it has that template. I’m so excited

that the minister mentioned the template, because this tells me that it exists today

and that maybe we’re going to be able to see it at the committee stage. I look forward

to seeing that. I made myself a note: “Yay, there’s a template. Let’s see what that

says and what it looks like on the ground.”

I think that the regulation-later framework is necessary as a government, but at the

same time, we want to make sure that we legislate what is required, that it’s debated

in this House, that we understand clearly what should be debated and what should be

left for government decision-making. So I am concerned that much of the decision-making

around how these tables operate and how this bill is implemented is left to regulation

that we don’t know about today.

As we move to committee stage, I look forward to examining how the changes proposed

in Bill 15 will operate in practice. I think that it allows us to examine how those

are implemented and perhaps see the template. In legislation that introduces new coordination

mechanisms and new issue resolution pathways within the EA program, I think that distinction

matters.

I think that it’s important that we put it on the record so that all of the proponents

that are looking to invest in British Columbia clearly know what to expect when this

bill passes and what it means for investing in B.C., that we clearly get that done.

In closing, I believe that environmental assessment is one of our most important decision-making

frameworks this Legislature is responsible for maintaining. I believe that it is where

we protect our watersheds, our ecosystems and the landscapes that define our province,

and it is where communities, Indigenous governments and local governments and proponents

come together within a structured process to consider projects that shape the future

of our province. I believe it supports responsible development and it can create a

path forward for prosperity for British Columbia.

Hon. Randene Neill : It is my pleasure today to speak in support of the Environmental Assessment Amendment

Act, 2026, otherwise known as Bill 15.

The 2018 act, when it was first created, was an absolute landmark piece of legislation

designed to support free, prior and informed consent and create really good, durable

decisions. But like all pieces of legislation, there are always areas where improvements

can be made.

We realize now that we needed to introduce requirements to seek consensus between

the province and First Nations at key steps in the assessment process. We needed to

provide and update the dispute resolution provisions to support that when necessary.

As we’ve heard from industry and First Nations, there are certain aspects of the act

that have not been working as intended. That’s why we’re taking action to revise the

dispute resolution framework so it can better support consensus-seeking, predictability

and trust.

What we’re creating with these amendments is a transparent, predictable path for resource

development, honouring reconciliation and protecting our natural environment. This

is something that business, industry, First Nations, local governments and everyone

who has a stake in the future of British Columbia asks for — transparency and predictability.

These targeted amendments create clarity and predictability, as well, for timelines

in the environmental assessment process.

The government is working with industry and First Nations to make sure provincially

significant projects are able to move forward quickly, efficiently and transparently

while making sure we maintain the highest environmental standards in the entire country.

This is how we protect our environment, grow our economy and do it in reconciliation

with First Nations.

[3:55 p.m.]

Looking at a couple of commonly asked questions…. The member opposite asked a couple

of these questions. The first one was: what type of engagement was done in developing

these amendments? Well, changes to the dispute resolution framework were developed

through extensive consultation and cooperation over the past six months with 46 different

First Nations and several organizations along with extensive engagement with industry

representatives and project proponents.

Another question that the member opposite asked is: why are these changes necessary?

When we look at some of the feedback we received from industry across the province

and First Nations as well, there was some concern that dispute resolution hadn’t been

working the way it was intended when the bill was first passed in 2018. It had seen

extended assessment timelines and deepening mistrust between parties, in some cases.

That’s why the EAO, the environmental assessment office, has spent the past half year

consulting with industry, engaging with First Nations, to find a more effective approach

to resolving matters of disagreement in environmental assessments.

Finally, what impact is expected on assessment timelines from these changes to dispute

resolution and introduction of the new issues resolution protocol? This is an incredibly

important question that a lot of people have been asking. By focusing on resolving

and closing issues earlier and throughout the assessment, instead of carrying them

forward to later stages of the process, it is the government’s aim to improve the

timelines and predictability of the process.

That’s how I started this, and perhaps that’s how we’ll end it as well. Our goal is

not only to ensure the highest environmental standards, not only in Canada but also

North America; we also owe it to our First Nations and to our industries in British

Columbia, on clear, transparent and efficient timelines. This is what these amendments

aim to do.

Sheldon Clare : I rise today, as the official opposition critic for Environment and Parks and for

Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, regarding this legislation, the Environmental

Assessment Amendment Act, 2026, commonly referred to as Bill 15.

I want to begin by stating something very clearly, because it is important that it’s

not mischaracterized in this debate or subsequent to it.

This is not an opposition to consultation with Indigenous nations. Far from it. This

is not opposition to reconciliation, and this is not opposition to improving environmental

assessment processes. Those are legitimate, necessary and constitutionally grounded

objectives under

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and under the jurisprudence

of the Supreme Court of Canada — including decisions such as Haida Nation v. British

Columbia, 2004 SCC 73, and Tŝilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.

Those obligations are real. They are binding, and they must be respected. But what

we are dealing with here today is not simply a question of intent. It is a question

of legislative design.

When we examine the design of Bill 15, what we find is not a strengthening of certainty

and environmental assessment. We find a fragmentation of process. We find a multiplication

of procedural layers. We find an expansion of discretionary authority without corresponding

statutory limits. We find, most concerning of all, a system that risks replacing clarity

with complexity at precisely the moment British Columbia can least afford it.

British Columbia is entering a period of extraordinary economic and legal pressure.

We are facing global uncertainty in commodity markets. We are facing sustained inflationary

impacts on infrastructure development. We are facing capital competition from jurisdictions

that are actively streamlining permitting processes to attract investment. We are

facing ongoing trade pressures, including tariff risks, that directly affect British

Columbia’s export-dependent resource economy.

At the same time, we are navigating a rapidly evolving legal environment under

section

35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[4:00 p.m.]

That legal environment is not static. It is expanding, it is deepening, and it is

increasingly being interpreted through complex and fact-specific litigation involving

land title, consultation adequacy and Crown decision-making authority.

We have seen this trajectory over decades of jurisprudence, from the Haida Nation

to Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada in 2005 to the Tŝilhqot’in Nation. More recently,

we have seen continued litigation in British Columbia involving assertions of Aboriginal

title and competing claims over land use decision-making authority, including high-profile

decisions in the province that have raised serious concerns about the certainty of

tenure and governance authority.

In that context, legislation governing environmental assessment is not just administrative

housekeeping. It is foundational economic infrastructure. It determines whether British

Columbia is a place where major projects can be built or whether it becomes a jurisdiction

defined by procedural risk. Bill 15 moves us in a direction that raises legitimate

concern on that front.

Let us examine what this bill actually does. It first replaces an existing dispute

resolution framework with a new system built around issue resolution protocols, technical

tables, leadership tables and formal dispute resolution processes. It introduces new

mechanisms for engagement between the environmental assessment office and participating

Indigenous nations. It establishes structured forums for discussion and escalation

of issues. It provides for written protocols that govern how these issues are to be

resolved. It creates a dispute resolution system that can be triggered by either Indigenous

nations or the chief executive assessment officer under specific conditions. It introduces

publication requirements intended to increase transparency.

On the surface, this appears comprehensive, and process complexity is not the same

as legal certainty. When we look more closely at how these mechanisms operate, what

becomes clear is that this is not a linear decision-making system. It is a layered

and conditional system where each step depends on agreement, discretion, timing and

procedural alignment between multiple actors.

When systems become dependent on multiple discretionary triggers, the result is not

predictability. The result is variability, and variability in environmental assessment

law is not neutral. It is the source of legal and economic risk.

Let us begin with the issue resolution protocols under

section 18.1. These protocols

are not mandatory. They are initiated only if an Indigenous nation provides notice

and the chief executive assessment officer agrees to enter discussions. Even then,

the content of the protocol is subject to negotiation.

Critically, subsection (4) provides that if notice is not given on the same day as

participation notice, the chief executive assessment officer may, but is not required

to, enter into discussions. That is discretionary participation in a foundational

engagement mechanism. We are therefore creating a system where access to structured

engagement is not uniformly available. It is conditional. It is discretionary.

That raises a fundamental governance question. How does a project proponent or participating

nation predict whether they will be able to access the full suite of engagement mechanisms

available under this act? The answer is that under this bill, they cannot. They can

only wait to see how discretion is exerci