The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Kelly Greene.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Claire Rattée: I’m very fortunate; I have a few people in the audience today that I’d like to recognize.

Today we have Steven and Amar, again, from Together We Can recovery society. I’m really grateful I got to have a great meeting with them yesterday again, and they’ll be meeting with the rest of our caucus as well today. Really happy to have them here.

I’m also very fortunate to have Chief Glenn Bennett from the Kitselas First Nation, in my riding, here. Chief Bennett is an amazing leader for his community, and I consider him to be a very good friend. He’s also accompanied by Linda Morven, Darrin McCormack and Rick Brouwer, as representatives for the Kitselas First Nation.

I would just ask that the House make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Visiting us in the galleries today is Ronin London, who’s 19. He plays box lacrosse with the junior Victoria Shamrocks. How about that? He’s got a scholarship to study business and play division I field lacrosse in the United States, which is quite an achievement for him. He’s also, of course, very bright. And the best part is that he’s got a great mom, Kathy London, who sort of heads up my office.

Harman Bhangu: I rise today to introduce two distinguished visitors from the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority who are joining us in the chamber today.

Robert Lewis-Manning is the chief executive officer. Mr. Lewis-Manning brings a lifetime of leadership experience in global marine transportation with the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Shipowners Association and the Chamber of Shipping. He has been instrumental in prioritizing partnerships with First Nations. He negotiated the first marine conservation agreement in Canada to protect endangered whales, carrying the support of three federal government departments.

Also, Colleen Turner is vice-president for strategic partnerships and innovation. Ms. Turner oversees teams focused on cruise ship tourism, Indigenous partnerships, sustainability and stakeholder engagement. She joins the harbour authority after serving as vice-president of Alberta Health Services and vice-president of the University of Calgary, where she distinguished herself in challenging leadership roles.

I ask my colleagues to join me in extending a warm welcome to our guests from the harbour authority, who make such a vital contribution to the prosperity of Victoria and the entire southern Island.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a lot of folks that work behind the scenes to support us in the work that we do in our ministries. There are three exceptional people that are visiting the House today. I want to welcome Matthew Borghese, Mahee Azreen and Andrew Hughes. They are from the communications side of our ministry. I want to thank them for all the work that they do and hope they get to enjoy the question period today. I look forward to chatting with them right after.

Can the House please make them feel really welcome.

Scott McInnis: I’ve had the pleasure and privilege to meet many husbands, wives, spouses and partners not only from our caucus here but also from the members in government. My general theme from those meetings is that we’ve all done pretty darn well for ourselves, and I’m certainly no exception. My wife, Diana, is here from Kimberley today. I just really love her to death. She’s made so many personal sacrifices so I could be here to represent the great people of Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Rob Botterell: I rise today to acknowledge and thank our Green-terns, Connor Buzza and Kayla Bennett, and all legislative interns. Connor and Kayla have been a core part of the Green team almost the entire time that I’ve been an MLA, and it’s hard to imagine the caucus team without them.

[1:40 p.m.]

We have, in keeping with the grand traditions of the Third Party, put both to work throughout their time with our team. They’ve led development of our estimates questions, written questions for question period, written speeches and communication material. Both the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and I were fortunate to have them attend events and meetings in our constituencies with us.

I have no doubt that Connor and Kayla will make a huge contribution to British Columbia over the course of their careers, and we very much hope that they stay in touch as they go on.

I hope this House will join me in thanking Connor and Kayla and all the legislative interns for all of their efforts.

Mable Elmore: I’m very pleased to introduce Dr. Gerald Baier, associate professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, in the gallery today. Dr. Baier’s teaching and research interests include Canadian politics, with a focus on the constitution, federalism and public law.

Dr. Baier currently serves as the academic director of the B.C. legislative internship program, supporting the legislative interns during this time in the Parliament Buildings.

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

Kristina Loewen: I have the privilege of introducing a couple of people today. I want to recognize three outstanding disability advocates who’ve dedicated themselves to the fight for dignity, equity and justice for persons with disabilities across Canada.

Jeff Leggat is the founder of Disability Action of Canada, an advocacy group he launched in 2019 with a clear and urgent mission to eliminate legislated poverty for medically assessed and designated persons with disabilities. Jeff’s tireless work calls for monthly disability income support that is fair, equitable and tied directly to Canada’s official poverty line — no exceptions.

Joining him in this essential fight are Brent Frain and Sonjia Grandahl, two respected advocates based in Victoria. For years, Brent and Sonjia have campaigned for proper financial support for persons with disabilities and have made their voices heard across the political spectrum. Brent also hosts a powerful podcast bringing together politicians, advocates and community leaders to spotlight the issues facing the disabled community not only here in B.C. but across the country. I’m looking forward to meeting them this afternoon.

I have one more. My good friend Danielle Johnston is also here, and I had the privilege of being there when she brought her child into the world a few years ago now.

Susie Chant: Today I have the honour of introducing a guest in the members’ gallery. His name is Jorge Yanier Castellanos Orta, and he is the consul general of Cuba, based in Toronto, so it’s great that he is here to visit us today. The consul general is here on his first official visit to British Columbia, and I’ll be meeting with him this afternoon.

I understand he’ll have the opportunity to meet with you as well, Mr. Speaker.

Would this House please make him feel most welcome.

Misty Van Popta: Today on the front steps, we had a gift — a gift of music. At a time like we’re experiencing here in the House, where things are a bit stressful as we close out this session, a little music to cheer us up and feed our souls was welcome.

A bonus for me is that this band was from a school in my riding, Walnut Grove Secondary.

Will the House please make them feel appreciated for providing us with that gift.

Gavin Dew: I just wanted to join the member opposite in welcoming Dr. Gerry Baier to the House. I was honoured to take part, now years ago, in the Institute for Future Legislators at UBC, which was just an absolutely terrific program, currently on hiatus. I certainly hope to see that come back. That was certainly a formative experience that Dr. Baier was a very important part of.

I do just want to use that as an excuse to look up at all the interns in the gallery and let you know that you will be back and to just ask this House to join me in a thunderous round of applause to let these young folks know that some of you will come back as staff and some of you will come back and sit in these chairs.

[1:45 p.m.]

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to welcome my best friend, Rajni Goyal, to the House. She is visiting with her husband, Barinder Goyal. For those planning their summer vacations, they operate a very successful travel agency in Vancouver. They’re joined today by family members visiting from India: Ashwani Kumar Mittal, Asha Mittal and Ashisha Mittal.

Would the House please join me in extending a very warm welcome to all of our guests.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today to introduce to the House, for the first time in person at least, my husband, Kalvin Warbus, and my daughter, Starling, who are always supporting me in spirit and love and understanding for how busy the schedule of an MLA can be in being away from home. I’m so happy to have them here.

It was my pleasure in 2014 to drag my husband across the U.S.-Canadian border to marry me so that we could live together.

Just one last thing. I wanted to outline that the earrings I’m wearing today were made by the Vancouver-Strathcona MLA — proof that Indigenous fashion is a truly bipartisan issue.

Trevor Halford: We are joined today by somebody who is very important in my world, to make sure that she is keeping me on task and, more importantly, when I’m over here, that the people of Surrey–White Rock are getting very properly served. Melissa McCaskill from my office is joining us here today.

If the House can please welcome Melissa.

Paul Choi: I’m very excited to welcome to this chamber our local business leaders, who are led by hon. Chair, Mr. Speaker, and co-chair John McCarthy, Victor Shu, Cindy Lee, Lucas Lee, Chloe Chang, Kush Karia, Sarah Seto, Sheer Pang, Colin Zu, Anna Liu, Michelle Lau, Eric Lee, Armana Gabande, Xinlin Zhiang. I know I missed some — I apologize — but they are our backbone of our economy.

Please, if the whole House would make them feel welcome today.

Hon Chan: I had the opportunity to meet with the team from Enterprise Mobility alongside our leader, John Rustad, today.

I’m pleased to welcome Troy Klemo, Kristin Ali, Carolyn Anderberg and Zach Authier to the chamber.

Enterprise Mobility’s portfolio includes Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Alamo and National Car Rental, operating over 80 locations across B.C. It was a pleasure connecting with them, hearing their insights and industry concerns.

Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to the House.

Tony Luck: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce my CA today from Fraser-Nicola. As many of us know, we cannot do without staff in our ridings. They’re the ones that get us out of a lot of quagmires and everything. Today I’d like to give a warm welcome to Corally Delwo, my CA from Fraser-Nicola.

Rosalyn Bird: To follow up comments from my colleague, I would like to acknowledge and thank five amazing blue-terns: Alex Bailey, Priscilla Ng, Marina Haden, Deb Berman and Tony Miyoshi, who have assisted the Conservative caucus during this session through the B.C. legislative internship program.

Your dedication and passion have not gone unnoticed. Your hard work in communication, research and projects have been great assistance. My colleagues and I are both appreciative and grateful for your contributions. Together we forge new paths and ideas. We thank you for being part of our very valuable team. We wish you well in all your future endeavours, and we are confident that you have very bright futures ahead of you.

Lawrence Mok: This afternoon in the gallery, we have Christopher Logie, my hard-working CA, and Daegan Baldwin, my hard-working communications and outreach director. This is their first time visiting the Legislature.

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

[1:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I rise today, a few days early, to celebrate the seventh birthday of my daughter, Abigail Ariella Dew. She is a singer, a dancer, a reader, a leader. I’m very proud of her, and I love her very much.

What I’d like to do right now is open a portal and send a giant heart blast.

Bryan Tepper: I’d like to congratulate two members of Surrey Water Polo: Jackson Culbreath and Airi Cowie. They were at the Pan Am Games in Colombia, Jackson on the men’s U17 water polo team and Airi on the women’s U17 team, both for Canada. Their teams won gold and silver respectively — an amazing accomplishment.

A round of applause, please.

Rohini Arora: I just want to take a moment to welcome Anika Dhaliwal, who is my CA. She’s visiting here, off from school just for the summer, so I get her for four months. It is such an honour to have a young Sikh Punjabi woman doing the work in politics in a space that matters so much to me, and being able to see her fulfil her dreams. Likely she’ll be sitting in one of these chairs pretty soon herself.

If everyone would join me in giving her a warm welcome, please, today.

Also, I just want to give a shout-out to Chris Camoso, a legislative intern who came into Burnaby East in the last week. It was so amazing to have them at the constituency, out and about, visiting and connecting with folks.

I can just imagine the amazing work that is ahead of you. Thank you so much for coming, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in god knows what kind of way.

Please, everyone, give them a warm welcome.

Members’ Statements

MOSAIC Community Clinic in Burnaby

Janet Routledge: The MOSAIC Community Clinic opened earlier this year in the Edmonds neighbourhood of Burnaby. It is a milestone in collective, community-based primary care. It provides longitudinal, team-based primary health care tailored to serve five priority populations: newcomers to Canada; First Nations, Métis and Inuit individuals; new parents and their babies; people with complex mental health needs; and people experiencing homelessness or housing instability.

This culturally safe, trauma-informed clinic is operated by MOSAIC — a leading non-profit organization known for its work with newcomers and populations for whom social, environmental and economic factors negatively impact their health and well-being.

The clinic is the team-based care model in action, delivering low-barrier access through collaboration between doctors, nurse practitioners, social workers, lactation consultants, administrative teams and community service partners. The clinic matches patients with primary care providers through B.C.’s health connect registry and through self-referrals.

Front-line community agencies play a vital role in connecting Burnaby’s most vulnerable residents with the health care they need. The MOSAIC Community Clinic was born out of the uniquely collaborative nature of the Burnaby primary care network, where the Burnaby Division of Family Practice, Fraser Health, the Burnaby Interagency Council and the Ministry of Health come together to ensure that no one in our community is left behind when it comes to accessing timely, compassionate and appropriate care. Funded from the Ministry of Health’s PCN program, the MOSAIC Community Clinic is transformative.

Secondary School Graduates of 2024

Ward Stamer: Everyone in this House has high schools in their ridings, and our grads of 2025 are beginning to have their grad ceremonies. Here’s a sample of one of those congratulatory remarks.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’re here to celebrate the achievements, growth and potential of our grade 12 graduating class of 2025. Today marks an incredible milestone in your lives. You’ve spent the past 13 years in classrooms, on fields, in labs, libraries and Zoom calls. You’ve grown through challenges and triumphs, surrounded by your peers, your teachers and your families. Now standing on the edge of a new beginning, we’re celebrating not only what you’ve accomplished but what you’ve become.

You’re no longer the same people who first walked through the doors of your elementary school clutching oversized backpacks and wondering if anyone else was just as nervous as you. You’ve grown into young adults, capable, curious, resilient and ready. High school was not just about homework, tests and report cards. It was about discovering your passions, building relationships, finding your voice. And it was about becoming someone who can contribute to something greater than themselves.

The world you stepped into is not the same one that existed when you started high school. In these years, you witnessed a global pandemic, climate-related disasters and an evolving digital world. Your experience: uncertainty, disruption and challenge. But through it all, you adapted. You found new ways to learn, connect and lead, and you kept going.

Graduating in B.C. is something to be proud of. This province is more than a backdrop to your education. It’s a teacher in its own right. The mountains that rise behind your schools remind us to aim high. The coastal waters and ancient forests teach us the value of balance, patience and stewardship. From the vibrant urban centres of Vancouver and Victoria to the rural communities of the North and the Kootenays, this land has shaped your experience in unique and powerful ways.

B.C. is a place of diversity, innovation and care. We are home to incredible artists, scientists, entrepreneurs and visionaries. Whether you’re heading to university, college, the trades, work, travel or some much-needed rest, you are stepping into adulthood as citizens of one of the most dynamic and promising regions of the world.

Be safe during your grad ceremonies. We truly wish you success and a great future in whichever path you so choose.

Congratulations, grads of 2025.

Resilience and Support for
Community Capacity

Mable Elmore: The tragic event of April 26, 2025, has brought home the irrefutable need to develop institutional capacity in the community to support recovery and healing in the years ahead, which we will be grappling with.

It’s said that communities are the bedrock of society, yet too often they lack the structures to respond to crises, deliver on long-term goals and carry out systemic changes. Time and again Filipinos are extolled for their resilience. However, external investment in terms of policy, resources and infrastructure should follow, as well, to foster capacity in the community.

Resilience and institutional capacity in South Vancouver go hand in hand to enable communities to emerge stronger. Building capacity is thus a shared journey and a partnership. It’s a continuous collaboration and a long-term commitment.

Partnerships that have emerged out of this between the Filipino community and the United Way, through the Kapwa Strong fund, the Canadian Red Cross, the Catholic Archdiocese, the Vancouver Foundation and in South Vancouver, our Sunset on Fraser Business Improvement Association, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and our communities are really what is helping us on the path ahead and the road to recovery.

When communities are empowered, they drive solutions that are culturally sensitive to the needs and aspirations of their constituents. Let us therefore unleash the transformative power of enhancing capacity in the community. When communities build capacity, they are laying the foundations of a better future for all of us.

Candlelight Cuisine
and Patti Halford

Trevor Halford: Earlier this month Candlelight Cuisine closed its doors. Candlelight Cuisine was a staple in Ocean Park. It was a staple in White Rock. It was staffed by some important people: Lory, Daria, Katherine, Jaylene and its owner, Patti. The owner, Patti, holds a special place in my heart because that is my mom. After almost 40 years, she decided it was time to hang it up.

Why this place was so important to me…. I learned very early on. I learned, actually, when I was door-knocking. I would knock on a door, and they’d say: “Oh, you’re Patti’s son.” I was pretty proud of that, but I was also pretty proud of the fact that for the last almost 40 years, I watched my mom work six days a week.

[2:00 p.m.]

That’s how she put food on our table — by putting food on other people’s tables. It wasn’t always easy, but the staff that I just mentioned there…. They didn’t work there for years; they worked there for decades. It was because of how she treated her staff. It was the same way she treated her customers. She treated them like family.

It was a family business. When you go there…. You can’t go there now. We had cheese squares. That was my grandma’s recipe. The cookies were a recipe from my aunt. So it was a true family business, but it was done through hard work.

To my mom, I want to say thank you. Thank you for the meals. I wish I could get more of them. But thank you for showing me and others just how important it is when hard work pays off.

I hope that everybody there enjoys their retirement, and hopefully I’ll lose some pounds because of that. I really want to say thank you to all of them, especially my mom, and congratulations.

Bryn’s Neighbourhood Table
Community Meal

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to recognize a deeply meaningful initiative in my constituency of Vancouver-Langara, Bryn’s Neighbourhood Table, hosted by St. Augustine’s Anglican Church in Marpole. Formerly known as the St. Augustine’s Marpole Community Meal, this weekly gathering was recently renamed to honour Bryn Catherall, a cherished member of the parish whose kindness, resilience and generous spirit left a lasting impact.

Bryn found a sense of purpose and belonging at the table, and his presence uplifted those around him. In turn, the community drew strength and inspiration from him. Today his legacy lives on through every meal served, every friendship formed and every act of service extended.

Every Thursday evening St. Augustine’s opens its doors at 5:30 p.m. to welcome anyone in need of a hot meal and a warm, inclusive space. A free three-course dinner is served at 6 p.m. — no cost, no barriers, no judgments. All are welcome.

It’s not just a meal. It’s a place of connection, dignity and care. I have had the privilege of joining the table on several occasions, and each time I’ve been moved by the hospitality, the laughter and the powerful sense of community.

St. Augustine’s also hosts the Marpole Community Food Hub on Thursday mornings, in collaboration with local organizations and the Greater Vancouver Food Bank, providing free groceries to those in need.

To Bryn’s family, to all the volunteers and all involved: thank you. Bryn’s Neighbourhood Table is compassion in action and a true gift to Vancouver-Langara.

Immigrant Experience in Canada

Harman Bhangu: I stand here today not just as an MLA but as a proud Canadian because of the sacrifices my parents made, especially my dad, who is no longer with us.

When my dad came here, he never complained. He worked at mills, He drove trucks. Sometimes both — one job in the day; one job in the night. He did whatever it took to provide for his family and his kids.

He believed in the Canadian dream that if you work hard, keep your head down and never give up, you can make something of yourself. Because of that belief, I am standing here today. I don’t have a fancy degree or elite background. What I do have is a relentless motor and a work ethic passed down from a man who kept pushing forward.

Some people say Canada is a racist country. I don’t believe that. Has it been perfect? No. But we’ve come a long way. We’ve progressed not through force or pressure but through natural progression, through the quiet power of people showing up, working hard and earning respect.

Just look at me. I’m a brown man. I’m Sikh, married to a white woman, and I’m standing in this Legislature representing thousands of British Columbians. That doesn’t happen in a racist country. That happens in a country that gives people a fair shot that are willing to work for it.

That is the Canada my father believed in. That is the Canada I was raised in. And that is the Canada I will always stand up for.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle: Joining us in the gallery today, all the way from the beautiful riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain, are grade 5 students from Vancouver Talmud Torah.

Vancouver Talmud Torah is a Jewish day school which welcomes a broad spectrum of families and students, from across Vancouver and beyond, to participate in an inclusive education and connection to Jewish values and traditions. Talmud Torah provides a safe and inclusive environment for Jewish families and students to learn and grow with their culture and religion and to embrace the teachings of the Hebrew language in a warm and nurturing setting.

I was honoured to get a tour of a brand-new Jewish day school here in greater Victoria with my friend and colleague the MLA for Victoria–Swan Lake. I appreciate having had that tour, and I’m overjoyed to be welcoming these students and another classroom from Talmud Torah later today.

I ask that everyone be on their best behaviour and join me in welcoming them.

Oral Questions

Management of Supportive Housing
and Deaths at Facilities

Claire Rattée: Government services are failing people, and as a result, people are dying. Diane Chandler died in one of this government’s showcase supportive housing sites, and her body was left in her room for 11 days before anyone noticed.

Her son Tyler is here in the gallery today. He told me he doesn’t want another empty condolence or carefully worded excuse; he wants accountability. The minister loves a victory lap, I know, but today is not the time. Her son was devastated by the answer he gave last time because it did not offer closure.

If this government has nothing to hide, will the Premier explain how Diane Chandler died in provincial care and why her son didn’t find out what happened until a month later?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We did have a discussion about this topic, and my heart goes out to Tyler and to his family.

As I said then and I’ll say again now, it’s unacceptable for this to happen. What I can share with the member, which I have shared with the member, is that when this incident happened, B.C. Housing reached out to the provider to find out what the issue was. There was a clear error made by the folks that work for that not-for-profit. They thought that they had seen the woman in question coming in, and clearly, they had not.

The policies have completely changed, because of that incident, in all supportive housing sites. Now every single supportive housing site is required to have a wellness check done on every individual, in the room, every 24 hours. They’re required to monitor people as they come in and out and verify who they are. That’s not just at that site, but it’s at sites throughout the province.

Again, my heart goes out to this family, but this tragic incident has changed the way supportive housing sites operate. And now on top of that, every not-for-profit is required to inform B.C. Housing within 24 hours of an incident, and they have to have a plan to immediately notify family members. That didn’t happen in this family’s case, and I’m very sorry for the family, but it has made significant, systemic changes in all of our housing across the province since.

The Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: With all due respect, I’m not buying it, because in 2017, Shawn Richards died in a supportive housing unit, and it took three days to find his body. Back then his mother was told that changes would be made and that no family would ever go through this again. It was said then that it was going to switch to 24-hour wellness checks.

Those wellness checks still do not address the root issue. What’s the difference if somebody is lying dead in their room for 24 hours or 11 days? That person died.

Seven years after this event, Diane Chandler died in similar conditions — encouraged drug use, no permanent staff. She had a clearly and visibly deteriorating struggle with addiction.

[2:10 p.m.]

No one knew that she died because the staff allegedly mistook another resident for her during the wellness checks. That other resident tragically died a few days later.

People deserve housing where they are supported, not just warehoused, and certainly not left to die alone in buildings where drugs are used, sold and encouraged.

If the government claims to care, why is the pattern not just continuing but getting worse? How many deaths will it take before this government changes its approach to supportive housing and stops encouraging open drug use in government-run facilities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member, in her question, stated a whole bunch of facts that I had shared with the member previously, which I appreciate the acknowledgment on.

We made changes, after this tragic death, to the RTB to allow for all not-for-profits in the province to do wellness checks, which some argue that they didn’t have the powers to do before. So it is a systemic change.

The member also knows, because in estimates we discussed it, that there are a lot of communities where we have supportive housing that has sobriety where folks have gone through rehab and have the opportunity to be in supportive housing where there’s no drug use.

Then we also have housing that ensures that we meet people where they’re at. If a person has gone through treatment and needs that housing, we are rapidly growing that housing stock at the same time. The member knows that. Housing exists in different forms in different communities to meet people where they’re at. That’s what we’re trying to do with all of our housing.

The member can say: “It’s housing that we’ve deployed.” This has been a similar policy that was in place when the Leader of the Opposition was in government as well. Supportive housing was opened up all throughout British Columbia in communities addressing encampments. It’s very similar. The difference is we’re scaling up opportunities for folks to get into housing when they’ve come through rehab as well.

Environmental Assessment of
Prince Rupert Gas Transmission
Pipeline Project

Rob Botterell: The massive U.S. investment firm Blackstone Inc. is the lead investor in the PRGT pipeline project. Blackstone is also a major investor in Canada’s rental housing market, which is bad news for people who pay rent in B.C. Blackstone’s involvement in the rental market contributes significantly to rent increases and the loss of affordable units.

Blackstone buying pipelines in Canada is bad news for the cost of energy. It also means that benefits from these projects flow to MAGA billionaires, not local communities.

My question is to the Premier. When will the Premier stop catering to Donald Trump’s top donors on Wall Street and send his MAGA pipeline back for a modern environmental assessment?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member knows that the process is with the excellent staff of the environmental assessment office right now. They’re making a decision, a technical decision, around the substantial start of the process. He knows that.

I would say this. Here in British Columbia, in the last year, we put out a call for power that saw, approved by the government, at a size equivalent to Site C, ten renewable energy projects. We are taking action to ensure that those projects are built.

Those ten projects are 51 percent owned, on average, by First Nations in this province, which indicates our determination to ensure that the wealth created in B.C. stays in B.C. equally. As we’ve dealt with other energy issues, we have done exactly the same thing. Whether it has been on reviews of royalties and other questions, we are here to ensure that the people of B.C. get maximum return on the extraordinary resources of our province.

We are building the province, and when we do that, we’re doing it in partnerships with community and, in particular, with First Nations.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

LNG Industry Impacts and
Health Care Cost Recovery

Rob Botterell: As the impacts of LNG are felt across the province, we are face to face with the already tangible devastation this will put on our health care system. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment continues to warn about the intensification that LNG will increasingly put on our health care crisis.

As more LNG terminals begin operations, the collapse of our health care system is seemingly imminent. Physicians in northeastern B.C. have been closing their practices due to the growing health implications of LNG, with no additional support from government to address this issue.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. As the government seems determined to continue on this LNG path, how does the ministry plan to recover the necessary health care costs resulting from increased LNG facilities?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I assume that the member misspoke. He understands that the first shipments of LNG have not left B.C. yet, so the health impacts to which he speaks that have occurred up to now clearly haven’t occurred.

Our approach to LNG is what we’ve said in this House a number of times: to focus on issues of climate change, yes, and on issues of First Nations involvement.

The member asked the first question about involvement. The Cedar project is majority owned by the Haisla First Nation. Perhaps he will be supportive of it. I don’t know. Returns to communities, returns to the province, jobs created.

We have the lowest-emission LNG in the world, and the actions we’re taking in the upstream, together with the oil and gas industry, to reduce methane emissions are good for public health, are good for the province and are good for everyone.

We are leading Canada in addressing this question because we are working, yes, with First Nations, yes, with environmentalists, yes, with the oil and gas industry to ensure better results for everyone in our province.

Access to Health Care Specialists

Anna Kindy: B.C. health care services are failing. This government, after eight years in power, is in constant crisis management in every aspect of health care delivery. Just one example of this failure is British Columbians stuck on wait-lists to see specialists in cardiology, in neurology, in psychiatry, just to name a few.

One pediatrician told me that her wait-list has increased to two years. A patient in North Saanich — it took eight weeks to get a lung biopsy, and six months later hasn’t seen an oncologist yet.

People in B.C. are suffering, getting sicker and dying, waiting to see specialists. This government’s reassurances and platitudes are meaningless when people are continually falling through the cracks.

How long do the wait times have to be before this government takes this issue seriously?

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

It is incredibly frustrating, I know, for patients to wait to be able to see a specialist. To see them or a loved one in their family feel stuck on a wait-list is a really hard thing to do.

Now, we are generally meeting our wait-list times and targets for urgent cases, but we know there’s a lot more work to do when it comes to improving wait times for non-urgent cases and for chronic conditions. We have a growing aging population here, with more complex health care problems, and that means we need to continue to redouble these efforts.

That’s why we are doing all the work that is underway to attract and retain more specialists, more physicians — a recruitment campaign into the United States. We’re going to continue to hire cancer physicians, for example. That includes 140 cancer physicians over the last couple of years alone, as part of our cancer action plan.

We know there is an incredible amount of work still to do. We are working to streamline wait-lists with health authorities, building more hospitals, adding more operating room capacity. We are not going to stop, because we know that British Columbians deserve to get the care in a timely and equitable way, and that’s exactly what we’re going to stay focused on.

Pediatric Services at
Kelowna General Hospital

Kristina Loewen: With all due respect, it’s not just frustrating; it’s life and death.

Doctors in Kelowna found out through the media that pediatric services were being shut down at Kelowna General Hospital for at least six weeks. There was no official communication from the ministry or Interior Health. This means no pediatric care in one of B.C.’s busiest hospitals. Parents, already in a terrifying situation, are now left in the dark.

How can the Health Minister claim that the system is stable when basic communication is breaking down and care for children disappears overnight?

[2:20 p.m.]

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

It is clearly a very stressful situation for families in Kelowna and the surrounding region to know that the pediatric unit inside Kelowna General Hospital is going to be unavailable for about six weeks. It’s a very difficult decision that Interior Health has undertaken.

I want to reassure people, because the member is not correct in her characterization that there are no pediatric services available at this hospital. Indeed, there are. I want everyone to know that critical care services for children and for babies remain open at Kelowna General. In fact, people should continue to take their children there in the case of an emergency.

Ten pediatric beds are temporarily closed to ensure the safety of children in the most dire sets of circumstances. I have spoken to Interior Health. I know that this decision wasn’t taken lightly. They do have a shortage of pediatricians inside the hospital right now.

The good news is that there are two pediatricians that have signed contracts. One starts in July. There are three associate physicians in a pediatrician program that are coming. They are also going to, in July and August. Interior Health continues to do everything they can.

In fact, this weekend, a pediatrician from the U.S. is visiting Kelowna to see the community, make a site visit and hopefully make the decision to move here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We know we’re facing a global health care worker shortage, including pediatricians, and that’s why we are going to continue to do everything we can to ensure that this service is available in Kelowna.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental?

Kristina Loewen: I just hope our kids stay healthy until July.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, be careful with your words.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members. Hold it. Calm down.

Kristina Loewen: Physicians are raising the alarm. There is no coverage plan, no extra support and no additional resources. Nurses are overwhelmed, and ER doctors are being forced to cover pediatric emergencies without training. One doctor said: “I guess I’m a pediatrician now.”

Will the Premier finally take responsibility for this collapse and direct the Minister of Health to meet with front-line doctors immediately?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Once again, I must correct the record. Any parent with a child in need of emergency care can and should continue to go to Kelowna General Hospital, where their child will be assessed and will be cared for.

Let’s acknowledge the incredibly hard work that pediatricians are undertaking in Kelowna and acknowledge that it is a very tough situation for them — the burnout that they are experiencing, the moral distress that they are facing. That is why a difficult decision is taken…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …to ensure that the acute emergency services that need to be there for children remain there.

I’ve just outlined the pediatricians that are coming to Kelowna.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’ve just outlined the pediatricians that are coming to Kelowna. The work that Interior Health will continue to do….

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, please conclude.

Hon. Josie Osborne: What pediatricians and health care workers in Kelowna and families and community members need right now is our support and our assertion that we are all doing everything that we can to make sure people have the right information about the care that is available at the hospital, that families continue to take their children there.

They know that we are doing everything we can to address this and that we’ll continue to support the hospital, to support Interior Health and to support families in Kelowna.

Macklin McCall: A Kelowna doctor and parent posted a video exposing what Interior Health won’t admit. This isn’t a doctor shortage. It’s a full-blown pediatric care crisis. This unsafe staffing model forces one pediatrician to cover the ward, psychiatric care, emergency, the NICU and high-risk deliveries all at once.

[2:25 p.m.]

For years, they’ve been raising alarms, but as that doctor said: “Their voices have been silenced.”

How does this Premier expect one doctor to be in five places at once?

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is an incredibly challenging situation to be a pediatrician at Kelowna General Hospital right now, where a full staff complement would be 12, and there are six working. They are working as hard as they possibly can, and I know that.

That’s why, in order to ensure safety for children and for patients, a difficult decision was made to remove, temporarily, the services in hospital for pediatric services but to keep the emergency services open, to keep the NICU open, to keep the critical care services that are needed for children.

I’ll say it again. Families in Kelowna need to continue to take their children to Kelowna General Hospital. I’ll say it again. Interior Health is working hard to undertake the hiring that they need to do. They are seeing successes with new pediatricians signing contracts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, the minister has the floor. Let her conclude it.

Hon. Josie Osborne: They’re looking at compensation, locums, remuneration models, everything that they can do to bring in people to fill these positions, even if on a temporary basis, to ensure that these services are here for people.

It’s a global shortage of health care workers. We have had….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I heard the member across the way say: “Closing down hospitals.” I just attended the opening of a brand-new hospital in the Leader of the Opposition’s riding.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order now.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, you are wasting your time. We are now deducting this time out of your question period today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Minister will please conclude.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation at Kelowna General Hospital is a very difficult one, and we are going to continue to do everything we can to fill those positions, to put physicians in place and to ensure that the services are there for the families of Kelowna.

Physician Staffing and
Emergency Services at Hospitals

Brennan Day: It’s not just pediatrics in Kelowna. West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni has had week-long ICU diversions going on for the better part of a year. This has caused dramatic hospital shortages in this minister’s own riding for weeks at a time.

Losing hospital doctors to general practice under the longitudinal payment model has severely impacted the staffing of GPs working in hospital settings.

Why is this government trying to fix health care access by destroying B.C.’s emergency departments?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Wow, I just don’t know where to start. I cannot believe….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Okay, Member. Member for Abbotsford South, you have made your point. Everybody heard it. Don’t worry.

Hon. Josie Osborne: You know, this entire session, I have been standing up and talking about all the actions our government is taking to strengthen our public health care system — opening a new medical school in Surrey, adding more seats at UBC’s medical school, making it easier for physicians to move to British Columbia and be credentialled to practise here, a longitudinal family physician payment plan that fairly compensates family doctors for the work that they do.

I know the opposition doesn’t like hearing about the track record, but we’ve got to go there.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Let’s just….

The Speaker: Hold it, Minister.

Member for Kamloops Centre, please let her conclude it.

I know it’s only two days of the session left. Let’s do it.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Over the last two years, we’ve added 1,000 family doctors. We have the highest number of family physicians per capita of any major province in Canada.

Who remembers GP for Me? When the opposition leader sat on this side of the House, he made a promise to British Columbians that they would have a general practitioner by 2015.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Minister, it’s okay. Thank you.

Hon. Josie Osborne: All right. I’ll finish on the next question.

The Speaker: No, no. Thank you.

Member, you have a supplemental?

Brennan Day: I’d like to remind the minister that net new doctors were 440 in estimates just weeks ago, so let’s make sure that we’re talking about correct numbers. Also, I’d like to say that unintended consequences are still consequences.

We know the minister is working on it. But this government’s actions have resulted in hospitals pulling ER doctors off the floor to cover other short-staffed positions in the rest of the hospital. This is causing even more acute hospital ER closures and diversions, whether intentional or not.

Why is this minister’s solution to our chronic health care worker shortage to treat it like a Jenga puzzle that’s on the verge of collapse?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member is speaking about emergency room closures, which are obviously very challenging situations for any community to face. The good news is that the big picture shows us that we are moving in the right direction. In the first quarter of this year, emergency room diversions are down a quarter — that’s 25 percent — compared to the year before.

But we know that we continue to see pressures in specific communities, and I acknowledge that. That’s communities like Lillooet, communities like Burns Lake, communities like Mackenzie. That’s why health authorities work so hard to bring in locums, to take the steps that they need to attract physicians into these communities, to make sure that the number of doctors is there to keep these emergency rooms, these vital services, there for communities.

I know they don’t like the phrase “global health care worker shortage,” but it’s true. Every single province in Canada is experiencing this issue.

British Columbia continues to lead the way in terms of attracting physicians, bringing in new physicians from other jurisdictions. We continue to lead the way in adding family doctors into practices here in British Columbia. We continue to lead the way in building new medical school seats, hiring more nurses, doubling the seats of nurse practitioner training spaces.

These are the actions we have to continue to take. This entire session we have talked about all of the actions that this government is taking, and we have heard no new ideas from that side.

Emergency Health Care
Services in Rural B.C.

Tony Luck: We’ve raised the alarm on rural ER closures many times, but this government still hasn’t fixed the crisis.

The Lillooet ER just shut down for the 31st time this year and for the entire weekend, as well, when we need it the most. Residents are being told to drive two hours to Kamloops or call 911 and hope for the best. In what emergency do you have two hours to waste waiting for help?

When will this Premier stop abandoning rural British Columbians who are hours away from help?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question, and thank you also to the member for a really constructive conversation in my office this morning. I really appreciated it, because that’s how we can work together.

[2:35 p.m.]

My promise to rural British Columbians is that I will never abandon them. I will continue to fight hard, do everything that I can to support all of the work that communities are taking, that health authorities are taking, that unions are taking, that our government is taking to bring in more health care workers to rural communities, because people living in British Columbia’s rural communities deserve the same access to health care that anyone anywhere in British Columbia does.

I can assure this member that I will continue to do everything that I can in supporting Lillooet. We will continue to focus on Lillooet as one of those places that has had particular challenges. The good news is that one new physician was hired in April and three more are coming this summer.

It is going to take all of us pulling together to show physicians who want to move here that rural B.C. is a fantastic place to live. I need their help, and I hope I get it.

Government Action on
Issues in Health Care System

Á’a:líya Warbus: Unfortunately, with all the canvassing of the crippling health care system in British Columbia, we’ve heard a lot from this minister and from this government about what’s about to happen, about numbers that are spun in their favour, about numbers that, frankly, don’t add up to what we’re seeing as the reality in hospitals all across British Columbia.

We have said time and time again — personal stories, ER closures, pediatric wards are shuttered. I have a child, I have kids, and I know if I were forced to drive four to six hours to the next ER, those would be four to six of the most terrifying hours of my entire life. No one should have to go through that. When people are in crisis, every minute feels like an hour.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I’m getting there, Mr. Speaker, but I just need a minute.

Every time you say that something’s improved by 25 percent, well, you didn’t have that far to go when it was in such a dire position to begin with. So it doesn’t feel that good to us on this side of the House and what we’re hearing from our constituents and people that are suffering.

So my question is: with rural ERs closed, hospital hallways that are overflowing, seniors that are left to languish for years without care, the pain, abandonment and preventable deaths that were seen across British Columbia, will the Premier admit that this isn’t isolated, that this is, in fact, a collapse and explain how this government let it get this bad?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member asks about what has happened, and I’m going to say that there are 1,000 new family doctors since 2023.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: There are almost 700 people every single day being attached to a family doctor.

Here is what has happened in the last six months: two new hospitals, in Terrace and Fort St. James; three new urgent and primary care clinics, in Langley, Nanaimo and Williams Lake; a new tower at the Lions Gate Hospital; a new allied health centre in Victoria; a new mental health and substance use centre in Victoria; two new treatment centres and recovery centres, at View Royal and Prince George.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: When the Leader of the Opposition sat on this side of the House, he said no to a new hospital.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: He said no to a new medical school.

This side of the House knows what needs to be done. We are doing it, and we will not stop.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Anna Kindy: I rise on a point of order.

Yesterday during question period, the Minister of Forests misrepresented remarks that I made. He incorrectly said that I, and I quote, “referred to her own nations as being greedy for buying tenure and supporting our Forest Service.”

I request that the minister withdraw his remark.

The Speaker: The minister has a response.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I had a great conversation with a great British Columbian, Dallas Smith, who was there, part of that conversation. I encourage the local MLA for North Island to give her local Chief a call.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, no debate.

[2:40 p.m.]

Member, the point of order was raised, and the minister responded. That conversation took place outside of the House, so the Chair is not going to intervene in that. We’ll leave it there.

Petitions

Peter Milobar: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Kamloops and rural residents looking for cancer care and, counts in support of also, letters from the bands of the Coldwater, Simpcw and Whispering Pines, as well as the mayors and councils of 100 Mile, Ashcroft, Barriere, Cache Creek, Clearwater, Clinton, Kamloops, Merritt, Sun Peaks, Williams Lake, the Columbia Shuswap regional district and the Thompson-Nicola regional district, all asking the government to reconsider and reconstruct the Kamloops cancer centre into one building, as every other B.C. Cancer Agency centre is built across this province.

That is also in conjunction with the poll that was done with 95 percent of the residents in Kamloops wanting the same thing to happen.

Point of Order
(continued)

Lynne Block: I rise to respond to a point of order raised by the member for Burnaby North the other day after question period. I want to provide some clarity and context to my question about a constituent from the member’s riding not receiving a response regarding emails about school budget cuts in Burnaby.

I understand that a general public meeting was held by the member for Burnaby North, I believe on May 10, in her riding, which this constituent, along with others, attended. The session was billed as a coffee and update on the happenings in the Legislature. The meeting evolved into a more focused discussion about budget cuts.

After this general public meeting, the constituent in question followed up several times and did not get a response. I’m happy to report, though, that after question period the other day, the member’s office did respond with detailed answers to the constituent’s questions. I hope this clears up any confusion, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member, for your response. It seems very clear to me that it is a disagreement between the two members of what was said and what happened. It’s not a procedural issue the Chair can intervene in.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Christine Boyle: Joining us in the gallery today, all the way from Vancouver–Little Mountain, is a second classroom visiting us from Vancouver Talmud Torah, grade 5.

As I mentioned to the House, when the first class was visiting, Vancouver Talmud Torah is an exceptional Jewish day school which welcomes a broad spectrum of families and students, from across greater Vancouver, to participate in an inclusive education and connection to Jewish values and traditions.

I am so delighted to get to represent Vancouver–Little Mountain and delighted to have you all in the House. Will the House join me in making these students and their staff feel welcome.

Motions Without Notice

Rob Botterell: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to move the following motion.

Leave granted.

Rob Botterell: That section 11 of the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, 2025, in respect of Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act, be discharged.

Motion negatived.

The Speaker: Sorry, it won’t proceed.

Reports from Committees

Paul Choi: I’m pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the first session of the 43rd parliament, titled Review of Statutory Offices’, Supplementary Funding Requests for 2025-26.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[2:45 p.m.]

Paul Choi: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Paul Choi: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to take some time to provide some brief comment as Chair.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is responsible for exercising general oversight of the province’s nine statutory officers, which includes reviewing and recommending their office budgets. This report summarizes the committee’s discussion with the statutory officers with respect to their supplementary funding request for the 2025-2026 fiscal year and contains the committee’s recommendations regarding these requests.

The supplementary funding recommended in this report is in addition to the proposed budget contained in the estimates that were presented on March 4. Those budgets reflect the recommendations made by the previous Finance Committee in fall of 2023.

When considering the supplementary funding requests, committee members were mindful of the current fiscal climate and the need to thoroughly scrutinize the spending of public funds. Using this lens, the committee limited its recommendations to funding required to support critical functions of each statutory office to ensure that British Columbians can access essential, efficient, effective and timely services. The committee appreciates the statutory officers that acknowledged the need to minimize spending and took a more prudent approach when making their funding requests.

On behalf of the committee, and with all members of the Legislative Assembly, I extend our appreciation to all statutory officers and their staff for the important work that they undertake in support of Members of the Legislative Assembly and British Columbians. I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office for their support during this process.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members, especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, for their thoroughness and dedication to the work of this committee.

Elenore Sturko: I also would like to extend my appreciation to all members of the committee, including our Chair, the member for Burnaby South–Metrotown.

The consideration of the supplementary funding request from statutory officers outlined in this report was the first substantive item of business for the committee, and I’d like to thank all committee members for their collaboration during this process and the careful consideration of these requests.

Given the province’s current financial position, the committee appreciates the efforts by statutory officers to streamline costs or find efficiencies, particularly those that requested minimal or no additional funding for the fiscal year. The committee encourages all statutory officers to continue to pursue further efficiencies and savings wherever possible.

Echoing the Chair, the committee recognizes the significant work that statutory officers perform for British Columbians, and we look forward to engaging with all statutory officers again in the fall to consider their budget request for the 2026-27 fiscal year.

Jeremy Valeriote: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,000 British Columbians.

The Speaker: Member, can you hold your petition yet? Let’s finish with this motion.

The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Jeremy Valeriote: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,000 British Columbians to withdraw Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Garry Begg: I have the honour to present the gaming policy and enforcement branch annual report for the period of April 12 to March 31, 2024.

Jessie Sunner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Jessie Sunner: I believe they’re still in the gallery right now. We have been joined by a lovely group of seniors from PICS Society, which is located in my riding of Surrey-Newton. They have made the journey over. I know their ferry was a little late, so they didn’t make it for the beginning of question period.

I just wanted to welcome them, as well as their organizing team and executive who are here today, and we will be meeting with them later. Thank you and welcome to this House. Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

[2:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Steve Kooner: The Richmond Jewish Day School was here earlier today, and I just want to extend a warm welcome. They’re located on No. 5 Road in Richmond, in my constituency.

If the House can welcome them.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 5.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move third reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates for the Attorney General.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued committee stage of Bill 15.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage of Bill 14.

[2:55 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:55 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Attorney General
(continued)

The Chair: We’ll call this committee to order.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $750,254,000 (continued).

Teresa Wat: The provincial committee on anti-racism has been formed under the Anti-Racism Act to produce an action plan to address the harms of systemic racism specific to Indigenous people, Islamophobia and antisemitism.

This committee is chaired by the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, an organization that has spoken out against the adoption of IHRA’s — International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s — definition of antisemitism. He supported the BDS, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and criticized the listing of Samidoun as a terror entity under the Canadian Criminal Code.

Does the Attorney General have confidence that this committee will produce an action plan that will, in part, address the harms of antisemitism as laid out in section 4(b) of this act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. The short answer is that I’m very confident in the committee and the committee’s ability to represent the community.

I’ll just note that we have a wide range of backgrounds and diversity on that committee, including members from the Jewish community, the South Asian community — a whole range of members. They were screened in a merit-based process for different skill sets.

The one in particular that the member notes has done a lot of really important work, including co-founding the Islamophobia Legal Assistance Hotline, and has served on the previous version of this, the MARB board, so brings a lot of experience to the role.

Teresa Wat: Thank you for the Attorney General’s response.

[3:00 p.m.]

But this is the chair. I wonder: is the Attorney General aware of the past comments made by the chair of this committee, where he defended Hassan Diab, a terrorist who was found guilty in France for the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue that killed four people?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to talk about this, but I think it strays pretty far from the estimates process and the question of budgeting.

Each member of that anti-racism PCAR committee had a merit-based process for the selection, and I already mentioned that we have a wide range of members from society that have done real work on combating racism in their communities. That’s the kind of talent and service…. I’m grateful for the time that they’re giving for the work that we’re doing.

Teresa Wat: I guess to give due credit to the Attorney General, the chair is somebody that — I mentioned all the records of him — is obviously antisemitic.

The Attorney General was saying that there are many other members in the committee. Can the Attorney General tell us who represents the Jewish community in the committee?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to note that I find that a pretty outrageous accusation to make, in the House, of somebody that’s serving as a public servant and the chair of a committee that doesn’t have an ability in this forum to defend themselves.

I think that people’s records on combating hate in the province and fighting hate in all forms…. If you’re going to accuse somebody of that, you should think about their record. I just find that to be a very offensive way to phrase somebody.

The committee is made up of a range of people, including a member from the Jewish community. I also want to note that the process of this committee is also to go out and engage with communities. Through the very explicit Anti-Racism Act that names Islamophobia, antisemitism and forms of racism, they’ll be tasked with the engagement with communities. It’s not about tokenizing anybody on the committee. It’s about having that committee have the skill set that they can go out and meet with the community groups and do the work that they need to do.

Teresa Wat: I really beg to disagree with the Attorney General’s comment just now. For a chair who defended Hassan Diab, who is a terrorist, who was found guilty in France for the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue that killed four people…. I simply don’t understand why we have to choose somebody to be the chair, when I quoted earlier on, also, that he was against the adoption of IHRA, a definition of antisemitism, supported the BDS movement and criticized the listing of Samidoun as a terror entity under the Canadian Criminal Code.

It’s not an accusation. I’m citing all the facts, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Minister, do you care to respond?

[3:05 p.m.]

Member, I didn’t really hear a question there. I would encourage you to ask a question of the minister.

Teresa Wat: The question is…. I beg to disagree that…. The minister just now made the accusation that it’s not fair for me to accuse the chair of having a position. I’m just citing all the facts that I just cited.

I want the Attorney General to tell us: is it an impartial decision to appoint somebody with the background that I cited as a chair of that committee, the anti-racism committee?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The process for selecting members of the committee is first set out in the act, where it says that the members should have knowledge of current and emerging anti-racism racial equity issues and anti-racist expertise and then the requirement for some specialized expertise.

The individual that is now the chair of the committee was previously on our committee for MARB, so had extensive knowledge about how the Anti-Racism Data Act was implemented and carries that forward with his work. There were three members of the previous committee that were kept on this committee through a process of making sure that their knowledge was maintained and their expertise on how the committee’s work was ongoing through ARDA. That was the process. It was not a political process; it was a merit-based process.

Teresa Wat: I do understand the process of appointment of a committee member. I used to be the minister and also had to set up a committee.

I guess I have to put on record that for an anti-racism committee chair to have such an obvious background of having some position on a certain community…. Whether he should be qualified to lead this anti-racism committee, I want to put on the record, since I don’t think I can get any answer from the Attorney General.

In view of the time that I’m given — I’m only having half an hour — I might go back to the Anti-Racism Data Act later. But I want to move on to another subject.

In my estimates debate with the Attorney General last year, the Attorney General referenced that there’s an anti-racism team set up in the AG office. Their job is working with community groups, and what they have come up with from the communities is that education needs to change. She cited the National Association of Japanese Canadians. The work that the team had done with them was talking about the wrongs and historic past-wrongs approach that led to the team being in communication with the Ministry of Education, that make the Minister of Education make changes to the K-to-12 anti-racism education.

[3:10 p.m.]

Obviously, the whole government, particularly the Minister of Education, is fully aware that education is very important. Then, of course, education resources are just as crucial as part of the government’s effort to eliminate racism and dismantle systemic racism in our province.

I received an email on March 27 this year from the manager of LearnSpace of the Ministry of Education informing me that there is no hosting agreement in place for the website of Bamboo Shoots: Chinese Canadian Legacies in B.C. I guess the Attorney General was not in this Legislature during that year. That’s why I give a little bit of background. The email asked if I was interested in hosting this website, as I was the Multiculturalism Minister in 2015, responsible for introducing this educational resource.

The email continued to say: “If this website is no longer needed, we can also discuss a decommissioning option. Please reply by April 10, 2025, so we can determine the next steps.” So I responded to the manager. My interest that, of course, you should continue the hosting of this website, because Bamboo Shoots is an educational resource to try to teach not only grade 5 and grade 10 social science students about what are the past wrongs that the former provincial government has done to Chinese pioneers but to post on the website to educate the general British Columbian that we have to learn from history. Otherwise, history will repeat itself.

So Bamboo Shoots — I spent $250K to work with the Royal B.C. Museum to come up with these educational resources, because at that time, when I worked with the Education Minister, we tried to introduce the curriculum about the discrimination against Chinese pioneers a century ago, and the teachers told me that we cannot teach this part of the history because we were never taught.

That’s why I decided to put aside $250K from my million-dollar budget for my Chinese legacy initiative, to come up with these educational resources so that we can let British Columbians know what the past provincial government had done. They were so discriminatory.

Then, you can imagine how shocked I was when I responded to the manager that this should continue, the website, and I was told that an annual payment of $1,000 is required for the continuation of this website or it will be decommissioned — meaning that the Bamboo Shoots educational resources material that was done by the previous provincial government will be gone if I’m not willing to pay $1,000 every year for hosting this website.

I was shocked and disappointed that, Attorney General, you have been informing the whole government, every single ministry, that we have to pursue the goal of eliminating systemic racism from the government and other public organizations. Yet your colleague, the Education Minister, has the courage to say that this Bamboo Shoots — this educational resource material that I, together with the former government, developed to try to educate British Columbians about this shameful history in the past — will be gone from the government website.

As I told the Attorney General, this resource was developed in 2015 for grade 5 and grade 9 in their social science class with the purpose of providing students with valuable insight into the history, the contributions of and the injustices against Chinese Canadians in our province. I hope the minister can agree that this Bamboo Shoots educational resource, developed by the previous government, falls in line with the current government’s anti-racism initiatives.

[3:15 p.m.]

This government introduced two very important pieces of legislation, of which I was involved in the debate in the committee stage: Anti-Racism Data Act and Anti-Racism Act to eliminate systemic racism. So I’m hoping, and I think, all ministers in the government are fully onboard with this commitment.

So does the Attorney General think it’s appropriate for the manager of LearnSpace of the Education Ministry to even suggest that if this Bamboo website is no longer needed, the ministry can also discuss this decommissioning option? Surely, the manager of LearnSpace should have revealed Bamboo Shoots and is aware that these educational resources are helping British Columbia understand the dark history of injustices to Chinese pioneers.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start by acknowledging the work of the member when she was minister and that that was, I’m sure, very important work at that time. As she talks about, those stories of the hardships that Asian people faced when they were immigrating here were not part in schools and were not part of curriculum. I think that kind of pioneer work that she did…. I just want to acknowledge her for that.

It’s the first that I’ve heard of this, so I’d have to take that away to understand how this plays with the Ministry of Education, as it doesn’t sit with my ministry. I will say that right now — I’m sure, maybe the member knows — we have a commitment to developing K-to-12 anti-racism mandatory curriculum in schools, and that would be something that I think the Ministry of Education is working on. So there may be a way to incorporate that past work into the work that’s there, and I’ll just take that away.

Teresa Wat: Thank you, Attorney General, for your kind comments on what I did when I was the minister.

I’m hoping that the Attorney General can really talk to her colleague the Minister of Education to find out what is happening. I certainly hope that the payment decision that somebody…. Obviously, because I’m so passionate, I might have to take it out of my own pocket to pay for $1,000. But what happens if I’m gone, I’m no longer the MLA? Do I still keep paying $1,000 every month to keep this website going?

This is such a good education material, Bamboo Shoots. I don’t want it to be gone for good. I hope this is really negligence on the part of the staff, and also, if not the Education Minister — whether she knows what’s the priority of this government to eliminate systemic racism. I hope that this payment option, as I said, is just a negligence.

I’m hoping that the Attorney General can make sure that Bamboo…. I hope that the Attorney General can go on the website and look at Bamboo Shoots — I hope it’s still there — to understand how great this educational resource is and can still be there and maybe incorporated as part of your current plan to introduce anti-racism education from K to grade 12.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Same answer as before. I’m happy to look into it. It’s the first I’m hearing about the issue.

Teresa Wat: So do I get a commitment from the Attorney General that I will get a response, either yes or no, for sure, within a reasonable period of time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not my ministry, and it’s not in this estimates budget, so I don’t have a full answer based on what I know. But my commitment will be to speak to the Minister of Education and understand how this program is being integrated or what the thought is about it.

[3:20 p.m.]

Teresa Wat: I guess I don’t see a really positive response to my question then. I do understand that this doesn’t fall into your portfolio, but this is part of the anti-racism goal, and the anti-racism initiative is under the Attorney General. Educational resources are a tool to help eliminate systemic racism, so I’m just hoping that this will really be pursued. And $1,000 is not that much money for this government, having so much deficit.

Anyway, I am going to send an email to the Education Minister after this, and then I can also send the email chain to the Attorney General for info. I will cc the Attorney General so that you know what’s going on, what’s happening, and I’m sure you’ll be shocked too.

Now turning to the racism hotline. Since the launch of the racist incident hotline in May 2024, finally, after the pandemic was over — I urged for the setting up of a hotline in 2021; anyway, it is there — this House has heard very little in terms of updates or outcome.

We understand from the news release that was issued in March this year that the number of calls received is about 600, a number that does not really reflect the lived reality of racialized communities in B.C. Clearly, we know incidents of racism occur, still, quite frequently.

To the Attorney General, what specific action is the government taking to increase public awareness of this help line, particularly among communities most impacted by racism? As a side note, I would say that virtually all my constituents have never heard of this help line, which is really a shame because we spent money setting up the hotline, even with support services as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To answer the question in a few ways, first of all, we’ve done a lot to do with marketing for it.

I think it’s interesting to put it into perspective. I remember when I was looking at the stats as I was tracking it in the first year. It’s also sad that we’re having people use the line, because that means that they’ve experienced something hateful and they’re reporting it, but at least they’re getting the supports they need.

As of today, we’ve received 804 calls. That’s resulted in 2,318 referrals. Just a little comparison there is that California, which is something that we were looking at, has a similar help line, and they received 900 calls, obviously for a much larger population, in one year of operation. We are at 804 calls as of today.

But we are working hard to get the message out, to the member’s question. In the budget, it was over $300,000 that we put into marketing, and we also have materials in many different languages to make sure that we’re getting the message out there to everyone. We’ve done outreach in schools and are also, I know, through the PS of Anti-Racism, working to just get the message out there through faith groups, schools and organizations that this help is out there, along with our partner organizations who are the receiving end of the referrals, who are also getting the message out there.

Since it’s relatively new, we still have work to do with that, but those are some of the tools that we’re using to get the word out there.

Teresa Wat: Thank you, AG, for providing the updated information.

I just wanted to bring this up just to warn not to waste the setting up of the help line in want of more awareness. I’m glad to know that the ministry is working on promoting even more extensively. Hopefully in next year’s budget debate, I won’t have to ask this question.

Another question I want to know is I haven’t seen any clear communication on how the data collected will be used, data collected from this hotline. I’m sure, as the Attorney General said that she listened to it…. We should collect all this data and try to analyze it and try to see how we can use it to drive systemic change.

[3:30 p.m.]

I haven’t heard anything on this. What is the timeline? I’m hoping that we can release the data to the public to know what kind of racism complaints or reports all the callers have. When can we expect it to inform real policy changes to better protect racialized and minority communities in this province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just ask the member to stay tuned because we are…. First of all, the data that’s collected is respectful of the person, the privacy of the person and the sensitive nature of what we’re collecting. In that way, we’re very careful. We’ll be careful with anything we release to make sure people know that when they call, their privacy is respected.

We are waiting for a full year of data before we’ll release it, so just stay tuned on that. We will be reporting out our first year of operation so it’s a solid set of data.

Teresa Wat: I was worried that I can’t speak anymore. I have no more time.

Unfortunately, I have still a number of questions that I want to interrogate. I was told I can’t, so I’m going to send a written question to the Attorney General so that I can get some response back.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions or speakers, the question before this House will be Vote 14.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $750,254,000 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $112,638,000 — approved.

Vote 16: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 17: independent investigations office, $12,652,000 — approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee will be adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:34 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call the estimates for the Office of the Premier.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 3:36 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We are going to sit in recess for seven minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:36 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this committee back to order.

We are going to call on the Premier to move the vote.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000.

The Chair: Thank you, Premier. I wondered if you may have any opening statements or introductions to make.

Hon. David Eby: I do, hon. Chair. Thank you very much.

I am joined here by staff this afternoon. To my right, Shannon Salter, head of the public service. Jessica Prince, Maya Engelbrecht and Tom McCarthy are to my immediate left. Very much appreciative of the support of staff here this afternoon.

This estimates session and this session as a whole take place at a time of real global uncertainty. We started this session with the President of the U.S. initiating a series of threats towards our country — outright annexation, economic harm forcing us into a political union with the United States — and it really woke something up in British Columbians.

People made commitments about not travelling to the United States, to only buying Canadian products. We spoke with one voice that we were never going to become the 51st state and that we were going to stand up to those threats.

Here in B.C., we took the liquor off the shelves, and we committed to buy from Canadian companies, B.C. companies and other trusted trading partners rather than Americans.

Where we are now…. We’re seeing rapid global change and transition as a result of the threats emanating from the White House. But it’s not exclusively that. Europe is reducing their energy dependence on Russia because of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. China’s export controls on critical metals and minerals, that have hobbled American industry, have placed an increased importance on the resources we have here in the province and our ability to provide those, to provide stability to the global economy.

In this time of disruption and instability, there’s nowhere else I’d rather be than right here in British Columbia. We have everything we need to succeed. We have the resources that the world wants. We have cheap, clean electricity to produce them. Our ports face two-thirds of the world’s population, growing global markets, and can assist us in reducing our dependence on the United States.

But the biggest advantage we have, obviously, is British Columbians. Their skills, their talents, their innovation, their entrepreneurship, their resilience in challenging times are our secret weapon. And there is no question in my mind but that B.C. will be the engine of the new Canada that emerges from this time of global turbulence.

We have an obligation not just to British Columbians but to all Canadians to seize this moment, given the critical importance we play not just as a government for British Columbians but as a province in Confederation. We won’t back down. We’re going to rise to the occasion.

We have introduced a series of bills in this House around fast-tracking projects to be able to respond to the moment that we’re in; to ensure that we get things built faster; to both strengthen our people, through public services, and our economy; to grow our economy, prosperity for everybody.

We’ve launched a vision in partnership with First Nations for an economic future in the northwest of this province that promises to deliver $30 billion in capital investment in that region of the province, delivering those critical metals and minerals needed by the world.

It’s also about our clean electricity plan: $6 billion in private sector investment to deliver clean electricity to businesses here and to people in the province.

But it’s not just about growing the economy and the GDP. It’s also about people. Here in the province, rents are falling, and they’re falling faster than other provinces in Canada. Homes are being built.

We have more doctors and nurses coming on, including and particularly from the United States. We’ve doubled the number of nurses coming to British Columbia from the U.S., and they’re coming in just days. Their approvals to get to work, rather than…. Previously, it took months for them to hit the floor to support other nurses and support British Columbians.

[3:50 p.m.]

And we’re helping with costs. Car insurance rates are flat for the sixth year in a row. We’ve delivered the fourth ICBC rebate to support drivers, and we eliminated the consumer carbon tax to help British Columbians with costs.

We have much more to do. As I say, this opportunity that we have is not just opportunity. It’s also a responsibility, a responsibility to all British Columbians to seize the moment but a responsibility to all Canadians to ensure that our country stands on our own two feet.

Canada depends on us to do this. Business as usual won’t cut it. Saying no won’t cut it. This is a moment where we step up, and British Columbians have always stepped up when it matters most.

That’s the context of the discussion today. That’s the context of the legislative session. We have definitely stepped up in this session of the Legislature. I look forward to hearing the questions from the opposition today as we work together to ensure a strong province for British Columbians.

John Rustad: I want to start, as well, by recognizing the staff. Thank you for being here and the work you’re doing.

We’ll do our best to try to flow questions through a number of topics and try not to jump around too much in terms of where we go. Obviously, in the Premier’s estimates, it can go on a wide range of things. Like I say, we’ll try to keep things as focused as can be and make our time as efficient as possible.

As we go through this…. I thank the Premier for his opening comments, and yes, we are at a very critical time. I just want to reiterate something that the Premier just said: saying no won’t cut it. I think we’re going to have an opportunity to come back to those words numerous times through the course of these estimates, especially given his comment with regards to oil moving out to the coast, at the latest opportunity he had to get together with other Premiers.

Regardless of that, I think about B.C. being the engine of Canada, and I agree with the Premier there. It has the significant potential to play a huge role in terms of Canada and in terms of the Canadian future. Nowhere is that more important, I think, than throughout rural B.C., and that’s why I think it’s going to be important we start off with some questions with regards to rural B.C.

I agree about critical minerals and metals. It’s a shame it takes 15 years, up to 15 years, to get a mining project through in this province. So we’re going to explore some topics around that and the process.

Electricity, of course, is an important piece. The Premier touched on that, and I agree. That is a critical need in British Columbia. We are short of electricity in British Columbia. We’re in a deficit at this point, and so we’ll certainly be exploring some options and some of the issues associated with that.

First of all, like I say, I think it’s important that we start on the rural side, because whether it’s investments, whether it’s minerals, whether it’s movement of energy, whether it’s filtration of energy, all of that happens in more rural settings, not so much in urban settings.

With that, I want to start off with the first component of questions. Over to the member from Skeena to be able to ask some questions with regards to her critic role. Stikine, sorry — member from Stikine.

Sharon Hartwell: Although Skeena and I are neighbours and so is Nechako Lakes, we’re all in this House together.

I’d like to start with just a preamble to the Premier to let him know how my comments are going to go this afternoon.

Vancouver’s skyline is bankrolled by the mills, the rigs and the haul trucks of rural British Columbia, yet those towns face billion-dollar fire seasons, fibre baskets and approval queues that turn opportunities into orphan prospects. Rural British Columbia remains the economic engine that fuels urban prosperity, but too often the communities that drive our resource economy are left behind when it comes to approvals, infrastructure and policy certainty.

These questions aim to clarify the Premier’s commitment to expediting investment, modernizing processes and unlocking the full potential of B.C.’s forestry and mining sector while delivering fair returns for the rural people who make it possible.

Will the Premier provide a table showing, for each of the past five fiscal years, the number of major mine environmental assessment certificates applied for, approved and still pending, together with the average and longest processing times?

[3:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, due to a time allocation order regarding Bill 7, I’m going to call on the Premier, if I could, to report progress of the estimates of the Premier’s office.

Hon. David Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:58 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:59 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Economic Response
(Tariff Response) Act

The Speaker: Hon. Members, it being 4 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, the House will proceed to the consideration of third reading of Bill 7, intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move third reading.

The Speaker: Members, you heard the question of third reading of Bill 7, intituled Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
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
Lore	Valeriote	Botterell
NAYS — 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

The Speaker: Members, Bill 7, 2025, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act has been read a third time and has passed.

Steve Kooner: I ask leave to present a petition on Bill 7.

The Speaker: Just proceed.

Leave granted.

Petitions

Steve Kooner: It would have been better to present it earlier, but I’d like to present it now. There are 1,687 paper signatures. There were 29,264 online signatures for a total of 30,951 signatures to have Bill 7 withdrawn. I’d just like to present this.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Office of the Premier.

[4:15 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:15 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this committee back to order and call on the Premier to move the vote.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000 (continued).

The Chair: I believe we will await an answer for the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

Hon. David Eby: I thank the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for starting us off on an interesting note here. The Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities actually travelled through Terrace, and then, right through the member’s constituency as first trip as minister of state, meeting with local mayors.

One of the notes that the mayors brought forward was, obviously, always advocacy for their communities but, certainly, appreciation for the work that we did together on the Resource Benefits Alliance request. When the province is deriving benefits from, particularly, the northwest, it was the advocacy of these mayors that there should be some return back to communities, which was much in line with the member’s question.

The Kitimat-Stikine regional district receives $11,898,950 annually through that program. The town of Smithers, $21.9 million. The goal of that is to recognize exactly what the member said, that there is significant contribution from rural communities in this province to the overall prosperity of the province and that they should be able to do the basics — pave their roads, open community centres and provide benefits for community members. I’m very proud of the work we did there, and I’m very grateful to the work of those mayors from the northwest that we got that done.

On the specific question about mining, I hope the member also raised this with the Minister of Mining. I can provide some broad information, although I don’t have the chart the member is looking for.

[4:20 p.m.]

For major mines, we’ve been working hard on reducing permit timelines. We’ve reduced those timelines by 37 percent. In exploration, Mt. Wilson Silica Ventures had notice of work for the Longworth silica project approved in 44 days. J2 Metals copper and molybdenum project notice of work went from application to approval in 54 days.

Osisko’s Cariboo Gold obtained their major mine operating permit in 13 months. Artemis Gold’s Blackwater gold and silver mine, which I hope to visit soon, is officially opening shortly and obtained its major mine operating permit within 18 months. The Cariboo Gold project: 634 people employed during construction, and a $1 billion investment. Artemis Gold: 457 jobs over the life of the project, a $13.2 billion contribution to the provincial economy.

Overall, we are meeting 90 percent of our legislated timelines for environmental assessment. We just finished an amendment for Cedar LNG, 40 percent faster than average. Cariboo Gold’s environmental assessment was completed 20 percent faster than average. We’re working with the permitting agencies to do concurrent permitting so that permits can be issued after a certificate is issued. We’re estimating that if we’re successful in that, we will see improvements of 30 percent or more for projects that are currently underway.

The Highland Valley Copper combined environmental assessment certificate and permitting process is nearly complete and is anticipated to be referred for decision shortly. The Eskay Creek environmental assessment certificate amendment is well underway, and the permitting process is set to begin this month.

The typical average regulatory timeline for this scale of project would be 5.5 years. We expect to reduce this by 30 percent, through a deep, collaborative approach with nations and the proponent. This was the first project to have a consent agreement with a First Nation.

The Red Chris environmental assessment certificate amendment is well underway, and the permitting process is set to begin in June. The typical average regulatory timeline for this scale project would be 3½ years. We expect to reduce this by 30 percent through, as I said, this deep, collaborative approach with nations and the proponent.

The Mount Milligan combined EAC and permitting process started at the end of March 2025. The typical average regulatory timeline for this scale of project would be 3½ years. We expect to be able to reduce this by 60 percent through a tailor-made approach to managing the EA and permitting review as a combined process.

These four mining projects are subject to decisions under the Environmental Assessment Act, as well as statutory decisions under the Mines Act and Environmental Management Act. While I wasn’t able to provide all of the data the member was seeking, best placed to the minister of mines, I hope it does provide some of the data she was seeking in terms of where government is going and what is in the queue right now.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you, Premier, for the answer. I guess I’m going to have to shorten my questions so that I can get through a few more of these today.

At what precise stage of the EA process is the Tenas steelmaking coal project today? On what date does cabinet expect to render its certification decision? What permitting milestones remain before construction can begin?

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I apologize for the delay. Now is the member’s time to ask whatever she wants, but the Minister of Environment is responsible for the EAO process. The Minister of Mining would have this information quite readily available. We have to take some extra steps to try to obtain it for her, and we have.

Currently the project proponent is revising their submission. The EAO understands that they will receive the submission from the proponent and start the assessment phase in November of this year. So it’s currently not with the EAO; it’s with the proponent.

Sharon Hartwell: Will the Premier confirm whether this government will admit or support the fact that metallurgical high coking coal for steelmaking is a critical mineral?

Hon. David Eby: Our critical minerals list — like many provinces, we align it with the federal list. That assists us in minimizing challenges between provincial and federal programs in terms of attracting investment.

[4:35 p.m.]

Maybe this would assist. I can agree with the substance of what I understand the member’s question to be, which is: should it be considered as critical? The answer is yes. Metallurgical coal is required in the steelmaking process around the world. B.C.’s steelmaking coal has the lowest emissions in the world.

We’re supportive of and trying to assist steelmaking companies in adopting green ammonia as co-firing for, ultimately, a future where coal is not required, but that future is not here yet. Our metallurgical coal is needed and reduces emissions where it’s used preferentially to coal from other jurisdictions.

We’re working with the sector to ensure a strong and thriving met coal mining sector in the province. The most recent example is the 2024 permitting of the Quintette mine. It had been closed for 24 years, and it demonstrates that investors are seeing British Columbia as a place to help meet global demand with respect to metallurgical coal.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for the answer.

Moving along to the top end of the riding, in Atlin, they’ve always struggled with permitting. The thing that I’ve heard through the office is that now that they have to…. Some of them are waiting up to three years for their permits for their placer mines.

Is there some way that the government is going to be able to streamline rather than fast-track their permits for the seasonal entrepreneurs? They still have to pay their fees for their claims all year long. The other thing that goes along with that is they’re having to put some things online to register their claims, and they don’t want to do that because that’s confidential information.

Can the Premier provide any information on those two items so that I can let them know what the government is doing about that?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Mineral and coal exploration, placer and jade aggregate and rock quarry Mines Act permits are managed by regional offices of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, which are located in Victoria, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Prince George and Smithers.

The Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals is working with industry associations to reduce permitting backlogs and review timelines for notice-of-work applications related to exploration. The Ministry has made significant improvements, overall, to regional office application forms and has provided guidance to assist operators in submitting high-quality applications.

In particular, they introduced a permit intake window batching process in the fall of 2022. This is on the exploration side. Since 2022, overall, these regional permit backlogs have been reduced by 52 percent. In 2024, the average turnaround times for exploration permits were 145 days and 167 days for sand and gravel permits.

[4:45 p.m.]

Specifically, in relation to placer permitting, in 2022-2024…. These were applications received by the ministry for placer mining: in 2022, 109; in 2023, 120; in 2024, 73. For 2022-24, these were decisions that were made by the ministry: 147 in 2022, 113 in 2023, 74 in 2024.

As the member can see, there are more decisions than applications being made, so the backlog in placer mining applications has been worked through. This has also likely been eased by the fact that government has restricted jade placer mining. There was a practice, particularly in the Tāłtān area, that was quite destructive to local rivers. It was quite an environmental issue in the region. The government worked with the Tāłtān to address it.

Also, with respect to the member’s question about Atlin, the Taku River Tlingit and others, the opportunity in that region that was facilitated by making what was a difficult decision, but an important decision, about jade placer mining has enabled the possibility of what we think is $30 billion in capital investment in major projects.

In the Atlin region of the Taku River Tlingit area, there is a Canagold project which will provide significant employment in the region and has the potential to assist with remediation of an historic mine site in the area that’s resulting in acid rock leakage in the region as well. It is an area of remarkable opportunity.

We’re working through our backlogs with respect to placer mining, and the member’s constituents should be hearing answers from the regional office and can check with the regional office on timelines. Probably the Smithers office would be the most likely location for that.

Finally, with respect to the online permitting process, I’m not totally sure. The member might be able to assist me with clarification. On the new exploration mineral tenure application process, the only online information that is public is the name of the company. Proprietary information is not made public. We are aware of the sensitive nature of that information with respect to exploration that’s taking place in the province. What is public is the name of the company.

If it’s not what the member was talking about, I’m happy to hear from her, and we’ll do our best to get updated information.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for that. I would welcome that information, because that’s not what I’m hearing on the ground. Part of the discussion, I think, with the placer miners is that although there is an office in Smithers, which the Premier knows, it is taking an awful long time from season to season to get some of them processed. I don’t know whether that’s a lack of staffing or a lack of people that aren’t qualified to do that. So I will be happy to follow up on that with the Premier or the mining office.

Moving on to roads, Babine Lake resource roads and the Suskwa are in terrible shape, and on those two roads alone, as we’ve talked about before, the majority of the money to fuel this province comes out of the north, out of the Golden Triangle in that area. So they’re seeing about 150 or 160 truckloads a day on each of those roads for the only two mills that are operating in that area.

The Babine Lake Road is a historically old road. It’s had improvements up and down, but right now the Premier needs to commit to putting a substantial amount of repairs to those roads, because the loggers are seeing up to $75,000 in repairs on their vehicles. What’s in the budget for that, and how soon can that be accomplished on both of those roads?

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The Minister of Forests is responsible for forestry roads, many of which serve small rural communities and First Nations communities. Obviously, being the sole means of access and egress for these communities, support for road maintenance and capital upgrade funding is important. That’s why Budget 2024-2025 increased road maintenance and capital upgrade funding, which is already improving five key forest service roads in the province that access ten First Nations communities, making them safer for community members, ambulances, service vehicles and school buses.

Budget 2024-25 provides the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation with $12 million in one-time funding that it’ll allocate to the First Nations to support capacity-building, including equipment acquisition and training so they can maintain the roads for their own communities.

The forest road maintenance budget has increased by $3.2 million, totalling an amount of $9.6 million over the three-year fiscal plan. That’s the increase. The forest base capital budget increased by $5.5 million, totalling $16.5 million. That’s the increase over the three-year fiscal plan.

In the North, it was the Leo and Driftwood FSRs and the Cunningham FSR, a combination of 270 kilometres of improvements, where some of these roads were improved.

Specific to the member’s question, we were able to find information about the Babine Lake Road. Specifically, there is a local maintenance contractor responsible for maintaining that road and paid by the province to do so, paid to maintain the road in good condition, and if there are issues related to that, reporting that to the Minister of Forests so we can ensure that the maintenance contractor is meeting expectations.

[5:00 p.m.]

I can advise that the contractor has been awarded a contract to do $100,000 in base repairs to the Babine Lake Road, that there will be a seal coating of the first 18 kilometres of the road starting at H-16 and that gravelling work will also be done on the road.

We don’t have information about any scheduled improvements to the other road mentioned by the member, but the Ministry of Forests maintains a maintenance budget to address issues in communities. I would encourage the member to meet with the Minister of Forests on that.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for the answer.

I will follow up with that, but it’s my understanding that that piece of road that I’m speaking of actually belongs to the province and it’s part of the highway system which the provincial government is supposed to maintain.

The other road that’s in really bad shape is Highway 37. As you know, we talked about Highway 37, or the province did. You talked about $30 billion invested in the North for mining. Is the Premier prepared to upgrade Highway 37, put money into it so that they can get up there and bring out these resources? How much is that?

The pavement condition reports 42 percent of the segments are in poor or very poor shape. At what point are they going to upgrade the road so that we can get on with the mining that’s expected in the North?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The province is committing $120 million to this project to improve Highways 37, 37A and 51. The federal government is committing $75 million out of their critical minerals fund for this project. It’s a combination investment of $195 million, which will enhance road safety and reliability. It will definitely assist with mining development in the region, but it will also open up better access to more services for First Nations and local communities in the region.

President Slater of the Tāłtān Central Government has been supportive of this investment. President Slater says: “Mining is a part of our culture and economy. For thousands of years, Tāłtāns prospected, mined and traded obsidian. While we recognize the need for critical minerals for a low-carbon future, this can only happen with the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples. Therefore, the pace and scale of mining in our territory will be determined by the Tāłtān Nation. Today’s announcement regarding safer highways for our people is welcomed by the Tāłtān Nation.”

You can hear in that quote the importance of improvements to community, to continued support of the Tāłtān for mining. In the Golden Triangle, we have a generational opportunity to partner with First Nations, protect land and water for future generations and also realize $30 billion in capital investment in this province, hundreds of jobs and significant GDP growth, leading to increased revenues for the province to deliver services to British Columbians.

Upgrades to these highways — 37, 37A and 51 — have been a top priority for the Tāłtān Central Government for many years, which is why this was prioritized. Specifically, the project will provide a series of improvements for Highway 37, including widening shoulders, creating pullouts for slow-moving vehicles, adding chain-up/chain-off areas and increasing Wi-Fi access along 800 kilometres of roadway, which might sound like an amenity, but it’s actually potentially a life-or-death emergency service for people in remote areas.

Highway 37A, which provides access to Canada’s northernmost ice-free port in Stewart, will also be upgraded. The Highway 51 segment includes the connection from Telegraph Creek to Dease Lake and Highway 37.

Chief Carmen McPhee of the Tāłtān Band said: “Our three Tāłtān communities have struggled for generations with safe passage, via Highway 37 and 51, to southern communities where people depend on the everyday facets of life, including emergency health care, food and other everyday necessities often taken for granted by many residents of B.C. Resource development must result in the betterment of First Nation communities. While we applaud this announcement, there is much more work to do not only in Tāłtān territory but elsewhere in the province.”

I can assure the member that we are definitely doing that group. This highway will benefit not just mining, not just the Tāłtān but the entire region. I thank the member for the question.

Sharon Hartwell: Thank you to the Premier for the answer. I just want to know if that work is going to start this year. There are many communities up there that are going to benefit from those improvements.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: On Stewart-Cassiar Highway, engineering and geotechnical work is underway right now. Major works are expected to commence next year.

On Highway 51, culverts are being replaced, and other work is underway this year. We are in different processes on different aspects of the project, but work is beginning this year on 51, and then major works start next year once the geotech and engineering is complete on the other.

John Rustad: Thanks to the Premier for those answers for my colleague. One of the reasons the questions were quite specific around a number of projects is that there is often a timely delay in getting responses from ministers, when requested, about this, so we thought it might be a way to be able to get some of the information.

Perhaps a quick question to the Premier with regards to the time it takes for ministers to be able to respond to questions from MLAs. How long does the Premier consider to be appropriate to be able to get a response? Obviously, there are lots of issues that come up that can be responded to pretty quickly, but in several cases here, particularly around questions around mining, it was several months and no answer.

I wonder if the Premier has an opinion in terms of how quickly his ministers should be able to respond to questions and whether or not there’s a message he would send to his ministers with regards to being able to respond more quickly or appropriately to questions that have come from members of this Legislature.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Top line, my expectation is that ministers provide answers as quickly as possible to colleagues in the Legislature, including from the opposition and Third Party. I don’t have knowledge of the specific issue the member has identified — I was trying to do my best to figure out with our team what he was referring to — but that is the expectation that I have.

One of the things that MLAs can do to assist…. I suspect we’re past this point, but in the early days, there would be questions going to Legislature offices rather than ministerial offices or political staff. The fastest and best route is to direct it either to the minister directly or through political staff to the minister. Certainly, my expectation is that those staff and ministers make themselves available to receive and answer those questions.

John Rustad: Thank you to the Premier.

In many cases, at least certainly in my experience…. I’ve been in this building and had the honour of representing my riding for a number of years. I’ve always had the opportunity and many of my other colleagues have had the opportunity to end up talking to regional staff to be able to answer questions.

Of late, all regional staff, certainly that I’m hearing from other members of the Legislature on the opposition side…. They have been told by regional staff that they can’t answer the questions, that they have to go through the minister’s office, which obviously creates significant delays.

I’m just wondering if the Premier can confirm that that is now the direction of this government — that all questions must go through ministers’ staff and that there is no opportunity for MLAs to be able to have those quick and easy relationships with people on the ground to be able to answer questions directly.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member has a different recollection than I do. When I sat on that side of the House, I would have loved access to the Ministry of Housing executive directors, to B.C. Lottery Corp. analysts, to ICBC policy staff.

I’ll say this. When the member sat on this side of the House, the government never hesitated. If we asked for a briefing, they’d arrange a briefing for us on points of information. We had casework. Housing was the file I paid the most attention to, because I was the critic for the longest period. Minister Coleman would take that casework seriously and respond to us about it.

The big picture is that ministers and their teams are expected to get answers to MLAs about casework that you have. That’s your job. It’s our job to ensure all British Columbians get answers to concerns that they have. There are occasions where direct access is needed and it’s necessary to get information out quickly — emergency response, wildfire preparedness and so on.

Generally speaking, the approach is through the ministers and through political staff to get information and to do casework. We strive to be responsive to all members of the House, including MLAs from our party, when they have concerns around casework, because the concerns of British Columbians are important to us.

There are exceptions to the broad policy, but it’s certainly not new. The goal here is to ensure that complete and accurate information is provided in a timely way to all members.

John Rustad: One of the reasons why I’m asking about information or the process to be able to chat with local people…. For example, in a health authority, it’s sometimes important…. On many occasions over the years, I’ve met with the CEO of Northern Health. Other MLAs have met with CEOs of other health authorities to get an update on what’s going on. It has been very effective.

[5:25 p.m.]

One of our MLAs put a request in to one of the CEOs of a health authority and had been waiting several months to get an opportunity to meet. Staff got an email back, saying that they would have to connect with GCPE, the government communications folks, before they could schedule a meeting.

I’m just wondering why they would have a say as to whether or not a meeting would happen between a CEO of a health authority and an MLA.

Hon. David Eby: I’d advise the member that GCPE has no role in scheduling meetings for health authorities. The member’s question had related to access to direct government, as I understood it, but I understand now he’s referring to health authorities.

Just as a broad principle, we’ve got almost 100 MLAs here that would very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with their local health authority CEOs and go through detailed questions and concerns about their communities. The challenge is that there is only one health authority CEO in each region, managing and triaging requests so that we can get information to members quickly. These CEOs are expected to run the health authorities.

We can still get information. We can still get relevant details and assist with casework in other ways. The member is correct that there is not a direct access line for meetings with health authority CEOs for MLAs, but we’re happy to arrange whatever we can in providing information, to MLAs, that they may have or in assisting with casework in relation to health authorities or projects in their regions.

John Rustad: That wasn’t exactly the question I asked the Premier. Usually, once a year or maybe twice a year, you get an opportunity to meet with the CEO just to go over all the priorities and various issues. Usually it’s a team that goes through. So I just couldn’t quite understand why a meeting like that would have to go through GCPE. Regardless, I do want to move on. There are other things that we need to talk about it. It just seems to be rather strange.

[5:30 p.m.]

It made me wonder a little bit about the Premier’s statement after the election, where I think he said something along the lines that he wasn’t willing to work with everyone whose opinions he disagreed with. I wonder if that, maybe, is coming into play.

Regardless of that, I do want to move on to some other topics that we need to be canvassing. In particular, I want to talk about the permitting process and the environmental assessment process that we have in the province of British Columbia. Starting off, we’ll go into talking a little bit about mining.

Over the last number of years, the amount of money being spent on exploration has dropped by 27 percent. The amount of metres drilled in terms of exploration has dropped by 40 percent. There’s a continual complaint about the challenge and the time it takes to get permits for various projects. Those are all known facts, and the Premier talked about those in terms of his response earlier to some of the mining things.

What I’d like to ask the Premier is: what are the factors that go into the time it takes to get a permit through for the mining sector? The various components that go through, whether that’s consultation, whether that’s environmental, whether that’s various other components…. What are all the things that lead up to the time frame it takes to be able to get the permits approved for a mining sector, whether it’s exploration or whether it’s additional work that needs to be done in the mining sector?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: A lot of energy and resources have gone into reducing permitting backlogs related to notice of work for exploration in the province. There have been improvements made to application forms and guidance made to assist operators in submitting high-quality applications.

In particular, the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals introduced a permit intake window batching process in the fall of 2022 for mineral exploration files. The process provides a scheduled approach to permit reviews and provides operators with more predictability with respect to when their applications will be reviewed. I’m happy to say that since 2022, the backlog has been reduced by 52 percent. The ministry is aiming to eliminate the backlog entirely by July of this year.

In 2024, the average turnaround time for exploration permits was 145 days, excluding proponent time. Examples of this…. Mt. Wilson Silica Ventures had the notice of work for their Longworth silica project approved in just 44 days. J2 Metals copper and molybdenum project — notice of work went from application to approval in just 54 days.

The member asked: what are the factors? Maybe he could provide a little bit more detail about what he’s after. The stages of consideration of an exploration permit are…. There’s an initial screening stage, for completion and obvious issues with the application that need to be addressed. Then there’s a review and consultation stage, there’s a permit drafting stage, there’s a referral stage, and then there is the decision on the permit.

The member presented data that might suggest that mining was not doing what it is doing in our province, which is growing dramatically. Last year mineral exploration expenditures in B.C. amounted to $550 million, the fourth-highest amount on record. Employment in the sector has grown by 10 percent since 2017, with 40,000 jobs for people in mining, in communities throughout the province, over the last three years.

Capital investment in B.C.’s mining sector is the highest it’s ever been, growing 116 percent since 2017. Since 2017, 198 new mining businesses have opened in B.C. That’s 55.3 percent growth. That’s more than double the rate in the rest of Canada.

We’re pushing hard on mining. This week’s announcement in the northwest is another example of how we’re working hard to get mines under construction and doing it in partnership with nations and also in a way that protects the land for future generations.

John Rustad: Well, the numbers the Premier says…. Perhaps he should talk to the Association for Mineral Exploration. Their numbers seem to be somewhat different in terms of the actual exploration that is going on in B.C. and the results associated with that. But that can be something the Premier could argue with them down the road around this.

The reason why I’m asking, in particular, about the factors going into the permitting process is that overall, what I’m told by MABC, the Mining Association of B.C., as well as AME BC, the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C., is that it can take 12 to 15 years to get a mining project through in British Columbia. So when you look at that….

[5:40 p.m.]

The Premier gave numbers, for example, on the Blackwater project, of 18 months to get its major mining permit done. It started in the mining application process — I think it was 2012 or 2013. It was 12 to 13 years from the time that it started going through the process of applying to get a permit, applying to open a mine, to the time when the mine is now opened, which we’re going to be celebrating, actually, on Friday. I think there’s a ribbon cutting and opening for the Blackwater project.

When I look at the 12 to 15 years it takes to get a mine open in this province, I look at Sweden, and it says it takes two years to do the same thing. I’m trying to figure out just what it is that takes so long in British Columbia to get a mining project operating compared to other jurisdictions. When you go to, for example, Australia, I think it’s three to five years. You go down to Chile. I think it’s two to three years. I think it’s three years in Chile. Other jurisdictions in the world have figured out how to do this.

It’s great that the Premier has got a focus and wants to see all the mining up in the northwest of the province. We certainly support seeing the mining activity, and I think, quite frankly, there are some 27 mines in this province, with a total of about $100 billion worth of investment that could go ahead in British Columbia. Seventeen of them are in the permitting process and could happen quite quickly, with the other ones taking a little bit longer.

But the reality…. When it takes that long to get a mine open, to get through a process in British Columbia, it begs the question: why does it take so much longer here than other jurisdictions?

Perhaps a simple question to the Premier, who seems to have become a big fan of mining, which is great to see. Has he actually done a review of British Columbia’s process from the start through to the end of being able to get a mine open versus other jurisdictions that are far more efficient and far more capable? And has he done any kind of analysis in terms of how that time could be significantly reduced so that we can actually build confidence in the mining sector in British Columbia?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Big picture, government is meeting 90 percent of our legislated timelines in the environmental assessment process. We completed the Cariboo Gold environmental assessment 20 percent faster than average. In the energy sector, the amendment for Cedar LNG — 40 percent faster.

We’re working with permitting agencies to do concurrent permitting so permits can be issued after a certificate is issued, which we estimate could provide timeliness improvements of 30 percent or more for projects that are currently underway.

The major mine projects where we’re seeing results of improvement…. Osisko’s Cariboo Gold obtained their major mine operating permit at 13 months. I know the member is critical, but it was 18 months for Artemis, for the Blackwater gold and silver mine to obtain its major mine operating permit. There was a lot of process before the application came in, but it was 18 months under my watch as Premier. Not at the time that the member sat on this side of the House. That was four years that project drifted.

The member says he’s in favour of our work in the northwest on mining. I’m not so sure about that. I know who is: the Mining Association of B.C. “This vision and partnership recognize that mining and critical minerals in northwest B.C. and all across our province can help secure our economic future and long-term prosperity amidst the serious geopolitical, economic and fiscal challenges that Canada faces.”

“The Kaska, Tāłtān, Taku River Tlingit First Nation, along with B.C. and Canada industry workers and other stakeholders will embark on a process that will protect important lands and provide generational economic benefits for the northwest and the entire province and country for decades to come.” That’s Michael Goehring from the Mining Association of B.C. The Mining Association of B.C. is in support of that.

The member opposite has singled out the protection of land and water in the northwest for ridicule, saying that the goal of protection of 30 percent of our land base by 2030 was absurd. He has, on social media, playing to what audience I don’t know, suggested that working with nations on consent-based agreements, which is what we’re working on in the northwest, gives a veto to nations and that creates a racial….

Maybe the member can remind me of the words he used, the incredibly derogatory words he used to describe working in partnership with nations to get projects on faster.

He is not in favour of what we’re doing in the northwest, and it’s why the sector languished. This is hard work. It’s challenging work. Everybody’s got to give a little bit. But the vision that we have, that’s being realized in the northwest, is replicable across the province. It’s getting mines approved. The partnerships at the Blackwater mine are remarkable and exceptional. Red Chris was a consent-based agreement.

We’re keen on this work, because it is getting results. We’re growing our sector. We’re growing employment. We’re growing capital investment, and we’ve got lots more to do.

[5:50 p.m.]

John Rustad: I love to see the rhetoric coming from the Premier. Obviously, I got under his skin a little bit, but the question was really quite simple: how is it that another jurisdiction can do it in two years and that it takes 12 to 15 years in British Columbia? Why not do the analysis so that you can tear apart all these issues?

The Premier goes on the attack about that. I’ve never said things like that. I support the northwest, mining in the northwest. I support the First Nations and their opportunity to be able to prosper in it. Economic reconciliation is all about that. That’s what I’ve talked about.

What I do want to know from this Premier is why he won’t do the work of looking at other jurisdictions and simply doing the analysis. What is it that they are doing that is so much easier or better so that they can get projects done in a much faster way? Will the Premier commit to doing that analysis, looking at these other jurisdictions and doing that comparison to British Columbia, so that we can understand why it takes so long to get projects approved in British Columbia?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I just had to gather some receipts. The Minister of Environment, the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals and the Minister of Water, Lands and Natural Resources have been tasked by me, in their mandate letters, to do a review of the full permitting process in the province, expediting permits, which includes a review of other jurisdictions’ approaches.

[6:00 p.m.]

I have already asked the ministers to do exactly the work the member has suggested, and it is well underway. We’re seeing results. I’ve outlined for the member where we’re seeing results in terms of driving down permit times. If the member says that we’ve got more work to do, well, I certainly accept that critique. We do. We’re going to continue to do this work.

The member insists, though, that he supports the work in the northwest, which includes land protection towards our 30 by 30 goal and includes consent agreements with nations in order to get these projects done.

His party is sending out tweets. Here’s the president: “Do we live in a racial oligarchy? This is getting wildly out of hand.” This is in response to a Globe and Mail article from May 11.

The member himself, in The Narwhal headline: “The B.C. Conservative leader says his party would kill ‘nonsense plans’ for new protected areas.”

The member’s tweet, May 12 — this isn’t some ancient history:

“British Columbians are in agreement on reconciliation and have a respect for First Nations cultural rights, including title. However, B.C.’s provincial government is supposed to govern for all British Columbians. The Premier’s NDP should not be giving any special group (1) veto on whether or not projects are prioritized by B.C.’s government, (2) veto powers over land rights and access rights on privately owned property in B.C., (3) veto over access to and use of public lands in B.C.

“The B.C. NDP’s veto approach is setting back reconciliation, driving away investment and undermining B.C.’s economy and breaking down trust between British Columbians. B.C. needs to end the Premier’s veto if we want to get our economy going again.”

Well, actually, working in partnership with nations on consent agreements is exactly how we’ll keep our economy going and, in fact, grow it quite substantially if we are successful in our work in partnership with the nations of the northwest of the province.

This member says he supports it, but his public statements quite clearly demonstrate that he is not in support of this massive economic opportunity and what is required in order to realize it.

John Rustad: No, I don’t support this Premier’s 30 by 30 plan. I’ll say that very clearly. I think that is an absolute disaster. It’s part of the WEF. If he wants to run this province based on other jurisdictions, I think that’s just fine. We have more protected area in this particular province than any other jurisdiction in Canada, if not in the world already, especially once you start adding in constraints that are in place. We’ve done a good job in this province of protecting land to date.

With regards to that, when it comes to the First Nations issues, trust me, the Premier and I will get an opportunity to go into quite some detail about that a little bit later in estimates.

Nice to see that the Premier has started looking at other jurisdictions in terms of what we need to do in this province. It’s a shame that didn’t happen eight years ago when the NDP first started, with the changes they made to environmental assessment as well as the other layers upon layers of bureaucracy that’s been put in place that has made it so difficult to get anything done in this province and also so incredibly expensive.

I’m glad the Premier has admitted that he has failures in his government from over the years in terms of why we have such poor economic performance in this province and why we haven’t been able to get things going.

For example, the Premier mentioned Highland Valley Copper as a project that’s being fast-tracked going forward. How many years is it now? Five, six years since we’ve been waiting to get permits through because there are two First Nations that disagree. The other First Nations are on side.

I once asked the deputy, or one of the people in the government — I shouldn’t name one person in particular because I don’t even know if that person is still involved in the bureaucracy — about this. This was back about seven years ago when I talked to him about this. I said: “In a situation like Highland Valley where you have 17 First Nations or thereabouts that require approval, what happens if one decides it doesn’t want to go forward?” Well, the project will just have to stop until we can get consensus.

Those are thousands of jobs that would have to be put on hold, that would not be able to work. The workforce would move on. Mining would have to stop until you work through the issue and get consensus. What about the other nations that wanted it to go forward? What about the company? What about the workers? What about all of their rights? What about their needs in this province?

[6:05 p.m.]

I agree entirely that you need to be able to sit down, you need to work through things with First Nations, and you need to be able to come to agreement. At the same time, you may end up in a situation where you have one that doesn’t agree, and you have to be able to move forward in that particular case.

Highland Valley, the Premier highlighted, is a project that’s obviously been operating for many, many years. It’s been in the permitting process, and it’s been stalled out because of the policies and approaches of this government. Now it says it’s going to fast-track, and it’s putting it on its list to celebrate, even though it’s been years now in the making.

When it comes to permitting and the permitting process in general, this is one of the reasons why I’m asking about these reviews. It’s great to see that these reviews are taking place, and I’m looking forward to actually seeing that. I sure hope the Premier comes out and gives the full list of all the delays and problems and challenges that we have in British Columbia versus the other jurisdictions so that we can look at the mess that has been created by this government, in terms of being able to move forward, and the suggestions for how to improve it and make it work.

That’s good. I guess just a quick question I’ve got on that…. The Premier has got these in the mandate letters for the various ministers to look at this. What is the time frame expected to come back? I mean, is this in their four-year mandate, to look at this to come back, or is this in a matter of a few months to come back, in terms of changing it?

Obviously, it’s important to improve this process and to speed it up to be able to get these investments happening, so I’m just very curious to know how quickly the expectation is of this Premier to be able to have the analysis, whether that analysis will be made public in terms of it and what the expectation is for implementation.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member decries the economic performance of the province. Since 2017, we have the second-highest GDP growth in the country. Our GDP growth, at 20 percent, is second among provinces, behind only P.E.I. Our unemployment rate is one of the lowest among provinces and below the national average. Our debt-to-GDP is one of the lowest in the country.

So far this year we have the second-highest increase in private sector employment in the country. Last year we created 41,100 private sector and self-employed jobs. In 2022 and ’23, we attracted a record-setting $117 billion in capital investment, which is 73 percent more than 2017.

We’ve got to keep working. There’s a major threat on the horizon. Well, that’s realized, actually, with the tariffs, the duties that are being imposed on the seafood industry, on the softwood lumber industry, and the continued threats from the President of the United States, which is why we are doing this permitting work. Not exclusively — we started this permitting work before. But that’s certainly why we need to get these projects across the line. At least the member and I can agree on that work.

The member seems to understand that we’re preparing some kind of a report and then, following the report’s recommendations, taking action. What’s actually happening is that as projects are going through and bottlenecks in permitting are being identified, they’re being addressed in our prioritized projects list.

But also, the public service is doing the work to identify the systemic issue that’s causing that — legislation, some sort of internal process — and fixing it so that future projects benefit from it. That’s how we’ve been able to cut the old backlog of permits by 52 percent, also adding additional resources to be able to process.

The average timeline for major permitting review projects has dropped by 36 percent because of this approach. We’re going to continue that. We’ve more work to do on that. I gave the member some examples previously. I don’t think I need to repeat them.

The important takeaway here, I think, should be that what’s happening in terms of the mandate letter direction to the relevant ministers is a process where the issues are being identified and fixes are being put in place for projects immediately, and then the systemic fixes are taking place. We expect to be able to bring forward some proposals around specific policy or legislative amendments, as required, through this process.

Finally, the member outlined that it’s his opinion…. How do you go ahead on Highland Valley Copper? You’ve got one nation that disagrees…. These hypotheticals are not helpful. The project has been referred to the ministers, and we expect a decision shortly. I’m grateful to the nations for their work with government, and to the company for their commitment to British Columbia.

John Rustad: It wasn’t hypothetical. It was the reality for Highland Valley that they went through that process, but regardless of that….

You know, the Premier does like to crow about GDP and the growth and everything else and best in Canada. Here are the real numbers.

The GDP, on a per-capita basis in Canada, this province being no different, was 0.14 percent per year for the last decade, ten times worse than the GDP for the 30 most developed countries in the world, on average. Ten times worse. As a matter of fact, it hasn’t been this bad since the Great Depression.

That’s the reality of what we’re facing. The only way the numbers are looking better, which the Premier likes to crow about, is because there’s been immigration. And it’s great. We need more people working in this province. We need doctors; we need nurses; we need all that sort of stuff.

But when you look at the GDP on a per-capita basis, it is the worst since the Great Depression. Something to think about, in terms of this. And it’s not just one year — ten years running. It just happens to coincide with what was going on both federally and, of course, what’s been happening here provincially.

[6:15 p.m.]

I’ve taken, though, from the Premier’s answer that, no, there isn’t going to be a report of the comparison. No, there isn’t going to be the analysis and public accountability in terms of it, so there’s going to be no real way to be able to tell in terms of how they’ve been able to increase it and the relative terms to that.

My opinion also seems to be that this is a slow, ongoing process as opposed to what is really needed, which is the urgency to make these changes to get these projects happening. I suppose that’s why the Premier started off talking about using the legislative hammer to undo the mistakes of the NDP government over the last eight years, in the previous legislation that was brought forward. But I’m sure we’ll get a chance to talk some more about that as well.

Maybe just one final question on the mining thing before we move on to a different topic, in terms of this. The $30 billion that the Premier talks about in northwest B.C. — I’m assuming that’s maybe half a dozen different projects. I’m not quite sure exactly how many projects that refers to in terms of that amount, but obviously, if you’re talking about somewhere between $2 billion and $7 billion per project, that’s roughly what it would be.

I’m told by the mining sector that our port capacity can only handle about two or maybe three more mines operating, and then we do not have the bulk capacity to be able to ship ore out of British Columbia.

I’m just wondering if the Premier has actually done the analysis of all of the issues that are associated with opening up new mines in this province, including the port capacity and rail capacity, as well as the road networks and labour forces that are needed to be able to get these mines open, and whether that is actually part of his work or whether this is just virtue-signalling about wanting to see mines open in the northwest.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I agree with the member. We need to dramatically increase our port capacity. It’s been a key priority for the government.

[6:25 p.m.]

First, let me address some aspects of the member’s question. He raised the issue of immigration. Close to 300,000 people moved to British Columbia in the last two years. I certainly understand why. It’s a great place to live. The member is right though. That does have a significant impact on the per-capita GDP data. Canada as a whole did see significant population growth during the period.

We are proud of our growth here in British Columbia and being second in Canada among provinces, but we want to do more. We know that growing faster will enable us to provide the services to British Columbians that they deserve, as well as high-quality employment and good family-supporting jobs, including in mining.

The member asked me specifically about port, rail and road. I would add, to that list, electricity, in terms of the infrastructure, specifically for the northwest and perhaps generally as well. So I will include some other data if it’s of interest to the member.

With respect to ports, the work that we’re doing in the northwest with the federal government includes work on port capacity to support what we hope to realize in terms of mine development in the northwest. That is an active conversation with the feds.

The member may have noted the western Premiers event that took place just a week ago. A corridor prioritization request was made by all the western Premiers, from Hudson Bay to northwest ports — which would include Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Stewart — to make sure that the federal government was recognizing that if we have capacity rail, road and energy transmission along that corridor, we’re able to access both the European markets and Asian markets — European through Hudson Bay, with Manitoba’s plans there, and Asian markets through British Columbia.

It’s a very exciting proposal that we hope the federal government will take us up on and include a discussion of the potential for doubling the rail line, for example, along that corridor to increase capacity.

In less speculative news, procurement for the Roberts Bank terminal 2, which this government supported, will begin this summer. There was a press release on May 14, which is very positive news for British Columbians and for Canadians.

We see that major potash producers are looking at potential investments in the southern ports, as well, out of British Columbia, which is supporting our friends in Saskatchewan and their mining efforts out there.

That’s ports and the corridor that accesses Asian and Eastern markets, which will support activities in the northwest.

I told the member for Skeena about the $195 million investment in the Stewart-Cassiar Highway and Highway 51 to support not just mining and moving resources but also people in those communities, to make life better for them and support the needs of those communities. That geotechnical and engineering work is underway, and major construction is expected to start next year on the Stewart-Cassiar, and then for Highway 51, pre-construction works are already underway, culvert replacement and other works.

On the issue of electricity, which the member did not raise but I would like to, the North Coast transmission line project is a project that we hope will be able to support the mining work happening in the northwest.

There’s a direct connection. The president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C. said: “New investment in transmission lines and supporting infrastructure is an important step that will enable the development and electrification of new critical mineral mines in British Columbia while ensuring our province’s mining sector continues to have among the lowest GHG emissions in the world. Clean and reliable electricity is key to positioning B.C. as a leading global supplier of responsibly produced critical minerals essential to clean technologies and climate action.”

[6:30 p.m.]

The CEO of the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada said:

“This plan to proceed with an unprecedented level of capital planning and construction to rapidly grow B.C.’s electricity system demonstrates leadership from the B.C. government to support clean growth and attract investment by making clean, affordable electricity available across the province. Enabling further electrification of the natural resource sector across B.C., from the Lower Mainland to the far north, opens up real opportunities to grow the sector while significantly reducing emissions. We are also pleased to see the implementation of streamlined approvals for the CleanBC industry fund projects to increase speed and certainty.”

These projects include renewable power calls for power. We have ten projects underway, nine of which are majority Indigenous-owned, generating about 5,000 gigawatt hours of electricity annually and representing $6 billion in private capital investment in the province, creating 2,000 jobs during construction.

The member will remember these. He described them as unicorn farts. We support this kind of investment. The member opposes it. I don’t know why. We are creating jobs. We are electrifying the industry. We’re building the infrastructure.

I appreciate the member’s interest in this project. Maybe this is one area — including clean energy, perhaps — that he can get himself to supporting. And then we can just still hold hands across the aisle and support the development of this amazing province we call home.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

John Rustad: Let me get this right. The Premier has come out and announced $30 billion worth of potential investment to the northwest. Some dollars are going to the roads. That’s good to see. And waited for a conversation with the other provinces with regards to the potential growth of the ports. In other words, there’s no analysis of the actual port capacity in the northwest of British Columbia to be able to handle those mines and no understanding of the fact that you cannot go ahead with those mines unless you actually have those.

Mind you, if you have to wait 15 years to get the mining projects approved, then perhaps the port capacity will be there in the future. But if you’re talking about streamlining these projects and trying to get them done in two years, there is no way that the minerals can actually get shipped, because there isn’t the port capacity.

I’ve visited the ports. I’ve talked to them. I know what the capacity is in the northwest in terms of those ports. Hence, I will repeat the virtue-signalling comment as opposed to an actual plan in terms of how to get our minerals to market. That is if it’s going to be happening in a timely way, as opposed to many years down the road.

But yeah, let’s talk about electricity in terms of what’s going on for the northwest as well as the entire province and the numbers that I have seen. Two years ago about 10 percent of our power, net, was coming from the United States. Last year it was somewhere between 10 and 20 percent, net, coming from the United States. So far this year it’s been 6 percent, roughly, net, that’s coming to the United States.

The government, in the meantime, after running a power plant on Vancouver Island for the entire winter to help meet the needs, is going to shut it down and once again become more reliable…. This government has actually removed the need to be energy self-sufficient. That was in legislation. That was one of the first things it did eight years ago: remove that requirement for energy self-sufficiency, which is a real shame, because now we are in this situation where we’re more and more reliant on whether that’s coal- or natural gas-fired power coming from other provinces.

The Premier is in the process of a promise to build a new power line between the northeast and the northwest of British Columbia. I think the projected cost is around $3 billion, but every project this government has touched has been at least significantly over budget and behind delays, so I’m anticipating it’ll be a minimum of $5 billion.

Perhaps we could start with just some basics on numbers. Site C added about 10 percent to the power capacity in British Columbia. It’s not quite 100 percent up, I’m understanding, if I heard the Minister of Energy in terms of his comment.

The question is: what is the added cost to ratepayers once Site C is fully up and running in British Columbia? Site C, I’m assuming, is around a $16 billion or $17 billion cost. What is the projected cost increase to ratepayers, and over what period of time is that project being amortized?

[6:35 p.m. - 6:40 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Where to begin? The Site C project is amortized over 80 years. From the current fiscal year to ’27-28, we’ll add a further 0.7 percent to rates. Almost the entirety of the Site C rate impact is already in current rates.

The province is committed to ensuring we have affordable hydro rates and keeping rates that are cumulative inflation. Since 2017-18, the cumulative rate increases at Hydro will be 12.4 percent below cumulative inflation, an abstract statistic.

[6:45 p.m.]

It’s helpful for British Columbians to know how rate increases compare across Canada. Alberta saw a 40.1 percent in the consumer price index for electricity between the years 2020 to 2024, according to the Globe and Mail. New Brunswick saw a 23 percent increase; Nova Scotia, 17 percent; Newfoundland and Labrador, 14 percent; Ontario 13 percent; Prince Edward Island, a 12 percent increase; Saskatchewan, 12 percent increase, Quebec, a 10 percent increase. In Manitoba, 9.7 percent increase. British Columbians during that period saw a 6.6 percent increase. It was the lowest in Canada.

The member made some comments in his lead-in to his question that were not accurate. He said that we no longer require B.C. Hydro to be energy self-sufficient. The Clean Energy Act includes self-sufficiency requirements identified in section 6. In addition, self-sufficiency is a planning criterion when submitting plans to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The member is right. We did remove something under legislation. It was the extravagant standing offer program. There was a recommendation in a report called Zapped about the impact of the standing offer program under the B.C. Liberals when the member sat around the cabinet table.

That project, the standing offer program project, when we compare the rates that the then government was paying for electricity for the standing offer program compared to the projects we just tendered in today’s dollars and compare the cost then to the cost now, dollars then to dollars now, in today’s projects the average price of these projects is almost 50 percent lower than the last call for power when the member sat on this side of the House.

The member released a tariff response plan in which he outlined that one of his key tariff response approaches would be to stop work towards the power line from the northeast to the northwest. This is the same power line that I went into some detail on in my previous answer, so heartily supported by industry as reducing their costs, reducing their emissions and increasing the capacity for expanding opportunities for industrial development in the northwest.

The member, in his lead-in to his question, also alleged that government was not prepared, that he knew the port capacity but government didn’t know and didn’t have an idea about what was required to move the minerals.

That’s not correct. The Red Chris and Eskay mine expansions are in work. There is capacity in the port for that. There will need to be expansion for Galore. That is actually the work that we are doing with the federal government as part of what was announced on Monday — what the member called virtue-signalling. But I call it a really important and critical plan for our provincial economy — but not just me, representatives from the mining sector and leaders in the business sector as well.

I look forward to realizing that, and I hope the member supports it as well.

John Rustad: Once again, I find it interesting, just in terms of the mining projects, when you look at the announced $30 billion investment and yet zero announcement with regard to support capacity associated with it.

At least the Premier has…. Apparently, their staff or the Premier has looked at it. There still are the two…. It’s what I suggested, and part of the third, and then you run out of space. You can’t be announcing that you’re going to be moving ahead with mining projects in a very timely way within a two-year target — two to three years — without having a significant plan already in place for port capacity because that takes years to build out as well.

With regards to the northwest transmission line, the power line from the northeast and northwest, yeah, I do oppose it. That’s going to be likely a $5 billion project that the ratepayers of British Columbia are going to have to pay for.

Maybe before I go into talking about that project, maybe a simple question to the Premier, although I never seem to get any real, simple or direct answers. Who’s going to actually pay for the power line from the northeast to the northwest? Is it the ratepayers, or will industry be paying the cost of that power line?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: B.C. Hydro’s policy, which is a sound one, is that industrial customers pay for the transmission line and generation that they require. The challenge with that, historically, has been that you have someone wanting to come to build a project, and they’re told: “Absolutely, welcome to British Columbia. Here’s your invoice for $1 billion.”

[6:55 p.m.]

Our goal is to build out transmission and generation in advance in order to drive economic activity, rather than wait for a proponent to come and go through an extended process with Hydro and wait for years and create barriers to investment in the province. We want to say: “The electricity is ready. It’s here. It’s ready to go. We can connect you right away.”

Ultimately, the cost will be borne by industrial ratepayers. We think there’s a potential — we’re going to be advocating for it — for federal support to reduce the upfront cost as we build out this transmission and generation across the province. For example, the Infrastructure Bank is providing financing to nations around some of the clean energy projects that I mentioned earlier and enabled the flow of private capital for those projects so that ratepayers don’t have to carry that cost.

I’m surprised the member is so opposed to this transmission line.

Just for clarity, this is the North Coast transmission line. The member has referred to the northwest transmission line. It’s an easy mistake. I’m not saying it to be critical; I’ve made the same mistake myself. The northwest transmission line, for clarity, is the one that’s north of Terrace. It was completed about ten years ago.

The North Coast transmission line is the proposed one that runs from Prince George to Terrace in phases 1 and 2 and would construct a new 500-kilovolt line north of Terrace up to Bob Quinn Lake in phase 3.

The reason I’m surprised the member is so opposed to it is that industry is so supportive of it. The Mining Association of B.C.’s president and CEO:

“New investment in transmission lines and supporting infrastructure is an important step that will enable the development and electrification of new critical mineral mines in B.C. while ensuring our province’s mining sector continues to have among the lowest GHG emissions in the world. Clean and reliable electricity is key to positioning B.C. as a leading global supplier of responsibly produced critical minerals essential to clean technologies and climate action.”

Tristan Goodman, from the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, the CEO:

“This investment demonstrates leadership from the B.C. government to support clean growth and attract investment by making clean and affordable electricity available across the province, enabling further electrification of the natural resource sector across B.C. From the Lower Mainland to the far north, it opens up real opportunities to grow the sector while significantly reducing emissions.”

The work, importantly, is driving prosperity across the province, including for First Nations and some nations that wouldn’t have had significant economic opportunities, but they get to participate in this project in a meaningful way.

The Clean Energy Association of B.C. — of course, these are major companies, employing thousands of British Columbians, that are going to be building these projects — noted: “The 2024 call for power was historic, showing what’s possible when First Nations, industry and government collaborate to deliver clean electricity, drive investment and advance reconciliation.”

I hope the member reconsiders his position on this. It’s important for development in the northwest. It’s a significant investment that will employ many British Columbians, both directly and indirectly, and it’s widely supported.

John Rustad: The reason why I oppose it is that you’ve got $5 billion — what I think it’s going to cost; obviously, it’s much more, once you start talking about taking the line out to Prince Rupert and building the other extensions, in terms of the overall project, which is going to be needed — when you could just generate the power in the northwest and save the money.

You don’t have to pay the cost. You don’t have to build the infrastructure. You don’t have to put the time in. Most importantly, you can keep your rates down. There’s lots of natural gas available up in the northwest from the PNG line, which has tremendous amounts of excess capacity. Put in a natural gas–fired plant in Terrace. It’s good, clean energy.

After all, we’re getting 10 percent or more of our electricity today already from natural gas, if not coal, coming from the United States. We don’t seem to worry about that in terms of it. It would be a huge savings.

Not to mention that I’ve had First Nations talk to me about the swath that it’s going to cut through certain key territories and areas as well — that the power line will create through their territories.

Regardless of that, you’re looking at saving ratepayers in British Columbia 90 percent of the cost. It would cost about one-tenth to generate that same amount of power in the northwest. To top it all off, we don’t have the power. That’s why I oppose it, because I think that’s where we should go.

[7:00 p.m.]

Now, the Premier is going to be able to go on some long rant about GHG emissions and all this kind of stuff, and how we can’t be using natural gas. I heard all those same arguments from the Premier about the carbon tax, too, and now it’s gone. He seems to not care about that. He seems to not think that we’re saving the world now because of a carbon tax. That’s gone.

Look, let’s be realistic. People in British Columbia can’t afford this boondoggle type of project. They need projects that make sense. That end, on top of it, would reduce the delivery charges for everybody along the northwest for the natural gas that they need to heat their homes.

Sure, the Premier may want to talk about heat pumps in the northwest. I challenge him to go up there when it’s minus 30 and see what a heat pump would do in keeping a house warm. You get to about 9 degrees in your home. I think we can get into talking about GHG emissions and the climate stuff at another time.

I realize we’ve got a vote coming up, so would you want to do this? I’ve got a question I want to ask about power generation and the costs associated with it. I’ll look for direction from you, Mr. Chair, as to whether I should ask that or whether we need to stop at this particular point, report out progress and ask leave to sit again. Is that what you’d like?

We can carry on? We don’t have a vote? I thought we had….

Interjection.

John Rustad: Okay, got issues. Well, in that case here, let me ask the question to the Premier and keep it pretty straightforward.

When you look at the analysis of other countries in the world that have put significant amounts of wind and solar in place to meet their power needs — in particular, when you look at places like England or Germany, these types of approaches, with other countries as well — the analysis is that adding 10 percent power coming from wind and solar puts about a 35 to 40 percent increase in the cost of power. That’s the analysis that’s out there.

The Premier has just announced that 10 percent of the new power in this province is going to come from these wind projects. This is why I’m asking him how much Site C and others are going to cost in terms of this. If that’s the way it has played out everywhere else in the world, and we’re adding these projects on, that should be a significant increase to the rates in this province.

Has the Premier done that analysis? Has he looked at what’s happened in other jurisdictions? Is he looking at what that cost is going to be to ratepayers? Is he planning to inform ratepayers about the significant cost increase to electricity rates in British Columbia, through his approach of approving things like wind and solar and even things like the North Coast transmission line?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The cost of the energy in the 2024 call for power is about 45 percent, almost 50 percent, lower than the contracts awarded in B.C. Hydro’s last call for power, under the then B.C. Liberal government, when the member was sitting around the cabinet table. If we had continued with the ten-year rates plan of the previous government, today British Columbians would be paying $140 per year more for electricity than they do right now. That old approach caused rates to skyrocket by 80 percent.

The member advocates strongly for natural gas power plants as a cheap alternative to B.C. Hydro’s approach. If that were true, then Alberta would have some of the cheapest electricity in the country. They do not. They have seen the largest price increase in Canada, a 40 percent price increase.

The member discounts climate change. I know he doesn’t believe that it’s real. He called it “a lie” — climate science. He calls renewable energy “running the country on unicorn farts.” He is a conspiracy theorist about these things. He is in full denial about science.

He believes that the World Economic Forum, the WEF, is forcing children to eat bugs and directing this province to do our 30 by 30 plan. He has bizarre beliefs about climate change and the World Economic Forum, so it’s hard to have a serious conversation about this stuff.

Even putting aside all that, the London Metal Exchange is preparing a new category for metals that are low-carbon, which it expects will command a premium on global markets. The European Union is actively considering a carbon border-price adjustment that will provide preferential access to low-carbon metals and minerals to their market, a major market for diversification of B.C.’s resources.

Even if you don’t believe climate change is real, like the Leader of the Opposition, at least understand that some people are willing to pay a premium for lower-carbon metals and minerals. That is where the puck is going.

[7:10 p.m.]

For the member to be pursuing energy policies that resulted in a 40 percent price increase in Alberta, that would restrict our access to markets like the EU and that would deprive us of access to the London Metal Exchange initiative around low-carbon metals and minerals…. It’s not the right path for British Columbia. I just fundamentally disagree with that.

As I said, the overall cost to do the North Coast transmission line will be borne by industry. But it is my sincere hope, recognizing the economic growth and opportunity here, that we can work with the federal government to reduce the burden on industry and come out with a win for everybody by driving prosperity in this province.

The Chair: Due to the time allocation regarding Bill 14 imposed on May 6, I would ask the Premier to ask this committee to report progress.

Hon. David Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We are sitting adjourned.

The committee rose at 7:11 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:11 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress on the estimates of the Office of the Premier and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act

Nina Krieger: Committee of the Whole on Bill 14 reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act

The Speaker: Members, the question is, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House on May 6, that the House will proceed to the consideration of the third reading of Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

[7:15 p.m. - 7:20 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, before we proceed with the vote, I would ask members who are participating online to keep your audio and video on.

Now, Members, the question is third reading of Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

[7:25 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
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
	Lore
NAYS — 46
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	Valeriote
Botterell	Kealy	Armstrong
	Brodie

The Speaker: Hon. Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote now.

Given that Bill 14 has passed earlier stages of consideration by the House, the Chair votes in favour of the motion for third reading of Bill 14.

Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Office of the Premier.

Point of Order

Sheldon Clare: Point of order. I would observe that the minister on the screen has a blurred background, and I believe that’s not allowed in the orders, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think that vote should count.

The Speaker: We’ll ask the Whip of the government, or the House Leader will check with them what is the technical difficulties of that. We’ll check it out. Thank you.

Members, just to clarify on that question the member has asked, there is guidance that there should not be any artificial background. There are no guidelines to not have the blurred background if somebody is sitting in a room.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 7:29 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we are going to call this committee back to order.

[7:30 p.m.]

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000 (continued).

John Rustad: I always find it interesting to hear the Premier respond with not responding, of course, to the actual question but just giving rhetoric. Once again, he continues to make false statements with regards to whether I believe that climate change is real or not. I have never said that climate change is not real. He can infer anything he wants, but that’s fine.

The other thing I’d just like to comment on, just because we’re on that particular topic for a moment, is maybe we should go and read the many, many quotes of the Premier’s perspective on the carbon tax when we asked him to remove the carbon tax and how important it was to save the world, how important it was to stop climate change. “That’s why we’ve got the carbon tax, and it’s working.” Of course, then, well, we’re just going to get rid of it. “Don’t worry about what I said. It doesn’t matter. I didn’t really believe that.”

Regardless of that, the question I asked the Premier…. I think it’s just a valid question that needs to be answered because the ratepayers in British Columbia need to know. In other jurisdictions, when 10 percent of the power is coming from things like wind and solar, we’ve seen a 30, 35, maybe even 40 percent increase in the cost of power.

What is the rate increase that is going to be happening to the province of British Columbia for the 10 percent that he has currently under call, currently moving forward with these rapid projects to the ratepayers, which is going to add that 10 percent power?

And guess what. That’s coming every other year or whatever that edition is of the additional power calls that are coming — continual increases from wind and solar and yet not a word from this Premier in terms of how much it’s going to cost ratepayers.

Will the Premier come clean with the ratepayers of British Columbia and say how much this is actually going to cost the ratepayers?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member started off with a quite spirited narrative — not any actual quotes, but a quite spirited narrative.

The member himself…. This is an actual quote, not made up. I won’t dramatize it. On December 26, 2011, from the member himself: “B.C. has a carbon tax because the evidence presented to Gordon Campbell convinced him that we should move in that direction. Cabinet and caucus supported this for a variety of reasons. For me, moving away from fossil fuels to something more sustainable is not a bad goal.” The member advocating for the carbon tax, supporting it, voting for it, multiple budgets. I’ll leave it at that. That was him then.

The member insists he never said that climate change wasn’t real. Well, how could you? I mean, with the fires we’re seeing in Canada right now. What he says isn’t real is climate science, the science of why we’re seeing change in the climate. Climate scientists have reached a 97 percent consensus that human activity is driving climate change — 97 percent of scientists.

Here’s what the member says. “We should not be trying to fight climate change,” in 2024. “Climate issues, the issues we have today with our climate, are not an existential threat. It’s not a crisis,” April 2024. It’s not even a crisis.

In June 2024, he was kicked out of the B.C. United caucus for a post claiming carbon emissions don’t contribute to climate change. It wasn’t the first time. In 2021, while he was still at B.C. Liberal MLA, the member objected to our commitment to reduce carbon pollution because he said it was “ridiculous” and “misinformation” to describe carbon as a pollutant.

In August 2022, he said: “The CO2 theory” — climate change — “does not hold water. All of their projections and predictions have been wrong, yet the masses have bought into a lie. And as the saying goes, it is far easier to convince someone of a lie than it is to convince them they have been lied to.”

In 2011, he said — I don’t know if this was before or after he issued that last quote — “I am still keeping an open mind, but the arguments to date suggest that global warming may turn out to be a hoax.” I guess he resolved himself on that.

The House Leader…. Pardon me, not the House Leader. The member for Abbotsford, I don’t know, is he the deputy leader? I don’t want to misattribute this to a member.

I mean, the member can be cute about this, but let’s be honest, he doesn’t support and he doesn’t believe in climate science. He doesn’t believe that carbon pollution causes climate change. He doesn’t think we should do anything about it. So I do not know why he is trying to pretend otherwise.

Now, on the specific…. He called it rhetoric. My gosh. This is a serious point.

In any event, the member is asking about rates. He’s interested in protecting British Columbians from hydro rate increases. Now, he wasn’t when he was in cabinet. During his time as a B.C. Liberal, rates increased 54 percent above the rate of inflation for Hydro customers. In our whole time as government as the NDP, we are accumulatively 12 percent lower than the rate of inflation for hydro rates. We have the lowest rate of increase in the entire country for hydro rates. That’s our record, and that is his record.

The projections for the recent calls for power have an impact of less than 2 percent per year. We recognize that we need to build out our generation capacity in the province. There’s huge demand. The province is growing very quickly, and we’re going to make sure we provide that support and also drive industrial growth in the province.

John Rustad: Oh, we could go back and forth on this, but I just can’t resist one more time about the whole CO2 stuff. The Premier just says CO2 is the cause. Let’s accept that as a premise.

Why’d you get rid of the carbon tax? Simple question. If you believe it’s the cause, and you’re out there to save the world, why’d you get rid of the carbon tax? You say that the carbon tax was saving the world. The carbon tax was reducing CO2 emissions. Well, you got rid of it just like that.

Going against what he also obviously believes. So I don’t think there can be any credibility from this Premier in terms of what matters when it comes to those issues.

[7:40 p.m.]

What I have said about climate is really simple. You can’t change it. You can adapt to it, and adaptation is where we need to be.

Obviously, all the efforts that the Premier has made and why we needed the carbon tax, why he fought to keep that carbon tax for so many years…. He said anybody that thought about getting rid of the carbon tax was a denier. He’s gotten rid of the carbon tax. I guess that means he’s a denier. That’s just the reality that he has to face, and we’ll get to that when we get to, I’m sure, the next election, where he gets a chance to throw more fertilizer out there to the public to try to deceive what’s going on.

Regardless of that, he still has answered the question partially, in terms of the rate increase from these things. He hasn’t honestly brought it forward. Peer-reviewed articles have shown what that cost increase is in other jurisdictions, and he’s not coming clean with that. Obviously I’m not going to get that answer. The Premier doesn’t seem to want to come straight up with giving the answers around these things.

Let’s look at another aspect of power and power generation in the province of British Columbia. I’m looking at it from the perspective that we are in an energy shortfall. We’re going to be building new projects. Okay. We’re going to find out how much that’s going to cost. The ratepayers are going to ultimately pay for that down the road.

We have mandates. We have electric vehicle mandates. We’re pushing and supporting using heat pumps in this province. We are significantly increasing demand.

I think it was just the other day that Bell announced that they’re going to be building some AI data centres here in British Columbia. Great, happy to see the investment in British Columbia. But that takes a lot of energy, and they have some numbers in terms of how much electricity those demands are going to be.

Mines are obviously going to take up electricity demand, in terms of where that’s going to go, as is LNG in terms of that side of things. Demand — we’re already in a shortfall, and demand is growing rapidly. The Premier continues to promote additional demand, and we don’t have the power to meet those needs.

Many analysists have said, just for example, on heat pumps…. Heat pumps were to go out in every home and every commercial business in the province, which is what the push is to do. You’d need to build the equivalent of six or seven more Site C dams. We’re not going to likely build another major dam in B.C., so we’re going to build six or seven times that power in wind power.

I’ve already said what the peer-reviewed article is in terms of the cost increases to electricity by relying on things like wind and solar. Not to mention, the more you add, you move from the high-value projects to the medium-value to the low-value projects in terms of the potential return on wind.

We have a huge problem, I think, in terms of electricity and meeting our electrical demands. But let me boil it down to a more simple question, since we’re never going to come to agreement and I’m likely never going to hear the appropriate answers anyway.

EV mandates that are in the province — the more we’re trying to push this…. Obviously, we don’t have the electricity for it. Does the Premier believe that his EV mandates are realistic for the people in British Columbia? What’s it going to do to the average person in the province, the average cost of a vehicle in British Columbia? These EV mandates are kicking in this year, in the ’26 year model.

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Well, I’m glad that the member recognizes the remarkable economic growth taking place in this province despite the challenges we face.

The member outlines a number of increasing demands for electricity — energy, mining sector, tech sector. We need to build in advance of demand and ensure we’re able to meet this opportunity that, certainly, I see and members on this side of the House both see and support.

The member said something curious in his response. He said: “Let’s accept the premise that carbon dioxide causes climate change.” That’s not a premise. I believe that it is true, and 97 percent of scientists…. They’ve done the work. We can see it in our forest fires and in the impact on the climate. I wonder if the member accepts that it’s true, except as a premise.

In any event, the commitment we made to British Columbians during the election was that we would support them in ensuring that we were growing the economy — and that’s what we’re doing — and driving down emissions wherever we can. That’s part of what our hydro strategy is.

Over the last 15 years, B.C. has been a net importer in seven of those years and a net exporter in the other eight. There have been recent drought conditions that have reduced the ability of B.C. to be a net exporter, but even despite that, B.C. Hydro made a net profit of $2 billion selling electricity between fiscal years ’20-24.

[7:50 p.m.]

That revenue goes back to helping keep rates affordable for British Columbians. By bringing on additional capacity, we can sell more electricity, including to the Yukon and to Alberta. We’re hopeful to work with them on electric inter-tie that benefits both our provinces. We think that, working together, we’ll be able to keep rates low and also support our neighbours and fellow Canadians.

On the specific question of the EV mandate — an update for the member. In 2024, light-duty zero-emission vehicles…. The member calls them electric vehicles, but we…. I mean, it’s mostly theoretical. There aren’t a lot of hydrogen vehicles driving around. They are mostly electric.

In 2024, light-duty zero-emission vehicle sales represented 22.4 percent of all new light-duty vehicle sales in B.C. There are almost 200,000 of these vehicles registered in our province. In 2024, we had the second-highest uptake of these vehicles in Canada in gross numbers.

The ministry’s forecast that came out in October 2024 shows that industry is on track to meet the 26 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2026. There has been some levelling of demand, and I would say that economic volatility, the removal of federal incentives…. We’ve still seen year-over-year growth on average. British Columbians are choosing electric vehicles where appropriate.

For context for the member, we’re not the only jurisdiction with a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate. They have been adopted across Canada and in the United States as well.

However, with all those things said, as times change, we need to ensure that these things are continuing to be relevant and providing benefit to British Columbians. That’s why the ministry is currently conducting a review of British Columbia’s zero-emission vehicle standard. The review will include market trends analysis, input from interested parties and allow for any necessary adjustments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act and regulation. The last review of the standard was done in 2022.

There is a zero-emission vehicle advisory council in the province, which includes members from across the zero-emission vehicle sector, including automaker associations, representatives of industry, environmental NGOs, academia, infrastructure providers, local governments, and provides strategic advice to the province on how we can meet our goals of reducing emissions from vehicles to drive down carbon pollution, which is the cause of climate change.

John Rustad: I can’t help but just add another little beautiful comment. Why we need the carbon tax in British Columbia: “because we’ve got wildfires, and we’ve got floods. We’re feeling the impact, and we need to have this changed. Oh, but don’t believe what I say, because the carbon tax is now gone.” That is the definition of denial, I suppose, but regardless of that….

I thank the Premier for those comments with regards to the EVs and EV review that’s going on. Will that review actually be completed in time for the 2026 sales year, which is obviously starting in September when those models start coming on the market?

I’ve met with the dealers, obviously, just recently, met with the car manufacturers not long ago, and they’re all saying the same thing, which is that these targets are completely unrealistic. They are going to be significantly problematic for them, particularly when these targets carry forward beyond 2026. The low-cost vehicles, ICE vehicles, will end up being taken out of the market, and it will significantly drive up the costs for vehicles.

I’m just wondering if the Premier cares to commit to actually having that review completed by September when these things come in so that they can be adjusted. But my understanding, as well, is — and maybe the Premier can confirm this — that the targets for the EVs are in legislation. In which case, of course, the sales of this will start in September, and the earliest the Legislature will come back again will be October. I might be wrong about that. Maybe they can do it through regulation. But if there does need to be changes, obviously that would be something that would have to be looked at for the fall sitting.

It would be great if the Premier could just confirm that the analysis will be done in a timely way, that things will be ready and that, if need be, legislation can be moved forward for early October to change or hopefully eliminate those mandates in British Columbia.

[7:55 p.m.]

But on top of that, of course, there is the other component, which is the power and the power needs for that. Has there been the analysis done in British Columbia to show that the electrical needs just added from EVs alone are going to be able to be met within British Columbia, given the fact that the Premier likes to, maybe, confound the issue by saying it’s about net revenue?

No, it’s not about net revenue; it’s about net electricity use. Yes, there are sales of electricity, but there’s purchased electricity, and we’re net purchasers of electricity in this province. In other words, we don’t have the power. We’ve got mandates that are going to add the power. Even with Site C coming on, we’re not going to be in that situation.

The question is: will the review be done in time? Can we get legislation, if that’s what’s needed, done quickly enough so that we aren’t going to be causing damage to the new-vehicle market here in British Columbia? And do we have the power to meet these mandates? Will that be part of the review?

Hon. David Eby: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 7:56 p.m.

The House resumed at 7:57 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act

Jessie Sunner: Section A reports Bill 15 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act

The Speaker: Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act.

[8:00 p.m. - 8:05 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I rise on a point of order, a point of clarification, a point of trying to figure out consistency. I note that the Clerk….

The Speaker: Member, not during the vote. After the vote is cast, we will consider your point of order.

Peter Milobar: This is about Bill 14 though.

The Speaker: No, we are now dealing with Bill 15. We will be listening to your concern after.

Peter Milobar: As long as it’s after, that’s fine. Thank you.

[8:10 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act. I would like to remind members participating remotely to have your video and audios on.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
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
	Lore
NAYS — 46
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	Valeriote
Botterell	Kealy	Armstrong
	Brodie

The Speaker: Hon. Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. Given that Bill 15 has passed earlier stages of consideration by the House, the Chair votes in favour of the motion for third reading of Bill 15.

Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Point of Order

Peter Milobar: I rise based on the earlier ruling on Bill 14, and I would note that the Clerk had to make a quick evaluation of the situation to the Speaker.

However, under Standing Order 8(3), it very clearly says: “In enabling remote participation of members in proceedings of the House, the Speaker shall (a) approve the video conferencing technology platform used to support hybrid proceedings of the House, and (b) establish and publish rules, expectations and requirements for remote connectivity and participation by members and shall consult the House Leaders or Whips as required.”

Why that’s important is that you did publish guidance for members participating in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly remotely on February 24, 2025. Now, I know this House has a great tradition of Speakers relying on the precedence of other Speakers’ decisions over time. However, I would note that you are the only Speaker that has ever had to deal with remote Zoom proceedings.

We have had in the past, in this session alone, members ruled out of order — and we lived by that ruling — based on the guidance that was not followed of the guidelines issued by the Speaker on February 24, 2025.

“Location and background: a quiet, private location with good lighting should be selected. The backdrop must be neutral, free of political or partisan images or slogans. Zoom virtual backgrounds must not be applied. An exception may be only granted if the Speaker or Chair is advised in advance that a member must join parliamentary proceedings remotely from a medical or care facility.”

The Minister of State for Trade magically has no blurred background in the same room on this vote as he had in Bill 14. The only way to have a blurred background is by electronic means, which would be virtual. That is the only possible way the technology happens for the Minister of State for Trade to have a blurred background on one vote and, half an hour later, a clear background.

We would ask a reconsideration based on the Speaker’s own rulings and rules issued on February 24, for this particular sitting, that the Minister of State for Trade was not eligible to have his vote cast on Bill 14 previously.

[8:15 p.m.]

Again, we recognize it was a quick reference point the Speaker had, but it’s very clearly spelled out from the Speaker’s own office what the expectation of participation is. Anybody in the virtual realm will tell you that a blurred background in the exact same room that now has a clear background, with the same person in focus at the same depth, was a virtual background.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s pretty clear right from the first vote that the member was in a room. As per your guidelines, hon. Speaker, that has not changed. The room was the background. And I….

Interjections.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yeah, and I’m reading the rules from the guidebook:

“Members must have the audio and video functions enabled with their face clearly visible in order to be counted towards quorum. Members may seek the attention of the Speaker, such as to raise a point of order or reserve their right to raise a question of privilege, by sending a Zoom chat message privately to the Clerks at the table or by raising their hand in Zoom. They must ensure that good connectivity and lighting have been established with audio and video functions enabled.”

It’s pretty clear he had audio and video functions enabled.

“Connect from a suitable indoor private location. Connecting from a public area or from a vehicle is not appropriate. An exception may only be granted if the Speaker or Chair is advised in advance or the member must join parliamentary proceedings remotely from a medical care facility. Ensure that focus, behaviour and actions reflect those of being physically located in the chamber and therefore not engage in multitasking or private activities.”

None of those things took place. The member had what the key element was, which was the face must be in focus and…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …it was not an artificial background.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Sheldon Clare: On Zoom, a blurred background is a virtual background. For anyone who doubts this, I encourage them to sign into a Zoom conference and look up “virtual background.” The choice includes a blurred background.

That is something I have been teaching for many years, and I am very familiar with it. That was an ineligible vote.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair has already ruled on this issue earlier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. The Chair does not consider a blurred background to be a virtual background. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, no argument with the Chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission has left by making a very disparaging remark to the Chair. He will not be allowed to return to the chamber until he comes back and apologizes, and he will stay out.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Office of the Premier.

The Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed at 8:19 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 8:30 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier
(continued)

The Chair: I call the House to order.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $18,450,000 (continued).

Jeremy Valeriote: I will acknowledge that I wasn’t planning to do this tonight.

Interjections.

Jeremy Valeriote: There’s never a dull moment, and I will not be debating the merits of Zoom backgrounds with the Premier. I’ll try and fill the time until we can all adjourn and go home.

I will ask a hard question of the Premier to start. This government has passed at least four pieces of controversial legislation in the last few weeks — one at 1 a.m.; another one by walking back a significant part of the legislation; and two more today by time allocation — which left us unable to fully debate the bill — and then the Speaker casting the tie.

I’d be interested to hear the Premier’s reflections on this session as it has occurred.

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Thank you to the member for the question and for being quick on his feet. You know, history is written by the people who show up, so congratulations to him on that.

He raises an important question. How do you manage the House? How do you ensure that the government’s business gets done but that there’s also fair time to air concerns, ask questions and debate?

Right now it’s 8.30; the member will know that we don’t ordinarily sit till 9 o’clock most nights. This has been a significant challenge for many members, I know. These are 12-hour-plus days for members. Many of us will go 14-to-16-hour days, in order to facilitate late-night settings, to add more time.

We went to three Houses, and I appreciate the support of all members and of the House Leaders in being able to do that. In doing so, we added dozens and dozens of additional hours of debate on bills, and not just government bills.

This session included, for the first time, private members’ bills that were debated and passed in this place — a bill of a private member from the government side and a bill of a private member from the opposition party. I’ve been here for ten years, and I’ve never seen that — let alone in two.

The member notes controversy about legislation. I know the member is a relatively new arrival here. Much legislation is heavily debated. It involves change, it involves debate, and it often involves controversy. That is not an unusual thing. What is unusual is how few pieces of legislation we were able to get through in the fall session.

I would attribute this not to malice or misconduct on anyone’s part. I just think we’ve got a bunch of brand-new MLAs. When you look at the turnover in this place, we’ve had a huge number of people who are finding their feet. They’re learning about the process. They’re learning about how to do estimates. They’re learning about debate on bills and so on, and they’re using different mechanisms to raise their points.

[8:40 p.m.]

It’s all appropriate and all necessary, but ordinarily, we get about 20 pieces of legislation through the fall session; in this session, 13 pieces of legislation. So not only did we add significant additional hours, we reduced the overall legislative agenda. We have bills that are carrying over to the next session.

But at the end of the day, the bills the member has identified as ones he is asking me to reflect on are critically important bills. They respond to a rapidly evolving situation with our biggest trading partner, the President of the United States attacking our economy, going after our ability to support British Columbians and doing it in the name of annexing Canada as the 51st state.

These are significant and profound issues that have resonated around the globe, and it is in this moment that British Columbia needs to respond. British Columbians expect us to respond to ensure that we’re protecting, as best we can under this threat, our economy, that we’re supporting them and their families with high-quality services, that we’re building the schools and hospitals we need, and that we’re doing so efficiently and quickly.

I know that the member, unlike the member who was just asking me questions, understands the challenge and imperative of addressing carbon pollution and climate change bills that facilitate us building clean electricity faster, creating jobs across the province, doing it at 50 percent of the cost of the previous government’s initiatives and doing it in a way that allows us to assist in decarbonization in the Yukon, Alberta and British Columbia heavy industry, including the mining sector, that we hope to grow quite significantly to respond to the imperatives around electrification and clean tech.

These are crucially important bills. So the member is right. There are always puts and takes. There are considerations to be made about ensuring that members have a chance to debate. The House Leader has tried to achieve that by extending sittings. We have tried to achieve that as a government by expanding opportunities for private members to bring bills and move beyond debate to legislation, including from the opposition side, including making government drafting available.

I am proud of the work of the Minister of Infrastructure, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Finance and other ministers that moved significant bills, as well as every colleague on this side of the House and certainly the work of many people to debate and address these issues, but particularly proud of the NDP caucus for their work through this session. They worked incredibly hard and took some risks in allowing space for opposition to expand debate and expand participation in really meaningful ways. I’m grateful for that.

I think this session brings learnings for all of us, moving forward, and it also brings important legislation to respond to a significant economic threat to our province.

I hope the member will indulge me as I briefly address a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The member asked about the zero-emission vehicle strategy and made a number of assertions about it. The bottom line is that we are committed to working with automakers and dealers to determine the best way to support zero-emission vehicle adoption in B.C. and protecting affordability for British Columbians.

It’s a very straightforward issue of import and substitution. We import refined petroleum into British Columbia. We produce electricity here. So if we substitute electricity for refined petroleum, we create jobs here, we create prosperity here, and we support British Columbians in growing our economy. That’s why we are such fans of this approach, not just that it reduces carbon emissions. It’s good for our economy.

With that, I move the committee rise to report progress and seek to leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned. Just wait for a moment for the Speaker to join us.

The committee rose at 8:44 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:45 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and asks to leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

John Rustad: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, the member for Kelowna-Mission would like to come in and share a few words.

Personal Statements

Gavin Dew: Earlier I made an inappropriate remark, and I withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. You now have permission to sit.

But I remind all members again, as I have said many times before, you can disagree with each other, but never question the Chair’s ruling. Secondly, never be disrespectful to the Chair. I would say never be disrespectful to anybody but particularly to the Chair.

It’s our tradition, that’s required here, and I hope all members are listening to that.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 8:47 p.m.