Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Teresa Wat: With great pride today, I rise in the House to introduce close to 130 members and their families of the Shaolin Temple and Cultural Centre of Canada in Richmond, my beautiful city that I represent. Led by abbot and headmaster Shi Yandi, the temple shares the knowledge of 1,500 years of illustrious and legendary culture of Shaolin kung fu, wellness, Chan Buddhism and Shaolin TCM medicine and arts.

I would like the House to please make them welcome and congratulate them for the spectacular performance at the Hall of Honour on this third B.C. Buddhist Culture Day.

I have to say that any one of you were not there, you were really missing something. But don’t worry. Master Shi Yandi promised to stage another performance. We requested them.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Today is Red Dress Day and the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. Today is a day of mourning, a day to acknowledge the heartache of the family and friends of those taken too soon and a day to reinforce the need to end violence against Indigenous people.

[1:35 p.m.]

In the gallery today to help us honour this day, we’re joined by members from the Declaration Act secretariat, which guides the province in ensuring provincial laws align with the UN Declaration and are developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.

Leading this work and joining us today is Deputy Minister Si Sityaawks / Jesssica Wood as well as Ashley Andrew-Lambert. Kira Cormier, Jackie Demerse-Abbassi, Tiffany Dunning. I see nobody is standing up, but I’m just going to point anyway — Lisa Fielding, Johnny Hanuse, Celeste Loganhume, Trenton McIntyre, Kateryna Paliukh, Clare Pederson, Yimmie Sonuga and Courtney Striker.

These folks work incredibly hard doing important and challenging work, and they do it in such a dedicated and thoughtful way. I want to thank them for the critical work that they are doing in our province. I’m so grateful to work alongside you.

Will the House join me in making them feel welcome.

Linda Hepner: I’d like the House to give a welcome to my constituency assistant who is here today, Margot Gauley — excited to have the first time in this building and to do a wonderful tour and who does a great job helping me at the Surrey–Serpentine River constituency office.

Please give her a warm welcome, if you would.

Statements

Greg Holmes, Steve Kowan
and Michael Johnston

Hon. Garry Begg: On April 23 last month, some LAPS officers…. Sgt. Greg Holmes received the B.C. medal of meritorious service, and Sgt. Steven Kowan and Sgt. Michael Johnston both received the B.C. medal of valour at the Police Honours Night.

Sergeants Johnston and Kowan are being recognized for their courageous actions during the BMO bank armed robbery in June. Officers from Victoria and Saanich police departments responded to the call, and Sergeants Johnston and Kowan were leaders of that response.

Sgt. Greg Holmes was recognized for leadership and professionalism during the Capital City Centre Hotel fire in November of 2020.

The good news is that all three of these persons are now members of LAPS here at the Legislature. We are truly fortunate to have their leadership, experience and dedication continuing to serve on this team.

Introductions by Members

Kiel Giddens: It’s my pleasure to introduce someone who is no stranger to this House, as former MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie Pat Bell is here on the floor of the Legislature today. Of course, Pat, as many of you know, was proof that there is life after politics. He started a new business, Northern Lights Estate Winery, that has been very, very successful.

Maybe just to update members on what else Pat has been up to. He’s been an active volunteer for the Hart Highlands Winter Club in Prince George and has taught many, many kids, including my own, how to ski, which is pretty special. He started a parent-and-tot ski program. He’s also just received his Professional Ski Instructors of Canada level 3 certification, which as I understand, makes him a trainer of ski instructors. His words, not mine: this makes him the oldest person in Canada to receive this designation.

I just want to have everybody in this House welcome Pat Bell to the Legislature today.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I rise to make a really special birthday wish to my grandma, Patricia Willis. It is her 95th birthday. She’s affectionately known as great big nana, and she is famous for everything she does, from baking to growing fruits and veggies to her naughty limericks.

She lives big, she loves big, and she’s sweet and tough — best nana ever.

Please help me wish her a 95th birthday.

Korky Neufeld: From the beautiful city in the country, Abbotsford, I’d like to introduce the Pacific Christian School. Leading the group today is Caleb Toews, with grades 7 and 9 students on a field trip here to Victoria. For many of them, it’s their first time in the Legislature.

They’re somewhere in the precinct, so join me, please, in making them feel welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Statements

Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Marathon Achievements

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I want to celebrate somebody, who works hard for all of us, on her own personal achievement. I want to congratulate our Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, on placing third in her division for the Toronto Marathon and qualifying for the Boston Marathon.

Well done.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta: I would like to introduce a few distinguished guests and good friends of mine, Langley township Mayor Eric Woodward and intergovernmental relations Nick Hosseinzadeh, who are in the House.

Nick came to the township with over 15 years of experience in government and public policy, and the mayor, with a background in tech, has been in public service since 2018.

Mayor Woodward and I go way back to when he was my landlord, 16 years ago, followed by being seatmates watching our local council meetings on Monday nights through the 2010s. Yes, we were those people. We are a couple of municipal geeks, friends and colleagues.

Will this House make them welcome.

Statements

Richmond-Bridgeport MLA
and Buddhist Culture Day

Hon Chan: A heartfelt shout-out to our beloved Richmond-Bridgeport MLA, Teresa Wat, for her decades of commitment to promoting Buddhist Culture Day, a meaningful win for cultural exchange in our beautiful, diverse province.

Thank you so much for such an incredible job.

Introductions by Members

Mable Elmore: I’m pleased to introduce eight members of the 2026 B.C. legislative internship program cohort in the gallery today. Kayden Anderson Hancock, Jenna Inch, Kyra Ames, Emmanuel Adeboyega, Zoflex Vek, Massimo Calabresi, Bethany Shminko and Adana Ndagiu.

They are visiting the Parliament Buildings today to meet with staff and this year’s cohort of legislative interns to ask questions and learn more about this place. We look forward to welcoming them next year.

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

Lynne Block: Sometimes when we tell people to take a hike, it’s a negative. Today it’s a positive. I would like to welcome today members of the Take a Hike youth mental health program.

Take a Hike is a one-of-a-kind program that is in several school districts in our province, including West Vancouver school district. This program supports youth facing anxiety, uncertainty and instability. By combining clinical therapy with immersive, nature-based training and learning, it empowers students to grow mentally, emotionally and academically.

These changes have a lasting impact. Take a Hike youth develop the skills they need to become resilient young adults who can face and overcome life’s challenges, including transitioning to further education, finding housing, building healthy relationships and securing employment.

I ask that everyone in the House please give the representatives of Take a Hike a very warm welcome.

Amna Shah: I, too, would like to join my colleague across the way in welcoming Take a Hike Foundation. It was my pleasure to meet with them recently. They got to share all of the amazing work that they do, including really relying on peer support and guidance from those with lived experiences.

I want to give them a very, very warm welcome, and I hope that the House will join me in doing the same.

Statements

Dolleen Logan and
Lheidli T’enneh Nation

Rosalyn Bird: Today I’d like to give a big shout-out to Lheidli T’enneh Nation. This past Saturday they had a monumental swearing-in ceremony with three firsts ever: Dolleen Logan was re-elected as the first female Chief to be elected three successive times, the first time they’ve had two former Chiefs on council at the same time and the first time they’ve had three councillors also be elected to the lands authority.

I just wanted to give the nation a big shout-out today.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

George Anderson: This is the first time that I actually get to introduce constituents from my riding. Today we have Paula Waatainen and also Ellen Waatainen. There’s something very special about this introduction today. One of the interns is related to these two individuals.

Here is an interesting story. I will be very quick. In 1992, Henry’s father, Jeff, was an intern at the Legislature. His mother, Paula, had worked on a campaign for her MLA and had been invited to visit the Legislature. During that visit, she met Jeff. They would go on to get married and have a family, which includes, in turn, Henry.

The last time that Ellen visited the Legislature was to see their son, Jeff, in 1992 for the budget. Now they’re visiting their grandson.

Statements

Wildfire Services and Firefighters

Larry Neufeld: In the riding of Peace River South over the weekend, we had an amazing 13 wildfires start over the two days of the weekend.

I just wanted to give my extreme gratitude to the incredibly hard-working firefighters and the incredibly resilient members of that riding. The professionalism that I experienced by speaking with the minister responsible and the people that work for him was very well-received, and I thank them for it.

Introductions by Members

Harwinder Sandhu: I, too, would like to welcome former MLA Pat Bell here, because he was my MLA when I lived in Mackenzie. In fact, he got elected the year I moved to Mackenzie. At that time, I had no clue that I’d be standing here and introducing and welcoming him.

Thank you for your service, and we welcome you here.

George Anderson: I have one last introduction. I would like to introduce Cindy Cheuk; Woody, who is very kind and chose to miss school at St. Michael’s, his math class, to be here in the Legislature; and Lindsay.

They are both public servants who have dedicated their lives to trying to make British Columbia a great place. And great that Woody could also be here in the Legislature for his first time.

I hope the House would make them all feel welcome.

Statements

Wildfire Services and Firefighters

Jordan Kealy: I just wanted to acknowledge, similar to my neighbour in the South Peace, that in the North Peace, when I was going to try and get home on Thursday evening, I got delayed until three o’clock in the morning with a fire just outside of the city. With the swift action of the municipalities as well as the fire truck from our airport, they were able to make swift work of the fire on one side of it so that nothing was damaged and everyone was safe.

As well, I want to thank the ministry for their swift action with air support and being able to help out with that as well.

Thank you very much.

Sheldon Clare: I would echo the compliments paid by the others with regards to the prompt efforts of the B.C. wildfire service in putting out the fire just north of Hixon, B.C., this past weekend.

I drove through probably an hour or two before that started. I was back there the next morning to enjoy burgers and a very nice open house at the Hixon Volunteer Fire Department. They were up all night, and they were still flipping burgers the next day. I am very proud of all of them.

I just wanted to say thank you to the Minister of Forests for having his people there to deal with the situation. It saved a lot of people’s homes.

Members’ Statements

Lapu-Lapu Festival Attack and
Support for Community and Victims

Mable Elmore: It’s been over a week after that fateful day on April 26. The loss has left us raw and broken. Yet in the depths of sorrow, great courage is being summoned. The Filipino and broader community is mustering the strength to go on. We are turning sadness and despair into love and meaning.

[1:50 p.m.]

The unimaginable tragedy that struck after the Lapu-Lapu festival reminds us about our shared humanity. It reminds that our humanity is all too fragile and how life is but a moment that may be gone the next.

But there is hope, because the tragedy also demonstrates that our humanity is resilient. We will heal, we will rise, and we will emerge stronger.

I want to acknowledge the outpouring of support from across British Columbia, Canada and around the world for this tragedy. It’s meant everything to support the families, the victims, the community and everybody impacted.

I want to thank, and I’m also proud of, the leadership and response from the Filipino community. Within 24 hours, they stood up the emergency task force — the crisis response to Lapu-Lapu Day, supported by the Vancouver school board, the city of Vancouver, the provincial government, the Red Cross, Provincial Health, John Oliver School, Vancouver Foundation, Woodward’s Foundation — to really come together. The community is working hand in hand with numerous partners in delivering care and support.

I want to thank every single member of this House personally for all of your expressions of support. Many of you were there on the day. I’ve conveyed that to the community, and it’s deeply appreciated.

My request is for all of us to continue to wrap our arms around the community, all the victims, everyone who is left with a heavy burden, to continue to stand together — a reminder that in the darkest of times, the light of solidarity shines bright.

Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Buddhist Culture Day

Teresa Wat: We just witnessed the amazing Shaolin kung fu performances by so many talented children and youth at the Hall of Honour to mark the third Buddhist Culture Day in British Columbia.

I’m particularly proud and honoured, as the MLA who first introduced and championed the establishment of Buddhist Culture Day at this B.C. Legislature, to see how much this day has flourished. It began as a vision to recognize and celebrate the rich Buddhist heritage and teachings that greatly enrich our collective life in British Columbia.

Rooted in values of mindfulness, compassion and harmony, Buddhism has been a guiding light in shaping both personal practices and community collaboration. From the International Buddhist Temple, Vancouver Fo Guang Shan and Lingyen Mountain Temple to Thrangu Monastery — all located in Richmond — and many others, these sacred spaces are more than places of worship. They are also vibrant centres of learning, cultural exchange and spiritual refuge.

Across our province, this year’s celebrations this past weekend were remarkable. Events such as the B.C. Buddhist Festival in Vancouver, the Bathing Buddha Celebration Fair, the International Bathing Buddha Festival and the B.C. Buddhist Culture Day celebrations in different parts of Richmond brought together diverse communities in shared joy and reflection.

I’m so excited to celebrate this day with my Buddhist and non-Buddhist neighbours alike and be reminded of the values we all share, whether it be cultural diversity or spiritual wisdom. As we celebrate Buddhist Culture Day, let us carry forward the spirit of Buddhism and continue to build a province grounded in peace, kindness and unity. Let’s all embrace and practise these values not only in ceremony but also in our daily lives.

Namo Amituofo.

Asian Heritage Month and
Support for Filipino Community

Paul Choi: This month we honour the 1.4 million British Columbians of Asian descent whose courage and creativity have shaped our province, from railway camps of the 1880s to today’s clean tech labs.

[1:55 p.m.]

My own journey began in a tiny corner store in B.C., stocking shelves after school, and those nights taught me that an open door can change a life. They carried me through police patrols, as a lawyer in courtrooms and now in this chamber as MLA for Burnaby South–Metrotown and Parliamentary Secretary for Asia-Pacific Trade.

Diversity is more than a virtue; it is our economic superpower. Our unique sister province partnership with Gyeonggi in Korea is fuelling clean tech investments here in Burnaby, and fresh ties with Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are opening doors for B.C. film, forestry and food.

Yet as we celebrate, we pause in grief. Just days ago joy at the Lapu-Lapu Day festival turned to heartbreak when an attacker struck at the very heart of the Filipino community. My deepest condolences go to the families mourning loved ones and to those recovering from sad acts.

The grief and the anger being felt are not confined to the Lower Mainland, but they ripple across B.C. and Canada and around the world. So let us honour Asian Heritage Month and the lives shaken in Vancouver by standing shoulder to shoulder, learning each other’s stories and guarding each other’s safety. Ensuring our province where opportunity is never gated by accent, faith or skin colour is a legacy we owe to every child and every family grieving today.

Happy Asian Heritage Month and mabuti to our Filipino friends.

Neil Brewer

Tony Luck: It is with immense pride and deep gratitude that I rise today to mark a momentous occasion for the citizens, family and friends of the district of Kent and Harrison communities to honour an extraordinary individual, Mr. Neil Brewer, who on February 6 of this year became the inaugural recipient of the Freedom of the District of Kent, the community’s highest civilian award.

This prestigious award was created to honour those whose long-term contributions have not only enhanced life within their community but have earned recognition well beyond their borders. Truly, no one embodies this spirit more than Neil.

For 35 years, Neil Brewer stood as a pillar of strength and selfless service with the Kent Harrison Search and Rescue team. He led with compassion and courage, personally responding to over 600 search and rescue missions, saving lives, restoring hope and offering safety in the most critical of moments. His leadership helped secure vital funding, modern equipment and even a new home for the team.

Neil’s impact extended far beyond Kent Harrison Search and Rescue. He played a role in developing essential communication systems used by SAR teams across British Columbia. Brewer began his career with search and rescue in 1990, quickly being approved as a manager for the following years. He contributed to the development of critical communication systems for search and rescue teams throughout British Columbia.

His service was widely recognized, from Search and Rescue Volunteer of the Year award in 2007 to the B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship and to the Emergency Management Exemplary Service Award in 2019 and a lifetime honorary membership of the BCSARA. But even more powerful than the accolades was his legacy, a legacy of mentorship, innovation and unwavering dedication.

Neil has been described as a hero, a leader, a friend, and indeed, he was all of that and more. Sadly, 25 days after receiving this prestigious award, Neil passed away this past March.

Neil Brewer gave of his time, his heart and his strength, and though he is no longer with us, his legacy of service will live on not only in the lives he saved but in the lives he inspired.

Rest in peace, Neil. Bravo Zulu. Well done.

Neighbourhood House Week

Amshen / Joan Phillip: I rise today to highlight Neighbourhood House Week, which is celebrated from May 4 to 10.

Neighbourhood houses are pillars of our community. They’re warm and welcoming spaces that are a second home for people to find support and friendship. They recognize the importance of a connection with others and are safe spaces that focus on inclusion and building stronger communities.

[2:00 p.m.]

They provide services for all kinds of needs, including those of children, youth, adults, seniors, families and new Canadians.

I had the pleasure of meeting with some of the local neighbourhood house associations with my colleagues in March. Hearing from these tireless workers and volunteers highlighted how vital these non-profits and their programs are to people in British Columbia. My little brother attended daycare at the local neighbourhood house, and sometimes he didn’t want to come home. So I’m grateful for the role that they play in my community.

At neighbourhood houses, people of all ages, cultures and nationalities with different barriers can come together to feel seen and meet with others. By building more supportive and connected communities, we create a stronger and more inclusive B.C.

Will the House please celebrate Neighbourhood House Week with me and join me in holding my hands up to all the volunteers and workers in this province.

Huy ch q’u siem. Thank you.

Comox Valley Crisis Response
Services Poem

Brennan Day:

“Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Please lend me your ear

for a tale of brave folks who bring safety and cheer.

In the valley of Comox, through sunshine and storm,

there’s a group of fine people who daily perform.

They patrol through Courtenay. In Comox, they roam

through Cumberland streets and the KFNs’ home.

They face what’s the hardest, from crime to despair,

mental health crises, all handled with care.

But they work in the shadows, no boast or loud fuss,

but their courage and kindness mean everything to us.

And yet where they work is a mould-ridden mess:

cracked walls, shaking floors, a seismic-failed stress.

It’s small. It’s outdated. It’s just not okay

to ask them to serve in a place built of clay.

They’re there when we call every hour, each day,

so let’s build them a space that won’t shake away.

But wait! There is more. They’re not stopping at that;

they’ve thought of a way to help folks where they’re at.

It’s called IMCRT, or Car 67,

a team to bring help when life stops being heaven.

A cop and a nurse, side by side in one ride,

to help those in mental crisis with nowhere to hide.

It’s working in Nanaimo and down south as well,

and it’s high time our valley could ring the same bell.

I’m calling on partners from every town hall:

let’s stand up together with one voice and one call.

Minister of Health, the ball’s now in your court.

This isn’t a fight; it’s a call for support.

For this isn’t just bricks or new floors or new lights;

it’s about what we value, defending what’s right.

And Solicitor General, please don’t make us beg.

There’s a reason we strengthen the seismic code regs.

And before I sit down, just one final note:

there’s an alert set for Wednesday, not just to promote.

It’s a drill, not the quake, but don’t let it fade.

It speaks to the risks we’ve long too delayed.

If that was the warning we’ve all been dreading,

there’s a building in my riding that needs no forgetting.”

Ministerial Statements

Red Dress Day and Action for
Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women, Girls and Two-Spirit People

Hon. Christine Boyle: I rise in the House today to acknowledge the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ People, also known as Red Dress Day.

On this day, we see red dresses hung in trees and from windows and pinned or beaded on clothes and jewellery, or the red dress hanging on the inner balcony of this House. We see people across Canada join to mourn those who have been taken from us, to honour the Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people taken and those impacted by gendered and racialized violence.

Today people join to call for justice and for an end to the unspeakable violence. The red dress, a symbol for the movement, is linked to a 2010 art installation, the REDress Project, the work of Métis artist Jaime Black.

[2:05 p.m.]

The red dress is a visual reminder of loss for the staggering number of Indigenous women and girls who have been murdered or are missing. The project sparked a grassroots movement that has now grown to unify us all in the fight against gender-based violence. Today we acknowledge the heartache of the families and friends of those taken too soon and recommit ourselves to the action that is urgently needed to prevent more harm.

The stories and words I’m about to share are uncomfortable ones, and they may be distressing to people listening in the House and in the gallery today, as well as those tuning in virtually. I would encourage anyone who needs to, to step out or seek support.

Across Canada and across British Columbia, Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people continue to be harmed by gender-based violence, and we see the impact of this violence every day. We have had both a provincial and national inquiry. We continue to read missing-persons alerts from the police or pleas for help posted on social media. We gather with community members on anniversaries or days of recognition like today to mourn those taken from us, many of whom still have not been found.

We don’t know the exact number of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people in Canada or in B.C., but we know one is too many, and today we hold space for each one of them. They were matriarchs and leaders, grandmothers and mothers and aunties and daughters and sisters and cousins and friends. They are loved. And it’s important that we say their names.

On August 20, 2024, 40-year-old Jennifer Blackburn was last seen in Nanaimo.

On July 18, 2024, 62-year-old Alice Maureen Chingee was reported missing by her family in Mackenzie.

On July 9, 2024, 57-year-old Karen Tessier was last seen in Fort Nelson.

On December 7, 2023, 40-year-old Renee Didier was reported missing in Dawson Creek. Her remains were found near the Kiskatinaw River on May 18, 2024.

Renee’s cousin, 29-year-old Darylyn Supernant, was reported missing on March 15, 2023. Darylyn’s remains were discovered on April 19, 2024.

Stephanie Patterson, Chelsey Quaw, Caitlin Potts, Lisa Marie Young, Carsyn Mackenzie Seaweed, Shaylanna Meghan Lewis, Christin Marion West, Bella Laboucan-McLean — these names represent only a fraction of the total number of missing or murdered Indigenous women in B.C., and there are many whose names we don’t know. This is our devastating and heartbreaking reality.

I want to recognize and hold up my hands to all those who continue to create awareness and drive change in our province and our country, including members of this Legislature. I offer gratitude to those who continue to guide us in the work we’re doing to meet our obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

This work is happening in community. It’s happening in the fields of policing and justice, of community safety and victim services, and it’s happening as we work in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples to align our laws with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In September 2016, the federal government established the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Its purpose was to examine and report on the causes of violence experienced by Indigenous women and girls. The final report also included 231 calls for justice. These calls for justice lay out steps that governments, institutions, social services, industries and all Canadians can take. They offer a clearly defined pathway to end this crisis and a way forward together.

[2:10 p.m.]

On June 3, 2021, the second-year anniversary of the release of the Calls for Justice, Canada released a national plan for missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. On that day, B.C. also released its own plan called A Path Forward: Priorities and Early Strategies for B.C. A Path Forward recognizes that as a government, we must examine and reform our systems and actions that contribute to and maintain violence.

Harmful government policies, laws and practices have led to decades of systemic inequalities and structural discrimination against Indigenous peoples. It is this history that created the multigenerational and intergenerational trauma, social and economic inequality and racism that ultimately leads to the pervasive vulnerability of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ peoples today. This acknowledgment underpins the critical need for our government to work hand in hand with Indigenous partners to drive transformative change in legislation, policy and practice and make communities safer.

Also, central to the plan, we’ve heard from Indigenous people that it’s important for government to make sure they have the resources they need to lead the work to end this violence and resources to support healing. Through the plan, the path forward community fund is helping Indigenous communities and organizations create and implement their own culturally safe solutions. The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres developed and is implementing the fund, which helps meet the need for Indigenous-led capacity-building and safety planning. It’s accessible to First Nations, urban and off-reserve Indigenous peoples, Métis citizens and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

Since 2022, four rounds of funding have ensured resources are allocated directly to projects led by Indigenous communities so cultural solutions and healing can continue. We know there is more to do, and we’re committed to working with Indigenous communities and organizations to build a province that is safer for Indigenous women and girls.

Today the family members of Tatyanna Harrison, Chelsea Poorman and Noelle O’Soup are speaking in Vancouver, and I want to recognize them.

Every single Indigenous woman, girl and 2SLGBTQIA+ person needs to be able to feel safe in their community, their neighbourhood and their home. We are absolutely committed to ending violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people.

It is critical for this work to take place at every level of government and across all parts of society. We’re going to support and lead this work in every way we can, in recognition of those who have been hurt, those who have been murdered and those who have been stolen. We must continue the work to ensure that we dismantle the underlying systemic issues that result in this epidemic level of violence experienced by Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people.

To the people and families who have faced harm and loss and grief: please know that we and so many others commit to being a voice in government who will continue to advocate for and enact change to end gender-based violence and harm against Indigenous people.

Á’a:líya Warbus: Hon. Speaker, ts’ít siam, sol’temexw casta MLAs British Columbia, siam NDP, Conservatives casta Green Party, qwelam stam qwel xwelmexw casta shxwelí the alex.

[Halq’eméylem text provided by Á’a:líya Warbus.]

I want to put my hands up to all the leaders of this territory, the MLAs across British Columbia from the NDP, Conservatives and Green Party. I’m calling on all of you and anyone that’s watching to listen to the words of the xwélmexw people and the sisters that have passed on to the spirit world. May our ancestors be with us in this important moment.

[2:15 p.m.]

I rise with a heavy heart to acknowledge and commemorate Red Dress Day. It’s a day of mourning, remembrance and awareness for all of us. Across the province, red dresses hang in doorways, trees and on buildings, and they represent the Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people who are missing, those that were taken too early. But most importantly, all of them are in our hearts and not forgotten.

This day holds a deep significance for many Indigenous communities across the province and across all of Turtle Island. As we remember the lives that are lost and those families that continue to grieve to this day, my family included, it’s a day for us to show solidarity, cross the aisle and reflect on the urgent need for systematic changes and justice.

I’d like to first honour and put my hands up in gratitude to the Métis artist Jaime Black-Morsette, a descendant of the Red River Métis. It was Louis Riel who said: “My people will sleep for 100 years, but when they awake, it will be the artists who give them their spirit back.”

We have a similar prophecy in Stó:lō territory, and that is: it will take seven generations from the time of contact for the people of this land to stand up again. I believe that we are seeing that across our country right now, as the seventh generation and their descendants stand up against the systematic violence that we’ve experienced.

Her art installation was first imagined as she watched another Indigenous woman speak. She saw in her mind the red dresses hanging in public spaces as a representation of the disproportionate number of missing and murdered women. She envisioned them hanging as a reminder of the dark statistics that we hear repeated over and over again. Over the years, this day has been observed across Canada, and here in British Columbia it has become a focal point for remembering and advocating for the safety and well-being of Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

We all know the statistics, but it bears repeating today that Indigenous women represent nearly 25 percent of the victims of homicide in Canada, despite comprising less than 4 percent of the population. As of 2021, 29 percent of homicides involving Indigenous women and girls remain unsolved. Indigenous women report higher rates of childhood violence and are 1.62 times more likely to experience violent victimization before the age of 15. Indigenous women are sexually assaulted three times more often than non-Indigenous women.

Again, these statistics are a stark reminder of the ongoing crisis we face today. Although it might be hard to hear and to grapple with, I’ll repeat something that my mother says: just imagine having to live it.

On this day, I’m glad that we are called to recognize the calls to action from the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. I want to thank the minister for bringing those calls to action forward in this House to remind us all that the overrepresentation of Indigenous women in the justice and child welfare system needs to end.

We need increased support for Indigenous communities to address gender-based violence. We need to implement culturally appropriate services, shelters and programs for all survivors of violence and education for all Canadians on the history and impact of colonization on Indigenous people in this country. While there is much to be said and done, the reality is that the calls to action require sustained commitment from government of all levels.

[2:20 p.m.]

It’s time to ensure that the voices of Indigenous women are not just heard but are centred in every decision, policy and action.

On Red Dress Day, we’re called to reflect on the deep pain that’s caused by the epidemic of violence, but we’re also here to commit to change. We must ensure that those responsible for the heinous acts are held accountable and also that prevention, support and healing are central in our response and that we take our cues from Indigenous leaders, matriarchs and young people. These families and communities who have suffered loss continue to call for justice, and we can honour them by standing together, both in word and action, today.

I urge all leaders to support the important events that may be happening in your area. Lend your ear and your strength as we collectively honour and uplift the children, siblings and parents and all community members that are left behind. Every time we lose one of our Matriarchs, we lose a piece of our collective story — a singer, a dancer, a painter, a teacher, healer, leader; and we lose hope of the future descendants that she may have carried.

There are really no words that can heal the broken hearts or the trauma that Indigenous families and communities continue to shoulder. But as a leader, I’m committed to doing whatever I can to improve and challenge broken systems, to help create a British Columbia where young Indigenous women and their descendants can dream and achieve anything they truly put their hearts and minds to.

My thoughts and prayers are with all those that continue to pick up the pieces.

Battle your dark days, and look to the future for what you are here to achieve. We need all of you. You are so valuable, and you are so loved.

Rob Botterell: In 2019, the final report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls delivered 231 individual calls for justice directed at governments, institutions, social service providers, industries and all Canadians. Here is a selection of the calls for justice that require immediate and continuing action.

Ensuring that Indigenous people have access to safe housing, clean drinking water and adequate food.

Providing adequate, stable, equitable and ongoing funding for Indigenous-centred and community-based health and wellness services that are accessible and culturally appropriate and meet the health and wellness needs of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people.

Establish a guaranteed annual livable income for all Canadians, including Indigenous peoples, to meet all their social and economic needs.

Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination in the pursuit of economic social development.

Supporting programs and services for Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people in the sex industry to promote their safety and security.

Immediately commence the construction of new housing and the provision of repairs for existing housing to meet the housing needs of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people.

Support the establishment and long-term sustainable funding of Indigenous-led, low-barrier shelters, safe spaces, transition homes, second-stage housing and services for Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people who are homeless, near homeless, dealing with food insecurity, poverty and who are fleeing violence or have been subjected to sexualized violence and exploitation.

Develop and fund safe and affordable transportation services for Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people living in rural and remote communities.

[2:25 p.m.]

Immediately and dramatically transform Indigenous policing from its current state as a mere delegation to an exercise in self-governance and self-determination over policing.

Provide legislated paid leave disability benefits for victims of crime or traumatic events.

Expanding and adequately resourcing legal aid programs in order to ensure that Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people have access to justice and meaningful participation in the justice system.

Increasing accessibility to meaningful and culturally appropriate justice practices by expanding restorative justice programs and Indigenous peoples’ courts.

Taking urgent and special measures to ensure that Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people are represented in governance and that their political rights are respected and upheld.

I have listed only 13 of 231 individual calls to justice. As leaders of our communities, members of the Legislature, we can and must do everything we can to fulfil these calls for justice.

We do need to do the work, and it will take time, but we owe it to everybody to get this work done expeditiously and in keeping with the need to fulfil every one of these calls for justice.

Oral Questions

TransLink Funding and
Government Position on
Road Pricing and Vehicle Levy

John Rustad: Affordability is a huge issue for all British Columbians. British Columbians can just not afford to have another surprise cost just to be able to get to work or to go to school.

The NDP has repeatedly promised British Columbians that they will not implement road pricing, yet TransLink is facing a funding crisis and with a promise that they’ll receive a new funding tool. Quite frankly, given the record with this government on Bill 7, which we are currently debating in this Legislature, it’s not hard to imagine why we cannot trust this government.

I will give this Premier an opportunity to stand and confirm today. Will he commit that his government, over the term of this session, will not implement road pricing in any form and that he will not be giving TransLink the tool to implement road pricing in British Columbia?

Hon. David Eby: That’s an easy question. No, we won’t be doing those things. In fact, we’re the government that took the tolls off the bridges that the Leader of the Opposition put in place. When they were going to build another new bridge, over the Massey, they were going to toll that bridge too.

We’re the government that reduced ICBC rates for British Columbians — five ICBC rebates, put $600 back in drivers’ pockets, supporting them with cost of living. Rates have been flat for four years after we reformed ICBC, with reforms, by the way, that the Leader of the Opposition opposed and continues to oppose.

We will take the steps to make sure life is affordable for British Columbians and deliver for them.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: It’s nice to hear that they aren’t going to consider that, although I didn’t quite get that clear commitment.

Regardless of that, most British Columbians in this province are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills on a monthly basis, yet a vehicle levy that could cost more than $200 annually is now being considered.

In 2001, the Minister of Transportation rejected the idea of a levy, saying people are already paying enough. Now, 24 years later, when prices have gone absolutely through the roof, we’re refusing to hear that same commitment. The government abandoned the plan in the year 2001 because, in its own words, and I quote, “the public has said loud and clear they don’t want it.”

[2:30 p.m.]

Once again to this Premier, given TransLink’s challenge in its budget, will this Premier commit today that he will not bring in a vehicle pricing levy and that TransLink will not be given the tool to also bring in a vehicle levy on British Columbians?

Hon. David Eby: There’s only one individual in this House that stood with a government that put tolls and an additional 40 percent in ICBC charge cost increases when he was in government, and that’s the Leader of the Opposition. He stands in this House, and he fearmongers on road pricing and vehicle levies and other things, which explicitly we are not doing, yet despite the fact that we continue to reduce costs for drivers in this province, he continues to vote against them.

He went to Ottawa to lobby. What did he lobby for? Increased salaries for politicians. He went to Ottawa to lobby. What did he lobby for? He said that renewable energy was unicorn farts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: Six billion dollars’ worth of unicorn farts, $3 billion in capital investments for First Nations renewable energy in this project, on just one call for power, and the Minister of Energy has announced another one today. You won’t get this province ahead by insulting the core industries that built this place.

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby: You won’t get this province ahead by double-dipping on salaries, member for Langley–Walnut Grove, and by advocating for higher salaries for politicians.

What you’ll get, if you want to build this province, is a government that is committed to the priorities of British Columbians, building schools and hospitals faster, something the Leader of the Opposition is also opposed to.

Peter Milobar: Unfortunately, the Premier didn’t answer the question directly. He wandered all over the map. He did reference a heckle, but he didn’t actually answer the question directly. It’s a pretty straightforward question. It was a relatively straightforward answer he gave on road pricing but not on vehicle levies. Again, I appreciate that the Premier may want to have a little flourish after his initial answer, but if he could stick to the actual question in his original first few words….

Is this government very clearly contemplating a vehicle levy as the additional revenue source for TransLink, or are they contemplating allowing TransLink to have the legislative capability to impose a vehicle levy? Is that the funding source that they keep talking about, of this mystery new funding for TransLink?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the other side of the House.

We’ve made it clear. I’ve made it clear. The Premier has made it clear. We will not be introducing road pricing into the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Well, it’s really interesting to hear the heckling from the other side, because during the election campaign, their solution to the….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please continue.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, if you are interested in listening to the answer, let him speak.

Please continue.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We know from the opposition that when it comes to transit and long-term sustainable funding, they have no answers, because they don’t recognize the importance of transit to our economy in British Columbia.

They don’t recognize the importance, in terms of being able to provide transit-oriented development so that people can find affordable places to live and have alternatives to using motor vehicles, which is what the public has been asking for, what the business community has been asking for, and what is just plain common sense — something missing from that side of the House.

[2:35 p.m.]

What we have committed to do with the latest agreement with TransLink — which saw the province put $312 million to cover their operating funds, with equal contribution from the local governments — is to look at what other alternative sources will ensure long-term sustainability when it comes to the operations of TransLink.

We know that they have declining gas tax revenues that have come about through (1) more fuel-efficient vehicles, (2) more people taking transit and (3) the growth of electric vehicles.

They are saying we need to make up those shortfalls in order to maintain the transit system and expand the transit system, which we need in this province. We have no preconceived ideas as to what those solutions will be, but we have committed to work with TransLink to ensure that we can put in place…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …operational sustainability for TransLink and also recognize that affordability is key to doing that, and we will do just that.

The Speaker: Kamloops Centre, supplemental.

Peter Milobar: Talk about no answers. So we’ll try for a third time.

The minister answered about road pricing. This will be the third question now, without a clear answer, apparently, by this government, around vehicle levies. This is a government that has cut $2 billion out of their revenue with carbon tax. We’re starting to see changes that that pays for on all sorts of green transit initiatives, active transportation and a whole wide range — EV vehicle rebates, all those things. The government are the ones that said there would be a new funding source for TransLink.

The question that’s been asked twice today — so this is the third time — is very clear. Is that new funding source going to be a vehicle levy, or will the government commit today that they will not impose a vehicle levy, nor will they allow TransLink the legislative ability to bring in a vehicle levy for their new funding revenue?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ve made it clear that we’re going to work with TransLink on what are sustainable solutions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s funny that the member from Abbotsford said that it sounds like a yes to him. When I look at the statements of the member sitting right behind him, the member for Surrey–Serpentine River, who — calm down, Member — apparently supported a mobility tax when the member was mayor and sat on the board and said: “What fundamentally the commission has done is really getting us out of the gate with a very difficult discussion but one that needs to be had.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The member was one of several mayors at the meeting who expressed general support for the concept of mobility pricing — expressed support.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Actually, what the opposition needs to get ready for is for a government that is committed to ensuring long-term, sustainable funding for TransLink, to get ready for a government that will continue to invest in transit, such as the $5.9 billion being built on the south side of the Fraser, the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain station.

I don’t see any one of them on that side saying: “Don’t build it.” I don’t see any one of them on that side saying: “Don’t give us more buses.” I don’t see any one of them on that side not asking to expand transit near communities across the province. It’s got to be funded, but it’s got to be funded affordably. We will work with local government to do just that.

Review of Mental Health Act

Jeremy Valeriote: For many years, health experts and advocates, all-party committees of this House and former members of this caucus have been calling for a comprehensive overhaul of B.C.’s Mental Health Act. This outdated legislation has been criticized for violating human rights and failing to address mental health and substance use disorders with evidence and compassion.

Last week this Premier promised to at last overhaul the act. So far, we haven’t heard a plan for what this process will look like.

To the Premier: when you committed to reviewing B.C.’s Mental Health Act, how did you envision this work would be undertaken and completed?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

I can’t begin this answer without just acknowledging again some of the circumstances that have brought us to this place and the devastating and horrific tragedy that our province experienced at the Lapu-Lapu Festival. Our focus right now continues to be making sure that we’re doing everything that we can to ensure that people are receiving the right supports.

I know that people want action, and I completely agree. That’s why our actions will continue to be around building out the continuum of care that people need to find the supports they need for their mental health and initiating a review and a modernization of the Mental Health Act. I have directed my staff to come back to me with the options that I need to consider about how we are going to undertake that review and that modernization.

This is not a small piece of work. I take this incredibly seriously. I recognize the urgency, but I also recognize the importance of doing it right. So when we know more about that scope and timeline, I’ll have a lot more to say to this House.

I look forward to the participation and collaboration with all members of this House in this incredibly important piece of work.

The Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister. I’m heartened to hear that this can be a multi-partisan effort.

As we know, B.C.’s Mental Health Act was passed in 1964 and hasn’t been substantially updated since the ’90s. This outdated legislation was created in a time where mental health challenges were treated as moral failings, where the appropriate response was deemed to be punishment, coercion, forced medication and electroconvulsive therapy.

Sixty years after the act first passed, 30 years since it was substantially reviewed, our world and understanding of mental health, we can all agree, has changed dramatically. This legislative overhaul must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

How will the Premier ensure that people with lived and living experience are at the centre of this work to ensure B.C.’s new Mental Health Act doesn’t cause more harm than good?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you again to the member, for the question.

I agree completely that it is so important to have the experience of people with lived and living experience as part of this work, just as it will be equally important to work with First Nations. Of course, any review of an act like this must be done under our obligations that we’ve made under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

That’s why it’s important that we take this work deliberately, carefully and thoughtfully. That is my commitment to this House to do that. I recognize the urgency with which people want to see action when it comes to mental health and continuing to build out the continuum of supports, and my commitment is to continue to do just that, whether it’s bolstering the education that we’re doing with children and youth, adding more Foundry centres for youth to be able to access, providing counselling supports for people at free or low cost.

We know that thousands and thousands of people have accessed those supports. I’m also quite heartened to have this discussion here today because I recognize that it is Mental Health Week from May 5 to May 12, and I encourage all MLAs, all members of this House, to be active participants in their communities, talking to people about reducing the stigma in talking about the challenges that people face and that we all continue to work on this together.

Indigenous Consultation and
Environmental Requirements for
Resource Development Projects

Scott McInnis: The Premier’s push to fast-track projects is now facing direct criticism from Indigenous leadership. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs warned that fast-tracking in response to U.S. tariffs risks “watering down the environmental assessment process.”

Why does this NDP Premier continue down this path despite direct warnings from Indigenous leadership in British Columbia?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Our commitments under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act are incredibly important, and it is absolutely understandable that our critical partners — First Nations, UBCIC — and other partners would want assurances that we are continuing to be committed to those commitments.

[2:45 p.m.]

That is why in Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, we expressly state under section 20 that our obligations under DRIPA cannot be affected by any measures under the Infrastructure Projects Act. That is there to provide greater assurance and to confirm our continued commitment to DRIPA.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: Well, thank you Mr. Speaker, but the concerns are still clearly there.

In addition to this, the UBCIC has said: “Additionally, UBCIC is concerned the province is not upholding its own interim process on alignment of laws with UNDRIP or UNDRIP itself.”

Why is this NDP Premier abandoning respectful consultation related to any and all resource projects?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think we’ve answered the member’s question earlier by explaining that in section 20 of the….

The Speaker: Member, we should not be talking about the contents of the bill which is in front of the House.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Very well. Thank you so much.

I’m very happy to canvass this question in greater detail during second reading debate as well as committee stage of the bill. What I can say is that our commitment to the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples continues to be paramount to everything that our government does.

Reann Gasper: In this government’s budget speech, they promised to fast-track projects and bring certainty right across British Columbia. Instead, the Premier’s direction is triggering warnings of legal chaos.

Former federal Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould said: “My prediction? More lawsuits from proponents and First Nations, more uncertainty and poorer economic and environmental outcomes.”

Will the Premier admit that his direction is creating more legal risks, not less, and that he is risking setting reconciliation and investment back?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Our government is committed to getting things built, the things that our communities need, schools that our students need to attend, hospitals that provide critical services to communities. And we have heard time and time again that although we are making the single largest investment in critical public infrastructure in B.C. history, we need to find ways to deliver that critical infrastructure more quickly.

I understand that the members have concerns about a bill that is before the House. I’m happy to canvass those concerns during second reading of the debate and through committee stage of the debate.

I assure the members that our commitment to environmental standards, to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and to delivering for British Columbians the public infrastructure that they need is paramount to our work.

Zero-Emission Vehicle
Policy and Targets

Hon Chan: A vehicle isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity for families, workers and young people. As we have heard earlier, British Columbians are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills and cannot afford an electric vehicle. Yet this government mandated 100 percent EV sales by 2035, with a $500,000 fine and six months of jail time just for selling a gas car.

Will this NDP Premier listen to the practical needs of British Columbians and repeal their heavy-handed zero-emission vehicle mandate before people are priced out of transportation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just will refer the member to the outstanding response from the member from Surrey to his bill this morning as a strong response to what he’s saying. I would note that the government, in its climate action, supports the low-carbon fuel standard, which not only reduces emissions but creates jobs in places like Prince George. They’re against it.

It promotes and supports electrification in our electrification policy, supports wind projects all across the province, especially in rural and remote communities in different regions. They’re against it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: They’re against it, hon. Speaker. As noted, we had a debate and will be having a vote tonight on the EV mandate. Regardless of that, the member for Kamloops maybe could heckle his own member now.

[2:50 p.m.]

That debate has occurred. That’s before the House, but I would say this. Electric vehicles are good for British Columbia. They’re good for our environment. Allowing people greater access to them is good for us and will continue to be good for us, not for other reasons than we produce electricity in this province. We are electrifying this province, and we import gasoline. It’s import substitution. It’s great for our economy. It’s great for our environment.

We have a difference of opinion. They’re opposed to any measure that would deal with the fight against climate change. That’s not our view. That’s the difference between us and them, and we believe those measures also build our economy.

The Speaker: Member, if you wish to ask a supplemental question, make sure it’s not about the contents of the bill already in front of the House.

Hon Chan: For sure, Mr. Speaker.

The minister can actually glorify all their achievements all he wants, but either the minister isn’t understanding the reality or is refusing to be transparent about it. In just about three months, more than a quarter of all new vehicles sold in B.C. must be zero emissions. In the ministry’s own EV report, sales are declining, not rising. B.C. will not meet its target. And now they even scrapped the EV rebate.

So my question is not about the bill. Will the minister publicly apologize if they cannot meet their own target?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The last target was met by the government. I would say that on EVs, we are leading Canada, number one in Canada. That’s, presumably, not good enough for the number two party in this Legislature.

I would say that EVs, electric vehicles, which are clearly the wave of the future, are an opportunity for people in their own lives to address climate change, and more importantly, to purchase outstanding vehicles that will serve them well and serve our economy well.

As noted, this is a province that produces electricity, and we’re going to produce more. Today we announced a significant call for power that’s going to drive the production of electricity in B.C. They’re against it.

They’re against it. They’re against every single measure that’s taken against climate change. I’m not surprised they’re against this one, but we’re going to continue to take action to build our economy and to address climate change.

Pete Davis: This Premier and government have already walked away from all of their environmental commitments. They’ve walked away from the carbon tax, and now they’re walking away from CleanBC.

To this Premier: do you think that it’s time to walk away from these unfair EV mandates as well, and will you actually vote against them today?

The Speaker: Minister, it is again about the contents of the bill in front of the House. If the minister wishes not to answer, you don’t have to answer.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just note that the….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

It’s the minister’s prerogative. If he wants to answer, he will answer.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member declared that we are walking away from CleanBC and walking away from climate action. Quite the opposite is true. The only party in British Columbia that is against climate action is the Conservative Party.

On a day when we announced one of the most significant steps to electrification of our economy, something they oppose, when we announced, recently, wind projects, which they oppose…. I would note that in the United States — in Texas, for example; in Iowa, for example — they lead on wind projects. Is the new slogan of the Conservative Party “Too right-wing for Texas”?

[2:55 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Wow. We all know that reality and transparency are not this government’s strong suit, but today it is clearly on full, absolute display. We ask a question about vehicle levies, and we get a Fred Astaire performance over there. Not three times, and he can’t even muster up an answer.

We ask questions about EV targets. Again, nothing. Nothing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Trevor Halford: Sensitive over there today, and I get why. I understand.

The Speaker: Let the member ask a question, please.

Member, please continue.

The member will continue.

Trevor Halford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, the challenge is this. When this government is asked straightforward questions, they can’t give a straightforward answer.

To the minister, does he stand beside the current targets, the targets that people are paying for right now, the targets that stratas are paying for right now to equip their units to make sure that they have charging stations, legislation that this province has put in? Does this Minister of Energy stand by the EV targets that they have, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I am, of course, impressed by….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it is challenging to ask four out of….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We get time to prepare for question period. It is difficult and challenging to ask multiple out of order questions in a row. But that’s okay. The member from Surrey–White Rock is new to this House — or new to his party, anyway — and I think that it’s interesting to hear his questions.

Here are the facts of the matter. We have had EV targets. Those targets have been met up to now. We continue to work hard to promote EV sales in our province, unlike the opposition, which is opposed to electrification, opposed to electric vehicles, opposed to low-carbon fuel standards, opposed to the output-based pricing system, opposed to CleanBC, opposed to wind projects, opposed to every possible action we can take on climate change….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We are going to have a vote in this Legislature later today, and they will get a clear answer then.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Anna Kindy: Today I rise to table a petition submitted by the B.C. Dental Association. The petition has been signed by nearly 4,000 dentists and members of the public — a clear reflection of widespread concern regarding the Health Professions and Occupations Act, or HPOA, and the unintended consequences it may have on B.C.’s oral health care system.

They are concerned about the diminished role of dental expertise at the regulatory level, specifically the lack of requirement for dentists to serve on the new college and that all board members are to be appointed.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Anna Kindy: The downstream effects are concerning: fewer practising professionals, longer wait times, higher costs for patients and impact on patients’ safety.

The Speaker: Member, you don’t have to explain the petition. You already introduced it.

Anna Kindy: The petition….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Member.

Anna Kindy: Respectfully, 4,000 people signed this petition.

The Speaker: Member. Member for North Island.

Anna Kindy: The petition, respectfully, calls on government to pause implementation of the….

The Speaker: Please turn her….

Thank you.

Rob Botterell: I rise to present a petition. I have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents on Galiano Island — Susan Lambert, Daphne Arber and Adriana Briand — for the province to legalize human composting as an option for disposition of human remains in our province.

The petitioner requests this House to review the Cremation, Internment and Funeral Services Act and amend part 3 to include natural….

The Speaker: Member, we don’t need to explain petitions.

Rob Botterell: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Point of Order

Linda Hepner: I rise on a point of order. I live in a city that has geography larger than Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond combined. At no time did I say, as the Minister of Transportation has alluded, that I support mobility pricing.

I would like him to withdraw that comment.

[3:00 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’m happy to table the quote from CBC, May 2018, to show that I was accurate in my comments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Members, before the minister tables a document, is leave granted to table a document?

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to
Private Bills and Private
Members’ Bills Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before I get to main orders of the day, by leave, I move:

[That Mable Elmore replace Susie Chant as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates debate for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resources and after that the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 7.

[3:05 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Public Safety and Solicitor General

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We will call this chamber back to order. Welcome back, everybody. We’ll call on the minister to read the vote.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,121,960,000.

The Chair: Does the minister have opening comments?

Hon. Garry Begg: I do. Thank you, Speaker. I’ll begin with a few opening comments before we begin the proceedings today.

First, I would like to introduce staff who are with me and thank everyone in the ministry for the tremendous work that they do every day.

Joining me today is Tara Richards, the Deputy Solicitor General; Alex Chandler, the assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer; Glen Lewis, the assistant deputy minister and director of policing and law enforcement services; and Jamie Lipp and Brian Sims in the back row. There will be other ministry staff who will be coming in and out of the chamber over the next couple of days, and I will introduce them along the way.

A couple of things I’d like to acknowledge right off the start.

Today, as we have become acquainted, is Red Dress Day, also known as the national day of awareness for missing and murdered Aboriginal women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people.

On this day, we honour the memories of those we have lost and recognize the harms that their families, friends and communities have experienced. I hope each of us take some time today to recognize the significance of this day and to reflect on the roles we play in advancing justice, safety and healing for Indigenous people.

I’m pleased today to begin the estimate debates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It is a top priority of our government. We continue to invest and work to improve safety and services in every community in the province, and we are making progress.

[3:10 p.m.]

We also know that more work needs to be done to make sure British Columbians feel safe in our neighbourhoods and communities. From retail theft and vandalism in our downtown cores to individuals struggling with addiction and mental health issues on our streets, these are some of the problems that we face every day.

It’s clear that we need to work together to break down silos and coordinate services and crisis support programs in a way that fosters growth and bolsters community safety. We know that this is not a problem that is unique to British Columbia; however, every community does face its own unique set of challenges. One thing is common, in that street crime and social disorder have underlying causes, and addressing them requires a multifaceted approach. These are complex issues, and there’s no single solution that can resolve them in isolation.

As you know, government passed the amendments to the Police Act last April. Some of these changes focused on municipal police governance, giving municipal police boards greater autonomy. The legislation also strengthened oversight by allowing for earlier public hearings in misconduct investigations and giving the Police Complaint Commissioner the power to conduct systemic reviews. We anticipate that these changes will improve police governance and the investigative process, but we know there’s more work to do, and that work is also underway.

As the minister, it is my duty to ensure adequate and effective policing levels are maintained throughout the province. We continue to roll out a historic $230 million in investments into the B.C. provincial police service. The budget provides new funding for the Justice Institute of B.C. that will expand Police Academy training capacity from 192 to 288 seats per year, bringing an additional 96 police officers per year into B.C. communities.

B.C. Corrections is also part of my portfolio. It’s a vital part of the entire justice system, working in partnership with others in the justice and health sectors to keep our communities safe. We continue to invest in the repeat violent offending initiative, a coordinated multi-agency program that is making real differences in communities across our province. Through enhanced enforcement and information sharing, we’re interrupting the cycle of offending. Over 400 individuals have been identified through this initiative and are connected to supports they need.

As we see more individuals with mental health and substance use challenges within the justice system, B.C. Corrections continues to enhance collaboration with health and community partners to ensure this vulnerable population receives the service they need. Recently the ministry collaborated with the Provincial Health Services Authority to open new involuntary care beds at Surrey Pretrial. This was an effort that required significant operational and security planning to allow the health authority to safely assume operations for this critical service.

The mandate of the ministry is comprehensive in breadth and approach to advance strategies and programs to improve public safety, and I expect we will canvass much of that important work through these debates.

I’m also responsible for ICBC and the Liquor Distribution Branch. I should say that in the first year of enhanced care, customers saved an average of approximately $490 per customer on their full-coverage personal auto insurance. That’s the basic plus the optional. As well, it’s important to note that there’s been no increase in basic insurance rates for six years. Over 95 percent of claims costs under enhanced care go directly to customers. Over the last five years, eligible customers will have received an average of $640 in rebates in their auto insurance.

These are just a few examples of the investments my ministry has made. That concludes my opening remarks. I’m sure we’ll be discussing these and other priorities during this debate.

[3:15 p.m.]

I look forward to the members’ questions. I know that other critics will be joining the debate over the next two days, and I look forward to a constructive dialogue.

The Chair: As you’ve heard, we’re going to consider the budget estimates of the Public Safety and Solicitor General Ministry.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the members of the ministry who have come to provide some information for us today.

Thank you for the work that you’re doing for the province.

Thank you to the minister for his openness to answer my questions. I’m going to start off, actually, by asking some questions related to police interactions with people with serious mental illness. I think that in light of some of the incidents that have not only taken place within the last ten days or so but also in addition to a number of very significant issues that have taken place in 2024 and, indeed, in 2025 as well….

Over the last year in 2024 and in 2025, we’ve seen an increase in serious incidents involving people with mental illness, often complicated by drug use, and incidents involving people with drug-induced psychosis. Police are often the first point of contact in a mental health crisis or incidents which involve criminal interactions where a suspect is experiencing challenges with addiction, mental illness or brain injuries.

Police are doing an outstanding job in this province. They respond to calls, they make arrests and apprehensions, yet they are often faced with repeat incidents with the same offender due to systemic issues, which they don’t have control over.

Police are also facing an increase in assaults against police. In 2025, in Vancouver, there has been a 25 percent increase in assaults against peace officers, including a recent interaction in Vancouver where an officer was lit on fire. There have also been recent reports of a plot to murder a police officer in Vancouver.

Police leaders point to multiple factors influencing the increase in attacks on police, being the acuity of mental illness and brain injury, increased frequency of interactions involving individuals with drug-induced psychosis or drug-intoxicated behaviours and anti-police sentiments.

These next series of questions, as they relate to the budget and as they relate to the management of policing over the next budget year, are regarding those interactions between people living with mental illness and addiction and police services.

Is there any information available on how many calls for service police across the province are receiving on an annual basis related to mental health?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Thank you, member opposite.

Being a police officer, as you were for many years, I know that you know the system quite well. The reality of policing in today’s society has changed dramatically over the past five to ten years. There are a number of factors that enter into that.

You mentioned drug psychosis and mental health needs that are apparent on the street. You will also know that across the province — and, I think, across the country — there have been some dramatic changes in the way policing is presented to the public.

I can’t, in specific terms, speak about any particular case, other than to say that the police, in response to the increased calls, are more sensitive. They have taken much more training than I did as a young member. They have formed PAC teams. They have formed teams that look after not only the mental and physical health of the client, but also the mental and physical health of the policing community.

I in no way intend to mitigate the effect that it has on communities. It is dramatic. In this province, for example, you’ll know that we’ve changed or are changing the legislation as it relates to our ability to confine people in custody.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s a work in progress. It’s unfair of me to look at one particular case and cast judgment upon it, except to say that as the needs of society change, the response of the policing community has changed as well.

I think that’s good. I think that’s forward. It is a work in progress, but statistically, there is no way that we can quantify the numbers involved. We find many times, of course, that what started out as a call for police was redirected, either by the police or by another agency that works with the police, so that that call is negated.

I in no way want to minimize it. I think we have to respond to it, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the minister. I find that answer to be somewhat troubling, and I’ll explain why.

I have a series of questions that I’ll be asking here, many of them related to no particular one incident but to the totality of the circumstances that we’re facing in the province, with a number of troubling incidents and a pattern that seems to have emerged in the province with police having to respond to health care issues.

What I find troubling is that the question was related to how many calls for service police are dealing with related to the Mental Health Act. We had last week a Premier that announced a review of the Mental Health Act, as you know. I think that having the minister as well….

We had a great conversation the other day. I think you have well over 30 years service to this great country as a policeman. Awesome. So you definitely know what I’m talking about.

I would say almost every call has some aspect of mental health in it, but there are very specific criteria that apply to the Mental Health Act of British Columbia with respect to police. I would really be curious to know if statistical data has been collected, either through police analytics, with that type of work that they do for many other categories — assaults, thefts over $5,000 and all that kind of stuff…. Look, we are about to, perhaps as a province, be embarking on a very important review of the Mental Health Act.

My question…. There will be a series of questions, so hopefully, we can work through this. Does the minister think that the police have data that would be valuable to the upcoming review of B.C.’s Mental Health Act?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: It may be of interest to you to know that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police has a standing committee that meets several times a year. What they do, amongst other things, is take a look at the pattern in calls for service. They have anecdotally suggested to us that there are increasing examples where the mental health aspect of the client comes into play.

Now, as you know, sometimes what starts out as something ends up as something else, and it cannot be categorized as being a Mental Health Act call. That is one of the reasons why, I believe, the Premier is interested in overhauling and reforming the Mental Health Act — so that it can be more specific and better address the needs of the mental health client. The impetus behind it is so that the police can adjust to meet those new and emerging needs.

You will know, from your past experience, that we were poorly equipped in the past, in many cases, to deal with the true psychologic or psychiatric needs of the clients we came into contact with, but with the purported increase in persons under the effect of drugs or suffering from systemic problems or brain injuries, it’s difficult to quantify, in an empirical way, that total amount.

We can, I suppose, challenge the police community to take a harder look. My expectation is that that’s something that is better addressed by those who will be forming the committee to reform the Mental Health Act. So it is indeed entirely responsive to what we’re trying to do.

The Chair: Just a general reminder to everybody participating in debate today to keep comments and questions coming through the Chair. Thank you very much.

Elenore Sturko: I thank the minister for that response. I find it concerning, though. You know, there have been many times when issues were brought forward to this government, not just here in this session but over the last number of years, that were written off as anecdotal evidence: “This government doesn’t recognize anecdotal evidence.”

For example, when it comes to things like the diversion of safe supply, stories from families and reports from community groups were written off as anecdotal, yet I hear the minister say, when it comes to understanding the Mental Health Act and how an increase in incidents is being noted among police leaders, that it relies upon anecdotal evidence to make judgments about where we should potentially go.

I would agree to some extent with the minister about the changing training and the equipment, the groups, the types of responses. Certainly, in my career when dealing with police and incidents involving mental health, there were significant improvements, particularly over the last decade, but that doesn’t negate the requirement for proper data collection that should be taken, especially in multiple incidents that we can refer to, just in 2025 alone.

[3:35 p.m.]

One particular incident I know the minister is familiar with is a police interaction with individuals, a family, who reported, at least through the media, that the person had a history of mental illness requiring medication and had a history of crises and then recovery.

They were called to assist the family because this individual, reported to be off medication and in a mental health crisis, was arrested, but no mental health assessment was undertaken. That person, brought to court for assaulting a police officer and for uttering threats to damage property, was then released, only to — within hours of that release from custody — in Vancouver, assault a Toronto tourist, causing bodily harm to this individual.

So we see there that there is a potential, at least, for a gap between services that are being provided under the Mental Health Act, or could be. That was a potentially missed opportunity for an apprehension. Not knowing the full totality of the circumstances police were dealing with but using my experience as a police officer, I might expect that there could have been an opportunity there.

I’d ask the minister: in light of this review and in light of a previous reliance, perhaps, on anecdotal information, will the minister make the recommendation that police leaders engage…?

Firstly, I would like to know if there is any commitment in this 2025 budget to do some data collection that could be useful in analyzing the Mental Health Act in terms of how it’s working with police and how they’re utilizing that.

For example, and not to drone on, but in this case we saw perhaps a circumstance where the Mental Health Act, section 28, may have been applied and wasn’t. Is there something in that section, either the training of the members…? They did not recognize that as being something that could be applicable to section 28. Can we make any kind of change to that section?

I guess, does the minister have a budgetary allocation that would allow for this type of data collection? Is the ministry prepared to make a commitment to collect data on police interactions with the Mental Health Act specifically? Is there a role for police and law enforcement leadership to play in that review?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I think we are on the same page in that our expectation of what is going to happen as a result of our interactions with this particular community is the same. We want to see everyone turn out as healthy and as productive as they possibly can.

It’s important that I make the distinction between anecdotal and empirical evidence. One is not exclusive of the other. Policemen rely a lot on anecdotal evidence that cannot be quantified in many ways. That having been said, I think you will know that police record most information in PRIME, so some of that information can be extracted for a specific purpose later, but not immediately identifiable as what we would call empirical evidence.

What I can commit to is that the Minister of Health has been charged with the responsibility of looking into improvements in the Mental Health Act so it better serves everyone. I know that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police meets with her about matters like this regularly. My expectation, although it’s only mine, is that the Health Minister will be calling upon the policing community and others who have constant and consistent contact with this client group so that she gets the best she possibly can in reforming the Police Act.

To reiterate, I think it’s important that I acknowledge that we’re on the same page. Our intent is the same as yours. We recognize that there are deficient aspects of the Mental Health Act which require our attention. In order for us to accomplish that, we will work with the police and the other client groups so that the best possible outcome results.

Elenore Sturko: How many apprehensions under the Mental Health Act of British Columbia are police in British Columbia making every year, and of those apprehensions, how many or what percentage result in certification?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: That information is not available to me today, but I will commit to getting that information as quickly as I can and getting back to you.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you, Minister.

After a person has been apprehended by the police and brought to the hospital, regardless of whether they are certified or not certified, what is the average time that elapses between that first apprehension and the next police contact?

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s a fairly convoluted process for me to answer the question directly, but again, I’ll commit to finding the answer that you seek and getting it to you.

Elenore Sturko: Just to clarify. The reason that many of these questions are being asked is given the high-profile nature of what’s happening in our province with individuals, which is a small group of individuals.

I want to always, at every opportunity that I have to speak to the public, let people know that the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness are not a danger to the public. They do not become entangled with the criminal justice system and don’t regularly have police interactions.

But there is a group of individuals, and anecdotally, at least, we can say that we seem to see more police interactions with individuals with a brain injury, drug-induced psychosis, intoxicated behaviours and untreated severe mental illness, many of whom are living in very dire situations.

The reason why I find it unfortunate that we can’t dive into that particular information is that it was not that long ago that we introduced an app in this province, HealthIM. It was to reduce and to look at exactly addressing some of these things that are featured in my questions about apprehensions, about interactions between police and people with mental illness.

Just for the public, I will go through and get this on the record. HealthIM is a digital public safety system designed to improve emergency police response in mental health and addictions crisis situations, increasing safety for first responders, health care staff and a person in crisis. This system will support a better interaction between the person in crisis and the responding police officer by enabling the officer to better understand the reason for the person’s behaviour.

The responding officer will be guided through a series of questions to help facilitate a better assessment of the person in crisis. Their communication with health care partners will also be enhanced, as the system will help them use the same clinical language and will provide them information that doctors and nurses need at hand immediately.

Other benefits include: the assessment of risk of harm to self and others, which helps determine the best way the person can receive help; provides client-specific safety and de-escalation information to facilitate trauma-informed response, leading to better outcomes; alerts health care partners to an incoming person escorted by emergency responders; and flags instances of weapons possession and/or violent behaviour.

[3:50 p.m.]

A risk-of-harm analysis history can be developed over time, providing insight into how to assist those with previous police contact.

My first question related to this to the minister is: what are the results of the HealthIM program?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I think it’s important that this, particularly the HealthIM, is a work-in-progress. And because of that, the data sets that have been established as a result are not fully there.

On March 7, 2024, Port Moody police department was the first agency to implement HealthIM with provincial funding. Nelson PD will launch in May 2025, followed by municipal departments Central Saanich, Saanich, Victoria and Oak Bay on the south Island in June of 2025.

The HealthIM, of course, is a method of communication, sort of one-way communication because of respect to the Privacy Act. The medical information basically cannot be shared outside of the medical fraternity, but some of the information can be stored in PRIME, which, in that case, helps an attending police officer to get a better picture of the potential that they will face with this person when they arrive at the scene.

It is a work-in-progress, and we can keep you informed as the program continues.

Elenore Sturko: It’s been a year. HealthIM launched in March 2024. We’re in May, over a year. I’m surprised that in something that would be so critical…. Mental health interactions with police was a significant source of concern from British Columbians. It resulted in the review to the Police Act and many other initiatives that the government undertook. The fact that we would be a year in and not have an analysis even in the first six months….

What if this was having a negative impact? What if we saw that it was steering members away from apprehensions or hospital visits when they should be…? Without the interaction with the HealthIM, maybe they would make the decision on their own to go.

I’m very, actually, concerned, given the weight and severity of what’s happening as a result of mental illness with a small group of individuals in our province — a small population of people with severe untreated illness, complicated often by drug use and the violence that has undertaken in this province — that we wouldn’t have done a more timely three months, six months, nine months, one year. Do we have less apprehensions? Less certifications? More?

In cases where the app doesn’t recommend taking a person to the hospital, what would be the frequency of returning visits to the same client? And after what period would that next…? That’s how we would analyze to see if this thing is even working. Taxpayer money. Budgeted money. We have information that we already…. As you know, in PRIME, police officers already put mental health interactions in there. It’s nice to know. Maybe there’s more comprehensive information. It’s actually the medical information.

Knowing that the ministry does not have available data on HealthIM, even though it is now expanding to another jurisdiction…. One of the benefits of police mental health outreach teams is that they can do something that HealthIM cannot do, which is, as the minister states, share medical information with someone on the scene of a police call, a psychiatric nurse, who can themselves, from the health authority, see data about a potential client in the community and recommend services.

They can see what services that this individual might be getting, what type of voluntary or involuntary treatments they may be receiving. And then that individual, that nurse, can help this team to make a decision about whether or not a hospital visit is needed or not. Whether or not this person has a history of non-compliance with medication or not in a way that is much more comprehensive than an app, of course.

[4:00 p.m.]

In 2024, this government promised that there would be $3 million to increase the number of police mental health outreach teams.

Burnaby had been asking for years to have one, and it was only after the murder of Shaelyn Yang, a constable from Burnaby who was murdered by a person with a severe mental illness in a police interaction…. It took a year for that police and mental health outreach team to be staffed and approved by the government.

Langley was promised a police and mental health outreach team but has not received it.

Of the promised police and mental health outreach teams, how many have been filled? What portion of the 2025-26 budget represents an increase, and what are the province’s plans to increase police and mental health outreach teams?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I think your question is better directed to the Ministry of Health, who are the funders of the types of programs to which you refer.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you for the answer to that question.

I would disagree. I think that the Ministry of Public Safety should be able to answer questions about whether or not HealthIM is working and how many police and mental health outreach teams we’re going to have, because they’re interacting with police. They’re supposed to be there for police interactions. They were actually something that was discussed during Reforming the Police Act, about the public’s dissatisfaction with how people with mental illness were interacting with police officers.

I think that having the answer to whether or not police agencies in this province can expect their promised expansions of police and mental health outreach teams should be something that this minister and his staff should know. Whether or not they’ve projected that in 2025, it’s to make sure that you guys are ready to train up some units and then to supplement and support agencies, because we’re going to have a lot of nurses come in. Or not. I just disagree with the minister.

There was also talk in response to some of the province’s dealings under the Mental Health Act and with people with mental illness about adding a fourth option to 911. Can the minister please speak to what work will be done, how the project is going, what that option might look like in the province of British Columbia to add a fourth option?

For people who may be unfamiliar with what this is, this is calling for emergency services, calling 911 if it’s available in your community, and instead of having police, fire and ambulance, having a fourth option for mental health. There would be some type of service associated to that, whether it’s someone who is triaging, perhaps a psychiatric nurse in a dispatch centre, at E-Comm or something.

This was something that was discussed. I’m wondering what type of work is underway in the 2025 budget to make that a reality.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: As we move forward, the fourth option is one of the things I suspect that we will take a look at. There is nothing in the current go-forward budget to accommodate that.

Elenore Sturko: I’m now going to read from the British Columbia Review Board annual report, fiscal year April 2023-March 2024. It’s related to mental health. This says:

“BCRB snapshots of the intake process for new accused: in the fiscal ’23-24, the board observed that the intake process for new accused had become much more complex and time-consuming than in prior years. Courts released accused persons charged with violent offences whose mental disorders were untreated and who were homeless and substance-addicted. The following case example illustrates challenges staff face.

“Example 1: in mid-October 2023, the court released a female accused person who had been unfit to stand trial on assault charges. Her matters were deferred to the board for a hearing. The accused was homeless, substance-addicted and banned from shelters in northern B.C. after assaulting shelter workers.

“With no means of contacting her, registry staff were unable to notify her of her obligation to attend a hearing and comply with the board chair’s assessment order to determine her mental health status and risk to the public. Despite extensive efforts to locate her, the board next heard of the accused’s whereabouts after she was hit by a car and hospitalized, then released back into the community. The board tried unsuccessfully to have the courts detain her for her safety and that of the public.

“Staff were ultimately able to schedule her matter for an in-custody hearing after she was arrested and taken to a correctional facility. The board was subsequently notified by corrections staff that the accused was going to be released on bail. Registry staff acted swiftly and provided necessary documentation to correctional facility staff to have the accused then brought to the Forensic Psych Hospital so that her initial hearing could finally be held in January of 2024.”

That’s about six months.

“At that hearing, the board made a custody disposition.”

That’s an example that I think…. When I read that, I thought: “This isn’t just a one-off, of course.” We hear about these types of situations occurring in British Columbia time and again with people who are extremely vulnerable.

[4:15 p.m.]

This is a person that’s accused of serious charges but found not fit to stand trial because they’re sick. And despite the fact that they are substance-addicted and homeless, they were released onto the street, where they got hit by a car and then only were able to interact with our system again once they committed another crime. This example is the heart of what we’re dealing with right now in British Columbia.

My question is actually a two-for-one. I’ll just combine them together.

Are police in B.C. collecting statistics on their contacts involving people identified as unfit to stand trial, who are living in the community, whether they are housed or unhoused? What work is being undertaken between the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Health Minister, coordinated?

I do believe that this is going to be something that needs to be coordinated to ensure people like this poor soul in this example do not fall through the cracks and do not harm their fellow British Columbians.

Hon. Garry Begg: You will be aware, I’m sure, of the cabinet committee on community safety, which is a relatively new group of individuals that has been formed by the cabinet to look at articles of which you speak — how things fall through the cracks, for example. The Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Health Minister all have a role to play in that.

It’s a new committee. I think we’ve met perhaps once or twice since it was formed. The whole idea is that we capitalize on programs already existing — like ReVOII, for example, which is a highly successful program that monitors people when they’re released, through whatever process, so that they don’t slip through the cracks, as you say.

It’s challenging, but it does require a coordinated effort by the principals of the three ministries that I mentioned so that we reduce the opportunity for recidivism on the part of members like this.

The Chair: Members, I’ve had a request for a brief recess, so this House is going to stand at recess for the next five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. We’ll call the House back to order, where we’re considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Elenore Sturko: In his previous answer, the minister mentioned ReVOII and the importance of these types of groups in monitoring individuals who may have multiple contacts and may be on bail. Is ReVOII or any other agency that the minister is aware of monitoring people who have been deemed unfit to stand trial?

Hon. Garry Begg: We do not have people in the ReVOII program who have been found unfit to stand trial.

Elenore Sturko: I didn’t think so. To be honest, I didn’t think so. I just wanted that confirmed.

The real question is, based on the scenario that we listened to of this individual who themselves is very vulnerable…. Also, at least from the scenario, we can see this example of a real-life thing that happened here in B.C. — that they had at least victimized two other people and then went on to commit another interaction with the criminal justice system. It seems like there was no one watching. There was no one taking care of them.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

So I’m wondering if the minister knows, just from a public safety lens: is there any group or service, or is it the health care system? Is it our B.C. correctional system? Who is it that is looking after people like this who…?

This woman was released from custody, not fit to stand trial, run over by a car, homeless, addicted. Who is looking after to monitor individuals like this to ensure…? I understand, and I think the committee that’s together with Health and that met two times now, two whole times…. That’s good work that will be done. But in terms of every day, what’s happening? We already have these scenarios playing out every day. Who is watching these individuals?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The question you asked is about who’s looking after and who’s not being looked after — my version of your question.

I would say that we have a series of groups, situation tables and that kind of group, who meet, have a case conference weekly or more frequently if and as required, so that for persons like you speak of — who are not, perhaps, in a particular program but are worthy of consideration — are being looked after when no one else is looking after them. They’re not in a program. The suspicion is that they will reoffend or cause other problems.

This is the group who, at the situation tables, isolate those people for continued observation.

Elenore Sturko: I think this alone — I’ll just say it for the record — really represents an example of where the gaps in our system currently are. While the review of the Mental Health Act is important, perhaps it’s to have a look at the way that the act is working — and, I think, several things.

Without the input of people — not only health care providers but law enforcement, who are engaged with using it as one of the tools in the repertoire of responses that police can use — and understanding how that is or is not being used, understanding whether or not those apprehensions turn to certifications, how long a person’s treatment lasts after certification, and how soon, after a release from hospital of someone who may have had previous contact…. When’s the next time the police are interacting with that person? These are important things to know.

Situations like this, we see, according to the review board’s own report, are increasing. Likewise, the amount of services available for individuals who would meet those criteria is diminishing, actually, according to the 2023-24 report. It would be shortsighted, I think, if it is only a review of the Mental Health Act itself, the legislation, and not a review of how that interplays with a variety of other services.

[4:35 p.m.]

I agree with the minister that there are tables, and different communities also have different action groups that try to look after the needs of people who are in community with different needs and vulnerabilities, but it’s not consistent in every community. This was someone in the North, for example. We know, from my friends here on this side and from that side, that the North is an underserved region when it comes to mental health services.

I think that a systemic review that involves the interplay between public safety and the tools that they have at their fingertips, and perhaps where more tools need to be provided, would be important. And that’s not to criticize the Premier’s decision to review the legislation. But just for the record’s sake as well, it’s legislation that faces challenges by activist groups, by people who do not wish our province to have the ability to both apprehend, certify and treat without a court order, which is actually a benefit of our Mental Health Act currently.

If we would lose that, it would actually reduce the timeliness of treatment of individuals and could compromise, for example, what’s happening with the new nine beds. Legislation required to make that actually work relies upon our ability in British Columbia through the Mental Health Act to be able to have someone who is certified by a doctor and treated in a designated bed or facility, and that the treatment has to apply to the illness that they have and that we don’t need to go back to court to make that happen.

The timeliness is certainly something that we care about, which is why one of my recommendations is of course, as I just said, doing the full systems review to ensure that the alignment with public safety is working. There are some gaps there. We saw it.

It’s also to see if there’s an opportunity for companion legislation, companion legislation where a person does not meet the criteria or where a person is in community, where there can be community-based involuntary supports, just like there are through the Mental Health Act but perhaps a different criteria related to high-risk and dangerous drug use, where a person is at risk of self-harm or harm to others or serious deterioration not diagnosed with a mental health issue but high-risk because of substance use issues. Certainly something to look at, and I would encourage ministry staff to think about that.

The minister brought up the nine beds, and since we’re speaking about that, I was wondering if the minister could speak a little bit about who qualifies, who meets the criteria for these beds that are in the Surrey Pretrial and explain a bit about what that person is designated as when they are in those beds.

Hon. Garry Begg: A couple of comments before I continue.

First of all, I agree with you that we need a systemic review of the system, and there are multiple parts to the system. I think we acknowledge that as government. I think when we speak of gaps in the system that pre-exist, we have to come to terms with that.

My expectation, although I have no assurance of this, is that part of the review will look at those tools that are missing and attempt to correct the issue because of the emergent need for chronic care for some people in society.

The other issue is entirely within Fraser Health’s ability to determine who occupies the beds at Surrey Pretrial.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you, in fact, for acknowledging, at least from this minister’s point of view, that a systemic review is valuable for this province. I think that we’ve seen many tragic things, not just in the recent time but over a period of time. We could, by doing a systemic review not only of legislation but looking at systems and system gaps, perhaps make something good come out of something that’s been very tragic for the province.

[4:40 p.m.]

Just to clarify for members of the public who might be watching and wondering what the answer really is to the question about who qualifies for the nine beds in Surrey Pretrial, it’s people who meet the criteria of the Mental Health Act. There are certain criteria. A doctor, psychiatrist, nurse practitioner or psychiatric nurse would have to assess a person. They would have to meet the criteria of the Mental Health Act to receive that treatment, and in these particular beds, they would have to be in custody of the B.C. correctional system. So these are not beds for anyone in the community. These are beds for someone who has already done something in the community.

The next thing I’m going to talk to you about…. Actually, before I move on, I’ll table a document for the minister and his staff.

I see the minister has had a chance to see it. In my opening remarks, when we began talking in this section about attacks on police, on the rising incidents of interactions between police and people who may be violent for a variety of reasons…. One of the things that police leaders have spoken publicly about is anti-police sentiment.

I brought a document here forward, which is actually from a news article that was published in New Westminster, and I’m going to read from this now. It says: “The Coalition of Peers Dismantling the Drug War was awarded $180,000 by CAI in 2024.”

This isn’t on there, but CAI is the community action initiative. There are grants that are given through the government, through health authorities. So a health authority in B.C. gave taxpayer money, $180,000 in 2024, to the Coalition of Peers Dismantling the Drug War.

This group’s express aims, and I’m quoting here, are to “defund all police services, including the RCMP and prosecutors, to repeal the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to release everybody imprisoned under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.” In a 28-page report on this group’s website, the tax-dollar-funded coalition paints a heroic picture of drug dealers who “keep their communities safe.”

My question to the minister is: does he believe that it is appropriate for taxpayer money to go towards groups who are expressly aiming to defund police services?

Hon. Garry Begg: The short answer is no, of course.

I have no knowledge of the group of which you speak. I have no basis upon which to believe this is a legitimate group or where they’re funded or how they’re funded and when and where they were funded.

Elenore Sturko: Well, I can assure the minister that this is a group that’s funded by the current government. They also funded the Drug User Liberation Front, gave them over half a million dollars. That group publicly admitted to money laundering and purchasing drugs off the dark web and then trafficking them. So this is not the first time that a group such as this has received government funding, taxpayer dollars.

Understanding that there is a consequence for police to pay when public sentiment against police rises, will the minister commit to speaking to the Minister of Health to repeal the funding for anti-police groups who are actively fighting to legalize drugs and to repeal the very laws that help keep this province safe?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The sentiments expressed in the document that you gave me are not mine. They’re abhorrent to me. I’ve spent my whole life in law enforcement. I hold law enforcement as a sacred challenge, and this is not representative of that. I honour the police. We honour the police. We had, the other night, almost 300 policemen honoured for the work that they do. I believe in the work that they do.

What is characterized here, again, is abhorrent to me. I do not support it in any way. I, of course, have no personal knowledge of how they were funded, if they were funded by our government.

Elenore Sturko: The reality is that you can’t support the police and fund groups that work against them, and the CAI grants, the community action initiatives, have been funding organizations that have been working against our institutions.

I’ve heard different reasoning from the Minister of Health and from other ministers over time talking about: “Well, you know, they are peers.” There are lots of peers in this province. There are lots of groups willing to do this work. There are lots. I know that you probably have some of the same ones coming to your constituents and mine too — same office, same people — because they want grants to make community safety programs, to make health programs.

They didn’t get funded, a lot of them, but these ones did, and that’s a choice by this government. They’re making a choice to give community action initiative grants through the health authorities to anti-police, pro-drug organizations. But I’ll leave that. I think we’ve made our discussion here on the record, and I appreciate the comments of the minister.

I’m going to ask a few questions here related to the safety of nurses. I know that, of course, a lot of the policy surrounding the security relational officers is actually from the Ministry of Health. However, the licensing of the security guards comes through the Solicitor General.

I did a little bit of research. We’ve canvassed the safety of nurses and spoken about some absolutely unbelievable things that have happened in hospitals and horrific injuries — a nurse committed suicide after twice being attacked in a hospital — and just the kind of things that our health care workers are dealing with on a daily basis. We really do need to provide safety for them.

[4:50 p.m.]

First, I want to start off by actually…. I’m going to read a little bit from a Fraser Health job posting. This is for a relational security officer for my own region here. It says: “Part time, $29.40 an hour.” Pretty good wage actually. Maybe if I don’t make it next time, I can apply. “Qualifications: class 5 licence, CCTV, first aid and security guard licence. Job description: We invite you to apply and find out why employees recommend Fraser Health.” There’s a bunch of stuff there, but let’s see.

“Responsibilities: patrols buildings and grounds, including utilizing computers, surveillance equipment and video monitoring; enforces regulations and security procedures; identifies risks, safety and security hazards; takes appropriate action; checks doors, windows; responds to emergencies such as the health organization disaster plans, emergency codes, physically aggressive patients and persons; assesses the situation; consults with medical staff and others; and takes appropriate action as required.”

There’s a bunch of different tasks here, lots of different duties.

“Skills and abilities: ability to communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing; ability to deal with others effectively; ability to carry out the duties of the position.” — that’s pretty broad — “ability to operate related equipment; ability to organize work.”

Based on some of the training…. I also went to the Justice Institute to see what kind of training that they would need to have. For the advanced security guard, they’re allowed to have handcuffs, so that’s the extra bit that some security guards have. But it actually doesn’t say “advanced security training” here. It just says “security guard licence,” not “advanced security guard licence.”

The job description stated, again, the relational officer “investigates, resolves and reports disturbances using non-violent interventions.”

I’m going to think back to a letter that I had, actually, received from a nurse who works in a Lower Mainland region hospital who reported that, on a daily basis, they’re seeing things like knives. They get things like box cutters and even recently had a crossbow come into the hospital.

Based on the licensing requirements for a relational officer, so a security guard, does the minister believe that they have the training required to deal with people armed with weapons?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The security guards are certified, as you say, by the British Columbia Justice Institute, to a certain standard. Their advice, apparently, is to provide security to the hospital and its people.

There is not an expectation that they will intervene in situations that could be dangerous to them. As a matter of fact, they’re told, when they are in potential situations of danger, to retreat and to call the police of jurisdiction. These are not police officers. They’re not expected to act that way. That is their job, and that is what their certification allows.

Elenore Sturko: I thank the minister for the answer.

I feel actually upset hearing that, because we’ve stood in this place multiple times during question period where we talked about absolutely horrific attacks on nurses. A nurse choked out, unconscious, in a psychiatric unit had to be dragged behind the workstation. Another young nurse who was just finishing her training and on rotation, stabbed. People going into Eagle Ridge Hospital, multiple times now, with weapons, including a machete. And our Health Minister stood up and said that that’s what these relational officers are for. That’s why we have relational officers. We’re going to hire more, in fact.

I find it…. Actually, I’m afraid for relational officers, and I’m afraid for nurses. If we are putting people in positions where they are confronted with weapons and they’re hearing — on television or that there is some direction — that they should be intervening in a situation they are not equipped for, someone is going to get hurt. I don’t want to see that.

I’m beyond disappointed to know that the response of our health ministry has been to hire individuals that are not trained…. It’s not that these are not good people. I’m sure that they are doing a good job for what they’re trained for.

I’ll actually read you a couple of little quotes from a nurse in the Metro Vancouver area that said, “There have been times I’ve called them” — the relational officers — “to help because a patient or visitor is concealing something, and we don’t know what it is, and they’re afraid. The relational officers have told us they’re not trained to remove weapons,” as the minister said.

In addition to not being trained to remove weapons or to deal with weapons or violent situations, the nurse here goes on to say, “What type of ‘special’ training are they getting? If there are experienced mental health or emergency-trained nurses who have years of training to de-escalate situations and they are not able to do so, how the heck,” we’ll say, “do they think that a young guard is going to help?”

My question is: based on the licensing criteria, after training at the JI, but the licences are issued through his ministry, does the minister believe that they have adequate training, beyond that of which a psychiatric nurse, for example, would have, that would be appropriate to de-escalate a situation in a hospital that would involve someone potentially in psychosis?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Again, I would say that the relational security guards are trained to a specific standard at the Justice Institute. It is sometimes augmented by specialized training in the units they go to.

However, there is no expectation that they act beyond the scope of their duties. The scope of their duties does not include anything that would require radical physical intervention. Sometimes, my understanding is, they may be required to help restrain a person, but that is done in concert with other staff at the facility. So there is no expectation that they act beyond the scope of their duties.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you, Minister. I am happy to hear that there isn’t an expectation that the relational officers put themselves in harm’s way or undertake tasks for which they’re not trained or prepared.

I also continue to be disappointed in this province that we actually expect nurses to do that. We expect nurses to deal with people that are armed and intoxicated by drugs or otherwise. We continue to, in this House at least, from my point of view, hear the excuse that they’re safe because of these relational officers. I think that we have heard today that the type of problem that we’re experiencing within our health care in terms of safety is not sufficiently met by the response of having relational officers.

I would hope to hear that the minister would perhaps engage in a conversation with the Minister of Health to talk about this gap between what is happening in the health care system currently with…. I forget what the stat was, but it’s absolutely horrific. I know that the minister has heard it from the B.C. Nurses Union, about the extent to which nurses are being harmed in the workplace. It’s, like, multiple times a day.

I’m going to move on to speak about some drug-related stuff, and I’m going to just share this presentation. I tabled last time; that was incorrect. We’ll just share this with the minister and his staff.

[5:05 p.m.]

Great. Okay, so the minister has it. I know that you guys know a lot about this. I know that it concerns you, because you had the police phone me to try and investigate where this came from. It didn’t come from the police — not to me anyway.

I do have some questions. I’ll just make the comment, too, that actually I was not surprised to see that the government would be concerned if this, in fact, had come from the police, that they would be concerned to find out how that information got out.

What actually irritates me is that we have a government that’s more interested in finding out who was the whistleblower than dealing with taxpayer-funded drug trafficking in the province of British Columbia, drug trafficking that has fuelled addiction, that has increased harm by giving funding to organized crime groups, to drug traffickers, that has likely resulted in fuelling the fentanyl trade, because people were taking their drugs that they were getting prescribed through this program and using them to trade or sell for deadly fentanyl.

I was happy to be able to participate in the police investigation, and I did not receive this from a law enforcement officer.

My question. In this presentation, which I know that the minister is familiar with, it says that there’s a significant amount of safe supply being diverted, despite the fact that the Minister of Health, and the Solicitor General is there as well, would stop unwitnessed safe supply.

In fact, the interim guidance for physicians has come out, and they don’t have to stop. I’m not sure if the minister was familiar with that. They don’t have to stop. So that press conference announcing that it would totally stop — it’s not true.

New patients. They said that they would consider not prescribing it unwitnessed, but for those who are already on it, the doctor can make a decision. It’s going to continue. It’s continuing. So I still have questions.

I’d like to know…. We asked this to the Minister of Health. We didn’t get a very good answer. How would the minister define significant? What is significant diversion?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: It has been painfully obvious for some time that there has been diversion of safe supply. I know in your history in the force, and in mine, that this is not anything that is new. It is not unique to British Columbia.

I know that you want me to parse the words “significant diversion,” but I wouldn’t characterize this as being more significant or less significant than it has ever been, because it has been a constant in the drug world — the whole idea of diverting safe supply and other drugs.

The direct answer is that it is historic to the drug trade. It has been around, as you remember and as I recall. I don’t think that there has been any greater increase over my period of time.

Elenore Sturko: Here are some of the issues with what the minister is saying — that this isn’t new. The safe supply program in British Columbia is new. It came in, in the last part of 2020, so that’s new for our province. Diversion as a whole — you’re right — has existed since people got prescriptions. Drugs have been diverted.

The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police head, Chief Const. Fiona Wilson, testified at the select Standing Committee on Health in Ottawa. In that testimony, she actually told this parliamentary committee that even though safe supply is only 20 percent of all prescriptions of hydromorphone in British Columbia, it represents more than half of the seizures that they were seeing in B.C. That’s a pretty significant increase.

Additionally, Health Canada had released a report and analysis — data, stats — that said after safe supply launched in both Ontario and in British Columbia, the amount of hydromorphone that was being seized and then analyzed at Health Canada labs went up 500 percent. It’s a lot.

I understand that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General don’t want to quantify what “significant” is. I take issue, and in fact, I’m almost offended, that it’s not new. We’re talking about a government….

In 2023 — February 12, I think — I brought my first question to the floor of this place about diversion. That was because I was hearing it from the street, from parents, from treatment centres whose clients were talking about some of the activity they had been involved in. I brought it to the floor of this place, and there was nothing but denial. It wasn’t happening. “The member has nothing more than right-wing rhetoric.”

They held a press conference to have the chief medical officer, the chief coroner at the time and the Representative for Children and Youth essentially come on the television to say that diversion is not real and that it is nothing more than right-wing fearmongering.

Here we have the minister saying that it’s not new. It’s been happening. It’s been going on. It’s not more significant now than it ever was.

[5:15 p.m.]

But we know from Health Canada’s own data, and we know from the statement of Chief Constable Wilson. We also now see from the government’s own presentation that it’s significant. We know it’s a problem because it ended up in the Health Minister’s mandate letter.

I think it’s concerning to see the downplaying of something that had the potential not only to addict people, because these are highly addictive drugs…. While the intention behind the program is righteous…. I’m not denying that it’s a righteous idea to want to try and keep people alive. But creating new addicted people, including youth, and putting a valuable street commodity into the hands of organized criminals that your ministry fights is a huge mistake.

My question to the minister: can you please talk a bit about the type of monitoring, the type of data collection, the type of programming, in terms of understanding the extent of diversion, and whether or not, as a result of any new policy direction by the Health Ministry, we will actually see a decrease in diversion?

I’d like to know that this government takes it seriously after years of denying and the fact that…. Honestly, it took me over two years to have the government admit diversion, but it only took a couple of months for the government to launch an investigation into how this document got out because, heaven forbid, someone wants the truth to come out. I’m grateful for whistleblowers, because this is a problem that works against our greater interest.

I want to be clear too, before I end my statement and sit down and take my seat, that on this side of the House, we’re not saying we don’t want to help people with medicine. We do. If there is a way that medications can help save someone’s life, we want to do that.

But we need the adequate safeguards in place to ensure that we do not spread addiction, that we do not put money and guns into the hands of those that hurt other British Columbians, that we don’t fuel the fentanyl trade that’s killed 50,000 Canadians and that we don’t traffic. As this presentation says, prescribed alternatives are trafficked provincially, nationally and internationally. We want to stop that.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: As has been mentioned before, Health is the group that is looking after the big program that you speak of: monitoring, receiving information, supplying information, changing methods of delivery. That is important, but we cannot underplay the work that police do every year, all year, to fight the drug problem in Canada.

Over $100 million is spent here in British Columbia on organized crime and on groups within provincial and municipal agencies to fight together the scourge that is the drug problem in British Columbia. It’s important that we pay attention to it. We work in collaboration with them. We are not them. They have a specific set of criteria that they’re applying against this issue, but they work in concert with us.

Elenore Sturko: Very specifically, though, can the minister point to, particularly, if there are any new budget allocations or types of specific instructions to law enforcement for this year, now that the rules have changed in 2025, about monitoring for seizures of safe supply, what type of data is being collected and any new sort of processes going forward?

We know that on the front line one of the best ways to be able to monitor the change, particularly dealing with drug trafficking, would be looking at the street-level environment as well as looking at the seizures that police are making, big and small. What’s specific to ensuring that this new policy change, as it relates to public safety…? How is that reflected in this year’s budget?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: About $100 million is expended in this province through various forms, such as the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, CFSEU-BC, and other specialized units within serious and organized crime. Their commitment is to aggressively pursue drug traffickers and producers both domestically and internationally.

Within the CFSEU-BC, the anti-trafficking task force is mandated to support enforcement efforts to disrupt the flow of illegal substances, including precursors and illegal firearms, throughout the strategic targeting of traffickers.

All police agencies in B.C. are required to utilize the provincial tactical enforcement priority, PTEP, model to identify and target the most dangerous gang-affiliated individuals across the province, including those involved in illicit drug production and trafficking.

Perhaps the most important information for you: for the last full year of reporting for the program, there have been 1,354 kilograms of drugs seized in that program.

Elenore Sturko: What specifically related to monitoring diversion and whether or not the changes will represent a decrease in the trafficking of safe supply is being done?

Hon. Garry Begg: I don’t have that information.

Elenore Sturko: Well, I think that not only me but British Columbians would be interested to have that information, and I would have expected that that would actually be part of an interministry plan to assure the public that their taxpayer dollars aren’t being funnelled into the hands of drug traffickers and that the medications that we are funding collectively as a province are actually being used to help people get better and not used to help drug-affiliated organizations line their pockets and hurt their fellow British Columbians.

I’m going to reference some facts on fentanyl trafficking and production. These facts come from a January 23, 2025, FINTRAC operational alert that’s called Laundering the Proceeds of Synthetic Opioids.

[5:30 p.m.]

“The illicit production and distribution of synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl, poses a serious security and public health threat by exacerbating the opioid overdose crisis, both domestically and internationally. According to public health officials, the trafficking of fentanyl is fuelling an overdose epidemic that’s claiming about 80,000 lives a year in North America.

“While the prevalence of illicit drugs and substance use is not new, the lethality and addictive nature of fentanyl has had a devastating public health impact on the opioid crisis in North America.”

Page 5 of the alert contains a section titled “Organized Crime Groups and Jurisdictions of Concern.” I’m going to read a quote from that section now and would like then to ask a series of questions on that section to the minister:

“According to Canadian law enforcement officials, several domestic groups are suspected of playing an increasing role in the fentanyl market in Canada, with the majority operating in British Columbia as producers and distributors, with the majority of fentanyl precursor shipments being destined for that province.

“Operations in British Columbia have led to the province being a producer of fentanyl and possibly a supplier for other provinces. Private sector partners’ reporting also indicates that organized crime groups are using illicit laboratories in Canada for the production of fentanyl due to their ability to produce high-quality finished products.”

In the 2025 budget, how much money is earmarked specifically for investigating fentanyl production and trafficking in British Columbia?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I am seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you to the House.

I see that we are joined today by Rick and Joyce Triemstra. They come to Victoria all the way from Surrey. They are also small-time business owners in New Westminster. I understand that they are actually heading to retirement soon.

They’re joined by their granddaughter, Violet Sanderson. Seven-year-old Violet — I know her to be a budding young artist and an aspiring babysitter to Azalea. She also grew up in these halls here.

They are brought to the gallery today by Melanie Triemstra, who is my chief of staff. She has been with me since the beginning days, helping and supporting me in the creation of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. She is now here with me as my chief of staff for the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Truly one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, reliable and amazing chiefs of staff that any minister could have. She supported me as minister when I had Azalea, as a new mom. I can honestly say that I could not have continued this work as minister, as a new mom as well, without the support of Melanie.

We are really pleased to see her family here — on such an auspicious day; well, every day is auspicious here — in the gallery and to witness some of the important work that is happening here.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Violet, Melanie, Rick and Joyce to the House.

[5:35 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Garry Begg: Budgets are, in the mounted police, sometimes amorphous units.

We have dedicated funding, of course. I, myself, have met with the federal czar on fentanyl in Canada. We have forged some relationships which are new because of the increased emphasis on fentanyl. The approximate number that you seek is about $8.75 million each year. That is dedicated through two groups, both involved in drug enforcement. They’ve been very successful, as you will know, by some of the latest precursor and fentanyl busts that have taken place in British Columbia.

All of this is done because we actually led the fight with the czar. It’s important that he, and he has, dedicated federal resources as well, so that there is an ongoing effort collaboratively to fight the fentanyl trade.

Elenore Sturko: With evidence that B.C. has become the fentanyl production and trafficking hub of Canada, what new provincial funding has been allocated for training for all front-line enforcement officers with respect to understanding the scope of gangs and cartels operating in the province?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Training has been extensive and ongoing as the result of some meetings that have been held federally with our counterparts. Most of the training by municipal departments is internal to them. There has been training on drug groups, organized criminal groups.

As well as the municipal agencies, the RCMP have conducted training here in this country and internationally through a group that has been formed. Importantly, it is ongoing, collaborative training from which we all learn from others who have been involved in this to a greater degree than we have, in some cases.

Elenore Sturko: I’m going to now read from page 8 of the alert. It contains a section that’s titled “Illicit Distribution of Synthetic Opioids.” I’ll read this quote, and then I’ll ask a couple of questions to the minister.

“Distribution networks are typically concentrated in large cities that are hubs for the production of fentanyl and importation of precursors, essential chemicals and finished fentanyl. Canadian sources have also assessed that domestic commercial shipping methods, like the freight trucking industry, may be exploited for transporting fentanyl and other synthetic opioids from production and importation hubs along established drug corridors. In particular, shipping, freight forwarding and logistic companies that conduct a large portion of their business in cash are potentially using this method knowingly to transport illicit synthetic opioids.”

My question to the minister is: what part of the 2025 budget, or what plans in terms of organization, are being made to support law enforcement units whose mandate includes vehicle interdiction, roadside screening of commercial vehicles and other inspections that would be particularly helpful in making interdictions in the shipping, freight forwarding and logistical companies?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Largely, this work is done by our federal partners, including the CBSA. There is a concentrated effort, as you may well know, at the Canadian-American border that pays particular attention to vehicular interdiction, including the transportation of shipping containers, that kind of thing, across the border.

This is something that started as a result of our association with our American counterparts that helped the police, first of all, become aware of it, and the Canada Border Services Agency has been one of the principal groups that we’ve worked with to help combat this.

Elenore Sturko: One of the interesting things about this document…. Just so you know, this is a public document; you don’t need to get the police to contact me. This really speaks to production and stuff that’s happening.

Sorry, I just note the minister’s smile. Thank you for your sense of humour.

It really speaks to some of the drug production that takes place inside the walls of our province or borders of our province once those precursors already are here, or perhaps even sourced domestically.

While I can appreciate, and I will ask more about ports and borders a little bit later on, the attention that’s being paid to those needs that we have, especially additional resources for the Canada Border Services Agency, RCMP, federal agencies, it’s interesting to note that within this report, it talks about things happening not necessarily at the external borders but province to province and inside the borders of B.C.

Noting that this is a trucking hub, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia in particular, there’s a lot going on there. Has any thought been given, whether it has taken place yet or not, to looking at helping support units that are not traditionally what you would think of? They’re not necessarily vehicle screenings at the border. They’re not necessarily container screenings — your commercial vehicle inspection units, your Lower Mainland traffic.

Looking at the information that we receive from these types of intelligence reports to really have a focus on trying to stop that or get at least investigational avenues as a result of looking at the freight industry and how it’s being used inside the borders of British Columbia….

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: You will recall the pipeline program, which is one of the methods that has been used in British Columbia for some time, particularly with interprovincial enforcement, interdiction of drugs. Some of our federal agencies are involved in that type of activity on an ongoing basis. It has, I understand, been enhanced because of the recent activity there. I don’t know to what extent, but I do know that it has been given new life in the past short while.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the minister.

I took the pipeline program. Very interesting training. But apart from training, it takes resources too.

We have so many containers. I think the statistic was something like less than 1 percent of the containers are able to, at this point, be physically checked, which makes, within our provincial walls, vehicle inspections and different types of vehicle interdiction priceless. So I would encourage that to be potentially another avenue for us to pursue these terrible drugs that are leaving our province and poisoning people within our province.

I’ll go on a little bit to the ports. More than four years ago, in 2023, the city of Delta commissioned a report by Peter German and Associates titled Policing Our Ports: A Report to the City of Delta. The report identified multiple port security vulnerabilities, including profound challenges within “national security and the inflow and outflow of illicit drugs” and contraband topping the list.

The security of provincial ports is a three-level, shared responsibility. To be effective, the province needs investments federally, provincially and at the municipal level. A federally led approach with proper provincial support will increase the ability to secure our ports and stop the flow of precursors, illicit drugs, guns and contraband.

One of the key takeaways of the city of Delta report on policing the ports was the need for funding for the integrated Waterfront Joint Forces Operation. The Waterfront Joint Forces Operation, or the WJFO, is an RCMP-led joint task force including senior Canada Border Services agents, intelligence officers and representatives from the Vancouver, New Westminster and Delta police departments.

My question to the minister is: knowing this government recognized that port security is a three-level responsibility, how much money in the 2025 budget will be allocated to support the WJFO and other units with a mandate to fight contraband trafficking at the ports?

Hon. Garry Begg: Trafficking at ports has been a recognized problem for some time. I myself met with the federal Solicitor General, who has conduct over this, and the czar. One of the issues that we talked about extensively was the activity at ports across Canada, but specifically at the Deltaport. There is a group of interested parties in law enforcement who have a working group looking at what is the best way to look at security at the port.

[5:55 p.m.]

You may be interested to know that there are some innovative ways of conducting surveillance at the ports, which involve some extensive use of X-rays rather than squads of people. But we’re alive to all possibilities because of this working group, which is federal, provincial and municipal.

It is something that the federal Solicitor General indicated was a priority to him. I made the same appeal to the federal czar. As we speak, there is an ongoing group of people who are interested in coming up with a solution that satisfies the need there.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the minister.

I remember when all the federal platforms came out during this last federal election cycle, looking at the various ideas for securing the ports in British Columbia, technology came up a lot. And it’s important, and there’s so much new stuff out there that it will be very helpful.

I am not sure if the minister agrees, but I suspect he might, that human-based intelligence is one of the most effective ways that we can find out about drug trafficking and about human trafficking — any kind of contraband; you name it. It’s boots on the ground. It’s people who have extensive experience in writing warrants — all kinds — wiretaps, gathering source information.

This is a crucial part, and it’s often the part that’s pretty expensive. It’s more than just a one-time purchase because we have the ongoing funding. But it is really at the heart and such an integral part of keeping our borders safe and keeping contraband out of Canada.

Knowing the province has communicated with the federal government, and the federal government has announced funding for ports and borders, can the minister provide an overview for us about what these new resources look like that could be allocated to British Columbia to increase security and address trafficking?

[Lorne Doerksonin the chair.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I have made successive entreaties to the federal minister responsible. He is very aware of my concern of the danger that is posed by Deltaport. He has committed, along with me, to finding a solution, an innovative solution, that will help stem the flow of drugs and contraband through the port.

He has not indicated how unique that will be, but I’m expecting that it will be unique to Deltaport that there are electronic and other methods that may be best applied there that will curb that problem. He has been cooperative. He was cooperative before the election. I’m sure he will continue to be as his party forms government.

The same could be applied to the drug czar who has, like you have, identified, through intelligence, Deltaport as being one of the prime areas on the west coast of North America that requires attention.

It’s a work-in-progress. I don’t know what the result will be, but I remain optimistic that it will be unique and will fit Deltaport.

[6:00 p.m.]

Elenore Sturko: Thank you so much to the minister for the response.

Multiple reports in here that I have been studying talk about the infiltration of organized criminals into ports, even into airports, with crystal meth trafficking to places like New Zealand where…. Just over the holidays, we had someone giftwrap a quarter of a million dollars worth of crystal meth to take overseas from Vancouver Airport. Infiltration by possible criminal organizations into places like airports and the ports is noted across multiple reports over the years.

Given that this is posing a risk, would the minister be supportive of requiring criminal record checks for all employees at Vancouver Port, at Deltaport, at the Port of Prince Rupert and other areas of high risk and concern for the province?

Hon. Garry Begg: There is ongoing work that is being done to increase the reliability and security of employees at the docks across Canada. That’s the word of the federal minister, who has a committee to look at the requirements for the levels of security for everyone at the airport.

It’s ongoing work. I wholeheartedly support it. I think they have to be secure. I think there has to be a measure in employment so that everyone has a level of security that is fit for an airport or a port.

Elenore Sturko: A recent Criminal Intelligence Service Canada report — again, a public report — said organized crime groups involved in manufacturing fentanyl mostly operate in British Columbia and Ontario. The number of synthetic drug super labs has been increasing in Canada and specifically in British Columbia. The Criminal Intelligence Service report also noted that the number of organized crime groups involved in manufacturing synthetic drugs doubled over the last year from 51 in 2023 to 99 groups in 2024.

Police in B.C. have been doing their very best, and indeed, they’ve made some very good seizures of guns, precursors and drugs. They’ve dismantled some of the biggest clandestine labs in the history of our province just within this last year.

Police unions and leaders tell me that they cannot keep pace without significant investment in human resources and operational budgets. This government has created new units and added responsibilities to provincial police lines, yet the authorized strength for the RCMP in B.C. hasn’t increased since 2012.

[6:05 p.m.]

The minister will indicate, likely, that in 2023 the province provided three years of funding to help fill vacancies in rural RCMP detachments and specialized units. However, none of the positions that were filled are net new positions — not an increase to the establishment that was created in 2012. Again, there hasn’t been any increase to the authorized strength since that time.

With a fentanyl crisis that has killed 50,000 Canadians since 2016 and an increase in gang and cartel activity in this province, why didn’t the province increase the authorized strength for the RCMP in the 2025 budget?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: You will recall, I’m sure, that we made an historic investment in the RCMP that brings our provincial strength up to 2,602 members, which is by agreement with the RCMP.

The staffing targets for the three-year investment are 256 regular members and 80 public service employees as of March 31, 2025. So 225 regular member positions, 88 percent, and 55 PSE positions, 69 percent, have been fully staffed.

The RCMP met its year 2 targets as of the end of quarter 4, March 31. It progresses as follows: RMs, 141 of that 132 regular member year 2 target, 10 percent; and PSEs, 20 of the 33 PSE Y2 target, 61 percent.

The year 3 targets are 68 regular members and 21 PSEs. That is the full complement as contracted with us for the province: 2,602 regular members.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the minister for the response. That is what I had mentioned. The funding that was announced — I believe it was 2023 — is to fill all the positions, but it doesn’t increase beyond what was already contracted. So that’s not net new; that’s just filling vacancies. Do I understand that correctly?

Minister nods; it’s true.

So despite the fact that year over year this government has added more responsibilities to police…. There’s a human trafficking unit that’s new. These are good things, to have new units. But that means, actually, robbing Peter to pay Paul, because it’s not that we brought in a whole bunch of new police from Depot or transferred them in from other divisions. It actually just takes from one unit to fill another, potentially leaving other units short.

We see an increased demand in some pretty complex law enforcement spaces that we have now. We spent an hour talking about police and mental health calls, speaking about the borders and the challenges that we have there and then, interprovincially, the need for interdictions with freight trafficking.

While I recognize that it’s important for the RCMP to have the full complement under their contract, I would like to see…. It’s disappointing — and I think, provincially, for those that rely upon these services, also disappointing — to see that we didn’t increase the establishment. It hasn’t increased for a long time, more than a decade.

It’s just that we ran short for so long, which is unfortunate. And even before the last eight years of this government…. Government had eight years to respond, but even before that, it was running below the 2,600 and some-odd officers.

With transnational criminal organizations — gangs, cartels — operating at an increased level, according to intelligence reports, does the 2025 budget increase funding to groups like the Organized Crime Agency of B.C.?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Historically, there has been an imbalance in the mounted police, particularly on the part of the federal government. We have in many cases corrected that with some associated units, for example, like the Organized Crime Agency of B.C., CFSEU-BC, where we have bolstered the establishment in those areas.

It is a neglect, I would say, on the part of the federal government to be more forthcoming. But we have accommodated that by bolstering other units, who have done remarkable work. With the shortage attached to it, it’s been nothing short of remarkable. The province is growing by leaps and bounds. Contractually, we’re meeting our obligations by the record investments that we’ve made, and that will continue.

Elenore Sturko: I can appreciate that there are shortfalls within what the federal investment has been in those particular areas that the minister mentioned. I’m still curious whether or not this year’s budget actually will boost, then, those supplementary units in recognition of the fact that we’re dealing with these significant challenges that, whether real or perceived, actually impacted another country’s perception of us, leading to tariffs.

Notwithstanding that some of the comments, I would say, made by a certain President, in my opinion, don’t necessarily add up to the level of retribution on our country…. But it did spur, I think, important conversations about gaps in security. Regardless of what another country’s pressure upon us is, the right thing to do is to protect our own citizens within British Columbia, within Canada, from the poisons that are being created abroad, but increasingly within the borders of our own province.

I would hope that maybe the minister might be able to comment upon this, about what type of conversation then…. If some of the funding going to organizations like OCABC were to supplement the provincial response because of inadequacy of the federal packages, are those conversations ongoing to have them, in kind, show us the money in British Columbia, increase the resources federally so that those risks that our citizens are currently facing can be decreased? If they have a federal mandate that they should be fulfilling now, then we’re spending provincial monies to supplement something that, rightly, the federal government should be funding.

[6:20 p.m.]

Last fall Surrey RCMP arrested a man in a major bust with ties to transnational organized crime groups connected to Mexican drug cartels. You might recall seeing that in the media and probably in a briefing note for the minister. In February, the federal government listed seven cartels as terrorist organizations.

Can the minister provide an overview of what new resources are allocated in this budget, or from the federal government in combination, to fight these terrorist organizations in our province?

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s important that we acknowledge that there has been a historic disagreement, as it were, between the federal government and the provincial government on the way funding for the RCMP has existed in this province. We have not been the beneficiary of good intentions from the federal government. It is something that has been and is an ongoing item of discussion with me and my federal counterparts.

It’s important. We do kick in, like you say. We do underfund or overfund specific agencies that provide an advantage to us from a policing point of view. Naming six or seven specific cartels that are at work here in Canada is something that the federal government has made us aware of, and we, too, share that knowledge with our provincial counterparts, including RCMP, CFSEU, OCA and all of the associated groups, so that we can still pay attention to those groups.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. One more question, and we’re going to take a quick dinner break.

Elenore Sturko: Okay, so you want one more question. I’m going to switch over to a little bit of organized crime now, but I wanted to talk a little bit to the minister in the context of illicit cigarettes, illicit vapes and other products — cannabis products. Likely, the minister has also had outreach from a variety of groups that have been in contact because of the illicit cigarettes.

One of the issues with them…. I think, from time to time, there’s a hesitancy to talk about the tobacco industry and to talk about cannabis and stuff, because people — politicians, anyway — don’t want to seem like they are promoting cigarette smoking or promoting cannabis use or promoting any of these things. But the reality is that illicit cigarettes is one of the ways in which organized crime groups fund themselves. It’s an extremely lucrative endeavour.

One of the organizations that came to speak to me about this, and likely to the minister as well, talked about how in a couple of other provinces, they’ve actually introduced legislation and new projects to help combat illicit tobacco. In Alberta, they dedicated new funding in their provincial budget in 2025 to attack contraband tobacco. They made several commitments. In Quebec, as well, they have brought in some new programming.

[6:25 p.m.]

It’s not only about taking funds away from gangs. I spoke about this, actually, when I was talking to Bill 5, the tax implementation bill, because we are a province that is in debt, that does not currently have enough money to operate without going into the red.

These are stolen revenues that we could be collecting, not only from illicit tobacco, but also there’s a significant issue with the cannabis market. There are multiple factors, including some of them in the way that fees and taxes are collected, where people who are involved in that industry, for example, are leaving the legal cannabis industry because they can’t make enough money. When they leave, it becomes supplanted with the illicit trade, or people, likewise, continue to use illicit sources, which puts money into the hands of criminals.

It’s stolen revenue for this province that we could be using to fight crime, to fund health care, schools, roads — you name it. That’s good money that this province should be collecting.

Can the minister please speak a little bit, first, about what is happening in the 2025 budget? Overall, what are the government’s plans to tackle the illicit cigarette problem in British Columbia?

Hon. Garry Begg: We have an active group of investigators in both files, in the illegal marijuana grow ops and the cigarette distribution here in British Columbia, largely from Ontario and certainly from outside the province. I think the member is correct. It is stolen revenue that does not do anything for our government.

It’s expensive to combat, but we have been very successful, particularly in the Okanagan, with the illicit tobacco products. I think, in one case, we seized almost $10 million worth of illegal cigarette products. We do have a concern, and I know the police are addressing that as they can.

The Chair: With that, at the request of members in the chamber today, we’re going to have a quick recess. We had some challenges with this dinner break last week, so tonight we’re going to call it 15 minutes. Hopefully, we don’t have to make it shorter in future.

We’re going to stand at recess for 15 minutes for a quick dinner break.

The committee recessed from 6:28 p.m. to 6:48 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’re going to call the chamber back to order. Thank you very much for your attention.

We are, of course, considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We are now taking questions from the member for Surrey-Panorama.

Bryan Tepper: I am going to delve into the Surrey police issues that we’ve got going on. If we’re prepared for that, I’m going to go right into the questions.

In December of 2022, a report by the Surrey police service stated: “Work is well underway and nearing completion for SPS to become the police of jurisdiction for the city of Surrey.” They estimated that SPS would be for the summer of 2023. As we know, it ended up on November 29, 2024. In September, we had about 50 percent of the required SPS police officers.

My question to the minister…. Back when I was first looking at this in 2019, it seemed like it would take about 12 years to staff SPS, with no retirements. Are we on a faster schedule than that?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Thank you to the speaker opposite.

This was an event of unprecedented proportions in Canada, this switch to a municipal police agency from the RCMP. To say it was historic is a bit of an understatement. There were, all along the way, many problems on both sides. The RCMP was reluctant at times, as was the Surrey police service.

The important date to remember is the 29th, which was when they became POJ and actually started to build their police department, which, by the way, is receiving unprecedented interest across the country. There are no recruiting problems now, and my expectation is that as they move forward, it will become even better.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for that answer.

I guess I will put together probably three questions into one right here. How many police officers have been hired by SPS since September? Which would mean…. I don’t actually have the number from September, but 50 percent was the reported figure, so if we know that…. And then how much attrition have we had during that time as well?

Hon. Garry Begg: As of January 24, 2025, the SPS has hired 485 sworn officers. Policing in Surrey is also supported by over 450 civilian support staff. I do not have the rate of attrition of those numbers, but I can make them available to you if I have some time.

[6:55 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: If we could get the answer for how many we had in September as well, I’ll leave that.

According to the city of Surrey, the SPS currently polices two of the five districts in Surrey. Can we provide a timeline on how long it will be until SPS polices all of Surrey?

Hon. Garry Begg: You are correct. SPS currently provides front-line and investigative policing in districts 1 and 3, with the RCMP police service temporary assistance supporting in districts 2, 4 and 5. The RCMP also provides a few identified citywide policing functions.

[7:00 p.m.]

Prior to any SPS mobilization and RCMP demobilization, there is a clear sequence of seps that is required to take place. The sequence includes…. As per the plan, the SPS will hire and gather all the resources required for the planned area of responsibility takeover. The SPS and the board, as and when appropriate, will demonstrate to the director of police services that the SPS has met all requirements to take over that function or geographic responsibility.

Once the director is satisfied, he makes a recommendation to the minister. The minister sends a letter to the RCMP CO to reduce the RCMP temporary assistance. The minister may also send a letter to the federal government to reduce the authorized strength of the PPS based on the RCMP’s demobilization plan. Per the PPSA, the RCMP must decrease members as soon as is practicable, but within one year. There will be overlap of resources in the interim of the SPS takeover process versus RCMP transfer processes.

Bryan Tepper: I guess, I understand there’s a little bit of a mess that got dropped in here with everything going on with the change in government and whatnot. One thing I will say is the province has put up $250 million for the transition, which, as a citizen of Surrey, I greatly appreciate, and as MLA of my district there, is also welcome. I’m not sure for the province of B.C. that that’s great for everybody.

We still now have the RCMP policing those three districts. Who is responsible for paying the RCMP in Surrey?

Actually, if you do have that number, can we table the amount as well?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The city of Surrey is responsible for all policing costs, not just the costs of the SPS. At this time, the city’s police service, the SPS, is being augmented and supported by RCMP PPS to ensure that it has sufficient numbers as required by the Police Act. As such, the city is responsible for the cost of the RCMP temporary assistance and will pay these costs through the province to Canada.

A consideration for the city is that while the SPS may no longer require RCMP temporary assistance, there may be outstanding casework files, exhibits, etc., that require an RCMP member to oversee and to remain in Surrey for a period of time. The city will be responsible for recovering the costs of all remaining RCMP members.

The province is engaged with all parties to ensure that SPS mobilization and RCMP demobilization is done in a way that is efficient and minimizes over-resourcing.

Bryan Tepper: I’ve actually just got to back up a little bit to clarify on the last question with the timeline.

Has anybody projected a timeline, if there is one, or are we doing it as it comes about? Is there…? Well, I think I’ll leave it at that. Is there a timeline anybody has made?

Hon. Garry Begg: There has been a lot of discussion and even contention about a transition completion date. Through the course of B.C.’s negotiations with Canada, a target completion date and a term for the MOU was required. So November 29, 2026, is identified in the MOU as a target goal for transition completion and the end of the need for temporary assistance.

Bryan Tepper: Actually, I believe you’ve probably answered this one, but Budget 2025 provides $104 million in additional funding over the plan for negotiated wage increases for the RCMP. How much, if any, of that went to funding of the RCMP in Surrey?

I think you’ve answered, but I’ll wait for this.

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: All of the RCMP members still stationed in Surrey because of the collective bargaining process will receive the bargained increase, and it will still be paid by the city of Surrey.

Bryan Tepper: According to public accounts ’23-24, Surrey police service was paid a little over $1.3 million by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. The Surrey Police Union received $853,000 from the government and this ministry.

As SPS progressively takes over more of Surrey’s policing duties, how will the funding arrangements change for what we’ve got going on there?

[7:15 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: All of the money remaining that is owed is the responsibility of the city of Surrey.

Bryan Tepper: I’m going to preface this by saying that I expect you’re going to say to get back with the numbers at some point, but if you do have an answer for this one, that would be fantastic as well.

In 2024, the SPS budget was estimated at $141½ million. In 2023, VPD spent $382.6 million. Can the minister please provide a breakdown of cost for the sworn Surrey police service members by rank, including constables, NCOs and COs, non-commissioned and commissioned officers? And if we can get that compared to VPD.

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s important that you understand that the monies required for the Surrey police service are provided by the Surrey police board. I can’t speak for that, so I will not be able to provide those figures for you.

Bryan Tepper: Moving on, the previous Solicitor General said there were several critical components for the SPS to take over completely. Have the following been completed, including the First Nations policing agreements?

As we know, SEMYOME First Nation is an integral portion of the city of Surrey. Have all the First Nations policing agreements been finalized as part of the transition to SPS so we’re ensuring Indigenous communities in the area have been properly consulted?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The First Nations and Inuit policing program provides culturally appropriate and professionally enhanced policing services to participating First Nations in B.C. FNIPP is a federal program that is cost-shared by B.C. and Canada. Under FNIPP, there are two different streams of service: community tripartite agreements, established pursuant to the framework, and self-administered policing agreements, enabling the funding of an Indigenous police service.

In this case, the city of Surrey, the Surrey police service and the Surrey police board are working collaboratively on an agreement that has not yet been signed, but they’re very close to completing that.

Bryan Tepper: There are more reports several First Nations have indicated that they were not adequately consulted on Surrey’s police transition. What step has the ministry taken to consult those First Nations communities after those concerns were raised? What is the current status of that consultation?

I think you’ve just answered, but what steps have you taken?

Hon. Garry Begg: The SEMYOME First Nation has been working with the Surrey police service, as have several urban Indigenous communities here in the city of Surrey. That negotiation is cooperative and moving forward.

Bryan Tepper: I will ask, then, if we have the feedback, how are we incorporating that feedback? Are we addressing any of the suggestions from the First Nations regarding future policing not only in the community within Surrey but also throughout Surrey? Are there any changes planned in response to First Nations input?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: The SEMYOME First Nation has been working throughout the process with the Surrey police service. It is the expectation of the ministry that the other groups, the urban Aboriginal population represented in Surrey, will work with the board to ensure that their needs are met as well.

Bryan Tepper: In order to take over completely, obviously, the Surrey police service is required to have all the critical assets, such as patrol vehicles, firearms, other tools, uniforms, the investigative tools, including IT, department policy and procedures and then files and exhibits. Have those been put into place?

Hon. Garry Begg: SPS became POJ on November 29, 2024, with the RCMP PPS providing temporary transitional assistance to the SPS until it could operate as a stand-alone police agency. The operational mode for November 29, 2024, was determined between the two police agencies in alignment with the city of Surrey’s continuity of policing objectives and outlined in the day 1 resourcing plan, which delineated policing functions, services and/or geographic responsibilities of the SPS and SPOSU.

As the SPS mobilizes, the SPS will take over each district, geography or function from SPOSU at a cadence determined between the police agencies, and the RCMP will demobilize. Prior to each takeover, similar to the POJ assessment, the SPS and the Surrey police board, as appropriate, are required to continue to demonstrate to the director that the SPS has obtained all resources, equipment and infrastructure necessary to assume the policing function or geography.

[7:30 p.m.]

The SPS will submit policies, data and other materials to PSB staff for assessment, which will inform the director.

Bryan Tepper: One thing I would be interested in, to follow up on that, are the files and exhibits — more the exhibits than the files — and how we’re handling those, what’s going on.

I will add to that, because you just mentioned it, and having gone through that and the acronyms, there’s nothing we like more than acronyms and statistics as well. If they are measuring how things are going, do we have a benchmark of success on how they’ve done, moving on from the RCMP, or is that planned in the future, and would that be available at some point?

Hon. Garry Begg: Overall, the Surrey police board, of course, is responsible for the conduct of the police agency as it moves forward. My expectation, and the expectation of the ministry, is that that will be a constant process.

You asked for benchmarks. I’m sure that there will be established benchmarks set up by the Surrey police board as they move forward.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, moving on to more staffing, not only of Surrey but the other municipal departments. The province has announced we’re going from 192 to 288 new members trained per year. The problem I’m hearing about this is that we don’t have the staff at the 192 level. Where are we going to be able to find the staff for the extra 96 people?

Hon. Garry Begg: I have met with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and queried the exact same thing that you did, which is about their capacity.

[7:35 p.m.]

They’re absolutely confident that they have everybody they need to move the program forward. If they encounter any difficulties, it will not be with teaching personnel at the JI. It will be with space that’s available there.

Bryan Tepper: This will be my last question for now before I hand over to my friend from Skeena–Bulkley Valley. My next question was: do we have any capital money going for the Justice Institute?

Hon. Garry Begg: As we move forward, funding will be made available to ensure the delivery of services that have been promised.

Claire Rattée: Thanks to my colleagues for giving me a bit of their time. I have a few questions for the minister. A few of these are ones that I’ve asked of other ministers and been directed to speak with him.

My first few are going to be around the B.C. Coroners Service. I’m wondering how long the current average turnaround time is for a toxicology and full coroner’s report in a suspected OD death is.

Hon. Garry Begg: There will be a slight delay, Chair, please, if I grab the coroner’s office to come in.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

Claire Rattée: If it helps, I have some other questions while we’re waiting for that person.

I’m wondering what portion of the ministry’s budget right now is allocated to mental-health-and-addictions-related interventions by police and how that success is measured.

Hon. Garry Begg: To get back to your first question, I’m informed by the pathologist that the first what they call screen is available within 48 hours, the screening of the testing, and then the formal is within eight to ten weeks after that. But the first screening is available within 48 hours.

Claire Rattée: I’m also wondering why the B.C. Coroners Service changed its terminology and excluded prescription poisoning deaths from public overdose data.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: A very technical answer for you from a non-technical person: prescription deaths are no longer used unless they can definitively say that the prescription led to the death. The prescription was present. After that, if they are not able to do that and further toxicology is required, that’s when they change the manner of death.

Claire Rattée: In that case, I’m wondering if there is any direct correlation between the fact that this government decided to roll out the safer supply program or prescribed alternatives and all of a sudden that was removed as a designation, because the timing seems a little odd.

Hon. Garry Begg: I’m advised that there is no correlation at all between the two.

Claire Rattée: In that case, if I’m understanding the response correctly about the difficulty in assessing whether or not prescription drugs played a part, I’m wondering if the government will implement a tracking mechanism for prescribed opioids to assess misuse or diversion, for example, making them chemically distinguishable?

Hon. Garry Begg: This may be more relevant to what you’re asking.

Statistically, 80 percent of all drug overdoses have fentanyl on board. Less than 3 percent have hydromorphone on board.

Claire Rattée: So without mechanisms in place to track the so-called safer supply drugs, how can the coroner confirm that they didn’t cause an opioid death regardless of fentanyl being found in the system or not? It would stand to reason that since frequently an overdose death involves multiple drugs, how can we confirm that that wasn’t a contributing factor or that that person hadn’t been accessing safer supply?

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I’m advised that using mass spectroscopy, it’s very difficult to tell in these kinds of death what the definitive cause of death was. It could be a combination. Most people have more than one drug in their system. Most overdose deaths have more than one in their system. But again, 80 or 90 percent of the time it is, according to the doctor, fentanyl that resulted in the death by fentanyl.

Claire Rattée: It would stand to reason, then, that my assumption is correct that there could still be safer supply in the person’s system. It may not have been what killed them, but we have no way to definitively track it, which again is why I’m saying making them chemically distinguishable may be something worth looking into if we’re going to continue down this path.

I’m wondering if the government is tracking whether or not fatal overdose victims were enrolled in the safer supply program.

Hon. Garry Begg: The pathologist advises that it would be almost impossible to definitively determine that.

Claire Rattée: I’m guessing a few of these questions are going to be irrelevant if we are not tracking that data, which is what I assumed. I apologize.

Can the minister explain what the Coroners Service means when excluding deaths with no illicit substances or those deemed intentional self-harm?

Hon. Garry Begg: The pathologist advises it’s impossible in that circumstance — in other words, if it had been an intentional death caused by or as a result of an overdose.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering. Are safer supply drugs considered illicit under those definitions?

Hon. Garry Begg: The pathologist advises that there is no such thing as safe supply. That’s the term that they do not use. Obviously, they refer to it as prescribed supply.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that qualification, because that is what it was originally labelled by this government. I appreciate qualifying that. It sounds like we maybe have a few more things in common than we might have thought based on some of the responses today.

This one should be pretty simple, then. I would just like to hear it specifically. What I’m hearing is that we have no way for the government to know whether or not someone has died from safer supply when they lack all of this data. There is no definitive way to say whether someone has or has not died in British Columbia from prescribed alternatives.

Hon. Garry Begg: The pathologist tells me that 50 persons a year, a static number, die with a prescribed opiate in their system. The number is constant, and it’s difficult, if not impossible, to determine how that drug came into that person’s system.

[7:50 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: I appreciate the explanation on that for sure. Again, I’ll just plug why I mentioned maybe making them chemically distinguishable. It may be valuable to figure out if there is any correlation between the two.

Switching topics a little bit, I’m curious if the ministry can provide me with how many mental health and substance use crisis response teams are currently funded in northern communities.

Hon. Garry Begg: Chair, can I switch back momentarily to a question that was asked earlier by the member for Surrey-Panorama?

The Chair: You bet.

Hon. Garry Begg: You had a question about the number of SPS members, the attrition rate. So 58 total resignations prior to November 29, 2024. And since November 29, ’24, there have been five resignations.

The Chair: I will recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, but I believe you’re still working on an answer for Skeena.

Elenore Sturko: Maybe the chief coroner could come back, because I’m going to actually ask a couple of follow-ups, so is the member for Surrey-Panorama, about the Coroners Service.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We have already requested that.

Hon. Garry Begg: To get back to the member for Skeena, I am advised that there is only one microteam, and it is in Prince Rupert. They are not up and running at this point. They don’t have current statistics.

Claire Rattée: Given what’s going on in northern communities right now, specifically the communities that I represent, with increased rates of crime, mental health and addictions issues, I am curious if the ministry has any plan to expand that, because I know that is something that is significantly needed in my riding and many of the ridings in the North.

Prince Rupert is quite a few hours away from me, so I would be curious to hear what the plan is. I hope there is one to ensure that that’s rolled out as swiftly as possible.

Hon. Garry Begg: This, as you know, perhaps, is a program that’s funded through the Northern Health district, and they would make the decisions about placement of personnel or locations.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the minister for the answers. It’s nice to see the Coroners Service here. Thank you so much. Welcome back. Thanks for coming back into the room.

[7:55 p.m.]

I just want to do some follow-up on some of the questions by the member for Skeena. One of our interests here, obviously, is helping press the government to find solutions for the diversion of safe supply. Six people a day, on average, still lose their lives to drugs in the province, another problem that we can all agree in this House that we want to resolve.

I was wondering if the minister would be able to provide some information about the types of investigations that are being undertaken with regard to suspected drug toxicology deaths, drug overdoses.

So a person has drugs in their system. Are there subsequent investigational steps that are taken with regard to checking out the person’s medical history to determine whether they are enrolled in any prescribed alternative programs or any other programs, for example, with respect to treatment or social programs?

I read a very interesting article about the new chief coroner talking about wanting to shed more light on deaths in B.C. and with new ideas, hopefully, to help resolve some of the issues with overdose deaths. I’m just wondering if there are some investigational steps that can be spoken to that might show how some data could potentially be collected from someone who’s overdosed, with regard to programming in various ministries that they are attending, to be used in evaluations of those services.

Hon. Garry Begg: I’m advised by the pathologist that they do retroactively look back, as you mentioned, and collect and collate information that may be relative to the medical condition of the decedent and what types of activities, treatment programs, other things that may have been involved in his or her lifestyle.

They aggregate that information, but it’s relatively confidential. It’s done for the purpose of making sure that the information that they have is consistent, that it’s not a one-off. There is sort of biographical information collected.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you so much, Minister, for the answer.

Is the information, then, that’s collected and collated by the B.C. Coroners Service with regard to, let’s say, a person who has died of an overdose, with what types of programming that they’ve participated in…? Is that then communicated, respecting confidentiality? Is that type of information communicated to, for example, the Health Ministry or social services?

Likewise, has an assessment been done of individuals who, for example, have died of a fentanyl overdose? Is it being checked as to whether or not these individuals were participants in prescribed alternative programs at the time of their death?

Hon. Garry Begg: That is oftentimes something that will come up at what is called a death review panel, which, again, is after the death of an individual under suspicious circumstances. It allows that information to be shared within that group for that purpose.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Member.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you very much. Welcome back to the seat there, Madam Chair.

Is there any currently available data on the last years since the end of 2020, the commencement of the safe supply program? How many individuals involved in that program have died of subsequent overdose?

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Again, the pathologist advises that approximately 50 people a year in British Columbia die of a fentanyl overdose, prescribed fentanyl, but that number has been static. There has been no change in that number.

Elenore Sturko: I’m not asking whether they died of their safe supply. The question, I would wonder, is how many people who were involved in a prescribed alternatives program, whether they took fentanyl patches or Dilaudid, regardless of the drug…? If they died of fentanyl, they didn’t die of their prescription. How many people were involved in these types of programs, the prescribed alternatives program, and they did not die of their prescription? How many of them died of drug overdoses?

Hon. Garry Begg: That information is not available, but they are working on collecting that information in the future.

Elenore Sturko: Since the program has been running…. It’s an experimental program that even our chief medical officer in her latest report said has insufficient evidence to be called evidence-based treatment.

Why would we not be collecting information regarding whether or not people who are in this program have subsequently died, not of the prescriptions from the program, but their deaths were not, therefore, prevented by the program and they died subsequently? Why would we not be collecting information on an experimental program?

Hon. Garry Begg: We are collecting that information as we speak. It is not available yet, but, on an ongoing basis, that information is now being collected.

Elenore Sturko: Not available yet till you make sure it’s not damning.

British Columbia has the lowest autopsy rate in our entire country. I think about 19 percent of deaths receive autopsies. Does the minister believe that this is an appropriate number for autopsies, or is this viewed as a low number?

Hon. Garry Begg: So 14,000 British Columbians die during the year. And then 6,800 of that number require some further investigation by the Coroners Service, and 2,300 of that 6,800 require a full post-mortem autopsy.

Elenore Sturko: And so, Minister, does that raise us above being still the lowest autopsy rate in the country, or does that somehow change…?

[8:05 p.m.]

We had in the past adopted a policy, a default of toxicology-only testing when there’s a presumed overdose. And we’ve seen reported in the media multiple cases where, after the fact, there are questions that are raised or concerns that things might be missed, potentially homicides even.

So has the B.C. Coroners Service moved on from this policy of toxicology only, and what if anything is being done then to mitigate the risk of missing things, for example, like homicides, when there is the presence of drug paraphernalia?

Hon. Garry Begg: The pathologist advises that there is expedited…. There are a number of factors, of course, in any sudden death. Statistically, most deaths in British Columbia are signed off by a family doctor. In other words, they die in hospital or in care, and there is no further investigation required. Statistically, he says, the homicide that you speak of is more likely to occur in that situation, when no autopsy is done on the cadaver.

With the expedited toxicology that is done, particularly in cases involving overdose deaths, he’s very confident that 48-hour rule that I spoke about before is very accurate. The rise in the number of uninvestigated deaths is probably due to the number of overdose deaths that are currently happening in this province.

Elenore Sturko: One of the examples that I spoke about with the previous Solicitor General was the lack of autopsy for Kamilah Sword. I still have permission to speak about her, through her family. She and her friends had taken what they believed to be diverted drugs. This young woman died when she was just 15. She had cocaine and MDMA and hydromorphone in her blood at the time of death.

The toxicology numbers — I read them into the record last year — were so incredibly low that the numbers didn’t even indicate that that would normally kill a person, according to the levels that were in her.

They also excluded hydromorphone and said: “Yeah, she had a multi-substance overdose, but it definitely wasn’t the hydromorphone. Everything else killed her, but not the hydromorphone.” Then again, the levels were so low that she wasn’t given an autopsy, even though it was a kid and the level of drugs in her system was relatively low.

How can any parent in this province, under those similar circumstances with a young kid…? If they don’t get an autopsy, how can we be sure that there was no congenital defect, that there was no other reason for the arrhythmia that ended up causing her to die? How do we have that absolute confidence without autopsies, particularly in situations like that, that we aren’t missing something else?

[8:10 p.m.]

Now this is a parent who will live forever believing that his daughter died of a drug overdose. Potentially she didn’t. And that’s an awful thing, because kids in B.C. are supposed to receive autopsies.

What is being done to prevent similar circumstances like this? In every circumstance now where there’s suspected drug use, are we just not doing autopsies anymore?

Hon. Garry Begg: The pathologist advises that any stimulant onboard can be the death of a person. Any stimulant drug can cause an arrhythmia and cause death.

He says, as well, that he is very confident in the system that is in place in British Columbia to safeguard against undetected causes of death at autopsy. There is a series of steps that they go through, which has been enhanced since he has been in the position, to try and lessen the possibility of an accidental diagnosis of death.

Elenore Sturko: The minister mentioned there are steps that are taken at autopsy to ensure that there are no missed genetic factors or congenital defects. If a person does not receive an autopsy, though, how are we ruling those out? What is the procedure for ruling that out, in the absence of autopsy?

Hon. Garry Begg: The pathologist is confident in the system that they now have. For example, you speak of a congenital death or death caused as a result of a congenital condition that may not be known at the time. The pathologist service checks with cardiac surgeons or the appropriate other medical people to eliminate. And if there is a possibility based upon the information that they present, then an autopsy will be conducted on that person.

Elenore Sturko: I just have a question too about the…. The member from Skeena made me think about this. Several years ago, when we talked about overdoses, it was like the overdose report. And then the name changed to the drug toxicity deaths. And then the name changed again to the unregulated drug deaths.

When I think about this, I’m like: “You know, the opposite of unregulated drug deaths is regulated drugs.” It must be because there’s a push to legalize drugs, because the opposite of dying of unregulated drugs, of course, would be to legalize drugs.

This is maybe a little feeling from some other government policies that have come and gone about the normalization, the push towards legalization of drugs. I just would like to know for what purpose…. Perhaps, was it to normalize and socialize these ideas in the minds of the public?

[8:15 p.m.]

Why would we change it from overdoses to this entire long, multiple iterations of naming this report to become the Unregulated Drug Deaths report? Why would we have changed the name?

Hon. Garry Begg: I’m advised by the pathologist that they work in science and medicine, and oftentimes there are changes in terminology adopted worldwide that do not change the actual cause of death but become more reflective of what has happened in the scientific medical community. That’s why, in this case, this change was made. It’s more reflective of the internationally recognized cause of death.

Elenore Sturko: Do all other jurisdictions note these as unregulated drug deaths then?

Hon. Garry Begg: He’s not in a position to answer for other jurisdictions, but internationally, he says, that is what has occurred.

Elenore Sturko: What types of improvements to the B.C. Coroners Service or enhancements of services can be expected for the B.C. Coroners Service through the 2025 budget?

Hon. Garry Begg: The coroner pathologist indicates that he has a series of changes that he wishes to make during his term as the pathologist. He is pleased with some of the processes that are already in place but recognizes the need for modernization in that regard.

The early identification of bad drugs, on the market…. They’re working with the BCCDC to ensure that that happens earlier. The toxicological testing that is required has become faster, so that they can identify drugs quickly and improve the outcomes. They’re also on a program to recruit more pathologists. For example, Prince George is one of the areas that does not have a pathologist available.

His is, he says, a program of constant improvement of the program.

Bryan Tepper: I have just a few questions. A lot of them have been answered.

Not to waste any time, the ministry plans to spend $31.4 million on the B.C. Coroners Service. Do you know how much of that is going to salaries and benefits compared to service delivery?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I’m advised that about 70 percent of the total budget of the Coroners Service is on service delivery, like salaries and staff, and the remainder is largely spent on body transport and storage.

Bryan Tepper: I’m just curious about the FTEs the BCCS is employing. Ideally, if we could break it down over the past ten years, the FTEs, or if we have it now, a previous year, or if we have ten years ago till today. So what we have for FTEs.

Hon. Garry Begg: The number of coroners in British Columbia in 2023-2024 was 139. In 2024-2025, it is 122.

Bryan Tepper: I just want to confirm. That’s FTEs completely, everybody in the BCCS or just coroners? Since we’re doing that, what is the average caseload per FTE?

Hon. Garry Begg: The work done by a coroner, which is called the caseload, varies from geographic area to geographic area. Some are slightly, because of the area they live in, busier than others, but it averages out across the province, apparently.

Bryan Tepper: Sorry, I don’t know if you said a number or not in there. I just didn’t hear the very end of it.

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Sorry. The number varies from geographic area to geographic area, but it averages out across the province to a relatively static number.

Bryan Tepper: Do we have that number?

Hon. Garry Begg: A full-time coroner in British Columbia will conduct an average of 200 to 250 investigations a year. Front-line coroners, meaning coroners in small, more remote places throughout the province, could have as low as ten in a year.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for that answer.

Actually, I will pop back to the last one. If you could provide, in the future, the breakdown of the numbers of FTEs for the past ten years? I’m not going to ask for that now. If you can provide it later on.

I will ask, going back to the previous questions we had: when can we expect the report from the overdose deaths from the prescribed program?

Hon. Garry Begg: Within the next month to two months.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. This will be my last one. I will pass it over.

I believe the mandated investigation time is looking for a median time of nine months, which would be a reduction of one month over last year. We do seem to be down in numbers on the coroners. How are we going to be able to achieve that with the increase? I believe there’s an increase in reports, as well as the reduction in coroners.

Hon. Garry Begg: The coroner advises that it’s always a challenge to keep staff on board, usually part-time staff, throughout the province, but he has undertaken a campaign to ensure that they are available and more widely available.

The number of deaths has gone down slightly in the province, and the expectation is that that will continue into the near future.

Rosalyn Bird: I just wanted to revisit something that you had said to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

You’ve indicated that the issue with the toxic drug crisis warrants a pathologist in the Prince George area. Have you made a recommendation and/or had a discussion with Northern Health to ensure that we actually get the proper drug-testing equipment up there to further your information and your investigations?

Hon. Garry Begg: First of all, all of the drug testing is done centrally, not in Prince George. They are now working with the Northern Health service to recruit a pathologist for Prince George, as we speak.

Rosalyn Bird: No. I understand that. You have no intentions of actually getting that specialized equipment up to the Prince George area? You are going to continue testing centrally?

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: I am advised that the testing is done in Prince George within two days, which is sufficient for their purposes, which is not to say that they’ve abandoned the idea of eventually having testing done in Prince George. It’s irrelevant, he says, the point at which it’s done, but that it is done quickly is important. He will continue to look at the possibility of having it done there, as well as in Victoria.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask to leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:31 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and reports progress on the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Zero-Emission Vehicles
Repeal Act
(continued)

The Speaker: Members, earlier today, during private members’ time, a division was requested on second reading of Bill M211, intituled Zero-Emission Vehicles Repeal Act.

Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the deferred division will take place now.

[8:35 p.m. - 8:40 p.m.]

The question before the House is second reading of Bill M211, intituled Zero-Emission Vehicles Repeal Act.

[8:45 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman	McCall	Kealy
Armstrong		Brodie
NAYS — 47
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Valeriote		Botterell

George Anderson: Section C reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8:48 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

On Vote 46: ministry operations, $220,818,000 (continued).

Donegal Wilson: We ended last week on wildlife. This week I’m going to start on lands.

I don’t know if you need to bring some staff in, but my first question is specifically around permitting.

We did some pulling of numbers specifically around water permits, so now I’m wondering around land tenures. If we can get an idea of the number of tenure applications that are currently in the queue, as well as land leases.

Hon. Randene Neill: As of February 2025, we had 1,778 land tenure applications in the queue. That would include land lease applications as well.

[3:10 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: To get a better understanding of the volume, approximately how many land tenure applications did we receive last year, and how many did we process?

Hon. Randene Neill: Unfortunately, we don’t have that at our fingertips.

What I would suggest is that we’re going to check with staff now, and we will get you the number of how many applications were received and processed last year and give it to you before the end of the day so that it’s on the record.

Donegal Wilson: If we could also maybe know, or maybe it’s part of the same question, our average time to process an application for land lease tenures and tenures and what the oldest application is in the tenure. How long are these applications sitting in the queue?

Hon. Randene Neill: As of February 2025, it took an average of 378 days to process an application. The oldest application in the queue, we don’t know, but once again we’ll get you that information today and let you know what it is so we can put it in the record.

Donegal Wilson: Under our permitting modernization, do we have permits that we are still processing on paper, or is everything digital now? And if we do have some on paper, can we list out which ones are?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I’m going to go back and answer a prior question first: how many land tenure applications did we receive and process last year? We received, in 2025, 793 applications, and we processed 612 in 2025.

For the question you just asked about our permitting modernization, every land application that comes, comes in digital format — a fillable PDF. All of our applications are digitized. However, we do accept all paper applications still at FrontCounter B.C. locations. Some folks still prefer to write out applications in paper. But through our permitting reform, we are going to slowly go towards more and more modernization.

Donegal Wilson: As part of the permitting modernization, for all applications that now come through FrontCounter B.C., are applicants given an application number and a way to track those applications over the life cycle?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Going back to another, older question first, you asked what the oldest application in the queue is for land tenure applications. It is a Crown grant application. Basically, that’s a request to purchase Crown land in the west coast region. It is dated May 2016.

For your last question: are people given an application number and a way to track it? Everyone who fills out an application initially immediately gets a file number. How we track it is similar to what we do with water licences. So if we say it is an estimated 12 months to get it approved or get an answer, we provide an update as we get close to that 12 months to say that we’re on track to process this within 12 months, or it’s going to be an extra three to four months, etc.

As part of the permitting modernization process, we are going to a tracking system similar to tracking a FedEx package. You can go online and check to see where it is along the process, so you’ll know when it will be approved or not. That is part of the permitting modernization process that we’re going through.

Donegal Wilson: The queue that we were talking about earlier for the land tenures — is that new, or does it include renewing tenures as well?

Hon. Randene Neill: It includes both new and renewals.

Donegal Wilson: From my previous hat, I know that a lot of the recreation groups that have tenures, specifically where their emergency shelters are located, were told that there was not staff to process applications for renewals, and some of them were over three years expired.

Obviously, I’ve been out for about six months. I’m just wondering if that has improved in the recent six months or whether we still have a large backlog of recreation tenures that have not been renewed.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Before I give you the answer, I do want to correct something that you asked, because I seem to be giving you two answers for every question. When you asked initially if that number, 1,778 land applications, was for new or renewals, I said they were both earlier. They’re actually just new. We will get you the combined number, hopefully, after your next question.

Recreation tenures. There continues to be a backlog for these rec permits. We’re absolutely looking at addressing this as part of the modernization we’re doing with the permitting. We know it’s a huge issue and an important issue.

We’ve spoken to the recreation coalition about it, and they said that they need expedited permitting to help support their business certainty. That’s something that’s a priority for us. We’re working on it.

Donegal Wilson: I think the coalition you’re referring to is the Adventure Tourism Coalition, and that’s specifically around adventure tourism. But there’s the other side of the land leases, which are non-profit recreation groups that have emergency shelters. Just to clarify on that.

I’m going to switch over to the Elk Valley cumulative effects while we wait for that answer. Specifically, I’m wondering if you could tell me how much funding we have allocated this fiscal year to the Elk Valley cumulative effects project, as well as how much we’ve spent to date.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Okay, we will start with the updated land tenure applications. The total number in queue is 5,143. Of those, 1,778 are new, as we said earlier. The renewals in queue right now are 3,365.

For the Elk Valley cumulative effects, so far to date since 2019, we have given $3.5 million to the Ktunaxa stewardship forum. In fiscal last year, we gave $750,000.

Donegal Wilson: That specifically speaks to what was given to the Ktunaxa. I believe that we have staff and contractors also working on the cumulative effects management framework, or do they all work for Ktunaxa?

Hon. Randene Neill: You are correct, Member. We do have additional staff and contractors who are also working on cumulative effects in the Elk Valley. If you’re looking for a budget for that, we can get you one — not today, because it’s bits and pieces of multiple different jobs that people do.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you very much. Yeah, I would appreciate getting the details around what the total budget on that particular project is. Also — maybe it comes at the same time — what the indicators are of our success.

We know it’s more than $3.5 million at this point. How are we measuring whether we’re being successful in that project and that we’re getting good value for our money?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We look at the values as part of the Ktunaxa stewardship forum, and we work together to come up with objectives and targets to manage for cumulative effects via the restoration and conservation initiatives incorporated into the statutory decisions in the Elk Valley.

Objectives and targets represent the desired condition for six value components. The value components for the Elk Valley have been identified as the grizzly bear, westslope cutthroat trout, high-elevation grasslands, bighorn sheep, aquatic ecosystems and old and mature forests. Managing for those cumulative effects through the decision-making, restoration and conservation strategies will be key to advancing the continued responsible mining in the Elk Valley.

I think that I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Elk Valley Resources is a mining company working in the Elk Valley, using the latest technology to minimize the impacts. For example, the work that they’ve done on getting rid of the selenium in the water is fairly extraordinary. They still have a bit of a way to go, but they’ve created a technology that is nowhere else in the world.

It’s those types of things — working together with the nations and with the industry to manage those cumulative impacts with objectives and values to work towards restoring.

Donegal Wilson: I think one of the challenges with that particular project is that while the cumulative effects have been over many, many years, the decisions coming around restrictions are coming very, very fast, and there’s a bunch of projects moving at one time, which I’ll bring up next.

One of them is the Kootenay pass project, where you’re looking at…. I don’t know whether that falls under your cumulative effects management framework project or whether it is a separate line item, but I’d like to know what we’re spending overall on the Kootenay pass project.

Hon. Randene Neill: We don’t have a dollar value for you, but we will get it after you ask your next question. We can continue to skip along at a fairly brisk pace.

[3:40 p.m.]

Just to highlight what the Kootenay pass project is, it’s part of the inclusive engagement in the Kootenays that includes a survey on back-country access, seeking a wide range of perspectives, and the southern Rocky Mountain passes planning project, bringing together a wide variety of interest groups to collaboratively seek solutions to access management. We’ve been working on this with the Ktunaxa.

I do just want to say that bringing everybody’s voice to the table here is incredibly important — bringing the recreation, back-country guide-outfitters, the public, weekend hikers that just like to go out with their dogs. Everybody’s voice needs to come to the table here in order for us to be able to come up with the planning and policies that are going to work to help restore our wildlife and biodiversity there, while encouraging people to fall in love with nature and the beautiful area in Kootenay.

Donegal Wilson: Just to loop back, that research project that you did the survey…. That’s part of the Kootenay pass project? I was under the impression that it was separate research.

Hon. Randene Neill: You’re correct. That is separate.

Donegal Wilson: So 30 by 30 land protection. I am wondering what percentage of B.C.’s land base is currently protected and how much we added in the last year.

Hon. Randene Neill: As of last year…. I had some numbers in my head, and I can’t believe I was wrong, so I’ll go off the paper. As of 2023, B.C. conserved 18.5 million hectares, 19.7 percent of the land. This is 15.6 percent in protected areas and 4.1 percent in other protected areas.

In the last year, we have protected another 0.2 percent, so that brings us to 19.9 percent protected. The two areas that we’ve protected this year were…. Last summer, on Clayoquot Sound, we protected that for good, instead of the deferrals, and Klin-Se-Za as well.

[3:45 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I think it’s challenging, because that also wasn’t the number that I had and is not the number that I see regularly published by ENGOs and other groups.

My question, then, is: can you define what “protected” means and what land designations it includes, both under protected and, I guess, other?

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, to clarify — and I think it’s a great question, so thank you for asking it — there is a bit of discrepancy depending on whom you ask.

So 15.8 percent of the province is protected as a park or a conservancy. That could be a provincial park, a federal park or a conservancy and is the highest order of protection in an area, so you can’t go in and reverse it or anything like that.

The 4.1 percent is called “other effective area-based conservation measures.” These can be considered a Government Actions Regulation, like GAR orders, so we can protect them — for example, a wildlife habitat or an old-growth management area. Some community watersheds are classified as that, but other things aren’t classified. Winter ungulate ranges are not classified as an OECM.

That’s kind of where the confusion reigns, and some ENGOs want these 4.1 percent areas to be a park or conservancy. Those are discussions that we’re having right now. It’s important, I think, that we are counting it, though, because these are areas, as of right now, that are protected and will remain protected — that 4.1 percent.

Donegal Wilson: If GAR orders are included in the 4.1 percent…. If we put a GAR order on a particular area for one species, we’re including that as protected for the purpose of 30 by 30? I just want to make sure I got that right.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Another excellent question.

Not all GAR orders meet OECM. Part of what OECMs have to meet are high international standards, which include legal protections that need to be in place for the long term for a defined area, so not a defined species but a defined area. Because that area is legally protected for the long term, we do include it as part of B.C.’s 30 by 30 number.

There are also some GAR orders that don’t fit into the OECMs because they allow, for example, mineral tenures or forest harvesting, that sort of thing. So we do not include those in our 30 by 30 count.

Donegal Wilson: I have a lot of questions about that, so I will defer to a separate briefing to learn more about GAR orders and how that’s working because I think there are a bunch of intricacies in there that I clearly don’t understand.

Looking at the announcement in, I think it was, 2022, we were supposed to be at 25 percent by 2025. We’re obviously down to six months, seven months, best case. Do you anticipate that you’re going to reach that goal by the end of 2025, 25 percent?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Going back to your mountain-passes question, the budget for the mountain passes was for a facilitator, which was $30,000. Also, for the back-country survey, the budget was for $20,000.

To answer your last question, 25 by 25…. The government never committed to protecting 25 percent of B.C.’s lands and waters by 2025. We committed to 30 by 30. The B.C. Parks Foundation committed to 25x25, where I used to work prior to working for government. That was a big commitment from them. This provincial government never committed to 25 by 25, but it did commit to 30 by 30, and we will reach it.

Donegal Wilson: I’m sorry. I had looked it up on the government news website, specifically the tripartite agreement, which did say 25 by 25. So if that wasn’t a commitment by the government…. That’s what it says on your news website. I’ll leave that for you to figure out.

Having said that, then, is there a public…?

The Chair: Member. Member, I just remind you that questions are through the Chair.

Donegal Wilson: Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, then, is there a public dashboard available of what has been protected to date, what we intend to protect and/or is proposed or pending going into our goal of 30 percent by 2030?

Hon. Randene Neill: I don’t know if I’m going to answer your last comment, but you made a really good point, so I wanted to try. As part of the tripartite framework agreement for nature conservation, Canada committed to 25 by 25, but we as a province didn’t, which does also strike me as confusing. But there you go.

[4:00 p.m.]

Is there a public dashboard about what is protected? We do have a website as part of our land use planning process to determine new areas for protection. For example, on the Sunshine Coast right now, in the swiya of the shíshálh Nation, there’s a land use planning process underway. Once land is identified for conservation and formally protected, it will appear on our website that shows what’s protected around B.C. The website is planninginpartnership.ca.

Donegal Wilson: Does that mean that the IPCAs, Indigenous protected and conservation areas, are included in our goal for the 30 percent?

Hon. Randene Neill: IPCAs, Indigenous protected and conserved areas, are generally three things:

(1) They’re Indigenous-led.

(2) They represent a long-term commitment to conservation.

(3) They provide opportunities to reconnect with the land and heal both the land and Indigenous peoples.

The province views IPCA proposals as a positive indicator that a nation has developed a land use plan for their territory. So they’re a really valuable starting point for us to begin land use plans in areas.

Part of the land use plan means that we talk to the First Nation. We talk to businesses. We talk to industry. We talk to the public. We talk to anybody who lives in that area who is affected by coming up with a land use plan for their area.

Once IPCAs form part of the land use plan and are formally protected, then we would count that towards the 30 by 30 designation. Several IPCAs are included in the 30 by 30, but certainly not all of them.

Donegal Wilson: What is the formal process, then, for determining which of the 60 self-declared IPCAs are actually moving forward?

[4:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I’d just like to…. Normally, I would ask leave of the Chair, but I’m the Chair today.

I’d just like to note that I have two friends in the gallery who’ve chosen to come partake in the most important part of this parliamentary procedure, which is estimates with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Kana and Alex, thanks for being here.

Hon. Randene Neill: Welcome. This is the most exciting estimates, probably, that you’ll see, so I’m so glad that you chose this one.

Thank you again, Member, for the question. It’s a really good one.

The first thing that helps form the decision of when government is going to look at an IPCA and decide whether to work with the community at large, business and industry to turn it into a land use plan is typically in areas where there are perhaps tensions, or a high drought area where there’s an increased sensitivity or urgency to be able to find land use planning for a specific area.

An example of an IPCA that did turn into a protected piece of land was the Gwa’ni with the ʼNa̱mg̱is Nation. They were really concerned about forestry and logging in their area, and there was a sense of urgency.

The first thing that this ministry must do is go to cabinet and seek a mandate to be able to start working on a land use plan for a specific area. Only if cabinet approves, then this ministry will start working with the nation, with industry, with forest companies. That was the case with the Gwa’ni. We worked with the community, the nation, the forestry company, industry in the area, decided which areas were important to them to protect, which areas were important to them to continue logging or open up to industry or open up to economic activity.

What we find with these land use plans is that we can do both, right? We can say that these are the values that are really high, so we’re going to protect this area. These are the values where we really want to build industry and build business and build sustainable jobs, so we’re going to make sure that this area, through land use planning, unlocks that potential. That creates real predictability and stability for businesses, for the nations and for the community as well. Things are set for them through land use planning. I’ll stop there.

Donegal Wilson: Under what legislative or regulatory frameworks will the IPCAs be managed, and who will hold that final decision-making authority over land use, access and enforcement?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: There is currently no IPCA legislation in B.C., and we have no plans at this point to create any new legislation about IPCAs. How IPCAs potentially become a park or a conservancy is through an inclusive and transparent land use planning process.

Once again, if a nation comes and says, “This is a self-declared Indigenous protected and conserved area,” and there’s an urgency about working with them to protect that area as well as the larger, land use planning territory, we have to go to cabinet and seek a mandate.

If cabinet approves, then we start working with the nation, with the public in the area, with industry in the area, with small businesses and with farmers, and we say: “What are your priorities? Where do you want to see what on the land?” Through a really, really comprehensive process that takes years, that original IPCA could either be turned into a park or a conservancy.

We have spoken to a lot of nations that wish that we could come up with a potentially new designation, because sometimes they feel that a park or a conservancy doesn’t really fit what they’re trying to do, depending on the values of what they are trying to protect and restore. As part of all of that, a huge, important piece is public access to these either IPCAs or what becomes a park or a conservancy. That is a huge part of it and is included in the inclusive and transparent land use planning process.

Donegal Wilson: While I understand the notion of what we are trying to do, I feel like we’re not hitting the mark on the transparency piece. Specifically, many communities feel left out of the process. There are a lot of government-to-government discussions that happen and agreements that go quite far before the public is even aware it’s happening.

In my own community, I know that there have been elements of racism on their IPCA, because people don’t understand what they’re trying to do or what they’re trying to create. That uncertainty, going forward, is creating fear and mistrust. That is not what I want for my community or any community in B.C.

[4:15 p.m.]

I would encourage the minister to think about how we create some framework around how these IPCAs are created and how they will be managed. If it includes creating a new type of park or conservancy, we need to be mindful and be able to adapt. We also need to be clear and transparent about how it’s happening. I believe the public want to be involved, and I feel like right now that piece is missing.

I deliver that message without a question. At the same time, it’s something that’s near and dear to my heart, and I hope that we can work together to make it successful.

On the last question on the 30 by 30, the minister clearly stated that the 25 by 25 wasn’t their goal, but 30 by 30 is. How confident is the minister that we will reach 30 percent by 2030?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question. I will just leave it with a short answer, but we can definitely go into a longer answer with a further briefing if you want.

We are very confident that we are going to get to 30 by 30. The deputy minister will not retire, and she wants to, until we get to 30 by 30.

Interjection.

Hon. Randene Neill: It’s true. So there you go.

Donegal Wilson: I feel sorry for the deputy minister. I would like to say that I hope it happens as well, but at the pace we’re going and the uncertainty in our economy, I feel that is definitely a challenge. We’ll leave it at that. I hope that she’s successful.

Thank you, Minister, today, as well as your staff, for your time and allowing me to participate in estimates, my first time in estimates. I think we had some good conversations. I appreciate the opportunity to ask those questions and to engage in the oversight of the ministry.

As I knew, I ran out of time on a lot of questions. I’m hoping that the minister will allow me to submit the remainder of my questions in writing, and I respectfully request that those be answered in writing.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jordan Kealy: I’ve definitely got a bunch of questions.

In my region, we’ve definitely been affected by park protections when it comes to land use restrictions, the interactions of DRIPA and the questions that people have, especially when it comes to, as was previously brought up, the disclosure of how it’s going to roll out.

When it comes to disclosure of how you roll out this process of 30 percent and the communication with First Nations, from what I’ve seen, this is done through a consensus folder with the First Nations but is not public in any way.

I was wondering if the minister would like to address if there is budget information in these consensus folders that is relevant to the public.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I understand your question to be: is there budget information in the consensus folder? We’re not clear what you mean by “consensus folder.” Do you potentially mean “consensus document,” and which specific area are you referring to?

Jordan Kealy: I’m referring to how each of the 204 First Nations have a consensus folder that contains information that’s agreed upon through the DRIPA act and that would have pertaining information when it comes to certain plans, especially when it’s the concept of what parks might be ideal with certain First Nations.

I’m just wondering if the budget information isn’t public, necessarily, when it comes to dealing with those First Nations and what’s in that folder — if it’s something that is confidential or not.

Hon. Randene Neill: When it comes to any sort of negotiations or agreements with First Nations, this falls under the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, so you would have to direct that question to them.

Jordan Kealy: Okay, thank you. I will move on to my next item.

The 2025-2026 budget allocates over $22.6 million to water, fisheries and coast division. Can the minister identify exactly which studies and which line items are funding the science used to justify groundwater restrictions for farmers, particularly in regions like the Salmon River, Bessette Creek or the Peace region?

[4:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Just a reminder to all members to have your electronic devices turned off or silenced. Thank you.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

There are many, many ways that we study groundwater, aquifer and surface water.

One is the provincial groundwater observation network, which helps us inform and understand watersheds. We do aquifer mapping. I know some local governments and municipalities actually take that action on their own because it’s really important to them to understand where their water is coming from and how much there is.

[4:30 p.m.]

The interaction between groundwater and surface water and hydrological studies also determines the actions needed to be taken on the ground, especially in drought-prone regions, particularly in the areas that you mentioned: Bessette Creek, Salmon River and the Peace region.

In terms of the percentage of the amount that you asked, we don’t have that off the top of our notebooks here, but we can find out what that is and get back to you.

Jordan Kealy: Is the ministry currently funding new hydrological research in these areas, or are the decisions being made using outdated or incomplete data?

Hon. Randene Neill: As a ministry, we do look at updating aquifer mapping and hydrological studies as needed. We prioritize areas based on risk — risk of drought, for example.

An example of this on the Salmon River was last summer. This ministry did work with farmers along the Salmon River to talk about the values. We held drought decoding workshops. We worked with local government. We asked for input. What we found was that the outcomes were a lot better after we had spoken to the farmers, worked with them, talked about the water values, the surface and groundwater values. It feels like education and communication are also a big part of it.

[4:35 p.m.]

We do update the info that we get. We share it with local governments. As well, from the permitting transformation side, we collect data continuously from wells, from streams, from snowpacks. Also, we ask applicants who put in existing or renewal groundwater applications to help us undertake studies so we can monitor and keep track of the water.

Jordan Kealy: That actually leads right into my next question. Will the minister table the technical evidence funded by this budget that proves agricultural wells are materially impacting fish-bearing creeks? Where would that information be found, especially when it comes to the groundwater mapping?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Your question to table the evidence that the wells are having an impact on fish…. It wouldn’t be feasible to table evidence that suggests that, because every aquifer is like a fingerprint. It’s very, very different, and it’s very, very site-specific.

It’s not a one-size-fits-all answer in there, but when we find that there is evidence, we absolutely make that evidence available. We have a website. It is called droughtportal.gov.bc.ca, and it maps everything in terms of preparing and responding to drought. It has an interactive map. It shows groundwater-level data in different areas so that communities can prepare, etc. I hope that answers your question.

Just before I finish, Chair, I’m wondering if we can ask for a quick five-minute recess.

The Chair: At this time, the committee has a five-minute recess. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:46 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I now call the committee back together. We are looking at the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Jordan Kealy: Minister, with the $44.9 million committed to permitting transformation, what portion of this spending is delivering transparency in water allocation, specifically a public registry of who is allowed to keep drawing water during level 4 drought restrictions?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question, Member.

The question you answered is what percentage of the permitting goes towards, I guess, trying to figure out who’s using water during drought conditions. The permitting transformation department doesn’t work with drought. It doesn’t address drought. Permitting transformation basically works with expediting permitting in all the things that you need, basically, a permit for in B.C. — water licences, housing, all of those things.

In terms of level 4 drought restrictions, if somebody has applied for and receives a water licence, regardless of what stage of drought we’re in, that water licence user is allowed to use water. This is where public education and communication really comes in.

If we’re facing a severe drought, even if you have a water licence, the appropriate thing to do is to not use as much water as you would normally use. That’s where we really need to continue working with folks to make them understand that in times of drought and in long-term times of drought, we need to change our relationship with how we use water.

Again, that website that I talked about earlier, droughtportal.gov.bc.ca, does measure levels of water, surface and groundwater. That helps us give an idea of where we’re at, at any given time in the province.

Jordan Kealy: Minister, critics have rightly pointed out that the government has still not completed the regional groundwater studies promised under the Water Sustainability Act.

In this year’s budget, $30.1 million is allocated to natural resource information and digital services. What portion of this is actually going towards finishing these long-overdue hydrological assessments, primarily when you base off drought conditions? Using, for example, my region, that has been faced with drought for the past two years, when do you determine when the data is out of date and needs to be revised?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question.

In 2016, when the Water Sustainability Act was formed…. The regional groundwater study is actually not just one study. It’s a continuous series of studies that will always be ongoing to give us an idea of what groundwater looks like in the province.

Hydrological data doesn’t necessarily get out of date. We look at water levels and stream levels every year — snowpack levels, historical data — and we can create a forecast.

[5:00 p.m.]

The river forecast centre, which falls under this ministry, WLRS, is an absolutely incredible resource that was created to try to forecast water in our province, whether it’s drought or freshet season in the spring flooding season. They do an incredibly good job at that.

As well, when drought response actually was put onto this ministry, Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, in 2023, when it was formed, our first act was to really engage with users to build confidence in all of the data, to make sure we’re reaching out to people to let them know that we needed to work together in all of the studies and the science we collect and all of the forecasting we do.

It’s only when we’re working together and all on the same page that we are able to accurately do our best to conserve water when necessary in times of drought, or redirect water during the spring in times of flooding. Working together is key, and continually monitoring and updating is also a big part of what we do.

Jordan Kealy: Just for clarification from the minister, when it comes to groundwater mapping, has a baseline been established across the whole province yet?

Hon. Randene Neill: The short answer to your question is no. We don’t have a baseline for groundwater in B.C. I think, alluding to an earlier question that you asked, all of the different parts of B.C. are different.

There are aquifers in B.C. that we haven’t even tapped yet, and different areas have different water priorities. What we do is prioritize those areas that have the greatest draw on them or the greatest access to that water. We prioritize those to manage and look at water usage baselines to ensure that we don’t run out of water.

[5:05 p.m.]

Jordan Kealy: Alluding to that draw and usage, I find it interesting that the province is pursuing a 30-30 goal of 30 percent reduction when right now we’re in the situation where — Team Canada, Team B.C. — we need to start using our infrastructure.

If we start decreasing our natural resources by 30 percent, primarily when we’re affecting natural resources that provide a revenue stream, how is it that throughout the budget, when prioritizing the water management and land management, you actually achieve doing this 30 percent reduction but still having a forestry sector that has the timber rights that it needs or the water for farmers?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question.

I do just want to clarify what 30 by 30 is. It doesn’t mean a reduction in our natural resources. It doesn’t mean a reduction in our water usage. So 30 by 30 means that we are committed to protecting 30 percent of B.C.’s land and water — to conserve, to protect it.

Science has shown us that in times of climate change, protecting 30 percent of our ecosystem is the bare minimum amount that we need to protect to just preserve the biodiversity that is in our province right now. If we don’t protect at least 30 percent of our land and water, we’re going to start losing wildlife, birds, insects, bats, all those things that keep us healthy and thriving. So that’s what 30 by 30 is.

I really do want to make it clear that through our transparent and inclusive land use planning process with nations and with communities and with farmers and with industry, we decide which areas the communities and the farmers want to protect, what areas the farmers and the First Nations want to turn into a watershed to make sure that they have a sustainable and secure water source for decades and decades to come.

We talk to the industry and recreational back-country users to say: “Okay, this area is a forestry area, a timber supply area. This area we’re going to open up to mineral claims and staking and mining. This area we’re going to conserve. This area is going to be a watershed area.”

It’s not a government coming in and imposing and saying what is going to go where. This is the community deciding at a ground level what’s important to them. It’s getting them around the table.

I will say the government has been criticized in the past because it doesn’t seem inclusive, and some people don’t feel like they have had a voice at the table. It’s why I decided to run for government, because it’s important to me that we bring everybody’s voice into this conversation. I’m guessing that’s maybe why you ran too.

The more different voices we have at the table, the stronger the solution we’re going to come up with, because it means we’ve looked at every angle and considered every possibility.

[5:10 p.m.]

That’s what we mean when we talk about land use planning. We do it together, and we do it from a very local level, where farmers and the community and the public and back-country users and industry and nations decide what’s valuable and important to them. Then they do their best to create those land use plans to protect it.

Jordan Kealy: It’s good to hear you say that because I love hearing transparency, going forward. Primarily in my region, when it came to the caribou and some other projects, parkland being established, especially where there were timber sales that could have potentially come from those regions, there was no consultation with the taxpayer.

One of the reasons that I live in my region, though I love it up there, is that you get to embrace nature, the outdoors, being able to go and do things. As that starts to become more limited or restricted, without that consultation done in place first, then that creates a lot of issues.

In all honesty, it’s created a lot of division and racism, so I highly urge, going forward, that we can really embrace that inclusivity and communication between the government and the First Nations, as well as the locals that are living there. I really believe that there has to be that balance.

I’ve got one more question, then. I think it’ll be my last one.

Given the millions budgeted for water, fisheries and coast, approximately $22.6 million net, can you identify the specific line items funding the scientific assessments used to justify recent groundwater restrictions on farmers?

If the science exists, it should be funded and traceable. If it doesn’t, why is this ministry making major economic decisions without financially backing it in the form of proper hydrological research, especially if we see taps getting turned off for farmers when they need it most?

Right now, if we want to have of our own infrastructure system and Buy B.C., we need to start prioritizing where we put our food supply and how we balance that with water sources and environmental concerns.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your final question.

I just want to put on the record here that the government recognizes and does prioritize food security. Similar to your point before, you know, the Buy B.C. campaign, we need food security. We need food sustainability here in this province.

Just this week, in a couple days, actually, I’m meeting with the Premier’s task force on agriculture and food security, and the entire first session is all about water. It’s a priority for this government and will continue absolutely to be a priority for the government.

Last year, because of a better weather system, we got lucky, but there were still areas of drought throughout the province. We did not issue a single temporary protection order, meaning we did not have to turn off the taps anywhere. Much of that was due to the fact that we did so much engagement in areas that are facing drought. That helps so much. Talking to people, letting them understand what they can do and what their options are in times of drought. Using the water they absolutely need to use, not just the water they want to use, goes a long, long way.

What we’re learning and what we’re continuing to do and will always continue to do is when we do get hydrological data, we work with locals on their land and get their information, their expertise and their data. Together we can make good decisions on the land base in terms of water.

Jordan Kealy: I just wanted to say thank you to the minister for the time and the answers. I’m done for now.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the member for Peace River North for juggling schedules and allowing me to fit this in.

I’m glad to be in this room. I went to the main chamber to start with, where we would have been at opposite ends, so this is much, much better.

I’ll just get started. My colleague, Saanich North and the Islands, has a couple of riding-specific questions that I will leave to him when he gets here, but I’ll start with the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework.

In 2023, the ministry released a draft of this framework, and has yet to complete and release the finalized copy to the public. This final framework was set to be released in 2024, but was delayed until 2025. There doesn’t seem to be any specific mention of it in the service plan or mandate letter.

Can the minister provide a status update on the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, please, and could we expect to receive it completed and finalized this year?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for your question, and welcome to the small room. It’s nicer, I agree.

The biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, which is part of the old-growth strategic review and is a public commitment, really is, I think, the second recommendation from the old-growth strategic review and really talks about that paradigm shift that we have to create, valuing our earth worth more whole than extracted from.

When we started working on the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, we received over 7,000 responses. People are deeply engaged in this and have deep feelings about this as well. While we confirm the approach to advance the finalization of the framework, we will continue to work towards the protection and conservation of high-priority habitats and ecosystems and improve stewardship outcomes that will help to break down historic barriers to success.

There are still some folks who maybe don’t see themselves….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Carry on, please.

Hon. Randene Neill: Okay, perfect. Thank you.

We’re absolutely still committed to it. We are still working on it. We’re still talking to different sectors and groups. I think what we have learned truly is that for a strategy and a framework to be successful, people have to feel felt and heard and feel like they have a voice at the table, and that is what we are still working on and working towards.

Jeremy Valeriote: This might be a similar answer, but specifically on forest landscape plans, since you mentioned the old-growth strategic review…. It seems that the new forest landscape plans so far are not bound by that biodiversity and ecosystem health priority. Among their listed objectives, the first is to “support the production and supply of timber.”

How does the ministry reconcile this gap and ensure that ecosystem health remains or becomes a priority?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I don’t want to answer anything in terms of forest landscape plans, because that is not our mandate — that’s the Ministry of Forests’ mandate — but I do want to say a couple of things about what we do with the Ministry of Forests. We do collaborate extremely closely with their ministry under the old-growth action plan to build biodiversity values and landscape resilience.

The biodiversity and ecosystem health framework — again, the prioritization there is that paradigm shift. That is what we are absolutely committed to doing, creating that paradigm shift. That is going to take a bit more time.

Jeremy Valeriote: The B.C. government is responsible for special management of over 34 million hectares of habitat for at-risk species, yet not all of this area is considered critical habitat, and some does not meet the requirements for legal federal protection. As a result, some of this specially managed habitat allows for commercial logging.

Would the minister please explain the purpose of special management of habitat for at-risk species and why there is not a better system for ensuring at-risk species are not threatened by industrial activities like commercial logging?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Under the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, we are going to move towards managing by ecosystems and not by species. That is what we’re moving to.

[5:30 p.m.]

We also have a variety of tools to protect habitat, and one of those tools is special management areas. Those special management areas have a range of restraints on industrial activity, for example. It means that there may be some areas that we can do some industrial activity on, but they are still protecting that species or that species at risk. Those special management areas are different than how we designate, for example, parks and protected areas.

Again, as we said under the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, we are going to move to a place and a system where we start managing by ecosystems and not by specific species.

Jeremy Valeriote: We’ll move on to 30 by 30.

The tripartite fframework agreement on nnature conservation was signed in November of 2023. It came after years of negotiation between federal, provincial government and First Nations leadership. This long-awaited agreement lays out commitments to address threats to species early on by identifying and protecting critical habitat to prevent crisis-level population decline.

However, the agreement itself isn’t legally binding, unless I’m incorrect. Laws and regulations that hold B.C. accountable for the commitments outlined in the agreement are essential to protect the health of our natural environment, yet the actual measures have yet to be implemented.

Can the minister provide an update on implementing the tripartite framework aagreement on nature cconservation?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

I do want to acknowledge, first of all, that this tripartite agreement was absolutely historic when we did sign it in 2023. It’s the first of its kind, and many other jurisdictions around the world are now starting to emulate what we’ve created with the G-to-G-to-G agreement.

You are correct. It is not legally binding. At any time, any of the partners can pull out of it. But when the now Prime Minister was campaigning in Victoria less than a month ago, he remade his commitment to 30 by 30. So I think we feel quite confident that we will continue in this process.

[5:35 p.m.]

We are held to account every year. We publish an update. It’s on our website this past March, and it outlines the work we’ve taken up so far. The first year we really did establish what the process would be with our partners, but we will continue to update our progress every March.

Jeremy Valeriote: On the 30 by 30 commitment, this year’s service plan…. The ministry forecast 20 percent of land protected this year. Subsequent-year forecasts are to be determined.

Can the minister provide a status update on 30 by 30? Does the minister foresee the province reaching this goal based on the current projections?

Hon. Randene Neill: The short answer is yes, we are going to reach 30 by 2030.

Currently we have 19.9 percent of B.C.’s lands and waters protected. That was an increase of 0.2 percent last year, when we announced the protection of Clayoquot Sound and Klin-Se-Za.

The numbers from previous years are TBD because, through land use planning, we are creating areas that will be either conserved or protected or turned into a park. Those are areas that we have to work through with all of the stakeholders, including First Nations and farmers and industry and folks who live in the area and people who recreate in the back country. It’s through that process that we determine which areas we’re going to protect.

So 19.9 percent protected. We have ten million more hectares to protect, which will bring us up to 30 percent by 2030. My DM is not retiring until we get there, and she’s definitely retiring soon, so we’re going to get there.

Jeremy Valeriote: I just want to ask about OECMs in this calculation, other effective conservation measures. It’s obviously important that protection efforts be expansive and also effective. OECMs are included, as far as I understand, in the calculations, despite B.C. not meeting the international or Canadian standards for OECM accounting outlined in the Canadian decision support tool.

For 30 by 30, it’s crucial that these protections are strong. Can the minister explain how OECMs account towards 30 by 30 when, according to the federal government standards, they do not count?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: OECMs, other effective conservation measures, are one of two internationally recognized categories of land use that can count towards 30 percent conservation. The federal government, certainly, is counting it towards 30 percent conservation. They are protected areas that are geographically defined and that are specifically established to provide biodiversity conservation. They are geographically defined areas that are not specifically established to provide conservation but are managed such that conservation is achieved.

They were first recognized by the convention on biological diversity back in 2010. They were formally defined by the Conference of the Parties to the convention on biological diversity in 2018 as well.

If we do want to break it down, B.C. right now has 15.6 percent as protected areas — that is, park or conservancy or federal park. We have 4.1 percent of lands and waters as OECM, other effective conservation measures.

We are also working at looking at other ways to designate, but currently that’s the breakdown, and we do include it in our 30 by 30.

Jeremy Valeriote: In the current year service plan, the ministry outlines its focus on advancing and modernizing land use planning for sustainable natural resource development through partnership with First Nations and engagement with community, industry and local governments.

How does the ministry plan to prioritize and integrate climate change considerations into land use planning projects and ensure that “positive economic benefits of conservation efforts” do not compromise effective climate policy?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

The short answer is that climate change, yes, is absolutely 100 percent a consideration of all of our land use planning. In fact, cabinet has set the fight against climate change as one of several criteria to get a mandate to complete a land use plan. It’s one of the criteria for even kick-starting a land use plan in an area.

It could be argued that land use planning is one of the best ways to help fight climate change because protecting nature is one of the best defences against climate change: creating areas or zones where areas will be protected. That could even not necessarily be areas of high biodiversity value, but it could be areas for First Nations of high cultural value. And that brings health and well-being, knowing that those areas are safe.

We look at the socio-economic impact, one of the key elements, as well, of whether or not a land use plan proceeds. All of those things are taken into account. I think land use planning helps communities fight climate change better because they can help to create values and agree on what their priorities are in certain areas. Climate change may not always be a top priority in every land use plan, but it is certainly a top consideration.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister for that.

Similar line, but I’m asking about long-term land use objectives and direction of stewardship that the ministry plans to advance. Specifically, what does the ministry foresee “predictability for economic activities” looking like in relation to overall land use planning?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Land use planning has multiple objectives. It outlines what can take place where on a landscape. That includes, for example, what type of development, what type of recreation, what type of industry, what type of back-country use. Once you predict what can happen where on a landscape, permitting speeds up.

The Premier says this all the time: it’s a false choice to say it’s either about the environment or about the economy. It’s about both. When we can place value on what we can do where and it’s agreed to by the entire community in an area, then it creates predictability and certainty for people, and it helps — another one of what my ministry is responsible for — the transformation and expediting of permitting.

Rob Botterell: I have three questions. The first question relates to docks in the southern Gulf Islands. I’ll provide a bit of background, and then I’ll go to the question.

On August 25, 2021, approximately 3½ years ago, shortly after a moratorium on docks in the southern Gulf Islands had been implemented, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, which at the time was responsible for permitting, contacted a company that deals with docks in the southern Gulf Islands.

For points of clarification, I’ll point out: “The prohibition does not affect any applications that have already been submitted, and we will continue to work on the 15 high-priority files, as well as the remainder of the applications that you’ve submitted.” At that time, there were over 80 applications, some of which had been submitted since 2017, that this email suggested would be processed — yes or no.

Then last year in estimates, Minister Nathan Cullen was asked a few questions about….

The Chair: Member, if I can just remind you…. Oh, it’s a former member. All right, I stand corrected. Thank you so much.

Rob Botterell: A former member asked questions about the issue, and there was quite an extensive discussion about getting on and dealing with these dock applications, some of which were, at that stage, seven years waiting to see if their dock would be approved or not.

Then here we are in 2025, and there are a few developments, and there has certainly been an effort by the ministry to deal with this. But still, there has been no meeting with the 800 waterfront owners who formed an organization, Southern Gulf Islanders for Collaborative Partnerships and Reconciliation. There has been a meeting with a representative but not the whole group. Consultation on the applications and how to deal with future applications has not really gotten underway.

The former MLA mentioned to me just the other day that there has not been any consultation yet with the W̱SÁNEĆ Nations. And here we are. We’re coming up to August of this year, when the moratorium was due to come off, and there are over 80 applications that aren’t processed where the commitment was made that they’d be processed — yes or no, consultation, the whole nine yards.

Then there’s the whole issue of dock management, generally, in the southern Gulf. The last thing landowners and First Nations in the riding want is to have a Pender Harbour situation arise.

[5:55 p.m.]

The ministry has been very good about: “Yeah, we realize there’s an issue.” But on the ground, as of today, there are some very frustrated landowners and some very frustrated First Nations.

My question to the minister is: how does the ministry see getting this addressed, both the backlog of over 80 applications and renewals and, more generally, the dock management plan for the southern Gulf Islands?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for your question.

We’ll give you the latest numbers that we have: 89 applications for renewals, 76 applications for new docks, five applications for boat access docks.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’ve actioned all of these applications out for referral with the other agencies that we need to send them to, including Environment Canada, DFO and one other, Transport Canada. All but 25 of those applications have been responded to, but we are sending, to the nations for consultation, the ones that have been responded to. That’s the latest update for you.

We are also collaborating with the Quw’utsun Nation to conduct an assessment of the cumulative impacts of private moorage in the southern Gulf Islands, including ecological, archaeological, economic and cultural values. The geographic scope of the study aligns the boundaries of the current Land Act prohibition on new private moorage application and includes the southern Gulf Islands and some of the southeast Vancouver Island as well.

As part of the study, a desktop assessment will be completed to determine the location and size of private moorage that have been built in the study area, and the results from this study will be published this fall.

Rob Botterell: A follow-up question for the minister, twofold.

That means that the moratorium will be extended again. It’s in the form of a question: does that mean the moratorium will be extended once again?

Then the second question: at what point will the senior public servant responsible for this work actually meet with the landowners to discuss and invite their participation in this process?

I’m very concerned, as the MLA for this riding, that without that happening, there’s a very real risk as to the acquiescence or support or patience. Landowners, some who have been waiting a long, long time on both fronts — what’s the future policy going to be, and so on? — will feel that they’re not directly involved in the process.

So my second question is: at what point will the waterfront owners in this organization, Southern Gulf Islanders for Collaborative Partnerships and Reconciliation, be fully briefed?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the follow-up question. I think that this issue is near and dear to both of our hearts, and I absolutely understand the frustration and the length of time it’s taken.

Coming from Pender Harbour and seeing what happened was the reason I decided to run in this election, because it divided our nation in such an unnecessary way that it’s important that we get this right.

A couple points for you. We have made no determination yet on the moratorium at all. But I have asked my staff to reach out to speak to the dock owners. We need to reach out and, obviously, speak with the nations as well. So we will be doing that. I wish I could give you a date right now, but I can’t.

I do promise you we can continue to talk about this. We can keep the pressure on to move this forward in a way that does not increase the frustrations any more than they are right now.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister, for the helpful answer.

Obviously, just filling that void with a meeting will be enormously helpful, I think, in creating the additional time needed to work through this in a collaborative way.

My second-to-last question involves another issue on Mayne Island, which is fallow deer. Mayne Island has been struggling with the fallow deer problem, as you know probably better than most, since the 1990s, and it was ultimately a B.C. permit that resulted in the introduction of fallow deer. Somebody — we’ll never know who — opened up the fences, and now there are fallow deer all over the island. I make light of it, but it’s a huge problem in terms of the impact it’s had on the ecosystems.

I wondered if the minister could provide us with an update on progress since last year and what steps are underway this year.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We actually could not find that specific briefing note, which is why this took us a little bit longer.

Urban deer are a challenging issue everywhere, and you’re right, I have been specifically aware of the urban deer issue on Mayne for a long time.

We are working closely with the First Nation and capital regional district, as well as with the Mayne Island Fallow Deer committee. They actually have developed a plan recently, which we have said we’re very interested in and interested in working with them on.

Other things that we have done in the meantime…. Obviously, there’s so much private land on Mayne, not a lot of Crown land. Developing a partnership between hunters, private landowners and First Nations harvesters so that we can go in and use that meat when we do harvest it and work with private landowners and hunters who are willing to come in and try to reduce the population of the urban deer as well….

Again, I am more than happy to keep you informed every time that we do meet and make some progress so that we can ensure that we can tackle this together.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Just as an observation, I think, over the course of this summer, it would be really beneficial to see if we can organize a joint meeting on Mayne Island to bring residents, summer and permanent, up to speed and consolidate the understanding of the path forward.

[6:15 p.m.]

My final question relates to the Baker Beach project on Salt Spring Island. Your ministry is currently considering improving major modifications to a half kilometre of the very special Baker Beach shoreline on Salt Spring Island, with the intent of reducing erosion of waterfront properties. Over 1,300 Salt Spring Islanders have signed a petition expressing concerns regarding this proposed project.

This shoreline is extensively used by the public and has sensitive marine ecosystems, including rare habitat for the spawning grounds of plainfin midshipman fish. They will be negatively impacted by the placement of 85 truckloads of boulders and gravel and other mitigation measures.

Residents have expressed great concern to me as recently as last Friday, and on occasions before that, regarding the independence of the engineering assessment, when it is apparently the company that will do the mitigation work — in other words, the contract for the 85 truckloads of rock and fill and boulders — who selected the engineers to evaluate this proposed solution versus other less impactful solutions less affecting of the ecosystem and the marine habitat.

Additionally, there has been no report or public release of any information on engagement and consultation with First Nations, on whose land this work will be undertaken. I know for a fact that in the case of Pender Island, there are 14 First Nations that have an interest. I’m not sure about Salt Spring, but it would be at least 14.

Two questions. What funding is in this year’s budget to ensure that the process for considering this permit approval will be open, transparent, thorough and will ensure the coastal engineer who reviews the proposal is qualified, truly independent and is acceptable to all who will be impacted by this decision?

I can’t emphasize enough that often in these types of processes and challenging decisions, the selection of the engineer…. If the engineer is well respected by all sides, then the result will be respected. That’s my first part of the question.

The second part is: when this process for decision-making is drawn into question, there needs to be a real assurance that the consultation with First Nations has been very, very meaningful so that when, ultimately, this issue gets to a resolution, it doesn’t end up in the courts.

Those are my two questions: the status and outlook of First Nations consultation on this matter, and my earlier question regarding the integrity of the process for the engineering review.

The Chair: Member, remember that while you’re speaking, if you could stay standing, that would be appreciated.

Rob Botterell: Yes, thank you.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question. A couple things here.

For the province, really, it’s in our best interest to ensure a durable decision — always, always. Part of that is meaningful consultation with First Nations, and also having confidence in the qualified professional who is doing the assessment as part of the application.

We are going to have to get back to you with the specifics, because we’re not aware of the Baker Beach erosion project on Salt Spring. If we’re talking about Crown land here, then there is a website called Applications and Reasons for Decision where the public is invited to provide comments. That goes towards informing the decision for permitting. Again, if we want more specific answers to this specific case, then we can definitely follow up.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the answer.

Perhaps, then, we could have a follow-up discussion. Thank you.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much, Chair. I don’t. Is there something I have to say?

The Chair: Nope. That’s fine.

Hon. Randene Neill: Okay. Perfect.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 46: ministry operations, $220,818,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will now take a five-minute recess. If everybody could be back at 6:30, please, the next minister will be ready to go at that time, I’m sure.

The committee recessed from 6:23 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Social Development
and Poverty Reduction

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are here today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $5,747,116,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I do, thank you.

We are all better off in a province where we take care of each other, a province where people can afford to follow their dreams with the services and supports that they need to survive and thrive. That’s why we introduced our first poverty reduction strategy, and that’s what the plan has been about since the beginning.

The latest available data shows us that there were 161,000 fewer people living in poverty in 2023 than there were in 2016, so we know we’ve been making progress. But global inflation and the terribly increased cost of living has been especially hard on people who are already struggling, so we know there is more to do.

Last spring we updated our poverty reduction legislation, paving the way for the new 2024 poverty reduction strategy. In it, we set new ten-year targets to reduce poverty by 60 percent for all people, 75 percent for children and 50 percent for seniors by 2034. The new strategy was built on the advice of over 10,000 people around the province who told us what would make a real difference in reducing poverty. It’s especially meaningful that 70 percent of those who loaned us their ideas identified as having lived experience with poverty.

Our ministry has helped people in B.C. with many challenges over the past year, from climate emergencies like fires and floods to global inflation and the high cost of living. For example, people facing complex barriers have the supports that they need on their pathway to work through new community-based employment services, a new employment program that we have launched in six communities. We have thousands of people overcoming barriers to work with skills training. This is aided, in part, by our 102 WorkBC centres across the province.

We’re working with our provincial accessibility advisory committee on B.C.’s first ever accessibility standards to remove barriers for people with disabilities.

We’ve helped people access fresh, nutritious food in their community through hundreds of food security projects we are supporting to help meet rising demand.

Our community integration specialist program continues to make a difference for the most vulnerable people. Just this past year 38,000 people have had help from a community integration specialist in 146 different communities. This impactful program has grown over the last two years, starting with 73 community integration specialists two years ago to now over 187 throughout B.C.

Those are just some examples of the ways that we have been investing and working together to make lives better for people. This year’s budget is about investing in critical public services to meet growing demand, putting people first as we build a stronger future. It reflects our commitment to maintain the services that people rely on and also addresses caseload pressures at a time that is really difficult for people not just in B.C. but across the country.

The 2025 budget highlights include, on income and disability assistance, an investment of $1.6 billion over three years to support increased need for income, disability and supplementary assistance. This we expect will help more than a quarter of a million more people.

[6:35 p.m.]

In the CLBC category, right now CLBC supports more than 29,000 people every year, and the number of people needing services is growing. That’s why this year’s budget provides an additional $380 million over three years to CLBC to help those increased demands.

To conclude, we’re working to build a province where everyone feels safe, welcome and included in their communities, where they can find and get the help that they need and where income and disability assistance is accessible and inclusive. We know more needs to be done at this challenging time, and I’m confident that together we can continue making a difference for some of the most vulnerable people in our province.

With that, I welcome questions from my opposition critic.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you to the minister.

I wanted just to introduce myself because we haven’t really had much chance to chat. I thought you might be interested to know and some members of the gallery might also be interested to know that for the first five years of my life after high school, I actually worked as a care aide in a Community Living B.C. group home. It was an honour and a privilege, and it honestly affected my life in a really good way.

When they were downsizing, the government at the time was taking children and adults out of small institutions and putting them into group homes. I actually got to witness teenagers and children who grew a foot or a foot and a half in a year because of getting extra time, attention and care. I do think Social Development and Poverty Reduction is a really important ministry and a really valuable ministry.

With that, I’m going to now be really mean and grill you. Sorry, not really.

I’m going to start with Community Living B.C. It’s a Crown agency mandated to provide support and services to adults with developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder — all the things. Its mission is to facilitate the full participation of these individuals in their communities.

We all heard the devastating story of Florence Girard’s death, and the coroner’s inquest had 15 recommendations to the ministry. Can the minister confirm whether she’s moving forward with these recommendations? Which ones? What are the timelines for implementing all 15 recommendations, and which ones are addressed in this budget?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you to the member, and thank you for the introduction too. It’s really helpful to know where you come from.

The very quickest and shortest answer is that these coroner’s inquest recommendations are under very active consideration. We’re going to have news very soon on that, but I’m not going to be able to answer today. I’m not going to pre-empt the decisions that the CLBC board and some of the other ministries will make. Again, I’m very happy to sit with the member when we do have the response. Of course, we take it extremely seriously, and very detailed work is happening right now.

To back up a little bit, no one in British Columbia could not be affected and horrified by the criminal act against Florence Girard in 2018. Horrifying — a vulnerable person not cared for in the way that she should have been, and a horrible death that should never have happened.

I’m very glad that the person who was supposed to be caring for her was found criminally responsible and, then, also grateful that at the time of that death in 2018, CLBC started right away to make transformations and learned right away from the death of Florence Girard. We then also benefited from an audit of the provincial Auditor General that happened in the 2018-2019 year. We haven’t been waiting for this coroner’s inquest in order to start the work.

Since 2018, CLBC has significantly improved training standards and policies for home-sharing and tools to allow for more comprehensive monitoring. Also, agencies that contract home-sharing providers must now visit those homes at least once every three months. New monitoring has been put in place to ensure that supported individuals have a personal plan that addresses health care planning and that a doctor’s visit takes place at least once a year.

CLBC added $1½ million to put in place better monitoring and tracking oversight systems within CLBC and also hired 12 new staff to do that work; strengthened tools to improve monitoring and outcomes, as well as tracking service providers’ response to any deficiencies; improved critical incident tracking, training and follow-up; increased payments paid to service providers for home-sharing coordination to $34 million. That CLBC investment funds approximately 200 full-time positions or 7,000 home-share coordinator hours per year.

Those improvements came after CLBC’s home-sharing program audit was conducted by the provincial Auditor General for the 2018-19 year. The Auditor General made five important recommendations to enhance services and ensure sustainability. CLBC has completed four of the five and is very close to completing the fifth of those.

To me, as the person responsible, ultimately, but CLBC operating as its own Crown agency, both the aftermath of the terrible death in 2018, the advice of the Auditor General — that’s a significant bundle of the work that has been done. Now we have, in addition, the coroner’s inquest recommendations. As I said, I’m very happy to let the member know as soon as CLBC and the other ministries have completed their work on responding to the coroner.

Kristina Loewen: Just to clarify, then, there are 15 recommendations from the coroner’s inquest, and then there were other previous recommendations, four out of five of them implemented, the fifth one on its way. So this budget doesn’t directly reflect any of the 15, but some were underway already? I just want to get clarity, and then maybe this is something we can talk about in more detail.

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Yes, the member is correct. The work that I just described is all already funded. The coroner’s inquest recommendations came out after budget this year. So yes, the budget that you see before you is about expanded caseload and past work that was already committed to and already covered in our budget.

Kristina Loewen: All right.

Well, speaking of expanded caseload, CLBC’s caseload is growing at 5 percent annually, more than triple the provincial population growth rate. Can the minister explain what is driving this outsized growth and whether the ministry has validated those projections independently? Obviously, we can’t have a key social care cost centre for the province growing faster than population growth and the broader economy.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question.

I am told that the profile that we are seeing with the increased caseload growth for the CLBC population is consistent with what other jurisdictions are experiencing.

The really good news is that adults with developmental disabilities are living longer lives. They are living in a better place. They are getting better health care. They have longer lifespans than was traditional. And unlike people who might be on income assistance or on disability assistance, CLBC clients are part of our caseload, part of the CLBC family, for all of their lives.

That’s my quick answer, and I’m very happy to dive deeper if the member wishes.

Kristina Loewen: With a budget allocation for 2025-26 now exceeding $1.8 billion, can the minister table the percentage of CLBC’s budget allocated to direct services versus admin costs and executive compensation?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The CLBC’s ’25-26 budget is directed toward improving the quality of life for the individuals that it serves. Over 93 percent, which equals $1.73 billion, of the projected budget is allocated directly to funded services that support and enhance daily living and community inclusion, while the remaining portion is invested in the systems, the oversight and the quality assurance functions that ensure that services are safe, effective and continuously improving.

Kristina Loewen: CLBC service providers are experiencing funding shortfalls that result in service gaps, staff burnout or reduced hours for individuals. Has the ministry conducted a survey of service quality and satisfaction in the past year?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: CLBC meets and consults regularly with sector groups like the B.C. CEO Network, the Federation of Community Social Services of B.C., and I meet with those two groups often. I’m very grateful for the direct advice that they give me about the challenges that they face in the field.

CLBC also meets with the Provincial Association of Residential and Community Agencies. All these meetings help CLBC understand service provider issues, impacts of recruitment and retention challenges, and consider potential solutions.

In response to the service provider feedback, especially regarding the inflationary administrative cost pressures, here I’m going to give a list of ways that we’ve intervened and responded.

CLBC allocated $12.1 million in its ’24-25 budget to adjust the admin rate in all service provider programs to 10 percent starting April 1. That additional investment has helped service providers have a more robust infrastructure that improves hiring and retention strategies across the sector.

In ’23-24, $3 million of additional funding on a one-time only basis to eligible service providers to address administrative cost pressures. A total of 244 service providers benefited from that one-time funding.

In ’22-23, a half-a-million-dollar funding grant to the B.C. CEO Network for a marketing campaign to increase awareness of career opportunities in the community living sector and to support service providers in recruiting skilled and dedicated staff. That campaign is still active.

In ’21-22 and ’22-23, $250,000 to the Family Support Institute to improve the Support Worker Central portal that assists individuals and families who use individualized funding to recruit support workers. In ’24-25, the FSI, the Family Support Institute, received another $117,000 for the Support Worker Central portal.

All of these are intended to keep good workers where they are, to bring more people into the sector and address the pressures in the example that the member gave, certainly pressures that are felt in the social service sector across the whole continuum of service provision.

Kristina Loewen: Is the ministry tracking the wait-list or unmet need for services among eligible adults with developmental disabilities? How many individuals are technically eligible but receiving no or only partial services due to capacity or funding limits?

Kind of a part 2 to this question: given the projected client population will nearly double over the next two decades, does the minister have a long-term fiscal plan to accommodate this growth without crowding out other social services?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: CLBC has policies and tools to support fair and consistent decision-making about the types and levels of CLBC-funded services for eligible individuals. One example is the guide to support allocation tool, which helps assess areas and levels of disability-related needs.

CLBC also assesses the urgency of an individual’s needs using a priority-ranking tool. Several factors, such as the capacity of the person’s support network, their natural support of family and friends to support the person’s inclusion in the community and/or extenuating complex care or mental health issues are all taken into consideration.

Service requests that cannot be immediately funded are tracked through the request for service list. CLBC prioritizes those requests to ensure that those with the most urgent needs receive services as soon as possible.

CLBC immediately provides the most newly eligible people and their families $350 to $700 per month in individual and family wellness funding. That provides flexibility to address their wellness needs in a way that works most effectively for their specific situation. Then the ministry and CLBC continue to work together to find solutions to address ongoing service demand in a measured, responsible and sustainable manner.

As of December 31 of this year just finished, there were 4,106 people with requests for new or increased service in CLBC’s request for service list. Of those, 3,334 are already receiving some CLBC-funded supports, and 772 were waiting for a particular service.

Our fiscal ’24-25 year-to-date saw — that’s again, to December — 2,753 people receiving new or enhanced services, down 172 from the previous year. That was a 5.9 percent decrease.

For our ’25-26 budget year, CLBC is receiving a $137.4 million funding lift, which includes $126.7 million for service provision growth and $10.7 million for service provider and CLBC staffing costs under the shared recovery mandate and the community social service wage mandate.

Kristina Loewen: I’m not sure if you answered the question about the client population, the demand doubling over the next two decades and a plan to accommodate that. But I did get that there are 772 people on the waiting list and that we’ve served 3,334.

So thank you.

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I don’t think the member quite captured the summary of waiting lists, but I think Hansard will show what I said.

This year’s budget was designed…. I pursued the budget in response to the people that were on our list. We re-evaluate that every year and return into the budget process to accommodate caseload pressures. That’s in regard to the long-term-plan question.

Kristina Loewen: Has the ministry conducted a full value-for-money audit of CLBC within the past five years? If not, will it commit to one this fiscal year, given the rapid expansion of funding and caseloads?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Value for money is not a question that we ask when it comes to providing service for people with developmental disabilities and their families, but we do, as a ministry, work very closely with CLBC — very concerned that people get the care that they need.

Then, of course, the recommendations of the coroner’s report also will be a particular focus, and we’ll always be re-evaluating whether we are providing support in the very best way, in the way that meets people’s needs.

I think maybe the way that I would come at the member’s question, just to the extent that it’s helpful…. CLBC has a strategic plan that guides it. That’s a matter of public record.

CLBC’s board of directors is legislatively directed around making sure that there are families, that there are people receiving service, that there is an Indigenous voice. That’s legislation that we brought in to the House just last year, or maybe two years ago. This board governs CLBC in a manner consistent with the mandate that CLBC is given by me and by cabinet, and that guides implementation of CLBC’s service delivery model.

Then I’m just going to only touch on these really quickly, because this isn’t directly what the member asked. Just to say that the community councils in every corner of the province that guide CLBC’s work; our provincial advisory committee, made up of board-appointed individuals and family members from each of the 12 CLBC community councils; the Indigenous advisory committee…. All together, the advisory committee, the community councils, the Indigenous advisory committee and then the board itself bring the perspective of the people that we serve into focus.

I get to hear directly from them in many cases. The board chair and board members, let alone senior leadership, are very much guided and continually informed by people that are in the direct interface of service provision and need. That’s our North Star, more than anything, for the work that we do.

[7:05 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Just focusing on Community Living B.C. for a few moments. I want to thank my colleague for the time here.

The minister talks about service delivery and the importance of that, and I firmly agree with that. I’m just going to dive into executive compensation for a minute, specifically with the CEO.

We see here on the summary compensation table: ’21-22, the salary is just over $250,000; ’22-23, just over $255,000; total compensation in 2023-2024 — I would categorize it as a dramatic increase — up to $310,000, a little bit over that.

In that $310,000…. I notice that on this, it says: “All performance-based increases were postponed until after the collective agreement ratification.” The $310,000 salary — is that including retroactive bonuses that the CEO got? Can the minister clarify that number?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m told that, yes, there were two years retroactive bundled into that one year. PSEC sets the guidelines for executive compensation, and then the CLBC board implements those guidelines.

Trevor Halford: Did the minister approve, or the minister in the chair at the time, a performance-based increase of 5 percent effective April 1, 2023?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: That’s a board decision.

Trevor Halford: It says in the document that I’ve got in front of me — I can table it — that a minister approved a performance-based increase of five percent effective April 1, 2023. It doesn’t say a board decision. It says it’s a minister decision.

Was the minister incorrect, or am I incorrect, or is the document incorrect in that?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you to the member.

Yeah, fair point. The PSEC sets the guidelines. The board implements it and asks me to sign off on their decision.

Trevor Halford: Thanks for the clarification.

[7:10 p.m.]

Then on that day too, April 1, it would have been a good day to be the CEO of CLBC, because car allowance went from $580 to $1,000 monthly.

We’ve talked about the affordability crisis that we’re all in. We see record lines at the food banks right now. In my community, I know we do. And we have a CEO getting an increase of a car allowance from $580 to $1,000 monthly, when I actually have constituents that are sleeping in their cars, if they’re lucky enough to have one. We are giving $1,000 a month to a CEO who is making in excess of well over $300,000.

Does the minister feel that that is appropriate when we have people that are struggling to get basic transportation or get their needs met? The minister signs off on a 5 percent bonus, and then we see a car allowance for a CEO, taxpayer-funded, from $580 to $1,000 per month. It must be a nice car.

Does the minister think, out of all the stress that we are seeing right now on the system, that the priority of government is a car allowance for somebody making over $300,000? How can the minister actually justify that?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Because we’re in estimates, I’m not going to respond to the member’s debate. That’s something fair that we can take up in question period.

I’ll just say the technical answer is that effective April 1, 2023, there was an amendment to the B.C. Public Service schedule 6, on executive vehicles, of the terms and conditions for excluded employees and appointees. That increased the vehicle allowance amount from $580 to $1,000. This permits CEOs of all Crown corporations in B.C. who are currently in receipt of a vehicle allowance to receive the additional amount, which did result in a 2.3 percent increase to total compensation for CLBC’s CEO and all Crown corporation CEOs. This was a PSEC decision, or allocation, that is not exclusive to CLBC.

Kristina Loewen: Our poverty and deprivation issues seem to be getting worse, and that problem is shifting to middle-income individuals and households. Anecdotally, I’ve been hearing from my constituents in the Okanagan and across the province that there are lots of two-income families using the food bank, struggling with accessing healthy food and affording shelter and transport for their family.

According to the 2021 census data, the median total household income in Kelowna after tax is about $73,000, while two-bedroom apartment rents are approximately $2,200 and three-bed houses are $3,000. Just housing — not transport, not cars, not gas, not kids’ programs. Hard-working, employed individuals and families cannot keep their head above water, let alone get ahead.

There are many social assistance programs, and they’re designed for the unemployed or disabled, so many people, but they’re leaving the working poor with limited support. Are there plans to expand eligibility for assistance programs to include low- to middle-income working families who are struggling financially?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: As the member is well aware, the investments that our government, ministry-wide, has been making, whether that’s child care or affordable housing or the B.C. family benefit, are all intended to get at the population that she describes, and we absolutely have more to do.

[7:15 p.m.]

In answer to the member’s question about this budget and my ministry, no, there’s no increase in this year’s budget that would expand eligibility for income or disability assistance beyond the criteria that are currently set. For anybody who is watching and is having a challenge making ends meet, it makes a lot of sense to go to your MLA office or go to an SDPR office. You’ve got online interfaces. It may well be that constituents are eligible for services that they’re unaware of, so it’s certainly worth an ask.

Because we’re around the tax time, I really encourage people to file their taxes. We’ve had some really inspiring stories about people getting eligibility for both federal and provincial benefits for those middle-income families, and they really did end up ahead, again, if they file taxes. We do have organizations that are helping if people are having a challenge filing taxes. It really can make a big difference, and we’re there to offer to support.

Kristina Loewen: Your ministry will spend nearly $5.75 billion this year. That’s over $1,000 per resident of British Columbia and roughly $1,500 per taxpayer, yet I’m hearing from two-income households in the Okanagan, in Kelowna and Vernon, who are using food banks because they can’t make ends meet.

Can the minister explain why the province is extracting record levels of taxes from British Columbians but is struggling to deliver basic affordability for the people paying the bills?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ll speak generally about a couple of areas that, I think, speak to the member’s question and am really happy to go into more detail if the member seeks.

The increased caseload as a result of all kinds of economic pressures for the lowest-income people…. We’ve already talked about that lift in caseload because more people are getting support.

We have also, again, as I alluded and referenced in the previous answer, unprecedented investments for British Columbia, in British Columbia people — whether that’s child care, B.C. family benefit, expanded affordable housing, rent supplements. Again, not inside my ministry but, certainly, affecting people that are struggling with affordability.

We’ve increased income assistance and disability assistance rates five times over the course of our government, responding to what we heard from people — that they needed more help given the cost of living. Again these are the most low-income people that we’re describing, but it has been a significant expansion and a significant increase, the largest in British Columbia’s history after, in many cases, a decade plus of having frozen rates.

An area that I would be very happy to canvass with a member — which is really, in many ways, the most encouraging for me — are the investments that my ministry has made in employment training and job readiness supports for people who have faced barriers, people who wish to be in the workforce but just need a little bit of an extra lift to get there.

[7:20 p.m.]

We’ve made investments in a newcomer’s or immigrant’s first language to be able to train them up for a job interview and then support them in their first weeks or months on the job so that people not only obtain jobs but also retain them.

If the barrier is people’s remoteness from a training location and they just can’t get that next better-paying job because they can’t afford to take the time off and get trained, we’ve got programs that can pay for both the training and also pay a training wage. I’ve heard wonderful stories from people whose lives have really been changed by that. Then they are on their own. They’re able to get that better-paying job.

For the people that have been struggling the very most, we’ve had some pilot projects we’ve been working on with embedding employment training into bed-based addiction treatment, recognizing that if somebody, during the course of their addiction counselling, also is learning about getting a new job, they can be hired into their first job while they’re still in bed-based treatment.

As they exit residential treatment, you can imagine that someone with a full-time job…. The confidence, the security, let alone a new set of friends and community — all of these are therapeutic in one way or another, and that’s perhaps the highest impact area for the kind of constituent that the member is describing. I’d be very happy to canvass that more extensively with the member if she wishes.

Kristina Loewen: Does the minister acknowledge that British Columbia’s so-called poverty strategy is becoming a full-blown poverty industry, one where billions in taxpayer dollars go into a growing bureaucracy while middle-class families are left behind, resentful and increasingly impoverished themselves?

Where is the support for the family making $75,000 but paying $36,000 in rent and watching their grocery bills, fuel bills and taxes go up while this ministry expands its internal operations by double digits?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I would like to think that the member would be reassured to know that the vast, vast majority of the budget for which I’m seeking support here goes directly into individuals’ bank accounts and is spent in the local economy, in local businesses, to landlords. This is not building bureaucracy; this is helping people who need an extra financial lift to not be in the deepest poverty and to not be in a desperate circumstance. We know that the lowest income people are the biggest proportionate spenders of their income.

I’ve listed already for the member the cross-government investments, and you see them outlined in our poverty reduction strategy from last year. It’s not only paying disability assistance and income assistance for people that need it right now but across government. It is child care. It is building affordable housing. It is investing. It is paying tuition for youth formerly in foster care so that they can get that next job and move on in their life. Across government, we are making investments that benefit families and that are good for the economy, let alone good for people.

[7:25 p.m.]

If the member wants more details on that, then she can canvass my fellow ministers that are delivering those programs for middle-income people.

Kristina Loewen: Food bank usage in B.C. has reached historic highs. According to Food Banks Canada, over 225,000 visits are made to food banks each month, a dramatic increase from just a few years ago. One in three of these visits is by a child.

Many food banks across the province report a surge in working families, seniors on fixed incomes and students relying on emergency food support. Community organizations say this could be described as a full-blown hunger crisis, not just a temporary bump.

This ministry is spending over $5.75 billion this year. How do you explain the fact that over 225,000 people in B.C., many of them working, now rely on food banks each month? How is it possible that hunger is growing in a province with one of the largest social development budgets in Canada?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The why is that the cost of food in B.C. has increased by 19 percent from 2021 to ’24. This is certainly a North American phenomenon, and yes, it has led to increases in food bank use. It’s a key challenge, food insecurity. For many people living in B.C., it has become certainly more pressing with the impacts of global inflation.

Food insecurity was a key theme in the consultation that we did in 2023, provincewide, which informed the renewal of the poverty reduction strategy, which we published in 2024. Addressing food insecurity is also one of the critical action areas in the 2024 poverty reduction strategy.

Because the demand has been so intense and because we want everybody to have access to fresh and nutritious food, my ministry has invested over $66 million in food security initiatives since 2019, including over $50 million in 2023 to strengthen food banks. That was multi-year funding, some of which is still rolling out now.

The funding that we provided impacted food distribution and food access, food security infrastructure — for example, greenhouses and smokehouses. It’s not only support that goes to purchase food and to help food banks and food-serving organizations meet the immediate need but also, when communities have sought it out, food security as they define it. It’s been very encouraging to see some of those projects roll out, which is certainly going to make a difference to people.

Kristina Loewen: What is the ministry doing specifically to address the surge in food bank use among employed, middle-income families, those who earn too much to qualify for income assistance but too little to keep up with food and rent? Does the minister acknowledge the safety net is failing an entire class of working British Columbians?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The investments that we made in food security and money that continues to roll out doesn’t have any screen around people’s income level. These are for the benefit of all British Columbians.

For example, we supported the purchase of the Mustard Seed food distribution centre in Victoria. That is a place where school lunch food programs’ lunches, which are available to everybody in the Victoria school district, are made — in many cases, from donated rescued food from grocery stores or shipping companies.

We also funded United Way B.C. to establish food hubs in many communities throughout British Columbia. Food hubs, again, link together community organizations and service providers. It could be seniors. It could be school-age children. It could be youth, household food insecurity or the Food Link app, which, again, connects people who need food delivered to them or need to pick up food. There’s no income screen on any of that, and the investments we made in food security are intended for any British Columbian who’s in need.

Kristina Loewen: I just wanted to make a point, and then I’m going to move on.

In the mandate letter that every minister was given, it says we’re going to “grow the economy by creating good jobs across British Columbia. We will collaborate with businesses, workers and communities to attract investments in both new and traditional sectors as well as emerging sectors of the economy. This approach will bring certainty for business and security for workers and generate the wealth needed to support the essential services British Columbians rely on.”

I just feel like we’re failing British Columbians. This isn’t a knock on the minister or the ministry, just an overall kind of commentary on…. You know, I grew up in this province. I love this province. My understanding was that most people could grow up in this province, get a good job and be able to afford their groceries, and I feel like we’re failing on that front. We don’t grow up hoping that the food bank will be there for us. That’s not the British Columbian dream, if you will.

I am going to move on to persons with disabilities and temporary income assistance. My colleague here just pointed out that there was a car allowance to the tune of $1,000. Meanwhile, the support allowance — and that’s monthly — for a single person-with-disability recipient is $983.50 per month.

Has the ministry conducted an updated cost-of-living analysis to determine if this amount meets basic needs, given current inflation and MBM poverty thresholds?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Since we came into government in 2017, the rate for a single person for income assistance has increased by $450 a month. That’s an increase of 74 percent for income assistance and 51 percent for disability assistance. In comparison, inflation has increased by 24 percent during that same time.

That cumulative rate increase of 74 percent was made up of a 2023 shelter rate increase, which was an increase of $125 per case, per month. Also in that year, we brought in a minimum shelter allowance of $75 per month for a single person as part of our government’s homelessness strategy.

In 2021, both income assistance and disability assistance support rates were increased by $175 per month, per eligible adult. In 2019, monthly income assistance and disability assistance support rates were increased by $50 per eligible adult, per month. And in 2017, monthly income assistance support rates increased by $100 per family, and disability rates increased by $100 per family member with the PWD designation.

There has never been, in British Columbia, as much increase. It has also been absolutely necessary, given the cost of inflation. And it’s certainly in contrast to the way that the previous government froze income assistance rates instead.

Kristina Loewen: What percentage of PWD clients also receive the maximum shelter allowance of $500 per month? Does the ministry track housing insecurity among PWD recipients, especially given the rising cost of rent?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Just to get clarification, was the member asking what percent claim the maximum?

Kristina Loewen: Yes, what percent receive the maximum.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The answer is yes, we track it. No, I don’t have these numbers here, but I’m very happy to follow up with the member. We can provide the information.

Kristina Loewen: With many local businesses being short-staffed, especially in my community, what programs or incentives exist for encouraging businesses to hire persons with disabilities?

I sat with a constituent who was telling me about the programs, and I’m just not sure where the connection is with the local businesses and how readily available that connection is.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: As the ADM responsible in this area, Karen Blackman, has just hopped in, I realize I didn’t introduce any of my team. My deputy says I don’t need to, but I’m not sure that she’s entirely right. Apologies for my oversight. It’s coming.

I love the question, and this has been, really, a very moving part of the work when I’m in workplaces, let alone if I’m at…. We did a really neat funding program with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. To be in the room with hundreds of their members and to talk with them about the opportunities that they have, both to fill in-demand jobs but also seeing the community connection, the truly therapeutic impact of work….

Whether you’re a CLBC client or someone exiting addiction treatment, as we discussed earlier, there really is a huge opportunity. At this time where we need more workers and also know that people do better when they are connected to community through work, it really is a win-win.

The hub and the structure of our employment services are the 102 WorkBC Centres across British Columbia, and I’m very grateful to them for being that interface between employers and people seeking work. I’m just going to name a couple of programs that we work with specifically.

Our community and employment partnerships program focuses on improved employment outcomes for all clients, including those with disabilities.

I spoke briefly to a Prince George commercial truck driver training program where I visited. Sixteen students were there. This program paid for their course and also paid them a training wage and, I think, for a couple of the participants, paid for the child care for them. They lived in more remote communities. They hadn’t been able to come into PG to get trained, and they also just couldn’t afford to leave the lower-paid job that they had.

They were then paired, all 16 students, with a number of different commercial truck driving employers in town. I visited them quite close to the end of their program. One had identified…. She had test-driven, literally, a number of different employment opportunities. She figured out she wanted to be a logging truck driver. Another woman was like: “I am there for long-haul. This is what I love more than anything.”

Just an example of how…. In the North especially, we need more commercial truck drivers. With our budget and working through WorkBC and with the local college, as well, we were able to have people now participate materially in the economy and in their community. Employers got trained-up workers, people that would not otherwise have been able to just get over that hump of getting into that next paid job.

That’s community and employer partnerships. They’re done on a needs basis. The employers have to make a pitch that they’ve got a good program, and we have to have students that are identified.

We also, as a ministry, support job opportunities for people with disabilities by engaging with employers to shift their perspectives and their hiring practices and also through ongoing collaboration with the ministry and the Presidents Group.

The Presidents Group is really worth looking up. The first in Canada was here in B.C. You’ve got the chair of TransLink and the chair of Telus co-chairing this organization. They meet, I think, bi-monthly, and they talk about best practices, barriers that we can help remove and ways that they can inspire each other to support bringing people with disabilities into their workplace. I really salute their commitment to this work. They’ve got a huge amount of credibility, and it’s so important to see.

Finally, we have employer-targeted marketing material that promotes WorkBC as a place to find job seekers with a diverse range of skills and access to assistive technologies. Again, our funding can help the employer help the individual. We’ve also got wage subsidies through WorkBC. If any employer or a prospective worker wants to get connected with these kinds of programs, WorkBC is your starting point.

It would be really great for any of us, either MLAs or me, to hear about how that works for people and what the successes are. I’m grateful, again, to WorkBC contractors for stepping up and doing this important, community-based work.

[7:45 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: That’s great. Thank you for your answer. I have a little bit more of a niche question there that I was trying to get at, but I think maybe we can sit down and chat about that outside of estimates.

My next question is: with 150,000-plus cases, what’s the projected cost of the PWD program for ’25-26 and ’26-27? Can the minister confirm whether cost projections account for aging demographics and a growing number of seniors with disabilities?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I think, as the member knows, seniors are covered by federal assistance, not provincial. But I am still, in answering your question, going to talk about aging, because up to 64, they are covered by provincial assistance.

Our caseload expects an annual average increase of approximately 3 percent. The disability assistance caseload is less sensitive to labour market conditions, compared to income assistance caseload. Demand for disability assistance increases year over year because of demographics and aging population and also an increasing incidence of disabilities. In this year, for disability assistance, the change was $100.9 million, so that this year’s budget is $2,204,400,000.

Kristina Loewen: How many new applications for PWD designation are received each year, and what percentage are denied or appealed?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: This is just a little commercial break while my team is looking up the number.

The introductions that I failed to make and that my deputy, Allison Bond, said were unnecessary…. I’m going to introduce my team anyway. I’ve already introduced my deputy, Allison.

My very hard-working assistant deputy ministers. To my left, my EFO, Adam McKinnon — he’s also responsible for CLBC reporting. Not yet having made an appearance here at the back of the class, I see in the gallery, Sam Turcott, who is head of the accessibility directorate. Dwayne Quesnel, also, you haven’t yet met, but you might. He’s ADM responsible for information services. Suzanne Christensen is my ADM for research and policy and supports all of our poverty reduction strategy. She has an amazing team that works with her.

[7:50 p.m.]

Raymond Fieltsch is responsible for service delivery. He’s the one that is producing the paper on the question that the member just asked. You also saw briefly Karen Blackman, who is ADM responsible for our employment program. You also saw Ross Chilton, CEO of CLBC, who has also returned to the gallery.

PWD applications received, adjudicated, approved, denied: in 2023-24, the total received was 14,151; the percent approved, 82 percent; percent denied, 18 percent.

Then for ’24-25, the numbers I’m going to give you are just from April 1, ’24, until December 31, 2024, so that’s not a full year. Regardless, the numbers we’ve got for ’24-25: total received were 10,979; percent approved, 76; percent denied, 24.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Is the ministry meeting its internal service standards for timely adjudication of PWD designation applications? How long, on average, do applicants wait for a final decision?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Our service standard is that applications are adjudicated within 45 business days. In ’23-24, we met that 100 percent of the time; in ’24-25, 99 percent.

Kristina Loewen: Does the ministry track client outcomes for PWD recipients beyond payment delivery, such as health status, employment, housing stability or community participation? If so, can these metrics be tabled?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Big picture, I would say that our amazing SDPR workers who are interfacing with clients on income assistance and disability assistance really do keep close connection. They do have a very good sense, I would say, of how people are doing, but we’re not tracking outcomes in the way that the member is asking about and suggesting.

We know whether they’re housed or unhoused. We know if they’re employed because there are earning exemptions for earned income that can supplement their income or disability assistance. We know if they’re accessing health care if they apply for health subsidies. There are a number of different subsidies that they can apply for, so we often can extrapolate the kind of services that they’re accessing.

Kristina Loewen: We’re going to move on a little bit to temporary income assistance and expected-to-work category.

Is the expected-to-work designation achieving its purpose of incentivizing short-term transitions back to employment? What percentage of clients exit assistance within six to 12 months?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Another introduction: Rob Bruce, who’s the executive director. He can crunch almost every kind of number, but doesn’t have that one, again, with him now. We can undertake to provide that to the member.

Kristina Loewen: Of the 51,000 clients in this category, how many are actively participating in employment readiness programs or WorkBC? How many are currently employed part-time?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: In ’24-25, 8,626, which is 11.5 percent of expected-to-work cases declared income in at least one month over the year. The average amount declared was $756 per month.

In 2024-25, 22,156, which is 16.5 percent of disability assistance cases declared income in at least one month over the year. The average amount declared was $7,140 per year.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

How many of these clients have been on temporary assistance for more than 12 months? Is the ministry concerned about cases getting stuck in a category that was meant to be transitional?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: There are a couple of things going on here. Yes, we do monitor it. And yes, we are concerned. We don’t want people to get stuck on assistance.

[8:00 p.m.]

The temporary income assistance category is often a place that people will land if they are waiting to have their disability assistance application processed and adjudicated — for example, if someone’s having a hard time connecting with primary health care to complete forms. We don’t want people to be left out. We do see people move from temporary income assistance to disability assistance. It is something I get monthly reports on, and we do watch very carefully.

The median is 12 months, but some people do get stuck. We heard this very much through our consultation on the poverty reduction strategy in 2023 — that there are some of the rules that make it hard for people to escape poverty and get stuck, especially at intergenerational level.

As part of the poverty reduction strategy renewal, which I talked about a lot in the Legislature this time last year, my ministry introduced legislative amendments to support a new person-centred approach to employment planning with income assistance recipients.

The new employability planning approach includes a client needs assessment to better understand the individual’s strengths and their barriers to employment, to help navigate them to appropriate services to develop individualized plans toward achievable job readiness goals without fear of financial penalties being unfairly applied.

That modernization of the employment planning approach is a really critical element of my ministry’s work to develop effective employment pathways, increase the community and social connections and help people out of poverty. They’re supported by the income assistance program. They’re supported by the employment training that WorkBC and other partners offer, and the ultimate success is that that lifts them towards permanent employment and a very short duration on income assistance.

Kristina Loewen: What portion of this caseload, Minister, includes refugee claimants or recent immigrants?

Has the ministry received adequate funding, federal transfers, to support this growing population?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: On the percentage question, the answer is 10 percent. On the federal funding question, the answer is no, zero, to our great regret.

Kristina Loewen: A follow-up question then. Is the ministry advising the rest of the provincial government to advise the federal government in pushing back against federal refugee and immigration programs, which are causing this increasing caseload, or lobbying for extra funding from them?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Again, the short answer is yes. The federal government certainly knows that their decisions on immigration have put great pressure on not just housing but on income assistance in all kinds of ways. We have urged, as a government, that the federal government tie its funding of those services to immigration levels.

[8:05 p.m.]

We really welcome newcomers. We need them, in many ways, to drive our economy and to make our communities more robust. We are welcoming, and we really want the federal government to step up and do its work. But that is not reflected in this budget, because that’s not funding that we have received.

Kristina Loewen: The well-documented policy phenomenon in which individuals or families receiving government assistance are financially disincentivized from returning to work because they’re increasing income or improving their circumstances…. Doing this triggers a sharp reduction in their benefits, supplements or services. This often results in a marginal effective tax rate of 70 to 100 percent on earned income for low-income individuals.

In B.C.’s case, the issue arises in both the temporary income assistance and PWD programs. While annual earning exemptions have been increased to $6,000 for regular clients and $15,000 for PWD clients, many recipients still lose benefits dollar for dollar once they exceed those thresholds.

Further, some benefits — such as subsidized housing, dental coverage or bus passes — may be eliminated even if a person earns only slightly above the threshold. This creates a trap where working doesn’t necessarily leave people better off, undermining the ministry’s own goal of reducing poverty through employment and inclusion.

My question to the minister: is there a clear understanding of the level of social support and the relationship that has towards disincentivizing work or entering the labour market?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: To the member’s question, yes, absolutely. It’s something that we’re watching all the time. It’s something that we heard quite a bit in the consultation for poverty reduction strategy, and a lot of it was at the foundation of the legislative change that we made at this time last year.

There are some categories where the work is more obvious. For PWD, individuals are able to, even if they don’t need the income support anymore because of employment, retain their medical benefits. We also have a system where we can flip them quite quickly back into support if their work circumstances change. That’s an example of the kind of ebb and flow.

We want people to be able to fully engage in community and in employment. We’ve heard about the disincentives that the old system had, and that has been ameliorated in some cases specifically. But yes, it’s always something that we’re watching and work that I get reports on. The stats that we show are able to identify barriers to work. We’ve got the highest earning exemptions in the country, I believe, other than Prince Edward Island, which is a bit of an outlier.

We are always doing a bit of myth-busting on old stories about clawbacks that may be a five- or ten-year-old story, an old rule that we have since rescinded. That’s an important piece of our communications responsibility: to let people know that the rules are more designed towards people that want to have the support but also to step out and work as well.

Kristina Loewen: Would the minister commit to commissioning an independent review of B.C.’s income assistance and disability programs to assess the scope of trap dynamics and recommend solutions?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Two areas of quite extensive study have already happened. This is very much the focus of the poverty reduction strategy review. We started with a foundation of 1,000 existing recommendations, including from the basic annual income expert review panel and other reports on poverty — for example, Red Woman Rising and many others.

Then we heard from 10,000 people across the province, 70 percent of whom had lived experience with poverty. The what-we-heard report will detail a lot of that analysis, and then the poverty reduction strategy we published last summer has a lot of that work that the member alludes to.

I will go a little bit deeper, though, into the 2020 basic annual income expert review panel. It generated a lot of input from the community, a lot of academic study, and it’s work that we continue to implement and have implemented a lot of it already and more.

The third thing I’d say is our research branch is constantly running these numbers and looking at the interface. So there is active review. Active review has happened already and is ongoing.

Kristina Loewen: Given that the ministry acknowledges high inflation and cost-of-living pressures, does the minister believe that current earning exemptions are high enough to enable a safe transition from assistance to work?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The last earning exemption increase was January 1, 2024, so it’s quite recent. As I said before, it’s the second-highest exemption in the country.

Also, as I mentioned to the member, the uptake is relatively low. Honestly, that is the area that I’m most focused on. Why are more income and disability assistance recipients not availing themselves of the opportunity to add earned income to their disability and income assistance income?

That’s the focus of the work that we’re doing, with partners like the Presidents Group and WorkBC and others, to remove barriers to help and support people in their employment income. It’s a win-win. If they have more money in their pockets, it doesn’t put as much pressure on the treasury around support, and it helps communities and employers with good workers.

Kristina Loewen: What proportion of clients leave assistance for employment and return within 12 months? Could this indicate that benefit clawbacks and loss of security are making exits from assistance unsustainable?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We do not track people after they have left income assistance, no.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you for that answer.

Give me one second. Okay, we’re going to move on to overhead costs.

While British Columbians struggle with the rising cost of groceries, rents and basic necessities, one part of the government that seems to be doing just fine is the bureaucracy. The executive and support services budget line in the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is now one of the fastest-growing elements of this ministry’s budget, outpaced by community living.

The ’25-26 estimates project a 21 percent increase over the ’22-23 base year, without providing a single dollar in support to British Columbians — in other words, no food, no shelter, no disability supplement, just overhead.

On that note, can the minister explain why executive and support services has grown faster than almost every other element of the ministry’s budget, despite providing no direct benefit to British Columbians?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I don’t believe that the member’s numbers are correct, with respect, but I will say that the executive and support services increase was the result of implementation of a bargained collective agreement.

Kristina Loewen: The ministry overspent its admin budget in 2022-2023 by nearly half a million dollars. Who authorized this. What steps were taken to discipline that overspending, or was it rubber-stamped?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We aren’t able to find a number that lines up with that, so maybe if the member was able to provide that overnight, then we can talk about it first thing in the morning.

Kristina Loewen: Yes, thank you.

How many FTEs have been added to executive and support services since 2019? How many are in communications, stakeholder relations and engagement functions?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Communications is funded through GCPE, not my ministry budget. Engagement happens separately through each division. For example, the work that the accessibility secretariat is leading to establish and then implement British Columbia’s first accessibility standards. That public engagement happens through just that one division.

Poverty reduction strategy over the last two years was a big bump up in public consultation, town hall meetings, all kinds of outreach, but that happened just within the research and policy team.

The WorkBC and employment division does its own engagement, so we don’t have numbers in the way that you’re describing. They certainly don’t fit within the executive and support services section.

Kristina Loewen: I have a couple of questions in here that I feel would be better suited if I ask for answers in writing. I just wanted to ask the minister if that would be okay to submit. Thank you.

We are running low on time here, and I think we have a vote coming up soon, but I have a couple more questions.

What controls exist to ensure that executive and support services don’t continue to grow quietly each year while front-line services stagnate? Has treasury imposed any fiscal caps or restraint targets for this division?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I understand that the member would prefer that I provide that answer in writing?

Kristina Loewen: No. Sorry. To clarify, there are some I’m not going to ask, that I’m going to submit in writing just because they’re quite detailed, but that’s one that you’re welcome to answer.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I can’t accept the premise of the member’s question. Maybe, if overnight, you’re able to provide that other documentation that you were referring to….

We have to stay within our budget. Our budget has not increased other than what is implemented through the negotiated wage settlements that happen through the Minister of Finance. We are increasing our budget to deliver more support to British Columbians in need.

[8:25 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: Can the minister confirm whether any of this $14 million budget is being used to fund government polling, stakeholder outreach or communications campaigns related to poverty reduction or accessibility messaging?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: No to polling. Not in the budget. I think in my previous answer, I described the outreach activities that happened within each of the divisions: poverty reduction strategy, the accessibility standard development, and so on. None of those had a big, slick, communications campaign. It was really just about running town halls and hiring facilitators, that kind of thing.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, report progress on Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:27 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7 back to order. We are on clause 10 as amended.

On clause 10 as amended (continued).

Steve Kooner: First of all, I’d like to thank the Attorney General and Attorney General’s staff for answering questions so far.

Thank you for the answers to my questions so far.

Just as a matter of recap, the last question I was asking was in regards to the retroactivity provision here in clause 10, so subclause 10(2).

We were speaking of: “A directive issued on or about June 30, 2025, under this part may be retroactive to February 1, 2025, or at a later date and, if made retroactive, is deemed to have been issued on a specified date.”

The last particular question we dealt with was…. We got a little bit of a timeline. A few dates were provided. We were looking at February 1, February 3 and now. First, this particular legislation addresses February 1, and February 3 was the date that some sort of declaration was made by the Premier in response to the executive order from the U.S. So that was February 3, and now we are into May.

Basically, the question was: were any of these government procurement entities left exposed to liability as a result of any sort of action that may have happened after the Premier’s response statement? I believe the response there was that’s why we are dealing with this particular legislation, and that’s where we left off.

[3:10 p.m.]

Now I will continue with that line of questioning. This has to do with time periods in regards to the procurement entities.

Can the Attorney General confirm how many directives, formal or informal, were issued prior to February 1? Were there any directives that were issued before February 1?

Hon. Niki Sharma: None, because this legislation….

If you’re talking about procurement directives in this legislation, then no, because it’s not in place.

If you’re talking about any other directives, as we mentioned last time, it was after the executive order of February 1 of the President that any actions were taken.

Steve Kooner: I guess I should clarify. What I was after was…. I shouldn’t have said “directives.” I should have said “actions,” because what these government procurement entities may have done was take actions as a result of a response declaration.

To the Attorney General’s knowledge, did any of these government procurement entities take any sorts of actions? I believe that the Attorney General referenced, at the time, who could have probably been government procurement entities. Could have been some Crown corporations. I believe that that’s what the Attorney General was explaining.

I want to know if any sorts of actions were taken that were kind of related to this legislation, in regards to U.S. tariffs, before February 1.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not that I’m aware of, before February 1.

Steve Kooner: A follow-up question. Between February 1 and February 3, were there any actions taken by any of these government procurement entities that the Attorney General was speaking of last time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We talked last time about the direction on the third that the Premier publicly talked about. But I guess I would have no way of knowing if a government procurement entity or government reporting entity — as of February 1, when the tariffs were announced — had a special meeting or a board meeting or talked about how they were going to look at their procurement policies.

These are all things that are possible, and they wouldn’t be something that I would know.

Steve Kooner: The next time period is from February 3 to now. Have there been any actions taken by these government procurement entities from February 3 to now?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are a few things going on in the period that the member has described.

The first thing I would say is that government and myself here have no way of knowing of all the government procurement entities that would be captured by this legislation, what actions they’ve taken from February 3 till now. That is an answer I can’t give, nor would we know that.

What we do know is that on February 3, the Premier issued a procurement action purchasing directive to talk about how Crown corporations should act or could act in response. But because of the start-and-stop nature of the tariffs from then on…. If we all can cast our minds backwards to that time, there was the start, and then there was the pause till March 4, and then there was a start again. So it was a bit of an off-and-on period with respect to that.

The Premier is one that was on the first…. And again, I have no way of knowing for all government procurement entities from now since February 3 what they did with their procurement.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General tell us why there are no regulatory reports from any of these government procurement entities saying whether they took steps or actions pursuant to the Premier’s statement in regards to these procurement entities?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have to remember that this is an unprecedented approach that we’re taking to unprecedented times. So to try to align procurement policies in a particular way across all government procurement entities — that’s never happened before.

There would be no regulatory regime under that to require any reporting requirements, and there isn’t one that existed before. But all procurements are posted on B.C. Bid, so each entity would have their public reporting through that process.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General list those directives that are available on B.C. Bid?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, let me clarify. I didn’t mean procurement directives, because the legislative tool for a procurement directive is not in place. It’s in this bill. And if it had to be in place….

What I’m saying is: what was happening before this unprecedented effort to align procurement somehow are entities doing their own procurement. And when you do a procurement, the policy is to go through B.C. Bid. That’s the place of it. That’s how they would show it to the public.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General provide the list of what the procurement entities have been doing, according to B.C. Bid?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That would all be on B.C. Bid. It’s public. The member can take a look at that between those dates.

Steve Kooner: Okay.

The Attorney General mentioned these are unprecedented times in terms of dealing with directives and dealing with government procurement entities.

[3:20 p.m.]

We’re specifically dealing with the proactive clause, subsection (2), and I believe the Attorney General stated that there’s precedent for retroactivity. Based upon that, there should be some sort of examples of where retroactivity has applied. Does that not help the Attorney General in terms of answering this particular question?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we’re going to need some clarification before we answer that question. I believe we were talking about — before, when I mentioned that — how there are retroactivity provisions in other pieces of legislation. To have retroactivity apply by a clause is a common thing in legislation. That’s what I was referring to when I was talking about that provision. Maybe some clarity in the question would help me answer.

Steve Kooner: I believe the question had to do with regulatory bodies reporting what they’re doing. We’re also talking about retroactivity, so we’re trying to get a clarification. I was told that retroactivity provisions exist in other legislation. I assume there should probably be some sort of regulatory reporting in those other regimes. Applying those examples, those precedents to this situation, I’d like a further clarification from the Attorney General in regards to my previous question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: There would be no reporting requirements because the bill is not law of the land, so this particular retroactivity clause or the powers of procurement directive are not enforced right now. And as I mentioned earlier, there is no regulatory regime for procurement reporting requirements of government procurement entities because there’s never been a desire or a move to try to align it and have the powers of cabinet to do such things with procurement directives in the province.

Now, the member asked about other retroactivity clauses and reporting requirements. It’s actually impossible to compare because retroactivity could show up in many different ways, in many different legal regimes, in many ways in which reporting wouldn’t make sense to put that in there and, I would say, unhelpful to the context of this section.

Steve Kooner: We were asking specifically about the retroactivity provision that we’re looking at, and then we’re asking about reporting actions by these procurement entities, specific to the actions that they may be taking. I understand we have unprecedented time, but throughout parts of this discussion that we’ve had through clause 10, we’ve also been told that there are certain precedents to have retroactivity. I understand that there won’t be an exact situation to resemble this, but the government has looked at certain precedents in the past.

I’m just wondering…. The other thing is that there was a Premier’s declaration stating what they would do with certain procurement entities here. It’s my understanding that some procurement entities are probably acting or they can actually act pursuant to the Premier’s orders based upon our previous debate. So there may be certain actions being taken.

[3:25 p.m.]

Is there no framework right now to find out what sorts of actions they’re taking other than B.C. Bid and what has been bought and sold?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have to remember that this whole thing that’s put in place is using existing reporting and accountability processes. I’ll take the member back to 7(5), where it talks about our accountability for procurement directives, that we would publish what the procurement directives are on a website. That goes, then, to direct the government procurement entities to direct their procurement in a way.

We have to remember, too, that this is a way of making it clear and consistent throughout. Right now each government procurement entity would have their own procurement processes, their own accountabilities, their own public reporting, sometimes through annual reports. But the ultimate public transparency and accountability is the B.C. Bid process.

For anything that’s not a direct award — and you remember what we talked about earlier, that this doesn’t cover direct awards under a certain amount — the government procurement entity goes through the B.C. Bid process. The B.C. Bid process is public and transparent, essentially a call-out on the terms of what that procurement is. So it makes it very clear how they’re acting on the procurement directive.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that the Attorney General’s office probably had a briefing of how these government procurement entities operate prior to this legislation being formalized?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, I did not get a briefing on every government procurement entity’s procurement processes. That would be a lot of time and probably unnecessary, definitely unnecessary, because I have a team that, as we talked about quite a bit during the conversation we’ve had about how this bill was made up, has been deeply engaged in internal discussions, particularly about our processes and the experts within government and our legal experts that are before you here today.

My job is to bring forward the enabling legislation, which is what we have before us today, to give the government the tools to do the work of issuing procurement directives in a clear, concise way.

Steve Kooner: I just would like to clarify the Attorney General’s position in regards to the Premier’s response declaration. In regards to that, government procurement entities, it was permitted for them to act on that Premier’s response declaration, correct?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The February 3 announcement that the Premier made contained the word “must,” and it was related to excluding U.S. It was focused on future procurements, and it was circled around Crown corporations, so it was about 29 entities. It’s not as broad as what this bill would cover.

Steve Kooner: The Premier’s response declaration, according to the Attorney General’s interpretation, wasn’t merely permissive in language; it was instructive in language — correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s right.

Steve Kooner: Were any of these foreseeable, government procurement entities that were going to be affected by this declaration? Did any of them receive legal advice prior to acting on the Premier’s response declaration?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These are pretty sophisticated organizations. I know the member is a lawyer himself. We wouldn’t necessarily know, and they wouldn’t disclose if they received legal advice or obtained legal advice or what that legal advice is. But in this instance, they were Crown corporations, including health authorities — so, very sophisticated organizations.

Steve Kooner: I understand that the Attorney General’s department may not know what the legal departments of these particular government procurement entities may have said or may not have said. I understand that bit.

A follow-up question to that is: did the Attorney General’s department or did the government give any legal advice to these government procurement entities in terms of what rights and obligations and consequences may exist as a result of following the Premier’s instructive instructions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Whether or not they have obtained legal advice from our lawyers is protected under solicitor-client privilege, and we can’t disclose that. But again, I’ll say that these are organizations that are very sophisticated and have their own teams of lawyers.

Steve Kooner: These government procurement entities…. We’re talking about this retroactivity clause right now, and what the government is trying to do with this retroactivity clause is give a blanket protection to these government procurement entities.

These government procurement entities may have taken actions, because we just learned the declaration was instructive. The language “must” was used.

Is it fair to say that these government procurement entities may be exposed to legal liability right now for certain actions they may have taken, and they may have exposed taxpayers to financial risk?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have canvassed this to quite some extent already, Chair, and I’ve said that this was a forward-looking procurement directive. It wasn’t meant to breach contracts. There was a mitigation of any risk of liability at the outset.

Then, to follow up, I got asked directly whether or not I am aware or know of any legal liability incurred by any of the government procurement entities, and I answered pretty directly no. So I believe this is asked and answered.

Steve Kooner: As far as any lawsuits, is the Attorney General’s office aware of any specific lawsuits that have been filed since February 1 to now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Just to switch the line of questioning here, the next question I want to ask has to do with this particular retroactivity clause. I would like to know: from the Attorney General’s perspective, is this going to set a precedent so that we will see further legislation that’s similar in scope use these retroactivity clauses because we’re using it here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Retroactivity is a pretty well-defined role that can occur and legislators can put in legislation, so it’s already not uncommon as a precedent. There are circumstances where it calls for it as a tool in legislation, and that could be depending on the circumstances and the unusual circumstances of whatever bill is before them.

In the context of the way that the well-developed legal principle of how retroactivity can apply or not apply through legislation, I would say that the floodgate argument that I think the member is suggesting might be available here is just not, because of the way the law is on retroactivity.

Gavin Dew: Now, I’m not an international trade lawyer, but I hope that the Attorney General can help me understand.

Can the AG confirm whether B.C.’s obligations under the WTO government procurement agreement apply to procurement processes affected by retroactive directives issued under Bill 7, including those dating back to February 1, 2025?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, they do, because there’s nothing about this bill or anything in what we were talking about that would say that we were getting out of our WTO obligations.

Gavin Dew: Has the government received legal advice as to whether issuing procurement directives retroactive to February 1, 2025, could place B.C. in breach of Canada’s binding commitments under the WTO GPA, particularly the non-discrimination and transparency provisions?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The question about whether I obtained legal advice…. We are surrounded by lawyers here, so you’re getting a…. The bill was obviously constructed by trade lawyers and all of our team.

We talked about this way back — about the unprecedented legal times that we’re in right now. Under the context of trade agreements, we are a jurisdiction that abides by our trade obligations and that generally has signed many free trade agreements and is signatory to them. In the context of this trade war, where we have an actor that is breaching our trade agreements, including CUSMA and all the other things that the States would be signatories to. This is a specific action that’s designed to target the bad actor.

The procurements are not about other jurisdictions that we may have signed trade agreements with. It’s about “Exclude America.” That’s how we’ve designed our legal response to show that we are upholding the rest of our obligations.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the fulsome answer. I definitely understand where the AG is coming from. I’m just trying to understand some of the implications.

Can the AG identify which B.C. ministries, Crown corporations or agencies are specifically covered under Canada’s annex 2 commitments in the WTO GPA and whether those entities would be subject to any procurement restrictions imposed via Bill 7?

Hon. Niki Sharma: What the WTO covers are ministries, commissions, boards, agencies, committees of B.C. Essentially, that’s core government.

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the AG.

What analysis has the government undertaken with regard to retroactive procurement directives disrupting tenders already initiated or contracts already awarded to U.S. suppliers prior to the passage of Bill 7, and what is the legal exposure in that situation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered. We talked about our perspective and how we’ve designed these to be forward-looking and not to breach contracts.

[3:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Can the minister clarify how Bill 7’s retroactive procurement powers interact with the GPA thresholds for covered procurements, particularly those above the $350,000 Canadian threshold for goods and services where Canada has pledged equal access to U.S. suppliers?

Recognizing, of course, there is an effort to disrupt the status quo, I just want to understand what legal processes and revenues may be triggered.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to have to get some further clarification on the question. I’ll just give the member what we landed on so far which is that under the GPA, it’s $627,000. That is the limit. Anything below that is not covered. So just to clarify the question.

Then the other thing I would just add is that nothing in here interacts, or we think does anything, with that GPA under the WTO.

If there’s a further question that’s a follow-up, I might be able to get deeper into the conversation.

[3:55 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Again, I appreciate the perspective.

I am trying to just get an understanding as to the interaction with the GPA and what the implications are or could be. It’s obviously not a simple area, but it has potential complexities and complications and consequences, particularly with regard to exposure for the taxpayer.

If a B.C. procurement directive under Bill 7 were to exclude or penalize American bidders after February 1, 2025, would this be construed as a retaliatory trade measure? If so, does the minister believe B.C. has constitutional authority to implement such a measure independently of the federal government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Good question. The way that…. Let me break down the answer.

We have control over how we spend our money. How the government directs its money and expenditure and makes contracts is within the provincial control. But you have to remember we are working at a Team Canada approach when we’re at the table with every Premier and the Prime Minister to coordinate our responses.

In terms of retaliation, retaliatory tariffs are very much the things that are within the Canadian government’s response and control. This one would be in ours, and it helps us direct our spending in a way that is within our ability and powers.

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the AG for the answer. I certainly appreciate that coordinated approach and that conversation. That’s obviously very important.

To that end, what mechanisms are in place to monitor and ensure compliance with GPA obligations when issuing procurement directives under Bill 7, particularly given the complex political environment and the challenges of coordinating with a federal government under new leadership that is, in itself, in flux?

Hon. Niki Sharma: When the process of the procurement directive is put in place, there’ll be an order in council that’s public. At that point is the opportunity for the legal advice, legal analysis, that the member was asking about, related to other obligations or how we’re lining up the procurement.

[4:00 p.m.]

Then, once they’re issued, each of the entities would have internal legal advice or internal advisers that would help to advise them on the specific procurement or question related to their entity.

Gavin Dew: I certainly recognize that will be relevant on a direction-by-direction basis. But just to make sure that I understand the situation currently, has proactive work been done, and are guidelines or initial thoughts or initial analysis in place with regard to ensuring compliance with GPA obligations or at least ensuring a strategic approach to GPA obligations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, definitely. It would be part of each procurement that was initiated. I would say that to the credit of the trade lawyers that are listening right now, attentively, they have been very keenly and very aptly advising every ministry on a rapid basis in uncertain territory, so we are grateful for the work that they’re doing. In that work is a detailed analysis of all of our obligations and how they show up on a particular issue, and we’re grateful for their work.

Gavin Dew: I would also just take this moment to echo the Attorney General’s thanks to all the many lawyers that have been working on this file. We know this has been a long and arduous process. We recognize the complexity of the work you’re doing, and we really do truly appreciate all of that.

For many of the other folks, the many thousands who are watching this at home, they may be bored by this section, but I know that this is absolutely scintillating for the trade lawyers watching. I see the smile on the Attorney General’s face as she also appears to be enjoying this phase of the discussion.

Has the Attorney General or the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation assessed the long-term chilling effect of American firms bidding on B.C. procurements and the risk of reciprocal discrimination against B.C. suppliers in U.S. state-led procurement markets? In particular, has there been analysis undertaken on the proportionality of the size of those markets and the implications in terms of sales into those markets so that we can understand just what, in the long term, the scarring effect of this dispute may be and, again, what the scale could be?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, so the member correctly notes the very complicated environment we’re in when it comes to a trade war and the escalation and that we are going to be firmly situated in the support of B.C. businesses and the Canadian economy. We believe that the tools in this bill will help us do that because it’s got the flexibility that you would need to design a procurement directive with the right amount of proportionality that would take into account how you will address that very nuanced and sometimes very complicated — probably per sector too — analysis, as some of the concerns the member has raised.

Gavin Dew: With the preface that of course we are in a dispute and disputes will escalate, we recognize that there is a dispute bigger than the mechanics of individual parts of the trade infrastructure. Nonetheless, I do want to understand, given that procurement obligations under the WTO GPA operate independently of CUSMA, does the minister acknowledge that Bill 7 could trigger a WTO procurement dispute even if no formal action is taken under CUSMA?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re existing right now in a very complicated international trade environment, and there are already claims of the WTO related to the actions of the President. I think there are also questions about whether the WTO is fully functional at this stage in its ability to resolve these disputes, but that’s another discussion.

I think that what we’ve designed here with procurement directives gives us the flexibility to just target it, to minimize trade disputes and be more directive about how we want to approach our response in this changing environment.

The power of it being a regulatory instrument is that we can also adapt it pretty quickly. Just recently we were just discussing about the film tariff announcement. We don’t know if it’ll happen or not. Let’s hope it doesn’t, but if it actually does, then you can see how you can change your directives in response to what’s happening. But then the context of minimizing escalation — or maybe you want to escalate. There’s an ability of government to respond in different ways.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the AG’s clarity around escalation, the intent to escalate, the understanding of, if you will, expected and deliberate violations versus unintended violations of various different rules. I think it’s a very important distinction to make, and it certainly is much appreciated.

With that in mind, what safeguards or internal legal review processes are in place to ensure that procurement directives issued under Bill 7, whether retroactive or prospective, do not give rise to unanticipated or non-deliberate complaints or litigation under international trade agreements?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As mentioned, with the team that we have here and our good relationships with all the government reporting entities, at the time of development of the OIC would be the time of doing that particular legal analysis.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. Very much appreciate it. And that makes a lot of sense. I think, in previous discussions of the bill, we’ve canvassed the directions and the execution of directives, and we’ve talked about the hypothetical zealous staffer executing a directive following direction, executing beyond the intended or strategic scope of the directive provided, potentially escalating beyond the intended escalation that was intended by the direction.

[4:10 p.m.]

Taking into account what the Attorney General has just said around those formal processes, I do just want to understand the belts-and-suspenders approach around how we’re ensuring that individuals who may not be legally fluent, who may be understanding a directive secondhand or thirdhand, do not inadvertently create escalation or create unintended consequences with the way that directives are implemented on the front line.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I will indulge and answer, even though I think I’ve answered this already. The first thing that I know we talked about in clauses 8 and 9 is, through our immunity and indemnity provisions, we are setting a standard of conduct.

If you want to be protected by those provisions, you have to operate by a certain standard. Already that is us signalling to all of the government procurement entities what we expect of them. I think, also, we need to remember that these are sophisticated organizations that are already operating under very complicated regulatory frameworks. We’re talking about procurements that are relatively large, right? They’re above a certain amount for a director. I think it’s $75,000 or…. I can get that number. But these are sophisticated organizations that are able to operate at that higher level of procurement.

I know that they have the internal mechanisms in place and the right kind of advice in place to implement these procurement directives. Also, there’s a level of transparency in the standard and how we want them to conduct themselves, just in the fact that once you have an OIC or procurement directives, it’ll be public very quickly about what that is saying to that entity.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. That’s very helpful.

I don’t think I’m asking a repetitive question, and I am trying to understand in good faith where this is going. I certainly recognize that, as it relates to directives, as it relates to the high-level direction provided to government procurement entities at a corporate level…. I take at face value what the Attorney General says around that sophistication and whatnot, but what I’m hoping to understand is what the war room, what the rapid-response component looks like when we start potentially dealing with situations where the implementation of directives and where that rubber actually hits the road.

It is my experience in dealing with comparable situations in large organizations that it is rarely in the general counsel’s office of a major entity that someone steps on a rake. It’s usually a lot closer to the pointy end of the stick. It’s a lot closer to the implementation.

There may be line managers and there may be individuals who are not in regular conversation around the strategic intent or the legal construct of some of these directives. They might be an individual procurement manager managing a scope of procurement that is much closer to the bottom of the end of the procurement size versus these major, major pieces of procurement.

Is there some kind of a centralized training or support structure or rapid response functionality being put into place in order to ensure that errors in administration are addressed quickly?

[4:15 p.m.]

I recognize that we have canvassed extensively the various legal protections available, and we don’t need to go back to that. But what I want to understand is the effort being made to avoid ever getting into that legal hot water where those kinds of protections are necessary — how we are resourcing, supporting, training, providing some wraparound for the folks in charge of operationally administering these procurement directives at the front lines versus just for the procurement entities themselves.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In these very sophisticated relationships and organizations, there’s a multitude of safeguards in place to prevent the situation the member is talking about.

I would start by saying, first of all, that the relationship is pretty strong between government and the government reporting entities. There’s an institutional structure that is kind of like their resource, if they have any questions. It’s the Crown agencies secretariat, CAS. That is staffed up by people that are there to provide information to these entities.

I know that, internally, every procurement entity or group in an organization has to have yearly courses on how procurement unfolds and what the correct procedures and processes are. These are all resources that are available and would be available to the government reporting entities.

Then I also expect that they have their own internal structures that would be about employee training, hierarchy, accountability, how they report their procurement and all those things that are safeguards in place to prevent that.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. Much appreciated, to the Attorney General.

[4:20 p.m.]

As it relates to the governance side of those GPEs, in the case of those that have governance boards, since we’re on the topic, can the AG tell us a little bit more about how, whether through CABRO or anywhere else, board members of relevant GPEs have been equipped to deal with complexities emerging from this situation?

Is training being provided to board members? Have there been any changes where, for example, for major entities, new board members may have been appointed or are considering being appointed who have governance-level experience in dealing with international trade or with these kinds of complex procurement matters?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s called CABRO now.

Interjections.

Hon. Niki Sharma: CAS? It’s called CAS now. I didn’t know that. Well, okay.

Under there, they do have a lot of training and advice, but there also is a merit-based process that usually happens for them to figure out what they’re missing on their board. So they do their matrix and then fill in gaps.

But I think the member raises a good point. In the context of when you’re responding to ever-changing times, you would think that now one of the assessments they would think of is how to operate in the context of a trade war, like what other skill sets there may be needed in their particular sector or industry that are related to the times that we’re in.

So unfortunately, I guess, I’m sure that’ll be part of the thinking going forward.

Gavin Dew: I was impressed with myself that I got it right. I didn’t call it BRDO. I called it CABRO, but now it’s CAS. Its hard to keep track of the acronyms.

I do have some familiarity with the skills matrix used for those boards, having previously served on one of them, and I did find it to be an excellent process. I thought very good work was done to make sure that we were filling all those skill areas. I think the AG raises a depressing but good point about the need to ensure that we have that kind of a skill set covered off going forward.

Just to stay on that point for one second, if you’ll indulge me. I’d like to understand whether, again, there have been specific changes made to board resourcing in the last several months. For example, are there major boards that are particularly affected by this situation where there have been significant injections of new board talent, new people stepping onto boards in order to make sure that we are as prepared as possible to deal with this situation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have not seen that at this stage, but I think…. I mean, we’ll see if that does happen. I think right now CAS has the resources it needs to respond to what’s needed out there.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Just to return for a little bit to the implications of the WTO GPA. Can the minister explain whether the issuance of a retroactive procurement directive under Bill 7, particularly one that changes eligibility or evaluation criteria after a tender has closed, would violate the GPA’s article X(5) requirement that the conditions for participation shall be published in advance?

Those would be instances of mid-stream procurement, for example, that might be proceeding down the track from, say, RPQ to RFP or wherever else in the procurement process.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We wouldn’t be asking, for many reasons, for things to end mid-procurement or the time of procurement that the member asks. This is a go-forward basis. It’s looking forward. It means, precisely for the reasons that probably the member is raising those concerns — that we know that there are contractual legal obligations that are started at different stages of procurement. We’re talking about designing procurement, going forward.

Gavin Dew: I think that’s very helpful, and it does raise an interesting point.

What is the value in dollar terms of procurement that was considered by government to be midstream at the cut-off point where it was determined that procurement processes underway would not be affected by changes?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t have that number, and I don’t know that it’s relevant to this particular clause. But I would ask the member to maybe reach out to Citizens’ Services to see if they track that kind of data.

Gavin Dew: The intent of my question is just to understand — I’m not sure what the right term would be — what the volume of orphaned procurement or midstream procurement would be. Just recognizing that on the one hand, I would respectfully submit or just ask to try to understand….

We simultaneously have the bill creating the ability to undertake retroactive changes to procurement. If I understand the Attorney General correctly, it appears that there is an understanding or a decision taken in government around some processes that are already underway being ring-fenced or deemed out of scope for those kinds of changes to be made.

Could the Attorney General just expand a little bit on the process undertaken to determine which processes currently underway have been ring-fenced and what basis those decisions were made on? It would be helpful, recognizing that it may not be in scope, to understand the scope of that.

I think people have a reasonable expectation of understanding. Is there a whole bunch of procurement that is currently midstream that, again, is deemed to be out of scope? If so, at what point do we actually, realistically, expect that any directives would be imposed? I think it’s a very important nuance.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to provide some clarity off the top that I think might help situate this clause a little more directly in its purpose. I remember we talked a lot about indemnity and those provisions.

The purpose of this clause is to say to people that may have been operating under something that was like a purchasing directive and putting them under a more consistent procurement directive…. You could issue it to make it retroactive for those indemnity and immunity provisions to be there. It would not be there, and it would be written right in the directive to say anything about breaking midstream procurements or procurements that are in process.

When we’re talking about retroactivity, it’s not to reach back in time to procurements that may be underway and, say, change them midstream. It’s to provide the indemnity and immunity protections for entities that may have been operating under a purchasing directive or something under that beforehand that looks….

We talked about this before. You can decide if you want it to apply or not. Because to some extent, you have to look at what they’ve been working on and say, “Yeah, this looks a lot like what we’ve asked you to do,” or we think we were all doing together, and then you would apply that procurement directive retroactively to help get those protections in place. Just to clarify that they would not be used nor directed to end any past procurements or midstream procurements.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I appreciate that.

With the preface I’ve previously given around the understanding that we may wish to escalate, we may wish to violate, we may wish to do all these various different things, it’s still important to understand how this will operate in the context of the WTO GPA.

Is the government prepared to defend a WTO procurement panel challenge if a retroactive directive under Bill 7 results in the disqualification of a U.S. supplier from a process they bid on in good faith and relying on the rules in place at the time of submission? Again, this may interact with what the AG has just been talking about, but I am just trying to get a really clear understanding of midstream changes and either the reality or perception that midstream changes may be triggered using the powers available under Bill 7.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are a couple reasons that scenario, I guess, wouldn’t happen. One is that…. If you remember, we talked about all the entities that are covered under the GPA. Essentially, it’s core government, and it’s not the GREs, so they wouldn’t be covered under that part of the WTO related to procurement, the GPA agreement.

The other reason would be, in the scenario that the member describes, if there’s a compliant bid that’s made by a U.S. supplier. In that scenario, we wouldn’t ask…. No procurement directive would ask a government procurement entity to break that or end that particular situation if it meets all the legal requirements necessary. That’s another reason why that scenario wouldn’t come into play.

Gavin Dew: I’m thankful to the AG for clarification.

Can the AG provide the Legislature with a list of any GPA article 16 exceptions or derogations the province is relying on to justify the retroactive application of procurement directives under Bill 7 and confirm whether Canada in turn has notified the WTO accordingly?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: In the scenario where there was a challenge, first of all, any challenge like that is nation-state to nation-state, so we would obviously work with Canada to align.

The first step would be to do a fact-specific analysis of if there are any exemptions that are available to us, or defences related to our obligations. Although I can’t speak for Canada, generally speaking on these kinds of international trade agreements, we work together with them. Then we would assess whether or not, in that fact-specific analysis, there were any exemptions or defences available.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We will now take a five-minute recess, reconvening at 4:45.

The committee recessed from 4:39 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, back to order.

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the Attorney General, and thank you to the many lawyers watching and figuring out why I never went to law school.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: Twenty lawyers — there we go.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: No, no. I know why I never went to law school.

In the event that a directive under Bill 7 is deemed inconsistent with GPA rules, can the minister confirm whether the province of B.C. would bear the legal and financial liability for damages or whether that burden would fall to the federal government as the treaty’s signatory?

Rob Botterell: A point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: My understanding is we’re on clause 10. Am I correct?

The Chair: Correct. We are on clause 10 as amended.

Rob Botterell: This question — doesn’t it relate to the application of clause 9? It’s the interpretation of clause 9. Clause 10 simply says a directive may be made retroactive. It doesn’t speak to…. The questions related to clause 10(2) would be: what is retroactivity, and how does it work? Clause 9 is the operation of the indemnification clause.

My colleague, if I had this question…. My point for your consideration is that that should have been raised under clause 9.

The Chair: Thank you very much to the House Leader of the Third Party.

We have been providing a fair degree of latitude during the debate, but this is an important reminder that the question should pertain to the clause in question.

[4:50 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciating the observation by the member.

In the event that a retroactive directive under Bill 7 is deemed inconsistent with GPA rules, can the minister confirm whether the province of British Columbia would bear the legal and financial liability for damages or whether that burden would fall to the federal government as the treaty’s signatory?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are no damages under the WTO. The remedy would be to remove the offending measures, if it was deemed to be offending. But probably, likely, what would happen in a scenario like that is there would be some kind of cost-sharing agreement between Canada and the province.

Obviously, you would know at the very beginning what you were facing, and it would be a fact-specific analysis that would undertake what the approach would be between the province and Canada.

Gavin Dew: Certainly, an issue that is important for us, that we have raised on a number of occasions, is cost exposure.

Since the Attorney General brings it up, could the AG expand a little bit on that cost-sharing mechanism and what, if any, principles or agreements or basis for cost-sharing have been established in the context of collaboration on a Team Canada basis?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Canada, as a signatory to the treaty, would have standing under these trade agreements. They have their own trade lawyers, and sometimes they would take on experts as needed.

Right now there is not a cost-sharing agreement, but generally, if there are experts that need to take on anything or other expenses, the cost-sharing agreement between Canada and the provinces would help cover that. And again, there would be no damages. There’s no monetary worth, so this would just be for the cost of showing up in court.

Gavin Dew: Since the Attorney General raises it, can the AG expand a little bit on what, if any, discussions have happened with Canada and with other provinces around not just the sharing of costs, but an understanding of the sharing of impacts in instances where directives may provoke retaliatory measures affecting unrelated sectors, whether in B.C. or elsewhere, with knock-on effects into B.C.?

I recognize we’re straying a little bit from the core of our discussion, but it is a key issue that the Attorney General has raised.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is enabling legislation, as I think we’ve talked about before. The time to do that would be the time at issuing a procurement directive. You’d be able to do that analysis of whether or not you need to include Canada and what kind of discussions you would have with them at that time.

Rob Botterell: Clause 10 sets out retroactivity of directives. I mean, this is going to be a fluid circumstance. That’s why this is enabling legislation. This is why it allows the LGIC to give directives and make regulations that can then be amended as needed.

Would it not be the case that prior to issuing a directive that involves the WTO or numerous other agreements, legal advice would be sought by qualified lawyers — maybe not 20 lawyers, but maybe some qualified lawyers — to assess the implications and risks associated with taking the course of action that’s involved in the particular regulation, and if, as a result of the regulation or some unforeseen instances by legal counsel advising on this that there’s a need for a change in the directive or an adjustment to the directive, this legislation allows cabinet to make those adjustments? Is that the case?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it is the case. We talked about the flexibility at the time of making the procurement directive to get that type of legal advice.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the point from the member.

On this side of the House, we don’t have the same access to the government that the Third Party has, so this is our opportunity to canvass these issues. We do not have the privileges of access that the Third Party has in order to be able to receive ongoing efforts.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, do you…?

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me. I’m just going to recognize you as House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: I’m raising these issues in this forum. This is the appropriate place. This has nothing to do with privileged access. I actually find that somewhat concerning.

I just want to make it clear for the record that I’m raising these questions in this forum so that members of the public who are watching this, and others, can understand the extensive process that the Attorney General has confirmed is involved in making these sorts of important decisions.

I draw on that from my experience as being a lawyer for 25 years, working with First Nations and local governments and dealing with the B.C. government, and, prior to that, being involved in the drafting of legislation for the B.C. government, when I worked for the B.C. government, that was more complex than this legislation.

Yes, at that stage, I was on the inside. But back to the more serious point, I don’t have any privileged access. What I’m doing is raising a question, and the Attorney General has answered that.

The Chair: Thank you very much. A reminder to all members to please keep your questions to the clause in question — clause 10 as amended.

Gavin Dew: Certainly no intention to impugn, in any way, the member. I simply was observing that there is an agreement between the government and the Third Party, which provides for a level of consultation and briefing around bills that is not available to the opposition. I simply was observing that this is the only forum in which we have the opportunity to ask these questions, and we’re doing so.

[5:00 p.m.]

Just returning to the substance of the bill and to those retroactive powers. Has the government obtained legal clarity on whether Bill 7’s retroactive powers violate the principle of legitimate expectations under international trade law, where suppliers are entitled to rely on the procurement rules in place at the time of tender?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, going back to the application of the GPA, it doesn’t apply to government procurement entities. We covered that off in our discussion. Also, we talked about how the time to do the analysis for all of us is when you are issuing your procurement directive. You’re doing the legal analysis and trying to understand what you’re going to put in the procurement directive and how it’s going to apply.

Gavin Dew: I think I know the answer to this one, but just for the purposes of clarity: can the minister confirm that all procurement directives issued under Bill 7, particularly those with retroactive application, will be publicly disclosed and registered in accordance with GPA article 9 requirements on transparency and publication?

I believe that that is likely the case, based on my understanding of the bill, but I would just like to ask the Attorney General to confirm that for my understanding.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We took a look at that section in the GPA. What it requires is for tenders to be public. That’s fulfilled by B.C. Bid. Then, to go back to the procurement-directed aspect of this, that is public under section 7(5).

Gavin Dew: That’s as I expected. Thank you.

Given that the WTO GPA requires that procurement decisions be challengeable through impartial and timely review mechanisms, what recourse will affected suppliers have if they are harmed, or believe they have been harmed, by a retroactive directive? Has the government consulted the Procurement Ombudsperson or established an independent review body?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The courts of plenary jurisdiction, like the Supreme Court of British Columbia, would be where I would expect any of those claims to show up.

Gavin Dew: I’m getting into the weeds a little bit here, but we’re going to provide an opportunity for the 20 lawyers watching this to earn their keep.

[5:05 p.m.]

Has the minister received or reviewed any analysis as to whether a U.S. firm disqualified by a retroactive directive, or believing themselves to have been harmed by a retroactive directive, could potentially successfully pursue investor-state arbitration against Canada under chapter 14 of CUSMA alleging unfair or discriminatory treatment?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I go back to my answer before. The time that you would be able to do this analysis to understand the risks and mitigate them would be at the time of making procurement, the procurement directive, and that would be a cabinet discussion.

Gavin Dew: I’m struck by the fact that…. I respect that the answer in many cases may be that that will be an analysis undertaken at the time of the issuance of a directive, but I would just like to understand whether these kinds of potential implications, intended or unintended, have been the subject of discussions in the development of the bill or have been identified in a risk matrix adjacent to the bill in order to understand what the full range of potential challenges or escalations could well be.

Recognizing, again, that the detailed analysis of these implications may well be undertaken at the time of issuance, can the AG just confirm that there is some form of risk register or options analysis or other form of preparation that has been undertaken in anticipation of the emergence of these kinds of challenges at such time as directives are issued?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, and I believe I talked about the assessments that would take place at the time of the procurement directive.

Gavin Dew: Much appreciated.

Hopefully my last question for a while — he says, as the Attorney General smiles. Can the AG confirm whether B.C. is coordinating its procurement response with Global Affairs Canada and the federal Trade Law Bureau to avoid unilateral actions that may compromise Canada’s standing in multilateral trade negotiations or GPA compliance reviews?

Again, just trying to make sure that the appropriate due diligence is being undertaken to ensure that…. Recognizing, of course, we are in this escalation with our neighbours to the south, there are also a whole bunch of other implications, both legal and relational, with other entities that are party to multilateral trade negotiations and multilateral trade agreements.

If the AG can just confirm that there are robust conversations underway about mitigating any unintended downside consequences in those multilateral agreements and negotiations.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, there are many levels of discussions happening related to our response. We have a good relationship with Global Affairs Canada through many ministries, and we’re always keeping in touch about responses.

Kiel Giddens: I promise I only have a few quick questions here, but I did want to follow up.

We’ve gone through quite a few questions from the member for Kelowna-Mission on the international nature, but before we got there, the critic for Attorney General next to me did raise some discussion about contracts and breach of contracts. I recall that I heard the Attorney General say, of course, the legislation is not meant to breach contracts. But in the case that there are unintended breaches of contract, I’m wondering how government…? What mechanism would they have to deal with that and fix that issue, if it did exist?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think that takes us back to clauses 8 and 9, when we talk about the assurance that we give our government procurement entities under these procurement directives that if they’re intending to comply with the directive, if it was an inadvertent mistake or something that happened that incurred liability, we would step in to protect them.

Kiel Giddens: I guess part of the reason I’m asking is I’m trying to help give more guidance for a delegated person to know what happens in the case of an unintended consequence. Okay, I understand that we’ll go back to 8 and 9 for that, so I appreciate that.

In terms of directives under clause 10 and, overall, within part 2, I’m wondering if those would be tracked separately, since some of those directives may be broader in scope than normal procurement practices.

Will they be tracked, for way of this bill, separately than the normal tracking of procurement? For example, when something goes through B.C. Bid and goes through that process, will there be any mechanism where it’s tracked separately for a procurement directive that is ordered in this case?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, there would be mechanisms in place to do that. I think it would be interesting to see, once….

B.C. Bid. We talked about that being that public procurement process, so you’ll know which ones are going in through a procurement directive or not, based on the content of whatever’s posted and all the internal mechanisms that we talked about over the few days we’ve been talking about procurement directives, about how they’re being issued or done under the procurement entities, so there would be lots of opportunities to collect data, probably, at that stage, to understand how it’s going, and some of those would probably be internal.

Did they get the bids? Where were the bids from? How did it show up differently than when it wasn’t in the procurement directive? We can measure how they actually worked in practice.

Kiel Giddens: I do think that data will be important to understand. I do think collecting that is very important. And I do think, by way of this bill overall, tracking that separately and making sure that that data in the context of a directive that is ordered as a result of this legislation…. I do think it is important to understand the impacts after the fact.

I’m wondering, in that same vein, if the government would commit to a separate tracking of Bill 7 procurement directives in the public accounts, for example, or in another publicly available reporting mechanism.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member raises a good point that we will have to develop those implementation guidelines, and I would be happy to engage with the ministers that would be taking on these procurement directives to understand how we’re collecting and tracking that. I think it’s something I’ll definitely take away if this bill comes into force.

Steve Kooner: I have an interpretation question for the Attorney General on clause 10(2). The clause states that a directive issued on or before June 30, 2025, under this part may be made retroactive to February 1, 2025, or a later date.

The question is why not just leave it at February 1, 2025. That would be all-inclusive of anything all the way up to February 1. Why write in “a later date”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The wording is arrived at for a few reasons — why it’s read like that.

First of all, you want to have the ultimate confines of a time limit for retroactivity. Any time you use that power of retroactivity, it has to be clear and direct on how you’re using it so that you’re not overstepping what would, we think, be an extraordinary, unusual thing to do. That would be one answer.

The reason that it says “or a later date” is because you could say, maybe, “made retroactive February 1” — so that’s your one option — “or a later date,” so a date later than February. You could say, depending on which entity you’re looking at or which purchasing directive they issued before this was in force….

You could say: “Well, we’re going to make this retroactive till April 1,” right? You’ve picked a later date than February because of the fact-specific analysis that you’ve done on that particular entity or sector on when you want to make that retroactive to.

It just gives that flexibility, and it also makes it clear about the confines of the use of that.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General saying that if there wasn’t any flexibility, and it just referred to February 1, 2025, some of the directives that would have been done after February 1 would not be included in this legislation? Is that what the Attorney General is saying?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. The reason for that “or a later date” in there is to give clarity that you can choose another date, other than February 1, just to make it clear if you want to go up to February 1 with your retroactivity or if you want to make a section of that time.

Kiel Giddens: I realize we’ve spent a considerable amount of time on the last number of sections overall in part 2 of the bill on procurement directives; a considerable amount on clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10, where we’re at right now, talking about, really, how these directives will be delegated and how they will be implemented.

[5:20 p.m.]

Overall, this is a part of the bill and a clause that, I’m just noting for the record, the opposition will have to be voting against, for many of the reasons that we have been speaking about.

First of all is the fact that we still have concerns that the directives may be arbitrary in nature. That brings a lack of business confidence and a challenge with that for the business community. We’ve talked at length about how small and medium-sized businesses have already reached out and voiced their concerns, as have the largest businesses in the province through the Business Council of British Columbia.

Overall with the bill, there’s a lack of transparency that we are concerned with, and that’s been a considerable part of the opposition’s questioning and discussions thus far of the bill and this clause in particular. By and large, though, we still have concerns that the government is trying to pick winners and losers, in this case, in procurement. That’s something that….

We are prepared to go to the vote on clause 10. At this time, I have no question, but I wanted to note that for the record.

The Chair: Noting no further questions, shall clause 10 as amended pass?

Division has been called.

[5:25 p.m.]

Members, is there agreement to waive the remaining time, as everybody is now present?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section C, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote.

[5:30 p.m.]

The question is shall clause 10 as amended pass.

Clause 10 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 7
Davidson	Wickens	Routledge
Dix	Sharma	Greene
	Botterell
NAYS — 5
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson		McCall

The Chair: We now move on to the next clause.

On clause 11.

Steve Kooner: I’ve learned that the Attorney General wants to vote against clause 11, but I have some questions about clause 11, because…. Why was it there in the first place?

I just want a confirmation from the Attorney General. As this clause stands right now, clause 11 allows the cabinet to unilaterally redefine who is a government procurement entity, correct?

The Chair: Members, we will pause for a five-minute recess, reconvening at 5:36, please.

The committee recessed from 5:31 p.m. to 5:36 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, back to order.

We are on clause 11, and I’m going to hand it over to the minister.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. I can just explain the reason for what we’ll be doing, moving to delete clause 11.

The reason behind that is tied into clause 6. Clause 6, previously, before amended, included a subsection (b) that said that a procurement entity could mean “a corporation or organization that is included in this definition by regulation under section 11.” Because that was deleted to provide clarity that a government procurement entity means a government organization as defined in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, there is no longer a need for clause 11, which is a regulatory-making power that is attached to nothing. So that’s why we were seeking to remove it.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the Attorney General providing that update.

This is something I learned in the course of debate earlier in our discussions, that the B.C. Chamber had raised some concerns. I hadn’t actually spoken with them about this clause specifically. I learned about that from the Attorney General.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General can describe what the B.C. Chamber’s concerns actually were.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. The concerns, when we were talking about this bill with many organizations — I think one of them, in particular — were related to certainty. So what could a government procurement entity be? We amended the definition to make it clear what they could be, and then we no longer needed clause 11.

Kiel Giddens: Can the Attorney General just provide an update, whether they had any response that was received after the fact from B.C. Chamber and if they had any follow-up questions, or were they satisfied?

Hon. Niki Sharma: B.C. Chamber is on the on the test committee. I visited that committee and presented before the changes were made to Bill 7 and after and provided an opportunity for any feedback or questions for any member of the test committee, and I didn’t hear anything particularly about this.

Kiel Giddens: Just to clarify: no other comments on clause 11, specifically, then?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, not that I’ve heard.

Steve Kooner: We just heard some concerns that were raised by some stakeholders. Subsequently, the clause…. Efforts to now modify this clause exist.

[5:40 p.m.]

Going back to my question that I asked first, clause 11 does allow, as it stands right now, for cabinet to unilaterally redefine a government procurement entity. This would essentially allow cabinet to expand or exempt government organizations at will, correct?

Rob Botterell: Point of order.

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader for the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: This is moot. This whole issue is moot. The earlier clause has been amended to remove any reference to section 11 in this legislation, so there’s no reason to be exploring the rationale and the context and the theories behind section 11, because it’s moot.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Steve Kooner: With all due respect to the House Leader of the Third Party, it is very important for the opposition to understand the intent behind why this was taken away, because in the public eye, there was a lot of opposition to this bill. It’s absolutely crucial to understand why this particular section is being taken out so we have context for looking at future sections that are going to be coming up.

There, in the subsequent sections, we may not have the example that we currently have to kind of understand those following sections, and we will not be able to come back to this section once we move on, so it’s absolutely crucial that we understand the intent behind it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered. I went through the intent, and I went through the reason for the removal.

Steve Kooner: Was there any other opposition other than what was explained by that stakeholder?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Initially, who directed the inclusion of this particular clause?

Rob Botterell: Point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: I’m just looking for a ruling on my earlier point of order that this discussion is moot. This additional question about who drafted a particular section, I mean that’s moot too. This clause has no function in this legislation now.

Kiel Giddens: Respectfully, the clause has not actually been amended at this point yet, so the opposition is still speaking to the clause without any amendments. There are options. The government could either present an amendment or vote it down, but this is the opportunity, as the critic for the Attorney General said, to explore the intent so that it’s understood why it’s out and why it was included in the first place and what, in effect, it does to the overall part of the bill.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Because clause 11 is in the bill, I will allow these questions.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: The question that was posed earlier is in regard to clause 11 as it stands. We’ve learned that this clause…. There will be an amendment introduced shortly.

In regard to this clause as it stands right now, and because there’s some intention from the government side to remove it, that takes us to the question. Why was this particular clause included in the first place? What was the government thinking when they were including this particular clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, asked and answered. I referred to clause 6.

Steve Kooner: Who particularly reviewed this clause when it was being drafted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would have been the drafting team. The reason for the inclusion there would have been exactly what I talked about before, which was section 6(b), which has been deleted. It required a regulation power under section 11, which is why this clause is no longer needed.

Steve Kooner: Would the Attorney General agree with me that this is a legislative drafting oversight?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not at all. This was not an oversight. I brought forward an amendment to clause 6, and, as a result of that amendment, deleted a subsection that referred to clause 11. That is now, as the House Leader of the Third Party mentioned, completely moot. That’s why it’s being removed.

Steve Kooner: But the Attorney General would agree with me that the changes that were brought earlier on could have been brought at the time that this legislation was being drafted, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, we’re in a circular discussion here.

We talked many times, even when I tabled all of the amendments. This was a process of government listening and understanding from different stakeholders on what their input is on this very fast-moving bill in the context of the trade war. So I won’t repeat myself.

The Chair: Recognizing there are no further questions, shall clause 11 pass?

Clause 11 negatived.

On clause 12.

Kiel Giddens: Two clauses down. This has got to be a record for us, folks. At this point, yeah, we’re…. Moving along here.

I do want to just take another opportunity to thank the staff from the Attorney General’s ministry for being here. I know this is time out of your regular work, so we sincerely appreciate the work you’re doing on behalf of British Columbians and supporting the answering of the opposition’s questions.

Moving to clause 12, I just want to get clarification, if the minister wouldn’t mind. Can the minister explain the rationale for what clause 12 is trying to do? Why is it in the bill, and what specific problem or scenario is it really intended to address?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is just a part of the legislative framework that B.C. Hydro is under that requires this consequential amendment. B.C. Hydro’s enabling legislation has a unique provision that requires an act that is intended to apply to it to specifically be listed in their act, if that makes sense. We have to list this piece of legislation in the B.C. Hydro Act in order for it to apply to the B.C. Hydro Act.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that clarification. I’m asking a few questions just for the benefit of the Minister of Energy, who I think will be helped by the clarification. Just to confirm: does clause 12 change any of the current legal obligations or protections for B.C. Hydro under section 32 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Kiel Giddens: Was there any need for consultation with B.C. Hydro, and did they have any additional comments or concerns as this clause was being drafted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. This is more of a technicality and we just…. It’s just known because of the construct of that piece of legislation, the Hydro and Power Authority Act, that this is a necessary thing if you want something to apply to that entity.

Kiel Giddens: Just to clarify, are there any other statutes outside the Hydro and Power Authority Act that apply or no longer apply because of this clause, or is it just the reference that’s being changed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It doesn’t take anything away; it just makes sure that this piece of legislation would apply to that entity.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, I think I understand that. Thank you.

Also, another due diligence question in that same kind of vein, I guess. Can the Attorney General describe if it changes any of B.C. Hydro’s liability or obligations to employees, ratepayers or any contractors that work for them?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Kiel Giddens: Along the same vein, does this clause alter anything with B.C. Hydro’s relationship with the B.C. Utilities Commission or any other regulatory body?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Kiel Giddens: That’s great. We’re just burning through some really straightforward questions, and that’s the intent here, so thanks very much to the Attorney General.

Does this clause affect any ongoing litigation, arbitration or contract enforcement involving B.C. Hydro? The reason I say that is just there may be, obviously, language that refers to the act in question. How does that get clarified?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a very narrow amendment. All it does is apply part 2 of this bill to the entity, so all the things that the member is speaking about are not affected or impacted.

Kiel Giddens: I guess that kind of leads to the question on why the Hydro Act, as opposed to other statutes, had to be included. As the critic for Labour, I’m just wondering why WorkSafe or ICBC, for example, were not included or needed for that. Why Hydro specifically in this act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s just a unique piece of legislation that has a specific requirement within it for this particular Crown corporation. That’s the reason we needed to include it.

[5:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I assume that there was a legal review done of all of these acts to make sure that there wasn’t any other obligation, so nothing that would have been missed or any other…. I’m just thinking of the House time of this having to come back after the fact to be with some sort of a miscellaneous statutes kind of fix or something like that. Has there been an extensive review of all Crown corporation acts to make sure this doesn’t need to be included?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Kiel Giddens: Will this clause change any of B.C. Hydro’s reporting or disclosure obligations? If so, what would that look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Kiel Giddens: Okay.

Moving again into the legal interpretation of this, how does the government interpret the interaction between clause 12 and subsection 32(1), which says B.C. Hydro is not bound by other provincial enactments unless explicitly stated?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member just nailed it. That’s exactly the provision that requires us to list and amend.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe there’s hope for me to go to law school one day.

Finally, is there a risk of legal ambiguity or challenge resulting from how clause 12 might modify or invoke that section 32 that we just talked about?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Thank you to the Attorney General and the Attorney General’s staff for now answering questions on B.C. Hydro and the legislation that deals with it.

My question in regards to this particular provision is: by adding this section to the Hydro and Power Authority Act, can the minister or Attorney General direct B.C. Hydro and its subsidiaries to not purchase electricity from a specific source?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. This would allow part 2 to apply to B.C. Hydro. That means that a procurement directive under the part 2 provision — it would be cabinet that decides, not the Attorney General. It would be cabinet that decides to direct the procurement of B.C. Hydro in whatever manner that they procure.

Steve Kooner: Is this in any way limited to only foreign-generated electricity? Example: electricity not produced within B.C.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear, all this clause does is to make part 2 apply to B.C. Hydro. All the principles that we talked about at length related to clause 7, clause 8, clause 9 and the powers that are included in any of the procurement directives, the ability to attach a procurement directive, all apply.

Nothing has changed or is particular about B.C. Hydro except for the necessity to name it in their legislation because of the way their legislation is made up. The debate that we’ve had about why we included or didn’t include certain things — how things are listed under clause 7, what the powers are, what those powers could be used to employ — all apply to this, to B.C. Hydro. This just enables it to apply to B.C. Hydro as well.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that clarification. That’s helpful.

I just have a few questions here, and the answer might be the same: a reference is given to me for the prior answers given about the other government procurement entities. I just want to go further, because this next question has to do with contracts.

B.C. Hydro, we know, also has an office in the U.S. and is actively doing some sort of work across the border as well. With this provision here and the applicability of this bill to B.C. Hydro, could this apply to contracts that have already been signed to produce electricity inside B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it’s another thing we’ve extensively canvassed, and I think the member even raised this discussion about power crossing the border and electricity, squarely, in clause 7. We’ve had that debate quite a bit already, and I’ve already answered, also, that we would not require the breaking of contracts. That’s a discussion we’ve also had already.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Steve Kooner: We are moving to part 3 now, which involves tolls, fees and charges. The first section we’re dealing with has to do with definitions for this part.

Clause 13 states: “In this Part, ‘provincial undertaking’ means the following: (a) a provincial public undertaking as defined in the Transportation Act; (b) a ferry to which the Coastal Ferry Act applies; (c) ferry terminal properties as defined in section 30 of the Coastal Ferry Act.”

My first question in regard to this particular clause is: does the Attorney General believe that this is an exhaustive enough definition? We’re dealing with a definition here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, we do.

Steve Kooner: The second question I have: can the minister provide an example why there’s the inclusion of…? I’m just going to go into the actual wording, the interpretation of this.

[6:05 p.m.]

“In this Part, ‘provincial undertaking’ means the following: (a) a provincial public undertaking as defined in the Transportation Act; (b) a ferry to which the Coastal Ferry Act applies; (c) ferry terminal properties….”

There’s a fair bit of discussion about ferries. Why was there more elaboration on ferries in this definition than anything else?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. This definition is as it is for a few reasons.

One is to make it as broad as possible to cover a range of things. When you have subsection (a) there, it borrows from the way that’s defined in that act. So under the Transportation Act, it could mean roads, and it includes only inland ferries under that piece of legislation. Hence, you need subsections (b) and (c) to make it clear that also coastal ferries are included.

Harman Bhangu: Being the Transportation critic, I’ve got a few questions regarding transportation here. Can the Attorney General confirm whether part 3 enables tolls on ferry routes, terminals or access infrastructure under the definition of provincial undertakings?

The broad language in this bill gives cabinet far too much power, latitude, to quietly impose new charges on transportation-dependent regions.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Now that we’ve switched to part 3, I just wanted to set up the tools and powers. I think the member asked a very broad question, and it’s a good opportunity to explain part 3 and all its mechanisms and how they relate together, now that we’re at this stage.

This is the part of the bill that we hope to never use but was related to, in the context of an escalating trade war, what we may have to do in the Team Canada approach.

[6:15 p.m.]

The Premier has publicly talked about our ability to put a toll or fee on trucks that are going from one part of the States to another, through to Alaska, and that ability to show that we’re serious that if you’re going to hurt us, if you’re going to hurt us through trade, if you’re going to put our businesses at risk of bankruptcy, if you’re going to hurt our people by taxing them, then we’re going to do the same to you.

In this category of power that we hope we do never use, we designed it and put it together in a way to allow us to have the flexibility to respond and the nuances to be able to respond in an appropriate way that does not harm British Columbians.

That shows up in in a few ways. I think the member asked about affecting transport to British Columbians. I guess I’ll just…. As we talk through the different clauses in the bill, I think it’ll become really clear about what the powers show and how those powers are designed to be flexible and precise enough to be used in a way that does not harm British Columbians or their transport routes.

The procedural protections in this are that it’s a cabinet OIC that’s public. When we get to clause 18, we’ll be able to talk through, I think, in detail how precise the regulation could be, down to which road and what exact portion and what…. You could also define the class of users, the operators, the vehicles under the provincial undertaking, so the cabinet OIC has the ability to make sure that it is used in a way that doesn’t harm British Columbians.

The Chair: Before we proceed, I’d like to just remind people that we’ve allowed considerable latitude in debate. We want to remind members to ensure that their questions are focused on the clause under consideration, which is now clause 13.

Harman Bhangu: Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

I would also like to know: was there any consultation done with carriers or industries that use the ferry system to deliver their goods? Was it just big carriers, or were smaller carriers that are just individual owner-ops involved? Were industries that use the ferry system to transport goods from here…? We know we have a ferry system in Victoria. Port Angeles is on the other side. Was any consultation done with the businesses that require that service?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an enabling piece of legislation. What it does is it sets out in a very transparent way, through the legislative process, what the powers are in order to implement this.

Just like the procurement directive that we talked about, it’s enabling cabinet to make a decision and to make a decision through the details of clause 18 that is actually nuanced in how it’s going to affect and where. With that, the proper time for the consultation and discussion would be at that time of consideration of where and when that power — hopefully never — would be used but needs to be used.

Harman Bhangu: Can the Attorney General explain exactly which provincial undertakings are being scoped for these new tolls and fees? Will this apply to major commercial routes like Highway 1, Highway 5 and Highway 97 that truckers use daily? If the intent is not to toll our critical freight corridors, why not include that exemption in the legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I hope that this discussion doesn’t become a conversation outside of the scope of this, which is a response to a trade war, a response very directly to what we’re facing in terms of like Trump and what our people are facing in the context of that escalating trade war. Just yesterday the President announced 100 percent tariffs potentially on our film industry. This is a serious matter, and it is not a mechanism to put tolls to harm British Columbians. I hope that’s not the level of debate that we have on this section of this bill.

The tools in this bill allow the minister, again, to have that nuanced approach of what kind of regulation and what exactly would be put in place, and during that assessment, through cabinet discussion, you can decide exactly how precise you would like that to be.

Steve Kooner: I want to thank the Attorney General for her response to explain what the government intent was behind this legislation.

[6:20 p.m.]

The way that this legislation is worded, it could, in addition to having intent, also have effect. That’s our question — the effect of this legislation. Could that affect B.C. people the way this legislation is written right now?

The Chair: Before I hand it over to the minister, I’d again like to remind us that debate pertains to clause 13 only at this point.

Steve Kooner: I can rephrase my question so we can go back to clause 13.

The wording refers to provincial undertaking and refers to ferries. When you read these definitions, these are to be included. In the subtitle, it states: “Part 3, Tolls, Fees and Charges.”

General British Columbians can be very concerned just looking at this. It says tolls, fees and charges. Then clause 13 says “provincial undertaking.” It talks about ferries. People use ferries all the time in this province.

Can the Attorney General just give an explanation? The intent is not to go after British Columbians, but in reading this, I don’t see any carve-out here for British Columbians as an exception.

Based on the plain reading, would it be fair to say there is no exception to exclude British Columbians from this legislation in clause 13 in particular?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this is enabling legislation. I think the member is inferring intent of cabinet to act against British Columbians, which obviously is not the case. Cabinet is entrusted with many things, and first and foremost is to uphold the interests of British Columbians and all their needs.

The point of the drafting of this is to make it broad enough in order for the reg-making powers in clause 18 to be able to really define where you would want to put these in place or not.

Steve Kooner: The problem with clause 13 being so broad is exactly that. It’s broad. And when it’s broad, it includes everyday British Columbians. It includes everybody in this room. So yes, there is a concern in regard to that. I understand that maybe the government had some good intent behind it, but the way that this legislation is worded right now, there are some concerns because the legislation is broad.

I will continue that, and I assume that we’re going to get into that in later sections as well. But I’ll ask other questions on this particular clause.

We were just talking about ferries. How does the government reconcile the inclusion of B.C. Ferries operations and terminals under this definition? It refers to ferries, and it talks about provincial undertakings. How does this government reconcile the inclusion of B.C. Ferries operations and terminals under this definition, with the intended governance independence of B.C. Ferries as established under the Coastal Ferry Act?

B.C. Ferries is supposed to be independent. There were some questions in the media asking the government about B.C. Ferries. The response was, “Well, B.C. Ferries handles its own operations,” and to go there. With this legislation, it brings the ferries underneath this definition of provincial undertaking that this legislation applies to.

[6:25 p.m.]

Once again the question is how does the government reconcile the inclusion of B.C. Ferries operations and terminals under this definition with the intended governance independence of B.C. Ferries as established under the Coastal Ferry Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Anything related to their independence and their ability to set policies — this doesn’t interfere with that.

I just wanted to note for the member that the terminals are actually a property of the province, so that’s under different ownership.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her clarification on who owns the terminals. That will probably help to understand this part of the legislation.

It’s my understanding that the ferry system, B.C. Ferries, does own some assets and does kind of operate a little bit at arm’s length from the government. Although it may not own the terminals — that’s owned by the government, according to the Attorney General — I will ask the following question. Can the Attorney General confirm whether clause 13 is intended to enable expropriation, compulsory acquisition or forced control of ferry terminals — ferry terminals, the Attorney General already mentioned those — or ferries operated by B.C. ferries?

The question goes to control. Is the government planning to control certain segments of what B.C. Ferries actually controls?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer to that is no, and there’s nothing in this definition about provincial undertaking that would assume or even be able to lead anybody to imply that there is a power in this definition that would allow that to happen.

Steve Kooner: We haven’t got to subsequent sections yet, but there might be an opportunity to answer this next question there. Since we’re here, my understanding is that there’s a little bit of latitude allowed in the definition section of a part, so I will ask this question now in the event this issue doesn’t come up in the future.

What protections are in place to ensure that if a government action is taken under these provisions, essential ferry services and highway transportation continuity are maintained without disruption to the public?

The Chair: Member, could you please clarify how your question relates to clause 13.

Steve Kooner: Well, yes, I can clarify that.

This particular clause talks about including provincial undertakings. It talks about including B.C. Ferries. Now, my question talks about what sort of independence and control B.C. Ferries is going to still maintain and how their operations might be affected. What sort of continuity will be maintained into the future as a result of now being included in this definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s no impact on any of that. Again, this is a definition, and in the context of how this is applied, it’s necessary for it to be broad and inclusive.

[6:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Earlier the Attorney General mentioned that the intent was to address traffic that’s going on its way to Alaska from the United States. How come there wasn’t any sort of reference to that in this definition — that provincial undertakings will be included only to the extent that they involve trade between Alaska and the southern states?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, as I explained, the definition is meant to be broad. But the regulatory power, which is in clause 18, is where you would have the ability to have a very targeted regulation power, to make sure it’s hitting the right area.

Steve Kooner: Has the government conducted a fiscal impact assessment of the potential financial exposure created by including ferries and ferry terminals under the definition of a provincial undertaking?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, because this is an enabling piece of legislation, so there’s nothing there to do an analysis about. This just enables government — through other clauses, not the definition; the definition has no enabling power or ability — cabinet, to put such a regime in place.

Steve Kooner: Does the Attorney General’s department foresee future fiscal impact assessments being done, although this is an enabling piece of legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, it’s an enabling piece of legislation. At the time that that would happen, it would be important to do that — the minister or cabinet would do that — to understand the fiscal impact of whatever that measure is going to be.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General explain how allowing government intervention in ferries, ferry terminals and highways is proportionate and connected to the stated goal of responding to international tariff disputes involving the U.S.?

The Chair: Member, could you please clarify how the question relates to clause 13.

Steve Kooner: Well, the clause does talk about the provincial undertaking. It does talk about ferries, the last time I checked. It talks about the Transportation Act. It talks about the Coastal Ferry Act. The subheading, right above it, talks about tolls, fees and charges.

The Attorney General explained that this applies to the U.S. and explained that it applies to the trade corridor between Alaska and the southern United States. I think my question addressed every single one of those points.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, nothing in this definition talks about taking over the governance or authority of ferries or coastal ferries. That’s just not part of this piece of legislation, nor of any of the enabling powers that are in place.

Steve Kooner: Going back to clause 13, it talks about provincial undertakings, about ferries, about the Transportation Act and about the Coastal Ferry Act under the title of “Tolls, Fees and Charges.”

The next question has to do…. We were explained about Alaska earlier, and that Alaska example is not in this particular definition. So we can’t see it.

[6:35 p.m.]

Other than the Alaska example, what specific threat or risk is the government responding to by including these definitions in clause 13?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This definition of “provincial undertaking” is drafted purposefully broad. That is because, as it’s applied in the further clauses that we’ll get to…. It’s to make sure that the tools are there to do the assessment if we do ever need — and, hopefully, we never do — to have better tools to escalate a response in the context of an escalating trade war.

Steve Kooner: In regards to the broad definition that the Attorney General just mentioned, have there been any concerns from any stakeholders about this broad definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have not heard anything about clause 3 or concerns about the definition.

Steve Kooner: Going on to my next question, going to the interpretation of this section, it talks about provincial undertaking. In law, “undertaking” has some significant meanings. We have heard in terms of interpretation…. We’ve gone through ordinary meaning, we’ve gone through legal meaning, and we’ve gone through that there could be illegal legislative consequences of certain particular wording.

Going to provincial undertaking” can the Attorney General please elaborate on why these specific words were used? I assume that provincial undertaking has been used in another statute, as in the Transportation Act, but other than that, why was this particular wording used?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have answered this already. Provincial undertaking is taken to borrow from definitions both in the Transportation Act and the Coastal Ferry Act.

Steve Kooner: In the wording of this particular clause, it talks about provincial undertaking but then it goes further and then it refers to “provincial public undertaking.” Is there a reason why the definition becomes a three-letter word rather than a two-letter word in clause (a)?

Hon. Niki Sharma: “Provincial public undertaking” is defined in the Transportation Act, and that’s why it has all three words in it. Just to take back the construction of this definition, it’s “‘provincial undertaking’ means the following….” So it actually defines it by the three sub-subsections there. And that means it’s calling upon each of those things that define what public undertaking means.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that interpretation, explanation for the three words that state “provincial public undertaking.”

The word “public” just brings another question. Other than a public undertaking, could this include any sort of partnership undertaking? You see mutually there are contracts that are done to build certain infrastructure and all that. There could be a potential private undertaking that has some sort of regulation from the government. So other than public undertaking, is that pretty much exhaustive?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: If we can have some clarification.

Do you mean provincial undertaking, that definition that’s in this, or are you talking about provincial public undertaking and whether it’s an exhaustive list?

Steve Kooner: I guess that’s why we need interpretation here, because there’s a little bit of ambiguity in questions and answers here.

This talks about provincial undertaking, and then it goes in and says this is what provincial undertaking means. That seems to suggest that it’s an exhaustive list, that provincial undertaking only means a provincial public undertaking under the Transportation Act, a ferry under Coastal Ferry Act and ferry terminals under the Coastal Ferry Act, and there can be no other meanings other than that.

Would the Attorney General agree with me that this is an exhaustive list of what could be included in a provincial undertaking?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it is an exhaustive list.

Steve Kooner: Earlier the Attorney General mentioned that the ownership of ferry terminals is by the province. It’s owned by the provincial government. Why a need to include that under “provincial undertaking” when the province already has control over it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to be clear on what was included in that definition of provincial undertaking.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Gavin Dew: As it relates to this section, we saw fairly extensive public commentary that telegraphed the intentions of government around how these particular clauses might be used, particularly with regard to goods movement to Alaska and other similar issues.

Can the Attorney General expand on whether that was an intentional disclosure, an intentional strategy or whether that was unintentional?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of the construction of this particular clause, it sets out a regulatory regime where you could put into place tolls, fees or charges in response to the tariff threat.

I think the member was asking about how the Premier has talked about this publicly. He’s not here to speak for himself. What I will say is that I think that in the context of that public discussion about how we were positioning ourselves to be a viable threat to the States, if they were going to escalate….

And if we remember back at that time, when the executive orders were coming quickly, it was to get the attention of — I think he talked about this publicly too — the Alaskan governor and our friends on the other side of the border to the south.

[6:45 p.m.]

It was to say: “We’re serious that if you don’t talk to the President and help him understand how integrated we are and how we rely on each other for trade and for prosperity and for the well-being of our citizens, then we will escalate.”

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the Attorney General for the explanation.

Just going back to the public communication, the structuring of the bill, the design of the bill, could the Attorney General illuminate whether the application of the bill, or the prospective application of the bill, for the purposes she previously mentioned…? Did those purposes drive the development of this section of the bill, or was the bill developed and then that potential purpose identified?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The bill was developed in response to the tariff threat. I think what you saw when the Premier stepped forward and said: “We will use the tools that we have to retaliate….” You saw political responses from all sides of the border.

Congress is finally stepping up to launch lawsuits against the executive order power of the President. So I think we’ve seen more of a political response and retaliation because you’ve seen governors on, probably, all sides — or at the state level, actually — see what the implications of this trade war could be for their people and stand up.

That’s part of a strategy in a trade war: to figure out tools you have to get the attention of the opposing member of the trade war.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate that explanation, and I think it is a solid explanation. I want to just restate my question to make it clearer, because I was attempting to ask a slightly more detailed question.

When I referred to whether the section of the bill was developed before the strategy, or the strategy was developed, and the section of the bill was backfilled to make it possible, I’m not referring broadly to the ability to threaten retaliation to get attention. I’m referring specifically to the potential functionality of the bill in imposing tolls on trucking.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, so I can provide some further clarity. This bill was designed as our economic stabilization and tariff response bill. So yes, it’s to give us the tools, if necessary. It’s more than just words. It’s got the legal backing behind it for us to be able to do it, if necessary, to be able to — hopefully, never — implement those.

Gavin Dew: Again, I appreciate the explanation and the confirmation. That helps me to understand the process by which this was developed.

At such time as those conversations were underway in the development of the bill, and the development of the toolkit enabled by the bill, could the Attorney General illuminate for us what conversations and considerations there were around the potential of corresponding retaliation from Alaska and, in particular, the use of the Passenger Vessel Services Act as a retaliatory mechanism?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member is raising one of the difficulties of us being in a trade war that we didn’t ask for, which is that as a Team Canada approach, it was decided — and, I think, effectively, as team members — that we would show a strong push-back.

As you know, the federal government put into effect retaliatory tariffs. We as a province, along with other provinces designed…. I think you’ve heard the response from other Premiers about what their retaliatory response could be.

I think the member is correct. Every time you step into the fact that you put into effect a retaliatory measure, there will likely or possibly be a response to that. It’s why the bill is designed in a way to have the maximum flexibility possible.

[6:50 p.m.]

You can imagine a scenario where you could turn something on and off quickly, or you could be very precise about where it’s put into place and for how long. That way, we can make sure that we’re proportional to any of the responses that we want to retaliate on and also put in the thinking behind how to put in that measure to minimize impacts and also understand what the retaliatory measure could be.

I think another thing to keep in mind is that all of this is not without context, so there are conversations happening in the context of all of this. I think you’ve probably followed that the Premiers are meeting with governors and talking about the responses and what our position is. It’s in the context of there being a viable threat of us being able to put this if we have to. It actually also helps with the conversations that you can have at the table with people to try to resolve the dispute.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that explanation very much.

Just returning to the PVSA piece, obviously, during COVID, we had a precedent that was established around the PVSA, around the desire and willingness of leaders in Alaska to see, at that time, temporary changes to the PVSA. I think it would be an uncontroversial and fair statement to say that the government was perhaps surprised by the speed with which changes were made to allow cruise tourism to bypass British Columbia destinations.

Again, just taking into account the significance of this particular mechanism, can the Attorney General illuminate for us what lessons were learned from that prior change around the PVSA during COVID that helped to inform the strategy around using this particular retaliatory tool or making it available?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That was a really difficult time for a lot of people, during COVID, for many reasons. But the cruise ships and getting them back and the impacts in Victoria — I remember that very well. And I think there would be lessons related to that about how we work together and how interrelated we are when it comes to our industry.

I think the interesting thing that we’ve seen is that as the trade war escalates, or when the President pauses things and then reassesses, every time somebody pulls a string on something, we realize how connected we are, right? And then they think: “Oh, wait. If I do this, then it’s going to affect my industry too.” It’s going to affect the cruise ships that actually want to do business with British Columbians, and they get a benefit from that.

I think this whole discussion has been a part of illuminating how interconnected we are. As Canadians, we want to figure out how to move on from this and not be in this battle over…. The response again is: “But if we are going to be in this battle, we’re going to show you that we’re willing to also fight back.”

Striking that balance is so important, and I think we did learn from how integrated we are. We always learn that. We’ve been learning it even now when we talk about the film industry and potential tariffs. And part of the issue with this trade war is: how do you respond in a way that shows your force and also protects industries as much as you can?

Gavin Dew: Again, I appreciate that answer. Certainly, some very good points made there.

As a critic for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, I approach this particular piece through the lens of concern around the long-term prospects of our cruise tourism industry. One of the challenges that is there is simply around proportionality in that there has been an argument advanced by the Alaskans that, as we’ve heard from other American authorities, “We don’t need you.”

There is about a $3 billion economic impact to the cruise tourism sector accruing primarily to Vancouver, Victoria and, to a lesser extent, Prince Rupert, and I will just say there’s fantastic upside opportunity in Prince Rupert around cruise.

[6:55 p.m.]

In evaluating the choice to use this particular mechanism with the reasonable assumption that the potential second-order retaliation could likely be around the PVSA and cruise, did the ministry or did the government more broadly analyze the potential risk to long-term disruption of that cruise relationship?

In speaking with folks in the cruise tourism sector, different cruise destinations have different, let’s call it, intrinsic draw versus having a draw that is a function of avoiding a fee, which is really the origin story, to some extent, of how we’ve been able to build such a successful cruise tourism sector. It’s because the incentive structure exists. But it is a very old incentive structure that could very easily, particularly in a fraught moment like this, be changed fundamentally in a way that might create really significant downside exposure for our tourism sector.

I’m just wondering if the Attorney General can illuminate a little more of the conversation that happened around the risk-reward equation on using this particular retaliatory mechanism and on the risk of long-term destabilization of our cruise tourism sector.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I fully expect, and I know this would be true, that before any measure was put in here, the type of analysis that the member’s asking for would happen. I just want to say I also understand the uncertainty out there and the fear that’s out there. I just want to name that because we all meet with people that are really worried about the uncertainty and instability in the time that we’re in.

As the government — and I know probably everybody in this room, no matter what party you’re in — our hope is that it doesn’t escalate. Our hope is that we’re able to get a version of an agreement with the States and that we can stabilize for everybody, because we want the cruise industry to be…. We know the benefits it has. We want the jobs and the economic stability of having a stable trading partner or diversification of trade. So just to say that our goal will always be that, and we also will have tools to get their attention if we need to.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much.

I certainly, firstly, appreciate the response. I think it’s very thoughtful. I recognize that embedded in the response is a theme that has come back repeatedly. I think it’s a legitimate point made, that there are considerations that will duly be analyzed in greater depth at such time as directions are issued. And that has been, I think, an ongoing theme of the Attorney General’s answers.

I’m hoping that I can get a little bit more detail on the analysis that was undertaken at such time as this was included in the bill. And I say that…. I ask that specifically because the idea of escalation with Alaska, the idea of imposing costs on Alaska that could reasonably be assumed to trigger a potential retaliation, leveraging the PVSA as a tool, leveraging cruise tourism as the retaliation, that could reasonably be understood to be the intent.

Anybody reading this bill, anybody listening to the Premier’s comments could reasonably assume that that was a directive that was actively being contemplated. And as such, anybody who is a counterparty to that particular escalation, specifically Alaska, would indubitably be very aware that we were signalling that that was a tool in in a toolkit.

[7:00 p.m.]

Taking into account the experience during COVID — extensive legal work, extensive public affairs work, extensive debate, extensive political mobilization happened out of Alaska around the PVSA, creating in some ways an adversary with a finger on the trigger, potentially, with a toolkit of their own available that could very quickly be escalatory — that could very quickly have very significant implications.

I just want to better understand. The Attorney General has answered that at such time as a directive was issued, there would be a greater degree of analysis undertaken around the potential economic consequences. Was that not undertaken before this potential escalation was very loudly telegraphed in the bill and in the media by the Premier?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I won’t repeat myself. The full analysis will be done at the time of.

I just want to say that I think the Premier and the discussions that we’ve had are not just about legislation and enabling the tools to do it. It’s also about the political pressure that we wanted to apply to get the attention.

I mean, I think there are arguments you could make that the Team Canada approach where we showed what we could do in every regional way…. I think you had Premier Ford talking about electricity. Then, all of a sudden, all the neighbouring states were thinking about: “Hey, we’re really integrated with Ontario.”

I think our version of that was talking about the transport that goes through one side to the other, to connect the southern states to Alaska. That got attention, to show how integrated we are. So I do think this approach of highlighting this has led to political discussions that are important.

This bill will give the enabling tools that we hope we never have to use, to be able to actually implement something like that. There are versions of this uncertainty and trade war that we’re in where things escalate, and there are versions where they don’t. We need to be tooled up either way, and this helps us do that.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. Very much appreciated.

I think I, respectfully, didn’t hear an answer around analysis undertaken around the potential consequences of this kind of escalation and potential impacts on cruise tourism. I will ask a different question, recognizing I may not get an answer on that one.

Taking into account that the ministry, the government, set out to put this escalation into the toolkit and, as such, was taking on the risk that there could be a significant escalation that could have significant downside consequences for a significant $3 billion industry, what, if any, efforts were undertaken or were directed to be undertaken in terms of mitigating that risk to our cruise tourism sector?

When I say that, I mean not only understanding the potential implications of a change to the PVSA, not only trying to manage that potential, but also proactively mitigating our dependence on the PVSA as the enabling instrument that is fundamental to the existence of a significant portion of our cruise tourism sector.

For example, were efforts made or funding made available or directions given in order to make sure that there was greater investment or greater effort put towards strengthening the fundamental appeal of our cruise tourism destinations?

Certainly, an issue that was canvassed fairly extensively in Tourism estimates was the implication of urban street disorder on affecting the fundamental appeal of areas like Vancouver and Victoria as cruise tourism destinations.

Taking into account that the government was gambling or planning to gamble quite substantially on using leverage with Alaska that created risk exposure for our cruise tourism sector with $3 billion on the line, or some portion of $3 billion on the line, what plan, what mitigation, what strategy was put in place to make sure that if, in fact, that button was pushed and that escalation happened, we were mitigating the downside risk to our tourism sector as much as was possible, given the circumstances?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member is asking a pretty detailed and deep question that is about a policy area that isn’t directly tied to this, but I’m happy to ask…. I think JEDI probably could be the best to respond, and as he’s the critic for JEDI, I think it’s a good question.

I think that there’s a lot of work going on. I think there are a few parts to the question about diversification of an industry. There’s a lot of work going on about getting proper tools out to get industry to do that.

Again, with the risk analysis or the detailed analysis, I know that JEDI is working hard on…. Actually, it could also be TACS, the ministry there, that’s working on tourism impacts and how they’re being mitigated as a result of the trade war that we’re in. That’s why the proper time to actually understand and do that analysis is….

If this was ever to be — hopefully, never — a power that we feel we needed to use, the appropriate ministers would come before cabinet and show the discussion, and a lot of the questions would probably be very similar to what the member is asking about the fiscal and economic impacts of that. How are you protecting the tourism industry? What are the other sides?

Before you even think about enacting something like this, you’ve got to think about the consequences of it.

The Chair: Members, the committee will take a short, ten-minute recess. We’ll return at 7:16 p.m.

The committee recessed from 7:06 p.m. to 7:19 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order. We are on clause 14.

Harman Bhangu: I’ve spoken to a lot of truckers regarding this, and it’s a huge concern that they have. It suggests it applies to trucking, so why is this government bringing in a bill that could potentially add more costs, red tape, uncertainty? And there’s no service guaranteed to truckers to make things better for them.

[7:20 p.m.]

What I’ve been hearing a lot from truckers is that they are always last on the list — last to get paid, last to be consulted. And right here the wording of this actually suggests that there could be a lot of implications for truckers, but they’re getting no improvements to infrastructure.

What is the money — the tolls, fees and charges — going to be used for? Truckers want to know: will it improve their infrastructure, the routes, the turnaround times? I think this is a very valid question from truckers. It’s really tough right now, with this economy, getting things going, and they have a lot of concerns. I just really want some clarification on this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll leave it to the Minister of Transportation, which I’m sure he would, to go through all of the investments and the ways we’ve made trucking easier in this province. We’ll leave that to him to go through, because just a few things come to mind about infrastructure investments that have been pretty key to truckers.

That aside, this bill doesn’t earmark where the tolls and fees collected would go specifically, but what it does is to give powers under clause 18….

[Interruption.]

The Chair: I ask that members and the gallery please keep their voices down. Thank you.

Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you. They were talking about tolls and charges and the tariff war over there.

Basically, clause 18 actually allows there to be a benefit. You could see the minister and the cabinet designing a particular regulation that tries to help the local trucking industry in a way that they’re being harmed by the tariffs or by something that’s happening related to tariffs.

I know one of the things we’ve been hearing is that imports are being affected and that ports are being affected. I think it also gives the opposite potential. You could figure out how to design a system for your regulation to target and to protect B.C. truckers and B.C. industry, and design it in a way that if you’re retaliating, it maximizes harm to the people that you want it to harm.

Harman Bhangu: The reason why I ask about this is that there have been a lot of previous government policies…. Being a trucker and knowing a lot of truckers, when the carbon tax was implemented, for example, I can tell you that there was nothing, no check bounds or anything, for truckers. There was nothing in legislation that would say, “If you’re paying this, you have to pay it forward,” even in union rates.

I worked for a union. In my actual union rate, when that was implemented, we had a pause on our fees. Truckers are continually asking me: “Where is the benefit for us in this?” It seems to me that every single time, they give, give, give. Even when the DPF emissions reduction for the fumes was brought in, there was an added cost, but there was nothing to protect them from losing revenue over it.

[7:25 p.m.]

My question is: when you were doing this, how many truckers did you consult? How many individual owner-operators, how many people from the construction industry, not just the big carriers — your top five ones that get all the jobs — but the smaller ones too, the backbone of B.C., the one-off, the mom-and-pop-shop types of businesses that keep this province running?

It seems to be a lot of policy gets put on with all the mega corporations, but we’re forgetting a lot of these individual one-offs actually combine to be almost around the equivalent workforce. I don’t think we should be leaving them behind, and that’s why I want to have some clarification on this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re not leaving anybody behind. In fact, we are solidly standing on the side of British Columbians, every British Columbian, big or small businesses across the province. Nothing in this bill would indicate otherwise.

What I would say is that the Minister of Transportation is in contact with many different organizations, big or small trucker associations, understanding what the needs of all their industries are, just like any minister with stakeholders is responsible to do. If there ever was the need — and, hopefully, there never will be the need — to enact some kind of retaliatory measure through this part 3 of the legislation, then of course, the minister responsible would be speaking with those that may be impacted.

They’d be designing a mechanism to make sure they were protected and supported through this, and they would be figuring out which tools are the most appropriate ones to help people through. The whole point of this bill is to support people through a trade war, so all the tools in here could be mobilized to do that.

Steve Kooner: I have a few questions, actually.

We’ve heard a lot about this particular part of Bill 7, clause 14, being an enabling piece of legislation. Obviously, there was some sort of brainstorming that went behind it, and this piece of legislation was brought up. There might have been some sort of consulting. There might have been some sort of framework to why this was being brought forward.

I want to ask…. Then, obviously, when you’re talking about tolls, fees and charges, you’re talking about another source of revenue. So this next question comes up. What estimates, if any, does the government have for revenue versus cost, and did those inform the decision to actually seek this power?

Basically, you enable this legislation. It might collect some revenue, right? As a result of collecting revenue, what would be the cost? In order to collect that revenue, what would be the cost?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, again, this is an enabling piece with no actual regulation in place to analyze. I’ll go back to what I’ve said a few times now, which is the time that that analysis would happen would be at the time where it’s contemplated if we ever get to that stage that a regulation should be put in place.

Steve Kooner: So is it the government’s perspective that the government would not really care about the revenue? At this stage, they’re not worried about the revenue that they would actually get under tolls, fees and charges.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The goal of this measure is not revenue or revenue generating. The goal is to be a retaliatory measure if we are in an escalating trade war.

Steve Kooner: The goal is to retaliate. And if the tolls do get put down, there will be some revenue, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. I mean, it would depend on the measure, the length of time, all those things, but yes.

[7:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General has referred to a specific reason or a specific trade route to address in terms of this particular clause, and that was Alaska and the route between Alaska and the southern United States, to our south here.

In regards to that, I understand that Alaska is in the picture, and we have the southern United States in the picture. But after considering that, does the government have a list of potential locations where these tolls may be located in the future? Alaska has been mentioned.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Okay, so now just to change the line of questioning here a little bit. Obviously there are individuals that could be facing the tolls, and they would be having to pay those tolls. Individuals that come to mind…. There could be United States citizens, foreign nationals. There could be permanent residents from Canada. There could be British Columbians.

In regards to this particular legislation, is there anything here — I don’t see anything in this clause 14 — that distinguishes between foreign nationals, American permanent residents versus Canadian permanent residents? I don’t see it.

I understand it’s enabling legislation, but it is pretty broad, and a minister that takes this up…. There are no limits to what the minister can do with this, so is there any sort of distinction here? I don’t see it in this particular clause, but is there something to safeguard so it doesn’t get applied to British Columbians?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As we get to clause 18, we can talk about the regulatory-making power that the cabinet and the minister represent in order to do that. The whole intent of it is to respond to a tariff threat. And the powers that are put into particularly clause 18 allow that ability to design it precisely for what’s intended.

Steve Kooner: I get that this particular clause was made quite broad, and there are only two paragraphs in it. But is there a reason why you couldn’t just say: “Well, this will only apply to U.S. residents. This will only apply to U.S. trade coming in or U.S. transport coming in. It will not apply to British Columbians. It will not apply to Canadian citizens. It will not apply to British Columbia permanent residents”?

That would actually alleviate a lot of concern that British Columbians have about this legislation, if there was just an exception carved out for that. So going back to the question…. I don’t see it in this legislation. What’s the reason why? You can just add that extra provision in here.

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are many reasons why the construction is the way it is. The first one is that the way this is designed is a precedent that’s commonly used by government when it’s putting provisions of legislation related to enacting fees or charges so that the construction is consistent and stable among statutes.

The reason that it’s important to be flexible at the outset, and it’s designed this way, is because if, in legislation, you clearly signal what might be, in effect, a loophole to paying that fee or tax or toll by expressly saying certain things are true or not true within the enabling power, then you’ve created the potential for people to design their affairs from the outset in a way that creates their ability, in a stagnant way, because legislation is not as movable as regulation.

What you’ve done is, in a very stagnant way, created a way for people to get through loopholes of what tolls, fees or charges, in this case, might apply to them or not. Generally, the wording of these kinds of provisions is left broad and vague, and the way you change it is through regulation, because through regulation, you’re able to adapt and adjust and to mitigate any loopholes that may be created for people to avoid in a more automatic way. I think that there are examples we were talking through about how, in an escalating trade war, it might show up in different ways.

Another reason for flexibility is it might be that you want to design your regulation to target American cargo that’s in a B.C. truck, so you might have to actually be more nuanced related to what is the nationality of the thing that you’re attaching a fee to.

The real thing is, just to clarify…. The way that this is designed legally is to attach a fee to the thing. It’s attaching it to the public infrastructure, right? It’s attaching it to the road or to the ferry or to whatever, and the fee is charged by usage of that. But you may be able to design, according to the powers in here, the ability to put a regulatory regime around that so you can understand how you’re going to apply that and who it’s going to apply to and what classes of persons. Clause 18 talks about that.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that explanation. I’m just looking to, again, understand a little bit more about the diligence undertaken around the implications of these particular changes, especially given the extent to which government signalled to the marketplace, both domestically and internationally as well as signaling to stakeholders, the type of approach that might be undertaken.

[7:40 p.m.]

I think we’ve more than adequately canvassed the piece around tourism, but I do want to understand what work was undertaken around trucking and goods movement. In particular, I would love to better understand what level of detail government dug into in terms of understanding what a probable market response would be from individual trucking companies.

For example, did they look at what the elasticity would be in terms of different toll rates and different reactions in the marketplace? If, for example, a toll hit a certain threshold, would there be an expectation that you might see trucking companies begin cross-docking between different trucks that were differently plated, and things of that nature?

Was that analysis undertaken in order to understand what a probable market response would be to different toll or fee structures at different rates?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, this is the same thing that I mentioned last time. The time to do that would be at the time of proposing or understanding what the regulation is and where you want to put it.

Gavin Dew: I’m somewhat prepared to accept that explanation as it relates to the broad range of potential procurement directives that could be forthcoming but are not yet known. I’m really struggling a little bit with the fact that emerging from this specific section, there were very, very specific potential directives that were very publicly signalled by government, by the Premier.

Whether it be the cruise tourism implications or whether it be on this piece, I think it’s just really important to recognize that a directive does not need to be issued in order to start having an effect in the marketplace. A direction that is signalled as a potentiality is very likely to elicit a reaction from stakeholders and market actors, and in this instance, I am assuming that it probably did.

In the case of counterparties in Alaska reacting, counterparties in Alaska do not start scenario-mapping the full range of their potential responses the day that a directive is issued. If they’re doing their jobs, they would presumably begin mapping the full range of their potential responses the day that that potential escalation is signalled or is predicted.

By the same logic, any responsible operator in a transportation logistics business would, in all likelihood, see the prospect of tolling signalled, as it has been quite loudly and quite clearly with a fairly significant degree of detail, and those actors in a marketplace, those stakeholders, begin reacting to that. They don’t begin reacting to a procurement directive, because they would be foolish to wait until something that has been signalled as a very real possibility or probability by government has been clearly outlined.

I am going to assume that both institutional stakeholders, organizations like the B.C. Trucking Association, United Truckers, large trucking companies, small trucking companies, other transportation logistic players and operators, individuals who operate cross-docking facilities that are border-adjacent, individuals involved in all manner of different aspects of our transportation logistics system, in all likelihood, were motivated to go and start talking about what this would look like.

[7:45 p.m.]

That could lead to individuals making investment or disinvestment decisions in terms of physical infrastructure, gambling on the possibility that there could end up being a requirement for cross-docking.

The Chair: Member, I just would politely ask if you could perhaps help me understand how your narrative is connected to clause 14.

Gavin Dew: I would be happy to do so, and that is, again…. What I’m trying to elicit from the Attorney General, as I have attempted previously, is an understanding of what efforts were made, both to consult and to provide predictability in the marketplace, especially for B.C. companies, around the implications of what these policies would be.

I reject the narrative that the market starts reacting or that stakeholders start reacting when a procurement directive is actually issued. I would submit that the day that government began signalling that this was a prominent weapon in its arsenal of response would logically have been the day on which British Columbia companies, industry associations, institutional stakeholders began trying to understand what this would actually mean.

With that said, could the Attorney General please expand on how, specifically, stakeholders in the transportation logistics and trucking sectors were consulted around the potential implications, specifically, of this potential change, and what advice was provided to them, what mitigation measures were identified for B.C.-based companies in order to reduce the uncertainty for them, in order to enable them to be better prepared to respond if such a measure was, in fact, brought forward?

It strikes me that when you look at these procurement directives, you’re not exactly operating with the element of surprise when you’ve telegraphed it this far out.

The Chair: Member, again, I would ask that you please help me understand how your narrative right now is connected to clause 14.

Gavin Dew: Yes, it’s directly related to clause 14 because the Attorney General has very specifically articulated, on a number of occasions, that clause 14 was purpose-built in order to enable the kind of tolling structure that we’re discussing right now. This is expressly the purpose of 14, as expressly identified by the Attorney General who has expressly told us that it was developed in order to enable this tool in the toolkit of response. I don’t think I could be any more closely aligned with the privately and publicly stated intention of the section, Mr. Chair.

Again, I would just ask the Attorney General to again help us understand what efforts were undertaken to make sure that, given the loud signal sent to the marketplace of transportation logistics and trucking players throughout British Columbia, what specific consultation and communication was undertaken in order to make sure that the B.C.-based Canadian businesses that we’re trying to help through this overall bill was actually set up to be best able to respond to changes that government had signalled might be forthcoming.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Minister of Transportation has been in regular contact with the stakeholders related to this and the trade war in general, and that’s the work that we expect all ministers to do. I’ve answered already what the timing would be about the analysis.

Steve Kooner: I was asking questions earlier about why there was an exception carved out for British Columbians, British Columbia residents, Canadian citizens. And why wasn’t clause 14 just applicable to the intended target, which is the U.S. residents, U.S. citizens, U.S. permanent residents?

I was told that there could be some loopholes, and there should be a prevention of loopholes, and also the exceptions can be dealt by regulation. But the problem with dealing with the exceptions by regulation is there’s no legislative oversight. It would be done by cabinet.

[7:50 p.m.]

There’s a lot of concern, as we have heard already from a lot of people in the public, about tolls. They’re thinking: “Oh, there are tolls, fees and charges.” They’re worried about it, and assurances alone cannot soothe their concerns, because today there’s significant financial hardship out in the general community. So many people are just $200 away from not making their ends meet. So just a talk of some tolls — it’s very significant within British Columbia right now.

I am of the opinion that there should be exception here for British Columbians. That will help soothe their concerns that it will not apply to them. For that reason, I’m going to be introducing an amendment to this particular clause. What that amendment does is….

I’m moving an amendment to clause 14. Clause 14 to be amended by adding another subsection. That subsection will be subsection 3. I’ll pass over the proposed amendment.

I can speak to the amendment or we….

The Chair: If you could just restate the amendment, and then if you want to provide additional comments or remarks, please go ahead.

Steve Kooner: I’m moving an amendment to clause 14 to add a new subsection. The subsection would be subsection (3).

[Clause 14 is amended by adding the following subsection:

(3) Any regulation established by The Lieutenant Governor in Council may not:

(a) impose a cost, toll, fee or charge upon British Columbians,

(b) impose a cost, toll, fee or charge upon Canadians,

(c) impose a cost, toll, fee or charge upon Permanent residents of Canada.]

There was a typo in the last one. Can I just amend the typo and hand it out?

The Chair: We’ll deal with it.

The committee will take a ten-minute recess. We’ll return at 8:03 p.m.

The committee recessed from 7:53 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 14. I will give the floor to the member for Richmond-Queensborough. The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: All right, so we’re dealing with clause 14 here. I have moved an amendment to add a subsection (3).

Through our lengthy debate today, I asked whether there was a distinction or exception put in to exclude British Columbians. There clearly is not one in the actual wording of the legislation, so I moved this particular amendment. The amendment would prevent Bill 7 being used to implement road pricing or highway tolls on Canadians.

The government has said they will not implement road pricing. This amendment guarantees it. In the news, the government appears to be considering vehicle levies. This amendment would prevent the use of Bill 7 to bring in vehicle levies. The government would be required to bring in separate legislation through the Legislature in the event that it wants to bring in vehicle levies. This provides assurances to British Columbians that they will not be singled out and will not have to face tolls.

British Columbians are $200 away from being able to pay their bills in this province. The last thing they need is for a government to impose substantial new taxes through this legislation. We hope the government will be true to their word, support this amendment and prevent this bill from bringing in tolls, fees, costs and charges on British Columbians.

On this side of the House, we feel that this is a fair, proportioned amendment, and it protects British Columbians. I urge every member of this House to support this particular amendment.

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’d like to have an opportunity to speak to why I won’t be supporting this amendment.

The member talks about something that his amendments would prevent, which is that it would provide clarity to British Columbians and ensure that costs wouldn’t be applied to them. Actually, in fact, the amendment as worded would do the exact opposite. It’s problematic for several reasons, and I’d like to take some time to lay out what those are.

The first one is, generally speaking, regimes like this, where you’re opposing charges, are done exactly in the approach that’s contemplated in this bill. That’s for several reasons. You have a standard empowering clause in order to charge a fee, and then you have a regulatory power in order to define it. I spoke at length earlier as to why that’s done, to ensure that there’s no ability to put loopholes or design regimes to avoid paying something when you rightly should be, in the upfront part of the legislation. It’s a standard approach that exists in Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.

The construction of this clause is also problematic. It says at the very front: “Any regulation established by Lieutenant Governor in Council may not….” That is very, very broad. To say “any regulation established” is much broader than the regulatory power that’s provided under this section. It’s a huge scope that would…. We wouldn’t understand what the legal consequences of that would be as I’m standing here in front of you.

The next part of this is that the subsections use the word “cost.” The word cost is not used or applied in any part of the bill, so it lacks meaning or definition or understanding as to what that would mean. Along with…. It’s not clear. The member mentioned vehicles. Nowhere in here does it say vehicles. The definitions of British Columbians, Canadians, permanent residents could be very vague. You could, in fact, just set up a regime through this amendment where it would be very easy to figure out a way to avoid paying a toll if you rightly should be paying it.

For example, you could…. It’s vague just to know if you could understand whether a B.C. driver was driving an American truck with a licence plate, whether or not a fee would apply. There could be a whole number of scenarios that I could run through this amendment to show that it would actually create more confusion. The right way to do this thing is to do it by regulation, exactly how the bill is set up to do.

Just the final point that I want to make is actually another reason why it wouldn’t make any sense to put this amendment in there. By listing certain exemptions, like the member has, in this regulation, for British Columbians, Canadians, permanent residents, it causes a lot of problems for clause 18, because clause 18 is the regulatory-making power. It causes confusion as to how or why you’d be able to figure out which class of drivers or categories of drivers the regulatory power could be attached to by creating the confusion of exempting a very particular listing, particular ones here.

The regime that we have here is the perfect balance between being able to respond quickly in the event that we do need to put into place something none of us hope we ever will have to and also being able to adapt it and make it apply to minimize all impacts to British Columbians and make sure that it’s targeted at the right source.

For all those reasons, I won’t be supporting this amendment.

Rob Botterell: I will not be supporting this amendment, for all of the reasons that are raised by the Attorney General.

I just want to amplify one reason in particular, and that is that it has been made abundantly clear through all the readings so far and through all the lengthy committee deliberations so far, that, unequivocally, this legislation is tariff response legislation. The focus of this legislation is to be able to effectively respond in a timely way to trade action by the U.S. in particular.

[8:10 p.m.]

What we don’t want to do is have a piece of legislation where advisers to the President of the United States say: “Have a look at this Bill 7. It has just got passed. Isn’t that interesting? Look, there’s an exemption for British Columbians, Canadians and permanent residents. I know how we can get around this. We can go around this tariff response. We’ll just structure it so that we can totally avoid the effect of the regulations.”

Clause 18 provides a detailed regulatory framework with all the usual safeguards to be able to tailor our response but not send the President of the United States a recipe on how to make our tariff response ineffective. For that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Kiel Giddens: I have to disagree with the previous speaker in the fact that the only thing that we’re learning out of this section of this bill in its entirety is that this is a lightning rod for the President of the United States to actually be looking at this bill and looking for retaliatory measures.

We’re making sure that we’re protecting British Columbians from getting tolled and from having road pricing or levies charged on them. This is about trying to protect them. Overall, we wouldn’t need to be having this conversation if the government pulled Bill 7 entirely. So I will be supporting this amendment in order to protect taxpayers.

The Chair: The question is on the amendment to clause 14.

Division has been called.

[8:15 p.m. - 8:20 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment on clause 14, moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson		McCall
NAYS — 7
Brar	Lajeunesse	Higginson
Routledge	Sharma	Boyle
	Botterell

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:22 p.m.