First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, May 8, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 60

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

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. Randene Neill

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Hon Chan

Hon. Niki Sharma

Jeremy Valeriote

Ward Stamer

Sharon Hartwell

Sheldon Clare

David Williams

Pete Davis

Korky Neufeld

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued)

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Harman Bhangu

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 5 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025 (continued)

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Thursday, May 8, 2025

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Labour

and, when they complete, for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 5.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects

(Streamlined Permitting) Act

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : I call this session to order.

Hon. Randene Neill : I am so happy to continue speaking in favour of Bill 14, a bill that is taking action

to speed up permitting for renewable energy projects to meet the growing demand for

clean power, address climate change and secure energy independence for British Columbians,

in the face of absolutely unprecedented trade threats.

Before lunch, I spoke a bit about it and answered some of the common questions that

some folks were interested in. I just want to recap what this bill will do for British

Columbians. It will ensure rapid authorization and robust regulation of renewable

energy projects. That includes wind, solar and transmission lines.

It will allow for statutory decisions related to these projects to be transferred

from ministries and other agencies to the B.C. Energy Regulator, and it will give

new authority over the construction and operation of wind and solar projects to ensure

safety and environmental standards are upheld.

A bit more about the streamlining of the environmental assessment requirements. To

expedite these priority renewable energy projects, which we so desperately need in

this province, the proposed legislation will allow for the streamlining of the Environmental

Assessment Act in relation to the North Coast transmission line project, the nine

wind projects from B.C. Hydro’s call for power back in 2024 and future wind projects

as well.

The B.C. Energy Regulator has existing expertise and technical regulations that may

be applied to wind power projects to support comprehensive project oversight in the

absence of environmental assessment.

[1:05 p.m.]

For example, the B.C. Energy Regulator board regulations include these features: pre-engagement

requirements and the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into project planning,

requirements for design and construction, assessment of sociocultural and environmental

effects, suspension of operation or decommissioning of a processing facility, and

records management and submission of required reports to the B.C. Energy Regulator.

While the BCER’s technical regulations for these renewable projects are being developed

and consulted on, the Energy Regulator may use permit conditions on a project-by-project

basis to ensure that early work on these projects is conducted in a responsible manner.

I do want to read just one quote, and I think it’s a really important one, from Kwatuuma

Cole Sayers, who’s the executive director of Clean Energy Association of British Columbia.

He says: “This legislation is an important step towards a balanced regulatory framework

that encourages responsible clean energy development at a critical time for our communities,

our economy and our climate. The Clean Energy Association of B.C. is proud to work

with the province and the B.C. Energy Regulator to help build a framework that is

efficient, transparent and aligned with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act. Together, we can build a cleaner, stronger, more resilient future.”

With that, I think, I will conclude my remarks on Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects

Act.

Larry Neufeld : I do want to take a little bit different tack than we normally do in this place of

honour. I know that earlier this week I did thank the Minister of Forests for his

ministry’s exceptional work that they did to put out the 13 incredible wildfires over

two days in my riding.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to extend that thank-you to the Minister of

Energy.

I believe that of many who are at home, the thousands and thousands that are glued

to their TV sets waiting for us, or the tens and tens…. I don’t think a lot of folks

appreciate what they see on television and how we, actually, work together for the

betterment of the people of this province. I do want to recognize that relationship

that we have developed, between the Minister of Energy and me. He has been very forthcoming

with sharing of information and with briefings, and I do appreciate that. I look forward

to continuing that relationship.

I am here to talk about Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting)

Act. I am a businessman, I am an engineer, and I don’t think anyone would ever, ever

accuse me of being anti-industry, anti-business or anti-progress. I can say, without

hesitation, that I support all of those items.

My concern with Bill 14 is that my perception and, I believe, that of many others

is that it is an overreach of governmental powers and that it actually is a centralization

of governmental powers. In my estimation, it does strip away the voices of local communities,

potentially strips away the voices of First Nations and does strip away the voices

of regional governments — those people that I represent. Therein lies my concern.

I will say, without hesitation, that I and my colleagues are not opposed to clean

energy, not in any form at all. We are not opposed. We’re not opposed to wind; we’re

not opposed to low-carbon fuels. In fact, I had the pleasure and the honour of introducing

the Canadian Hydrogen Association in this place of honour earlier this week, and I

very much look forward to owning a hydrogen-powered vehicle.

Where my concerns lie, and I did express them earlier this week with a private member’s

bill, is that where I live, in my home, fully electric vehicles are not a good option

for me, for my family and for many, many in my community.

[1:10 p.m.]

The reason is very simple. We get down to minus 40 degrees Celsius. That’s plus wind.

It is an incredibly cold place, or can be. It’s a beautiful, a stunningly beautiful

place to live; but it can be very cold, and therein lies the reason.

The minister and I have had this discussion on many occasions — or numerous occasions,

perhaps not many — that there is a wide variety of power sources that are needed.

One of those, I’m proud to say…. Well, actually, Site C is in my riding. I know that

in this House, Site C is talked about in very high regard, and, from an engineering

perspective, I certainly would agree.

I think that what is oftentimes overlooked, or what is missed, is the impact that

that project had on many people in the community and continues to have on people in

that community. That really is the crux of what the first part of what I’m going to

talk about is that the Peace region really has been left out of the conversation for

far too long.

We have created a disproportionate contribution to the province, quite frankly, with

not a lot of tangible return. I know that might sound a little bit harsh, but I know

that that is the feeling of my constituents, most of them. I wouldn’t be shy to say

that I have a semblance of that feeling myself as well.

The other thing that I did want to talk about is, again, what effect this bill will

have on our local communities. I’m not a lawyer; I am an engineer, so forgive me for

that. No, don’t. I’m very proud to be an engineer. Don’t forgive me for being one.

My concerns are that local government is frozen out, that the local population’s direct

representatives, the way that I’m reading this, may or may not have the say that they

deserve in how these projects move forward.

An equally concerning one is that First Nations…. I know the perception is there.

I don’t know what the reality is. I’ve read the bill. I’ve read it numerous times,

and I’m aware of the language that’s in it. The perception is there that the First

Nations may be frozen out of the decision-making process.

One of the things I did…. The minister did mention it before the break, the Bear Mountain

wind farm. Again, getting back to the fact that I am definitely not opposed to wind

power…. My home overlooks a beautiful valley that has Bear Mountain in it. Every morning

when I get up, my beautiful wife and I go out on the sundeck — well, unless it’s minus

40, of course — and sit there, drink our coffee and look at the windmills.

Tying that into the disproportionate contribution that my riding makes to the energy

grid of this province, my statement would be: I wonder if the Bear Mountain wind farm

would exist if it were to be built in Shaughnessy, as opposed to being built in Dawson

Creek, which I think is a pretty fair statement.

I’ve already talked about the fact that folks where I live are salt of the earth.

I’ve said that many times — very proud people. I’m one of them. They’re resourceful.

They’re resilient. That reason, and the fact that I feel that they’re not getting

the representation in this bill with respect to approval of these projects, is why

I stand against it.

The reality is that in Peace River South, without question, we are no stranger to

energy projects — I think I’ve already illustrated a fair number of them; the Peace

Canyon dam is also in my riding — whether traditional or renewable. We’ve talked about

that on several occasions here as well.

We have long balanced the development of our natural resources with the needs of our

land, our people and our future. We’ve done that through local engagement and cooperative

governance. We’ve done it through school boards, regional districts and municipal

councils, and we definitely have included local Indigenous leadership.

I am concerned that this bill will not necessarily take into account those concerns

of the folks in my riding. It does install a centralized regulator that, yes, can

fast-track projects without so much as a public hearing in places like Tumbler Ridge,

or without a consultation with the Peace River regional district and, potentially,

without meaningful dialogue with First Nations like Saulteau and West Moberly.

[1:15 p.m.]

I’m curious if this is what the government calls streamlining. Others might suggest

that it could be called shutting the door on our communities.

I’ve already talked about the local governments being frozen out. What happens when

a proposed wind farm or solar array goes up next to farmland in Pouce Coupe, on a

ridge above Chetwynd, or near hunting and trapping lands that families have used for

generations? Will there be compensation for the interruption of that land usage? Will

there be opportunities to regain new traplines or to appeal processes whereby the

trapping licences are cancelled, hunting licences are interrupted or guiding routes

are interrupted?

Under Bill 14, municipal councils and regional boards, like those of the Peace regional

district, could be entirely bypassed — no requirement for town halls, no requirement

for public notice, no local veto. The government may think that this is an efficiency,

and without question — I think I stated that at the beginning — I am all about efficiency.

I adore efficiency.

That was my life as a consulting engineer. That was my job, and I was quite good at

it. Well, I guess I’m a proud engineer that brags about what he did. There you go.

What I’m concerned about is that this bill could be telling rural British Columbians:

“You don’t matter.” Yes, we do.

I know. I know. But my job is to criticize, so…. I know.

If you want to see what democratic erosion looks like in real life, I’d suggest this

bill as an example of it.

I’d like to point out something else. Bill 14, as my colleague spoke of earlier, exempts

chosen renewable projects from the Environmental Assessment Act and gives cabinet

the power to exempt even more by regulation. Again, we desperately need to streamline

our approval process. We desperately need to get projects built in this province,

without question. Absolutely, we do. Where the concern lies is, again, in the execution

of this bill.

I’d like to talk about the exemption of the Environmental Assessment Act from a Peace

River region context. What we’re talking about are projects on land that supports

caribou habitat, projects near waterways used by farmers, projects that affect subsistence

hunting and cultural sites. We’ve talked about that. I spoke of those two a few moments

ago.

The concern here is that the public won’t be guaranteed a say in how these very important

items to people that live in the North are affected. What this bill effectively does

is create a regulatory blind spot, one that is especially dangerous in remote, ecologically

sensitive areas.

I know that the hon. member before me did speak of decommissioning, and I am aware

of what is in the bill with respect to the fund that would be put in place. From conversations

that I’ve had previously, I do understand that that fund will not be pulling money

from other existing funds. My concern is: what happens if there’s not enough money

there? Who pays for the cost of the decommissioning?

Bill 14 mentions a cost recovery, as I’ve already talked about, and an orphan fund

with no clear obligations on the developers, no guarantees that rural communities

will not be left holding the bag. As I say, who is responsible when…?

I will admit the wind farms…. I have three different wind farms in my riding, and

the one that I overlook from my home is large. Those are massive, large. Is that up

to the regional district if the proponent goes away and there’s not enough money in

the decommissioning fund? Is it the regional district that pays to pull those down?

Is it the ratepayers, taxpayers? Therein lies the concern that I have with that component.

[1:20 p.m.]

What I will say, very proudly, is that the people of Peace River South…. I’ll include

everyone in the Peace. Our people know how to build, absolutely. I’ve worked and lived

there for 30-odd years. I’ve lived there for 22-ish, I guess. I’ve watched it flourish.

I’ve watched it bloom. I’ve watched it grow.

I’ve watched the economic potential perhaps not reach its zenith but expand to the

point where the community in which I lived was dramatically affected in a very positive

way. I’ve watched, in the last eight to ten years, the progress that brought many,

many of us to the area. Many entrepreneurs from across the country — stunningly hard-working,

stunningly effective individuals — were brought to my area with the promise of economic

opportunity, and I don’t feel that that’s available now.

I retired from my business two years ago, and part of the reason that I retired is

that I just simply didn’t…. Well, I’m going to stop with that. This is recorded, and

this will…. Yeah, I’m going to stop on my reasons for retiring.

As I say, the folks of the Peace River are incredible builders, but we also know the

cost of poor planning and unchecked corporate promises. We’ve seen it. We’ve lived

it. It’s all too common.

What I would suggest is another issue that I would see with Bill 14 is that it represents

a regulatory expansion that no one asked for. Yes, it does attempt to streamline the

projects. Again, for the tenth time, I would very strongly state that I very much

support the streamlining of projects in this province. My concern with this bill is

that we have a better way to do it.

I would say another

interpretation to the bill makes the point plain that this bill

can easily be expanded via regulation to include other energy sources. I know that

that is something that the minister confirmed with my colleague earlier. I do appreciate

that.

The concern that lies in there would be: who makes that decision? What input is there?

What oversight is there? I realize it’s done in the guise of efficiency, but the reality

is that it’s without oversight. Those of us that sit in this place of honour and work

very hard every day: is that correct? Is that the way that the people expect us to

govern — without oversight? That’s a real concern for me.

I’d go on further to say, again bringing this back to my local riding, what does this

mean for Peace River South? It means that hydrogen, geothermal, biomass and even carbon

capture projects could be added to this framework without ever returning to this Legislature.

I’m not saying that in a negative way, necessarily. What I’m saying is that without

oversight do we want a biomass…?

I read this regulation very, very carefully. I spent hours and hours on it. I respect

the minister, and I respect the fact that it is very unlikely that this would ever

happen, but say, for instance…. The way that it’s written is that a biomass facility

could be potentially built on ALR land without ALR consultation, right beside someone’s

home. As ridiculous as that might sound, that’s the reality of the language in this

bill. Is that fair to the people of my region? I would suggest not.

I would also suggest that a future project near Doe River or in the back country south

of Dawson Creek could be approved, exempt from review and locked in, all by cabinet

order. That’s not transparency. In my opinion, that’s regulatory overreach.

What does this mean for my constituents? I’d like to speak directly to the people

that I represent now, to the landowners in Toms Lake who have asked for a fair say

in land use decisions. I know we went through the troubles back in the early 2000s

with the oilfield. That’s when I first moved to Dawson, and I feel the pain of the

people in Toms Lake, and my job is to ensure that that doesn’t happen again.

I would also speak to the ranchers in Ground Birch who know every windbreak and wildlife

corridor on their property.

[1:25 p.m.]

I would like to speak to the councillors of Tumbler Ridge who are working hard to

attract clean energy investment that respects their town’s identity. I’ve been to

Tumbler many times, and I know the people of Tumbler know this to be true, but I adore

the community. I love bragging about the South Peace. I do. I would love to have all

of you come and visit, and I would love to show it off to each and every one of you.

Tumbler Ridge has some of the most incredible river boating, some of the most incredible

waterfalls, above–tree line mountaintop side-by-siding, mountaintop sledding — just

incredible — and some of the most friendly, warm, accepting, beautiful human beings

that I have met.

That’s not to say to those folks in Chetwynd that I don’t appreciate you just as much.

I would also like to speak to the First Nations leaders who have built renewable energy

projects from the ground up but want to do so with a seat at the table, as opposed

to being dictated to and potentially ignored by Victoria.

I would suggest to these folks that I spoke to that this bill does not empower you;

it circumvents you. I cannot support legislation that cuts the people of Peace River

South out of their own future. We can and must support clean energy. I’ve said that

at the beginning. No question, I’m in, but it must be community-led, locally grounded

and democratically accountable.

I don’t know the purpose of us being here if it’s not to promote and enhance democracy.

In my estimation, Bill 14 offers none of that. It offers a centralized, top-down,

ideology-driven model that might look neat on a government flowchart but fails the

real-world tests in places like Peace River South.

That is why I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party of British Columbia oppose

this bill. We stand with our constituents. We stand with local governments. We stand

with First Nations. We stand for a better, more democratic and more respectful way

forward.

I’m going to go back a little bit here to something that I skipped over a little bit

too early. We did talk about the lack of planning for decommissioning and the potential

for the public to be left on the hook — which, unfortunately, again, with other projects

and other things that have gone on in the past, has been a real concern in my area.

It’s something that’s worth mentioning a second or even a third time.

The other thing that I think has been underrepresented in the conversation here today

around Bill 14 is the effect that it will have on the First Nations of the South Peace

and other areas as well. Again, having read the bill, there’s a perception there.

Whether that perception is accurate or not, I will leave to the reader and to the

viewer to decide. But there is a perception that the bill does leave First Nations

on the sidelines.

The people of Peace River South know that meaningful reconciliation begins with listening,

not dictating. The West Moberly First Nations have long voiced concerns about development

that proceeds without proper consultation, particularly when it touches Treaty 8 territory.

The Saulteau First Nations, too, have insisted that energy projects on their traditional

lands must reflect environmental stewardship and Indigenous values. The perception

in the community is that this bill may bypass the First Nations in their ability to

have input. Again, I’ve read the bill extensively. With respect to the minister, I’m

going to leave that up to the viewer to decide whether that is accurate or not, but

that is the perception.

[1:30 p.m.]

I’m going to also talk about the fact that in my area, in the South Peace, we have

long been a developer, producer and exporter, to other areas of the province, of natural

gas and hydrocarbons. I know that I’ve had people, when I first…. I’ve worked in the

oil and gas industry for 30 years, and a great many of those 30 years — in fact, essentially

all of them — have included northeast British Columbia.

It’s made me chuckle a few times, but it’s been suggested to me that B.C. doesn’t

have oil. I can assure you — absolutely assure you — that having been a spill remediation

consultant for those odd 30 years, it absolutely does. I have boots full to prove

it. I have clothes that are stained with it to prove it. We have some of the most

beautiful, stunning…. In fact, I would love to show you someday. We have iridescent

green oil. It glows. It’s bioluminescent. It’s an incredible thing. It really is.

I’ve worked throughout western Canada, and actually, I’ve worked internationally in

the oil and gas industry. I don’t want to say this field, because I don’t want folks

from Victoria flocking up there to see the iridescent green. Or perhaps we do. That

might be an opportunity.

I’ll share with you offline. Sure. Yeah, I’ll share.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld : Okay. Well, it’s the Stoddart field. Now we’re all happy. It’s the Stoddart, if you

can find that on a map. Well, actually, you know what? It is sour, so please don’t

go.

All joking aside, those of us that are watching perhaps don’t recognize or realize

what sour gas is. It is incredibly toxic, incredibly deadly. A brief whiff, a small

inhalation, of an appropriate strength, and your central nervous system shuts down,

and you perish before you hit the ground. That is very real.

That is something that I’ve been incredibly proud of as an oil and gas worker for

30 years. Yes, people have been knocked down by H 2 S, but I believe — and again, I’ve been retired for a number of years, so don’t correct

me or don’t hold me to this — that the last actual death from hydrogen sulphide gas

was in the late ’70s.

The industry has done an exceptional, exceptional job of safety in that respect. Everyone

wears personal monitors. In fact, it was mentioned to me by one of my colleagues earlier:

“Does it act like mustard gas?” Yes, it does. If you watch the old video clips from

World War I of the Germans releasing the mustard gas, it rolled across the ground,

it went into the trenches, and it killed everyone. That’s how H 2 S acts. It’s heavier than air.

When we’re walking across a lease, particularly in a low-lying area, we wear our monitors

— or we used to; I don’t know if this is still allowed — on the side. Because you’ll

stir it up, it will alarm before it gets up to your face, hopefully, and you can exit

to safety. If you’re working in a plant site, you’ll wear it closer to your face because

you have overhead issues, leakage, that type of thing, potentially. Of course, we

want to be able to react before it does get to the central nervous system.

The other thing that…. Sorry, I’m getting a little bit far down the rabbit hole with

101 oilfield here, but this is my passion. That’s my passion.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld : Well, well, well. Easy now. Your words, not mine.

I would also suggest…. Where was I going with that? H 2 S. That being said, I’m very proud, and I’ve said that many times in this House, of

our industry, and I’m very proud of the natural gas that we have under our feet in

this province.

We currently have, by estimations of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers,

at current consumption rates, a 300-year supply of natural gas — 300. When you work

that backwards to an economic scale, the value to our economy of the amount of gas….

I was a reservoir engineer at one time as well. I’m running out of time, so I won’t

go into a lot of explanation of how that works. The known reserves in this province….

The minister would know this as well as I do, or perhaps better than I do, what the

actual value in royalties to the province is. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

In the community in which I live, there are a huge number of people that make very,

very good livings from the oil and gas industry. Those tax revenues come back to the

province. The side-by-sides that they buy, the campers that they buy, the riverboats

that they buy…. Those taxes all come back to the province.

[1:35 p.m.]

The real value to the province, the way that I’ve calculated it, is nearly $1 trillion.

Those are the proven reserves. What I will say with my little amount of time left

is that the reality of the situation of how reservoir engineering works…. I’ll use

the example of Alberta. I want to say it was three, maybe four, weeks ago now that

they revised their reservoir amount or their known amount of gas. They increased it

by six times.

If we calculate those numbers — if we go back to the number that I just said, with

the big, fat “t” on it — that’s the known actual provable reserve that companies have

gone to the bank and taken loans out on. That’s what their companies are valued on.

The real number is not the same. We don’t know what that real number is, but it’s

something that I think is worth mentioning in this House.

With that…. I’ll be very honest, Madam Speaker. I was going to keep going until you

cut me off, but with respect, I am going to sit down. You know, I’m trying to be as

respectful as I can.

Thank you very much. I’m going to leave my remaining 15 seconds on the clock.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld : Yeah, maybe I’ll do a lap, quick.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I don’t know if that means that I get those extra ten seconds. The clock certainly

doesn’t reflect that, but that’s okay. I guess that’s not the rule.

What a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and speak to Bill 14, the renewable

energy projects.

It’s always an honour to be able to follow the member from across the way, the member

for Peace River South. I got a chance to be able to catch a little bit of the end

of his speech. I didn’t catch if he’s going to be supporting this legislation or not.

It doesn’t look like he is. That’s too bad. We’ll talk a bit about why that is, and

how bizarre it is that we’re in this position.

I want to begin, first of all, by giving a huge shout-out to the Minister of Energy

and Climate Solutions. Here you have a guy who has represented his community, coming

on almost two decades, in this place. Actually, yeah, 2025. It’s 20 years he’s been

representing the good people of Vancouver-Kingsway.

He showed leadership in this House as a minister, tackling one of the biggest challenges

that our province has ever faced, the pandemic, and now he’s been given the task by

the Premier to help build British Columbia, to ensure that we can become an energy

superpower.

I think the Minister of Energy is going to be remembered for a long time as one of

the most competent ministers to ever serve in the executive council. I think he’s

also going to be remembered as one minister who did an awful lot for British Columbians

in every corner of this province. It’s important to recognize that work, because this

is very important legislation.

We, in introducing Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting)

Act, are doing so at a time where our sovereignty as a country is under attack, our

sovereignty as Canadians is under attack by a President who is showing very little

to no respect for Canada, for our role as a peacekeeping nation that has done our

part for decades, for centuries, protecting this world and playing a very critical

part in providing resources to this entire world.

It’s so important that with this legislation we position ourselves to ensure that

we can become that clean energy superpower that we envision, and we have envisioned

for some time, to be. I think back to previous governments that made investments and

put in the work. I think this is something that, I would argue, is non-partisan in

nature and provides an opportunity for us to really do the work needed to position

British Columbia, given the context of Donald Trump’s threats against so much of what

we are as Canadians — our sovereignty, threatening to make us the 51st state, threatening

our resources. I think of my work as the Minister of Forests, referring to our softwood

lumber as a national security risk. This is just absolutely ludicrous.

[1:40 p.m.]

It’s why it’s so important, in the work we’re doing in this place, that we take an

opportunity to be able to debate important legislation like Bill 14 and recognize

the global instability that has occurred over the course of the last 110, 120 days

since President Trump was sworn in, and the growing external threats that we face

not just here in British Columbia and Canada but around the world.

That is really why we are in this House debating Bill 14. It’s about building clean

electricity projects. It’s about doing so faster, recognizing the time we live in.

When I am back in my constituency, in Langford-Highlands, I hear about this. I hear

about the need to do more. There’s a recognition that there has been a lot done, but

it’s clear we have to do more, and we have to do it faster. That’s what Bill 14 is

all about. It’s about ensuring that we are able to secure our future as a province.

I know this is work not just happening here in British Columbia but across the country.

I was chatting with my counterpart, the Minister of Natural Resources in Ontario,

Mike Harris. I work with a lot of Mike Harrises, I realize. I ran against Mike Harris.

Now I’m working with Mike Harris from Ontario. He is the son of the Mike Harris from

Ontario too. It’s great to see the family connection continuing.

We were chatting about the work that we collectively need to do as a country to move

projects forward and to do so in a way that protects and secures our future against

geopolitical instability, trade threats from the President of the United States and

other foreign political risks as well.

We live in a very tense time, and I know that British Columbians — not just in Langford-Highlands

but across this beautiful province that I’ve had an honour and privilege of visiting

over the course of the last number of months since I became the Minister of Forests

— have raised with me, time and time again, that this is front and centre for British

Columbians.

We have to be honest about the world we live in today. These are very challenging

times. The President of the United States has taken a relationship built on cooperation,

built on partnership, and he has tarnished that in his words.

He showed a level of respect and, I would say, decorum to our new Prime Minister earlier

this week that I think was welcome. Putting partisanship aside, it doesn’t matter

who the Prime Minister is; you have to show a level of respect to another foreign

leader. It was good to see that.

Let’s be crystal clear that that relationship, that cooperation, has been broken forever,

and we can no longer put B.C. in a position where we are reliant on our American friends.

We will certainly continue to provide them softwood lumber, because they need it just

as much as we need them.

Here is an opportunity for us to be able to build the resources we need in our province

and to do so in a way that respects Indigenous peoples, respects the Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, respects the work that’s happening in communities

all across the province and protects the environment. That’s what we are doing with

this legislation and the projects that the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions

has brought forward.

Again, it’s important to recognize that the president’s tariffs have destabilized

global trade all across this world. It was just a few weeks ago — this is like a joke

— that he put countries on boards, and people were literally taking pictures of those

boards and posting them online to find out if they made the list.

That’s the world we live in today. All of us were on the Twittersphere — or X, or

whatever you call it — and looking at that, but President Trump has changed the world

in terms of that. He is punishing Canadian industry and its workers.

We want to be very clear on this side of the House: we are not going to let Donald

Trump destroy our energy sector, our forestry sector, the natural resource sectors

that built this province. We are not going to let Donald Trump or Americans take away

paycheques from our workers. That’s why we’re doing this critical work.

In recent months, we’ve seen American isolationism spill over into trade, technology

and energy policy that is impacting not just British Columbia and Canada but other

parts of the world as well.

When we talk about the work that my colleague the Minister of Energy is doing about

energy in British Columbia, we have to recognize the work that has occurred over the

course of the last number of weeks and months. We have to talk about the importance

of this legislation that we are debating in this House today. We’re not just talking

about the electricity grid of our province. We’re talking about defending our values,

defending our people, defending our workers each and every day.

[1:45 p.m.]

That’s why this legislation is so important. That’s why I struggle listening to an

opposition that doesn’t support this type of legislation. I struggle with that. I’m

looking forward to hearing more debate and discussion on this legislation, but I do

struggle with that.

We have experience in this House of some mixed signals over the course of the last

number of weeks, where some opposition members get up and just completely trash a

bill. They completely trashed Bill 13 yesterday, but then you have mixed signals,

where some of them are talking in favour of it.

It’s going to be interesting when we get to the end of this legislation, Bill 14,

and really get a clearer picture of whether they support building British Columbia,

whether they support ensuring that British Columbia can become the clean energy superpower

that it ought to be and whether they support the work that nations are doing on the

ground with incredible companies that are leading the way.

That’s what this legislation is all about. Bill 14, and why I support it, is about

enabling British Columbia to build clean energy projects faster, smarter and more

securely. That’s why we’re bringing this legislation forward in the times we live

in.

It will remove unnecessary delays and allow renewable energy to be developed faster

through the B.C. Energy Regulator, an organization that has proven, time and time

again, that it gets what its mandate is: to streamline projects while still ensuring

that their reliable and important oversight continues to exist on safety, as the member

for Surrey–White Rock talked about yesterday, on environmental standards and on that

important engagement with First Nations peoples.

Again, we can take the work of the Energy Regulator and translate it to work in other

organizations that make up the government of British Columbia to talk about the incredible

work that our public servants do in all of our ministries. I think of the folks in

the forest service that do this work every single day, focused on safety, focused

on people, focused on meeting the needs, focused on the Declaration of the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act, which we stand proudly for on this side of the House. This

was the government that introduced this legislation. This is foundational in our work

as legislators.

We know that there are other members of the House that don’t support that legislation,

and that’s okay. They’ve made their position known very clear, but let it be known

very clear that we stand by DRIPA. We stand by the United Nations declaration on the

rights of Indigenous Peoples. That work will not stop. That’s why we continue to invest

in that work each and every day, not just as ministers, not just as MLAs, but as an

entire public service, an entire government approach, and that does not stop with

Bill 14.

British Columbians want to know that they will be able to access the energy they need

in their homes and in projects all across this province, because when it comes to

getting electricity built, speed is not a luxury. We talk about this in the context

of housing, but we have to talk about this in the context of other types of projects

as well. It’s a strategic necessity.

The reason we’re debating this legislation again is we are under threat from Donald

Trump’s protectionist United States, and we have to stand up on our own two feet and

fight. We have to build, have to create jobs, and we have to protect workers each

and every day. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House.

I welcome every member of this House — the opposition, the Green Party, the independent

members — to join us in this effort. We are creating jobs in their communities, in

every part of this province. These are projects that have, in many cases — I think

the majority of cases — majority participation from First Nations peoples. You have

First Nations communities who I’ve met along the way in my travels that are excited

about these projects. They’ve been dreaming about the opportunity to be able to create

wealth for their people, wealth in their community, and we are not going to let red

tape get in the way.

We’re not going to let Donald Trump, as I said previously, take this opportunity away

from those communities. We’re not going to let Donald Trump and Americans take this

opportunity away from our workers. We are talking about thousands of jobs being created

in every corner of our province.

Why is the opposition against that? Why are they against job creation? That’s what

this legislation is. Simple as that. This is job creation. This is an opportunity

to put more money in the pockets of families in rural communities, many who have been

struggling with the different impacts in our forestry sector and other sectors of

our economy.

That’s what we are for. We’re putting money in the pockets of families. Clearly, that’s

what they’re against with this legislation, when they vote against it.

[1:50 p.m.]

Clean power is the foundation of a stronger economy here in British Columbia, and

ensuring energy sovereignty for our economy. British Columbians want to know that

their homes will be powered by clean electricity, that their businesses will be competitive

and that we can attract investors from all around the world to come and build the

mines, build the biomass facilities, build the jobs — the investments that we need

in every corner of this province.

Let me be very clear that our province will not be held hostage by supply shocks,

by one President of the United States or anyone. We’re going to stand on our own two

feet, and we’re going to stand as one united Canada fighting this battle. The U.S.

signals of protectionism and deregulation make it so much more urgent for us as a

government, for us as a Legislature, to ensure that we can do everything in our power

every single day to secure our energy independence.

That is what Bill 14 is accomplishing. It’s supporting projects. We are talking about

clean energy projects that are good for the environment. We are replacing gas. We

are replacing it with the work that we are doing on CleanBC, with clean energy. That

is important as we look to our long-term growth as a province in order to be able

to meet our climate targets in the future as well.

This is good news for British Columbia; this is welcome news. This is billions of

dollars being invested to create jobs and opportunity and helps position us so that

the people that are elected in these spots 100 years from now can talk about a strong,

powered British Columbia, strong powered on clean electricity, ready to compete for

the jobs of tomorrow.

That is what industry is going to be looking at. That is what I heard from industry

and forestry. That’s what I’ve heard from all facets of the economy. We have Mining

Day here in British Columbia. They are looking for the clean energy. We know that

here in British Columbia mining plays a critical role in our economy. There is an

opportunity through the work that the minister is doing with Bill 14 to help position

British Columbia as the mining superpower of the world. That is only possible with

the approval and passage of this legislation, because we can’t get stuck in long,

outdated permitting systems.

We have to do everything in our power. Donald Trump isn’t paying attention to us and

the debates in this Legislature. I sure wish he would because I would have an awful

lot of things to say to him — an awful lot of things. But let me be very clear. We

have to move fast. We can’t wait for Donald Trump to make an announcement. We can’t

wait for him to drop another tariff.

He had a great meeting with the Prime Minister earlier this week, public-facing in

the White House, in the Oval Office, but we don’t know what happened in the back room,

necessarily. We understand that it went quite well. But we don’t know what’s going

to happen tomorrow. We don’t know, in the over 15 minutes that I’ve been speaking

— boy, does time go by quickly — that he hasn’t sent out another tweet announcing

a threat of another tariff. It was earlier this week when we saw him attacking our

film industry here in British Columbia and around the world.

Again, we have to move quickly. That is the importance of this legislation. It’s about

delaying the approvals of wind projects, of solar projects. I think of my former community

— I still consider it my community — of Sooke, and I remember going with my predecessor

to visit the T’Sou-ke Nation. The Minister of Energy will remember, because he was

a part of that work years ago, in highlighting it. The T’Sou-ke Nation have been incredible

leaders in this province, in North America, in clean energy and setting up solar projects.

When I think of Chief Gordon Planes, this is exactly what he has been building his

entire life around. The T’Sou-ke Nation recognizes the importance of these types of

projects, and they want to ensure that we are building the energy sovereignty we need

and that we are building good, sustainable jobs for British Columbians, for their

members. They started this work a number of years ago before solar panels were cool.

Now we are taking this work and quadrupling it. There’s no comparison.

I want to give a huge shout-out to my friend Chief Gordon Planes, who’s done phenomenal

work in this area. I know he would be very proud of this legislation that we’re bringing

forward. This is exactly the type of leadership that he thought, because he wants

us to think seven generations ahead.

[1:55 p.m.]

He doesn’t want us to think in four-year election cycles. He doesn’t want us to think

ten years ahead. He wants us to think 100-plus years ahead. He wants us to think about

the future that our British Columbians are going to have. That’s the work that we’re

doing on this side of the House.

Again, when the vision isn’t clear, in the path from conception to permitting to construction

to operation, everything stagnates. We want to get shovels in the ground in these

projects. We want to put people to work in every corner of this province. That’s why

it’s so important, and I look to the members opposite to support this legislation.

This legislation creates jobs in every community across this province. This legislation

creates opportunity for people. It ensures that we are standing on our own two feet.

We are cutting red tape. This bill is one more tool that we’re building on this side

of the House, through the legislation we’ve been passing this session and we’ve been

doing ever since we formed government in 2017, to create economic opportunity in every

part of this province.

I have spent more time in rural British Columbia, off the Island, in the constituencies

of the members opposite, because those people matter to us. We recognize that we weren’t

represented in the government caucus by those communities. That’s why we have to put

in the work of going into those communities, listening to local government leaders,

listening to job creators, listening to the workers.

They support this legislation. I’ve talked to people, talked to workers in those communities.

They want us, through the work that we’re doing, through the work that the Minister

of Energy and Climate Solutions is doing, to inject confidence in our future, to set

a clear vision for what we can do as a province, to build for the future. That is

what we’re doing here.

It’s the projects like the North Coast transmission line. We need wind power projects.

We need solar projects. We need all of these quickly, and we have to do more. It’s

why the minister, earlier this week, announced a second call for power. This is historic.

We are moving at a faster pace than any government has ever moved. We are leading

the way, but it’s not good enough.

All you have to do is go back to your communities, which we are going to do tomorrow

— well, later today. We’re going to go talk to our constituents, and we’re going to

say that we are standing on our two feet. And they are going to tell us: “We need

you to do more. We need you to build faster. We need you to get the energy we need

to be able to power our homes, power our vehicles.” To power the work that my colleague

the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals is doing on creating this mining superpower,

the work that we’re doing in our biomass industry here in British Columbia, our pulp

and paper sector….

We have an opportunity, through the work that we’re doing on this side of the House,

to be able to create thousands of construction jobs, thousands of good-paying jobs.

Again, we are not going to let Americans take away paycheques from hard-working British

Columbians. We are going to create every opportunity we can for young British Columbians,

British Columbians of all ages, to be able to compete for good-paying jobs, to be

able to bring food to their tables.

We know things are challenging out there, but here is an opportunity for us to do

this work together. I plead with the opposition that this is good legislation. This

is the type of legislation that, I think, in the past, the Conservatives ought to

support. I hope they’re not supporting this just because it’s a confidence matter.

It’s clear to us, as we heard earlier today, that they want an election.

That’s okay. You guys can go pull out your signs, wash them, get them ready. Usually

you have to get people to show up in order for that to happen, and that hasn’t been

a strong suit of this opposition. When people don’t show up, that’s unfortunate. It

happens — no big deal.

But we don’t want an election. British Columbians don’t want an election. They just

had a federal election, where the mandate was clear. They elected MPs from every part

of this province to go to Ottawa to get stuff done, to build our province, to build

our country.

I think here is an opportunity for us to work together to pass good legislation, to

send the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions the message he needs to be able

to go and tell industry, to tell the First Nations that are equity partners in this

work, that we are ready to get to work. We are ready to streamline. We are ready to

be more efficient than ever. We’re ready to build.

It is very clear that on this side of the House, we are working every day to build

projects. We are working every day to create jobs and opportunities for British Columbians

in every part of the province, not just in urban parts of British Columbia but in

rural parts of British Columbia, because those communities matter to us.

[2:00 p.m.]

You have an opposition that is clearly divided. You have an opposition that clearly

doesn’t have a vision, and you have an opposition that is saying no to everything.

That’s unfortunate.

British Columbians will know, and they will remember, that it was the B.C. NDP government,

led by our Premier, that met the moment, that stood up against all odds, against a

President of the United States that challenged our sovereignty, that challenged us

in every way. They’re going to remember this Premier, that minister and this government

standing up for them each and every day.

That’s what makes me proud to be the MLA for Langford-Highlands. That’s what makes

me proud to be the Minister of Forests. This is the work we’re doing each and every

day. We’re going to build British Columbia.

We’re not going to say no.

Hon Chan : We’re just very eager to speak on Bill 14.

I find it funny that the Minister of Forests just spoke, a nice speech there, when

they are saying that we want an election, but it’s actually their government that

introduced two bills, 14 and 15, as a confidence matter. I’m not sure why the minister,

just to understand, why they put it as a matter of confidence, and now they accuse

us of wanting an election.

Anyhow, since the Minister of Forests is leaving, I can go back to my notes.

I rise today to….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder to everyone that we don’t mention who’s not in the House.

Hon Chan : Yeah, he just stepped out when I spoke up.

Deputy Speaker : Just a reminder that we don’t mention who’s not in the House.

Hon Chan : All right, yes. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

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

Act. Let me begin by recognizing something that we all know to be true: British Columbia

is heading towards an energy deficit. I agree with the speech that the Minister of

Forests just gave. We need to act.

The province’s population is growing, industries are expanding and the government’s

own plan for mass electrification, from cars to homes to industry, all require a dramatic

increase in a reliable clean energy supply, and we know that. However, we are at a

crossroad, and there’s no denying the urgency.

That’s why I’m genuinely excited to see Site C finally coming online. After more than

a decade of planning, consultation, construction and investment, a project that was

initiated by the previous government, we are now seeing the fruits of a long-term

vision. That is what foresight looks like. That is what real planning for future energy

security entails.

Site C was deemed controversial at the time, even by the current government. The current

Energy Minister himself publicly questioned the necessity of the Site C dam. In a

2011 media interview, he raised concern about the province’s surplus of expensive

power and the financial burden it would place on ratepayers. He pointed out that the

government’s narrow approach of energy self-sufficiency excluded key power sources

and led to overcommitment to costly private contracts, casting serious doubt on whether

Site C was even needed.

When this government first came to power, they were quick to talk about cancelling

Site C. Now the same minister is doing a victory lap, praising how Site C is essential

to B.C.’s future. Welcome to British Columbia; this is your government.

Back in 2015, as the B.C. NDP spokesperson on B.C. Hydro, this Minister of Energy

pushed for the Site C project to be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission. He

slammed the previous Liberal government for moving ahead without independent oversight

and questioned whether the project was even in the public interest. Yet today, we

have Bill 14 doing exactly the opposite, all under the banner of streamlining. Welcome

to B.C.; this is your ironic government.

There’s an old Chinese saying,

今天的我打倒昨天的我

gamtin dik ngo daadou zoktin dik ngo,

which means, “The me of today defeats the me of yesterday.” That’s exactly what this

government is doing: flip-flopping. No credibility. No accountability. No consistency.

[2:05 p.m.]

I praised the previous government’s Site C project for being foresighted. That’s the

kind of strategic thinking we should be replicating today. Let’s be honest: if the

NDP government truly believes in electrifying everything — I mean everything from

heating systems to heavy industry — then one Site C is not enough. In fact, we will

need two or even five Site C–sized projects to meet our energy needs in the next couple

of decades.

Here’s the problem. Infrastructure of any scale takes time. It takes careful exploration,

detailed environmental studies, First Nation consultation, community input, land assessment,

extensive engineering, etc., followed by even more years to build and bring it online.

What has this government done in the past eight years? Next to nothing, when it comes

to securing long-term, large-scale clean energy.

Instead, they’re now slamming the panic button, and Bill 14, the so-called Renewable

Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, is the result. It’s not a long-term

strategy. It’s not a bold vision. It’s a reactive scramble, a legislative band-aid

to cover up eight years of government inaction.

Let’s not forget the broader context. British Columbia is now facing a record deficit

and debt. We’re talking a $14 billion deficit just this year alone. This NDP government

is maxing out British Columbia’s credit card just to cover the basics: health care,

education, policing, housing, transportation, etc. They can stand up and cheer all

they want about how they are funding projects, but we’re not funding these projects,

we’re borrowing for them.

It’s not just borrowing. We’re borrowing with interest, piling debt on top of debt

to keep the lights on. That’s not fiscal responsibility. That’s a province living

beyond its means, mortgaging our future to cover its mismanagement today. The truth

is that we are broke. It’s not sustainable, and no amount of political spin or a few

good announcements can change this math.

I’m not surprised that this government is turning to Bill 14 to grab unchecked power

to push through smaller-scale energy projects, ones that are short-term, piecemeal,

and far more expensive per kilowatt hour. That’s not smart planning; that’s desperation

dressed up as innovation.

That’s why they have the B.C. Hydro call-for-power campaign. They say it’s about streamlining

approvals, but let’s call it what this really is: a rush job, a last-minute attempt

to expedite projects only after realizing it’s far too late, that we are on the verge

of an energy shortfall.

The irony is painful. After layering on regulation after regulation, pushing investors

out of the province, and presiding over years where no meaningful renewable energy

projects were even proposed to B.C. Hydro, this government now wants to make it look

like they’re a champion of clean energy — by bulldozing oversight, fast-tracking projects

without environmental assessments, and centralizing power in the hands of the cabinet,

its staffs and the B.C. Energy Regulator.

That’s not leadership; that’s damage control. You don’t get to spend eight years making

it harder to build clean energy projects and then act surprised that we don’t have

enough power. You certainly do not get to claim the moral high ground on renewables

while gutting democratic process in the name of speed.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than rushed legislation and after-the-fact

solutions. They deserve a government that plans ahead, like the government that had

the vision to start Site C, not the one that now scrambles to play catch-up.

Yes, let’s consider more renewable energy. Let’s build wind farms, solar arrays, new

transmission lines and even explore the potential for small, modular, nuclear or geothermal,

but let’s do it with transparency, accountability and long-term planning, not with

the rushed, short-sighted decision that forced this government into creating Bill

14 out of desperation and now a matter of a confidence vote.

This legislation, under the guise of streamlining renewable energy development, is

actually a sweeping power grab by the B.C. NDP government, one that centralizes unchecked

authority in the hands of cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator. Let’s be clear. Supporting

renewable energy does not mean we should abandon transparency, public oversight or

democratic process, yet this is precisely what this bill proposed.

[2:10 p.m.]

The government claims that this bill will streamline renewable energy approvals. At

first glance, this sounds promising. We all want clean energy projects to succeed

in B.C., but let’s not ignore the real reason these projects are stalled in the first

place. It’s because of this NDP’s own overregulation and red tape, which has driven

investment away and made it nearly impossible to complete major infrastructure projects

in a timely manner.

Now, after years of creating bottlenecks, they want to appear like a hero by offering

a single-window approach, a system that currently covers nine wind farms and the North

Coast transmission line. But by order in council, the cabinet now can expand this

to cover any renewable resource they choose without debate, without public input and

without any oversight. Then we no longer need to debate here.

While the streamlined system may be sold as a fix, it’s really just a means to centralize

power, and we should be very wary about how this authority is being structured.

One of the most alarming features of Bill 14 is that it allows certain renewable energy

projects to be exempt from the environmental assessment process. Let me repeat that.

This bill gives the power to the government to let projects skip one of the most important

safeguards we have, the very process designed to assess and mitigate the long-term

impact of industrial development on our ecosystems, our wildlife, our water and our

communities.

This is not a small administrative change. This is a fundamental shift in how we protect

British Columbia’s environment from being harmed. And while the government claims

this exemption applies only to a limited set of projects, the legislation itself makes

it crystal clear. Any project without a dam — and that includes many wind, solar and

transmission projects — can be added to the exemption list later by regulation.

In other words, cabinet alone can decide which projects are subject to scrutiny and

which are not, behind closed doors and without public debate. That’s a massive loophole

here, and it opens the floodgates for industrial-scale energy developments to move

forward without proper oversight or at the whim of an executive branch.

Perhaps just as troubling is what isn’t being talked about. This bill also gives the

cabinet the power to block or disapprove renewable energy projects, again without

any public oversight, justification or transparency. That’s an enormous amount of

unchecked authority. It raises serious concerns about fairness and potential conflict

of interest.

In a province where clean energy should be a shared, transparent and equitable goal,

we’re instead giving one political party, the NDP, the ability to pick winners and

losers behind closed doors. That’s not how good governments work. Let’s not kid ourselves.

This is not about cutting red tape. This is about cutting accountability.

The environmental assessment process exists for a reason. It forces developers to

consider the impact of their projects. It gives the First Nations, local governments

and citizens a voice. It shines a light on potential environmental risk before the

damage is done. By sidelining this process, the NDP government is not just speeding

things up; they are rolling the dice with our natural environment.

The bill also introduces a so-called single-window system by placing the B.C. Energy

Regulator in charge of energy project approvals, removing the need to go through multiple

ministries.

Now, in theory, this might sound efficient, but let’s be clear. Streamlining is not

a synonym for safeguarding. Just because you make the process faster doesn’t mean

you’re making it better or safer. When you centralize authority in the hand of a single

regulator with minimal checks and balances, you increase the risk of bad decisions

being made with minimal transparency and even less accountability.

[2:15 p.m.]

This kind of fast track invites corners to be cut. It invites environmental shortcuts

in the name of political convenience. That’s not just speculation. Experts like West

Coast Environmental Law have raised the alarm, warning that Bill 14 opens the door

for projects to move forward without the kind of meaningful environmental scrutiny

that has, for decades, protected British Columbia’s watersheds, forests, salmon habitats

and rural communities from long-term damage.

The government says we must act urgently to address climate change and build clean

energy. Sure. I agree. But urgency cannot become an excuse for recklessness. We must

not throw out the very environmental protections that define who we are as a province

just because this government is under pressure to look like it’s doing something.

British Columbians want real action. That’s true. But they also want it to be done

right.

This brings me to my second concern: the lack of meaningful consultation with the

Indigenous communities. Indigenous nations across B.C., from the coast to the Interior,

have been pioneers in clean energy. They have developed solar microgrids, hydro projects

— the community-driven solutions that serve remote populations and uphold environmental

values. They have led with integrity, vision and respect for the land.

Yet this Bill 14 was dropped and introduced without transparent or inclusive engagement

with many of those same communities. Where was the government when it came time to

consult? Where was the listening, the sharing of power, the free, prior and informed

consent?

The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council has already spoken out against the bill. So not

just the opposition, the Conservative Party, is opposing. The communities are opposing,

warning that their energy projects could be derailed. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

is echoing those concerns. If we truly respect Indigenous rights, we cannot pass legislation

that sidelines Indigenous voices and jeopardizes Indigenous economic development.

While we all agree that transitioning to renewable energy is essential for our province’s

future, we must also acknowledge a fundamental truth. Even clean energy projects can

have serious environmental consequences if they’re rushed, poorly planned or implemented

without proper oversight.

Let’s not forget that large-scale hydro projects, while carbon-neutral, can flood

entire ecosystems, displace wildlife and disrupt aquatic habitats. While projects

involving dams are currently excluded from Bill 14, smaller-scale projects like wind

farms and transmission lines are not. They, too, carry significant environmental risks

when poorly planned. Wind farms, for instance, can interfere with bird and bat migration

and alter natural landscapes. Transmission infrastructure can carve through forests,

cross wetlands and damage ecologically sensitive areas.

Yet Bill 14 treats these projects as if they’re automatically low impact, giving them

fast-track approval, often without proper environmental assessment. That’s a dangerous

assumption. Just because a project is green in theory doesn’t mean it’s harmless in

practice. This kind of blanket extension mindset is reckless. We need to apply the

same level of environmental scrutiny to renewable energy projects as we do to any

other major industrial development, because clean energy is only truly clean if it

respects and protects the natural environment it relies on.

Right now there are already growing tensions between conservation goals and clean

energy development, yet Bill 14 completely ignores this reality. It treats all renewable

energy projects as inherently good and therefore deserving a free pass, regardless

of the size, location, ecological footprint. There’s no nuance, no careful weighing

on impacts, no meaningful planning framework to ensure that these projects actually

enhance rather than undermine our environmental legacy. That’s not smart policy. That’s

lazy policy. That’s reactive and overly simplistic.

[2:20 p.m.]

We cannot afford to pit one priority of building green infrastructure against another

equally important goal: protecting British Columbia’s biodiversity, watersheds, wildlife

corridors and rural communities.

Bill 14 doesn’t just stop at expediting approvals; it goes much, much further. This

is where the legislation becomes deeply troubling. This bill grants the B.C. Energy

Regulator unprecedented authority. It allows the regulator to change the very law

and rules that govern itself, including the Energy Resource Activities Act, without

any approval from the Legislature.

Let that sink in for a moment. We’re handing the regulator the ability to rewrite

its own playbook with no votes, no debates, no public input and no oversight from

the elected representatives in this chamber. That’s not democratic. That’s not transparent.

That’s not how we should be governing a sector as important as our clean energy future.

It doesn’t end there. Bill 14 further empowers the regulator.

First, under Bill 14, the regulator would have the power to suspend and cancel public

hunting, trapping and angling permits. These are not just hobbies; these are activities

deeply rooted in our traditions, culture and lifestyle of British Columbians for the

past 100-plus years, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities.

These are long-standing rights, not privileges to be revoked without justification.

For many, hunting and fishing are not just part of how they put food on the table;

they are part of how they pass knowledge down through generations. Yet this NDP government

is now giving it to unelected officials and bureaucrats to confirm, reduce, extend

or terminate licences. These officers have the ability to shut those rights down at

will and without public consultation, without a hearing and extend it indefinitely.

Have we just moved to a dictatorship state? A place where decisions on our rights

are made behind closed doors by unelected officials, where the rights and freedoms

of British Columbians can be suspended at the whim of a single officer. If we’re not

careful, this is the kind of unchecked power we risk giving away with Bill 14.

Second, the bill allows the regulator to override existing safety regulators for certain

renewable energy projects. Let’s be clear. Those safety standards exist for a reason.

They protect workers on construction sites, technicians in the field and families

who live near these projects. Removing these protections in the name of speed or cost

efficiency isn’t progress, it’s negligence. We would never tolerate the removal of

workplace safety standards in other sectors. So why should renewable energy be an

exception?

Let me ask this. If these safety regulations can now be overridden, omitted or suddenly

deemed unnecessary, does that mean they were never essential to begin with? Were they

just bureaucratic burdens this government placed on the province for the past eight

years?

If that’s the case, then the ministry responsible should come out and publicly apologize

to British Columbians for wasting their time, money and resources enforcing what this

bill now implies were unnecessary rules all along. You can’t have it both ways. Either

safety matters or it never did. And if it matters, it must not be discarded for political

convenience.

Third, and perhaps most shockingly, this bill gives the regulator the power to determine

whether land is of heritage significance, even land that may be sacred or culturally

vital to First Nations or the local community. And here’s the real kicker. Regulators

also get to appoint a person who makes that determination. There’s no independent

process, no community involvement, no accountability.

[2:25 p.m.]

Imagine the conflict of interest. Imagine the irreversible consequences of allowing

someone with no cultural connection to a place to declare that it holds no significance,

all because it clears the path for a project to go ahead: clean energy. This isn’t

just bad policy. It is a complete disregard for reconciliation and shared stewardship.

Finally, Bill 14 gives the regulator authority to approve or disapprove changes to

land use within the agricultural land reserve, all without consulting with the Agricultural

Land Commission.

Linda Hepner : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Linda Hepner : Thank you to my colleague for giving up that moment of time for me to be able to

welcome, to the House, grade 5 students from my riding in Surrey–Serpentine River,

from the Frost Road Elementary School. There are three classes of grade 5 students

here today.

I would like the House to welcome them and to let them understand that what’s going

on this afternoon is a debate about this bill on renewable energy and streamlining

processes in the House, so that they understand that we’re here to make a difference

in their world. We’re so excited to have them here.

Thank you to my colleague.

Debate Continued

Hon Chan : Welcome to the House, students. Today we are talking about Bill 14, and I will continue

about the agricultural land reserve.

The problem is, now, without consulting the Agricultural Land Commission, the very

body tasked to safeguard our farmland and protect B.C. food security…. This is not

just a procedural oversight; that’s a dangerous precedent. At a time when food prices

are climbing and arable land is shrinking, we should be doubling down on protecting

farmlands, not bypassing the very institution designed to do so.

When you look at all these powers together, a pattern emerges. Decisions that affect

people’s lives, communities, cultures and safety are being centralized in the hands

of a regulator with no built-in accountability. This is not about clean energy anymore.

This is about unchecked authority, and British Columbians should be very concerned.

This bill also enables the B.C. Energy Regulator to introduce new fees, levies and

costs retroactively. Let me repeat that — retroactively. That means companies, organizations

or even individuals could find themselves suddenly responsible for paying costs they

had no way of anticipating when they started their projects — costs that were never

disclosed, consulted on or agreed to at the outset. That isn’t just unfair; that’s

alarming.

It creates a regulatory environment where the rules can be changed after the fact

and where the finish line can be moved once the race has already begun. How does that

build investor confidence? How does that foster innovation and then attract responsible

development? This doesn’t. This does the opposite. It sends a message that British

Columbia is unpredictable, unstable and hostile to long-term investment.

This kind of unpredictability is a nightmare for business planning. It penalizes exactly

the kinds of companies — clean tech start-ups, Indigenous partnerships and community-led

initiatives — that we should be empowering. Instead, it puts them at the mercy of

bureaucratic whims and retroactive penalties.

What’s worse, it opens the door to political favouritism. With no oversight, this

government could selectively penalize or reward different groups based on their preferences,

ideology or relationships. That’s not governance. It undermines the rule of law and

the principles of fairness. It’s not just bad policy. It’s dangerous policy, this

Bill 14. We can’t build a reliable energy future on top of an unreliable and politically

manipulable regulatory foundation.

The bill introduces a separate orphan fund for renewable energy projects, intended

to address projects that are abandoned or left incomplete. While this is conceptually

useful, it currently lacks key safeguards. There’s no independent oversight, no reporting

framework and no guarantee that the fund will be transparently managed, and the authority

to draw from or manage the fund sits squarely with, you guessed it, the regulator

and the cabinet.

[2:30 p.m.]

This should be a red flag for every British Columbian concerned about public money

and environmental liability. What we are seeing with Bill 14 is a continuation of

the authoritarian tendencies we saw in Bill 7. This bill sought sweeping powers over

land use planning.

Now Bill 14 gives those same unchecked powers over energy developments. The government

claims they are just advancing nine wind farms and transmission lines, but hey, this

bill allows them to take control of any project they choose, anytime, anywhere, under

the banner of renewable energy. There’s no clear limit to their reach, there’s no

meaningful oversight by the Legislature, and there’s no accountability to the public.

In conclusion, yes, we need more clean energy projects. So stop saying that we are

not supporting clean energy projects. We are, clearly. We need to build infrastructure

for a low-carbon future, and more quickly, but Bill 14 is not the best way to do it.

It strips away environmental protections. It bypasses Indigenous and community consultation.

It gives one government and one regulator total authority without legislative approval.

It leaves our natural lands, our heritage sites, and even our hunting and fishing

rights at the mercy of the cabinet and unelected bureaucrats. We should not trade

democratic process for executive convenience.

This bill is not about clean energy. It’s not about Donald Trump. But it is about

control. If we care about transparency, accountability and real climate leadership,

that’s not what Bill 14 is about.

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s my pleasure to speak in favour of this bill, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined

Permitting) Act. What this bill does, along with the work that the Minister of Energy

and Climate Solutions has done, is lay a vision for this province of clean, abundant

energy that we can all be proud of. It’s important to note that with this bill, what

it means is we’ll be able to get to these projects faster, to build up our clean energy

grid in B.C. and connect energy through all corners of our province in a really powerful

and visionary way.

I’m so proud of the work that’s happening with our government to make sure that we

can fast-track what’s good for this province: clean energy, solutions for climate

change and securing our energy independence. All of these things are needed now and

in the future.

What it lays out, through these tools in this act and the vision that the Minister

of Energy and Climate Solutions is laying out, is a future in our province where there’s

abundant clean energy, where we can transition away from fuels that are adding to

our emissions, and where we can do the transition work on the ground on every corner

of this province. It’s a beautiful vision that everybody should get behind. The tools

that we are putting in place with this bill will help us do exactly that. It’ll help

us build up this vision of this province that we all should be supporting.

What this bill allows us to do is to streamline the permitting process for renewable

energy projects and transmission lines. The minister had done a call to power, and

I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about what that call to power means

for this province: the first call to power that happened in 2024, and the approval

of projects that were $6 billion worth of investment in the province, $3 billion of

which was equity for First Nations across this province.

What will that do for our grid? We know that that will increase the supply by 8 percent

of clean energy, equivalent to the Site C dam, and that’s enough power for 500,000

new homes. We think about that impact. And we’re just getting started. The minister

announced recently another call to power, which would double that.

[2:35 p.m.]

As somebody who is not only part of this government but a citizen of this province,

I’m really proud of that. I’m proud of the transformative nature that that could have

on the future of some of our guests here today that are in elementary school and the

future of this province and the future that we can build together.

We need to do that quickly. We need to do that in a way that respects all of our beautiful

environment, respects First Nations people but moves quickly. This bill gives us the

tools to exactly do that. What it would mean is that there would be a single permitting

agency for renewable energy projects and transmission lines. It will simplify the

approval process for these projects, eliminating the need for cross-ministry and agency

permitting.

The opposition talks quite a bit about red tape, but I find it interesting that when

this bill before them is about making sure that we can streamline things to get things

built faster, they’re speaking against it. I find that confusing — not only for myself

and the government that listens to it but, I’m sure, for the public.

What we have before this House is something that takes the tools that we have as a

government to reduce the timeline it takes to make sure that permitting goes quickly,

to make sure that there can be certainty in our processes so we can build things quicker,

we can build to the needs that our clean energy grid demands and the needs of the

future. I find that really inspiring.

To talk a little bit about the importance of reconciliation to the work that we’ve

done and are doing: as a government and, I know, personally in my role, we work very

closely to make sure that our work and our commitment to UNDRIP is happening in every

aspect of our government. It’s been a core part of the work that we’ve been doing

for a few years now.

A very important part of that, which I think should be noted, was to make sure that

all of our laws align with our commitments under the constitution and the honour of

the work of the Crown that we need to do.

That’s why in 2021 we amended the

Interpretation Act and added 8.1 to that

Interpretation

Act. What that clearly states is that every enactment in law in British Columbia cannot

derogate from the rights of Indigenous people in the constitution. We are so committed

to that that we put it clearly in our

Interpretation Act, which is a tool to interpret

every single piece of legislation in British Columbia.

I want all of our First Nations partners to know that that commitment is strong from

all of us and that, I think, is exemplified in the nature of the projects that we’re

moving forward in a streamlined way, where $3 billion of the $6 billion is First Nations

equity. We are not only doing something to grow our grid; we are supporting First

Nations partners across this province.

Another really powerful thing about this streamlined process is the North Coast transmission

line. That’s going to help connect this province, connect clean energy to corners

of this province to spur economic growth. We on this side of the House are supportive

of making sure that every community across this province — rural, remote, urban —

has the opportunities that they need to have a strong economy. One of those is making

sure that they have access to clean energy and that all those economic opportunities

that come with access to that clean energy are supported.

The streamlining of that process to build the North Coast transmission line is another

really inspiring part that lays the groundwork for what our future could be in this

province and the future that we can build together if we focus our resources in the

right direction, if we put the energy and time that we have in a focused way to make

sure that these projects are getting built in a timely way and that we’re pushing

forward with our vision for the future.

There’s another level that we’ve all been facing in the last few months. Certainly,

I’ve been debating for about 49 hours in another part of this House about how we’re

responding to unprecedented threats that we’re facing from our partners that we used

to have down south — and, hopefully, one day will. That’s a threat to our sovereignty.

That’s a threat to how we can depend on our partners.

[2:40 p.m.]

We have to shift away from relying on what was a strong relationship for many things,

including our trade. One of the things we’ve all been focused on since then is ensuring

that our sovereignty is protected, I think, also — you’ve heard from the Prime Minister

— energy independence.

Energy independence is vital to how we make sure that our industries have a source

of energy, that we’re not tied to grids that we can’t depend on and that are unreliable

across border in the context of a trade war and what could be threats to our sovereignty.

As a government, we’ve responded in many ways, and legislation before this House really

demonstrates that, whether it’s our Bill 7, Bill 14 or another bill before the House

that is about speeding up our hospitals, schools and other infrastructure that’s badly

needed in this province.

It is time for us to stand together, for us to realize that our power is in investing

in our people, investing in our energy infrastructure and investing in our future.

Our government, I know, sees that vision and sees the vision of a clean future where

we’re addressing climate change, where every corner of this province has access to

clean energy, where we can build up the economies that we know we need to rely on

in the future and today, and where we’re independent in every way that we can be.

I believe in the people of this province. I believe in their ability to meet adversity,

to adapt and to become stronger. But we, as a government, need to make sure we have

the tools in place to respond to that and to make sure that investment stays in this

province by moving quickly when it comes to certainty in regulatory regimes, when

it comes to responding to the growth that we need to see all over our province.

It’s a real pleasure for me to stand up and support the work of the Minister of Energy

and Climate Solutions in bringing this bill forward. I’m really excited about what

it means for the province and excited about what it means for clean energy and addressing

climate change in the future.

There are a few things that, I think, just in closing, I’ll talk about that come with

the call to power. The 2024 call to power projects — ten new wind and solar projects;

5,000 gigawatt hours are enough power for 500,000 homes, as I mentioned before. The

second call to power will double it. These accelerated timelines will mean that these

projects are done faster and they can be part of the grid faster.

This is a plan that is meeting the moment and also meeting the future for this province,

and it is something that I think we should all be proud of. I would hope that everybody

in this House would support the good work that’s contained in this bill and the impacts

it will have on the future of this province.

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m pleased to speak to Bill 14, with significant changes on how energy projects

are assessed and regulated in our province. I fully recognize renewable energy as

an important step in our climate goals, our affordability goals and our energy sovereignty

goals.

In getting these projects online, however, Bill 14 gives sweeping new powers, as has

been mentioned, to the B.C. Energy Regulator. This is a Crown corporation originally

created to serve the oil and gas industry. This bill would expand the regulator’s

mandate to include renewable energy projects like wind, solar and geothermal, as well

as major transmission infrastructure.

The title says this bill is about streamlining, but what it really seems to be streamlining

is environmental protections — consolidating authority within a regulator that many

communities do not trust to act in the public interest.

As I said, the original purpose of the Energy Regulator was very much to facilitate

the development of the oil and gas industry in the province and act as a one-stop

concierge, so to speak. While that has shifted since inception, the origin story goes

a long way to explain the current state of its compliance and enforcement. Formerly

the Oil and Gas Commission, the Energy Regulator is both a one-stop shop for all approvals

and in charge of keeping companies in line with the laws.

[2:45 p.m.]

By way of the Energy Resource Activities Act, the regulator has special powers over

the Environmental Management Act, Water Sustainability Act, Land Act, Wildlife Act,

Forest Act and Heritage Conservation Act, among others, noting that all these need

to be followed in permitting these projects.

This means the regulator can make decisions and issue permits to clear an archaeological

site, for example, or cut down forests to clear land for fossil fuel projects. It

also means the regulator is responsible for enforcement if a project like Coastal

GasLink is breaking any of those laws.

The Energy Regulator is commonly known to be industry regulating itself, paid for

through industry fees and seen by many as a rubber stamp entity. So far it has not

effectively represented public and Indigenous values or scientific rigour in its decision-making.

The Crown corporation claims to be independent but, as I mentioned, is funded by industry,

overseen by a government-appointed board and lacking in transparency.

Compare this to the B.C. environmental assessment office. Their inspection reports

are regularly published to their website. B.C. Energy Regulator reports are not publicly

available. BCER has faced significant criticism for its oversight of the Coastal GasLink

project, particularly regarding environmental compliance. Despite conducting over

500 inspections, the BCER issued only 12 minor tickets totalling approximately $2,760.

In contrast, the EAO has levied over $1.4 million in penalties against Coastal GasLink

for repeated environmental non-compliance.

Furthermore, investigative reports have revealed instances where the BCER identified

potential environmental infractions but did not take enforcement action. Recent reporting

by the Narwhal and the Investigative Journalism Foundation detailed how, in many cases, the B.C.

Energy Regulator did not fine or reprimand companies when they apparently broke regulations

intended to protect the environment and public health and safety.

Is this who we want regulating our clean energy future? Public support is not a given;

it must be earned. After the BCER failure to properly regulate Coastal GasLink, support

and trust with northern communities must be restored.

How has the province learned from the terrible failures with Coastal GasLink? How

are they improving operations at the BCER? We’ve asked this question in briefings

but received vague answers. The problem is that many of these items are to be resolved

through regulations that will follow that we can’t see at this moment.

How will cumulative impacts be assessed? Who will be responsible for consultation

with First Nations? How will the regulator conduct public engagement? What processes

will take place in lieu of an environmental assessment? These are important questions

that need answers before this bill becomes law.

The BCER must evolve beyond facilitating industry to a credible, science-based, rights-respecting

public agency, especially if it is going to be trusted with regulating B.C.’s clean

energy future. Unfortunately, none of that is part of this bill.

I would like to speak for a moment about the North Coast transmission line, specifically

referenced in this bill — a $3 billion, 450-kilometre hydro transmission project.

According to B.C. Hydro, it’s expected to power a wide range of industrial customers.

The impacts on people, land and wildlife are substantial. The proposed route would

affect over 100 private properties, including valuable agricultural land. It would

cross traplines, woodlots and come within 200 metres of archaeological sites. It overlaps

with winter habitat for moose and crosses rivers that support at-risk white sturgeon.

These are not minor details to be streamlined. They are critical to the ecological

and cultural fabric of northern B.C.

The government has been promoting this line as essential infrastructure. Some of these….

The Third Party caucus supports port electrification, hydrogen processing, maybe even

some critical mineral processing and mining to help with our electrified future.

Deputy Speaker : Excuse me, Leader of the Third Party, I want to recognize the member for Surrey–Serpentine

River.

Linda Hepner : Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the recognition, and my apologies to my Green Party

colleague. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:50 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Linda Hepner : We have another class of grade 5 students from the Frost Road Elementary School in

the Surrey–Serpentine River riding, so welcome them to the House.

Just to let them know, there are three Houses going on right now, so that they don’t

think we’ve all gone on vacation.

Thank you for making them feel welcome here this afternoon.

Debate Continued

Jeremy Valeriote : As I was saying, we can support some of the purposes of the North Coast transmission

line — port electrification, possibly some critical mineral mining for electrification

and hydrogen processing. I will leave liquefaction of natural gas aside as a separate

item that we are unable to support and that will, potentially, use most of this electrical

power.

The Energy Minister went as far as to say that if the line isn’t built, and built

quickly, those industries may not proceed in the northwest. When I asked in estimates

debate who the line is really for, the minister responded: “First and foremost, the

residents of the northwest.” That’s a very different story from what’s said in press

releases, and it really changes the picture on the North Coast transmission line.

I look forward to committee stage to get some clarity on this. British Columbians

deserve transparency and clarity on this. They deserve to know whether the line is

being truly built for them or whether they’re being asked to bear the costs of subsidizing

industry of any kind. Make no mistake, the costs are real. If public money is used

to build this line, we’re shifting the financial burden onto everyday ratepayers.

If used for LNG, it would be a step backward on the government’s commitment to end

fossil fuel subsidies.

This government has made clear that if B.C. wants to meet its climate objectives,

new LNG development must be powered by electricity. The 2023 report from the Pembina

Institute showed that electrifying just B.C.’s oil and gas sector would require more

than eight times the electricity produced by the Site C dam. That’s an astonishing

figure, and it raises serious questions about priorities. That’s not only eight Site

C dams, but also eight calls for power of the size that was just issued.

We should be using our clean electricity to power real climate solutions, not fossil

fuel projects. I can’t emphasize enough how little sense it makes to produce clean

energy only to liquefy fossil fuels to ship across the Pacific to be burned.

By bypassing environmental assessments, we’re bypassing the process designed to identify

and mitigate impacts but also to build community support and social licence for these.

A few years ago this government updated the Environmental Assessment Act precisely

to ensure a more holistic view of impacts and to fully respect the rights of Indigenous

peoples. Weakening those standards now sends the wrong message at the worst possible

time.

On the process of this, we can’t make the mistake of equating speed with progress.

The push to cut red tape too often means cutting out communities, cutting corners

on environmental protection and cutting short the consultation with Indigenous peoples.

This debate isn’t just about regulation; it’s about trust. It’s about whether British

Columbians can believe that the systems in place will protect their environment, respect

Indigenous rights and ensure that decisions are made in the public interest. The public

can’t know that — in fact, this House can’t know that — because most of this will

be sorted out in regulations.

In B.C., developments like mines, pipelines and large infrastructure projects must

undergo an environmental assessment. They’re not red tape; they’re rigorous, science-based

and designed to ensure that we understand the impacts of major projects before shovels

hit the ground. I’ve participated in these, and yes, occasionally they hit a snag

that is frustrating for industry and even frustrating for regulators. But on the whole,

they’re meant to introduce science and build socioeconomic licence and protect the

environment.

The process typically takes three to five years when it’s conducted by the environmental

assessment office. It’s an independent agency that reports to the Ministry of Environment,

not to industry, and when violations occur, the environmental assessment office has

issued real penalties, including for projects like Coastal GasLink.

[2:55 p.m.]

What we’re seeing now is a dangerous trend, a growing trend of cutting red tape, dismantling

of protections in the name of speed. This isn’t a theoretical concern on the precautionary

principle. We’ve seen the consequences. We saw it at Mount Polley, where a tailings

dam failure devastated a watershed. We see it in the southeast, where selenium from

coal mines continues to poison rivers. We saw it on Banks Island, where a project

that never underwent an environmental assessment dumped waste into the ocean and declared

bankruptcy, leaving the community to deal with the mess.

These are all painful reminders of what happens when we rush to deregulate. We need

to stop treating regulation as a barrier and recognize it as the safeguard that it

is. If we’re serious about building clean energy — we are serious, and we fully support

that — we also have to be serious about doing it right.

That means strengthening regulatory protections, not weakening them. It means ensuring

free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous peoples. It means creating space

for meaningful public participation that builds public support. The cost of getting

this wrong is not just financial. It’s environmental, social and generational.

In closing, how we build these renewable energy projects really matters. This energy

transition must be built on a foundation of strong environmental standards; meaningful

Indigenous consultation; and transparent, independent oversight. It must earn and

maintain the trust of the public.

Bill 14 risks undermining that trust. If we want to build a clean energy future that

lasts, we must ensure that the public is not just consulted but confident that their

voices, their values and their environments are protected. That’s how we build support.

That’s how we build legitimacy. That’s how we build social licence and a truly sustainable

future.

The B.C. Green caucus has a small number of concerns with this bill that we will bring

forward at committee stage. We will hope to hear those resolved or bring amendments,

and we look forward to the next phase of this bill.

Ward Stamer : I enjoyed very much the previous two debates from the government side. What was interesting

is that we were supposed to be debating and talking about the processing of streamlining

projects, electrification projects, and really, what we got from the previous two

members was an election speech — you know, ramping up about sovereignty and the fact

that we’ve really got to do this.

Let’s be candid about our expectations on electrification. Never once did this side

ever say that we were against electrification — not once, okay?

If we want to talk about forward thinking in this government, let’s go way, way, way

back to 2021, where it says: “Where does B.C. Hydro find itself today?” A whopping

four years. It says right in here: “B.C. Hydro is well positioned to serve our customers’

provincewide electricity needs for most of the next decade, with additional demand-side

measures, before adding any new clean and renewable energy resources. Our integrated

system is currently in a surplus.”

Well, the Energy Minister knows, just like I know, that we no longer have a surplus

— period. I can’t imagine what my grandfather’s generation would think right now.

My grandfather was involved in power generation in Revelstoke when he got back from

serving in World War II. Those people were incredibly proud, not only incredibly proud

of what they were able to build but forward-thinking enough so that we could have

that capacity in the future.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I kind of giggle and laugh now when we hear the minister taking responsibility for

Site C, a project that hasn’t even really come online yet, something that was previously

designed and purposely brought before this House and that was actually soundly defeated

by the opposition of the time, the NDP — now taking credit for that project, taking

credit for LNG. Next they’ll be taking credit, I’m sure, for Mica in Revelstoke and

possibly the Bennett dam.

[3:00 p.m.]

Honestly, where is the forward thinking in this whole process? I mean, we’re supposed

to be talking about streamlining protocols. Well, the only reason why we’re even having

this discussion today, even the purpose of having Bill 14, is that there hasn’t been

any planning or forward thinking. Now we’re so far behind that they have to do everything

they possibly can to cut through everything that’s necessary in this province. One

of those things is making sure that there’s proper public consultation, there’s proper

environmental assessment and it’s done properly.

I’ve spent the last three days trying to go through this process. I’m trying to determine

numbers, and I haven’t seen any numbers on any of this stuff when it comes to cost.

All I’ve seen is a wish list. We talk about ten projects: nine that are wind, one

that is solar. I’m trying to go through the math, and that’s just about impossible,

especially with this government because we know how good they are with math. I mean,

what’s that deficit going to be now — $13 billion, $14 billion, $15 billion? Hell,

let’s make it $20 billion. It doesn’t seem to matter to them how much money we need

to spend.

Even though we do have one of the lowest rates for electricity in North America, I

can guarantee you that’s going to change under this government. When I’m looking at

some of the numbers…. I’d like to be able to talk to that because I think the other

side had a fair amount of latitude when it came to not even talking about the process

but talking about sovereignty. I’ll get to that in a minute.

The reality is, when you look at these first ten projects…. The previous member that

was speaking mentioned it was $6 billion. Well, we were told each project was $750

million, so that comes in at $7.5 million, not $6 million.

Now, if the Energy Minister wants to refute that, maybe he can actually show us some

real numbers of what these projects are supposed to cost.

We haven’t seen anything, have we, Mr. Minister? Not a penny.

But oh, hey, we’ve got non-disclosure agreements, and we’ve got a bunch of stuff going

on behind closed doors, but we’ll get to it. We’ll let you know how much money it’s

going to cost.

This next request for proposal hasn’t even been done yet. He’s talking about it, but

it hasn’t even been done yet. It’s not even on the paper.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I will just…. I’m not sure why the minister is coming to the Chair, but we’ll

deal with that in a moment.

I will say this is not question period. We’re here to debate Bill 14, and I’m very

interested in understanding how that’s going to affect residents in British Columbia.

Please carry on.

Ward Stamer : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The reality is that we have an energy electrification deficit in this province — end

stop. We knew this was coming years ago. B.C. Hydro did not adequately plan for the

future. Now they’re trying to wrap everything together in clean energy because of

some unknown reason other than that we’re supposed to save the planet all by ourselves.

When you look at other alternatives…. In renewable, there’s also biomass, okay? Nowhere

does it say that we couldn’t be using biomass as that alternative for renewable energy.

It doesn’t say that. In the last introduction of proposals, there was one biomass

project that was identified, and it wasn’t awarded. Okay?

The second

part is that when we look at baseload, we look at redundancies, we look

at streamlining the process….

The minister doesn’t want to hear my speech, so that’s great. We can talk about numbers

when we get to committee.

The reality is that we need to have certainty of supply, not only for electrification

and electricity but for a wide variety of things in this product. Without input, we

don’t have output.

When we have opportunities here to be planning for the future, and we’re talking about

the North Coast transmission line, which is basically just the doubling of the existing

500-kilovolt line that goes from Prince George to Terrace, that’s one thing. That’s

distribution of power. But where is the power going to be coming from?

Some of the concerns that have been brought on this side of the House not only in

the streamlining process that this government says it desperately needs but in the

negative impacts to our environment…. We know that if we’re going to be putting these

projects together, we’re going to be negatively impacting the environment.

[3:05 p.m.]

When you look at the sheer scope of just those nine wind projects that are going to

be built, the amount of concrete that’s going to have to be transported to those locations,

the amount of excavation that is going to have to take place, the crossing of all

the streams and the reclassification and possibly changing of bridges, those are all

negative impacts to our environment.

Yet now the government feels that they don’t have to have any public consultation.

They can decide whether there is an environmental assessment or not because we really,

really, really need electricity. Well, we’ve known that for years, so that doesn’t

make any excuse not to do it properly. It also doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be looking

at other tools in the toolbox.

Now, even when we’re looking at streamlining the process…. You know, Site C, I think

we all agree, is something that was desperately needed in this province. Even if you

look at the planning that was put forward, and how many years, it goes back to 2007,

when the initial planning was being done. We’re talking 17, 18 years between that

initial process and the planning and the engagement with First Nations, many of whom

are still not very happy with the way the project went through, with a negative impact

to their lands.

Going forward, we still haven’t determined exactly how that’s going to work out with

this process. We know that in the Vancouver Sun today, there were some comments made by Assembly of First Nations Chief Teegee about

Bill 15, and a lot of that was around the fast-tracking of process. I’m not entirely

sure what they’re going to think about Bill 14.

When you start looking at what’s going on with these projects, with overlapping boundaries

with First Nations and all through the consultation process…. I’m just wondering how

this is actually going to work if it’s only up to cabinet to make that decision and

not allowing the people of this province, the people that are in this room right now,

to be able to be part of that process.

I heard earlier today that we’re supposed to be representing all the people in the

province. We do. The 93 of us do, from every single region in British Columbia. Some

of these regions will not be negatively impacted by these projects that are already

on the books, but many of them will be.

I think we’ve already talked about a bunch of the different negative aspects of this

project, whether it’s access for landowners; access for the Cattlemen’s Association,

which was here this week; access for First Nations; access for community forests;

access for forests in general and the licensees that have a legal responsibility and

a right to be able to use those forest service roads, the same roads that these projects

are going to be using at the same time.

There are a bunch of unanswered questions. That is why this side of the House doesn’t

agree with this rubber stamp, because that’s really what this is. This is kind of

like: “Just trust us, and we’re going to get it done.” Well, if past projects are

any indication of “trust us, we’re going to get this done,” if it ever does get done

it’s going to be half as good and twice as much money. That’s what their record speaks

for.

When we talk about process, by allowing the regulator to have sole jurisdiction in

this, the regulator will be able to change not only the regulations; there can be

laws changed as well. Now, again, that’s why we’re here. That’s why the members in

this House are here. It’s to hear from the public, hear their concerns and make the

laws. It isn’t for the cabinet to make the laws.

That’s why we’ve had so much push-back from Bill 7. That’s why the government took

amendment 4 out of Bill 7. It was specifically because of that.

This legislation also gives the regulator the authority to suspend or cancel permits.

These are existing permits. These could be permits for hunting, trapping, angling,

possibly community forest licences, possibly forest licences. The list goes on. Again,

this allows the government to rewrite whatever they want. So excuse me if I’m a little

bit skeptical on the trust side of things.

[3:10 p.m.]

In the last little while, certainly in the last eight years, this government has been

able to do whatever they want, when they want, when they have those types of powers,

without any checks or balances.

Now, we also heard from the other side about sovereignty and that we shouldn’t be

relying on our neighbours to the south for anything. Well, they’re right. My mom used

to tell me all the time: “Don’t worry about what somebody else is doing; worry about

what you’re doing.” That’s exactly what this side of the House is doing. We are worrying

about what we’re doing here in British Columbia.

If people out there aren’t totally familiar with the way electricity works in this

province, it’s buy and sell. We sell power to the U.S. at peak times, for peak dollars,

and then we turn around and import cheaper power at night. That’s how it has always

worked, but now we are a net importer of power. Last year it was over $500 million

that we had to import, and I’m guessing it’ll be more this year.

Even though our largest clean energy generator is hydroelectric, we’re still at the

whim of Mother Nature. We still may not have enough water for electricity on the demands

that we have. We also have a Columbia River treaty that hasn’t been renegotiated.

Part of that treaty is the Americans’ ability to tell us how much water we should

be sending downstream. Part of that agreement is money that we get back from the Americans

on that power-generation portion of the water that we provide naturally through our

dams. That’s up for renegotiation as well. Believe it or not, we still rely on each

other for the most trade of any two countries in the world, regardless of who’s sitting

in the Oval Office at this time.

I look forward to the opportunity, when we get to committee, to be able to ask the

minister specifically on the numbers that I asked for before. We cannot afford to

move forward on any of these projects without knowing exactly how much they’re going

to cost, how much power they’re going to create and when that power will actually

be generated and distributed in this province.

Now, I can argue from everything I’ve seen online, and people back home can check

it out for themselves, that when you look at wind power in most jurisdictions, it’s

half of what they say it’s going to be — half. If each one of these power generation

plants that have already been approved comes online at 160 megawatts, I would say

they’re going to be less than that.

When the member across says that we’re going to be able to generate enough power for

500,000 homes, from these last ten that have been announced, I would vehemently disagree

with that. In the past, in any other jurisdiction in the world, that isn’t true. Not

only are we going to get half of what we think we’re going to get or what has been

planned; it’ll end up costing us twice as much in the future.

One of the other things that affects many of us that aren’t in the Lower Mainland….

It does affect some in the Lower Mainland, because maybe this’ll be a wind farm coming

near you. Maybe it’s going to end with the next one being down in the valley. We don’t

know. It could be in the next call for power.

This allows the regulator, single-handedly, to change the regulations in regard to

the ALR. I know there are members on the other side that would disagree with that,

but with this streamlining of processes, what’s to say that that doesn’t happen? That’s

what I see in my notes.

It also talks about what land is heritage and what is not. That was specified as well.

They get to determine what is now heritage and what isn’t.

[3:15 p.m.]

Another thing it does is to allow the cabinet to decide who gets these projects. Again,

no oversight, no consultation. I mentioned it earlier, in my remarks to the member

across: where are the numbers? Where are the agreements? We’ve seen nothing.

Now, I’ve heard stories that many of these projects that have already been approved

have significant financial challenges on the structuring of the way the corporations

were designed and where the financing is coming from. There is no clear timeline on

when these projects are going to be built or to come online.

This streamlining process is supposed to enable the government to speed this up, so

that this power will be available sooner than was originally planned or originally

needed, but we have seen nothing concrete in timelines. Is it two years, five years,

eight years, ten years? We have no idea, yet we’re supposed to take it on faith. “Not

only are we working on it; we desperately need it. We need you guys to basically give

us a blank cheque.” But we have no idea when these projects are coming online.

Another thing, when we talk about streamlining the process, is that I can’t even find

a demand list from B.C. Hydro. I can’t even find exactly what our load demands are,

even a projection in five years. I would really like the opportunity, once we get

to committee, to have these conversations.

It’s very difficult for me to formulate an opinion, especially to be in a mindset

where I’m going to be able to accept and approve of what the government is doing,

without at least giving me the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Right now, we’ve received basically nothing.

All we’ve received is: “We really, really need the electricity, and we’ll do everything

we possibly can, but it has to be clean.” Well, how clean does it have to be? How

clean? We know that the targets that were originally designed by this government for

2030 seem to be changing. We just heard this week the Energy Minister mentioning that

if LNG 2 comes online, those emission targets and those emissions wouldn’t count,

because it was actually planned pre-2030. Wow.

Now they’re changing the parameters of how they determine what their targets actually

are. Does that mean that they’re going to change the parameters of what’s clean and

what’s not clean?

I can argue that if we’re going to use biomass as a renewable resource or renewable

generation, this is exactly what it says: renewable power. It doesn’t specify that

we can’t use biomass. The last call for power had one biomass in there. Unfortunately,

they weren’t successful. Does that mean that that’s going to be included in this next

round of requests? I can guarantee you that biomass does not have zero emissions.

It may be close, but it’s not net zero.

I’ve said this before, and maybe it’s only a personal reflection that, quite frankly,

net zero is for zeros. We’re never going to get to zero. Nowhere in this world is

it zero. Why are we destroying our economy by trying to get to zero, particularly

when the government is moving the goalposts when it comes to what actually counts

for climate targets and what doesn’t?

All the electricity that we import, as I mentioned earlier, from the U.S. — none of

that counts. If all of a sudden, some of the northern states wanted to use pure, coal-generated

power and turn around and trade it with us for the electricity that we supply to them,

that doesn’t count. It’s across the line, so it really doesn’t matter.

I heard a comment, also earlier today, about not supporting LNG, liquefication of

natural gas. Well, part of the challenge of that is that we are sacrificing clean

hydroelectric power from Site C to be able to use that power in Kitimat. Now, I can

argue that we should probably be using more natural gas power generation, because

that liquefied natural gas is replacing the dirty coal that other jurisdictions in

the Asia-Pacific are using right now, and I feel pretty good about that.

Even though it’s another jurisdiction not even trying to reduce their emissions, we’re

actually forcing them to do it by supplying them with a cleaner form of energy. I

don’t see anything wrong with that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Member, I wonder if we could get back to Bill 14.

Ward Stamer : Back to the process? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for keeping me on the

task at hand. The previous Chair didn’t seem to be too concerned about that, but thank

you very much for bringing me around to that.

When we look at a couple of the bills that are before us, including Bill 14…. I think

a previous member talked about it last night. There’s a reason why we got to this

place. Two reasons, actually. The first reason was that we prided ourselves in this

province to have some of the strongest environmental standards in the world. Some

of us might say that we were forced to do it. Some of us wanted to do it; some of

us didn’t want to do it. The reality is that we all support it. We’re better for it.

This streamlining, masking, is really not what we need. We need to be able to make

sure, with the guidance of this House, that those environmental standards are maintained,

not just with our First Nations, not just with public consultation but with the people

in this room that have just as much experience on this side as the other side. That’s

what’s important: to make sure that we do it right and not to start running around

and pretending that we’re desperate. Well, the only reason why we’re desperate is

because of lack of planning. That’s why we’re desperate.

I can argue that there are other ways of bringing electrification to our grid faster

than some of these projects. Yes, it may include other forms of renewable and cleaner

energy. We haven’t even discussed nuclear. That doesn’t even want to be part of the

table. Yet there are so many other jurisdictions in the world that rely on nuclear

power every single day. I can argue it’s one of the safest forms of electrification

there is now in the world. They’re not just shutting all their nuclear systems down.

They know it’s part of the overall package of supplying dependable power when we need

it.

When we have a government that ends up pushing us basically into a corner with changes

to electrification…. All the new builds are electrified. We ought to have EVs. Mandate

us till 2035, where it’s mandatory and you won’t be able to sell a new vehicle. Where

actually is this power going to come from?

I can argue that in downtown Vancouver or West Vancouver, if half the people down

there had an EV, there’s no way they’d charge them at their residence. They’d be charging

them out in Abbotsford and trying to find a way to get out there to go get their car.

That’s the forward-thinking that this NDP government has offered us.

Now they’re in a bind, they’re desperate and they want us to give them a blank cheque

with this Bill 14. Well, not from me and not from anybody else in this House until

they can convince us that the proper environmental standards are going to be met,

that we’re going to be able to see all the c