Hansard - Monday, May 5, 2025 Morning, Issue No. 54

Susie Chant: Over the past 40 years, I have attended the Battle of the Atlantic service pretty much every year, with the exception of when I was living overseas, and even then we stopped that day and acknowledged.

I’m going to speak a little bit about the Battle of the Atlantic, which is very important to the sailors of our nation and was recognized in services across the country yesterday, including a large one in Victoria at the cenotaph outside of the Legislature and also at Sailors’ Point in Vancouver.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Battle of the Atlantic, which lasted 2,075 days, was the largest campaign of the Second World War. It pitted Allied navies against German and Italian naval forces, particularly submarines, in a battle to safeguard the essential flow of shipping between North America and Europe. On any given day, 125 merchant vessels were sailing in convoy across the North Atlantic.

It was during these treacherous, stormy crossings that Canada’s navy matured and won the mantle of a professional service. Our navy escorted 25,343 merchant vessels across the Atlantic. These ships carried 181,643,180 tonnes of cargo to Europe, the equivalent of 11 lines of freight cars, each stretching from Vancouver to Halifax. Without these supplies, the war effort would have collapsed.

Although it was largely unprepared for war in 1939, Canada’s navy grew at an unparalleled rate, eventually providing 47 percent of all convoy escorts. Rear-Admiral Murray, the commander-in-chief of northwest Atlantic who directed battles from Halifax, would become the only Canadian to hold an Allied theatre command during the Second World War.

By 1945, the Royal Canadian Navy comprised 378 fighting ships and 95,000 uniformed men and women. It had suffered 2,210 fatalities, including six women, and had lost 24 warships. It had destroyed or shared in the destruction of 33 U-boats and 42 enemy surface craft. In partnership with Canada’s maritime air forces and merchant navy, it had played a pivotal and successful role in the contest for seaward supremacy.

Each year on the first Sunday in May, Canada’s naval community commemorates those lost at sea during the Second World War, and they uphold the legacy of the Battle of the Atlantic by pledging themselves “Ready, aye ready,” to face today’s security challenges with pride and professionalism.

The ships that we lost were 24 Canadian ships and included warships, surface support ships and mortar torpedo boats. We also lost Canadian merchant ships, and we now recognize and celebrate the merchant marine, which we didn’t do for a long time. We now recognize and celebrate the work that they did in this effort. Over 1,700 merchant navy personnel lost their lives due to enemy action, which includes Canadian seamen who were lost while serving aboard 278 Canadian and Allied ships of the merchant marine. Seventy Canadian merchant ships were sunk, mostly in the Battle of the Atlantic.

Also, the air force was very much involved in this effort. There were approximately 350 aircraft lost and more than 900 air crew killed during the Battle of the Atlantic. They will not be forgotten, and we will not allow it to be forgotten.

When we go to the Battle of Atlantic service…. And it is a service. It has prayers. It has psalms. It has songs and hymns. The thing that we finish with is the prayer of dedication, which you are familiar with, probably from Remembrance Day, and it’s the same prayer.

“They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old.

Age shall not weary them nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.”

[10:10 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Recognizing the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Mental Health Care System
and Community Safety

Elenore Sturko: Thank you very much. Nice to see you back in the chair, hon. Speaker.

Before I begin, I just wanted to send an acknowledgement to my own family, who were there for me, well, certainly, throughout my entire career not only in politics but all of my working life. This was a tough last week in light of the tragedy in Vancouver.

Especially to my spouse, Melissa: I love you, and I want to thank you.

Just as a warning to anyone, I will be talking about the mental health care system in B.C. and some of the tragedies that have taken place over the last weeks and months.

I do thank you, hon. Chair, for this opportunity to address critical gaps in British Columbia’s mental health care system.

Tragic events of recent weeks and months — such as the Lapu-Lapu Day festival mass murder and the violent severing of a man’s hand and the killing of another man in Vancouver, as well as the attack on a woman on the seawall — have exposed systemic weaknesses that demand urgent attention. These incidents, linked to individuals with documented mental health struggles, underscore the province’s failure to adequately support and intervene before crises escalate into violence.

Today I would like to outline, in this short time, gaps in access, intervention and oversight with our mental health care system and to call for actionable reform.

I want to be clear that most people living with mental illness are not violent. They’re not entangled with the criminal justice system, and they do not pose a risk to public safety. However, British Columbia’s mental health care system, both inside the forensic psychiatric system and outside of it, is chronically underfunded, overstretched and leaves many individuals without timely or effective support. It leaves them at risk of deterioration and, in some cases, particularly for people deemed by the courts to be unfit to stand trial but not in custody, they risk further serious incidents.

The Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division, has highlighted a real fear of reactionary policies following the Lapu-Lapu tragedy.

Current wait times for psychiatric care can stretch for months, and rural communities often lack local services, forcing individuals to navigate the crisis alone or to rely on emergency rooms for mental health needs. The system fails in proactive intervention, particularly for those with severe mental illness.

In September of 2024, a man with over 60 police contacts, described as mentally ill and on probation, severed a man’s hand and killed another in Vancouver. Despite the known risks, he was released with light probation conditions.

These real gaps in critical services can lead to individuals slipping through the cracks due to inadequate monitoring and ineffective support. Oversight and coordination between mental health services, police and community supports are often inadequate.

The seawall attack on a woman in Vancouver further illustrates this. Details about the perpetrator’s mental health emerged in the media, pointing to a mental health crisis unfolding in the first instance of police contact, with the accused man having a history of crises off medication and causing concern in his residence. Yet the man was not apprehended under the Mental Health Act, and no assessment took place, not until the man was released and then later smashed the face of a tourist. That action to address his mental health was then taken only after that serious incident occurred.

Unfortunately, this is a familiar pattern of unchecked mental health crises contributing to public safety risks. In the case of what happened in Vancouver at the Lapu-Lapu festival, police had prior contact the day before the attack with the man accused. The media reports that family members reached out for help only hours before the attack. The potential for lack of integration leaves dangerous gaps where warning signs are missed or, unfortunately, dismissed.

Municipalities are calling for stronger supports, but without a systemwide review, the ongoing piecemeal approach by the government…. This province risks increasing the fragmentation of the care system, because the Mental Health Act is only one aspect of our current system. The province’s review of the Mental Health Act, announced by the Premier, should be done as part of a full systems review or inquiry.

Without a review of the system in its entirety, inside our forensic system and outside of it, looking at services that apply under the Mental Health Act and those that are provided outside the criteria of the act…. If we do not review the entire system, how best will we know how to change it? If changes are made, they must address gaps in the system before tragedy strikes.

[10:15 a.m.]

British Columbians deserve a mental health care system that protects both the vulnerable and the public. Let’s honour the victims by building a system that prevents such tragedies.

I thank members on both sides of this House for their continued attention on mental health and safety in British Columbia.

Jewish Heritage Month
and History of Jewish Community

Nina Krieger: May is Jewish Heritage Month, a time to celebrate the role the Jewish Canadians have played and continue to play in communities across Canada.

British Columbia is home to approximately 40,000 Jewish people, the third-largest Jewish community in Canada. Its members live across the province, including in Vancouver, the North Shore, Fraser Valley, Kelowna, Nanaimo and here in Victoria, the fastest-growing Jewish community in Canada.

The first Jews arrived in B.C. in 1858 from the U.S., and by the following year, there were enough people to host High Holiday services on Johnson Street. Many set up businesses to support those stopping by Victoria before trying to find fortune in B.C.’s Interior during the Cariboo gold rush. The imprints of B.C.’s Jewish history on our capital remain. If you walk no more than 20 minutes from the Legislature, you’ll find the oldest continuously operating synagogue west of the Mississippi River, temple Emanu-El.

Jews started to migrate from Victoria to Vancouver as the cities of the Lower Mainland grew. Many settled in the Strathcona neighbourhood alongside B.C.’s Chinese, Japanese and Black Canadian communities. The original building for Congregation Schara Tzedeck still stands today on Melville Street.

By the late 1800s and 1900s, diasporas from eastern Europe started to move to Canada to escape persecution in hopes of a better life. The different waves of Jewish migration to the province are reflective of Canada’s rich tapestry of immigration. In our more than 160-year history, we have also seen waves of migrations from diasporas in Latin America, South Africa, the former Soviet Union and Israel. In fact, 36 percent of B.C.’s Jewish community was born outside of the country, making it the most diverse Jewish diaspora in all of Canada.

Jewish British Columbians have flourished in the arts, sciences, academia, philanthropy and civic life. As an elected leader, I would like to reflect on their political contributions. Canada’s first Jewish MP was Henry Nathan Jr., who was elected to represent Victoria in 1871. Vancouver’s second mayor, David Oppenheimer, was foundational to building the city.

Embodying the value of tikkun olam, which is an essential concept in Judaism that means to repair and improve the world, Jewish community members have contributed immensely to social activism and changes in our province. Dave Barrett, our first Jewish Premier, advocated for increases to the minimum wage, and Jewish ministers in his cabinet, such as Norm Levi, introduced changes to our health care and foster care systems.

The history of social activism comes from being treated like the other. Like many diverse groups in B.C., Jews face discrimination, including through university quotas and land covenants. Unfortunately, antisemitism still persists today. According to a recent survey from the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, 62 percent of respondents reported experiencing at least one antisemitic incident. This is why we must continue our commitment to combating hate in the hopes of creating a fairer and safer society for all.

As I reflect on this history and future and the resilience of the Jewish community, I’d like to share one final story. In 1994, survivors of the Holocaust settled in B.C. and formed the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre. I had the privilege to work alongside these pillars of the community to help tell their stories and educate about human rights, social justice and genocide awareness. Its members quietly and persistently advocated with provincial governments to ensure that teaching and learning about the Holocaust would be enduring opportunities for B.C. students as a legacy for future generations.

I’m heartened that their dream will become a reality this fall when our province introduces mandatory Holocaust education as part of the social studies 10 curriculum.

[10:20 a.m.]

This is the story of B.C.’s Jewish community, responding to adversity with resilience and taking these lessons to advocate for others who do not have a voice. This Jewish Heritage Month, I encourage you to learn, celebrate and embrace the Jewish community.

Toda raba. Thank you.

Starbright Children’s
Development Centre

Kristina Loewen: Today I rise to speak about one of the most cherished institutions in the Central Okanagan, Starbright Children’s Development Centre. I do so with both deep admiration and growing concern.

For over 60 years, Starbright has been a beacon of hope for families with children who have developmental needs. But now that beacon is at risk of being extinguished.

Before I get into the numbers, the policies and the funding decisions, I want to talk about what Starbright really is at its core. It’s a place where parents can walk in feeling overwhelmed, uncertain, even afraid, and they are met with kindness, expertise and a plan. It’s a place where children — some of them unable to walk, speak or engage with the world around them — are given the tools, therapies and encouragement they need to reach their potential. It’s a place where families are not just supported; they are empowered.

About five years ago a mama walked into Starbright with a son who wasn’t crawling properly and was dragging one leg. With the help of Starbright, she was able to access services, practise special exercises, gain emotional support, and ultimately, her son walks just fine today.

Twenty-five years ago a concerned mama walked in with her non-verbal son, knowing that something just wasn’t right. She was supported by Starbright and their team, and now her son is a productive 30-year-old man. She loves Starbright so much that she is a happy, longtime employee.

Starbright currently serves approximately 1,000 children each year from birth to school age, offering a broad range of services tailored to each child’s individual development. These are children with speech delays, motor coordination challenges, physical disabilities, cognitive delays and complex needs that require collaborative interdisciplinary care.

The team of 60 employees, all union members of the Health Sciences Association, includes speech and language pathologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, infant development consultants, behavioural analysts and clinical counsellors as well as family service coordinators who work directly with caregivers to help them navigate services, access resources and, probably most importantly, feel less alone. Interestingly, they do this all under one roof with a team-based approach that ensures no child slips through the cracks.

It’s worth noting that this facility includes multiple rooms for various therapies, two buildings, outdoor spaces and an outdoor playground. It’s also worth noting that the staff is incredibly dedicated, and many employees can boast tenures that span multiple decades. You cannot put a price on that, and there’s no guarantee that we will build this kind of camaraderie in the group again with the next model.

This model works. It changes outcomes. The evidence is overwhelming. Early intervention is one of the best investments we can make in a child’s future.

For children with developmental challenges, those early years are critical, the window of opportunity where support has the greatest impact. Starbright delivers the support in a setting where families feel safe, heard and respected. Their programs are trauma-informed, culturally inclusive and rooted in best practices. They don’t just meet the standards; they set them.

Despite decades of exceptional service, the future of Starbright remains deeply uncertain. In 2023, the Ministry of Children and Family Development announced a shift towards a new model of care, the family connections centres. While the stated goal was to streamline services, the practical effort in our region was the removal of funding from Starbright, an organization with an unmatched track record and community trust.

The response was swift and emotional. Over 3,300 people signed a petition to save Starbright. Families rallied outside the centre. Health care professionals, educators, city councillors, even the mayor, all raised their voices in support. That public pressure led to a series of temporary contract extensions.

As it stands now, Starbright’s contract is set to expire in December of 2025, this year. With this looming expiration date casting a shadow over hundreds of families, Starbright simply needs to know: will they continue to be part of the service delivery system for children under school age, going forward? That clarity is not only reasonable; it’s long overdue.

We already have a system in place that delivers exceptional outcomes, so why dismantle it? If Starbright is forced to close, the consequences will be devastating. Families will lose access to trusted clinicians, wait-lists will grow, children will miss critical early intervention windows, and new, untested systems will be forced to rebuild the trust that Starbright has earned over decades.

[10:25 a.m.]

We are not talking about numbers on a spreadsheet. We are talking about real children with real needs, whose futures depend on consistent, specialized and compassionate care. Starbright isn’t just a provider of services. It’s a partner in the lives of families. It’s a safe place, a trusted place, a necessary place.

Today I’m calling on this government to do the right thing and renew Starbright’s funding, not just temporarily but with long-term commitment to this organization, commitment the families deserve. Starbright is a model worth preserving. Let’s not make the mistake of learning its value only after it’s gone.

Colonialism and
Indigenous Sovereignty

Amshen / Joan Phillip: Today I rise to speak in support of my friends and colleagues, the parliamentary secretary and the minister, for celebrating Red Dress Day in their statements.

I’d like to speak about the colonial systems on a more personal level and on the resulting violence that Indigenous peoples live with every day. The missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and LGBTQ+ communities are injustices and tragedies, but they continue to this day. It’s terrible. It’s horrific. But it doesn’t exist in isolation.

Growing up under a colonial system is very personal, and I’m not sure people always realize just how oppressive it is. Though we exist on Indigenous lands, much of which is unceded, Indigenous peoples do not own the reserves — reserves are held by His Majesty — which were set aside for the use and benefit of the nations that have held that territory since time immemorial.

We can’t cut down trees. We can’t dig out gravel on our own properties without a permit, which takes about three months. And because timber and aggregate resources are owned by the band, we don’t economically benefit from their sale: 50 percent goes to the band, and 50 percent goes to the landholder. We need to seek permission from His Majesty’s representative to do anything on the reserve.

Colonialism is violent. This violence starts with our dehumanization and has long-lasting implications on Indigenous people’s health outcomes, rates of poverty and access to services. The dehumanization of Indigenous peoples empowers others to engage in physical and emotional violence against us. For instance, stating that sovereignty is somehow a threat to Canadian unity is both untrue and, quite frankly, racist. These kinds of blanket statements are not okay and should not be received as if they are.

I’d like to perhaps educate some of the members of the jurisdictional differences between the provincial and federal governments. Indigenous peoples are governed through the Indian Act, which is federal law and came into existence in April of 1876.

Now Indigenous peoples do have sovereignty over our traditional territories. Also, the city of Vancouver defined “unceded” as lands that were never legally ceded or given up to the Crown through a treaty or any other agreement. It wasn’t given away. It wasn’t abandoned. It was stolen through colonial violence, oppression and genocide.

Moving to the suggestion that sovereignty is somehow an obstacle to British Columbia, quite frankly, our economies are interdependent. Where do we spend our money? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. When we do well, we all do well.

[10:30 a.m.]

Indigenous communities across this province have been honest and active partners with the province of British Columbia on a variety of critical projects. We have and will continue to work with Indigenous communities across this province because it’s the right thing to do. And it just so happens that we all benefit from the relationship.

Huy ch q’u siem.

Federal Election and
Conservative Party Candidates

Bryan Tepper: After a hard-fought federal election, the results are in. With the outcome mixed nationally, one thing is absolutely clear here in British Columbia. Voters across our province sent a powerful message. British Columbians want public safety, affordability, opportunity and prosperity for hard-working people.

Families are struggling under the weight of high taxes, skyrocketing costs and government decisions that seem increasingly out of touch with everyday realities. The strong showing for Conservatives across British Columbia reflects a clear rejection of the status quo. It reflects desires for leadership, grounded common sense, individual responsibility and practical solutions.

People are frustrated with ideological politics that have done more to divide than deliver results. British Columbians want a government that works for them, not against them, and that puts priorities for ordinary citizens ahead of political agendas.

The results should be seen as a signal that voters are demanding change. They are calling for leaders who restore balance to our economy, who will support law enforcement and public safety, and who will stop punishing success through bloated bureaucracy and out-of-control spending.

The direction Canadians want is clear. They want safer streets, more affordable communities and a government that rewards hard work instead of punishing it. They want to build homes and businesses without jumping through endless hoops. They want leaders who get things done, not more government spin.

British Columbians, particularly in communities like mine, are tired of being told what to think and how to live. They want government to focus on basics: creating jobs, building homes and infrastructure, improving health care and supporting our police.

This election marked a shift, one where people of this province stood up and said: “Enough.” It’s now up to all of us, on both sides of the Legislature, to hear the message and take it seriously. I mean all of that as a call to unity to work together.

During this time, I would also like to congratulate the new MPs across British Columbia. Conservative candidates ran strong, principled campaigns, and many were rewarded with the trust of their communities. Please allow me, on behalf of the Conservative caucus, to extend our sincere congratulations to the new Conservative Members of Parliament from British Columbia who will now carry their constituents’ voices to Ottawa.

We had Aaron Gunn elected in North Island–Powell River, Jeff Kibble in Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, Tamara Kronis elected to Nanaimo-Ladysmith, Ellis Ross in Skeena–Bulkley Valley, Chak Au in Richmond Centre–Marpole and Helena Konanz representing Similkameen–South Okanagan–West Kootenay.

These are strong, principled and experienced individuals who will bring credibility and accountability to parliament. Their victories are not accidents. They were the results of speaking directly to the concerns of everyday people and offering a real alternative to the current federal direction. Their success reflects a growing appetite for commonsense leadership in our province and across the country.

Closer to home, I want to take a moment to recognize several exceptional candidates who campaigned hard in the Lower Mainland, people that I actually have come to know fairly well. Jessy Sahota, a former police officer like myself, who ran in Delta. Harjit Singh Gill, who ran in Surrey Newton. I will say my wife did volunteer on his campaign quite a lot. It was very nice to get to know him, a member of the community.

Rajvir Dhillon in Surrey Centre. Sukh Pandher in Fleetwood–Port Kells. Kerry-Lynne Findlay from South Surrey–White Rock. And finally, Sukhman Gill, who did win and was elected in Abbotsford–South Langley and will now have the honour of representing his community in Ottawa. To all these candidates, I thank them for stepping forward.

[10:35 a.m.]

To the countless volunteers who knocked doors for every party, made phone calls, worked tirelessly to bring about change: your efforts have not gone unnoticed. You helped shape the future of this province, and I thank you deeply for your commitment to any of the causes and for your public service.

While this is a victory for many of our candidates, the work is far from done. British Columbians are expecting results and rightly so. This means putting political differences aside and working together on the issues that matter to our constituents: improving public safety, building houses, fixing health care, and ensuring affordability for seniors, young families and small businesses.

I will skip to the end and say that in talking to my new friends on the other side, I think we all, in this House, are ready to work together and make this happen.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member for Richmond Centre to move second reading of Bill M211, Zero-Emission Vehicles Repeal Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Zero-Emission Vehicles
Repeal Act

Hon Chan: I move that Bill M211, Zero-Emission Vehicles Repeal Act, be now read a second time.

Today I rise to call for the repeal of the zero-emission vehicle mandate act, legislation that, while well-intentioned, failed to account for the economic, geographic and infrastructure realities of British Columbians.

Let me begin by stating it very clearly. This is not an anti-EV bill. I am a proud EV owner. I have driven multiple electric vehicles for almost a decade. I understand the value, the benefits, also their limitations.

What I need to also understand is that EVs are not for everyone, and government mandates that try to force a one-size-fits-all solution will only create frustration, inequality and, worse, an energy and infrastructure crisis we’re not ready to face.

Let’s start with the most urgent issue, electricity supply. B.C. Hydro has publicly warned us that we’re heading towards electricity shortages. Demand is growing rapidly — EVs, heat pumps, new housing projects. Our clean energy grid is being stretched thin. In fact, B.C. Hydro recently issued a call-for-electricity campaign because we do not have enough self-sufficient power.

If we cannot guarantee a stable, reliable and sufficient supply of electricity, how can we responsibly mandate that 90 percent of cars sold in this province must be electric in just five years’ time and 100 percent by 2035? Even worse, this government added a $500,000 fine and up to six months of jail time for just selling a gas-powered car. I can’t imagine how that became this government’s priority.

A mandate without capacity is not just irresponsible; it’s dangerous. It places unnecessary pressure on our grid and risks blackouts, power rationing or increased reliance on electricity imports from the U.S., especially during extreme weather time.

Now let’s talk about geography. EVs might work well in downtown Vancouver or in Richmond Centre, like in my riding, or Victoria. But how about Fort St. John? How about Castlegar, Terrace, Prince George? In rural and northern B.C., EVs are simply not a practical option for many residents.

Longer distance travel is a necessity. Winters are harsh. The terrain is mountainous. Range anxiety isn’t just a buzzword here; it’s a daily lived concern. If you run out of electricity in the middle of nowhere during a snowstorm, it’s not just inconvenient; it’s incredibly stressful. In some cases, it could be life-threatening.

We need to consider the diverse needs of the public, especially small businesses, farmers and also those in rural areas who rely on vehicles that can tow. It’s worth highlighting that the cheapest electric pickup truck in B.C. costs over $70,000, and, in real-world conditions, it can only deliver about 350 km of range without any towing.

Currently only the most expensive electric pickups, priced at over $120,000 before tax, might be able to tow a load and make it across the Coquihalla Highway into the B.C. interior. In contrast, a $40,000 gas pickup can handle that same trip without any issue. So why is this minister ignoring the real-world needs of British Columbians?

[10:40 a.m.]

Let’s not forget that there’s limited access to EV repair shops or replacement parts in suburban and rural communities. If something goes wrong, there’s no easy fix. This mandate disregards the lived experience of people outside of the urban centres.

Then there are consumer behaviours, something that this government has consistently failed to understand. Surveys repeatedly show the same barriers to EV adoption: higher upfront costs, concern about the battery degradation, limited resale value, longer charging times and lack of charging access for apartments or strata residents.

As the ministry’s own report showed just last week, EV sales have already slowed down and, in fact, dropped for the first time in 2024 compared to 2023, and that was while both provincial and federal EV incentives were still in place. Now with those incentives ending, affordability will drop even further and so will sales. It’s just as simple as that.

In fact, the president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association stated: “Given ongoing affordability challenges, lack of charging infrastructure and other market forces, the province will not come close to the mandate target for 2030.”

The president and CEO of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association said: “Any EV regulations must align consumer demand, adequate charging infrastructure and purchase incentives in order to be successful. None of those currently exist at the level required to support the numbers contemplated by the EV mandates.”

What about the president and CEO of the Global Automakers of Canada? “We have new evidence that suggests the government-set EV sales target will not be achieved.” Here in B.C., the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. has also urged the government to be realistic and take a closer look at what’s actually happening in the market and with consumers.

Let’s be realistic. Many British Columbians are already struggling to pay for groceries, rent and heating. And now we’re telling them that they must buy an EV, whether it fits their needs or not. It’s not policy; it’s forcing compliance.

What we’re doing here is distorting our local supply and pricing by creating an artificial demand that manufacturers may not be able to meet affordably. And that means delay, higher costs and fewer options for consumers. That’s not progress; that’s just pain.

Let’s look at the charging infrastructure. Yes, more charging stations are on the way, but they’re not coming fast enough and not in the places they’re most needed. The urban centre and urban-rural divide is glaring, and even in the urban areas, many older condominiums simply do not have the electrical capacity to install chargers. For those that do, the cost of wiring and installing new chargers can be enormous.

Many condo owners like me are already facing sky-high strata fees and rising insurance costs. How does the minister expect these strata corporations to magically come up with the money to make this upgrade within the next ten years?

I would also want to point out that some public chargers are price-gouging EV users by charging two to five times the cost of electricity. This effectively eliminates the fuel cost savings for EV owners, defeating the point of low-cost travel. It’s not just about putting a charger in every parking lot. It’s about ensuring access is fair, reliable and affordable. We’re not anywhere close to that yet.

We’re not ready. We’re not ready in terms of power. We’re not ready in terms of infrastructure. We’re not ready in terms of affordability. We’re not ready in terms of technology. Yet this mandate pretends we are.

Lastly, let’s talk about safety. While EVs are 50 to 60 times less likely to catch fire compared to ICE vehicles, internal combustion engine vehicles, when they do ignite, as has happened in many parts of the world, they take weeks or even more than a month to fully extinguish. Does every jurisdiction in our province have a comprehensive plan for dealing with EV fires in underground parking, condos, campgrounds or even on B.C. Ferries?

So where do we go from there? We don’t go backward, but we do go smarter. We repeal the mandate. We allow British Columbians to make informed personal choices. We stop dictating what kinds of vehicles they must buy and start creating a market where they want to buy clean vehicles because it makes sense for their lifestyle and their budget.

[10:45 a.m.]

We invest in our infrastructure first. We strengthen our grid. We ensure EV technologies are viable for all regions across B.C., not just in Metro Vancouver or in Victoria.

Here’s the truth. True leadership is that when we set a goal, we must set one that is ambitious but achievable, not unrealistic and unreachable. British Columbians deserve better than ideological mandates. They deserve a government that respects their realities and choices. Let’s repeal the zero-emission vehicle mandate act and get B.C. back on the road to practical, affordable and sustainable progress.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Surrey City Centre.

Amna Shah: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome back. I’m delighted to see you back in the chair.

Before I begin, I just want to commend you for your leadership and your care you’ve provided not just to the Filipino community but our community at large.

I thank you for that.

I rise today to speak to the proposal to repeal the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, an act that has been critical to the progress British Columbia has made in building a cleaner, more sustainable future for all British Columbians.

The Zero-Emission Vehicles Act is a framework that has enabled real results. In 2024, B.C. had the second-highest electric vehicle adoption rate in Canada, with 22.4 percent of new vehicle sales being zero-emission vehicles. Nearly 195,000 ZEVs, or zero-emission vehicles, are now registered in B.C., a massive leap from just the 5,000 we had eight years ago.

This momentum isn’t confined to the Lower Mainland. We’re seeing the EV revolution across every corner of our province — over 5 percent of light-duty vehicle sales in northern B.C., 11 percent in the Kootenays and Thompson-Okanagan, 22 percent on Vancouver Island and 26 percent in the Lower Mainland.

British Columbians are choosing EVs, and the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act ensures those vehicles are available to meet that growing demand. Repealing the act would undermine that progress. It would mean fewer EVs on lots, longer wait times and fewer affordable options, especially for lower- and middle-income families looking to make a greener choice. This proposed repeal is an attack on evidence-based climate action and on the efforts of a government which has been leading the way in terms of climate-friendly initiatives.

It’s important to remember that we’re uniquely positioned to support this transition to emission-free vehicles. Why? Because we have a clean, reliable hydroelectric system right here in B.C., which is capable of powering our growing electricity demands without turning to fossil fuels.

While the official opposition clings to outdated and unworkable alternatives, our government has taken decisive steps to modernize and expand clean energy. In fact, for the first time in two decades, B.C.’s electricity demand is projected to increase by more than 15 percent by 2030, driven by population growth, new housing, industrial development and a shift from fossil fuels to clean electricity.

To meet that demand, B.C. Hydro is making historic investments, and this includes the completion of Site C dam, adding power for 500,000 homes; ten renewable energy projects through our 2024 call for power, adding another 500,000 homes’ worth of supply; and energy efficiency investments that will save enough power to serve over 200,000 additional homes. Now, together that’s energy for over one million additional homes.

And we’re not stopping there. B.C. Hydro’s updated ten-year capital plan includes $36 billion in infrastructure investments, and that is a 50 percent increase over the previous plan. We’re upgrading substations, building new transmission lines and supporting electrification in high-growth communities, all while ensuring that rate increases remain below cumulative inflation. This is climate leadership with a plan and not a slogan.

[10:50 a.m.]

Now, contrast that with the actions or, rather, inactions of the official opposition. They’ve opposed nearly every major climate initiative that we’ve brought forward. They’ve opposed our update to the Clean Energy Act, which sets a bold new target of 100 percent clean electricity by 2030.

They opposed carbon pricing on industrial emissions. This is a policy that has been supported by everyone from the Mining Association of B.C. to the David Suzuki Foundation, yet we’re supposed to believe that their view and their approach is common sense. Nothing to do with common sense.

They even want to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, which would risk disinvestment, stranded assets and jeopardize our competitiveness in global markets.

It’s worth noting the alarming stance of the Conservative Party of B.C. and their leader on climate change. The opposition leader has actually taken us on a wild ride, first doubting the effects of climate change, saying it’s just a theory. It’s not an existential threat, he says. Then came the election campaign, and his words changed, with him acknowledging that climate change is real.

Actually, that was a play on words, because he flatly denies the scientific consensus that human activity, particularly carbon emissions, is the primary driver. He dismisses climate action as a doom cult, ridicules carbon reduction strategies and rejects basic science. In favour of what? A defeatist rhetoric.

Let’s be clear. Saying that climate change is real while denying its causes and obstructing solutions is not leadership. It is ill-informed misdirection, and it is flat-out irresponsible.

Speaking of a defeatist attitude, the opposition leader says that, really, there’s nothing that we can do to prevent climate change or to work towards fighting climate change. But that’s not just wrong; that’s dangerous. That’s a dangerous form of thinking. British Columbians deserve real solutions, grounded in science, and not cynical denial wrapped in slogans.

But you know what? We’re not going to sit on our hands like the opposition leader would like to do. We know that industrial carbon pricing is fundamental to decarbonization efforts. The B.C. output-based pricing system provides a cost-effective and fair mechanism to reduce emissions.

Let’s talk about fuels. Our low-carbon fuel standard, one of the most successful climate policies in the province, has already achieved significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane regulations — again, we’re leading. B.C. has set an ambitious target, reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations by 75 percent by 2030. This was achieved through collaboration, through optimism, through hope, with academia, industry and environmental groups alike. As a result, our oil and gas sector has now one of the lowest methane intensities in North America, yet the opposition wants to roll that back too.

This bill isn’t about consumer choice. It is about the opposition turning its back on science and economic opportunity.

We’re building a province where clean energy powers industry, homes and vehicles. We’ve helped 30 communities adopt the B.C. energy step code and 29 adopt the zero carbon step code standards that lower emissions and reduce energy bills. We’re investing $50 million in heat pump rebates. We’re building the infrastructure to support a zero-emission transportation future. Over 7,000 charging stations now span the province, which is up from just 781 back in 2016.

At a time when global uncertainty is rising and energy choices are under scrutiny, B.C. is standing firm. We’re scaling up renewable projects, cutting red tape and forging a path forward towards a more resilient, low-carbon economy.

[10:55 a.m.]

British Columbians understand what’s at stake. They’re making the greener choice as we speak. They have been doing that for the last few years. Our job is to make sure that choice is available, affordable and supported by the infrastructure and policies that are needed to back it up. There’s a vision, and that vision needs to be exemplary, not just for the rest of this country but for the rest of the world.

I have a message for those who are proposing to repeal the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. You’re not just rolling back law. You’re rolling back progress, and you’re telling industry, you’re telling families and future generations that B.C. is walking away from climate leadership. That is not common sense.

We on this side of the House are not going to let that happen.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Third Party.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also want to extend my gratitude for your work over the last nine days. I know it’s very much appreciated by all of us here.

I want to thank the member for Surrey City Centre for rolling out all the statistics that clearly tell the picture that this transition is happening. This transition will happen.

I’m not a big fan of the rhetorical “how do you sleep at night,” but I am really trying…. I wonder, sit here and question how we tell our children and grandchildren that we thought about taking this giant step backward in climate action. I’m also trying to imagine a member standing up at the beginning of the 19th century and saying: “I like the horse and buggy. I’m not sure. I don’t really think that we can build the infrastructure required for the new-found automobile, and I think we should just stick with what we’ve got and be happy with that.”

I don’t know whether this is denial of climate change or just “let’s stick our heads in the sand and hope that somebody else will take care of it,” but we are the people who need to take care of it. That’s leadership.

I’m not pretending that the electric vehicle is the silver bullet. We probably can’t all afford to roll around in private vehicles. We need to build out transit.

But I really want to push back on two pretty important things, one of which is that we can’t possibly supply enough electricity. I’m a little surprised to hear from a party which believes in building things and getting things done that we can’t possibly do this. We can’t supply enough electricity? Of course we can. It’s just a matter of priorities.

This is not a limiting factor. This is a convenient excuse, the same as running out of battery on the highway in northern B.C. Most EVs now, including the F-150 Lightning, which a lot of my constituents have purchased to replace their gas vehicles, very happy with…. At 500 kilometres, even in a province the size of B.C., you’re just as likely to run out of gas, and that creates safety problems of its own.

So these are pretty thin-sounding excuses, from my point of view. I will emphasize the word “defeatist.” It just sounds to me like: “We have no aspiration. We don’t think we can do this, so why bother trying?” And I just don’t see how that’s really relevant in this emergency that we’re facing.

Transportation emissions are up 18 percent. We need to set targets that we can achieve. They are achievable. We need to set targets that send the right signals and push us in the right direction.

This is not eliminating a freedom. People will be able to roll around in internal combustion vehicles probably for another 50 years. They might be buying them used, which is not a huge impingement on their freedom.

People are still playing LPs on record players. That’s their right. They will pay a premium for that. They will be the oddity of people who just decided they didn’t want to progress. They didn’t want progress, and that’s their right.

[11:00 a.m.]

When I hear the car dealers associations quoted, I really want to point out that there’s an extreme bias here. The amount that car dealers make from maintaining internal combustion engines…. They are extremely complex, have taken 100 years to get right, and we now enjoy the fruits of that 100 years of technological innovation. But there’s a lot of money to be made from maintaining vehicles, not so much with electric vehicles. Those are the market forces that are at play.

I don’t need to go any further. It’s obvious that the Green caucus will not be supporting this. I’m disappointed. In 2025, climate science is pretty much impossible to debate, except for those who don’t want to deal with it and look it in the face. I’m disappointed that we have to look at a bill like this.

We’ve made some progress. It’s not perfect. There can be adjustments made, but the repeal of the entire act that has shown progress and is moving us in the way that we all know we need to go, whether we like it or not, can’t be supported. Obviously we’ll be voting against.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Surrey–White Rock.

Trevor Halford: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is absolutely great to see you back today.

I want to thank you for everything you’ve done for our province and the Filipino community, especially over the last few weeks. You were doing that work long before, but that light was really shown in the last week, so I want to thank you for that.

I wasn’t planning on getting up today, but I’m going to get up. I’m not going to be very long, but I’m going to be, I think, fairly direct on a couple of things.

On what my colleague and friend has put forward here, I think it very much is…. The member opposite talked about common sense, and I think this is very much about that.

The fact of the matter is that what the government member got up and stated today was absolutely embarrassing for a number of reasons, and it’s quite evident. The fact is that this government…. This MLA talks about what they’re doing. The reason we’re in this position is because this is a government that has sat on their hands. This MLA talks about sitting on their hands. They have sat on their hands for eight years and avoided doing the work that needed to be done to put us in a better position.

Now they’ve found religion in terms of supporting the projects that should already have been completed by now. We don’t have the electricity because this government sat on their hands. If this is a government that wants to pretend and masquerade that it stands up for the environment…. No way. Absolutely not. This is a government that can’t even be transparent about their own emissions. Are you serious?

At least I’ll give the MLA credit for this. She was clear. I guess she was speaking for the government that they are standing behind their targets. The minister hasn’t done that, and the Premier hasn’t done that. Every time they’ve spoken, they’ve hedged. They’ve hedged because they’ve seen the numbers we see. I hope they see the reality.

The fact is that we’ve got people that are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. The fact is that we’ve got stratas in my own riding, where nobody even owns an electric car, that are being forced this year to make sure that they are paying for charging stations. Are you serious?

At some point, this government needs to get out and explore the province. They need to go talk to people in Fort St. John, in Dawson Creek, in Smithers, in other areas and figure out why this isn’t working. What was said today…. I challenge them to go up there and say that in those communities. I guarantee you that they absolutely will not. It’s a joke.

Give me a break. To say that…. The Premier cannot even get up and defend the EV targets. That’s been going on for months. The minister can’t even do that. The car industry is even saying that.

[11:05 a.m.]

We see those numbers. Do they actually think those targets can be met? Do they think that British Columbians today, the single mom that just bought that used van to get their kids to hockey practice — which, by the way, this government has now made them pay PST on — have to comply by this? Give me a break.

If they want to go back and talk about the past election, everything like that…. Maybe that was a bit of a wake-up call to get in reality. I guarantee you that MLA didn’t go to one doorstep and campaign on EV targets.

I actually think that this is important. I would love to see if these words are going be held if these targets aren’t met or if the Premier or the Energy Minister decide that they’re going to actually be transparent about it and change the targets or eliminate them completely.

We’re in an affordability crisis, and we have been for a long time. We’re in an energy crisis. If the government wants to realize why we’re in an energy crisis, they can look at the two people that sit in this room and hold either the title of Premier or the Minister of Energy.

Why we’re in that…. When you sit and you oppose things like Site C, you oppose things like TMX, you oppose things like LNG and you oppose basically anything that gives a job in the private sector, you get to be in this position. They can shake their heads all they want, but that’s the reality of it.

At the end of the day, this legislation makes sense. And at the end of the day, I don’t think there’s one person — maybe a couple, maybe two, maybe three — that actually thinks this government is going to meet this target. To stand up here and lecture on this after their record is an absolute embarrassment.

I challenge this government to actually go and give that speech that they just gave up in Prince George, up in Fort Nelson. Go give it in Comox. You’re going to get laughed out of the room, and you should, because it’s an absolute joke.

With that, I don’t know how much more clear I can be. The fact is that this is a government that continues to overpromise and underdeliver. They’ve done it in every single metric. And a news flash for the MLA across: they’ve done it on the environment side as well. If the member wants to talk about science, that is proven out. That is science.

With that, I will be supporting my colleague’s legislation that he’s tabled here today, because you know what? It makes sense, and it’s actually based in reality.

Harman Bhangu: I rise today in full support of the bill introduced by the member for Richmond Centre, the consumer choice, Zero-Emission Vehicles Repeal Act, 2025.

This bill eliminates the heavy-handed mandate that requires 90 percent of all new vehicles sold in British Columbia to be zero-emission by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035. It also repeals the outrageous penalty that punishes any person who dares to sell gas-powered vehicles after 2035, with fines up to $500,000 and six months in jail.

Let me be clear. This is not a speech against electric vehicles. Many British Columbians support EVs, and so do I. But I also support freedom. I support choice. I support economic reality over heavy-handed coercion. This bill restores the basic principle that in B.C., we British Columbians should have the right to choose the vehicle that works for us, not one dictated by the government.

[11:10 a.m.]

Let us talk about the realities on the ground. In Langley, there are over 33,000 vehicles insured, and in Abbotsford, over 30,000. Together these communities have more than 8,000 Ford F-150 pickups on the road.

These are not luxury vehicles; these are work trucks. These are the lifeblood of tradesmen, farmers and contractors and families. Yet in 2023, there were only 92 Ford Lightning EV trucks sold in Langley, 66 in Abbotsford. That’s just 158 pickups in two major communities, compared to more than 8,000 internal combustion pickups, less than 2 percent.

That is not a market trend. That is a reality check. British Columbians are not rejecting EVs. They’re rejecting them being forced onto them.

The truth is that EVs still don’t meet…. For any of the many hard-working people in rural communities, like northern areas, range anxiety is real. Charging infrastructure is limited. Winters are long and harsh. A dead battery isn’t an inconvenience; it’s dangerous.

Now let’s look at Edison Motors, a local B.C. company building North America’s first electric hybrid semi-truck. You would think this government would celebrate that innovation. You would think they’d support it. Instead, they were denied clean tech grant funding by this province.

Then, shockingly, the same private firm the NDP chose to run the program approached Edison Motors and offered them grant-writing help for 20 percent of the cut if successful. Edison’s co-founder Chace Barber called it a shakedown.

A B.C.-based start-up trying to electrify the heaviest emitters in our transportation sector was not met with support but with gatekeeping and conflict of interest. This government says it wants to fight climate change, but when B.C. innovators show up with practical working-class solutions, they are denied the support in favour of politically connected green energy megaprojects.

Let’s talk about EV sales across the country. In 2024, Quebec had a record year, but since the start of 2025, EV sales have dropped over 40 percent. The senior vice-president of the Montreal Electric Vehicle Show said: “Let’s be realistic. The market has been chaotic since the beginning of the year.” Why? Because the Quebec government suspended and reduced its EV rebates. The $7,000 incentive is now $4,000. It will drop to $2,000 in 2026 and will be eliminated by 2027.

In January, the federal government cancelled its $5,000 rebate, catching many consumers off guard. Once the subsidies certainly are subtracted from the equation, for many people, these vehicles are out of reach.

So what’s happening now? Inventory is piling up. Dealers are worried. Consumers are hesitating. Jobs are on the line. In Quebec, with its dense infrastructure and clean hydro power, an EV culture can’t sustain electric vehicle sales without massive subsidies. What chance does rural British Columbia have under a zero-emissions mandate backed by criminal penalties?

What’s happening here in B.C.? The provincial EV rebate is being paused on May 15. The federal rebate is already gone. The cost of electricity is rising, and charging infrastructure remains inadequate in many areas, especially those living in strata or apartments. Even with all the subsidies, electric vehicles remain thousands of dollars more expensive than gas-powered cars.

We must also address the stunning inconsistency in this government’s approach to green energy policy. Just weeks ago the NDP government announced the elimination of 17-cents-per-litre consumer carbon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. On one hand, they claimed to be fighting climate change; on the other hand, they dropped the very tax they said was essential to reduce emissions. This move directly contradicts their draconian zero-emissions vehicle mandates.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot eliminate the carbon tax on fuel and simultaneously criminalize the sale of every vehicle that uses fuel.

[11:15 a.m.]

What we are witnessing is not a coherent climate strategy. It is a confused, disorganized, hypocritical patchwork of political decisions driven by optics rather than outcomes. The government has eliminated the consumer carbon tax, the provincial rebate is being paused in a few days, and they insist on enforcing an authoritarian mandate to force British Columbians into vehicles they can no longer afford, justify or maintain.

It is both unfair and irrational. It penalizes working-class people while giving a free pass to politically favoured industries. This is not leadership. It is ideological confusion wrapped in green branding, enforced with punitive regulation.

Imagine telling a struggling family in Mission or Hope that they’re legally required to buy an electric vehicle or go without a vehicle at all. This is economic insanity wrapped in a green ribbon. That’s not fairness, and that’s not science. That’s political optics.

We could be helping companies like Edison Motors electrify long-haul trucking, but instead, the government is fixated on banning personal cars.

The member for Richmond Centre has done us all a favour by bringing forward this legislation. It does not ban electric vehicles. It does not oppose innovation. It simply restores consumer choice. It says to the people of British Columbia: “You know your life better than government regulators in Victoria.”

Let people choose electric vehicles if they want to, not because they’re forced to. Let markets innovate without government coercion. Let small businesses, like Edison Motors, thrive without backroom grant shakedowns. Let common sense replace climate extremism.

This government has failed to reduce emissions. It has failed to reach its targets, and now, in desperation, it reaches for the hammer: mandates, fines and jail time.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve freedom. They deserve real solutions, not ideological dictates. Let us repeal this mandate. Let us pass this bill. Let us stand for consumers’ choice, innovation and the dignity of ordinary working families.

David Williams: Today I rise in strong support of the consumer choice amendment act 2025, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Repeal Act, which I strongly support.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation grounded in a simple principle. In a free society, consumers should have the right to choose the vehicle that best suits their needs, without government intervention.

I represent a rural riding. From Falkland to Malakwa, from the logging roads outside Seymour Arm to the farms around Salmon Arm and Armstrong, the message I hear is consistent: “We want to do our part, but this mandate doesn’t work for us.”

Let me give you a real-life example. A contractor in Enderby recently looked at purchasing an electric truck. The price tag, $85,000 before taxes. That is just the beginning. Winter weather cuts the range in half, and there are no charging stations near the forestry roads he travels. For him, this isn’t political; this is practical. The story repeats itself across my riding.

Let me give you another example. In Blind Bay, a senior cannot depend on their local transit service, which operates on a limited basis and not at all on evenings or weekends. For communities like this, owning a personal vehicle isn’t a luxury. It’s a lifeline, and it’s a safety issue.

What if a mother in Seymour Arm needs to get her child to the nearest emergency room at Shuswap Lake General Hospital? A 90-minute drive on unplowed roads, often unplowed in the winter. Even worse, if the emergency room is closed…. It’s a 90-minute drive, and that’s if it’s not closed.

In that moment, she’s not thinking about emissions. She’s thinking about whether or not her vehicle will get her there in the snow and whether she’ll make it there on time. That’s what the real world looks like in the Interior.

[11:20 a.m.]

This concern is not isolated. Even the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. is raising alarms. Their CEO, Blair Qualey, described the current mandate as “a freight train of pain heading straight for B.C. consumers,” and he’s absolutely right. The demand for EVs simply isn’t keeping the pace with forced government quotas, according to their own data.

Only 22 percent of new car buyers are choosing zero-emission vehicles. That means 78 percent, the overwhelming majority, are still purchasing gas or diesel vehicles, and that was before the elimination of the rebates — not because they’re against progress, not because they don’t care about the environment, but because they need vehicles that actually work in cold winters, over long distances, on farms, in remote areas and in jobs that demand reliability.

Our own family owns an EV. It works for us some of the time, and I certainly find it helpful to still have a choice. That’s the point — choice.

The other issue I find, even with our own EV, is that since we’ve had the EV, electricity prices seem to be rising and rising. I often complain that we’re sitting waiting for a charging station. That’s if we can find one. Until there’s infrastructure, it’s absolutely crazy to move in this direction.

What’s the government’s solution? Penalize the manufacturer, cut supply and let prices rise.

Mr. Qualey said some of the automakers have already warned their B.C. dealers to expect fewer internal combustion vehicles this year, not due to supply chain issues but because of looming fines. There aren’t enough EV buyers to meet the quota. Manufacturers will simply stop sending gas-powered vehicles here. The result? Scarcity. We all know what happens then. Prices, both new and used, spike, just like they did during the pandemic.

Who suffers most? Not the bureaucrats here in Victoria. It’s the snowplow operator in Canoe. It’s the young couple in Sicamous trying to afford their first vehicle. It’s the orchardist near Armstrong who needs a reliable truck today, not promises about infrastructure tomorrow.

This bill repeals the 2035 ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles, a ban that disregards whether electric alternatives are practical, affordable or even available across the province. It also removes the extreme penalties attached to that mandate: up to half a million dollars in fines and even six months in jail for selling a gas-powered car after that date.

Let that sink in. The government has made it a criminal offence to sell a new vehicle that most British Columbians still rely on each and every day. That isn’t just bad economics; that’s bad politics. It sends a message to rural British Columbians that their lives don’t matter. They must conform or be punished. That ideology takes precedence over affordability, practicality and, certainly, regional fairness.

And here’s the irony. We do want more EVs. But the way to get there is by building demand, not by banning everything else.

As Mr. Qualey rightly said, the province should focus on expanding EV rebates, investing in charging infrastructure and helping British Columbians understand where and how EVs work best. Like I said, there are occasions I love using our EV, and there are occasions where it’s not practical. That’s how you build trust, and that’s how you build adoption.

If electric vehicles are truly better, let them win on their own merits. Give people options. Improve affordability. Show them that EVs can work for their lives. Don’t criminalize them for sticking with what works for them right now.

The government claims this mandate is about leadership, but leadership without listening isn’t leadership. That’s arrogance. The families I represent aren’t criminals. They’re just trying to keep their lives afloat in a province where everything — groceries, housing, fuel — is getting more and more expensive.

[11:25 a.m.]

So let me be crystal clear about what this bill does. It removes the 2035 ban on gas-powered vehicle sales. It repeals the outrageous fines and the potential jail time. It doesn’t ban EVs. Most importantly, it restores consumer choice, the foundation of a free and fair economy.

If you want to drive an electric, this bill doesn’t stop you. What it does is protect your right to choose, not for what the government says you must drive. In a free and democratic society, competition and innovation thrive. Let markets compete. Let people decide. Let’s respect the real-world conditions of British Columbians, not punish them for being practical.

British Columbians are not children. They don’t need to be parented into making the right vehicle choice. They need options. They need affordability. They need infrastructure. Above all, they need respect.

I urge all members of this House — rural and urban, left or right — to support this bill.

Let’s send a clear message. We trust the people we serve. We support affordability, and we will stand for common sense.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Recognizing the member for Peace River South.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’d like to start by echoing the welcome back from my colleagues. I’m sure every other member in this place of honour would share in my comment that my heart is torn for the Filipino community, and I’d very much like to thank you for your service.

Welcome back.

I’d like to start with a few comments around addressing some of the things that have been said here this morning during debate.

For those of you that may or may not be aware of where Peace River South is, for the last 30-odd years, maybe perhaps even a little more, I’ve lived and worked near Mile Zero of the Alaska Highway, and I can assure you that I’ve seen a very great portion of the Alaska Highway through my work career. In that area that I live and work in — again, for over 30 years — there is not a single winter that I can recall ever that it has not reached at least minus 40 degrees Celsius.

The dismissal, perhaps I could say, of the safety concerns around the EVs is of concern to me. Even with gas-powered vehicles, when I would go to work, we would carry extra fuel. It is life or death. Without that opportunity to get home safely or to be able to provide the level of warmth or a safe place is something that is unimaginable to me.

I own a company. I do send young employees out into the field, or I did before I took on this honourable position, and it would concern me gravely to send them into peril without an emergency escape. In my mind, that is what this is representing. That being said, I’ll get into the speech.

I’m not against electric vehicles. I would say that those that have spent more than five or ten minutes with me will realize very quickly that I am a car guy and that I am somebody that loves power. I love turbos. I love everything. I see the potential. I absolutely do. I’ve test-driven some very powerful electric vehicles, and I adore them. I do. I don’t own one, because I live in an area that gets to minus 40. Perhaps someday I will. I look forward to perhaps one day doing it.

That’s going to be the crux of the speech — that in my very humble opinion, it should be my choice when to purchase that vehicle and how to utilize it. My very firm belief, as a person of science, is that the science is not yet there. I look forward to it getting there.

That being said, I’d like to express my strong support of the consumer choice zero-emissions vehicle amendment act, 2025. I believe this is a timely and necessary correction to a policy that has overreached, overpromised and overlooked the lived realities of British Columbians.

Let me be clear. As I’ve stated previously, this is not a speech against electric vehicles. I very much look forward to owning one, one day. Zero emission vehicles are a remarkable advancement. There’s no question. The technology behind them, what’s gone into them, how far they’ve come in such a short period of time — it’s remarkable. Again, as an engineer with a very strong science background, I love that. I very much care for it.

[11:30 a.m.]

Electric vehicles have proven to be an excellent choice for many British Columbians. In fact, according to the government’s own figures, 22 percent of vehicle buyers in this province have chosen a zero-emission vehicle. That number alone shows us something important. It shows us that the free market can and does work when people are empowered with information and options.

We celebrate, I celebrate, those who have chosen electric vehicles. But we stand firmly against, I stand firmly against, forcing that choice on everyone, regardless of circumstance. I think I, hopefully, did a reasonable job of illustrating that at the beginning — why this vehicle does not work for me.

I actually will add to that, without using any particular information to identify individuals. I will say that during the campaign, I spoke with a green energy supplier who does have an electric F-150. They flat out refused to use it in the wintertime because it did not have enough range to get to the nearest hospital and, therefore, was a safety concern for their staff. That is a true story.

This amendment is not about rolling back environmental progress; it’s about restoring freedom, fairness and common sense.

The existing Zero-Emission Vehicles Act mandates that by 2035 every vehicle sold in B.C. must be electric. If manufacturers fall short of these targets, as we’ve heard numerous times, they face fines of $20,000 per gas-powered vehicle sold — fines which, maybe a lot of us don’t realize, begin as early as September of this year, so they start to come in on the ’26 model years.

So I think it’s going to push the cost of vehicles higher, and I’m not sure that’s something that many of us want to see happen, particularly in light of what’s coming along with the issues that we’re facing from other areas around pressures on costs. I’m going to say: think about that. This is not a policy. It’s a punitive overreach that hits the auto industry, local dealerships and, ultimately, the consumer.

Now, I already have spoken to this, but let’s talk about the North a little bit more. It appears that some folks, not myself, of course, because I fly home there as often as I can…. The province of British Columbia does not end at Hope. In places like Fort Nelson, Smithers, Dawson Creek, Prince George — I’ve already talked about this — cold winters and long distances are a fact of life. It was not uncommon during my working time that I would drive four, five, six hours one way to a job site.

EV range, as we’ve already talked about, drops significantly during cold weather. Battery efficiency plummets. I did hear, in this House last week, about some studies that were suggesting perhaps otherwise, but I can tell you for a fact, living it in real life, that’s not what we’re seeing. Charging in sub-zero temperatures takes longer, and some fast-charging stations simply don’t work well in extreme conditions. That’s not an inconvenience; it’s a serious safety concern.

When temperatures dip below minus 20 degrees Celsius, the average EV can lose up to 40 percent of its range. And I’ve talked about the conditions that we face. I believe that I’ve seen well in excess of minus 40 plus the wind chill. I can tell you that’s a pretty chilly situation. If you’re driving on a remote road in the North, that kind of reduction is not just inconvenient; it is dangerous. You can’t afford to miscalculate your range when the next charger might be 200 kilometres away.

Let’s not forget. When the power goes out in a snowstorm, you don’t just lose heat. You lose access to your vehicle if it’s not charged. That’s a real-world risk that this mandate simply doesn’t take into account.

Let me offer some on-the-ground numbers that put this government’s EV mandate into stark perspective. Take the communities of Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge and Pouce Coupe, real places in my riding with real people who rely on vehicles that meet the demands of their daily lives, work and weather.

[11:35 a.m.]

Across these four towns, there are currently 1,450 Ford F-150s on the road. These are not luxury vehicles. These are workhorses used by ranchers, oil and gas workers, electricians, mechanics, families and farmers alike. These are trucks that tow, plow, haul and are needed to survive brutal minus 40 winters. Under the current law, by 2030, 90 percent of those replacements — 707 in Dawson Creek, 298 in Chetwynd, 167 in Tumbler Ridge and 132 in Pouce Coupe — must be electric vehicles, and by 2035, every single replacement must be electric.

Now, let’s compare that to EV adoption in those same communities. In Dawson Creek, there are currently 11 EVs registered, down from 14 in 2022. Chetwynd has 21 registered EVs today, up from four. Tumbler Ridge has two registered EVs. Pouce Coupe has just one.

I’m running out of time, so I’m going to skip ahead.

This amendment is not about moving backwards; it’s about moving forward responsibly. It repeals the mandate, not the goal. It allows consumers to choose what’s best for them based on their needs, budget and geography. I believe in technology. I believe in innovation. I also believe in common sense and personal choice.

Let’s support research into hydrogen, hybrids and other emerging clean alternatives. This is how we make progress that lasts. Let’s pass the consumer choice amendment act and put B.C. back on the road to practical, inclusive and sustainable transportation.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kootenay-Rockies.

Pete Davis: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to welcome you back to the House as well. I know that last week was a tough, tough week. I just want you to know that we all stand with you and with the Filipino community.

Now, it’s simple. I support this amendment. I support the amendment to repeal the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. At its core, this isn’t just legislation or policy. It’s about choice, real meaningful choice for everybody who lives in British Columbia, the kind of choice that respects the different circumstances, priorities and realities that people live with across this province. I can tell you this province is very diverse, and lots of our areas are very, very different.

Let’s be clear. Without this amendment…. What this actually does…. It doesn’t ban electric vehicles. We’re not saying we need to ban them. It doesn’t remove charging stations. It doesn’t stop innovation. It doesn’t roll back progress on cleaner transportation.

What it does, though, is something very important. It restores the ability of individuals, families and small businesses to….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

I would like to recognize the member for Esquimalt-Colwood.

Darlene Rotchford: My apologies, Member. I just request to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford: I just want to introduce in the House Torquay Elementary with their teacher Christopher Purnell. We have 24 grade 4 and 5 students plus five teachers.

I’ll just take a moment to welcome them into the House, everyone.

Debate Continued

Pete Davis: Welcome to the House.

All right. What this amendment does is something very important. It restores the ability of individuals, families and small businesses to decide what kind of vehicle works best for them. It’s about choice.

I’m going to use this as a prime example of the difference between this side and that side. On this side, we’re about less government control, more freedom, where it seems like on that side, it’s the opposite.

The original mandate, which this bill amends, doesn’t just suggest that people consider buying electric vehicles. It didn’t just encourage EV adoption through incentives or education. No, they went much further. It set a deadline after which the sale of a new gas-powered vehicle would no longer be allowed to be done in British Columbia. Then it also makes it illegal, with suggested financial penalties and even jail time.

Let’s call this what it is. This is heavy-handed government control. That’s not thoughtful environment leadership. It’s top-down central planning. It’s deciding for people instead of empowering people to decide for themselves.

[11:40 a.m.]

Just so there’s no confusion, this is not an anti-EV speech. I think they’re great vehicles as well. Same as the member for Peace River South, I’m a car guy. I love power. I love these things. The amount of torque they have is amazing. They’re fun. But it doesn’t mean that they’re the only vehicle that’s actually going to work for everybody in British Columbia. They’re a good fit for many people, especially those that live in urban areas with short commutes and access to home chargers.

We need to be honest here. So 22 percent of all vehicle sales in British Columbia were zero-emission vehicles — 22 percent. That’s a significant number. It shows that many British Columbians already made the choice. We can’t ignore the other side of that statistic that means that 78 percent of vehicles…. People that bought them didn’t choose an EV. That’s not a small minority. That’s an overwhelming majority.

So are we saying that they’re wrong? Should they be made to feel guilty or, worse, penalized because their vehicle needs didn’t match the one-size-fits-all government target?

Let me share a real example from my riding. There’s a small business owner in my riding who runs a delivery and logistics company. A few years ago he invested in electric delivery vans. He did it because he wanted to reduce emissions. He did it because he thought it would save on fuel. He wanted to position his business for the future.

Well, here’s what he found. He had to find this out the hard way. In the winter, when the temperatures drop in the Kootenays, the battery range falls dramatically. In some cases, it drops to less than half of what the manufacturers actually promise. Now his drivers are refusing to take these vehicles. They won’t even drive them.

I can’t blame them. I mean, if a battery runs out in the middle of a snowy highway with no charging station for miles and no roadside assistance that can bring you a mobile battery, you’re stranded. It’s not a delivery delay; it’s a safety risk.

This business owner told me: “I tried to do the right thing for the environment, but now I’m losing money, and I’m losing the trust of my customers and my employees.” That’s the reality, and it’s the one many policy-makers in Victoria don’t seem to fully grasp. In the real world, outside of the policy papers and the political talking points, people don’t need ideology. They need solutions that actually work.

Let’s talk about the larger picture when it comes to electricity demand. We’re being told that the future will be electric: electric vehicles, electric heat pumps, more housing, more everything. But B.C. Hydro has already signalled that we are approaching a serious strain on our power grid already. If we truly plan to electrify all aspects of life in British Columbia, we need an enormous amount of new electricity, likely the equivalent of building one or two more Site C dams just to keep up.

Let’s remember that Site C has taken more than a decade to plan and approve and build. It has cost taxpayers $16 billion and still wasn’t finished on time, and it certainly wasn’t on budget. We can all agree to that. Now we’re supposed to replace that scale of development again and again. With what money? With what timeline? And we only have less than ten years to get prepared.

This is not a plan; this is a fantasy. Pushing forward at full speed without solving the foundational issues is not wisdom. It’s foolishness. That’s what it is. We haven’t even built the infrastructure to support the demand we’re already creating, yet we’re telling people what kind of car they can or cannot drive. This is backwards.

[11:45 a.m.]

Let’s not overlook rural and remote communities, such as like what I just talked about in my riding in Cranbrook in the Kootenays. It gets cold. It’s minus 25 degrees Celsius in the winter or more. You get stuck on a road somewhere with no cell reception, and it’s not just a frustrating experience. It’s dangerous. It’s life-threatening. This is not a policy flaw. This is a public safety issue.

Even in more populated areas, we run into barriers such as strata councils that don’t allow charging stations, older homes that don’t have the electrical capacity.

Let’s talk about fair and affordable. British Columbians are already struggling to afford the basics: groceries, rent, heating, fuel. Now they have to be told: “Oh, by the way, your next vehicle must be electric. That’s going to cost you multiple tens of thousands of dollars more than what you have right now.”

That’s not fair. That’s not supportive policy; that’s pressure. That’s top-down command, wrapping it in language of climate action.

We cannot ignore the reality that every single life in the city…. Not everyone has access to charging. Not everyone can wait for 45 minutes for something to charge. Not everyone can afford to upgrade their vehicles now or even in ten years, yet the original mandate told them they had no choice.

Well, we’re here to give them that choice back. Instead of encouraging innovation or offering incentives or giving people time, we saw the policy, that narrative, the path that said: “This is the only acceptable future. Get in line, or you’re out.” But there is another way, and this amendment takes a step in that direction.

We don’t take EVs off the table. We keep them. There’s an option, a strong, supported and attractive option, for those who want them, but we stop pretending that one solution is going to fit every corner of this province. It respects our rural communities, our working families and our small business owners. And it reminds us that yes, we can care deeply about the environment without punishing people along the way.

Let’s pass this amendment. Let’s bring back some common sense in this province. Let’s show the people of British Columbia that we trust them to make the right decisions for themselves, not control them and not tell them what decisions to make.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond Centre closes debate.

Hon Chan: As we close this very important debate, I want to remind the House that this is not a debate on whether electric vehicles are good or bad. It’s about whether the industry has the technology and whether the government has the right plan at the right time with the right tools for the people of British Columbia.

We’ve heard today the zero-emission vehicle mandate act is flawed, not in intention but in execution. The government wants to force a one-size-fits-all solution onto a province that is anything but one-size-fits-all.

I want to thank the member from the other side for bringing forward the statistics on progress. They might sound exciting, but those very statistics actually show us that this mandate isn’t working. B.C. might be leading the country, primarily because we enjoy one of the most temperate climates in the Lower Mainland, but even then, we still cannot meet the government’s own ZEV target — not the 26 percent by 2026, not the 90 percent by 2030; and even your minister cannot promise that in our estimates.

Here’s the reality. Even after all these aggressive measures this government has taken to push EV adoption, EV sales still dropped in 2024, from 22.7 percent in 2023 to 22.4 percent last year. And that’s despite all the federal and provincial incentives still being in place.

Thank you to the MLA on the other side for listing your government’s efforts, but clearly those efforts aren’t even close enough to meet the ambitious targets that your own government has set.

And I want to thank the member from the Third Party for mentioning the F-150 Lightning. I love the F-150. On paper, it does offer a 500-kilometre range, but that’s in the most ideal conditions — warm weather, no cargo, flat roads, brand new battery.

In the real world, that’s not what you get. In winter, you lose an average 25 to 50 percent depending on the temperature. Adding towing, you lose another 30 to 50 percent. That means the 500-kilometre truck will go less than half of that range when towing in the tough B.C. conditions. And even with that very capable vehicle, it costs over $120,000. I’m sure most British Columbians cannot afford that, including myself.

[11:50 a.m.]

As someone who has owned an EV for nearly a decade, I would gladly invite any member who is considering EV to experience what it’s really like to own and drive one, especially outside of Metro Vancouver and Victoria.

Another member mentioned rolling back from science, yet this seems to ignore the actual science and data behind the current EV technology. The science is clear. Range drops in winter are real. Even in Metro Vancouver, our own fellow EV groups, drivers, reported 20 to 30 percent of range loss.

Range loss from towing is real, averaged to be 25 percent to 40 percent. The difficulty in extinguishing battery fires is also real. And most critically, electricity shortfall is real. These are all facts, and I welcome any member to come challenge that.

Then on the point of infrastructure, the Leader of the Third Party is absolutely right. B.C. could build the infrastructure but not under this government. If we truly want every car in B.C. to be electric, we need the equivalent of two to five more Site C dams. Are we seeing even one Site C–scale project being proposed today? Not to mention the Site C was actually started by a previous government and took almost a decade to build.

All this government has offered is nine wind turbines — nine. Even 99 would not come near what is needed to support all the electric fleet across the province.

When the members talk about common sense, I will say this. Instead of repeating the service level accomplishment, maybe take a hard look into the real challenges. Better yet, try driving an EV through the interior of B.C. in the middle of winter, past Prince George, and you will see if you will have any concern.

Let me summarize. We’re not ready. We’re far from ready. We’re not ready in terms of electricity supply. We’re not ready in terms of infrastructure. We’re not ready in terms of affordability. We’re not ready in terms of technology. We’re not ready in terms of safety and emergency preparedness. And we’re not ready in terms of public trust and consumer behaviour.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Even the industry leaders, automakers, dealers and manufacturers are saying the same thing: the mandate is unreal, the infrastructure is insufficient, and the demand does not align with what’s being required.

British Columbians deserve common sense, so I urge both sides of the House to support this bill, to face reality, to be realistic and practical and to be the true leader who sets achievable targets.

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

Division has been called.

Members, pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 8:30 p.m. today.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

Contents