Summary

• As other provinces move to restrict access to public records, B.C. insists its proposed changes are about efficiency.
• Critics say these changes could make it harder for British Columbians to access public records.
• B.C.’s citizens services ministry is receiving fewer FOI requests now than it was in 2020, but those requests are producing more pages than ever before.

Maybe you’ve heard the famous lyric from Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi”: “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone?”

That wistful lament about the environmental impacts of development seems unfortunately applicable to freedom of information systems across Canada these days.

The federal government is mulling shielding some forms of government communications from the public. Ontario’s government recently passed a law that exempts documents created by the premier’s office, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries from freedom of information requests. The changes are part of the government’s omnibus bill and are retroactive, potentially stopping hundreds of active requests in their tracks. Meanwhile, Alberta enacted a new freedom of information regime last year, one that significantly restricts access rights and gives the government sweeping powers to withhold requested information or reject requests entirely.

The B.C. government’s freedom of information — known as FOI — legislation is different, at least according to Citizens Services Minister Diana Gibson. Since introducing Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, Gibson has repeatedly talked about other Canadian governments “pulling back” on access to information.

“We are not,” Gibson told reporters. “That’s why these amendments are here, to clarify that we are maintaining oversight and access and one of the strongest FOI acts in Canada.”

Broadly, Bill 9 has two areas of focus. Parts of the bill aim to make it easier for public bodies to share information in response to requests, cutting down on the need for people to contact multiple agencies to get the information they seek. 

Other changes seem geared toward getting more FOI requests rejected, critics say. Currently, the law says an FOI request must give “enough detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a reasonable effort, to identify the record sought.” Bill 9 adds that an experienced employee must be able to identify requested records in “a reasonable amount of time” in “the opinion of the head of the public body.” That potentially gives public sector executives a lot of power to refuse to fulfill requests.

“It degrades freedom of information under the guise of administrative convenience, making the government both judge and juror over what the public can access,” Green Party MLA Rob Botterell said in a statement about the changes. Botterell, who helped draft the original law, which passed in 1992, called Bill 9 an “evisceration of this cornerstone legislation.”

Gibson has accused critics of spreading misinformation and cherry-picking data about B.C.’s FOI system to suit their own narratives.

Let’s unpack the politics and posturing and dig into the current state of B.C.’s freedom of information system and the changes the government is proposing.

What is freedom of information?

Freedom of information is the idea that citizens have the right to access documents and records held by public entities, such as school districts, police forces and government ministries. In Canada, freedom of information rights are laid out in federal and provincial laws. Members of the public can request a range of information from various public entities, from meeting notes and staff communications to databases and documentation about new policies.

Journalists like me can request information to better understand the impact train collisions have on wildlife or uncover a significant equipment malfunction at B.C.’s first liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility.

Most Canadian jurisdictions introduced freedom of information laws around 40 years ago, before the digital revolution. In the years since, the amount of documents public bodies create has grown significantly and many of those documents are subject to freedom of information laws.

How many people actually file freedom of information requests?

B.C. is fielding fewer FOI requests than it once did. In 2020, the citizens services ministry logged a total of 8,347 general requests compared to 4,691 in 2025 — a 44 per cent drop that can likely be at least partly attributed to the creation of a $10 fee for requests implemented by the provincial government in 2021.

But the number of pages generated in response to the average request has increased. The Ministry of Citizens Services says its FOI operations office processed 1.64 million pages in 2020 compared to 2.18 million pages in 2025 — a 33 per cent increase. The average general FOI request filed in 2025 in B.C. yielded 366 pages.

That suggests the public bodies may not be managing information as efficiently as they could be, Mike Larsen, president of the BC Freedom of Information Association, said.

“If we have better ways for people to organize information and if that’s followed consistently, then it shouldn’t be a problem to provide efficient and effective access,” he said. “I think that the minister is not wrong to say that there’s been a shift in the terrain here, but to respond to this with the idea of needing to perhaps curtail access rights in some way, I think, is a step in the wrong direction.”

Larsen also points out that focusing on the quantitative aspects of the FOI system — number of requests filed and pages processed — doesn’t give a complete picture of how well the system is functioning.

An FOI request could, for instance, yield 300 pages, but hundreds of those pages could be redacted, offering no useful information to the requester. In cases like that, knowing the number of pages a public body produced but not how many of those pages contained useful information gives a “totally skewed” impression of the system, Larsen added.

The minister takes issue with the idea that FOI requests are down overall.

“Personal requests are up and those are bigger and more complex,” Gibson told reporters. “Overall, the issue is about sensitive Ministry of Children and Family Development files, where there are multiple parties involved and a lot of sensitive information, thousands of pages. So it isn’t just about numbers being down. Actually, that’s not accurate.”

Gibson is partly right. FOI requests to the Ministry of Children and Family Development — which is responsible for sensitive personal information about adoption, child protection and foster care — have increased. In 2025, the ministry received 2,372 requests, up from 1,858 in 2020.

However, overall requests are still down significantly, from 10,205 in 2020 to 7,063 last year. Citizens Services declined to provide data for the most recent fiscal year, telling The Narwhal those figures are still being reviewed.

How is the government proposing to change B.C.’s FOI law?

Gibson introduced Bill 9 on Feb. 26.

“Taken together, these amendments strengthen [the law] for the future,” she said during her second reading speech. “They protect privacy. They uphold access to information. They enable better services for British Columbians, and they support a more transparent, efficient and people-centred public sector.”

But in addition to the changes aimed at improving information sharing between public bodies, some parts of the legislation broadens the grounds on which public bodies can refuse to respond to requests. That includes allowing a public body to reject requests that “would unreasonably interfere” with its operations or the government’s more broadly. “Abusive” or “malicious” requests could also be thrown out.

Larsen worries public bodies operating with reduced budgets or poor information management policies could use the unreasonable interference language to reject requests “simply because they’re overwhelmed — for reasons that aren’t due to the requester’s actions or the nature of the request in question.”

“If you’re unreasonably resourced, then a reasonable request can look unreasonable,” he said.

If your FOI request is rejected, you can appeal to the FOI and privacy commissioner, Gibson points out.

“The independent office of the privacy commissioner oversees any requests that would be denied,” she said. “What we’re talking about here is things like … death threats or white powder in envelopes. This is about being able to manage that kind of behavior, so that citizens with requests that we want to serve can get served quickly.”

Relying on complaints to ensure good requests still make it through the system doesn’t sit well with Larsen.

“That really worries me when people say, ‘We’re changing things in a way that may make it likely that people are dissatisfied, but don’t worry, there’s an appeals process!” he said.

“Going through a review as a way of trying to manage the scope of requests, that’s just completely inefficient.”

The minister did not directly answer questions about whether the commissioner will get a funding increase to deal with the additional stream of complaints Bill 9 could create. Instead, she touted the government’s proactive disclosure policies and promised Bill 9 will result in the release of more information without FOI request.

“This isn’t about making the situation worse,” Gibson told reporters. “This is about making it better.”

So what is proactive disclosure? And how will Bill 9 expand it?

One way governments can reduce the need for members of the public to file requests is to release documents without being asked, a practice known as proactive disclosure. The B.C. government proactively releases 17 types of records, including binders for new cabinet ministers, lists of briefing notes and expense claims and records requested via freedom of information request.

Typically, these records are kept confidential for months before being published, although the timeline can vary. However, as of the publication of this story, the B.C. government has “temporarily paused” proactive disclosures while it develops and launches a new system to publish these records. (The pause has lasted more than a month so far.)

Gibson did not mention the suspension and, when asked about it directly, did not explain why the old publication platform could not continue until the new one was ready to launch.

“We haven’t stopped doing proactive disclosures. What we’ve got is a new and more modernized system that’s going to deliver better on proactive disclosure and also a new proactive disclosure coming in Bill 9,” she told reporters. “But there’s a temporary gap while we move to the new, more modern system, and we’re hoping to have that online as soon as possible.”

The Citizens Services Ministry said the “pause is temporary and technical in nature,” and that the new system is expected to be operational any day.

How many new types of documents will Bill 9 add to the proactive disclosure schedule? Many or none, depending on how you look at it. The new proactive disclosure provisions in the bill apply only to personal information, not records created by the government.

The changes will give government ministries the ability “to disclose personal information back to the individual the information is about, without going through an FOI request,” according to Citizens Services.

Larsen sees value in making it easier for people to access personal information from public bodies, especially with proper privacy protections in place.

“That’s not the same thing as proactive disclosure of public records, though,” he added. “It’s a very different and meritorious thing to do, but it’s important not to conflate those things.”

If — when? — Bill 9 passes, when will these changes take effect?

The B.C. legislature has just nine sitting days left before the summer break. If Bill 9 doesn’t pass by May 28, it will be October before it passes.

The bill is just about to begin committee stage, the point at which opposition MLAs can ask the minister responsible questions about the effect of the changes proposed and put forward changes of their own, though these don’t often end up in the final version.

Gibson has already tabled amendments to Bill 9, ones she says clarify the powers of the information and privacy commissioner.

“I’m really looking forward to committee [stage] where we actually get to speak to the merits of the legislation and have a real debate about the content,” Gibson said. “It’s also a good opportunity to correct some real misinformation and misunderstandings about the bill.”

The B.C. Green and B.C. Conservative caucuses oppose Bill 9 in its current form. Interim Conservative Leader Trevor Halford even tried to have debate on the bill suspended for six months to allow for further consultation, a move that led to hours of late-night debate before the motion was defeated with the support of the NDP caucus and a pair of independent MLAs.

Odds are good Bill 9 will pass this spring, even if the government has to cut debate short to make it happen. Some of its changes will take effect immediately, including the requirement that requests provide enough detail to be located in a “reasonable amount of time.” Most of the others won’t take effect until the ministry has developed regulations to provide more detail about their function.

That process could take weeks, months or more. At least one piece of legislation that passed last spring has yet to take full effect because the regulations are still being developed.

It will likely be a year or more before we know if the changes really will improve B.C.’s FOI system, as Gibson claims. One of her predecessors made similar comments about the bill that created the $10 FOI filing fee, claiming those changes would help unclog the FOI system and result in faster responses to FOI requests. Five years later, we know she was wrong. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has been a point of tension for the provincial government and First Nations leaders since December 2025.
• After months of vowing to change the law by June, Premier David Eby now says amendments will wait until at least October.
• In the meantime, the province and First Nations leaders will try to find a solution that both sides can agree on.

The showdown over B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is not over, but the future of the landmark law is now on hold until the fall.

For several months, B.C. Premier David Eby claimed the Declaration Act — also known as DRIPA — had to be changed, and quickly. First he said the law would be amended, then paused, and now he’s said legislation to change the law can wait until the fall session.

“It is absolutely possible, as a leader, to move off confidently in the wrong direction,” Eby told reporters at the legislature on April 20.

Eby has moved in many directions on DRIPA this year. Initially, he maintained that changing the law was non-negotiable because of legal liability, and something that had to be done before the legislature’s summer break.

Then — after First Nations leaders told him his “approach was totally unacceptable” — the premier proposed suspending DRIPA for up to three years. That, according to Eby, would allow the province’s appeal of a recent court decision to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.“This will be a confidence vote,” Eby said at the time, raising the possibility that DRIPA could trigger a provincial election.While the premier said he was confident the “strong and united” NDP caucus would back his plan, that turned out not to be the case. Two weeks later, Eby said no changes to DRIPA would be made this spring.

Instead, the B.C. government and First Nations leaders have committed to spend the summer seeking a solution that can address “the government’s stated legal concerns, while upholding the title and rights and human rights of First Nations,” according to an April 20 joint statement from the premier’s office and the First Nations Leadership Council.

Whether the discussions will result in legislation that both the government and First Nations support is far from certain.

“There is no guarantee, simply because we reached this agreement that come fall legislative session, that we will have that agreement, but I’m certainly hopeful that we will,” Eby told reporters. 

So … what is going on with DRIPA?

Why does the government want to change DRIPA?

Let’s go back to December 2025. That’s when the B.C. Appeal Court determined the government’s obligations under DRIPA are legally enforceable. This created “unlimited legal liability” for the province, according to Eby.

The appeal court’s ruling was the result of a challenge to part of a 2023 B.C. Supreme Court ruling launched by the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht First Nations. That ruling agreed with the nations’ claim that B.C.’s mineral claim-staking regime did not fulfill the government’s obligations to consult with First Nations.The 2023 decision also concluded that DRIPA was not legally enforceable. The nations appealed that part of the ruling and, in December 2025, the court agreed with their arguments. 

According to the premier, the legal threat the province faces is twofold.In ruling that the government’s obligations under DRIPA — to align provincial laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — are legally enforceable, the court has opened the door to further challenges of any provincial law on the grounds that it does not align with DRIPA.That’s not the incremental approach the province was prepared to take when DRIPA was introduced, Eby said.“Instead of eating the elephant one bite at a time, the court has invited us to do it all at once and that is just not possible,” he told reporters on April 2.

Secondly, the appeal court’s December decision can now be used in other court cases, which often refer to existing court rulings. According to Eby, more than 20 lawsuits involving the province have been launched or amended since the Gitxaala decision was released.

In an open letter to B.C. MLAs released on April 19, the First Nations Leadership Council described Eby’s arguments as “not only misleading but … also inherently wrong.”

“We are dismayed at the degree to which the court cases and DRIPA are being misrepresented, mischaracterized and conflated as rhetoric and fearmongering,” the council wrote. “The risk before the legislators and all British Columbians is not created by DRIPA — it is created by the decisions to undermine it through unilateral action.”

Why do First Nations leaders oppose those changes?

First Nations leaders have called Eby’s plans for DRIPA “a unilateral betrayal and an abandonment of the province’s commitment to principled reconciliation, as well as serving to create a climate of uncertainty.”

Altering, suspending or repealing DRIPA — as the B.C. Conservative opposition has proposed — will not eliminate B.C.’s obligations to consult with First Nations on issues related to Indigenous Rights and title. And it will not prevent First Nations from seeking to exert those rights in the courts, a more expensive and time-consuming option and one where First Nations have seen victories time and again.

“I think that we have an obligation and a responsibility to remember that no one is giving First Nations anything,” Huy’wu’qw Shana Thomas, Hereditary Chief of Lyackson First Nation, said during an April 10 press conference. “First Nations people continue to assert their inherent rights and title and prefer reconciliation, prefer negotiations.”

What does DRIPA have to do with the Cowichan decision?

B.C.’s back and forth on DRIPA is being connected by some with the Cowichan decision.

In 2014, the Cowichan Tribes filed a case with the B.C. Supreme Court, asserting Aboriginal Title over lands along the Fraser River, in what is now known as Richmond, B.C. The lands claimed included a traditional summer village site, known as Tl’uqtinus, and the tribes’ suit also asserted rights to fish and gather food in the claimed area.In its August 2025 ruling, B.C.’s Supreme Court affirmed the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal Title. All of the defendants in the case, including B.C. and the federal government, are appealing the decision, which has been at the centre of a national — and often misinformed — debate about property rights.

The Cowichan case only named governments and government agencies, and the tribes have repeatedly said they have no intent of trying to take away any private property as a result of the court ruling.

Since announcing the province’s appeal of the ruling, Eby has said his government will “go to the wall” to protect the rights of private property owners.

The premier has also linked the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaala cases, calling them “dramatic, overreaching and unhelpful court decisions.”

But DRIPA and the Cowichan decision actually have little to do with each other, besides being related to Indigenous Rights. The case was launched prior to DRIPA becoming law and turned on Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, not provincial law.

Does DRIPA ‘create uncertainty’ for industry?

Short answer: it depends on who you ask. 

Section 7 of the law allows for joint decision-making agreements with First Nations regarding industrial projects on their traditional territories. DRIPA’s goal is to “provide certainty and stability” about how projects can move toward approval by clearly defining the responsibilities of the provincial government and First Nations.

That Section 7 agreements enabled by DRIPA have helped advance some natural resource projects is a point on which Eby and First Nations leaders actually agree.Take the plan to reopen the Eskay Creek mine on Tahltan Nation territory.

In 2022, the B.C. government and the Tahltan Nation signed an agreement under Section 7 of the Declaration Act. The section allows the government to undertake a joint decision-making process with First Nations. 

In December 2025, Tahltan Nation members voted in support of the Eskay Creek revitalization project and the province announced its approval of permits for the mine in January 2026.

The Red Chris mine and the Galore Creek mine have also advanced under Section 7 agreements and, on Vancouver Island, another agreement involving forestry tenures on ‘Namgis Nation territory is in the works.

Continuing to deliver these types of agreements is evidently a high priority for the province. Eby’s proposal to suspend DRIPA would not have affected the sections of the law that enable these agreements.

What happens now?

Well, the legislature will shut down for the summer on May 28. MLAs aren’t scheduled to return until October. In the meantime, the government will continue to discuss the future of DRIPA with First Nations leaders and try to find a solution that both sides can support. 

Attorney General Niki Sharma, who Eby credited with convincing him not to pursue a legislated solution this spring, has expressed confidence that a mutually agreeable solution is achievable.

“I have faith in partnership and the fact that when we come to the table to sort out challenging issues, that we can come to solutions that last,” she told reporters at the legislature on April 21. “If we can get to sitting down and rolling up our sleeves and fixing things that are challenging in a way that lasts, then we’ve solved it for generations to come, and I see that pathway.”

If — and it remains a pretty big if — the provincial government and First Nations leaders do agree on DRIPA’s future, any changes to law could be made during the fall sitting of the legislature, which is scheduled to wrap at the end of November. 

By then, things could be quite different in the legislature. The B.C. Conservative Party will have a new leader, possibly one without a seat in the legislature. The Conservatives want DRIPA repealed and all candidates running the leadership race have backed that position, so it’s likely Conservative MLAs will vote against whatever changes the government eventually proposes.

The B.C. Greens have criticized the government’s proposals to change DRIPA so far, backing First Nations calls for the law to be left as is.

Currently, there are also six MLAs that do not belong to a caucus, although all were at one time B.C. Conservative members. Three of those MLAs have vocally opposed Indigenous Rights, reconciliation and DRIPA. The other three may be open to overtures from the government to support legislation to amend DRIPA.

To pass legislation without support from the opposition, Eby will need to get his entire caucus on side — something he was not able to do this spring.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The average home in British Columbia uses around 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

There are approximately 2.2 million homes in B.C. This means the province needs to make sure the grid has enough energy to supply about 22 billion kilowatt hours every year to keep those homes warm and the lights on.

And that’s just for homes. It doesn’t include all the electricity needed for industry, businesses and a rapidly expanding electric-vehicle market.

In B.C., the average resident pays around $100 a month for electricity, roughly $1,200 per year for those 10,000 kilowatt hours.

Residential rates just went up on April 1, when BC Hydro increased its rates by 3.75 per cent. That’s partly to start paying off some of the sunk costs the government has already invested in building new power infrastructure. 

Electricity demand is only going to rise over the coming decades, as B.C. tries to reduce its use of fossil fuels while also bringing a whole lot of industrial projects onto the grid.

So where will all this energy come from, where is it going — and who will pay for it? There’s much we don’t know (yet) but here’s what we do.

First, let’s clear up a couple of things about the units of measurement — because utility companies use a variety of terms to describe electricity generation, output and consumption.

Kilowatts, megawatts and gigawatts represent an amount of power, at a single point in time. 

1,000 kilowatts is one megawatt. And 1,000 megawatts is one gigawatt.

Add the word “hours” to the end of any of those units and it describes how much of that power gets used up (or is generated) over time. Kilowatt hours is the unit most British Columbians will encounter, on their monthly bills, so while the others are useful to know we’ll stick to that measurement as much as possible.

Take a fridge, for example. If yours sucks up about 200 watts per hour (a large, older fridge might use twice as much) that means you’ll use around 1,750 kilowatt hours per year to keep the milk fresh. To meet the demand of millions of fridges, power producers need to make sure they have enough capacity to send all that electricity across the province every day. 

Ensuring there’s enough electricity to go around is getting expensive for the B.C. government — and the taxpayers that fund it.

B.C.’s newest source of hydroelectricity, the Site C dam, produces about 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) per year, or 5.7 billion kilowatt hours. It added about eight per cent more power to the province’s existing grid.

Site C cost around $16 billion.

BC Hydro doesn’t expect to pay off the costs of building Site C until 2094, 70 years after the project began producing electricity.

Now, the province is planning to invest at least $6 billion to build the first two phases of the North Coast Transmission Line, a network of around 450 kilometres of high-voltage power lines spanning the northwest. The B.C. government says it is building the line to “enable development” of mining and LNG projects. A third phase is proposed, for power lines heading north to service mines and Ksi Lisims LNG. If that happens, the final cost for the transmission network could rival Site C.

To state the obvious: this is a lot of public money. It’s hard to grasp just how big these numbers are. Understanding the difference between one million and one billion, expressed in time, might help. 

One million seconds is about 11.5 days. One billion seconds is more than 30 years.

So when the estimated cost of the first two phases of the North Coast Transmission Line doubled from $3 billion to $6 billion in 2025, that’s like jumping from 90 years to 180 years.

On top of infrastructure investments like Site C and the transmission lines, B.C. spends public money enticing private companies to build big industrial projects. Those subsidies are eventually reflected in residential utility bills — and in other ways across the economy. 

Take the push to grow the province’s LNG industry. Last year, the B.C. government coughed up $200 million to connect Cedar LNG, a liquefaction and export facility being built in Kitimat, to the grid.

Or take LNG Canada, the country’s first major liquefaction and export facility, also in Kitimat. It received a suite of subsidies, including reduced rates for the small amount of hydroelectricity it uses, as well as tax credits and an exemption from B.C.’s industrial carbon tax for the first two years of operations. Between the provincial and federal governments, public investments in LNG Canada are estimated to be almost $4 billion.

In the years ahead, homes and businesses in B.C. are going to need more power. BC Hydro predicts annual demand for electricity is likely to climb from 58,400 gigawatt hours in 2025 to more than 87,600 gigawatt hours by 2050. These amounts are way too big to wrap your head around if we convert them to kilowatt hours, but let’s just say it’s a lot.

The more things we need to plug into the grid, the more power the grid needs to be able to deliver. The sooner we plug things in, the faster BC Hydro has to find ways to meet that demand.

Electricity demand in B.C. could rise even faster if the province prioritizes providing power to industries, which are eager to portray their products as “clean” or “green” in an increasingly climate-conscious market. LNG facilities that plan to power their operations with B.C.’s electricity are already advertising their products as “low carbon” and “net zero.”

B.C.’s history of abundant, cheap and low-emission electricity has been hailed as one reason the province is well-positioned to supply LNG to countries like South Korea and Japan.

But liquefying natural gas requires an enormous amount of energy. As a liquid, methane takes up a fraction of the space that it does as a gas, making it viable for transport overseas. That process requires not just chilling the gas, but supercooling it, which LNG Canada does by burning gas to power massive turbines. But other approved facilities, like Ksi Lisims LNG and the aforementioned Cedar LNG, want to use electricity instead. Hence, the new power line with a multi-billion dollar price tag.

So how much power does all this industrial infrastructure need?Well, Ksi Lisims, a floating LNG facility proposed for B.C.’s North Coast requested the equivalent of around 5,200 gigawatt hours, or 5.2 billion kilowatt hours, from BC Hydro.

That’s more than the electricity output of the Site C dam potentially going to power just one project.

Cedar LNG expects to use up to 1,800 gigawatt hours, or 1.8 billion kilowatt hours.

Powering just those two LNG projects could use up to the equivalent electricity that would keep power flowing to 700,000 homes.

All that electricity isn’t free, of course. But it is cheaper for industrial users. Residential customers currently pay $118.70 for the first 670 kilowatt hours they use in a month.

That climbs to around $140 for each additional 1,000 kilowatt hours. Small businesses pay about the same as heavy-use households. 

But for larger businesses it’s the opposite: the more they use, the less they pay.

Large industrial customers — consumers that use more than 550,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year — pay $67.90 per 1,000 kilowatt hours, slightly over half the residential rate.

So what does all this mean for the average British Columbian?

Well, to keep the lights on in homes across the province over the coming decades, B.C. will continue to build out more power capacity. It will also keep trying to find ways to use industrial revenues to balance the government’s budget, so homeowners don’t have to pay (much) more per kilowatt hour consumed. But the province is up against the clock — and a moving target. 

Less than six months after releasing a new forecast for electricity demand, BC Hydro now anticipates needing to supply an additional 2.7 billion kilowatt hours to its customers. The LNG industry is identified as a driving force behind that increase.

Because B.C. relies heavily on hydroelectric dams, the province’s ability to meet demand with power produced domestically is subject to droughts. When this happens, the province imports electricity from its neighbours, including Alberta.

Whether on monthly bills or in other ways spread out across the economy, taxpayers are paying for provincial support of massive industrial projects, including the push to get those projects on the grid. Those hidden costs could eventually surface on utility bills or through cuts to other government services.

Either way, future British Columbians will pay for decisions made today about how to make sure all that electricity keeps flowing through the wires.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• B.C.’s throne speech was not delivered in 2026 due to the tragic shooting in Tumbler Ridge.
• The Narwhal obtained a copy of the speech via freedom of information request.
• The unshared speech gives an insight into B.C.’s priorities which include mining and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

In a typical year, the spring sitting of the B.C. legislature starts with a throne speech.

The speech from the throne — as the document is formally known — is delivered by the lieutenant-governor on behalf of the provincial government. It is a snapshot of the political moment, a mixture of policies and milestones the government of the day considers accomplishments, as well as hints about legislative priorities for the coming months.

For journalists who cover the legislature, the throne speech is an opportunity to peer at the political tea leaves and guess at what lies ahead.

But in 2026, the government’s planned throne speech was never presented in the legislature. Two days before its scheduled delivery, a horrific event occurred in the small town of Tumbler Ridge, B.C.: a mass shooting that resulted in the deaths of nine people, many of them students and staff at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School.

In the wake of the tragedy, the date set for the throne speech was postponed and the province observed a day of mourning. A few days later, Lieutenant-Governor Wendy Cocchia delivered a short and somber speech dedicated to the community of Tumbler Ridge.

But what was in the speech the government was poised to deliver? The Narwhal filed a freedom of information request for a copy of the speech with Premier David Eby’s office. And we received a mostly un-redacted copy.

Over the year ahead, the B.C. government plans to continue championing liquefied natural gas (LNG) and mining development, which — along with forestry — form the province’s economic foundation, according to the speech.

“This natural inheritance remains central to our future prosperity,” the speech says.British Columbians should look forward to “a more sustainable forestry sector,” even as tariffs imposed by the United States continue to bite, the speech says. The government will also continue to work toward “delivering B.C. energy to growing markets” — supporting companies producing LNG to ship to markets on the other side of the Pacific — and “driving momentum on critical minerals,” it says.

A section of the speech is dedicated to the North Coast transmission line, which the government says will deliver “clean, reliable electricity needed to unlock tens of billions of dollars worth of private sector projects across” northwest B.C. The transmission line may almost exclusively serve large industrial customers, such as the Ksi Lisims LNG facility and multiple proposed mines. But its cost, which was most recently estimated at $6 billion for a little more than half the line’s length, will be shared between all BC Hydro ratepayers. 

The North Coast transmission line will be built “in true partnership with First Nations,” the throne speech says before it segues into a section titled “Reconciliation and Partnerships with Indigenous Peoples.”

‘Reconciliation is the responsibility of elected governments,’ throne speech says

For its next 431 words, the throne speech highlights the importance of reconciliation with First Nations and the work the province has done since the unanimous passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in November 2019. It affirms the existence of Aboriginal Title, recognized by Canadian courts and in the Canadian Constitution.

“Reconciliation is the responsibility of elected governments,” according to the throne speech. 

“Repealing the Declaration Act, or walking away from negotiations with First Nations, would not change that reality,” the throne speech says. “It would create chaos, delays, lost jobs, and endless lawsuits.”

On page 13, the tone of the speech shifts as it mentions “recent court decisions [that] have raised questions about what reconciliation means in practice.” While those decisions aren’t named in the speech, the province is seeking to appeal a December 2025 decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal, which agreed with an argument from the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht First Nations that the government’s obligations under the Declaration Act — to align provincial laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — are legally enforceable.

Since December, Eby has been touting plans to amend the Declaration Act to “address some serious legal liabilities that were created … through the court decision.” This angered First Nations leaders across B.C., who told Eby in a meeting last week that his plans to amend the law were “totally unacceptable.” So, on April 2, he made an abrupt announcement saying he would suspend parts of the Declaration Act and the Interpretation Act in the coming weeks instead.

However, suspension still requires legislative amendments, which will be voted on in the legislature by May 28. 

Eby said he is willing to risk the future of his government to get it done.

“This will be a confidence vote,” Eby told reporters on April 2. That means if the majority of MLAs vote against the legislation, the NDP government will have lost the confidence of the house, likely triggering a snap election.

These plans to change the landmark Indigenous Rights law over the objections of many First Nations leaders seem contradictory to the throne speech promise that the B.C. government “will not abandon responsibility for reconciliation.”

You can read the entire 25 pages of the throne speech here, except for a few lines redacted by the premier’s office under section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which covers matters discussed in cabinet. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• B.C. Premier David Eby has backed off on permanent changes to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, following backlash from First Nations leaders. 
• Instead, he’s proposing to suspend parts of the Declaration Act for up to three years while the province appeals a court decision.
• The government says the recent court ruling makes changes to the Act urgent, but critics warn they could weaken legal accountability.

After a virtual meeting with First Nations leaders, B.C. Premier David Eby says his government is abandoning its plan to permanently change parts of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — at least for now.

“We heard loud and clear that this approach was totally unacceptable to First Nations leaders, that it reflected government unilaterally drafting changes to a law that we had worked on together to write, and they felt the process was rushed and that the entirety of that approach was wrong,” Eby told reporters at the legislature on April 2.

In lieu of the amendments he’s been vowing to make for months, the premier is now proposing to suspend parts of the Declaration Act for up to three years while the province appeals a December 2025 decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

In its December ruling, the court agreed with the Gitxaała and the Ehattesaht First Nations, which argued the government’s obligations under the Declaration Act — to align provincial laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — are legally enforceable.

Eby’s proposal would block further court challenges of provincial laws on the grounds that they do not align with the Declaration Act — a move the premier said is critical.

“We have seen court filings now and court decisions that rely on that Court of Appeal decision and the volume of litigation that we face is not sustainable,” he told reporters. “We have to fix it. It is non-negotiable. We have to fix it.”

The premier positioned his new proposal as less definitive and less permanent than the prior amendments, but admitted his latest pitch is not particularly palatable to the First Nations leaders he met with.

“I recognize that Indigenous leadership wants no pause on these sections,” Eby said. “They want no amendments, [but] we have to do something. A pause is, in my opinion, hopefully the least invasive way of addressing government’s concern.”

First Nations leaders will have an opportunity to provide the government with feedback on the new proposal — feedback Eby promised “will be taken seriously” — but the Declaration Act will be modified in some way before the legislature rises for its summer break at the end of May.

Eby confirmed his government intends to draft legislation to suspend parts of the Declaration Act and the Interpretation Act in the coming weeks, introduce it in the legislature and pass it by May 28. And he’s willing to put the future of his government in the balance to get it done.

“This will be a confidence vote,” Eby said. If the majority of MLAs vote against the legislation, the NDP government will have lost the confidence of the house, likely triggering a snap election and possibly Eby’s resignation. Former BC Liberal premier Christy Clark lost a confidence vote in June 2017, resulting in the NDP and Green Party forming government.

Eby believes he will not meet the same fate.

“We have a strong and united caucus. All of our MLAs understand the seriousness and importance of our work and partnership with Indigenous people and our commitment to all British Columbians to grow the economy and ensure prosperity for British Columbians.”

Eby’s new proposal would not affect the Declaration Act action plan — a road map for the work the province has committed to undertake with First Nations through 2027 — or the sections of the law that allow joint decision-making agreements with First Nations, according to a spokesperson from the premier’s office.

‘It got inconvenient’ 

The Declaration Act changes have drawn a lot of interest at a time when high-profile court decisions have thrust Indigenous Rights and Aboriginal Title into the public spotlight. 

Prior to Eby’s announcement on April 2, The Narwhal spoke to Adam Olsen, former MLA and lead negotiator for Tsartlip First Nation, lawyer Cynthia Callison and Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law and a member of the Gitxaała Nation’s legal team.

In November 2019, Olsen was one of 87 elected officials to vote in favour of passing the Declaration Act. The law’s unanimous passage was hailed as a major accomplishment.

At the time, the government described the act as “a path forward” for relations between First Nations and the province, and a way to avoid long and costly court battles. Now, the province is readying amendments to the Declaration Act, aimed at barring courts from interpreting or applying the law. 

“It kind of breaks my heart that in 2019 we get unanimous support in the legislature to move this forward,” Olsen, a former member of the BC Green Party, said in an interview. A member of Tsartlip First Nation, Olsen represented Saanich North and the Islands from 2017 until 2024 before exiting provincial politics. “Now, the same government a couple of years later is going to use the slimmest of majorities — if they can even muster it — to basically amend [the law] because it got inconvenient.” 

The legislation that was once celebrated as a major step toward working with First Nations in a better, more equal way has been recast as a destabilizing or even destructive force. Repeal or revise — those seem to be the only two options B.C.’s elected leaders can envision for the Declaration Act. 

“It’s frustrating, sad and angering that our government would set up a binary like that,” Olsen said.

Olsen, who did not seek re-election in the October 2024 provincial election, is now the lead negotiator for Tsartlip First Nation. As a participant in the confidential consultations, he could not discuss any details about the ongoing process but did reflect on the political climate in which the Declaration Act amendments have been proposed.

“This past year for Indigenous relations has been awful. It’s been awful on social media. It’s been awful to hear how the official opposition has handled this,” said Olsen, referring to the BC Conservative Party’s vocal desire to repeal the law altogether.

There were no BC Conservative MLAs in the legislature when the Declaration Act passed in 2019, though MLAs who now represent the party did vote in favour of the law at the time. Former BC Conservative leader John Rustad — who once served as B.C.’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs — began calling for the Declaration Act’s repeal during his 2024 election campaign. Rustad was ousted as party leader in December and the BC Conservatives are now in the midst of a leadership race to replace him.

The BC Conservatives still support repealing the Declaration Act, interim party leader Trevor Halford told reporters at the legislature on April 1. The legislation, he added, has failed to deliver the stability and reconciliation progress it was intended to deliver.

“As difficult a conversation as that is, I think it’s worth having,” Halford said. “I think that a full repeal actually gives certainty. I do believe that.”

Olsen feels the conversation about Indigenous Rights has shifted so far from where it was in 2019 — when all MLAs voted in support of the Declaration Act.

Public support for the application of the Declaration Act has dropped in recent months, according to a new poll released by Angus Reid. In August, 44 per cent of British Columbians polled felt B.C.’s effort to align its laws with the United Nations declaration had gone “too far in limiting provincial authority over land and resources.” As of this month, 53 per cent of respondents said they think the province’s approach on reconciliation and Indigenous Rights has gone too far.

Clogg believes Eby’s comments about the need to change the Declaration Act have contributed to the decline in public support for reconciliation.

“We need leadership from the highest levels and from all sectors of society to face down racist, populist sentiment and chart a course towards true reconciliation,” she said.

Declaration Act amendments happening quickly

The fact that the government is prioritizing making these changes quickly — by legislative standards — is a further complication. The Declaration Act essentially enshrines the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, or UNDRIP, in B.C. law. That includes Article 19, which states Indigenous Peoples have the right to be consulted and to give free, prior and informed consent on legislation that impacts them.

One thing the ongoing consultations have made clear, Olsen said, is that many First Nations do not want the act changed.

“The ones that have spoken publicly have said that they oppose amendments to the act,” he said.

The government’s proposed changes to the Declaration Act will “prevent significant litigation risk for the province of British Columbia,” Eby said in the legislature on March 30. Some First Nations leaders and Indigenous law experts disagree, warning that the tight timeline the government is pursuing to change the act could actually spark more lawsuits.

“I hope that B.C. appreciates that the highly abridged timelines and their intransigence in the face of opposition from civil society groups and First Nations makes them vulnerable to legal challenge should they proceed on the originally proposed timeline,” Clogg said.

Eby admitted that consultations with First Nations are being “rushed,” but maintained the province has no other option.

“We are having to move quickly to make amendments in order to address some serious legal liabilities that were created … through the court decision,” he told reporters. “Nobody is excited about this process. Certainly I’m not, and First Nations leadership are not.” 

The condensed consultation timeline and vocal opposition from First Nations should give lawmakers “extreme caution” about the quality of the process for changing the law — or risk ending up right back in court, Olsen argued.

“If they’re going to table a bill, they need to be very comfortable that their consultation record is impeccable,” he said.

Proposed amendments would block First Nations from defending their rights in court, legal expert says

Non-disclosure agreements notwithstanding, the Canadian Press reported on some of the government’s proposed changes to the Declaration Act last week. 

According to the Canadian Press, leaked documents included a change in the wording of the Declaration Act, narrowing the government’s commitment to take “all measures” to ensure provincial laws align with the United Nations declaration. The amended law would task the government only with aligning laws deemed to be a priority, the Canadian Press reported.

For Cynthia Callison, a partner with Callison & Hanna Law who has advocated for First Nations in B.C. for 29 years, the proposed changes reported last week do not seem to materially change the province’s approach to implementing the Declaration Act to date.

“They have not been working on aligning all laws, they have been working on priorities,” Callison, who was appointed King’s Counsel by the province in January, told The Narwhal in an interview. King’s Counsel designations recognize lawyers for their expertise and significant contributions to the judicial system.

Those priorities outlined in the action plan include self-government and anti-racism initiatives, changes to family services and emergency management programs and pathways for joint decision-making on resource management.

The proposed amendments leaked to the Canadian Press indicate to Clogg that the government is moving toward doing exactly what Eby said it would do in December: block the courts from being able to hold the government to account when First Nations take issue with its progress on reconciliation.

“The amendments that are proposed are designed to deny First Nations access to the courts to defend their Indigenous human rights,” she said, adding these amendments are “essentially an effort to avoid that accountability.”

The recent court cases that the premier has taken issue with — specifically the Cowichan Tribes ruling and the Gitxaała decision — were “never a priority for the province and are not part of their action plan,” Callison added. 

Canadian Press also reported the government is planning to add language to the Declaration Act to allow the province to make changes to the action plan, potentially without the support of First Nations. That could make the action plan more vulnerable to political whims, Callison said.

B.C. government is once again pushing legislation over the objections of First Nations

This isn’t the first time Eby’s government has side-stepped its consultation obligations to First Nations.

In May 2025, Bill 15, which granted cabinet broad powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, prompted vocal opposition from many, including Don Tom, Chief of the Tsartlip First Nation and vice-president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Eby has acknowledged his government failed to meet the consultation standard set in the Declaration Act at times but insisted his government was not backsliding on its commitments to reconciliation and Indigenous Rights.

Now, the province is once again pushing legislation that has drawn strong criticism from First Nations leaders. 

“This is two spring sessions in a row where First Nations leaders are in the spotlight, not for any of their own doings, but because of what the provincial government is up to,” Olsen said. “When Premier Eby says, ‘We are really keen on reconciliation and it’s still a top priority’ — well, the behavior seems to be quite confrontational with First Nations, rather than relational.”

Clogg was more blunt.

“There is nothing about the way B.C. is approaching this that remotely could be called cooperation or co-development,” she said. “It’s an entirely unilaterally driven, expedited process.”

Despite the mounting objections from First Nations leaders, Eby confirmed on April 1, the amendments will be introduced in the coming weeks.

“The amendments will be introduced with lots of time for debate and discussion in the legislature,” he said.

Olsen warned the premier’s plan to push ahead with the controversial amendments to the Declaration Act could land his government in a quagmire.

“The premier has backed himself into a corner. Now he’s making quicksand.”

Updated April. 13, 2026, at 11:07 a.m. PT: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated former BC Liberal premier Christy Clark lost a confidence vote in June 2017, resulting in the election that brought the NDP to power. In fact, there was no second election. Clark tried unsuccessfully to convince the lieutenant governor to allow one, but former NDP leader John Horgan secured a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Green Party and formed government.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• Climate change is making extreme weather events, like rain-heavy atmospheric rivers, more frequent and more intense.
• Human activities — like developing wetlands and logging — have also increased flood risks in many parts of B.C.
• The B.C. government has yet to fund the implementation of a flood strategy developed in 2024.
• As extreme weather events like atmospheric rivers happen more often, investing in flood mitigation and resilience measures can help reduce their impacts.

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

This week, atmospheric rivers are expected to dump as much as 250 millimetres of rain on parts of B.C.’s coast. The deluge has prompted flood watch and high streamflow advisories across the Central and South Coast as well as Vancouver Island. On March 17, an evacuation order was issued for part of the tiny community of Martin Falls, near Bella Coola. 

These are some of the first flood warnings of the year, but they likely won’t be the last. Climate change is making extreme weather events, like rain-heavy atmospheric rivers, more frequent and more intense. While parts of B.C. have been dealing with drought conditions for years, the province has also experienced multiple atmospheric river events since November 2021, when a series of storms caused extensive flooding. The 2021 floods were one of the most costly weather-related disasters in B.C.’s history with billions in damage to infrastructure, homes and businesses.

In the years since, B.C. has taken some steps to improve flood resilience and preparedness across the province, including developing a province-wide flood strategy in 2024. But this year’s budget lacked funding to implement that strategy. 

“The B.C. government should prioritize funding for the strategy moving forward to better protect residents in the future,” Aaron Sutherland with the Insurance Bureau of Canada said in a statement issued in December 2025, after an atmospheric river once again walloped the Lower Mainland.

“Investing in community resilience and damage prevention is always more cost-effective than paying to rebuild year after year following every disaster.”

Here’s what you need to know about flood risks and response in B.C.

What is an atmospheric river?

An atmospheric river is a band of warm, moisture-laden air many hundreds of kilometres long and hundreds of kilometres wide that borders a large cyclonic low-pressure system.

Think of it like a fire hose stretching across the sky.

Atmospheric rivers can drive record-breaking rainfall by dumping a large volume of precipitation over an extended period of time.

What’s B.C. doing — or not doing — about increased flood risk?

In the wake of the 2021 floods — which left five people and hundreds of thousands of livestock dead — the provincial government developed a new flood strategy. It committed to improve flood risk mapping, invest in new infrastructure, restore wetlands and other ecosystems to reduce flood risks and invest in community-led initiatives to relocate people from particularly risky areas.

However, the provincial government has yet to commit funding to make the strategy a reality. Meanwhile, in October 2024, another atmospheric river struck the Lower Mainland, killing five people. 

“It’s a great policy, but it’s troublesome that there’s no resources to actually implement it,” Tyrone McNeil, president and Tribal Chief of the Stó:lō Tribal Council and chair of the Emergency Planning Secretariat, told The Narwhal in December.

This year’s budget, unveiled in February, did not earmark any funding for the flood strategy. 

Why are flood warnings on the rise?

Broadly, there are two major reasons why floods are becoming more common.First, climate change. Warm air can hold more moisture, so when temperatures rise, heavy rainfall events become more likely and more intense. More rain — especially in short periods of time — can result in more flooding.

Human activities are also contributing to flood risk. Decades of converting wetland areas — and even entire lakes — into farmland have reduced the capacity of local ecosystems to absorb and divert rainfall. 

Logging has also taken a toll. Younes Alila, a professor of forest hydrology at the University of British Columbia, is focused on the impact of clear-cut logging on watersheds. Alila’s research in the Kettle River watershed connects extensive logging activity — two-thirds of the watershed has been harvested in the last 30 years — with severe flooding, like the devastating 2018 floods in Grand Forks that displaced more than 100 families.

“What is happening in the Kettle River basin is typical of what has been happening and will continue to happen for decades in other drainages across all of B.C.,” Alila told a crowd at the global premiere of the documentary Trouble in the Headwaters in Victoria in June 2025.

What else could be done?

Developing better modelling to understand the risks of heavy rainstorms could help identify the most at-risk flood areas, McNeil says. He also points to hundreds of kilometres of historically fish-bearing streams through the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland that have been cut off from the Fraser River by railways, roads and dikes. Reconnecting these waterways could mitigate flood risks.

Allowing part of Sumas Prairie — which was created when Sumas Lake, known as Semá:th Xhotsa, was drained and converted to agricultural land in 1924 — to return to being a lake could help reduce flooding risks in the Lower Mainland and support wildlife.

Similar programs to restore ecosystems across the province could also help. But as floods — as well as fires and other natural disasters linked to climate change — continue to cause damage to communities, considering where or whether to rebuild is becoming an increasingly urgent question.

Managed retreat — the planned relocation of people and buildings away from risk-prone areas — is already a reality in some parts of B.C. and in Canada. Following extensive flooding in 2018, 100 homes in Grand Forks were deemed too flood-prone to be livable. The homes were bought by the town, demolished in 2022 and replaced by infrastructure aimed at protecting neighbouring homes from the effects of future floods.

In the coming decades, more communities are likely to face tough choices about whether to rebuild after a disaster or choose managed retreat instead.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• Residents say odours from an oil and gas waste disposal facility in Rolla, B.C., have disrupted their lives for more than a decade
• Energy Minister Adrian Dix, whose ministry oversees the BC Energy Regulator, says inspections and air quality monitoring give a “high degree of confidence” there are no adverse health effects
• Environment Minister Tamara Davidson, whose ministry found multiple compliance issues after inspecting the facility in December 2024, declined to be interviewed or provide comment

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Residents of Rolla, B.C., want to know what is causing the strong chemical odours that have been giving them headaches, literally and figuratively, for more than 10 years. Brenda Delamont, Dave Armstrong and some of their neighbours have been contacting the BC Energy Regulator and the B.C. government about a nearby waste disposal facility, which serves the oil and gas industry, since around 2013. 

But repeated requests from the residents and The Narwhal to both the regulator and relevant provincial ministries have yet to yield answers. On March 16, Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix told The Narwhal air quality monitoring done by the company provides “a high degree of confidence that no adverse health effects are expected for workers or nearby residents.”

That does little to assuage residents’ concerns.

“We still don’t know what it’s from,” Delamont said of the smells that waft onto their properties, which are about a kilometre away from the waste disposal facility operated by Calgary-based Secure Waste Infrastructure Corp. “We’ve never gotten an answer as to why you smell the smells, what the smells are from and how toxic or noxious they are over the long term or short term.”

Across B.C., there are 63 waste disposal facilities like the one in Rolla, nearly 15 per cent of which are operated by Secure. Dozens more facilities across the province store related hazardous waste from oil and gas operations.

The Rolla facility is licensed by B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Parks and the BC Energy Regulator to handle a variety of hazardous waste products, including hydrogen sulfide, a flammable and highly toxic gas. Some of the waste is treated on site, then injected into underground wells. Other materials are sent to different facilities for disposal.

Before construction began, Armstrong recalls meeting with Secure representatives who told him smells wouldn’t be a problem. They said the facility would include a “state-of-the-art vapour collection and recovery system to ensure no fugitive emissions and prevent odours.” But in the years since then, Armstrong estimates he has called the BC Energy Regulator hundreds of times to report noxious chemical smells that permeate his home, sometimes causing headaches.

Delamont has also made many calls to the regulator about odours at her home, which lies just down the road from Armstrong’s. Both residents say little has been done to address their concerns.“I get the impression of feeble attempts,” Armstrong said of the regulator’s limited response to their concerns.

No fines issued to Secure after B.C. ministry inspection found multiple issues

The Narwhal sent detailed questions about Delamont and Armstrong’s concerns to Secure via the company’s online contact form and by email. In an emailed response, Secure said it “takes community concerns seriously and works closely” with provincial regulators. The company’s response did not answer any of the specific questions sent by The Narwhal.

“When concerns are raised, we investigate them and continue working with regulators and nearby residents to address them,” the company said.

The BC Energy Regulator inspected Secure’s facility 33 times in 2025, according to the company, and found no compliance issues. Meanwhile, a Ministry of Environment inspection conducted in December 2024 found several issues with Secure’s operations, including that the facility accepted thousands more litres of toxic waste than its permit allowed. A warning letter issued after the inspection also noted Secure had removed some of the equipment used to treat waste and installed new equipment not covered by its permit.

No fines were issued to Secure as a result of the inspection. When The Narwhal asked the Environment Ministry whether Secure had addressed the compliance and permit issues identified 15 months prior, the ministry’s emailed response did not directly answer the question.

“Secure was instructed to verify their permit aligns with Hazardous Waste Regulation emission specifications,” the Environment Ministry said in a statement to The Narwhal. Because of last year’s findings, the facility “will be prioritized for reinspection in the next fiscal year,” the ministry said in its email.

Delamont is frustrated but not surprised by the lack of resolution a year after the warning letter was issued.

“It’s hard because nothing ever really seems to come of things,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a site with infractions already, you would think that within a year you could check up on the things that you found them non-compliant on.”Delamont works as a chef in a seniors care facility. In her line of work, she says, facilities that don’t comply with regulations can quickly be shut down.

‘A very significant effort has been made’: Adrian Dix

Ahead of the publication of a previous story on the Rolla facility on March 11, The Narwhal requested comment from Dix and Environment Minister Tamara Davidson, whose ministries are responsible for permitting the facility. 

After delays and much back and forth, staff from Davidson’s ministry did not agree to an interview.

Dix’s office offered a phone interview on March 16. During that conversation, Dix said the BC Energy Regulator has conducted three inspections of Secure’s Rolla facility so far this year, on top of 36 in 2025 and 49 in 2024.

“The BC Energy Regulator has not only been, but will continue to be, responsive to the concerns,” he said, describing the regulator’s response to date as “comprehensive.”“That doesn’t mean that every time a person makes a complaint, they get satisfaction from their perspective, but certainly, a very significant effort has been made.”

Dix did not directly answer when asked whether the BC Energy Regulator can inform residents about the causes of the odours they have been reporting for years. He did mention air quality testing done by Secure at the facility that found all “chemicals of interest” — including volatile organic compounds, benzene and hydrogen sulfide — were only present at low levels and within regulatory guidelines.“These findings provide a high degree of confidence that no adverse health effects are expected for workers or nearby residents under the conditions observed during the monitoring period,” Dix said.Secure emailed copies of an undated air quality monitoring report to Armstrong and Delamont on March 16. The findings in the report reflect Dix’s comments: none of the chemicals tested for were found at levels beyond regulatory and health guidelines.

The air quality monitoring was done over the course of a week, according to the report, but the lack of detail left Armstrong wondering about the level of activity taking place at the facility during the monitoring period.

“There’s so many variables that that whole report is just hokey to me,” Armstrong said. “It’s not all the time, but when we get the odours in their yard, they are strong.”

Armstrong expressed disappointment at the lack of answers about what is causing the troubling smells.

“I’m just hoping we can win something out of this,” he said. “It’s been 15 years of no results.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Dave Armstrong struggles to describe the smell that sometimes wafts onto his property just outside Dawson Creek, B.C. 

“It’s sharp, foul and it’s an oily smell, but not like a refined oil,” Armstrong says. “This has a real foul, strong odour and it’s not nice. It really irritates you fast.”He lives about one kilometre from an oil and gas waste disposal facility. Sometimes, the smell is just an unpleasant annoyance. Other days, he says, it’s much more.

“There are times where it will just be an instant headache when it hits,” Armstrong says. “And if it’s in the summertime and the windows are open in the house … it takes a long time to get that odour out.”

Brenda Delamont lives just down the road from Armstrong. She associates two distinct smells with the facility owned by Calgary-based Secure Waste Infrastructure Corp.

“One is like a burnt chemical and then one is like a sour, noxious smell,” Delamont says. “When the burnt smell is in the air, it doesn’t make your eyes water, but it kind of sticks in your mucous membranes and kind of irritates your throat.”

The facility began operating in 2010, the same year Delamont and her husband moved to their home just outside of Dawson Creek. Secure receives waste produced by the oil and gas industry, including contaminated water, drilling by-products and industrial sludge. The facility is licensed by B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Parks and the BC Energy Regulator to handle a variety of hazardous waste products. Some waste — including contaminated water — is treated on site before being injected into underground wells. Other materials are sent for disposal at different facilities.

Before construction began, nearby residents say Secure told them smells from the facility wouldn’t be a problem; they’d build a “state of the art vapour collection and recovery system to ensure no fugitive emissions and prevent odours.” A letter Armstrong received from the company in May 2009 states the facility would use the collection and recovery system when receiving “sour liquid loads” — an industry term for liquid waste containing high levels of toxic chemicals. Secure’s letter specifically mentions hydrogen sulfide, a flammable and highly toxic gas that typically smells like rotten eggs.

Armstrong vividly remembers sitting down at his kitchen table with a representative from Secure while the facility was still in the planning stage.

“My concern was offsite odours and they said there would not be any,” he recalls. “And we have found out otherwise.”

Over the years, Armstrong and Delamont say they and their family members have made hundreds of calls to Secure, the Environment Ministry and the energy regulator to report strong chemical smells on their properties. Both say those smells only appear when the wind is blowing from the waste facility toward their homes.

After years of raising concerns, they are frustrated.

“We still don’t know what it’s from,” Delamont says. “We’ve never gotten an answer as to why you smell the smells, what the smells are from and how toxic or noxious they are over the long term or short term.”

After attempts to reach the company by phone went unanswered, The Narwhal sent detailed questions about Delamont and Armstrong’s concerns to Secure via the company’s online contact form and by email. In an emailed response, Secure said it “takes community concerns seriously and works closely” with provincial regulators. The BC Energy Regulator conducted 33 inspections of the facility in 2025, according to the company, and found no compliance issues.

“When concerns are raised, we investigate them and continue working with regulators and nearby residents to address them,” the company said.

In the Peace, oil and gas is ‘a fact of life’ but companies need to be good neighbours

You don’t have to drive far outside the town of Dawson Creek to enter farming country. Last August, combines churned across golden fields, kicking up dust and pulling in cereal crops. The southern slice of British Columbia’s Peace region — named for the Peace River that flows from the Rocky Mountains across the northern prairie and into Alberta — produces the majority of the province’s canola and grain crops. Almost one-third of all the farmland in the province is located in the Peace, where cattle and forage crops are also big business.

Armstrong is one of those farmers. He bought the property just outside of Dawson Creek in 1980 and moved up from the Fraser Valley in 1985 to begin building a hay farming operation from scratch. These days, he sells hay to customers from Alaska to Vancouver Island.

But farming isn’t the only big business in the area. Sprawling summer fields dotted with hay bales and buttressed by grain silos are also criss-crossed by pipelines and studded with well pads serving the oil and gas industry. Tanker trucks regularly traverse the highways that snake past sprawling gas plants with flame-tipped flares and lights that conjure the impression of a city skyline.

The Peace region is home to all of B.C.’s 4,700 active well sites. To receive and process waste products from the industry, the region also hosts 63 active disposal stations permitted by the BC Energy Regulator. Secure operates nine disposal stations in the Peace and another nine facilities permitted by the regulator.

The oil and gas industry and a love for rural life are what brought Delamont to the Peace. Her husband works in the industry and they live on a seven-acre property. She works as a chef at a local seniors’ home and spends much of her free time with her horses.

For many residents of the Peace, rural life and the oil and gas industry coexist quite well.

“It’s just part of living up here,” Delamont says. “Oil and gas is lots of times in your backyard.”

Well drilling can be a noisy business for nearby neighbours, with large vehicles coming and going, creating noise and dust. But once the drilling work is done, “it becomes just a quiet, small square, basically,” Delamont explains.

When issues do arise, she and Armstrong have both found the companies operating nearby wells are usually responsive to complaints.

“They’ve had a few flub-ups, but they deal with it right away,” Armstrong says. “They come and apologize and ask if there’s anything they can do and it usually doesn’t happen again.”

At first, the waste disposal facility operated by Secure seemed like just another aspect of the industry they were used to living with.

“It just didn’t seem like it was going to be that big of a problem,” Delamont says.

Authorities have made ‘feeble attempts’ to address residents’ concerns

When Secure’s waste disposal facility first opened its gate, it was a bright and noisy neighbour but not an especially bothersome one. Vacuum trucks would drive up — sometimes so many they would form a line stretching back to the road — pump out their loads of wastewater and leave. Dust, vehicle noise and the facility’s round-the-clock floodlights were a manageable annoyance.

In 2011, the BC Energy Regulator granted Secure a “major facility expansion,” allowing the company to increase the number of tanks used to store waste products and bring in new equipment to treat waste. The expansion also allowed the facility to build a flare stack, a vertical pipe system used to burn off waste gas. According to the BC Energy Regulator, residents within about three kilometres of the facility were notified of the change.

Odours became an issue a couple of years after the waste disposal facility started operating, according to Delamont and Armstrong. They say calls to Secure haven’t always yielded much of a response.

“Occasionally, Secure will say they are having something going on and that they will remedy it,” Delamont says. “It’ll get better for periods of time, but then the smells come back.” Secure did not directly respond to a question about its response to residents’ concerns.

When calls to the company failed to fix the issue, residents have called the BC Energy Regulator or the Ministry of Environment. But often, odours waft away or the wind direction changes, meaning incidents are over by the time inspectors arrive, residents say.

“We have had a couple of times where [a BC Energy Regulator employee] came out and went, ‘Yep, we can smell it.’ But then we still haven’t heard, what was that that we smelled?” Delamont says.

Armstrong’s calls to the regulators ebb and flow. Sometimes, he calls again and again. Others, the lacklustre or non-existent response gets him so frustrated he stops reporting the incidents at all.

Both he and Delamont have been left feeling that neither the ministry nor the regulator have much ability or interest in enforcing the rules they oversee.

“I get the impression of feeble attempts,” Armstrong says. 

In an email, the ministry reported receiving a total of 36 complaints about Secure’s waste disposal facility since 2017. The BC Energy Regulator says it “has taken sustained and escalating action to manage odour complaints associated with” the facility, including increasing the number of inspections and, in 2024, ordering Secure to identify and mitigate odours associated with its operations. According to the regulator, the company found multiple potential odour sources at its site, including from solid waste, processing and ventilation equipment, and trucks offloading waste products. In an emailed response to The Narwhal, the regulator said Secure’s report in response to the order confirmed “existing engineered and administrative controls are in place” and that the company had taken additional steps to mitigate odours. 

“There’s waste in every industry but how we deal with it is important,” Delamont says. “We like to say that Canadian energy is the cleanest and we have lots of regulations, but then you have a waste facility that seems to not be as regulated as you would expect.”

‘If you’re not being penalized for not following regulations, are you going to change?’

In June 2024, there was an explosion at the Secure facility in which two workers were injured. That October, the company was fined more than $42,000 by WorkSafe BC for failing to take precautions before proceeding with welding work near flammable chemicals. 

In December 2024, the Ministry of Environment and the BC Energy Regulator conducted a joint inspection of Secure’s waste disposal facility to determine whether Secure was complying with its permits and B.C.’s Hazardous Waste Regulation. Several Secure employees, including the facility manager, were on site.

The regulator seemed satisfied, issuing an inspection report in March 2025 that found Secure was complying with the relevant parts of the Energy Activities Act, which governs oil and gas and other energy-related industries.

The Environment Ministry on the other hand, was not as content. The same inspection led it to write a warning letter to the company outlining several compliance failures and incomplete paperwork. 

“Secure is not taking reasonable measures to identify all hazards associated with the hazardous waste” before proceeding with disposal, the Environment Ministry’s letter stated. 

The letter also noted the facility did not have an approved spill containment system or contingency plan and it was unclear if the plan for how to safely close the facility had been approved.

The facility’s groundwater monitoring program “fails to detect potential impacts to groundwater,” according to the letter, which notes issues dating back to 2011. Despite recommendations from the ministry, “Secure has not proposed an alternative program that determines if the groundwater has been affected by leakage or leachate,” putting it out of compliance with the Hazardous Waste Regulation. Since 2020, the facility’s annual reports have stated groundwater monitoring was not done because the wells it used to collect samples were dry, according to the ministry.

Documents show on two occasions, the Secure facility accepted tens of thousands of litres more toxic waste than its licence allowed — more than 50 times the 500-litre maximum. Secure did not respond to a question about these occurrences.

Another item on the warning letter raised questions about whether the company was complying with rules regarding emissions. Secure had decommissioned two pieces of equipment it was permitted to use to treat waste and installed two new boilers not authorized under its permit. The letter says ministry staff could not determine whether the new equipment complied with emissions regulations and directed the company to check and confirm.

The ministry did not issue a fine or other penalty for the equipment lacking permits. 

One year later, it’s unclear what steps the company has taken to bring its facility into compliance with provincial laws and regulations and clear up the murky paperwork. The company did not respond to questions about its response to the warning letter.

“Secure was instructed to verify their permit aligns with Hazardous Waste Regulation emission specifications,” the Environment Ministry said in a statement to The Narwhal. Because of last year’s findings, the facility “will be prioritized for reinspection in the next fiscal year.”

Armstrong can’t understand why provincial authorities have not taken more action to ensure a facility handling toxic waste is complying with all requirements under the law.

“If you’re not being penalized for not following regulations, are you going to change?”

Politicians say there’s no evidence anything is wrong with Secure’s operations

Disappointed and frustrated with the response from regulatory authorities and the company, Delamont, Armstrong and some of their neighbours have contacted their elected representatives about their concerns.

Local MLA Larry Neufeld is the BC Conservative Party’s critic for oil, gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) and worked in the industry for decades. 

“I have met with the company on numerous occasions, I’ve met with the landowners on numerous occasions and I know that there are significant mitigation efforts and measures in place,” he says. “That being said, I’m not discounting the concerns from the landowners.”

Neufeld called the situation “very unfortunate,” adding that — like Armstrong and Delamont — he has found most companies working in the Peace region’s oil and gas sector are responsive to residents’ concerns.

In its email to The Narwhal, Secure included documents outlining actions “to mitigate odour concerns” at the facility, such as installing additional equipment, filters and deodorizing materials. On June 1, 2025, the company said it installed new infrastructure to capture vapour from part of its site and send it to a unit designed to neutralize odours. After receiving an odour complaint in October 2025, the company said it investigated and concluded the smell was related to a product being used to clean concrete at the site because that work was being done at the time the complaint was made. “Secure immediately acted and switched suppliers of the degreaser to a less odourous product,” the company wrote.

Secure’s efforts to address residents’ concerns also included offering to install an air-quality monitor on Delamont’s property to measure methane, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, wind direction and temperature, Neufeld noted — an offer her household declined.Armstrong did accept an air-quality monitor from the company several years ago. He periodically checks the data collected online and doesn’t think it’s been working properly.

“It was not picking up anything other than wind direction,” he told The Narwhal. “The sensors for picking up carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide were just flat lines, so I knew they weren’t working.”

Part of the problem, he says, is that it isn’t maintained. After Secure installed it about six years ago, he does not recall it being checked by the company until earlier this year.

“I have worked in the oil field myself and worn personal air monitors and they have to be calibrated and bump-checked every day,” Armstrong says. 

The company did not respond to questions about Armstrong’s concerns about the air quality monitor on his property, but did say that air quality testing conducted by a third party at the facility found concentrations of volatile organic compounds, benzene and hydrogen sulphide were “below applicable regulatory and health-based guidelines.”

Armstrong says he appreciates that Neufeld will listen, even if the conversations have yet to result in much action. He’s less appreciative of the way Energy Minister Adrian Dix responded to a letter he, Delamont and several of their neighbours sent late last year.Dix’s letter acknowledges residents’ concerns, which the minister said he discussed with Neufeld in early December 2025. It also outlines the BC Energy Regulator’s “comprehensive compliance approach” to the facility, which the letter says includes enhanced weekly inspections focused “specifically on odour-related concerns.”

“The province remains committed to ensuring that industrial activity does not compromise public health or rural livelihoods,” Dix wrote. “We will continue working in close collaboration with the BC Energy Regulator to maintain robust oversight and ensure ongoing regulatory compliance.”

“It was a political response, in my opinion — didn’t really say much,” Armstrong says.

The minister’s letter was copied to the regulator’s chief executive officer and commissioner Michelle Carr, with directions to respond to specific issues outlined in the letter from residents. 

“When you’re concerned about something and everybody else around you seems to be like, ‘Well, no, it’s not that big of a deal,’ that causes undue stress,” Delamont says.

‘I don’t know where I would go’

After years of calls and letters, Delamont and Armstrong want B.C. authorities to answer one big question about Secure’s waste disposal operation: What are we smelling?

“It’s frustrating not knowing what’s in those emissions,” Armstrong agrees. “If it gives you a wicked headache, it can’t be good for you, in my opinion.”

While neither has been told to evacuate as a result of Secure’s operations, both Delamont and Armstrong say their families have chosen to leave their homes on occasions where the smells have been especially intense. Both worry about the effect the odours — and whatever chemicals or chemical reactions cause them — may be having on their horses and other animals, which aren’t easy to move.

After receiving an initial response from Secure, The Narwhal followed up with detailed questions, including about what it is that the residents are smelling. Secure did not respond with this information.

“Secure remains committed to responsible operations and to working constructively with regulators and community members regarding the ongoing operation of the facility,” a representative from the company said via email. 

Armstrong has considered leaving the home and business he built from the ground up. “It’s crossed my mind, but the thought of starting over … I don’t know where I would go,” he says. “But you wonder what your health is doing too. I’m torn on that one, and it’s frustrating.”

Delamont and her husband have also considered leaving the property where they once planned to spend their retirement years. Their enjoyment of the wide-open spaces has been marred.

“We’ve thought recently about moving, trying to find somewhere away from Secure that we can relax a little bit more and not worry about our health and surroundings,” she says. “It’s supposed to be, ‘Oh, you live in the country, you get to breathe fresh air!’ Not always.” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Premier David Eby’s plan to amend B.C.’s landmark Indigenous Rights legislation is a threat to the province’s economic stability and likely to land the province back in court, First Nations leadership organizations are warning.

“It’s important to acknowledge that British Columbia is facing real economic challenges, and First Nations are essential and equal partners in addressing those challenges,” Terry Teegee, B.C. Assembly of First Nations regional chief, said in a press release last week. “We stand united in our opposition to any amendments to gut the Declaration Act, which seeks to affirm and protect our rights.”

The government began the process of consulting First Nations at the end of January on proposed changes to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) and the Interpretation Act — the legislation that instructs courts on how to interpret provincial law.

The First Nations Leadership Council — a political organization made up of elected leaders from the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs — described the consultation process as “expedited” and noted First Nations leaders wishing to participate were required to sign non-disclosure agreements.

As those discussions continue behind closed doors, the council has launched a public campaign to defend the Declaration Act, including a website aimed at countering misinformation about the legislation and highlighting its successes.

“We are presenting the facts on the Declaration Act in order to cut through the disappointing and divisive misinformation being peddled by opportunistic politicians,” Shana Thomas, Laxele’wuts’aat Huy’wu’qw (hereditary chief) of the Lyackson First Nation, said in a statement.

A resolution endorsed by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs “unequivocally opposes” any amendments to the Declaration Act or Interpretation Act.

And it’s not just First Nations leaders voicing opposition to the government’s plans. A public letter signed by dozens of prominent Canadians also calls on the province to abandon the amendments and “recommit to meaningful implementation of the [United Nations] Declaration and the Declaration Act.”

Signatories include Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, environmental advocate David Suzuki, journalist and author John Vaillant and former B.C. chief human rights commissioner Mary-Woo Sims alongside dozens of labour and faith leaders, academics and social justice advocates.

As opposition grows, the province is pushing ahead with a hasty consultation process in its bid to change historic Indigenous Rights law at a speed rarely seen in the legislature. Critics say the consequences could be severe.

‘I guarantee there will be somebody who will litigate it’

Other laws introduced in the first few days of the spring session have been in development for several months but the Declaration Act amendments are set to go from Eby’s mouth into law in less than six months. 

The tight consultation timeline and insistence that the legislation will be passed this spring raise questions for Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law and one of the signatories to the open letter.

“This is not meaningful co-development of legislation in any way,” Clogg, who was part of the legal team representing the Gitxaała Nation in its case against the province, said. “It’s essentially holding a gun to people’s heads.”

Proposed laws often undergo multiple rounds of consultation and revision before they are introduced in the legislature. That process can take months or even years. But the B.C. government is planning to pass its changes to the Declaration Act less than six months after announcing them.

“It’s moving at warp speed,” Merle Alexander, a lawyer with Miller Titerle + Company who specializes in Indigenous law, said. “Almost never has legislation moved this quickly.”

Alexander was involved in drafting the Declaration Act and estimated it took about 18 months. At the time, the process was considered a speedy one, he recalled.

Clogg said the government’s timeline for amending the Declaration Act is “extraordinary,” especially compared to the way it has handled calls to change the Mineral Tenure Act, the law that governs mineral rights claims in B.C.

“Despite calls over decades and decades to overhaul this colonial-era law, it was only when Gitxaała filed their case that we saw it prioritized,” she said.Clogg and Alexander believe that by rushing to get its desired changes passed by May 28, before the legislature breaks for the summer, the province could be setting itself up for further legal challenges.

“If B.C. proceeds on its current pathway, they remain vulnerable to legal challenge because there is no scenario in which the time frames and the tone of these supposed consultations meet the legal standard demanded by the [United Nations] Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” Clogg told The Narwhal.

“I guarantee there will be somebody who will litigate it,” Alexander said.

Eby says the Declaration Act is helping deliver major projects

There is one point on which Eby’s government and First Nations leaders seem to agree: the Declaration Act helped reopen the Eskay Creek mine on Tahltan Nation territory.

In 2022, the B.C. government and the Tahltan Nation signed an agreement under Section 7 of the Declaration Act. The section allows the government to undertake a joint decision-making process with First Nations regarding industrial projects on their traditional territories.

In December 2025, Tahltan Nation members voted in support of the Eskay Creek revitalization project and the province announced its approval of permits for the mine in January 2026.

Both Eby and Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Minister Spencer Chandra Herbert have referenced the government’s collaboration with the Tahltan while defending the planned Declaration Act amendments.

“Part of this act enabled us to do the work with the Tahltan First Nation around Eskay Creek and other First Nations around expediting environmental assessment processes and working with companies,” the premier said at an event hosted by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade on Feb. 20. Eby insisted that only government processes — not court rulings — “can deliver the predictability” the province needs.

The First Nations Leadership Council’s website notes the province has similar agreements with the Tahltan Central Government related to the Galore Creek mine project and the Red Chris mine project, as well as a mining-related agreement with the Tŝilhqot’in National Government. Both the Tahltan and Tŝilhqot’in governments have signed a joint statement calling on Eby to abandon the amendments.

Instead of building on these types of agreements, amending the Declaration Act would “grind projects to a halt as First Nations are once again forced to defend our rights and interests through the courts,” the joint statement reads.

Amid calls to repeal the Declaration Act, Eby’s changes will likely pass with little challenge

For some B.C. politicians, changing the Declaration Act is not enough. The BC Conservatives — the official opposition party in the legislature — have called for the law to be repealed and even for the government to cease all discussions and negotiations with First Nations in the meantime. Still, the government intends to pass legislation to amend the Declaration Act this spring.

Eby has said the changes will make it clear courts have no business interpreting how the act applies or what the provincial government must do to make sure existing laws comply. To make those changes, the bill that is eventually put forward will alter, remove or add language to either or both the Declaration Act and Interpretation Act. 

Once the amending bill has been introduced, it will be put to the legislature for debate. Opposition MLAs — the BC Conservatives, BC Greens, One BC and independents — can share their thoughts on the amendments in the house for the historical record and question the government on how the changes will work. They can also propose tweaks to the proposed amendments, but it’s unlikely there will be substantive changes.

The NDP currently holds 46 seats in the legislature and strictly enforces caucus discipline, meaning NDP MLAs always vote for the government’s legislation. At committee stage — the part of legislative debate where opposition MLAs can ask questions about and propose changes to legislation — NDP MLAs consistently vote down amendments proposed by the opposition.

The BC Conservatives have called for the full repeal of the Declaration Act, making them unlikely to support the government’s plan to only alter the legislation.“I still hold the position that we need a full repeal,” Á’a:líya Warbus, the BC Conservative house leader, told reporters at the legislature on Feb. 10. As house leader, Warbus leads the 36-person BC Conservative caucus’ approach to bills and other legislature business.“We need to go back to brass tacks.”Meanwhile, the two BC Green MLAs — who recently ended the party’s co-operation agreement with the NDP, claiming the governing caucus failed to fulfill its promises — have been critical of the government’s plans to change the Declaration Act.Dallas Brodie, the lone remaining MLA representing One BC, opposes reconciliation and the recognition of Indigenous Rights, making her a likely “no” vote on the amendments.Whether the passage of the Declaration Act amendments comes down to a tie vote may hinge on where four Independent MLAs land on the legislation. If the final vote is tied, the speaker will cast the deciding vote. Traditionally — and legislatures are nothing if not traditional — the speaker votes with the government.On the day of that vote, B.C.’s relationship with First Nations will enter a new chapter very different from the one begun in November 2019, when former premier John Horgan celebrated the unanimous passage of the Declaration Act.

“Eby is basically destroying Horgan’s legacy,” Alexander said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The B.C. government has big plans to tackle the $13.3-billion deficit racked up in recent years. The key to getting the province back in the black, according to Finance Minister Brenda Bailey, is stoking B.C.’s economic engine. The fuel? More money from the natural resource sector, especially mining and natural gas.The new budget banks on significant increases in revenues from minerals and metals as the province courts critical minerals projects. Meanwhile, natural gas revenues are also expected to boom as liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects get off the ground.

“Six major LNG projects are complete, underway or reaching final investment decisions this year,” Bailey said in her budget speech. “We’re doing all this in partnership with First Nations, moving projects forward with confidence and clarity.”

The current B.C. government’s interest in fast-tracking natural resource projects kicked into high gear last year as U.S. President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian goods and threatened Canada’s sovereignty. In May 2025, Bill 15, which granted cabinet broad powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, prompted vocal opposition from many, including Don Tom, Chief of the Tsartlip First Nation and vice-president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Bill 15 became law on May 28, though its fast-tracking powers have yet to be brought into force, pending public consultation.

As those economic development efforts continue, Premier David Eby has also made altering the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) — a landmark law meant to guide reconciliation efforts between the province and First Nations — a top priority for the spring sitting of the legislature.

The government’s goal, according to a statement issued by Eby’s office on Feb. 6, is to “avoid the uncertainty court decisions create” by barring judges from applying the Declaration Act in their rulings.

“The Declaration Act sets out work our province has committed to do together with First Nations governments, not work for First Nations to do with courts without us,” Eby said in the statement. 

But critics say blocking First Nations from appealing to the courts to hold the government to its reconciliation commitments could create less certainty and more court cases.“They might make nice noises about negotiation or collaboration, but the sad history is that without being able to hold the Crown accountable in court, we risk denial, delay and further conflict,” Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law, told The Narwhal in an interview.Eby’s plan to alter the Declaration Act also seems to ignore “the fact that the whole evolution of modern Crown-Indigenous relations exists because, effectively, the courts forced the Crown to come to the table kicking and screaming,” she said.

The Law Society of British Columbia has urged Eby “to reconsider making any proposed legislative changes that would limit access to independent courts.”

More than 100 First Nations leaders and chiefs have signed a statement calling on the premier to abandon the amendments, as well as his government’s appeals of two recent court rulings. B.C. is challenging the Cowichan decision, which found that Quw’utsun Nation has Aboriginal Title to their village site at the mouth of the Fraser River. It is also seeking leave to appeal the Gitxaała decision, which concerns consent for mining claims, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“DRIPA establishes minimum standards of survival and dignity for Indigenous Peoples and has contributed to greater trust, stability and economic certainty across the province,” the statement from First Nations leaders reads. “It is landmark legislation — and one British Columbia should be proud of.”

Expect the Declaration Act amendments to loom large over this spring’s sitting of the legislature.

How did we even get here?

In 2019, B.C. unanimously passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, commonly referred to as DRIPA or the Declaration Act. At the time, the government described the act as “a path forward” for relations between First Nations and the province, and a way to avoid long and costly court battles. 

The idea was the legislation would hold the government accountable, in law, to its stated commitments on reconciliation.

“[The Declaration Act] was a tacit agreement between the B.C. government and B.C. First Nations that the status quo wasn’t working and an agreement that we were going to change things together,” Merle Alexander, a lawyer with Miller Titerle + Company who specializes in Indigenous law, told The Narwhal in December.

The act was also intended to help guide the province through the process of aligning its laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The declaration affirms the inherent human rights of Indigenous Peoples worldwide, covering a range of basic rights that represent the “minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being” of Indigenous Peoples. It acknowledges historical and ongoing persecution, genocide, cultural erasure and marginalization, as well as disproportionate impacts from resource extraction and climate change. 

Among the rights acknowledged in both UNDRIP and B.C.’s equivalent legislation is the right to “free, prior and informed consent” about decisions that affect their lives and well-being, especially major projects.

When he was attorney general in 2021, Eby introduced changes to B.C.’s Interpretation Act — a law that helps courts understand how provincial laws should be read and applied. At the time, Eby said the update would make it clear that the province wants its laws and regulations interpreted in line with the United Nations declaration.

That same year, the Canadian government passed its own law to use the United Nations declaration “as an international human rights instrument that can help interpret and apply Canadian law.” Northwest Territories followed suit in 2023.

For a few years, the work of aligning B.C.’s laws with the United Nations declaration continued mostly behind the scenes. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation documented progress in annual reports quietly released each summer. 

But after the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in December that the Declaration Act is legally enforceable, Eby vowed to change the law.

“They’re just sort of unilaterally attempting to amend the most co-developed statute in the history of British Columbia,” Alexander, who helped draft the legislation, said. “They’re going to do it by not just unilateral amendment, but in opposition to their supposed Indigenous partners.”

The lawsuit over mining claims that started it all

In 2023, as part of a legal challenge to the province’s mineral claim staking system, B.C.’s Supreme Court was asked to interpret the Declaration Act for the first time.

The suit brought by the Gitxaała Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation argued that, by granting anyone the right to stake mineral claims on public land without notice, the province failed to uphold their rights under the Canadian Constitution as well as DRIPA.The nations essentially argued that the Declaration Act required the province to harmonize its existing laws, including the Mineral Tenure Act, with the principles of the United Nations declaration.

In September 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled the province had failed to uphold the nations’ rights under the Constitution, but disagreed that the Declaration Act required the province to change existing laws.The Gitxaała and Ehattesaht appealed the court’s ruling on the application of the Declaration Act and, in December 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in their favour. DRIPA does have legal implications, the majority of judges ruled, and the province is required to fulfill them. 

Days after the ruling, Eby said at a luncheon hosted by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce that his government would make changes to the Declaration Act in the spring. The premier castigated B.C. judges for issuing “dramatic, overreaching and unhelpful” decisions, naming both the Cowichan and Gitxaała cases. 

On Feb. 3, lawyers for B.C. filed an application to appeal the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The act’s purpose is to be a roadmap to stay out of court and try to find constructive resolution of shared concerns,” Eby said in a statement on Feb. 6. “It reflects that reconciliation is a two-way street.”

The premier’s plans to alter the Declaration Act seem to contradict that statement, noted Alexander.

“They’re sort of saying, ‘We’re going to make it illegal for you to access the courts on this’ — on the most relevant international obligation to Indigenous Peoples,” he said. 

“So they’re denying access to justice specifically for First Nations.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Construction on the North Coast transmission line is not expected to start until later this year, but last week BC Hydro took “a key step toward securing a major customer” for its electricity: Ksi Lisims LNG.BC Hydro and Ksi Lisims LNG have signed a memorandum of understanding that “provides clarity on how and when BC Hydro will deliver as much as 600 megawatts of clean electricity to the proposed floating LNG facility,” according to the government’s press release. Energy Minister Adrian Dix hailed the agreement as a key step toward Ksi Lisims’ final investment decision, which is expected later this year.The details of the agreement will not be made public, a BC Hydro spokesperson told The Narwhal in an email, because it contains confidential information about Ksi Lisims.

The Ksi Lisims LNG project is expected to consume as much electricity as 250,000 B.C. homes use in a year. How BC Hydro plans to supply that power — and what it means for the broader grid — has not been disclosed. But a key piece is building the multibillion-dollar transmission line. In December, Dix signed a cabinet order outlining many of the terms BC Hydro and North Coast transmission line customers will operate under, including that the costs for the project be recouped via hydro rates.The most recent cost estimate for the first two phases of the North Coast transmission line is $6 billion, double BC Hydro’s initial $3-billion estimate. The third phase of the project, which will run high-voltage transmission lines north from Terrace, B.C., to Bob Quinn Lake near the Alaska border, has not yet been costed. B.C. is currently negotiating with the Canadian government to secure federal funding for the project.

The B.C. government estimates the projects served by the new transmission line could yield $950 million per year in revenue for the provincial and local governments and boost B.C.’s gross domestic product by “nearly $10 billion per year.” Ksi Lisims is “expected to attract nearly $30 billion in investment,” according to the province.

But in order to lock in those economic benefits, BC Hydro has to provide “cost certainty” to those potential new customers. If that means reducing the amount of money private companies would otherwise be expected to pay, BC Hydro will have to find other ways of recovering those costs.

“Rate payers are going to pay in the end because [these projects] are going to need so much electricity that supply is not going to be able to meet demand and prices are going to have to go up,” explained Andy Hira, a political science professor and director of the Clean Energy Research Group at Simon Fraser University. 

New contracts could let big projects off the hook for connection costs

The North Coast transmission line will primarily serve industrial customers, including mining projects and the Port of Prince Rupert. The B.C. government has not been shy about promoting the project as a boon for private companies it hopes will invest in the province.“This is the reliability companies can count on, every hour of every day,” Premier David Eby told a crowd at the Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, B.C., on Jan. 20. “Certainty that power will be there when companies need it. Certainty that it will be available at a predictable cost. That certainty is what turns proposals into final investment decisions.”

But here’s why that cost certainty could mean higher hydro costs for British Columbians. A cabinet order Dix signed in December could spare large North Coast power users from paying millions to hook into the power grid.

The order includes new contracts specifically for North Coast transmission line customers. One of those contracts deletes a handful of words from a decades-old contract called tariff supplement 6, which requires new industrial customers seeking more than 150 megawatts to pay the costs of generating and transmitting the power beyond that threshold.

“This was an important protection for other customers and was put in place in the 1990s after a negotiation overseen by the BC Utilities Commission,” Richard Mason, a former BC Utilities Commission member, told The Narwhal. “New large loads using the North Coast transmission line will almost certainly require BC Hydro to add new generation, raising the average cost for everyone.”The tweak in the new contracts seems to let large projects, like Ksi Lisims, seeking to connect to the North Coast transmission line off the hook for extra generation and transmission costs they would otherwise be required to pay.“In other words, new customers with large loads won’t have to contribute to any extra transmission or generation cost,” Mason said. “These costs will now be socialized across all BC Hydro’s customers.”

The Energy Ministry did not directly address detailed questions from The Narwhal about the changes. An emailed, unattributed statement from the ministry confirmed “those costs do not apply to new large projects in specific industrial sectors connecting to the BC Hydro system in the North Coast region” under a new contract created by Dix’s order.

The implications of that change are concerning to Hira.

“The fact that they’re doing this behind closed doors, without any public discussion — that they’re passing on potentially huge costs to taxpayers and not providing any justification — is really alarming,” he said. 

The Narwhal asked both the Energy Ministry and BC Hydro how any additional generation or transmission costs would be recouped and whether the government has estimated how much those costs could be for North Coast transmission line customers. 

In its statement, the energy ministry confirmed those costs “will be recovered from all BC Hydro ratepayers, including those industrial customers.”

The statement did not include any mention of a cost estimate but did note that large industrial customers connected to the North Coast transmission line will pay BC Hydro for the electricity they use, as all BC Hydro customers do. North Coast transmission line customers will also have to pay a security deposit to BC Hydro and cover the cost of power lines to their connection point.

The B.C. government has considered making changes to tariff supplement 6 since at least 2024. A briefing note prepared for Eby in March 2024 outlined the potential for an unprecedented increase in industrial electricity demand, driven mainly by large industrial customers. Requiring LNG, mining and other companies to pay the costs required under tariff supplement 6 “could be prohibitive,” the document stated.

But companies that expect to reap huge profits from B.C.’s natural resources are well positioned to pay their own costs, Hira argued.“The government can’t state that companies that are prepared to invest millions in an LNG pipeline and port facilities can’t afford to pay an electricity connection fee — it simply doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Costs for connecting North Coast transmission line customers could be significant

In addition to Ksi Lisims, the North Coast transmission line could serve “half a dozen private mining projects worth $50 billion in investment,” according to Mining and Critical Minerals Minister Jagrup Brar. 

Under the new contracts in Dix’s December order, none will be required to pay the extra generation and transmission costs required under tariff supplement 6. The Energy Ministry did not respond when asked how much the change could save eligible projects.

However, another LNG project on the north coast provides a hint. Cedar LNG, near Kitimat, B.C., was subject to tariff supplement 6, seemingly for the first time in the transmission contract’s 30-year history. 

To get Cedar LNG connected to the power grid, the provincial government opted to contribute $200 million to help build a new 287-kilovolt transmission line and other electrical infrastructure in July 2025. The floating liquefaction and export terminal could produce three million tonnes of LNG per year for export to Asian markets, using 214 megawatts of electricity.Neither the province nor Cedar LNG replied to questions about how much the company may have contributed toward the transmission infrastructure.If all of the anticipated North Coast transmission line projects come with similar transmission costs, the cost to BC Hydro could be substantial, even before considering the cost of any new electricity-generating capacity that might be needed to meet the new power demand.If electricity prices in B.C. do increase significantly, Hira pointed out B.C. could miss out on attracting other industries to invest in the province. Instead, he said, the province seems to be doubling down on natural resource extraction.

“You’re mortgaging the possibility of diversifying the province’s economy.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.