First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, October 23, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 88

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

Tributes

Peter Alan Lea Ford

Sheldon Clare

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. Adrian Dix

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Jordan Kealy

Stephanie Higginson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Second Reading of Bills

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

Stephanie Higginson

Dallas Brodie

David Williams

Hon. Jagrup Brar

Kiel Giddens

Reporting of Bills

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act

Second Reading of Bills

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

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Terry Yung

Sharon Hartwell

Sunita Dhir

Donegal Wilson

Steve Morissette

Korky Neufeld

Scott McInnis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Misty Van Popta

Bill 18 — Sexual Violence Policy Act (continued)

Bryan Tepper

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Bill 21 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma

Steve Kooner

Thursday, October 23, 2025

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Peter Alan Lea Ford

Sheldon Clare : Our House has been missing someone important this term. Peter Alan Lea Ford, member

of the Order of Military Merit, Canada decoration, passed away on August 15.

Some of us in this House were able to be at the service; many of us were not. I wanted

to just say a few words about our friend Peter, who led the work in this chamber with

great dignity, with great humour and with terrific efficiency.

He truly was a gentleman. He was a naval chief petty officer first class. He was the

base chief at Esquimalt. I was really proud to meet him, get to know him, for the

short time that I did. I learned a lot about Peter from his family and friends at

the service we held for him back in September. I know that it was important to be

there, and it’s important to say his name again.

Many in this House were at that service, and I know the family and all of us appreciate

that. I wanted to just say a few words about Peter because I know he is deeply, deeply

missed here. I miss him, and I know everyone else who knew him does as well. So for

my introduction, I want to just say his name, Peter Alan Lea Ford, MMM, CD.

I hope he’s enjoying baking scones and golfing and doing all those wonderful things

that an old sailor does up in heaven.

Bravo Zulu, Peter.

Introductions by Members

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to welcome two very special friends, Nilda Borrino and Linh Lam. They’re

representing Marpole Neighbourhood House. Having lived and worked in Marpole almost

all my life, I have had the chance of visiting Marpole Neighbourhood House several

times.

[1:05 p.m.]

The kinds of services they provide for the community, the programs…. They even have

their own community garden where they grow fresh vegetables and cook warm food. The

art and culture programs…. I really commend the work that they’re doing for the community.

I welcome Linh and Nilda to the precinct today, and I request everybody to make them

feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Ravi Parmar : In the main chamber, we’ll continue second reading on Bill 31.

In the little House, Committee of the Whole on Bill 17.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Hon. Adrian Dix : Before the lunch hour, I started my speech on Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment

Act. That time I was able to describe the sections related to the North Coast transmission

line, which is, I think, a nation-building project that in particular supports the

north of British Columbia but all of British Columbia.

The north of British Columbia — in particular, the northwest, but also the northeast

— has the potential for economic growth that is profound and has to be supported.

It’s important, I think, for people in the northwest to have access to power in the

northeast.

I’ve heard talk about how “you’re building the northwest transmission line to favour

or to support mineral interests in the northwest.” Yes, we are, just like we built

the Interior–Lower Mainland line just a few years ago, paid for by the whole rate

base of B.C. — paid for by ratepayers in Terrace, ratepayers in Smithers, ratepayers

in Dawson Creek and ratepayers everywhere else — to serve Metro Vancouver.

We should support the North Coast transmission line everywhere. My constituency should

support it and other constituencies should support it because the opportunity for

wealth — the creation of wealth, of jobs, of families, of supports in communities

— that will be created in the northwest is breathtaking for our province. A dozen

mines. The interests of the Port of Prince Rupert. The lowest-emission LNG projects

in the world, two of them led by the Haisla and the Nisg̱a’a First Nation.

The opportunity that’s presented by clean energy in our province should be shared

there, because right now that region is capped. They can have the electricity that

goes there. They can’t have more unless we double transmission capacity. It’s not

just about generation. We’re doing that with all the clean energy projects we’re doing,

the ten that we have announced — Site C, nine of them wind, one of them solar, the

ones that are in the second call for power, the ones that are in the call for expression

and interest on firm power.

We need to generate more electricity, clean electricity, and we’re doing that. We’re

doing that in order to deliver to the northwest of our province — other parts of our

province, as well, but in particular the northwest — the jobs and the opportunities

that people in other regions have. This is something that we have the opportunity

to do. It’s a generational decision in terms of wealth and one that I think should

be supported by all of B.C. and, in fact, all of Canada.

That’s why we’ve made the strong case that the North Coast transmission line, which

is truly a national project, should be supported on the major projects list of the

be served, in a sense, by the North Coast transmission line as well, the Red Chris

project, and others — to create those opportunities in mining that we have not seen

in a generation. We’re making progress we’ve not seen in a generation that they’re

available in the northwest.

So that was the first part of it. I won’t relive the entire speech. The member for

Peace River South was there, so he experienced it prior to the lunch break.

[1:10 p.m.]

I just want to continue to talk in terms of the second part of the bill, which is

the allocation framework. This was applied to three specific industries that have

highly scalable needs for power, and we’ve seen this around the globe. We’ve seen

it in other jurisdictions. We’ve seen it even on the connection side — not the demand

side, the connection side in Virginia. Four gigawatts of new data centres in that

state. In the state of Texas, six gigawatts, 6,000 megawatts, just for data centres.

The accompanying pressure on residential rates that comes with that and, often, the

lack of local benefit…. You don’t want to deliver hundreds of megawatts of power for

something that ultimately produces three security guard jobs, protecting the outside

of a data centre that no one works in.

We want to have the economic considerations of British Columbia favoured in access

to the clean electricity that we have all produced over generations — the people who

built the Shrum, Bennett, Keenleyside, John Hart, Site C and all of our dams in this

province — available to benefit the people of B.C. So that’s the reason for it.

We talked about how it will work, that the allocation framework that we’re talking

about will apply those kinds of standards.

Data sovereignty. We need data centres, and we need AI in B.C. We have issues around

sovereignty over our data right now. We’ve seen some of this in jurisdictions such

as France, where domestic privacy considerations are overridden in some cases, or

proposed to be overridden — we’re not talking about small companies here; we’re talking

about companies such as Microsoft — by domestic policy considerations in the United

States.

We’re a sovereign country, and we need to ensure that we protect the data. We need

to have control over our data here, and that means we need to build data centres domestically.

AI is a growing industry. We need to take advantage of it to further economic development

in our province.

What we’re proposing to do in these industries where demand vastly exceeds supply

in every jurisdiction in the world…. We need to have a way of allocating that that

is better than first come, first served. The first person in the door, no matter what

they’re proposing as an end result, gets access to the power, and everyone else waits

or doesn’t get it.

We’re proposing an allocation framework. The first call, we expect, will be in January.

We will have 300 megawatts for AI and 100 megawatts for data centres available for

people to bid on, based on the value of what they’re producing on data sovereignty,

on job creation, on economic value to the province.

We would set the terms of that, but it would be B.C. Hydro. When they make these decisions

on calls for power, as well, they have an oversight mechanism on what they do and

make the decision based on the criteria we’ve said are important. I will encourage

members of the House, including my colleague for Peace River South, who’s always very

thoughtful in these matters, to be involved in discussing what those criteria should

be, because I think that’s important.

Those are the ones we see: economic value, jobs, data sovereignty, reconciliation,

climate change, etc. Can we can reuse some of the heat? That’s the nature of it.

I want to discuss, as I finish these remarks, why these three industries.

I think I’ve talked about it a little bit before, but in particular, hydrogen. I’m

a strong supporter of the hydrogen industry in B.C., and the allocation framework

only would apply for hydrogen for export, not for hydrogen for domestic use. There

really are no projects now. So this is unlike the AI and data centre things, where

there are clearly as many projects as you’d like if you have clean, available, inexpensive

power. In the case of hydrogen, those projects are not there right now.

Certainly, the production for domestic production aids us in our environmental and

our economic development objectives. In fact, on Friday, I will be at an event where

the industry is showing some of its successes in B.C. But that’s not what’s affected

here. They all have the same access — hydrogen for domestic use — as manufacturing,

energy, forestry, mining and all the other sectors.

Hydrogen-for-export projects proposed in B.C. have been orders of magnitude, obviously,

larger than for domestic consumption. We had one project that sought to take all the

power from Site C for that project, and obviously, that wasn’t a realistic proposition,

I would say, for the benefit of another jurisdiction.

[1:15 p.m.]

They produce less revenue for the province, these hydrogen projects for export, in

addition to using massive amounts of valuable clean electricity. Again, involved in

a restriction where they would access some, but we would have some control over that.

There are, of course — as the member will know, as many will know — large efficiency

losses in the hydrogen production process that would be very challenging as well.

We think that clean electricity, that those options, should be pursued, but they should

be within an allocation framework, and that’s why hydrogen for export was added to

it.

Now, everyone knows that the global market for hydrogen-for-export projects has suffered

mightily due to costs, slow technology adoption and difficult general market and business

case issues. That’s just the case. But that doesn’t mean that the story’s over. The

member for Peace River South and I had a discussion of this during our estimates debate

about the value.

These are not the only hydrogen projects available. In fact, we’re having a lot of

success in B.C. now and a lot to talk about. If conditions improve and this market

becomes more promising, then the allocation framework or a similar kind of process

auction, whatever you would call it, would apply to that sector.

I just want to reiterate with respect to AI and data infrastructure that these are

clearly power-hungry sectors. I talked about it earlier. Other jurisdictions have

struggled mightily. I can go through them. I think the review that we did in advance

of this of the struggles of places such as Maryland, Virginia, Utah, New Jersey and

others, which I spoke of earlier, is significant. The loads are significant.

We can look next door to Alberta, where they recently opened up for requests, and

they got 16,000 megawatts of requests from large loads such as AI. Well, the system’s

peak load right now is 12,000, so this is obviously enormous and beyond what they

could do or anyone could reasonably do. They had to respond by taking back the request

and putting other limits on it.

They have a different system than B.C., of course. We have the benefit here in B.C.

of B.C. Hydro as a provider, which is a huge benefit to us. I mean, electricity rates

are about 67 percent higher in Calgary and Edmonton than they are in B.C., which is

a real tribute to the people who have built B.C. Hydro into the company it is. Electricity

rates in B.C. have dropped 12.4 percent below the rate of inflation.

It’s not just Alberta. Seattle, 40 percent higher. Portland, 45 percent higher. New

York, 400 percent higher. B.C. Hydro is a great thing for British Columbia, as Manitoba

Hydro and Quebec Hydro are in their respective provinces.

In terms of data load requests to be connected in Ontario, they’re 30 percent of Ontario’s

peak power demand, and you see this in other jurisdictions. I talked about Virginia,

Texas, Oregon, Maryland and other places.

These projects can happen quickly. It’s a little unlike a mining project, which develops

over time and you prepare for. It happens quickly and then can go away quickly. That’s

what we’ve seen, and that’s led to huge increases in costs in other jurisdictions.

Other jurisdictions have responded differently than we have, and we’ve learned from

them. Quebec, for example, implemented an evaluation framework, and they decided the

person who should make the decisions on all loads above five megawatts should be the

Minister of Energy.

Now, that’s not a terrible suggestion, I say as Minister of Energy, but I don’t think

it’s the right suggestion. I think our job as legislatures is to apply the criteria

and the rules and have competitive processes address the question of the allocation

of energy in this case, and that’s what I think we should do.

In Quebec, the framework requires all projects over five megawatts to obtain authorization

from the Minister of Economy, Innovation and Energy before they can be connected by

Hydro-Québec. That’s not a road we’ve taken. That’s a road they’ve taken. Largely

it was to control demand that was well above what they could supply for much of the

last decade.

There are different measures in Oregon, where they’ve implemented new regulatory measures

with respect to large energy use facilities involved in data-processing services.

In Utah, where they’ve done some of the same things, they have different models and

different systems in those jurisdictions.

[1:20 p.m.]

I mentioned, in the United States, the governor’s race in New Jersey and the focus

on rate increases linked to data centres. So ordinary citizens in New Jersey and small

businesses and communities are paying for data centres which may not be delivering

in terms of the economy but are driving up residential rates. It’s something that

we don’t want here in B.C.

We cannot leave the pace of that growth unchecked. We have to pace it out. That means

having AI and data centre opportunities but putting them within our means and having

a competitive process with B.C.’s interests at the centre of it. It’s about growth,

in fact. It’s about B.C. becoming the engine of economic development, but it’s also

making sure our electricity is prioritized for industries that will power our future

while providing a path forward for connecting new, emerging industries such as AI.

The clauses in the bill are targeted, strategic and essential. They give us the tools

to allocate wisely, to enable generational investments in key sectors and to grow

sustainably by leveraging economic growth, enabling the power of our clean electricity.

I’ll just say this. It is extraordinary, here in B.C., what we’ve built as a generation.

In 1960, and I mentioned this in introducing the bill, W.A.C. Bennett decided that

the economic future of the province was linked to the development of the Peace and

the Columbia rivers. It wasn’t without consequence.

The member and I have talked about it. The members from the Kootenays, from Cranbrook,

knows this. Building those dams was not without consequences for people living in

those regions. But the Premier at the time, who was a Social Credit Premier, acted

to nationalize B.C. Electric because the private sector would not make the investment

necessary to see that happen.

A generation of people worked in industries, including and especially the forest industry,

pulp mills that were energized by clean electricity in B.C. They wouldn’t have viewed

that in the prism of the discussion of climate change or any other question, but they

did it, and their legacy is profound.

That continued over time, and it continues to this day. It’s why we’re engaging in

the calls for power we are — for clean electricity, to build out the electricity of

our province and to deal with, this time, in a way similar to what they did in that

time, to use B.C. Hydro as a means of economic development at a time when we need

to take advantage of our clean electricity advantage.

We need to move forward in this to build a stronger economy in our province, one that

we can both be proud of and that creates opportunities in industries across our province,

creates generational opportunities that will allow us to lead our country and respond

to international circumstances such as are occurring in the United States and the

challenge of the world today.

I ask members of the House — this is, as I say, modest legislation; there are five

sections in it — to support a bill that will help build the North Coast transmission

line, that deals with a partnership with First Nations, that enables the mining industry

and the cleanest LNG in the world and the Port of Prince Rupert and communities up

and down the line — the Port of Stewart, communities up and down the North Coast transmission

line, which all, in the case of the direct line, happen to be represented by members

on the opposition side of the Legislature — that they support those North Coast transmission

line provisions and that they support this allocation framework, which ensures that

B.C.’s interests come first in this clean electricity that generations of British

Columbia workers and residents have supported and made happen, that, in these sectors,

we allow ourselves to put B.C. first, to give our priorities first, our jobs, our

economy, our data sovereignty, our values into decisions around how electricity is

allocated.

This is a program and a plan that supports clean electricity and a clean economy,

a clean energy economy. It does do those things. That’s B.C.’s advantage. That’s an

advantage that we’ve built up for generations and that we’re building on now with

new renewable electricity, especially as prices come down for electricity in new renewable

sectors, compared to existing sectors.

B.C. is leading, and we have got to see the signal ahead of us. That signal is to

build our province. Build opportunities in our province. Create opportunities in the

northwest. Ensure that B.C.’s interests are protected.

[1:25 p.m.]

In a time when the world is seeking an economy like ours, one that believes in clean

electricity, we need to be there to meet that challenge, and this bill, this modest

bill, is part of that effort.

I look forward to the further debate and ask all members of the House to support Bill

Larry Neufeld : Thank you to my colleagues from across the aisle. I don’t have a joke for you this

afternoon. I apologize. I should’ve thought of it over lunch. I apologize. I will

do better next time.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld : Well, perhaps. Perhaps it will come to me. I could say something about hiring someone

to write jokes for me, but I won’t.

I’d like to make a couple of statements before I do get into my written remarks. My

experience in the House over the last year has been quite varied. I would suggest

that one of the things that I’ve been most surprised with is how many things that

the minister and I agree on when it comes to the energy file. I would say on its basis,

the bill that is before us is something that I would not disagree with. However, I

do have issues with it, and that is something that I’m going to be speaking to today.

The minister did talk about the importance of getting energy out to the west coast.

Wow. I’m a northerner, and I’m industry-based. How could I not agree with that, especially

given the fact that we’ve had a net import of 15 percent of our energy from neighbouring

sources over the last three years? Where my concerns would come in….

I’m also a massive supporter of the hydrogen industry. I do. I look forward to owning

a hydrogen-powered vehicle at one point in my life. I would very much enjoy doing

that.

I do have, again, some concerns. I know some of these, hopefully many of them, will

be addressed during committee stage. The minister did talk about it in his remarks

around the perception of choosing winners over losers. I am very much looking forward

to digging into that process of competitiveness and seeing how that works and understanding

very clearly how those decisions are made. I do appreciate the fact that he did indicate….

Sorry, is that parliamentary language? I can say he or she? Sorry. I don’t know why

I flustered myself on that one. There’s your joke for today.

At any rate, I would suggest that the collaborative approach is very much appreciated.

That’s something that I would look very much forward to doing.

The ratepayers are of significant concern to me, and that is something that the minister

did mention in his remarks as well. As many will know that have listened to me speak

before, Site C is in my riding. One of my concerns is the volume of power that Site

C would actually be able to produce to send through this line to the northwest.

That leads into my next statements. I have said this publicly — that the minister

and I agree that British Columbia has the cleanest natural gas on the planet, bar

none. I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that in this House. Industry, private

money, has already spent the equity to deliver massive quantities of that incredibly

valuable product to the west coast. That product represents an economic value to this

province of a minimum, and I’ve said it in here before, of $1 trillion. That’s a t,

not a b.

Without going down a rabbit hole, which I’ve been accused of doing once or twice in

the past, I have done reservoir engineering in my youth, and I can assure you that

that one t is a minimum. The real number is likely to be — I can’t promise anything

— significantly higher. The value to this province to fund health care, to fund education,

to fund forest recovery is monumental. Industry has already paid for the transmission

line out to the coast.

[1:30 p.m.]

Part of why I brought Site C up is, as an engineer, I followed the construction, the

design, very closely, especially because it’s in my backyard. The first number I recall

hearing for construction costs was, and I do have a good memory, but don’t hold me

to it, I want to say in the order of $2.8 billion. That was before there were obvious

issues around foundations.

It jumped to…. It was either $6 billion or $8 billion. I can’t remember the first

jump. I want to say $6 billion. Then it went to $8 billion. Then it went to $12 billion,

and then it’s ending up around $16 billion.

Why that’s important for me to speak to is…. I don’t know where the first number came

from on the North Coast transmission line, but the first one that I recall hearing

was $500 million. I could be wrong on that, but I did hear it. I don’t know where

it came from. The second number I recall was $3 billion. Now I’m hearing $6 billion.

My concern is cost control and where this will end up at the end of the day as far

as cost is concerned and with respect to ratepayers. That’s a significant concern

of mine.

I will further reiterate that what I’ve already said is that private industry has

already paid for that line to go to the coast for the world’s cleanest natural gas.

It is exceedingly easy to buy, if not off the shelf, nearly off the shelf.

You’re shaking your head at me, Minister. Perhaps we will explore further in estimates.

I’m quite certain that I am correct on that, but I love to debate, so we will debate.

Back to my thought process around the gas. If we’re not utilizing plug-and-play….

It’s a very easy design for a gas fuel system for electrical generation. It’s very

scalable, and it’s something that the beautiful people of this province own. They

own the resource. They get paid by the resource. Those revenues pay for health care.

They pay for forestry. It’s an incredibly important, underexplored resource in this

province.

That being said, that is going to be the crux of…. Well, that and others, as I get

into my written remarks.

Where I had a challenge in outright supporting the bill is that there are components

here which…. We have noticed a similarity from Bill 7, Bill 14, Bill 15. I know the

minister did address some of those in his remarks around picking winners and losers.

Again, I very much look forward to understanding that process much better.

I will suggest that the perception of a potential for government oversight or excessive

government oversight is the same language that has existed in the previous bills.

I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I think that perception is still there.

That’s something that I would, again, be very much interested in and looking forward

to delving into.

I will get into my…. I’m sure not everyone wants to sit here and listen to me speak

for the next four hours, or do you?

That’s a thumbs-up. You might get what you’re asking for. Well, apparently I have

22 minutes left, so you won’t get four hours out of me.

Into the written remarks. I will say that at its surface, as I’ve already stated,

this bill does look like any other administrative update. It is four pages and one

sentence — no doubt. I can’t argue that. It appears to be a tidy piece of legislation

adjusting the Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1996, and the Utilities Commission Act.

When we do read the provisions carefully, as I’ve already stated previously, there

is a perception of the continuation of a pattern that emerged in our spring sitting,

with the bills that I had mentioned, that being the steady concentration of decision-making

power within the cabinet, potentially sidelining independent regulatory oversight.

Again, that’s something I would very much be looking forward to delving into. This,

for obvious reasons to many, could be construed as a troubling tendency to govern

energy by executive order.

Bill 31 grants cabinet sweeping authority to decide…. Again, the minister…. I’m not

saying it’s incorrect, and I would love to delve into that deeper. The perception

could be that the decision is made of who will receive the electricity and who won’t.

Again, understanding the process, I’m not necessarily opposed to that. We need the

electricity, and we have to be reasonably intelligent on how we allocate it.

[1:35 p.m.]

I would further say that Bill 31 validates, retroactively, agreements between B.C.

Hydro and First Nations in the North Coast transmission line project, and it authorizes

B.C. Hydro to enter into future co-ownership arrangements without returning to this

Legislature for approval.

Those may sound like administrative efficiencies, but as I’ve said many times in this

House, efficiency without oversight is a danger. There is a concern there that, and

I truly do believe this, when we take the decision-making ability out of this House

and we allow bureaucrats to make those decisions without oversight or direct input

from those who are elected by the people and are responsible to the people…. I have

concerns with that. Perhaps those are concerns that we can assuage during the committee

stage.

I won’t go through the clauses. Again, you’ve got me for 19 more minutes. You don’t

have me for four hours, so I might skip around a little bit here.

I will say that this line stretching from Prince George through Fraser Lake and Terrace

to Bob Quinn Lake is a major piece of infrastructure. As a northerner, obviously,

I can’t for a second…. In fact, I applaud the fact that we’re looking at investing

in the North. The North deserves it, without question.

I would say on its face, this clause — this is clause 1 that I’m referring to — reflects

an admirable intent. It appears to ensure that Indigenous communities have a direct

equity stake in the development and the governance of key energy projects. I would

go on to say that while this clause has commendable aspects to it, I might also suggest

that it potentially fails in how it structures that authority.

The designation of these agreements is left entirely to cabinet, which again is another

concern that I have brought up in the past.

I’m going to skip ahead because I think I’m starting to put some folks to sleep.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld : No? A few more jokes in there will keep you awake.

Moving ahead, I’m going to skip to clause

Section 2, I would suggest, is a new

section, and it’s the heart of the bill, which is the most consequential. It grants

cabinet authority to regulate, restrict or even prohibit electrical services, which

again was spoken to, but I do need to understand that better.

We’ve already talked about cryptocurrency. We’ve talked about data processing, and

I do agree. I agree with the minister’s comments in those respects. Cryptocurrency

— I’m not sure I necessarily agree. With my proposal, with the ability to scale the

power generation significantly more quickly and, I would suggest, at a lower cost,

it would potentially allow us to maintain, once the numbers are run, that component.

I don’t know what the economics are behind it, but anything that will bring economic

prosperity to this province…. Boy, you’re going to have a tough time getting me to

argue against it.

We’ve talked about the delegation of power. That’s something, again, that we do need

to more fully understand in this House. It’s something that we all recall, what we

went through with Bill 14 and Bill 15, and there is a perception already that there

is a similar concern. We do need to address that, the concern, obviously, being what

I’ve already stated, that the debate would not happen in this chamber. It would happen

behind the closed doors of cabinet.

The people of this province need to be aware. There are probably 20 or 30 of them

watching us right now, but they can always go back and watch us later on. They’ll

know exactly what the minister said. They’ll know exactly what I said. They have the

right to do that. They absolutely have the right to do that.

Making those very important decisions behind closed doors is concerning. It’s concerning

to me.

I already talked about Bill 7. I don’t want to rehash old things. Well, old things

— all of, what, six months or eight months old? It expanded ministerial direction,

powers over B.C. Hydro’s resource plans. Bill 14 also quietly inserted provisions

into the Environmental Management Act and other laws, allowing cabinet to bypass regulatory

steps in the name of efficiency.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’m an engineer. I am all about efficiency — 100 percent about efficiency. We need

oversight, and we need transparency when we do it.

Similar comments around Bill 15. I don’t want to repeat myself too many times, but

the….

I lost my train of thought there, so I will move back to the written word. I would

say that each of those bills, as is this one, was justified as a modernization. Again,

a person from a background like mine, how could I argue modernization? What I would

say, though, is that we have to be very careful that modernization does not become

a synonym for centralization.

I’d also like to consider the practical implications.

Section 21.1 empowers cabinet

to prohibit electrical service for specific industries, not temporarily, not conditionally

but for a specified period or indefinitely. I know the example was given of the crypto.

On its face value, without seeing the numbers, I will admit…. I admit when I know

things, and I admit when I don’t, and I’m not familiar with that industry as much

as I could be.

The problem I see there is that if we permanently prohibit that industry, once we

do supply the power, have we taken the ability for this province to benefit from that

industry? They’re going to go somewhere else. That potentially means that entire sectors

employing hundreds or even thousands of British Columbians could lose access to power

on the stroke of a pen. Again, I think that assurances around how these powers are

going to be applied is something that would be of benefit to all of us.

In this case, I would suggest that we imagine an AI data centre investing millions

to build near Prince George. Actually, I’m going to change that to Dawson Creek, so

I’m sorry, Prince George. The data centre, an amazing, beautiful thing near Dawson

Creek, is planning to hire 200 local technicians. Under this bill, potentially, the

cabinet could decide tomorrow that such activity no longer aligns with political priorities,

and the facility could lose its electrical service authorization.

I would love to explore that. I’m glad to see your head shaking because I would love

to…. That is a concern, and I would love to get that on the record, that that’s not

a possibility or not a concern. I would suggest that that same concern that I would

love to explore further, potentially, could apply to a hydrogen producer or a cryptocurrency

operator. I would love to dig into that a little bit deeper.

Again, perhaps we can, during the committee stage, assuage these concerns, but my

concern would be investor confidence. We need to be absolutely clear that in X plus

Y, the cost of X is X, the cost of Y is Y, and it adds up to Z. Investors need to

know what that Z number is, and they need to make the decision whether they’re going

to invest their billions of dollars in this beautiful province or whether they’re

going to go somewhere else. They need certainty. They beg it. They deserve it.

I would go further to say that the Conservative Party believes in energy certainty,

in a stable, transparent framework that encourages innovation rather than punishes

it. I think we can get there together, and I’m very willing to do the work, without

question.

There is a concern…. Well, you know what? I already have said it. I don’t necessarily

disagree with limiting a particular high usage just because we do have a limited supply.

What I would suggest, and I already have said it, is that my concern is the transparency

of how that is done.

I would suggest an opportunity for those who may be affected to have a chance to consult

— that those from the opposition who have an interest, representing the people, have

an opportunity to consult, and the people, the citizens, who may or may not be affected

by the loss of infrastructure, the loss of jobs by banning that particular industry,

have an opportunity to consult. I believe that that’s our duty as people that stand

in this place of honour to remember who we report to. It’s the people of this province.

[1:45 p.m.]

I don’t want to belabour lessons from Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15. I think we’ve already

talked about those at length.

The retroactivity clause is another one that I’m looking forward to digging into.

That raises some questions in my mind as to why it’s necessary and why it is something

that…. If things were done in the proper manner as they were done, why do we have

to pass laws to cover them retroactively? That does concern me. That makes me think

that there’s something there that we need to look at significantly deeper, just for

the simple fact: why are we doing that? It doesn’t make sense to me.

I’m not sure why we have the ability to do that. What are the boundaries around it?

Can we go back and retroactively legislate something to 1969? Is that appropriate?

What happens to the people that were abiding by the law of the day? We change the

law retroactively; what peril might they be in? I would love to get into that a little

bit further on and understand it better.

I would also say that one of the…. I do agree with this, grid stability. Again, there

are many components to this that I do agree with. Grid stability, without question,

is going to be very important, without arguing.

The technical challenges deserve technical solutions, would be my suggestion, as opposed

to political ones. I provided a very viable and, I believe…. I haven’t run the numbers,

but instinctively, I’m quite convinced that the solution that I provided at the beginning

will provide ratepayers with a much more scalable version of electricity, at a much

lower cost.

I may be wrong, and I haven’t run the numbers, but I think why we’re going a route

of spending $6 billion, that we know of, before we put a shovel in the ground, on

a power line which would be questionable whether there’s any power to send through

it, relative to utilizing the cleanest source of natural gas on the planet that’s

already there, paid for by industry…. We’re subjecting the ratepayers to that $6 billion

bill, that we know of. Therein lies the concern for me, or one of the concerns.

I would go on to say that grid management should rely on tools like dynamic pricing,

which already does happen; time of use rates, which already does happen; infrastructure.

I would suggest from the previous statements that I made in the last few minutes that

there is a concern that we could be drifting from responsible energy planning to politicized

energy control. That’s something I’m very interested to work with the minister to

dissuade. It may very well just be a perception, and I hope that it is, but it’s something

that I feel that we should be looking into.

I’ve already talked about the retroactive validation. The precedent is a concern.

I used the extreme example of going back to 1969. Clearly, I don’t expect that, and

I think that is a ludicrous number, but it’s used as an illustration of potentially

what could happen. If it’s not, I would love to understand that mechanism as to how

it’s not possible.

Part of that I’ve already spoken to, legal irregularity automatically erased. If we

do it here, if that is a potential and if it happens here, where does it stop? How

do we stop it from happening?

I won’t beat that one to death. You’re lucky you only have me for six more minutes.

I would further state that our party’s vision is grounded in accountability, transparency

and respect for both economic opportunity and environmental stewardship. I know that

I’ve heard more than the minister say, on the opposite side, that we produce the cleanest

natural gas on the planet. I know we do. That was the industry I worked in for 30

years. I am proud of that industry.

[1:50 p.m.]

What is being portrayed in certain areas of the media is not what’s happening on the

ground. I live there. It’s not happening. I work there. It’s not. We have a world-class

supply of the cleanest natural gas on the planet, and it’s already at the coast.

I would say — which I already have; I’ll repeat — that I do not reject the goals of

this bill. I have concerns with the method about which it goes, and I hope I’ve done

a reasonable job of illustrating that. I would suggest that any arrangements that

are undertaken with this bill are overseen through transparency, that they’re reported

publicly and that they’re reviewed regularly. I think that’s quite reasonable.

I do believe in regulating high-load electricity consumers. I would suggest, which

I already have, that that needs to be done through an open process and not necessarily

driven by political ideology.

I know what I do for a living. I’m not ignorant to that fact. I know that political

ideology is a part of our life, but I’m also a very strongly science-based person.

I’m willing to forgo politics to make sure that the people of this province get the

best that they can, and I think everyone in this room knows that. So this is one of

the things that….

I will repeat this for the sixth time because everybody loves hearing it. Most of

us have agreed we produce the cleanest natural gas on the planet, and it already is

at the coast. I could keep repeating that for the next three minutes, I guess, if

you like.

I would suggest that the B.C. Utilities Commission should remain the impartial forum

for such determinations that we’ve already talked about and that cabinet is providing

policy direction only, not case-by-case authorization. That’s something I’d love to

delve into. I don’t know the answer to that at this point, but that’s part of the

process. That’s what I’d love to….

Deputy Speaker : Member, I just want to recognize the member for Maple Ridge East.

Larry Neufeld : Absolutely.

Lawrence Mok : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Lawrence Mok : In the gallery and behind me, we have a group of 15 students ranging all the way

from grade 1 to grade 7. They are being accompanied by about 15 adults. They are from

Ridge Meadows Home Learners organization. They are here today to visit the Parliament

Buildings and also to visit the Legislature, and hopefully they’ll go back with some

additional knowledge about parliamentary process.

A little bit about Ridge Meadows Home Learners. It is a 100 percent volunteer-run

group of home-learning families who plan and organize local events, meet-ups and field

trips throughout each school year for home-schooled children and their families.

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

Debate Continued

Larry Neufeld : I don’t know that I have explicitly stated this in the House before, but I will do

it now. I do believe in decarbonization. I do. I don’t believe in it being done at

the expense of competitiveness. I don’t believe in it being done overly expeditiously.

That costs people their ability to pay their bills. I do not believe in the economics

of not taking advantage of a gift, a financial gift, that this province has that is

sitting under our soil.

I would further state that British Columbia’s path to a sustainable energy future

lies in innovation, not prohibition. I do believe that this Legislature, not cabinet,

should remain the ultimate authority on the province’s energy direction, until I sit

on that side of the House.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’m going to move ahead here. Bill 31 is presented as an energy modernization bill

and, to a certain extent, it is such. I would say in substance, though, that there

is another

chapter that I’ve illustrated, or hopefully have, around the concern of

increasing centralized control.

I know for efficiency, there are rational thoughts why that is being done, and on

a certain level, it’s difficult to argue that. But I think there has to remain a very

strong oversight and a very strong ability for clarity and transparency.

What I’m going to state is that certainly, on this side of the House, we do support

the principles of reconciliation, sustainability and grid reliability, without question.

Where I find the challenge in endorsing the bill is the potential trade of accountability

for authority. I think that’s something that we can dig into in committee stage. The

minister is likely to remember that those were many of the questions I had during

Bill 14, and I will admit that most of them were answered to my satisfaction at the

time.

I would ask that the government reconsider its course, through amendments, and reaffirm

the role of this assembly and the B.C. Utilities Commission in protecting the energy

grid and the energy process.

With that, I will grant everyone here the privilege of me sitting down.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It’s always a pleasure to hear the member for Peace River South speak. Lots of eloquence.

Obviously, while we differ on many perspectives, it is always great to hear about

his perspectives, coming from industry as well. I think that’s important. I have always

appreciated the time that I have gotten the chance to spend with him.

It’s a great privilege to be able to rise in this House, and I want to do so by acknowledging

that I’m honoured to be here on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking Peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I want to acknowledge the shared territories where my riding, Langford-Highlands,

is from, the SC’IȺNEW̱ First Nation, T’Sou-ke, paaʔčiidʔatx̣ and MÁLEXEŁ First Nations, and thank them for the honour and privilege of being able

to live, play and work on these beautiful territories here in southern Vancouver Island.

It’s a real pleasure to be able to rise in this House and talk about this important

piece of legislation, Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, and begin by thanking

the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions for the leadership that he has provided

in this role to be able to bring forward a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation

piece of legislation that speaks to once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation project

that will deliver prosperity, jobs and opportunity for all British Columbians. That

is certainly what I want to touch on in the time that I have to be able to speak.

This is a project that, I expect, does not come up on the doorsteps in Langford-Highlands,

in the days and weeks ahead when I get back out door-knocking. In the time that I

have to speak — in my capacity as Minister of Forests and also, more importantly,

in my capacity as the representative for the people of Langford-Highlands — I want

to talk about what this project means for the people of Langford-Highlands; for all

British Columbians; for people in the North; and, in the context of what’s going on

in our country right now, for all Canadians as well.

As the minister referenced in his remarks when he opened debate just before lunch,

for one generation, it was the construction of hydro dams. For another, it was railways

that connected all of our communities. Here we are. Here we have an opportunity right

now where we are talking about clean energy infrastructure, a superpower for us here

in British Columbia that I believe, with this project, the North Coast transmission

line, is going to define the next century here in British Columbia.

The ability for us to be able to create good-paying jobs, family-supporting jobs and

the prosperity that is going to deliver for people all across this province, all across

this country….

[2:00 p.m.]

I’ve had the opportunity and the privilege as the Minister of Forests to get the opportunity

to tour parts of the northwest of our province. I often joke that I visited in the

winter, prepared for it to be very cold, and it was plus 4 the entire time. So I always

joke with the mayor of Terrace and mayor of Smithers that if it can be plus 4 in the

winter any time, I’ll be there. I’m a bit of a wimp when it comes to the cold weather.

The northwest, without a doubt, like much of the North, as I visited my colleague

from the northeast, faces many barriers and challenges, huge challenges. We’ve talked

about it in relation to forestry and curtailments of mills, closure of pulp mills.

There was a time when there were booming pulp mills in the northwest of our province.

The same can be said for forestry in the northeast as well in relation to mills operating

there.

Here we have an opportunity to talk about a piece of legislation that, from my perspective

and those on this side of the House, really has the opportunity to be able to build

and allow us…. In a time where we are facing arguably the most serious economic threat

our province has ever faced, certainly in my lifetime, here is an opportunity for

us to be able to stand up on our own two feet and make sure that we’re able to deliver

that prosperity that I think we all want for our families, our communities, our province

and our country.

There is extraordinary potential in northern British Columbia, but in particular,

in the case of northwest B.C., for critical minerals, for mining and for the ability

to be able to open up multiple mines. We’re not talking about one mine. We’re talking

about multiple mines. The ability for LNG…. As the member said, the cleanest, greenest

LNG in the world is found here in British Columbia, and that is something that I am

very proud of, as is the member opposite.

Also, the opportunity for forestry, for value-added manufacturing. There used to be

a real strong hub of forestry in northwestern British Columbia, but after destructive

policy changes in 2003, when we removed appurtenancy, we saw those forestry jobs and

that processing capacity leave northwestern British Columbia. I hope there is an ability

for us to be able to rebuild that, in addition to value-added manufacturing of all

kinds. There is huge potential here.

Again, it’s been a great honour and privilege for me as an MLA and as a Minister of

Forests to get the opportunity to be able to visit many of those communities, communities

that I never thought in a million years that I would get the pleasure of being able

to visit, and see the beauty that is British Columbia and see the people of British

Columbia hard at work delivering that prosperity.

This is what, in my eyes, the project, the North Coast transmission line, has the

potential for and will deliver. As the Minister of Mining will know, you can’t process

minerals or produce hydrogen or LNG on diesel forever. Here is the potential for us

to do that with clean, green electricity. That’s what this project delivers — that

ability to be able to create those jobs.

I want to talk a bit about…. I had an opportunity, as I was hearing the member across

the way speak, to jot down some notes about what I believe this project can deliver

for British Columbians.

First, I think it’s obvious from the conversations so far that this is going to bring

reliable, clean, green power to the northwest of this province, which is something

that has been a hurdle for growth in the northwest of our province.

Two, it’s going to enable electrification and help us reduce our emissions. We are

dealing with the threats of climate change all the time, and here is an opportunity

for us to be able to lead with a major project that still allows us to be able to

electrify and reduce our emissions.

It is evident when we talk about the North Coast transmission line that we are talking

about hundreds if not thousands of jobs created in construction. We are talking about

long-standing jobs that will result in billions in investments.

The fourth piece of it, as I was hearing the member across the way speak and the Minister

of Energy and Climate Solutions…. This project opens the door for billions of dollars

in activity in the northwest of our province here in British Columbia, new private

sector investment. This is the ability for the private sector to step up, to come

in and for us to open the doors wide and say: “Make your investments here in British

Columbia. Create good-paying jobs here in B.C.”

[2:05 p.m.]

I think, to wrap it all up, this project, the North Coast transmission line, the work

that we’re doing with this legislation before the House, has the ability to be able

to create that long-term economic security that I would argue we probably all hear,

as members of this House, from our communities…. I’m surprised. Nine minutes in, and

I haven’t mentioned his name yet, Donald Trump, and the threat he has put on our province,

our country, the entire world.

The Minister of Jobs often talks about how during the first term of Trump’s presidency,

his goal was to build a wall between his country, the United States, and Mexico. Second

term of his presidency, he is building a wall around the United States to keep everything

away from the United States.

This is a project, the North Coast transmission line, that is a game-change, not just

for northwestern British Columbia, not just for the north of B.C., not just for British

Columbia alone. This is a project that is a game-changer for all of Canada.

As the minister has said a number of times in this House and outside of this House,

as the Premier has said in countless visits to Ottawa and at press conferences, this

is a project that is in the national interest. This is a nation-building project.

This is a project that should be outlined very clearly by the Prime Minister as a

nation-building project and should be referred to the major projects office.

We spend an awful lot of time talking about fictional projects like fictional pipelines,

where you’ve got $14 million set up by the government of Alberta to create more of

a PR company than to actually deliver jobs and prosperity. This is a project that

delivers jobs. This is a project that delivers prosperity. It is not fictional. It

is real, and it is going to happen because here you have a government that is focused,

determined and ready to bring it forward.

That is something that excites me. That’s what excites me for the ability to be able

to speak to this project.

As I touched upon in my earlier remarks, this project is about delivering economic

opportunity and regional growth. I want to again highlight the important work that

is already happening in the northwest of our province but also the potential for more.

I used to be a staffer, now a minister. I’ve planned many travels. I’ve spoken to

a lot of people about the northwest. I have yet to visit Prince Rupert. I’ve always

got the open invitation from my colleague the Minister of Environment. I look forward

to doing that in the days and weeks ahead. I feel like I fully understand Prince Rupert

because I’ve learned so much about it, but it’s one thing to read about it in a book

or to listen to someone on a Zoom call. It’s another thing to have boots on the ground.

Prince Rupert is an economic hub not just for British Columbia but for Canada. What

this project means is access to power for a community like Prince Rupert. This project

means expanding port capacity. I believe that the Port of Prince Rupert, which is

already an economic hub, has the ability to become the greenest trade hub in the entire

world. This project sets the Port of Prince Rupert up for success across the northwest.

As my colleague the Minister of Mining talks about, this project has the ability to

attract new investments in critical minerals, critical minerals that Canadians not

only rely on but that the entire world, including the United States, relies on. This

is what this project is all about.

In the context of forestry, I want to highlight a particular project that I think

has the ability to be able to benefit from this project, and that is the work that

the Kitsumkalum First Nation is doing. Skeena Sawmills went bankrupt not too long

ago, went through bankruptcy proceedings. Who stepped up and purchased Skeena Sawmills,

without a dime from government, was a First Nation called the Kitsumkalum First Nation.

The member from the Fourth Party may want to take note of this.

The Kitsumkalum First Nation stepped up. They took the investments that they had made

in other projects and other economic opportunities, and they bailed the northwest

out. They bailed the town of Terrace out. They went in on their own and purchased

the tenure and purchased that aging, decrepit mill called Skeena Sawmills. They have

made the commitment, by pouring the investments into that purchase, to say: “We are

not only going to create jobs for our residents; we are going to create jobs and prosperity

for Terrace and the entire northwest of our province.”

[2:10 p.m.]

That is First Nations not sitting on the sidelines. That is First Nations saying:

“We want to create jobs not just for our members but for every British Columbian.”

I am so proud to work with the Kitsumkalum First Nation. They have gone above and

beyond as a nation in wanting to serve the entire province, to want to create that

prosperity.

Chief Troy Sam and I often have conversations. I’m actually hoping he’s going to be

joining me on my trade mission to Japan next month to talk about the potential for

his mill when it’s back up and operating, to be able to be a trade destination for

the Japanese and for South Korea as well. Chief Sam is a visionary. Diane Collins,

one of his lead project managers on this, is a visionary.

This is the type of work that they’re doing to be able to benefit people in the northwest,

and this project gives them hope. That mill is old. I’ve had a chance to visit it,

and one of the biggest hurdles is the state of that mill. The ability that that nation

has to want to get it back up and operating…. They’re harvesting every single day.

It’s a very difficult land base to go out and harvest. I think about 60 percent to

70 percent of much of their territory is pulp logs, which does not bode well, especially

when you look at the price of pulp logs these days and you don’t have the capacity

for production right now. They are stepping up.

When I think of this legislation, the North Coast transmission line — and I know we

talk about mining in relation to this project; I know we talk about LNG — I’m thinking

about forestry and the potential to be able to rebuild our forest sector that declined

when the B.C. Liberals were in charge on this side of the House. I’m talking about

the potential for us to be able to create those good-paying jobs in forestry once

again.

There are hard-working loggers working in the northwest of our province every single

day. We want to create an opportunity for them to be able to take those logs and not

send them out of this province, not send them out as raw logs but to process those

and to be able to create world-class wood products closer to home. I am so excited

about that. I am so excited about the leadership that the Kitsumkalum First Nation

is showing.

I have to reiterate it again, because we often hear in this House criticisms of First

Nations, slowing us down. You hear really ruthless remarks from the OneBC Party. But

here you have a First Nation that is leading the way, that is making investments that

are not just benefiting them but benefiting all British Columbians. That makes me

proud to be able to work with a guy like Chief Sam and to be able to work with the

Kitsumkalum First Nation.

This project is about building the backbone for an entire industry, the clean energy

economy for northern British Columbia and the entire country. I think there is potential

when we talk about the relationship with Alberta. There is potential when we talk

about the relationship with Yukon. This project, as I’ve said a number of times inside

this House and out, is a nation-building project.

The partnerships with First Nations, seeing the benefits in forestry that I’ve had….

There was a time when First Nations would be sitting off on the sidelines, seeing

harvesting activities happen in their territories and not getting the opportunity

to be a part of those or to reap the benefits from those, and then seeing people come

in — 30, 40, 50 years ago — and just go out and clear-cut and gut the land, and then

for them to face the consequences of what comes afterwards.

I am proud to be the Minister of Forests here in British Columbia that just saw, not

too long ago, 20 percent of the tenure here in British Columbia in the hands of First

Nations. These are nations that are leading the way in forestry. These are nations

that…. I think of my friend Chief Lindsay Tighe from the Shackan Indian Band, who

is creating good-paying jobs in Merritt and the Nicola Valley region. I think of Chief

George Lampreau, who is leading the way in a visionary approach to forestry, bringing

people together.

When I think of Chief Lampreau, I think of a true leader who is not just focused on

his nation; he is focused on the entire Thompson and Nicola Valley region. My opposition

critic from Kamloops–North Thompson and I often talk about what it would be like if

Chief Lampreau was in charge of this province. Things would be moving, I’m sure, even

quicker, because he has that vision, and it excites me for the ability to be able

to work with him.

I know he is excited about projects like this and projects that create the ability

for us to be able to lift people up, and that’s what this is about.

Also, I think it’s important for us to acknowledge the important work that goes into

environmental stewardship, the protection of salmon, the protection of caribou and

other critical habitats as well.

[2:15 p.m.]

I am very proud of the work that goes on in my ministry, and I know the Minister of

Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is as well — of the work that we’re doing to

protect our land base, the work that we’re doing on preserving 30 percent of our land

base by 2030. This is work that has been happening over the course of our time in

government, because it matters. There are economic benefits that come from this environmental

stewardship, but there’s also so much work that goes on in ensuring that future generations

get the opportunity to benefit from this as well.

First Nations have told me in my visits throughout British Columbia that access to

power is the foundation for economic prosperity. I heard that loud and clear from

nations in the northwest. This is what this project delivered for them.

Again, from my perspective, and I think all members on this side of the House would

agree and, I hope, most of the members on the other side…. I know the Leader of the

Fourth Party will not agree with it. This legislation is

an act of reconciliation.

This legislation is about shared prosperity.

There is a leader in this House…. It’s a sad excuse that that leader is recognized

as a political party. It should not be a political party in this House. But this is

about shared prosperity. This is about reconciliation. This is about building all

of us up. We cannot afford to go backwards. That’s what happens when we elect people

to sit in this House that want to take us backwards.

I think it is upon all of us as legislators to ensure that someone like the Leader

of the Fourth Party never gets the opportunity to sit on this side of the House. I

know I will make it my mission in life for as long as I am breathing and living in

British Columbia to ensure that that person over there never sits on this side of

the House.

This is about reconciliation. This is about shared prosperity. This is about building

each other up. This is what the North Coast transmission line is all about, something

I’m very excited about.

I want to talk about workers and communities in the time that I have left. I want

to talk about the fact that every major project in British Columbia must create prosperity

for our province. I want to talk about the good-paying jobs that this project will

create, the apprenticeship programs, the local hiring opportunities. This project

will put British Columbians to work.

I think of those that have been working on the pipeline. I think of those that have

been working on LNG Canada phase 1. I think of those that were working, as the member

opposite touched on, in his constituency on Site C. I’m thinking about the electricians,

the heavy-equipment operators, the engineers, the technicians. This is going to have

a lasting economic ripple effect in the entire province of British Columbia and the

entire country.

I’m not just thinking about those jobs. I’m particularly excited about those jobs

because I’ve got a little brother that made the decision to go in the trades. I think

of people like him and his friends that are in the trades right now when they see

projects like this. I think of the people in the IBEW. I think of the B.C. Building

Trades, which has been a long, strong advocate for creating opportunities for prosperity

for its membership.

I want to thank Brynn Bourke and the B.C. Building Trades for holding us accountable,

for supporting our government in making sure that we can bring forward legislation

like this that creates good-paying jobs for their members, jobs that will not just

benefit those living in the northwest of our province. I think people in all of our

ridings will get the opportunity to be able to go up and work on this project.

Every mill, every facility that connects to clean electricity instead of diesel cuts

greenhouse gases. This is what climate action looks like. This is not just tangible

results in the case of setting targets. This is real action that we as a government

are taking in building the economy, moving forward. That’s something that I’m very

excited about.

I’ll just conclude with this. In my conversations in the northwest of this province….

I’m going to extend it all over the place. I have had the privilege of getting the

opportunity, as the Minister of Forests, to be able to visit almost every corner of

this province. From the North, that often feels very disconnected from government

for obvious reasons….

We don’t spend enough time in the North. I often say that to my colleagues. We need

to get out and spend more time in communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

I particularly want to thank the member for Peace River South for the time that he

spent with me in his community, as well as the member for Peace River North. That

was a real eye-opener for me, getting a chance to be able to visit their communities,

getting a chance to do the drive right from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson and all the

way back down, getting a chance to visit the beautiful province that is British Columbia

but also getting to meet the people that make up this province as well.

I’ve heard from people in the North — mayors, Chiefs, business owners, workers, young

people — that they want to be a part of the clean energy future that we’re building

here in British Columbia. They don’t want this to be something just for the Lower

Mainland or just for the Island. They want this to be something that brings our entire

province together.

This project, the North Coast transmission line, is our answer to that call. It is

our answer to their call of wanting to come together to be able to build what is going

to be a major project, not just for our province but for our entire country.

As the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions acknowledged in his remarks, as I

think of this project, I think back to the leaders that once sat in this House. I

think of W.A.C. Bennett, former Premier of this province for decades, who, as the

minister touched on, is a big reason why we have the success with B.C. Hydro.

I think of one of my predecessors, Dave Barrett, who had the opportunity to represent

much of the West Shore, from Esquimalt all the way out to Port Renfrew — the work

that he did and the leaders that sat in this House during those periods in the ’60s

and ’70s when we were building those major projects.

Here we have the opportunity to look to the path forward. I often talk about this

in the context of forestry, but I want to talk about this not just in the context

of forestry but for everything as it relates to the natural resources sector and to

our province and to our economy, moving forward, especially in the context of what

we’re dealing with, with Donald Trump’s presidency.

Here we have an opportunity before us. We have an opportunity and a path forward.

There are people that are trying to take us backwards, without a doubt. We all know

who they are. Here we have the ability to build the path forward for us.

I think for British Columbians, many of them are asking themselves right now…. The

path forward is rocky. Without a doubt, it is rocky. But I think there are many British

Columbians right now who don’t know what the path forward is.

I want them to know that with the North Coast transmission line, this is just one

major initiative that we are building to ensure that we can have that strong path

forward, that we don’t go backwards, that we move forward in a way that creates good-paying

jobs for British Columbians, that provides the prosperity that our economy needs to

be successful in every corner of this province, the prosperity that gives young people

hope to know that when they’re going to school in the trades, they’re going to have

good-paying jobs.

They’re not going to get layoff notices project after project. They are going to have

the ability to be able to create a good life for themselves, a life where they can

work hard, be successful and live a really good life, where they can raise a family,

buy a home and live a life that everyone is proud of.

That is the hope that I have in the people of Langford-Highlands. That is a hope that

I know that all of us have on this side of the House for the people of British Columbia.

The North Coast transmission line has the potential to build prosperity, to build

the economic engine that our province is and to ensure that our province will be the

economic engine of our new Canada. This is the work that we’re doing on this side

of the House. This is the work I’m excited about. I’m excited about the potential

that the North Coast transmission line has.

Once again I want to thank the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions for his leadership

that he has shown in this House, for being able to come and tackle big problems and

be able to come forward and bring solutions to the table.

To the people of Langford-Highlands, you may not know right now what the North Coast

transmission line is. But I want you to know…. When you think about the North Coast

transmission line, I want you to think of two things: jobs and prosperity. Jobs for

people in British Columbia. Jobs for Canadians. Prosperity for all of us. Prosperity

that delivers for families, and prosperity that ensures that we can pay for the services

that all British Columbians rely on — new schools, health care for all. That’s what

this project is all about.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to be able to speak to Bill 31. I hope all members

of the House will support Bill 31 and ensure that we can build those jobs, build that

prosperity for all British Columbians.

[2:25 p.m.]

Jordan Kealy : As I rise today, I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Forests for his trip

up north. I appreciate the fact that he did come up and see my region. I don’t necessarily

agree with some of the rhetoric about parties. I am here as an independent, and I

represent my constituents.

I come from the region where we produce 38 percent of the province’s hydroelectric

power. We produce the most hydroelectric power out of any region in the province.

There are ripple effects when it comes to energy production and the types of energy

production that we produce in the province. That’s one of the things that I’d like

to bring up when we look at certain projects like this, especially major infrastructure

that we look to build with taxpayers’ dollars.

My region just saw the construction of Site C. The ripple effect was flooding 7,000

hectares of agricultural land that was very important to our region, and it was a

loss that we faced. There are consequences when it comes to building certain things.

We hear talks about clean energy. Nothing is truly clean, especially when we talk

about wind turbines and the effects of them. Most people don’t think about the turbines

themselves and what it takes to make them, to maintain them, what goes into them,

the concrete that goes into making them and the reclamation effort afterwards — whether

or not there is planning in place or whether or not it’s going on agricultural land

and you’re displacing agricultural land, or the displacement of the property values

that might be around it when you end up putting items like that on the land.

We have Site C. We have Peace Canyon dam. We have Williston Lake dam. I wanted to

be able to speak about some of the projects and the stability of power and how it’s

created. Power isn’t just power when you flick on your light switch. When you have

certain power generation, you have stable power generation.

You can have erratic power generation. Solar and wind are erratic power generation.

When it goes into the grid, it is not stable. It is not constant. Certain projects

that we have around the province, which is amazing…. We’re fortunate to have hydroelectricity,

and I’m grateful that our province is so bountiful with those projects.

We have to look at projects far to the future of what will provide that constant,

stable power generation that can actually power major lines that are being contemplated

going to the west, reliable and constant stable generation.

We need major energy projects, not little inconsistent ones. When Site C came into

place, it was already fully taxed and on demand. My colleague across the aisle brought

up the issues that we’re facing and that we have to buy electricity from other provinces

or from our largest trading partner, to the south, and whether or not we can rely

on these partners for power, especially if we or if those other countries or provinces

start bringing in major data centres that consume huge power loads. We have to think

about our own grid.

I would highly urge that we look at major power generation that is constant. One example

is….

The Minister of Forests. I urge him that when they come up for a caucus meeting, I

would love to be able to take them up to Fort Nelson. Fort Nelson has an abundance

of dry natural gas. It is perfect for power generation. It may not have the condy

in it. That is what makes the Monte basin to the south so rich. It has the condensate

as well as the gas and is perfect for that transmission of the natural gas going to

the coast. At the same time, they get the condensate that is worth a lot of money.

[2:30 p.m.]

In Fort Nelson, they’ve got a lot of nice dry natural gas that we can harvest for

co-gen facilities that can generate natural, environmentally sustainable, constant

power. We need large power generation before we contemplate putting in other big projects.

When you look at this power generation, if you use natural gas, it’s environmentally

friendly when you use these turbines. It can actually have regeneration systems attached

to it where you can heat towns alongside them at the same time as generating power

for the grid.

At the same time, we’re looking at electrifying oil and gas facilities that already

use natural gas, to power these facilities that are very efficient. They use turbines

already. They’re almost as efficient as electrifying them. I think it’s a falsehood

to say that we should electrify them and say that it’s environmentally friendly, because

it isn’t efficient to use taxpayer-funded dollars to actually provide or to put in

transmission lines to electrify these facilities when they can stay producing environmentally

power-generated to transmit the product that they’re already moving. They’re currently

in place, doing this already.

I rise today to strongly oppose Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025,

a bill that, behind its technical language, represents one of the most concerning

expansions of cabinet power over our public utilities and provincial assets in recent

memory.

At first glance, the bill appears administrative, an update to the Hydro and Power

Authority Act and the Utilities Commission Act. But when you look closer, it reveals

a government that is quietly centralizing control, reducing oversight and creating

conditions for selective economic favouritism without public consultation, debate

or transparency.

Part 1 of this bill creates a new framework for North Coast transmission line ownership.

It allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council, meaning cabinet, to designate any agreement

between B.C. Hydro and a First Nation as legally binding and enforceable, even retroactively.

That means cabinet can take any past or future deal involving our publicly owned transmission

lines and make it law after the fact without bringing it before this Legislature,

without independent review and without public disclosure.

This government is writing itself a blank cheque. It’s saying, “We can validate any

agreement we want whenever we want,” that British Columbians don’t get to question

it. That is not reconciliation. That is rule by executive order.

We all want reconciliation done right, built on transparency, fairness and shared

prosperity. But when you start handing out ownership of taxpayer-funded infrastructure

behind closed doors, without accountability, you erode public trust and weaken the

very foundation of democratic oversight.

The second half of this bill is equally troubling. It gives cabinet the authority

to prohibit, restrict or regulate electricity use for certain activities — namely,

cryptocurrency mining, artificial intelligence, data processing and hydrogen production

for export.

Now, I understand the need for energy management and sustainability, but this bill

doesn’t set out a policy that gives the government a mechanism to control who can

access power indefinitely and at their own discretion. This is not energy planning.

It is economic gatekeeping.

[2:35 p.m.]

Cabinets could decide tomorrow that one data centre or crypto operation can operate

while another cannot. It could impose punitive rates on a business it disapproves

of while rewarding those it favours. It could reshape entire industries through regulation,

with no accountability and no appeal.

When B.C. Hydro loses revenue because of these political decisions, who makes up the

difference? The ratepayer? Families? Small businesses already struggling under the

highest cost of living in the country?

This bill allows the cabinet to pick winners and losers in our economy and then pass

the bill to the people. This is part of a growing pattern under this government where

the concentration of power replaces principles and accountability.

We’ve seen that in previous bills that have passed in this House, with Bills 14, 15,

7. It seems a regular trend that bills are taking power further and further out of

the House. This House is meant to have discussions, where we pass bills, to bring

them into the House to be able to view them and talk about them, no matter what they’re

about.

We saw it in the Land Act consultations that sought to hand over Crown land authority

by regulation. We see it again here — a slow, methodical transfer of control away

from the Legislature and into the hands of the cabinet and unelected bureaucrats.

Bill 31 isn’t just about hydro lines or hydrogen exports. It’s about who controls

the levers of our economy — the people, through their representatives, or a small

circle of ministers and appointees operating behind closed doors.

A more practical approach to energy and governance is simple. I believe in clear laws,

transparent processes and equal treatment under them. I believe in power in communities,

not bureaucracies. I believe that reconciliation, when done honestly, must include

every British Columbian, not just those with access to a cabinet table.

Bill 31 fails on all three counts. It opens the doors to selective energy rationing,

the quiet privatization of Crown assets and then retroactive legalization of deals

the public never approved. It erases checks and balances that exist to protect citizens,

and it does so under the guise of modernization.

This bill may be called an Energy Statutes Amendment Act, but what it really amends

is the balance of power in British Columbia, tilting it firmly away from the people

and into the hands of the executive. For that reason, the protection of democracy

and accountability in this province, I stand in firm opposition to Bill 31.

Stephanie Higginson : I rise today to speak in support of Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. The

bill launches a bold set of actions designed to drive investment in British Columbia

that will grow the economy, diversify markets, create new jobs, enabling province-

and nation-building projects that will unlock the full economic potential of northern

and coastal B.C. It represents a triangulation of this government’s goals for clean

energy, sustainable development and reconciliation.

This is progressive governance in action, governance that doesn’t focus on profit

for a small number of people but makes sure that large projects generate meaningful

partnerships and shared economic prosperity for all British Columbians.

We are at a pivotal moment in our province. As we pivot towards clean energy, sustainable

development and reconciliation, this bill offers a tangible pathway to align those

three imperative goals.

[2:40 p.m.]

This project isn’t just about wires and transmission lines. It’s about building meaningful

participation, ownership and economic sovereignty for Indigenous people in British

Columbia. This bill offers economic prosperity unseen for projects of this nature

before. It will fast-track the construction of the North Coast transmission line from

Prince George to Terrace out to Bob Quinn Lake, and it will unlock tens of billions

of dollars in real shovel-ready industrial projects across northwestern British Columbia.

Bill 31 introduces a new electricity allocation framework. Rather than a first-come,

first-served system for connections to the grid, the province will prioritize industries

that create the greatest benefits for British Columbia, such as mining, manufacturing

and critical minerals. At the same time, it signals limits or controls on power-intensive

uses like data centres or crypto mining that may consume large volumes of electricity

but deliver comparatively fewer local jobs and public revenue.

The legislation enables meaningful growth of industrial electricity demand in a way

that is aligned with job creation and public revenue and aims to anchor that growth

in B.C.’s interests and align this growth with our goal of meaningful reconciliation

with B.C.’s First Nations, across whose territory this project will move.

This project will create key economic opportunities for all British Columbians. The

North Coast transmission line, as I said earlier, is estimated to unlock tens of billions

of dollars in real shovel-ready industrial projects in this province. According to

one analysis, once operational it could contribute nearly $10 billion annually to

British Columbia’s GDP and create almost 10,000 direct full-time jobs. Those are not

just numbers. They are meaningful employment, tax revenues, regional development and

strong communities.

The president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia stated: “As a

nation-building project that will bring clean electricity to mining projects in the

northwest and central B.C., the North Coast transmission line will strengthen Canada’s

position as a leading global supplier of critical minerals and metals.” This is nation-building.

That’s leadership. That’s why B.C. had 40 percent of the federal government’s nation-building

projects.

This project will harness B.C.’s competitive advantages. Here in B.C., we have access

to relatively clean, abundant electricity. We have major natural resource endowments

like critical minerals, mining and forestry. Bill 31 shifts the policy to ensure that

we harness these advantages in a way that creates local benefit. The new allocation

regime aims to ensure that when energy-intensive projects connect, they do so with

the purpose of jobs, long-term economic development and public revenues.

This project will foster innovation while protecting priorities. Emerging industries

like AI, data centres, hydrogen export are part of the future. Bill 31 allows for

these but subordinates them to B.C.’s broader economic interests, assuring that energy

use does not crowd out more job-rich industries and that growth is anchored in benefit,

not just in the consumption of power.

This project will ensure regional development and fairness. The North Coast transmission

line and the associated infrastructure create the possibility of increased investment

in north and coastal regions, helping to reduce regional disparity and build more

widespread economic prosperity, unlocking the long-known, underutilized potential

of these regions. This government has a vision and is taking action to turn that vision

into reality.

This bill ensures that we can build these lines while protecting affordability and

sustainability. Ensuring that economic growth doesn’t compromise affordability of

electricity for households and businesses is critical. Bill 31’s framework works to

maintain that the public interest is paramount by anchoring decisions to benefit B.C.

citizens.

Deputy Speaker : Member, we have the committee on Bill 17 ready to report.

Stephanie Higginson : I reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

Stephanie Higginson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[2:45 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 17 — Intimate Images Protection

Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat :

Section A reports Bill 17 complete with amendment.

Deputy Speaker : When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Next sitting.

Deputy Speaker : So ordered.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : In

Section A, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 18, Sexual Violence Policy Act.

In the main chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 31, Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

Stephanie Higginson : Bill 31’s framework works to maintain that the public interest is paramount by anchoring

decisions in benefit to B.C. citizens, not just an energy-for-anything mindset that

we have seen have a negative impact in other parts of Canada.

While other jurisdictions have been challenged to address electricity demands and,

in many cases, have placed significant rate increases on the backs of ratepayers,

B.C. is taking a unique and proactive approach to avoid the missteps seen in other

jurisdictions and establish a publicly owned electricity system as the backbone of

a growing economy. The framework intends to maintain standard industrial rates for

approved projects and to ensure electricity remains affordable for households and

businesses.

I have a vision of the future with a Bill 31 that’s fully implemented. A mining or

critical minerals project sets up in northern B.C., drawing power via the North Coast

transmission line. It creates hundreds of jobs directly and thousands indirectly in

supply, in logistics and services. Electricity remains affordable for households and

small businesses even as we expand industrial demand. Because the infrastructure is

planned, the costs are managed.

The benefits are anchored in the province and shared with the local First Nations.

Regions that previously had limited infrastructure benefit. There are new roads; new

grid access; new investment spillovers into housing, schools and local services; record-breaking

investments into the north of B.C., unlocking the potential that previous governments

have ignored because it was too complicated.

This is what vision looks like. Because of this, the province strengthens its economic

platform, clean energy and natural resources, and value-added manufacturing rather

than simply raw resource extraction. Most importantly is that produced economic benefit

flows back into the communities via taxes, jobs and local business opportunities,

rather than being captured entirely by external interests, because this is what it

looks like when progressive governments are put to work for British Columbians.

I urge everyone to support Bill 31 with the view that this is not just a law about

energy. It is an economic transformation. We approve this because it sets the stage

for sustained growth, for new jobs, for First Nations, for regional and local prosperity.

To the citizens of northern and coastal British Columbia: this government recognizes

the possibilities that you offer to British Columbians. New possibilities for yourself,

for your children, for your grandchildren. Increased employment, stronger communities

and more equitable economic opportunities.

This bill is a statement about where British Columbia wants to go. It says we want

to use our advantages, our clean energy, our natural resources, our human capital,

not just to export raw value or pay lip service to growth but to build economic prosperity

for all of British Columbia. It says we want jobs, we want investments, we want regional

fairness, we want future-facing industries.

When we pass this legislation, we are not simply writing rules about electricity.

We are choosing to step into a future where our economy grows, our communities strengthen,

our regions prosper and our people have more opportunity. Let us pass this bill and

build the British Columbia that works for all of us, now and into the future.

Dallas Brodie : Energy is fundamental to human flourishing. Since the days of Wacky Bennett, when

we built the W.A.C. Bennett dam on the Peace River and signed the Columbia River treaty,

British Columbia has been an energy-rich province, a province of abundance and prosperity.

But that seems to be a thing of the past.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 31 is an SOS to British Columbia. It is a hazard light signalling a stark and

unbelievable reality. British Columbia is now an energy-scarce province, and the focus

of this bill is centralization and allocation of scarcity rather than the construction

of abundance. Oh, for the leadership of W.A.C. Bennett today.

Just the other day Barry Penner at the Energy Futures Institute noted: “The government

has admitted there is a backlog of new power demand amounting to more than six times

the total capacity of the Site C dam.” Yes, that’s six Site C dams.

Bill 31 does two major things. One, it rations what’s left over of the power to political

allies. Two, it gives away equity in multi-billion-dollar transmission lines to Indigenous

bands. Not surprisingly, the cost of the line has now doubled from $3 billion to $6

billion.

Today, after decades of failed NDP and Liberal mismanagement, British Columbia is

more dependent than ever on the United States for our basic energy security. B.C.

Hydro has become a major net importer of electricity from the United States, where

most of their electricity is generated from fossil fuels. Oh, the irony.

But here’s the thing. Legislating scarcity is not the answer. Abundance is the answer.

The NDP and Liberals have turned us from being an energy superpower into being an

energy weakling. Rather than distributing power equally and without prejudice, Bill

31 will allocate based on political alignment. This fact is as certain as the day

is long.

I will be voting no on this communist Bill 31, which seeks to centralize power in

the hands of the government and unelected officials and give preference to friends

and insiders.

David Williams : First off, before I start, I’d just like to say I’m here to debate, unlike some members

across the aisle who want to disparage other members and other parties. The second

thing, I’ve heard that W.A.C. Bennett referenced multiple times by multiple people,

and I’d like to remind that he was a conservative visionary for sure.

It is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment

Act, 2025. This legislation touches on two pillars of British Columbia’s energy future:

the relationship between B.C. Hydro and Indigenous partners and the growing challenge

of managing new industrial power demands in an era of constrained generation and rising

electrification goals.

This bill is short on paper but long on consequences. It rewrites how our province

can share ownership in transmission infrastructure and how it can decide which industries

get access to that electricity. Both of those powers could shape our energy landscape

for decades to come.

British Columbians deserve to know exactly what that means for their communities,

their power bills, their economic opportunities. While we are told to electrify everything

— our cars, our homes, our industries — B.C. Hydro itself is warning that firm power

is tightening and that we currently face shortfalls. Often we are importing. In that

contradiction lies the heart of this bill, more control but no capacity guarantees.

Over the past several years, British Columbia has seen a rapid change in how energy

is generated, transmitted and consumed. We are electrifying vehicles, homes, industries

while trying to maintain affordability for taxpayers.

[2:55 p.m.]

At the same time, we face the emergence of entirely new classes of power users — cryptocurrency

miners, artificial intelligence data centres and hydrogen production facilities built

to serve export. These industries can consume much more electricity than entire municipalities.

Many can appear within a very short time frame, and if unregulated, they can jeopardize

grid reliability. That is the backdrop of Bill 31.

Everyone in this chamber agrees that we must manage the growth of these power-intensive

industries carefully, but how we do it and who makes those decisions matters just

as much as the outcome.

While the goals of this bill may appear reasonable on the surface, the mechanism it

introduces is deeply concerning. Bill 31 concentrates extraordinary authority in the

hands of cabinet, authority to decide which industries may receive electricity, which

agreements are legally binding and which projects will move forward, without the scrutiny

of the B.C. Utilities Commission to the public.

This is not shared governance. This is centralized control. It replaces transparent,

evidence-based regulation with ministerial discretion. When decisions are made behind

closed doors, determining who may receive power and on what terms, that’s not energy

planning. That’s executive command.

You know, Indigenous cooperation and equity is certainly something that I and the

party support. No one in this House disputes the importance of Indigenous participation

in major infrastructure. True reconciliation must include equity.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

However, Bill 31 gives cabinet the unilateral right to designate partnership agreements

under

section 12.1 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act, agreements that then become

valid despite any other law. There is no requirement for disclosure, no legislative

review, no assurance of fiscal transparency. That’s disturbing. That’s also not reconciliation.

That’s governance by decree.

True partnership demands transparency. Communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous

alike, deserve to know how equity is valued, how revenue is shared and what liabilities

Hydro may assume on their behalf. Without those details, we risk repeating past mistakes.

We’ve seen partnerships built on enthusiasm but undermined by confidentiality, leaving

communities uncertain about the real benefits.

Let’s be clear. Indigenous co-ownership should mean shared decision-making, not delegated

risk. It should create lasting revenue streams for First Nations, not the possibility

of additional liabilities for ratepayers. But by allowing cabinet to bypass all safeguards

— financial, regulatory and procedural — this invites mistrust.

In my region, I’ve seen the value of honest partnerships. When projects like hydro

expansions and transmission upgrades are developed through open consultation, they

bring jobs, skills and local pride. But when those decisions are made in secrecy,

they divide communities. Reconciliation done well unites. Reconciliation done poorly

divides. This bill risks the latter because it trades accountability for expedience.

The second half of this Bill 31 amends the Utilities Commission Act to give government

near total control over who gets access to electricity. Under the new

section 21.1,

cabinet may prohibit, restrict, as a condition of power of supply to any class of

customer, including cryptocurrency, AI data centres and hydrogen producers, and may

define those classes however it chooses.

There is no requirement for public consultation, no obligation for BCUC review and

no appeal process. These are all deeply disturbing.

[3:00 p.m.]

This means entire sectors could be shut out of power access through regulation alone,

without notice, without hearing and without a single page of evidence tabled in this

House.

We all agree that British Columbia’s limited clean power must serve the public interest

first, but that principle should be applied transparently through the Utilities Commission,

not by political order in council behind closed doors.

Let’s think about who gets caught in that web. It won’t just be massive crypto operations.

It could be small rural manufacturers, food processors or data service firms who get

swept into the same regulatory class because of vague

definitions.

In my own region, there is already a struggle to secure adequate interconnection from

Hydro. If cabinet starts rationing power access without consultation, rural B.C. will

be the first to lose out. It could be the small and medium businesses that keep local

economies thriving.

Once again the unintended victim will be the people farthest from Victoria, which

brings us to unintended consequences. The consequences of this approach reach far

beyond stated targets.

Investor uncertainty. No global company will commit billions to a data, hydrogen or

manufacturing facility if its access to electricity can be rescinded by regulation

at any moment.

Regional inequity. Northern and Interior communities that were once promised new jobs

from transmission expansion may find the customers for that power restricted after

the lines are built.

Fiscal exposure. If Hydro finances Indigenous equity through borrowed funds or guaranteed

returns, those obligations will fall back on ratepayers when projects are delayed

or cancelled. We know how that goes.

Innovation risk. When government policy becomes unpredictable, innovation doesn’t

stop. It simply moves. It moves to a different jurisdiction. Emerging industries will

develop in Alberta, Washington, Alaska — all instead of here.

Precedent. Once cabinet can pick winners and losers in one sector, what prevents any

future government from using the same power for others? Forestry, mining, agriculture.

Do we want to go there? This is how uncertainty spreads through an economy, quietly

through regulation rather than legislation.

Let’s move on to the role of the Utilities Commission. For decades, the B.C. Utilities

Commission has been our province’s safeguard against arbitrary decisions. It ensures

that rates, projects and industrial customers are assessed through evidence, consultation

and, hopefully, fairness.

Bill 31 sidelines that process. It replaces open hearings with confidential cabinet

discussions and regulatory control. It tells British Columbians, “trust us,” rather

than “show me the numbers.”

The B.C. Utilities Commission was created precisely because past governments tried

to micromanage Hydro decisions. Guess what. They failed. It was meant to depolarize

energy planning, to make sure that Hydro served the public interest, not a political

interest. This bill unravels that protection and sets us back decades.

If government wants flexibility, it can be achieved without secrecy. Fast-tracked

reviews, emergency exemptions or even conditional approvals — these are all tools

that already exist within the BCUC framework. There’s no reason to replace them with

cabinet authorization.

[3:05 p.m.]

I love transparency and accountability. If the government truly believes that this

authority is necessary, then at minimum, it should require annual public reporting

on all designations and regulations made under sections 12.1 and 21.1. It should table

fiscal summaries for Hydro’s partnership liabilities. It should mandate BCUC review

before any new industrial restrictions take effect.

None of these safeguards appear in this bill. If the government refuses to take those

steps, then this isn’t about flexibility. It’s about control.

For communities across the Interior and the North, this bill raises practical concerns.

We all want to see economic opportunity flow from projects like the northwest transmission

line, but those benefits will only materialize if industry has the confidence to invest.

By giving cabinet the power to revoke or restrict supply without oversight, the bill

may deter precisely the development it seeks to manage. When power access becomes

political, businesses don’t gamble. They leave. That means fewer projects, less jobs,

less tax revenue and, ultimately, higher rates for those left here.

In rural British Columbia, communities depend on small industrial and agricultural

processing. Stable power access is essential. If they fear they’ll be deprioritized

next time government changes its energy priorities, they’ll stop expanding.

When allocation is in the hands of one person, they can pick and choose winners. They

can turn around and say: “You know what? This is a priority for this government.”

You know what? Small communities may suffer. Small businesses may suffer. Once investment

erodes, it can take decades to rebuild. We’ve seen this show before.

Let’s not overlook who ultimately pays the bill. If Hydro borrows to finance equity

stakes in transmission expansions under cabinet direction, that debt still lands on

the ratepayers. If a project falters, if revenues fail or political risk scares away

customers, Hydro still must recover the costs. That’s usually done through higher

rates. That is the real price of unchecked discretion. It’s not just a line in the

statute. It’s another line on everybody’s household electricity bill.

I cannot support legislation that centralizes decision-making, limits consultation

and reduces transparency in the name of flexibility. We can and should pursue Indigenous

equity participation. We can and should ensure that electricity serves British Columbians

first. But we should never grant sweeping powers without checks, balances or public

accountability.

Bill 31 gives too much control to government, too little voice to citizens and too

few safeguards for the future. Until those flaws are corrected, until independent

oversight, fiscal transparency and mandatory consultation are built in, this bill

should not proceed.

If the government truly believes in this framework, it should bring it back after

consulting with BCUC, with Indigenous partners and with industries that depend on

reliable power. Let’s have a little consultation with the public as well. Bring it

back with guardrails, oversight and balance. Power without accountability is not flexibility.

It’s risk.

I took a trip up to the northwest, and I agree. The potential up there is unlimited.

We certainly do need transmission. It’s a gem. We’re lucky to have a province with

so much potential, but we have to have regulations and rules and fairness and equity

and all the other things that go with it. Businesses also need certainty. We need

reliable power. We need strategic guidelines. I could go on.

[3:10 p.m.]

I do believe that if you bring back a bill that the public can support, I don’t think

there’s an issue about how we want energy infrastructure built up north. I think 99

percent of the people in the province would support that. But currently, the way it

sits right now, this is not a good bill.

In my closing here, again, British Columbia’s energy system was built on trust that

B.C. Hydro would deliver affordable, reliable power and that government would manage

that system in the open. Bill 31 replaces the openness with discretion and the consultations

with control. It risks turning sound energy policy into a political instrument.

Our energy future should be built on these three things: reconciliation grounded in

respect, development rooted in transparency and regulation guided by fairness. Bill

31 delivers none of these.

Let’s take a step back, fix what’s missing and return with a bill that unites rather

than divides, one that balances reconciliation with accountability and innovation

with integrity.

Until then, I must stand opposed.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : It is an honour to rise in this House today to express my support for Bill 31, the

Energy Statutes Amendment Act, a forward-looking and necessary piece of legislation

about powering opportunity for people, communities and industries across our province.

This act is about ensuring that clean electricity drives responsible growth and about

building the infrastructure that will fuel our clean energy future and sustain well-paying

jobs for people in this province.

I rise today not only as a member of this government but as the Minister of Mining

and Critical Minerals of B.C., because this legislation will also benefit a number

of mining projects in the northeast, the mining sector that is increasingly vital

to our economic future and to the global clean energy transition.

This is a historic time for the mining sector. It is truly a historic time for the

mining sector, a time we haven’t seen before, because we are transitioning to a low-carbon

future. In order to do that, we need critical minerals, projects moving forward faster

than ever before while maintaining the highest environmental standards at the same

time.

In the northwest, we have half a dozen private mining projects worth $50 billion in

investment and tens of thousands of jobs for the people in local communities. We need

clean power to bring those projects to life. That’s why I support Bill 31.

Demand for electricity is at a record high level. Industrial projects in mining, LNG

and manufacturing are ready to move forward, but many regions lack the transmission

capacity they need. Without timely infrastructure, tens of billions in investment

could stop.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Energy Statutes Amendment Act addresses this by accelerating the construction

of the North Coast transmission line in partnership with First Nations, prioritizing

clean electricity for sectors that create jobs and reduce emissions and ensuring responsible,

balanced growth across the province. This is not just about building a power line.

It’s about unlocking economic potential in the North. It’s about giving our mining

sector the energy security it needs to expand and compete globally.

The North Coast transmission line will twin the existing line from Prince George to

Terrace and extend to Bob Quinn Lake, right to the heart of the Golden Triangle, where

it will power new mines and help prevent up to three million tonnes of carbon emissions

every day. That’s why this transmission line is very, very important to the people

of British Columbia: to grow the economy, to create good jobs and, of course, to transition

the economy to a green economy.

It is unbelievable. This transmission line, which can support thousands of jobs in

mining, is opposed by the current Leader of the Opposition. That’s unbelievable. We

have a golden opportunity, with global markets going up for gold and copper, as we

all know, to support one of the greatest mining regions in the world. The opposition

would ignore it.

The mining sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy which provides

good jobs, supports communities and drives innovation today. The world is demanding

the very minerals that B.C. produces: copper; nickel; and other critical minerals

that power electrical vehicles, wind turbines and batteries. In order to grow responsibly,

the mining sector needs clean, reliable and affordable power, and Bill 31 makes that

possible.

The North Coast transmission line will power B.C.’s northwest, which is home to an

abundance of mineral resources: copper, gold, antimony, nickel, molybdenum and more.

There are over half a dozen mining projects moving forward right now.

As Michael Goehring, president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia,

said: “The North Coast transmission line will strengthen Canada’s position as a leading

global supplier of critical minerals and metals and unlock more than $45 billion in

near-term economic activities for British Columbia and for all Canadians. The mining

association’s economic analysis estimates that the operation of these mines over several

decades will deliver some $420 billion in economic activity for B.C. and for Canada.”

Michael Goehring’s words capture exactly why this project matters, why we need this

line. The North Coast transmission line is not just about power. It’s about unlocking

responsible mining, creating long-term jobs and ensuring that the clean energy transition

is built on sustainably produced critical minerals. That’s very important.

Clean electricity means clean mining. It allows B.C. to reduce emissions while producing

materials needed for the global clean energy transition. By powering mining with hydroelectricity,

we are helping B.C. deliver some of the lowest-carbon copper and critical minerals

in the world.

[3:20 p.m.]

This legislation ensures that our clean power system grows alongside the industries

that need it most, industries that build our economy, not just consume energy.

We are already seeing progress where clean energy and mining come together. With B.C.’s

rapid growth, major industrial projects are emerging across the province, which will

unlock significant economic developments and job opportunities. Their success hangs

on access to reliable, clean electricity.

The member who was speaking before me was saying that he understands that there is

a huge potential in that area. We agree on that point. But in order to realize that

potential, we need clean energy, clean electricity. That’s what this bill is for.

This is, I think, massive potential for the people of British Columbia in terms of

creating jobs, creating revenue, bringing in investment from other countries. I don’t

think there’s any other opportunity like this in the northwest, and that’s why this

line is very important.

I was away in America, in Beaver Creek, attending what we call the investors summit,

where investors from across North America came to basically meet with mining companies

to invest their hard-earned dollars. One of the things they were asking was certainty.

They need certainty that the project will move forward.

NCTL will provide, in the northwest, where we have more than half a dozen mining projects,

certainty to the investors. They want to invest money because now they know that these

projects are going to move forward. These projects are going to move forward in a

very responsible way. They will produce clean, critical minerals for the transition

to low-carbon economy, not only in British Columbia or this country but in the global

community, because we provide critical minerals to a lot of other countries.

With B.C.’s rapid growth, major industrial projects are emerging across the province,

which will unlock significant economic development and job opportunities. Their success

hangs on access to, as I said earlier, viable and clean electricity.

We are focused on ensuring that B.C. Hydro remains responsive to evolving market conditions

and the growing demand for clean electricity. This includes enabling investment in

industries that will grow our economy, create well-paying jobs, reduce emissions and

keep energy affordable for British Columbians.

Northern B.C. plays a pivotal role in this growth, with current active mining operations

and the potential for future critical minerals like nickel, copper, molybdenum and

rare earth elements. Northwest B.C., the Golden Triangle, already hosts two major

mines in that area. They are Brucejack and Red Chris. I look forward to many more

mines there in the future, with the help of the North Coast transmission line.

Projects like the future Baptiste mine by FPX Nickel…. They are already working with

B.C. Hydro to secure a share of their power that NCTL provides. FPX Nickel is working

with local First Nations to advance the project. It is a very positive project and

would be one of the lowest-emission nickel mines in the world. Nickel is used in everything

from stainless steel to jet engines and lithium-ion batteries, helping power our future.

[3:25 p.m.]

Projects like Eskay Creek. It is working its way through permitting right now and

has a proposed economic benefit agreement with Tāłtān Central Government. Eskay Creek

will mean hundreds of jobs in that area for the local community, producing gold, silver,

zinc and antimony for the market.

There are so many projects in the northwest. It is hard to name them all. But one

last one I would like to mention today that I want to highlight is Galore Creek. This

is one of the world’s largest undeveloped copper deposits, and it sits in the northwest.

It is approved in the budget. That would be one of the biggest in the world.

$190 million in federal funding to support road infrastructure in the region. That

will help the Galore mine to move forward, and the NCTL will provide the clean power

to that mine that the project needs to move forward. So that’s why this NCTL is very,

very important.

When we provide certainty that this power is coming, I look forward to being able

to report back to this House and to the people of British Columbia that these projects

are continuing forward towards permits, construction and operation and creating hundreds

of thousands of jobs for the people of British Columbia, bringing billions and billions

of dollars in investment for this province and, of course, revenue, which is very

important to improve and provide health care and education to the people of British

Columbia.

These projects also show that when government, industry and Indigenous partners work

together, good projects move forward faster and the community benefits more.

Reconciliation is at the heart of how we build a stronger mining future. Bill 31 gives

B.C. Hydro clear authority to enter into co-ownership agreements with First Nations.

Six First Nations, including hereditary leaders of the Wet’suwet’en, have already

signed term sheet agreements for phase 2 of the NCTL. These partnerships will ensure

Indigenous governments share in both ownership and long-term economic returns.

It doesn’t stop there. This government recently supported a joint purchase of the

Port of Stewart by the Nisga’a Nation and Tāłtān First Nation — that was a very good

day for the people of British Columbia — with Arrow Transportation.

The Port of Stewart is the primary export port. It is the primary export port for

copper from the northwest, where all these mines are going to take place and ensure

First Nations see economic benefits from this project. This is also one of the closest

ports to Asia, so we can ship the copper concentrate to Asia quickly, from anybody

else in this country and in North America, with this port. That’s why it’s good economic

sense.

We are supporting the First Nation to purchase the port. We are supporting the mining

sector to have the road network connected to them so that they can ship the concentrate

from mines to the port. Now we are building the NCTL to provide this clean power to

these mines. With this, we will have the cleanest mines on earth.

Construction on the North Coast transmission line is expected to begin in 2026, with

phased completion of it being in 2032 and ’34.

[3:30 p.m.]

The project is one of our government’s 18 priority projects. It will open doors for

new mines and create training and contracting opportunities for Indigenous businesses.

Bill 31 will strengthen local economies across the North and ensure that clean energy

powers our growth.

As I said earlier, we have more than 17 mining projects in this province, private

projects proposed, and of course we need clean power to have the green economy moving

forward for the people of British Columbia. That’s what this whole power line is all

about, to provide power to, of course, the local community and also to provide power

to economic growth in that area. That’s very good news for the province of British

Columbia and for the people, because with this, we are going to become the economic

power of the country.

Bill 31 is, as I said earlier, more than an energy bill. It is an investment in British

Columbia’s mining future, and it will help ensure B.C. remains a world leader in low-carbon

mineral production and will grow regional economies across northern B.C. The North

Coast transmission line is a true nation-building project. We look forward to continued

collaboration with our federal partners as we work to build the clean energy infrastructure

that will power Canada’s future.

I commend the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions and his team for their leadership

on this project, and I am proud to lend my voice and my support to Bill 31 on behalf

of the mining and critical minerals sector and all those who believe in building a

stronger B.C.

I would like to conclude by saying it will help support billions in private sector

investment in providing the infrastructure certainty needed for major projects to

move forward, including clean hydrogen, critical minerals and LNG.

We need to take bold action, like the government of the 1960s and ’70s that expanded

B.C. Hydro to power provincial growth. But we are doing it in a way that reflects

today’s values, supporting the future growth of our provinc