The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

Pam Horton

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Today I rise with deep sadness to acknowledge the passing of a friend and lifelong advocate, Pam Horton. Pam was the first executive director of Disability Alliance B.C., and her advocacy for disability rights spanned over five decades. As a founding member of TransLink’s Access Transit Users Advisory Committee, Pam was instrumental in the fight to bring wheelchair-accessible public transit to Metro Vancouver.

Pam was also a committed supporter of survivors of domestic and sexual violence and, in her later years, an advocate for seniors. Pam exemplified living life with purpose, with compassion and with service.

My deepest condolences go to Pam’s family, friends and others who have been touched by her life and her work. She was a pillar of our community, and she will be greatly missed. Her legacy of remarkable service will not be forgotten, and she should inspire all of us to take grounded perspectives in our service to our communities.

Patricia Boyle

Hon. Lisa Beare: Today I am delighted to stand here and recognize and celebrate Patricia Boyle, assistant deputy minister of our child care division in the Ministry of Education and Child Care. She’s retiring this week after 18 years of service with the provincial government.

Patti became the ADM for child care in 2022, sharing her deep experience from the leadership roles she’s held across government in justice, public safety and social development. She has been so dedicated to supporting the work of child care B.C. plan and increasing access and affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care for all British Columbians. Her commitment to solving challenges collaboratively and to building strong relationships is seen by everyone who has worked with her.

I am so grateful for her and her service, and I congratulate her and wish her great joy on the next part of her life.

[1:05 p.m.]

Dave Phillips

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: It’s a real honour today to rise to pay tribute to a fallen firefighter. New Westminster’s own Capt. Dave Phillips — or Super Dave, as he was known — tragically died last year at the age of 63 from an occupational acquired cancer.

He served our community with pride as a member of

tribute to a fallen firefighter. New Westminster’s own Capt. Dave Phillips, or Super Dave, as he was known, tragically died last year at the age of 63 from an occupational-acquired cancer.

He served our community with pride as a member of New Westminster’s fire and rescue service. He was a loving spouse to Debbie. He was a dedicated father to Jessica and Taylor, for whom he was a bonus dad. He was such a good brother to Deborah Phillips. He was a son, he was a friend, he was a mentor, and he was a deeply valued member of our community.

For 17 years before becoming a firefighter, Dave worked as a lead on the ramp with Air Canada. And while he was there, he was an active member of the International Association of Machinists, and he helped found the Air Canada Flying Pirates Hockey Club. He was a big sports fan.

He became a New West firefighter in August of 1995. He was part of a group of recruits that year who dubbed themselves the Super Six. And in 2014, Dave was promoted to the position of fire and rescue services training captain, one of the founding members of the training division. He was instrumental in developing many of the standardized procedures and policies and training that are used to this very day and that help keep firefighters safe.

He was a mentor, and he was a leader. He never shied away from a challenge. He was resourceful, and he had a strong work ethic. He was also active in his union, the International Association of Firefighters Local 256, serving as a union executive member, and of course was very involved in the firefighters charitable society, which does so much in our community and, I know, in every single community across this province.

Captain Dave retired in 2020 after a distinguished 25-year career. But that hard-earned retirement was tragically cut short when he was diagnosed with cancer, which he developed as a result of his work as a firefighter and which he fought very, very hard to try to beat. Sadly, last November we lost Dave to that cancer.

In December, he was honoured with the most profound honour that can be given a firefighter, with a line-of-duty-death service in New Westminster. Firefighters came from all over British Columbia to pay their respects to Dave and his loved ones. His colleagues shared incredible stories of his compassion and selflessness, his legendary leadership.

One of those stories that had been captured by Theresa McManus, who was then a reporter from the then New Westminster Record, was told by Deputy Chief Jeff Gill. It was about how Dave, in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, made arrangements for him and his colleagues to go to New York and to support the recovery efforts at Ground Zero. They attended funeral services during the day, and they worked at recovery efforts at night. According to Gill, the trip was a life-altering experience for them all, and they came back with a very new perspective on life and their occupation.

That service was such an outpouring of love and support from our community for someone who gave so much and deserved a long, happy and healthy retirement. I want to express my heartfelt condolences on behalf of our whole chamber to Dave’s family.

I know that we know this. Every March we gather here at the Legislature on the south lawn to pay tribute to fallen firefighters. And sadly, we lose far too many firefighters to occupational disease. It is a stark and sobering reminder that firefighters and first responders not only put their lives on the line for us in our moment of need, but they bear the toll of the physical and emotional exposure to extremely hazardous conditions. And they sometimes pay the ultimate price.

So thank you, Captain Dave, for your service, for your commitment to helping others.

To Debbie and your whole family, we are so very sorry for your loss.

You live on in the hearts of the people who loved you, the members of IAFF Local 256 and the whole community that you selflessly served. We are forever grateful.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

M215 — Parental Transparency
and Age-Appropriate
Education Act

Mandeep Dhaliwal presented a bill intituled Parental Transparency and Age-Appropriate Education Act, 2025.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I move that the bill entitled the Parental Transparency and Age-Appropriate Education Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

[1:10 p.m.]

Parents across the province demand to know that the books that their children read are age-appropriate. For years, the NDP have allowed inappropriate books in our schools. The books are clearly harmful and do not support

Parents across the province demand to know that the books that their children read are age-appropriate. For years, the NDP have allowed inappropriate books in our schools. The books are clearly harmful and do not support student achievement.

On March 11, the Minister of Education committed to review of age-appropriate books. This bill would make that commitment official and in law. This bill will do what Alberta has already done. This bill will do what the Minister of Education has already promised to do.

It’s time to ensure that all school books are age-appropriate and that parents’ concerns about what their kids read are heard. Parents are a vital part of the education community and have been excluded by this government. It’s time to change that.

I hope that all members of the House can support this bill.

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

Motion approved.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:13 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier
(continued)

The Chair: I call the committee to order.

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

Jeremy Valeriote: The issues with consultation and cooperation that I brought up before the break reflect a broader concern over the Premier’s consolidation of power in cabinet. Throughout this session, this government has repeatedly attempted to consolidate more power within cabinet and the Premier’s office to much public criticism. We saw this with Bill 7, then Bill 14 and again with Bill 15 — each a measure giving sweeping powers to cabinet at the expense of necessary legislative debate and process. The Premier said that, “In extraordinary times, we need extraordinary powers,” yet doing so overrides central functions of democracy.

[1:15 p.m.]

Every British Columbian deserves to have their beliefs represented by an elected legislative body. This is especially relevant given the fact that this was one of the closest provincial elections in recent times. Instead, this government gives quasi-legislative powers to a select cabinet at the expense of this diverse Legislature chosen by the electorate.

Every strong and trustworthy government must have accountability measures in place. If this government finds it necessary to replace legislative debate with cabinet orders, what equivalent mechanisms will be implemented to ensure accountability and transparency?

select cabinet at the expense of this diverse Legislature chosen by the electorate. Every strong and trustworthy government must have accountability measures in place. If this government finds it necessary to replace legislative debate with cabinet orders, what equivalent mechanisms will be implemented to ensure accountability and transparency?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: To say I disagree with the member’s characterization of our government and the way we’re operating is probably an understatement, but especially the leader of the Green Party, for Pete’s sake. I mean, we just issued a report together, the member will recall.

I understand he’s got a narrative he’s trying to push, but the report that we both…. I’m looking. It’s got both our signatures on the bottom here, the executive summary, that reads: “The cooperation and responsible government accord between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat caucus reflects a shared commitment to working collaboratively on issues that matter to people.”

Skipping down: “The key accountability measure within the agreement is a requirement to report out on a quarterly basis on progress in meeting these accord commitments. We’re pleased to report that a number of policies have been implemented, and reviews have gotten underway within the first quarter of the accord, including the delivery of enhanced rental housing supplements for low-income seniors and families, $50 million to support improved access to heat pumps for low- and middle-income households.

“Both parties agree that the relevant implementation provisions in the accord have been put in place and were consistently applied during the reporting period. Likewise, legislative efficacy provisions in the accord are largely being carried out, and when challenges arise, both parties are working to address them in good faith.

“We look forward to continuing to work constructively together to achieve our shared goals and look forward to providing further update on our work together.” Second quarterly report, 2025.

The member asked this question…. I don’t know if he wants to clip it for people who don’t know what we’ve committed to, what we’re actually doing with the Green Party.

“The government House Leader will” — No. 1 in our agreement — “regularly meet with the B.C. Green caucus House Leader to discuss business of the Legislative Assembly in an agreed-upon cadence; provide a list of the government’s projected legislative agenda to the B.C. Green caucus House Leader for each legislative session, at the earliest opportunity, that includes the number of bills and a description of legislation. This will also specify the last day of introduction for legislation that is intended to be passed.

“The government House Leader will keep the Green House Leader updated of any changes in a timely matter, discuss with the Green House Leader any legislation that could be eligible as exposure to legislation.”

It continues: “Provide the Green caucus briefings that include technical and consultative drafts of each piece of proposed legislation, provide advance notice of the legislative week, provide 24-hour notice of planned….”

[1:25 p.m.]

I could go on, hon. Chair, but I think you get the picture.

I’ll say this. We have not seen Green Party support on a number of bills that have come through this House, despite that commitment, and

week, provide 24 hours notice of planned…. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

I’ll say this. We have not seen Green Party support on a number of bills that have come through this House, despite that commitment. We’re maintaining the commitment to the Green Party, because we do have a commitment to work with them. So to hear the member suggest that somehow he and his colleague have been deprived the opportunity to influence the government’s agenda on behalf of their constituents and all British Columbians is a bit much.

I would add to that that one of the bills that he specifically listed as being so offensive to him includes Bill 7, where there was an amendment brought forward by the Green Party to establish an all-party legislative committee to review regulations that are brought under Bill 7. This was their proposal, which we adopted and put into the bill. The select standing committee will review any regulations made, will ensure that there is a summary of the regulation, the rationale for it and any other prescribed information.

I think there are two things happening here. One is that we’re working very closely with the Green Party on our shared priorities, where we can make a coordinated difference for British Columbia. I think it’s very positive. I think it’s very positive for British Columbians and positive for democracy. I think the Green Party should publicly acknowledge that. They have, in the report, and so did we.

The other thing is that we actually firmly believe that we need to grow our economy. We need to build schools and hospitals and roads faster. We need to ensure we’re supporting British Columbians in every corner of this province. We have to do those things in order to be able to deliver services for people that people are counting on, including health care and other issues that are of crucial importance, I know, to the Green Party members.

That is what Bills 14 and 15 were about. I know the members voted against them. I know they voted against our amendment for Bill 15. That’s okay. They’re representing their constituents as they believe best.

But I want the members to also know that just because the government doesn’t agree with them about a particular policy or a particular direction does not mean that it is inherently antidemocratic. It just means we don’t agree.

Where we do agree, I think, we’re doing very good work. We’re supporting British Columbians, and I hope that cooperation continues.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m a bit puzzled by the Premier’s answer, given that my question was about consolidation of power in cabinet and cabinet giving itself the ability to write regulations on legislation that’s introduced a month beforehand. I appreciate the Premier’s review of our agreement with the government. Those shared projects are important, and we have been quite public about our support and appreciation for that.

But what my question related to was bills, one of which we voted for — agreed. I appreciate the government’s willingness to amend it to provide more oversight. However, that patience seemed to run out on Bills 14 and 15, when we suggested the same measures.

If cabinet wants to give itself these powers, then at least they should be transparent, and somebody should have some oversight. Sorry. Not somebody — this Legislature should have oversight over them.

We are talking about two separate issues here. One is an agreement with government to support the government and get some mutually agreed-upon projects done. The other is the legislative side, where we are fully opposed to what is, really, an unprecedented granting of powers to cabinet and a bypassing of this legislative body.

We tend to go off on tangents, and I hesitate to bring this up. But this government…. We’ve spoken a lot about Donald Trump in this House, because it is a clear threat. We appreciate the sentiment and the protections that the government has tried to put into place to diversify our economy and reduce barriers to interprovincial trade.

But in some ways, this government is playing directly from Trump’s playbook when it comes to centralizing power. Experts have remarked that this government has attempted to consolidate legislative power within cabinet in a similar manner.

[1:30 p.m.]

Without being lectured about the contents of an agreement that we are still supportive of…. I’m struggling to understand why this government finds it necessary to give cabinet these sweeping powers that are really outside of the norm for this government and yet condemns others for the same

the contents of an agreement that we are still supportive of, I’m struggling to understand why this government finds it necessary to give cabinet these sweeping powers that are really outside of the norm for this government and yet condemns others for the same philosophy in the exercise of power.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The statutes enabling regulations from executive council are not unusual. They are quite common. They enable government to move quickly. There are transparency mechanisms attached to it. They are published and publicly available. Government is accountable for regulations as much as they are for laws. Members can feel free to raise issues with regulations in this place, and they often do.

Beyond that, the member is asking: “Why? Why would you do this? Why not have it all passed through legislation?” Well, the

Government is accountable for regulations as much as they are for laws. Members can feel free to raise issues with regulations in this place, and they often do.

Beyond that, the member is asking why. “Why would you do this? Why not have it all passed through legislation?” The regulation enables us to address specific — let’s start with Bill 15 — individual projects that are facing unnecessary delays. Everybody agrees that they are unnecessary, but we didn’t have the tools to be able to allow them to proceed.

An example: two post-secondary student housing projects — desperately needed student housing in the province. Everybody wanted them to be built. One was held up for a year by provincial heritage and road permits. One was held up for a year because of an amendment that was needed to an official community plan, even though it was supported by the local government.

A school seismic replacement project was delayed by six months, with all the costs that that brought with it, is waiting for a municipal permit. The school is supported by the city. The Water Sustainability Act delayed a new elementary school for more than a year.

The regulations allow us to address these individual projects and the specific circumstances of the delay that is preventing the public from enjoying these important amenities and also, incidentally, driving up the cost, which is why we have support from the mayors of cities.

A good example of a city that would require regulation…. The mayor of the city of Grand Forks talks about the catastrophic flooding the city faced in 2018. He explains that: “In the year following, we completed over 40 different permitting processes to build back stronger.” So 40 different processes. With the regulations here, the province could support the city in not having to go through 40 different processes.

That’s why he says: “I hope this legislation could be used to help more communities rebuild what they’ve lost in a faster, more streamlined way, so municipalities can stay focused on supporting people and not lengthy or overlapping approval processes.”

Mayors also support it in relation to housing and hospitals, as the mayor of the city of New West talked about, or infrastructure like pipes and sewers, as the Mayor of Prince George talked about. That’s Bill 15. That’s why we need those regulations. That’s why we need that regulatory power.

For Bill 14, I think the member, having stood in this place, including today, raising concern about climate change, the urgency of renewable electricity and the desire that we transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources of energy….

Seeing the Green Party vote against Bill 14 was a surprise to me because Bill 14 doesn’t exempt projects from oversight and due process. It passes it to the B.C. Energy Regulator, which already regulates oil and gas in the province. It has done so for 25 years. It’s regulated hydrogen for four years, a very similar provision around hydrogen we passed four years ago with the support of this House.

Now we want to give the Energy Regulator the ability to regulate transmission lines and wind farms, and suddenly it’s become a great affront to democracy. That’s not the case. What it does do is allow us to do these things faster on the pace that we have to, both for economic competitiveness but also for reducing emissions and costs as we transition to an electrified province.

Just to reassure the member about that bill, the environmental impact of these projects will still be reviewed as part of the permitting process, maintaining high environmental standards. That includes their team of biologists, engineers, hydrologists, agrologists, archaeologists that are all well-versed in reviewing energy projects and have done so successfully for many years, almost 30 years, in the province. Environmental impact is a crucial part of the work that they do.

I hope the member can now, with some additional explanation, understand why it is that there are regulatory powers here, what they are intended for, what they will do, how the different bills work, and why it would be impractical to come back to the Legislature for every additional school project that we are working with the municipality to try to deliver.

[1:40 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: It’s the day after the passage of Bills 7, 14 and 15 by the narrowest of margins, with 50 MLAs, representing 51 percent of the popular vote, voting against

of Bills 7, 14 and 15 by the narrowest of margins, with 50 MLAs representing 51 percent of the popular vote voting against these bills; with over 200 First Nations across the province calling on the government to take the summer to get this right; with, as the Premier has mentioned, local governments, as represented by the UBCM, calling for taking the summer to get this right; with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, representing thousands and thousands of businesses, calling for taking the summer to get this right.

And since we are actually seeming to go back down into the weeds, I just want to make sure for the record that it’s recognized that it’s not just the representative organizations that are raising these concerns. We too talk to mayors — in Victoria, Mayor Marianne Alto; in Saanich, Councillor Nathalie Chambers; in Esquimalt, Mayor Barbara Desjardins; in View Royal, Mayor Sid Tobias; in Sooke, Mayor Maja Tait — all opposed to Bill 15.

But the opposition isn’t that we don’t need this type of legislation. The opposition is in the way in which the legislation is structured and the need to take time to get it right. The Premier will well know that regulation power within the power of cabinet, without a whole lot of detail in the legislation, is at the core of the concerns of First Nations, local governments, the Chamber of Commerce and others.

So here we are the day after. It’s actually a great day. It’s a great day for lawyers, and it’s a great day for lobbyists. For lawyers it’s a great day because the First Nations in this province have been very clear that they expect to have to go to court to ensure that the legislation is implemented in a way that respects their right, title and interests. It’s a great day for lobbyists because what we’ve done through this legislation, particularly Bill 15, is we’ve set up a two-track process where, if you can get designated as a provincially significant project, then you’re going to have access to priority tools to move things along faster.

I’ll come to the question momentarily, but I just want to make it clear, too, that none of the groups that are calling for taking an extra three months are not sensitive to the fact that there’s a need to deal with the types of challenges the Premier has mentioned on schools, hospitals and roads. But would the world come to an end if we took a few more months and actually built consensus rather than locking in division in a key area of governance?

Nobody’s trying to step back from the need to deal with crisis. Nobody’s trying to step back from the need to, in certain specified circumstances, be able to move more quickly. But the legislation, as we discussed in the time we had, has some real flaws that can and could have been addressed.

The question I’d like to pose to the Premier: in the absence of legislative oversight…. In the case of Bill 7 we have an all-party committee oversight. In Bills 14 and 15, we have none. In the case of Bill 7, we have the publication of regulations plus rationale in a way that is publicly accessible. In 14 and 15, we don’t. In Bill 7, we actually have a sunset clause on these. In Bills 14 and 15, we don’t.

[1:45 p.m.]

In the absence of the type of transparency and legislative oversight protections that the government could have included in these bills, particularly 14 and 15, what is the Premier’s vision for ensuring

on these. In Bills 14 and 15, we don’t. In the absence of the type of transparency and legislative oversight protections that the government could have included in these bills, particularly 14 and 15, what is the Premier’s vision for ensuring accountability for the implementation of this legislation?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I don’t know totally where to start. There was lots of ground covered there.

Hon. David Eby: I don’t know totally where to start. There was lots of ground covered there.

Oh. Hi, everybody. We’ve got to start with the kids. That’s a good place to start, as always. We have St. Francis Xavier School. Your MLA from Strathcona welcomes you to the House. It’s nice to see all of you. This is a group of 28 grade 5s and their grown-ups.

Nice to see you. Welcome to the House.

Let me just start with the premise that 51 percent of the House was opposed to the approach of the government and that there was this unified agreement. It could not be further from the truth.

Obviously, the Green Party has their perspective, which was articulated by the member, that there needs to be additional consultation with Indigenous groups, there needs to be additional consultation with municipalities, that time needs to be taken. But to assume that that perspective is shared by the remainder of the members who voted against it is not correct.

This is what the leader of the Conservative Party tweeted, his perspective about how to get projects done. He is opposed to the bill because:

“the B.C. NDP is giving First Nations an absolute veto over whether or not projects in B.C. can be given priority status by government. This Premier’s veto is part of a larger pattern, and it is not normal. British Columbians are in agreement on reconciliation, having respect for First Nations culture and 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 veto on whether or not projects are prioritized by B.C.’s government. Two, veto powers over land rights and access rights on privately owned property in B.C. Three, 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, undermining B.C.’s economy and breaking down trust between British Columbians.”

So the member wants to get to consensus, he wants to get to, as I understood it, some sort of additional process here because 51 percent of the House voted against it, which is not correct. The majority of votes voted for it.

The actual challenge here is that the people that the Green Party aligned with, their perspective is that there should not be consideration of trying to get to consent with First Nations, that that approach is handing a veto to First Nations and therefore is wrong and therefore should be opposed.

The other objection is around our work to protect wild spaces, which the Leader of the Opposition confirmed yesterday, which he called “nonsense” — the idea of protecting 30 percent of our land base by 2030 — outlining his concern that it was a conspiracy that the World Economic Forum was directing policy in British Columbia. The executive director of the Conservative Party tweets, “Do we live in a racial oligarchy? This is getting wildly out of hand,” talking about working with First Nations in partnership on the regulations for Bill 15.

So please don’t pretend that the Conservative Party agrees with the very rational perspective put forward by the Green Party that Indigenous people need to be involved directly in partnership in projects on the land. They view that as a “racial oligarchy.”

The majority of this House supports progressive relations with Indigenous people. While we may have points of disagreement about how to get there through particular initiatives, it is not correct to suggest that the opposition is united on this.

The second issue is that there are, in fact, nations that we’re working with directly. I mentioned earlier the work that we did on Monday with three nations in the northwest on a remarkable opportunity to lift up communities, to lift up a region, and also to lift up the province and the country as a whole: our partnership with the Tāłtān, the Taku River Tlingit, and the Kaska First Nation.

[1:55 p.m.]

Also, I am holding a letter here from the Nisg̱a'a Lisims Government, who wrote to me saying: “Given the economic uncertainty introduced by the new trade policies of the U.S., NLG, Nisg̱a'a Lisims Government, fully understands the need for British Columbia to move swiftly on these matters and is well placed to provide meaningful input in expedited

Also, I am holding a letter here from the Nisga’a Lisims Government, who wrote to me, saying: “Given the economic uncertainty introduced by the new trade policies of the U.S., NLG, Nisga’a Lisims Government, fully understands the need for British Columbia to move swiftly on these matters and is well placed to provide meaningful input in expedited circumstances. In fact, we have been advocating for a more efficient and effective regulatory regime for some time now, and we have valuable input based on our ongoing experiences through various regulatory processes for the projects.”

I welcome the correspondence and the offer of involvement because that is, in fact, our commitment. The member asked: “How do we want to ensure accountability around the regulations?” Under these acts, our commitment is to engage with nations, with local governments and other key stakeholders as we develop the regulations to ensure that the legislation actually does what we intend, which is to speed up projects across the province.

I was grateful to get a letter from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade supporting this initiative.

Maybe the member hasn’t had this experience; I’d be surprised if it were true. But I regularly have people coming and saying, “Look, we’re really excited about this new school in our community,” or: “We’re excited about this new hospital. Is there anything that can be done to get it done faster?”

“Our business has this project. We’re dealing with the province; we’re dealing with the city. Is there anything we can do to get this done faster?” Just again and again and again.

The member says he recognizes it but at the same time wants us to delay. He says three months. It’s four months before we sit again. I don’t know how long the process is that he envisions for the fall session. And then additional legislation, additional provisions. And then further engagement process on the regulations.

This is an urgent matter. The hits to our economy from just seafood and softwood lumber actions by the United States are significant, and more are coming. As people’s jobs are directly affected by this, the urgency will be quite profound. We have to move before we start to see really terrible impacts.

We can already see the slowdown of businesses saying: “Well, hold on. Before we invest, let’s get certainty about where the Americans are going with this. Let’s get some stability in the relationship between Canada and the U.S.” That’s also impacting our economy. We’re seeing that globally as business leaders make important decisions about investment that affect all British Columbians and all Canadians and certainly people around the world.

Finally, the member read out a list of mayors from the CRD who don’t understand why this bill is needed. I would think the mayors of the CRD, if anywhere, would know. These mayors the member consulted with, I certainly do not hold them responsible. I do not think they were around at the time. But they surely know the story of the Victoria sewage treatment plant.

This was in the ’90s. Washington state was threatening a tourism boycott of British Columbia because we were flushing raw sewage from Victoria into the harbour. In 2004, Victoria was directed — I say Victoria, but it’s actually the CRD — to put in a sewage treatment plant. It took 16 years to put in a sewage treatment plant. It didn’t open until 2020.

It is an example of the challenge that we can run into, where we have a whole bunch of different municipalities and they were debating about who was going to pay what. The delay continued and continued to the point that Victoria, despite being full of people who are quite committed to environmental protection, was the last remaining major community to pump raw sewage into surrounding waters in Canada.

Members might remember Mr. Floaty, that was a seven-foot-tall — well, members can imagine — mascot that tried to bring attention to the fact that this issue was not getting resolved.

These are the kinds of things we’re talking about. They’re not minor issues. They’re serious issues. If your school can’t get built in the community, if your sewage treatment plant can’t get built, if your housing can’t get built, if your business is struggling with processes, even though all of the officials involved support the project and it’s stuck, which can happen….

We’re fixing the underlying provisions as well, and I look forward to having additional legislative amendments come forward to the House around the underlying processes.

[2:00 p.m.]

But in the interim, we’ve got to get building here. We added 300,000 people in the last two years to this province. That is huge. Three months, four months, six months, eight months may not sound like a lot to that member, but it is a long time if you’re waiting for approval for your business. It is a long time if you’re waiting for construction to start on your new school.

In the interim, we’ve got to get building here. We added 300,000 people, in the last two years, to this province. That is huge. Three months, four months, six months or eight months may not sound like a lot to that member, but it is a long time if you’re waiting for approval for your business. It is a long time if you’re waiting for construction to start on your new school. It can be a whole school year for a student.

I look forward to the member’s feedback on the regulations. That’s our commitment to the Green Party: to work with them. I am sure we’ll be able to come to consensus about how to support British Columbians.

Jeremy Valeriote: On behalf of my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I have an apology that he couldn’t stay to listen to the answer to his question that he’d wanted to ask. He did have a previously arranged meeting with the Government House Leader.

So I take the Premier’s response. For the record, perhaps I misheard, but I think that perhaps the Premier suggested that the Green Party, the Third Party, had concerns over a First Nations veto. I just want to clarify that that’s not the case. That may or may not be the concern of the Conservative Party, the opposition party, but ours was around consultation.

Anyway, I’m going to try and bring the temperature down a bit and move to a different topic: leadership of the public service. This is of interest to me, having been both staff and elected in local government — and now in provincial government. We have concerns about this government’s ability to provide clear direction to the public service and to ensure they’re producing strong legislation in a timely way.

Yesterday the Premier mentioned that rookie MLAs and tariff urgency forced some of the rushed legislation and late sittings. I acknowledge that’s part of it, but when we look at this session, we’ve seen a back-loading of legislation, considering that the session began four months after election day. We’ve seen the bulk of the bills introduced late in the session, and then we’ve had extended hours, waiting for the government to introduce bills that were simply not ready or not fully thought through.

This seems like a failure — an inability to set the legislative agenda and to clearly identify what it needs from the public service, and when. I would like to hear from the Premier how we can correct this lack of direction and ensure that the public service is able to fulfil the legislative agenda that he sets.

Hon. David Eby: Hon. Chair, I disagree with the member’s characterization about the bills in front of the House. These are bills that were developed to respond to an unprecedented threat, to our economy and to our country, by the President of the United States — or, I guess, unprecedented in modern times — and to put forward a number of mechanisms around internal trade, strengthening our economy and sending a message back to the United States that we don’t find their conduct acceptable.

[2:05 p.m.]

What the member may see as failure, I see as flexibility. There was a provision in Bill 7 that raised concern of some members in this place and outside of the House as well. We had a look at the provision and made the decision to pull that section of the bill. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the provision

as a failure. I see it as flexibility. There was a provision in Bill 7 that raised concern of some members in this place, outside of the House as well. We had a look at the provision and made the decision to pull that section of the bill. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the provision could be necessary, but it did mean that the level of concern that was raised about it…. It meant that we were prepared to try to seek support for the bill without it going forward. Of course, that support never showed up, but the bill still passed. Fortunately, because we have to remove internal trade barriers across the country, the bill enables us to do that.

I want to underline that this activity by the President started almost immediately after our election and required all members in this place to consider how that impacts agendas, whether as opposition or as government, and what positions we were going to take and how we were going to best support British Columbians. It required the public service to move very quickly as well. I’m very grateful to the work of the public service.

The plans that we had for where we were going to be going in the session were upended by the President’s activities, the need to respond in a meaningful way. It required many late nights from the public service to assist in delivering that. It required great support and cooperation of a huge number of people to be able to deliver this meaningful framework that is going to enable us to build British Columbia into the economic engine of Canada’s future, the new Canada that is emerging from this moment, a Canada where we stand on our own two feet. We wouldn’t have been able to achieve that without the amazing work of the public service, and I want to thank them on the record for that.

Jeremy Valeriote: This will be my last question. I appreciate the Premier’s answer on that one.

I just want to talk about overall vision, especially in light of the Premier mentioning the plans that were in place before the tariff threats. As I mentioned in this House, there’s a huge amount of uncertainty and unease currently — an affordability crisis, trade threats. Many, or all, of us are concerned about the future of our province. So we need strong leaders who can walk us through unprecedented times, deliver hope and make necessary change. I think that some, or many, British Columbians are uncertain about this Premier’s overall plan. After nearly three years in office and, granted, the tail end of COVID and then other short-term threats, what is the overarching vision or narrative?

We’ve talked a little bit too much about our neighbours to the south, but we’re making these comparisons, and we’re left without an understanding of this government’s priorities. It mirrors our electoral system, which tends to emphasize what each party is not rather than what it is and encourages voting against something rather than for something. So we need leadership that has a clear vision and can clearly and transparently communicate this.

Given the Premier mentioned plans that had to be amended because of the tariff threats and the bills that were brought forward because of this immediate threat, I would like to understand a bit more about the long-term strategy and vision that the Premier sees for the province and who’s involved in developing this long-term strategy and the timeline and process of how this long-term planning and visioning is done.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member was there during the election, I know, when we were campaigning on some core priorities for British Columbians, addressing the cost of living, supporting them with challenges that they’re facing around affordability, including housing, ensuring we have a strong public health care system accessible in the province, issues around public safety and community safety, ensuring that our downtowns are safe for people, and then, finally, growing a strong economy for British Columbians. There’s good progress on those initiatives.

We hired 1,000 family doctors in the last two years. We’ve cut wait times for U.S. nurses from months to days to get registered to work in British Columbia. The new medical school at SFU is going to launch in September, the first new medical school in western Canada in 50 years. Added 128 new seats for doctors at UBC.

On the cost of living, ICBC rates have been flat. We did another ICBC rebate. Hydro rates are 12 percent below the rate of inflation over our time in government. Rents are down for the tenth month in a row. Our rental housing work is making a difference. We’ve cut child care fees in half, on average, from $47 a day to $19 a day for people.

On public safety, crime is down 7 percent in Vancouver, double digits in Kamloops, Kelowna and many other communities. We’ve got more work to do there.

On a strong economy, we’ve reduced permitting times and opened new hospitals and schools: 226 school projects and 30 hospitals and health care projects built or underway since 2017, just an astonishing amount of construction across the province to respond to unprecedented growth of 300,000 people moving to our province to call it home.

That is all crucially important for British Columbians, and it remains so.

And the threat of the actions coming at us from south of the border has required a fairly significant pivot to ensuring that we are responding in a way that fulfills our responsibility, frankly, as British Columbians to all Canadians. Our ports ship out products for provinces across Canada to Asia and the rest of the world. It brings a certain obligation on us to ensure that we’re supporting that.

The resources that we have in this province are often the same resources that are being restricted by China to the United States and other countries. We have the opportunity to provide those resources to other countries and to do so in a way that is both ethical and responsible from an environmental perspective as well. We’re keen to do that.

Things have changed quite dramatically. Even looking at the war in Ukraine, the pivot in the EU away from sourcing energy and raw material from Russia creates opportunity for British Columbia and for Canada.

[2:15 p.m.]

As these global changes happen, as this instability happens, we can’t miss this opportunity both to ensure we’re protecting British Columbians and supporting them with good-paying jobs and with revenue for the province so that we’re able to provide services, but also fulfilling our global responsibility, our responsibility to Canada and the world, especially liberal democracies, to support and to play our part.

That’s why you’ve seen significant bills coming forward in this House focusing on making sure that we’re able to do this as quickly as possible while maintaining our high standards

liberal democracies to support and to play our part. And so that’s why you’ve seen significant bills coming forward in this House, focusing on making sure that we’re able to do this as quickly as possible while maintaining our high standards.

And it has resulted in a shift. The vision is a significant one. British Columbia will be the engine of Canada’s economy, of the new Canada that is emerging from this moment of global instability. Our resources, our people, our cheap electricity, our clean electricity — these are the foundational elements, along with our access to two-thirds of the world’s population through our ports.

By growing our economy, by seizing this moment, by fulfilling our role and the obligation on us, we will do two things. We’ll support Canadians, but we’ll also make sure we’re able to deliver the strong public services that people depend on.

It’s a significant piece of work. It is a big swing, but we are called on to step up to bat right now. We’re going to do our darndest to ensure that we meet the moment for all Canadians.

John Rustad: I want to thank the leader of the Green Party for coming in and doing his periods of questions. It’s interesting following some of the questions and some of the responses.

I want to start with a little summary of some of the things that we talked about last night, yesterday afternoon. We talked about opening up new mines without a serious plan on ports. We talked about energy production in this province and the shortfall that we have. We talked about the fact that energy prices are likely going to go up dramatically, although the Premier won’t admit that or won’t come clean to the people in this province. We also talked about a number of other issues associated with getting our economy going.

But what I want to focus on just for the moment actually is the purpose of moving forward things like Bill 7, which was the tariff response, the response to Trump. The Premier came and started when all this stuff happened. He talked about elbows up: “We’re going to do everything we can. We’re going to be part of Team Canada.”

Then on April 10th, the Prime Minister dropped all of our counter-tariffs. Elbows down. It’s left me wondering what part of the anatomy the Premier does have up in the air when it comes to dealing with Trump. When I look at….

Well, you might have had your foot up. I don’t know. What do you think ends up in the air, Mr. Premier? I think that was perfectly fair language to use in this chamber. And if you don’t like it, well, I’m sorry. What could I say?

But the reality for the Premier is he talks about being on Team Canada. He has a large Canadian flag out in front of the building. He’s wrapping himself in the flag. So I’ll just simply start with one very simple question. We need a new oil pipeline to the west coast. We need a new oil pipeline from the middle of this country out to the Pacific Ocean. We need extra capacity, more than the Trans Mountain capacity that has been built.

Does the Premier support a new oil pipeline from Canada, from the Alberta provinces, out to our west coast?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member is advocating a project that has no proponent, has no funding; nobody has stepped up to do it. I don’t know if the member is advocating for the federal government to build another pipeline, a heavy oil pipeline, to the north coast of B.C. I don’t know what the cost of that would be — $20 billion or $30 billion.

I’m surprised, though, that the member did not raise — he should — that we have a massive piece of publicly owned infrastructure here in the Lower Mainland, the TMX pipeline, that is not operating at capacity. More than half a million barrels under capacity. That would be…. If the member is particularly keen, if Alberta is particularly keen, on increasing heavy oil exports, it seems like a place to start that cost taxpayers somewhere in $30 billion. We should at least get our money’s worth out of it if we have it.

But what I feel the member is doing is he knows there’s no proponent. He knows there’s no funding. He knows there’s no proposed project. He’s trying to drive divisions between British Columbia and Alberta when we’ve got a lot of work to do together.

I was at Western Premiers, with Premier Smith, with other western premiers. We agreed on an economic corridor from northwest ports right through to Manitoba, giving British Columbia businesses access to Asia and Europe, creating prosperity for western provinces. That would be a good thing for the member to support.

If, and I stress if, the Premier of Alberta is successful in getting the federal government or private proponent to advance a pipeline project, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. We’re not there yet, but this corridor would assist in electricity transmission and clean energy transmission and trade goods. We think there’s an opportunity to double the rail lines. That would increase efficiency and access to ports. These are the kinds of projects that bring people together rather than drive them apart.

[2:25 p.m.]

There’s some irony in the member’s question about the President of the United States because for weeks, well, for months, we watched Conservatives apologize for and suggest the government needed to comply with Donald Trump. The member eventually

question about the President of the United States because for weeks — well, for months — we watched Conservatives apologize for and suggest the government needed to comply with Donald Trump. The member eventually got there. He said it was because of the threat to tariff on the film industry, the same film industry that its members derided as a group of elites that were disconnected from rural communities when, in fact, many people in rural communities were film industry.

The member opposed retaliatory tariffs. The member opposed taking bourbon off the shelves. He said: “I still think banning is just not the approach we need to take.” The member opposed removing internal trade barriers. The member opposed….

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby: The member voted against….

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby: Just keep talking. It’s your time.

The issue is the member voted against the bill to remove internal trade barriers. The member said that our targeted response to red states was unfair to Republicans. He said: “It’s dangerous and irresponsible for the NDP to specifically tariff only Republican states who may not be at fault simply because the current U.S. president is Republican. This verges on cross-border political interference.”

His member for Peace River North said: “Banning Kentucky bourbon is ridiculous.” The member for Chilliwack said: “And there we have it. The Premier needs to comply with Trump for the greater good.” The member for Courtenay-Comox: “Retaliatory tariffs create uncertainty, and uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity.” The member for Prince George–Valemount: “Firing Bonnie Henry would be a safe and effective way for the NDP to protect B.C. from targeted tariffs.”

The president of the Conservative Party flew to Washington to attend Trump’s inauguration even while he was threatening our country with punitive tariffs. And then, just ahead at the Conservative convention, the member endorsed that same person for party president, Aisha Estey.

The member for Langley-Willowbrook endorsed Trump’s views of the border, saying: “We must take urgent action to secure our borders and stop illegal mass migration of criminals and terrorists.” The member for Langley–Walnut Grove thought that the president was making simple neighbourly requests, saying: “It’s a simple neighbourly request to fix the border.” The MLA for Salmon Arm–Shuswap tweeted a picture of Western Canada calling it the Republic of Western Canada advocating for us to become a protectorate of the United States like Guam.

The member for Surrey-Panorama welcomed a YouTuber named mistersunshinebaby who he called a true Canadian patriot. Mistersunshinebaby posted a video and said: “The fat pig Doug Ford in Ontario is ready to cut off the power and Liberals are cheering him on. This is quite literally by definition an act of war.”

He endorsed the President’s attack on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling him “the freaking Ukrainian grifter,” and cheered on Trump’s attack on the President of Ukraine. That same YouTuber, the great patriot endorsed by the Conservatives, apologized to the Americans over the trade war.

I could continue, but I think you get the picture. In terms of standing strong for British Columbia and Canadians, I’m glad the member has arrived here. It was a bit of a journey, but we did get here. Hopefully, we can all stand united in strengthening our economy and standing on Canada’s own two feet, and for B.C. to fulfill its role and responsibility of being the economic engine of the entire country.

John Rustad: That’s interesting. We put out our 10-point plan in response long before the Premier did his thing. Also, on March 3, I introduced the bill Free Trade and Mobility Act Within Canada, which the Premier seems to not even recognize. And he certainly just made false statements with regards to our position on trade. But I get it, that’s what he likes to do. It’s just lots of rhetoric as opposed to answering a simple question: do you support a new pipeline? He wouldn’t answer it. Just like he hasn’t answered any other question that I’ve put forward to him straight up.

We could get through this in a fast period of time. The Premier would like to go on long rants, political rants. Fine. We will stay here until the LG gets here if that’s what the Premier would like to do. I haven’t got a problem with doing that.

[2:30 p.m.]

But I’m just trying to get some simple answers because the Premier has said in his opening statement here: “Saying no won’t cut it.” Yet when the Premier of Alberta asked about putting on a second oil pipeline, the Premier said no. So which is it? Stands up and says: “No isn’t an option.”

because the Premier has said in his opening statement here: “Saying no won’t cut it.” And yet when the Premier of Alberta asked about putting in a second oil pipeline, the Premier said no.

So which is it? He stands up and says: “No isn’t an option.” And then he says, to our Premier next door, “No,” when it was asked about putting a new pipeline in out to our west coast.

This is what I’m trying to get to and trying to understand. The Premier wraps himself in the flag, says we’ve got to do these things. The Prime Minister drops the tariffs because he realizes that he has to take a delicate approach in terms of dealing with the trade, to make sure that we protect jobs, and the Premier wants to continue on being bombastic.

He actually wants to cut off or to put a tax on trade on the trucks that are going through to Alaska. What do you think the response is going to be on that? And yet this same Premier has not once stood in this House defending our softwood lumber and telling us how he’s gone to Ottawa and how he’s gone to Washington to fight to get a softwood lumber deal.

We brought forward a plan to put a carbon tax on thermal coal being shipped through Vancouver. It’s a plan to be able to put a small amount of tax in place so we can start creating some leverage to get a softwood lumber deal. The Premier went and talked to the Prime Minister about it, and of course there’s been nothing but crickets since then, which is to be expected. Pass it on to somebody else.

Same thing when we ran during the election. We talked about putting a police force in place to deal with our ports, to deal with securing our ports, because the federal government was not doing it. He said: “Oh, that’s federal jurisdiction.”

We have massive drug labs going on in this province. We have a massive problem with fentanyl. British Columbia is known as a destination for being able to bring drugs into North America and move them around. We should be taking these steps, but once again this Premier says: “Well, that’s Ottawa’s problem.” Not a Team Canada approach at all — stepping up the plate to do the job that’s needed to protect British Columbians.

So if the Premier isn’t interested in answering a question about putting in an oil pipeline, which I think, quite frankly…. Maybe I shouldn’t say that. He has answered the question. He’s said no. So that’s fine. Because we need more than just the additional 500,000-barrel capacity that’s coming through Trans Mountain.

We need more than that. We need to do the dredging. We need to make sure that we have that additional capacity from that line. I think that would be a good thing to see, and I’m glad this Premier has stopped saying: “We’re going to use every tool in the book to stop this project.” Clearly, he’s had a transformation on the road to Damascus when it comes to a project like that. But the question is whether or not he is willing to actually go a step further.

We today ship about three million barrels of oil a day to the Americans, at a 20 percent discount. Three million barrels of oil a day from Canada, at a 20 percent discount — billions upon billions of dollars every day, hundreds of billions of dollars every year that could be realized in Canada, that could be realized as part of our economy if only we could get, maybe, another pipeline to the coast so that we don’t have to sell it at a discount to the Americans.

Wouldn’t that be something that we could champion? Wouldn’t that be something where we would be wrapping ourselves in the flag and saying: “Yes, we’re Team Canada. We want to do everything we can to make sure that Canadians are not reliant on having to trade with the Americans but that we can get the best value for our resources, and get it offshore.”

And maybe — wouldn’t that be something, Madam Chair? — we could think about even more refining capacity, since we only have 40 percent capacity in B.C. And we’re reliant on buying refined products from — guess who? — the Americans, the very Americans that this Premier wants to tick off with his approach in terms of how he’s doing things.

Why doesn’t he follow the Prime Minister’s lead and realize that he has to take a more delicate approach, that he has to get to a place where we can come at it with strength? Where we are no longer reliant on the Americans, so that we can strengthen our trade positions. Where we can create some leverage, like we can with thermal coal being shipped through Vancouver.

There are things that could be done, and the Premier says: “We finally got there.” I suggest the Premier is late to the party, because we were talking about all these things during the election, and he opposed everything that we had on our platform, everything we did on our platform. All of this is what we ran on, long before Trump won, long before the Premier decided to wrap himself in a flag and change his tunes.

[2:35 p.m.]

Now, I’m glad that he’s found his conversion on the road to Damascus, because there are lots of things that maybe we could get done. But he asked me if I would join him in terms of doing this. I will not join the NDP in their approach. They’ve destroyed this province. It’s been eight years of absolute decimation in B.C.

So 0.14 percent GDP per capita — that’s what he can brag about. That’s what the average has been in British Columbia for ten years.

he asked me if I would join him in terms of doing this. I will not join the NDP in their approach. They’ve destroyed this province. It’s been eight years of absolute decimation in B.C.

And 0.14 percent GDP per capita? That’s what he can brag about? That’s what the average has been in British Columbia for ten years, the worst GDP per capita since the Great Depression, on a per-capita basis. And he touts: “Well, it’s better than the other provinces.” I’m sorry, that doesn’t cut it. It’s ten times worse than the OECD nation average.

Those are the straight numbers. And you know what? I love math, because math is impervious to fertilizer, which tends to get spread a lot by our Premier.

I want to maybe switch to another topic because, obviously, we’re not going to get anywhere on wrapping stuff in the Canadian flag and dealing with Trump and trying to actually be a team player when it comes to moving our products offshore.

The Premier is about to go on a trade mission to Asia. Happy he’s going to go there. We’re going to have some companies and stuff going. We’re going to have a few of the cabinet ministers, I’m sure, going on this junket.

The question I have for the Premier is this. There are 13 independent trade offices that were closed. Yes, they’ve got trade that’s attached to embassies, but they’re no longer independent trade. What have we seen as the results under the NDP? We have seen a significant decline in trade with every major Asian country under this NDP — a significant decline. We have seen trade…. Guess what. The one place where trade is actually going up? With the Americans. Interesting.

Perhaps the question to the Premier is one that’s very simple. On this trade mission, as he goes, is he going to be taking the steps that are necessary to get independent trade offices back up and running so that companies can go and build those relationships? Does he have any potential, let’s say, measurable outcomes that he’s expecting from a trade mission like this which will actually reverse the decline in our trade with the Asian countries that has happened under this Premier’s watch?

[2:40 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to take a moment to welcome the wonderful articling students from the Ministry of the Attorney General, who are here to watch the estimates. I just want to thank them for all their work in their articling. I’m sure they’re learning a lot of things in the different posts that they’re at, and I appreciate their contributions.

Debate Continued

Hon. David Eby: The member insists on three-minute introductions to what he describes as his very simple questions, demanding that I not respond to the occasionally outrageous things that he says. It’s not true.

Since 2017, B.C. has had some of the highest GDP growth in the country. Our growth was 20.3 percent over the period, second among provinces, behind only P.E.I. Now, if the member is saying, “Let’s have more growth in the province,” well, he’s going to find no opposition here. We’re going to do that.

The member said, bizarrely, that he hadn’t heard anything about softwood lumber from our government. Day one of our new government, the minister responsible wrote to the federal government about softwood lumber duties.

April 5, 2025, I made a statement — released a statement, issued it to the media — about softwood lumber duties, advocated with the then Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister prioritized softwood lumber and is prioritizing a strong, good-faith effort to address softwood lumber with the Americans in any new trade agreement.

I’ve advocated for it at every table, as the Premier of Manitoba has advocated for canola and for his agricultural industries, as has the Premier of Saskatchewan, impacted by Chinese tariffs, and the Premier of Ontario, auto parts. Each province has been affected differently by aggressive American trade action.

[2:45 p.m.]

The member encourages me to advocate for federal funding for a new pipeline, where there is no proponent and no project. Here in B.C., we have literally $50 billion in mines with proponents that want to go. We have billions of dollars in energy projects in

me to advocate for federal funding for a new pipeline where there is no proponent and no project. But here in B.C. we have literally $50 billion in mines with proponents that want to go. We have billions of dollars in energy projects in B.C. that have proponents that are ready to go. We have billions of dollars in port investments that have proponents that are ready to go. These are the things I’m advocating for that we’re seeking to ensure get delivered for British Columbians and for Canadians and that I will continue to advocate for.

The member advises that I should take a gentle approach with the President of the United States, whose foot is in the air now. With respect to trade stats, the member made quite a misstatement about trade. South Korea, our trade is up 9 percent; Australia, our trade is up 15 percent; Taiwan, our trade is up 4 percent; Germany, our trade is up 2 percent; and U.K., our trade is up 2 percent. For the countries I’m visiting, our trade will be up quite significantly once the LNG Canada pipeline begins operations in the next couple of months.

The member questions our strategy around trade offices, asks about metrics. Fiscal year 2023-24, in the co-located Asian offices, the ministry recorded a total of 14 investment deals and 98 trade deals. The year before that, in the Asian offices, the ministry recorded six investment deals and 47 trade deals. Our work will be to go and to do our best to deliver more investment deals and trade deals with these countries — Japan, Korea and Malaysia. We’re doing important work with them, and I hope to expand it.

This is also as much about reassuring our trading partners that B.C. remains a stable, reliable partner in this time of global uncertainty. It’s certainly a critical message that they need to hear from us.

The member called it a junket, by which I can only assume that he would not be doing this if he were in office. I’ll just have to disagree with him about that. Premiers across Canada are doing this work to make sure that we’re promoting our provinces, and British Columbia is certainly not going to get left behind on my watch. We’ve opened new offices in Vietnam, Taiwan and Mexico City in order to continue this work that we’re doing, expanding trade and diversifying away from the United States.

The member suggested that he was a great fan of math, and if that were true, he would have a different position on climate change.

John Rustad: Given the Premier’s comments about the carbon tax, I can only draw the same conclusion that I said yesterday, which is he is a denier of climate change as well, since he says that carbon tax was the way to save and do all the things. But we don’t want to go back and revisit all those things that we’ve talked about before. But it is funny how sometimes the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to those sorts of comments.

I want to switch topics, because clearly, from an economic perspective, there is one other major issue in British Columbia, and there are a lot of agreements that are being reached with First Nations — support, reconciliation and the approach that we need to take. I’d like to know from the Premier exactly what the impact of the Haida deal will be on the private landowners in the Haida Gwaii islands.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I appreciate the patience of the member wanting to get the exact provisions. I know the member has spoken about this before. There is an agreement with the Haida Nation, and there is legislation that enacts the agreement. Both are clear. The estates in fee simple, fee simple interests — lawyer language for private property — are not affected.

In the agreement, section 4, specific jurisdictional matters, specifically sections 4.4 through 4.6:

4.4. The Haida Nation consents to and will honour fee simple interests, including those held by Haida citizens

4.5. The Haida Nation consents to fee-simple interests on Haida Gwaii continuing under British Columbia jurisdiction

4.6. For greater certainty, this agreement and the recognition of Haida Aboriginal title do not alter or derogate from those fee simple interests or any rights or interests associated with them

That agreement, enacted in the 2024 Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, section 4.3, estates in fee simple — again, lawyer language; private property: “The following interests in and rights in relation to land on Haida Gwaii, whether arising before or after this section comes into force, are confirmed and continued: a) an estate in fee simple; b) An interest in or right in relation to land that derives from, burdens or otherwise relates to an estate in fee simple.”

There is an interim provision, 4.4, that also confirms subsection (4): “Interests in and rights in relation to land on Haida Gwaii, other than interests or rights referred to in section 4.3….” So if we missed anything in section 4.3, they are continued as well.

The agreement was historic and significant and important, and the member rose in this place and said some important words. He said: “I want to start by saying congratulations. The path has been a long journey for the Haida people. You set out a very important milestone for First Nations across the province, as you have historically as well.”

Further on:

“I remember when I was minister back in 2016. There was a court case that was coming forward from Haida to claim title over the islands over Haida Gwaii. I went at that time into the Attorney General’s office, and I talked to the staff. I said: ‘What are we going to do about this case coming forward?’ They reassured me. They said, ‘We have a very strong case. We’re going to win this case in court.’

[3:05 p.m.]

“I looked at them quite frankly, and I said: ‘Are you guys crazy? The Haida people have defended the Haida Gwaii Islands for thousands of years. They’ve fought. They’ve defended it. How on earth do you expect

case in court.’

“I looked at them quite frankly, and I said: ‘Are you guys crazy? The Haida people have defended the Haida Gwaii islands for thousands of years. They’ve fought. They’ve defended it. How on earth do you expect that we would actually win this in court?’

“It was into 2017, in discussions with the Attorney General’s office. I said to them: ‘We actually need to put together an offer to recognize title.’ Of course, that work died after the 2017 election, but I am glad this process has gone forward.

“To the Haida people, to the people here, to the people that have worked for generations for this recognition, once again, congratulations. It is an important step for all of British Columbia. I look forward, quite frankly, to making sure that, as this process goes forward, the interests of all people in British Columbia are taken into consideration, so that true reconciliation can be achieved.

“Once again, congratulations.”

That same member, the next day, stood out in front of the Legislature and said the following about the bill he just delivered that speech about. “The NDP is undermining your private property rights. The Haida deal means First Nations title could end up being applied to all private property in B.C. This is a mess.”

Then he released a video.

“Hi,” said his name, “here with the Conservative Party of British Columbia.”

This is the next day.

“The NDP has created an unbelievable precedent for people in British Columbia. The precedent is that Aboriginal title could exist underneath your private property. So what does this mean? It means that the province is now going to be looking at having to pay compensation to First Nations for alienating that Aboriginal title.

“Once again, what does this mean for you? Who knows? The question really will become: is the province now going to be on the hook for trillions of dollars in compensation? Are you, as a property owner, going to have to be paying that compensation?

“There are lots of questions that are out there, but this government has now created this precedent for the taxpayers and for the people of British Columbia. It is not the right thing to be doing.”

The next day.

“This should have been resolved before this incident has come forward. The government has now put all of us in British Columbia at risk, and that is not the way a government should be. They should be addressing the issues for all British Columbians, not just for Indigenous people.”

Same member — the Leader of the Opposition. Which member is going to show up? Is it the member that openly acknowledges that when he was a minister, he walked into the AG’s office and said: “We’ll never win this case”? Is it the same member who looked at the bill and read the provisions that I just read into the Hansard that said that fee simple private property rights are not affected — that the Haida recognize that, they remain under British Columbia, that everyone agreed to that — and then went out on the lawn and recorded that video?

John Rustad: I honestly don’t think the Premier truly understands the reason for being here, in terms of estimates. I asked a question: what would the impact be? We’ve got lots of rhetoric and lots of talk but zero actual answers to the question — just like all the other questions, quite frankly, I’ve asked over our time together. Quite frankly, I wish we had three weeks to go over it because I would sit here and keep dragging him through this until we actually got some answers.

It’s a simple question I asked. What are the impacts on private properties? Let me, perhaps, put it in different terms so maybe the Premier can answer.

Haida law can apply to Haida title land. Haida title land now exists underneath private land. What Haida law is available, or could be implemented, on private land? Could that include taxation? Could that include building codes? Could that include restrictions on lands?

[3:10 p.m.]

In addition to that, there is a case coming that the province is required to compensate the Haida people for the impact on title land. The impact on title land means, by definition, from the Tsilhqot’in case, that the Indigenous people — in this case, the Haida people — have the rights to benefit from title land. And if those rights are taken away, then there is compensation required.

There’s a negotiation that is going on between the province and the Haida people. By 2026

by definition from the Tŝilhqot'in case that the Indigenous people, in this case the Haida people, have the rights to benefit from title land. And if those rights are taken away, then there is compensation required. So there’s a negotiation that is going on between the province and the Haida people, and by 2026, if it’s not solved, the Haida say they’re going to go back to court to get that compensation solved.

So now we have title being defined underneath private land. Clearly, private land impacts the right to benefit from the land. Clearly, private land impacts on the Indigenous rights of title. So there is going to be a compensation required. Is the province going to pay that? Are individual landowners going to pay that? Or are all of us collectively, as landowners or taxpayers in this province, going to pay it?

There will be an impact. The question is how broadly that impact will be spread. I’m trying to get to understand what the Premier’s thinking is in terms of how this will be implemented.

Furthermore, I would love to get the Premier to give us reassurances that Haida law, which now will apply to private land, will not be implemented in any way that could potentially impact the rights for a private property owner to utilize the land as see fit — to be able to build on it, to be able to live on it, to be able to travel to it, to have access to it. I’m trying to understand if those rights as a private property owner will be impacted by this agreement.

This is why I’m asking this question. You can throw all the rhetoric and stuff around, but the people of the province need to know. Because this isn’t just about Haida. There are other areas in the province, as well — pretty much the entire province, including downtown Vancouver, etc. — that are going to be impacted.

When this deal was negotiated, private property and infrastructure should have not been declared as title. It has created a liability. So I stand by my words, both in the Legislature, because I congratulate the Haida people on achieving what should have been achieved, and I’m happy for that, but private property and infrastructure should not have been included.

Again to the Premier, perhaps they can reassure the property owners that Haida law will not apply any constraints, any taxation or any other types of impediments for them to be able to access and enjoy their private property on Haida Gwaii.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I tried to make sense of what the member said, justifying his appalling conduct in the House and then out front. I couldn’t understand what he was talking about.

The agreement is explicit. The Haida Nation consents to, and will honour, fee simple interests, including those held by Haida citizens. The Haida Nation consents to fee simple interests on Haida Gwaii continuing under B.C. — the province of British Columbia — jurisdiction, section 4.5 of the agreement.

For greater certainty, this agreement and the recognition of Haida Aboriginal title do not alter or derogate — those are words that mean “change in a bad way” — these fee simple interests. Fee simple interests means private property interests or any rights or interests associated with them. So no impact.

Section 4.12: “Existing local governments will continue to exercise jurisdiction under provincial laws.” Section 4.14 — maybe it’s a matter of concern for the member; I don’t know — “Nothing in this agreement precludes a local government and the Haida Nation from entering into agreements on matters of mutual interest.” Local government might work with the Haida on coordinated service delivery or something like that. I imagine there are lots that they could agree to cooperate on.

Section 4.15: “Nothing in this agreement” — nothing in this agreement — “affects the ongoing provision of public services by British Columbia and local governments, including health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services, with respect to Haida Gwaii.”

Section 4.16: “For greater certainty, nothing in this agreement derogates” — which means to take away from in a bad way, or remove from — “British Columbia’s interests in provincial public highways in accordance with section 57 of the Transportation Act. So no impact.

Maybe the best measurement of whether or not people are anxious about fee-simple property rights on Haida Gwaii, or what they think when they read these provisions — that the rights continue, that the municipalities continue, provincial jurisdiction continues — is the fact that on Haida Gwaii, 2024 assessment values, compared to 2025…. In 2025, those home values were up 8 percent.

Typical assessed value in 2024 was $283,000. Typical assessed value in 2025 was $305,000. So people are buying property. Property values are holding and increasing because there is some stability and there is some certainty. The litigation threat and concerns that people had about how this is going to work with private property have been addressed by the agreements. That was part of the point of the agreements.

The member continually, in his question, conflated what the Haida impact is on private land owners with what is private lands impact on the Haida. The Haida agreement impact on private land owners…. I’ve outlined the sections. The answer is none. It says it in five different ways. The impact of the fact that there is private land on Haida Gwaii in terms of title claim and overall compensation….

[3:20 p.m.]

The member mentions the Tsilhqot’in decision. That was the decision the government lost when the member was minister responsible for the file, a historic declaration of title from the Supreme Court of Canada that threw the region into chaos because the government refused to sit down and work out an agreement like this — the complete wrong way to approach this. We’re still dealing with issues

the government lost when the member was minister responsible for the file, a historic declaration of title from the Supreme Court of Canada that threw the region into chaos because the government refused to sit down and work out an agreement like this. The complete wrong way to approach this.

We’re still dealing with issues, in partnership with the Tŝilhqot'in, that came out of that court declaration. This is to avoid that and ensure that we’re reaching cooperative agreement.

There’s no question there’s been an impact on the Haida, in terms of impact on their title in the area. It is a serious matter that the member recognized — at least, he very briefly recognized it when he gave a speech in this place, when he was the minister responsible, saying that there was zero chance that we could win that lawsuit, in his assessment. So we’ll continue to work with the Haida on that.

But the member is a continual fearmonger among private property owners on Haida Gwaii. Despite the fact that he delivered such an important and, frankly, moving speech in the House about his time as minister and how he understood the challenges and how we needed to move forward together, I don’t think it’s of any assistance in the work we need to do in this province.

John Rustad: Once again the Premier didn’t answer the question, which was in regard to compensation that is going to be required and who is going to have to pay that — whether that will be private property owners that will pay that, whether that’s the province that will pay it through general revenues, whether it’ll be taxation in some other form, whether it will ultimately be paid by property taxes.

But I get it. The Premier doesn’t want to talk about that because he doesn’t want to talk about the impact that will happen to people in this province or property owners in this province in terms of that compensation. So that’s fine, in terms of it.

Maybe let’s do talk about the Tŝilhqot'in case that’s going on in the Cariboo. You know what? It would have been nice if the government of the day had negotiated it, because it was the NDP government that failed to negotiate it, which brought it to court. It was the NDP’s failure in the ‘90s that led to the Tŝilhqot'in case and to the damage that’s being done. So I’m happy that you like to point fingers at the government that caused a problem, because perhaps you should point them at yourself once in a while.

When we look at the Tŝilhqot'in case though, in particular…. The Tŝilhqot'in case declared title over roads, which challenged the access to the private property. Those roads haven’t been maintained. The access to those properties has been restricted. The value of those properties has declined. So you can perhaps forgive me for being concerned about title being declared under infrastructure, given the results that we have seen from the first title case in Canadian history. That has a pretty significant impact to those properties, obviously, in terms of it.

But I also want to wonder this in terms of licence holders, whether it is guide-outfitters, whether it is forestry, whether it’s fishing lodges or any other type of thing. I’m wondering about, in particular, what’s going on with Haida Gwaii, but also, quite frankly, what’s gone on in the Tŝilhqot'in case, because government has refused to address the impacts to people who have been impacted, the licences that have been impacted.

I’ll give you the example here. We have one case — numerous cases, quite frankly — in the Tŝilhqot'in area where there has been the loss of property, the loss of rights, I should say, to the people that are in that area and to their livelihoods, and they’ve been devastated by the result. They’ve been continually asking the province for compensation. They’ve been continually asking and pursuing the province to address their rights, to have the province stand up to what it should have for its commitments.

When it impacts private property or when it impacts licence holders, whether it’s through a court agreement or whether it’s through a negotiated agreement, there should be compensation. So I’ll just ask the Premier whether or not he does plan, at some point, to address those that have been impacted by the title agreement in the Tŝilhqot'in area for the further loss of livelihood and for their loss of access and values that have happened because of the title case.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: There is currently litigation underway. There are four guide-outfitters with overlaps of the declared title area. In August 2023, litigation was initiated by one of them. The litigation is seeking compensation for alleged losses. As a result, we are restricted in our ability to share detailed information at this time.

What I can say broadly is that government does seek to work with people who are affected by court decisions, including title decisions, to come to resolution in ways that protect as many interests as possible. It’s obviously a challenging thing. It was the first title declaration in Canadian history.

Just a quick fact check for the member: the Tŝilhqot’in decision, the Roger William case, was concluded in 2014, which was 13 years after the members of the B.C. Liberals came to power.

John Rustad: More and more misleading information from the Premier. It started in the ’90s, Premier, if you really want to know about that particular case.

The Chair: Members, just a quick warning to everybody. I know the engagement here has been interesting for the afternoon, but let’s not suggest that each other are misleading anybody.

John Rustad: Thank you for that guidance.

However, the case did go in the starting process in the ’90s and wound its way all the way through various levels of courts, getting up into where it is. It’s unfortunate that those impacted are now in court.

I understand the Premier would be sensitive about wanting to comment about something that could be a legal proceeding, given earlier statements that the Premier has made, and I wouldn’t expect that he would make comments about that.

However, it’s unfortunate that it got to that place, because these individuals asked for negotiations with the government for years, with no success and with no interest in the government being able to hold up to its rights in protecting all the people in this province from issues that may be impacting.

Perhaps let’s take a look at a different agreement. There’s an agreement that was announced in January — which, of course, had been signed six months earlier and kept secret from the people in British Columbia, instead of making it public, which was a shame. It would have been very interesting to have that information out and about before an election, but I guess the government carries forward with its most secretive status in Canadian history, according to the press, with its approach to how it does things.

The shíshálh foundation agreement, if I have this correct, gives exclusive decision-making authority to the nation in the territory, or certainly over parts within that agreement. I guess the question to the Premier, with regard to that agreement, is: how will this impact private property?

Will it impact private property in terms of that decision-making capability, both in terms of access and use, as well as the benefits to the areas surrounding those private properties?

[3:35 p.m. – 3:40 p.m.]

surrounding those private properties?

[3:40 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare: I would bring to your attention guests in the gallery: Langley Home Learners teacher Pam Duggan and students, 15 people — seven grade 8 to 11s and adults.

Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. David Eby: The member asked about exclusive decision-making capacity for shíshálh. In the agreement with shíshálh First Nation, the government agreed to explore the possibility of an exclusive decision-making authority for shíshálh that would be defined over a specific territory and a specific subject matter. Both sides agreed that it would not include docks, which I know is a point of concern in the community.

An example of an exclusive decision-making opportunity is a nation having the exclusive right to regulate their own hunters. Examples of that are the Tsawwassen 2009 agreement and the 2011 Maa-nulth agreement, both of which were negotiated under the previous administration. This is not a new authority for nations to be able to exercise.

It may provide the member some assurance, and perhaps others as well, that provincial legislation would be required before such an exclusive jurisdiction right could be affirmed. It would be introduced in the House and robustly debated.

The goal here is to work forward with shíshálh First Nations and the broader community. It would involve extensive engagement with stakeholders in the territory — non-Indigenous stakeholders as well — to understand the full implications before any decisions were made. Hopefully that’s of assistance to the member.

John Rustad: I thank the Premier for first, I would say, a good answer. It’s good to hear that information.

[3:45 p.m.]

Maybe just another simple question around this, and that’s just dealing with the property rights of the folks in Pender Harbour. They bought properties many years ago. Many of those properties were sold many, many years ago with water access. That was how they could access those properties, and docks have

question around this, and that’s just dealing with the property rights of the folks in Pender Harbour. They bought properties many years ago. Many of those properties were sold many, many years ago with water access. That was how that they could access those properties. Docks have been removed or are in the process or under threat of being removed, giving significant access problems for those properties.

I’m just wondering if this is the approach that the Premier supports in terms of removing that access to those properties, and if so, whether compensation will be provided to those property owners for the loss of value of the access in the properties.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: We, leading up to the summer of 2024, made updates to the dock management plan, working with community members, including — I want to recognize — Waterfront Protection Coalition for their work with us on this. It resulted in an announcement in August of some changes to the dock management plan, which are as follows. Hopefully, this addresses the member’s question.

The dock management plan allows existing dock and boathouse owners in saltwater, as of July 1, 2024, to keep their existing as-built structures and register them through an online self-registration form. The province and the shíshálh will review the docks and boathouses and transition them into a longer 20-year renewable authorization within the next three years or sooner.

There may be requirements for upgrade. For example, ten years to update styrofoam to encapsulated or non-styrofoam floatation systems. These little white styrofoam floaty balls you see floating around in the water, that’s why that is a requirement.

Ten years to upgrade to light, transparent decking or another supported option, which minimizes impact on fish, and two years to update any actively breaking apart styrofoam, which I think is generous, given the impact on fish.

The removal of requirement for environmental or archaeological reports for existing docks and boathouses. There may be some very specific and limited scenarios where that is not the case, but for the vast majority, those are not required. There was some discussion that they would be. However, a new dock or a replacement dock would be required to complete an environmental and archaeological report.

This was a reassurance to dock and boathouse owners that are in the water, as of July 1, 2024, that they can keep their docks in the water and continue to have access.

John Rustad: I note that we have a little bit more time left to go through. I want to move over and talk a little bit about drugs, particularly the homeless, and the problem with addictions in terms of what’s going on in the province.

[3:55 p.m.]

Maybe just start off with a little question. There’s a program called the Heart and Hearth Program, which is something I think that is talked about. I’m getting a thumbs up from the Minister of Housing over there. I’m sure he’ll come over and give some political diatribe for the Premier to be able to add to this conversation.

I’m just wondering if the assistance in dealing with an encampment on provincial

I’m getting a thumbs-up from the Minister of Housing over there. I’m sure he’ll come over and give some political diatribe for the Premier to be able to add to this conversation.

I’m just wondering if the assistance in dealing with an encampment on provincial contingencies…. Is the assistance dealing with an encampment a contingency upon the province requiring a jurisdiction to have the heart and hearth program? Sorry. Let me rephrase that, because I recognize I’ve stumbled over the words on it. You’ve got a jurisdiction that has an encampment. They’ve got a problem. They need to get rid of this problem, and they’re wondering if the province will step up to the plate to help deal with this or if there is a pre-requirement for them to be enrolled in the heart and hearth program.

Hon. David Eby: The province has entered into heart and hearth agreements with a number of communities and shown some success in closing encampments. We’re fans of the program. There have been really positive outcomes in communities like Prince George, but it’s not the only mechanism. We also have supportive housing and other housing funding that can be deployed to provide support to a community that’s trying to resolve an encampment.

[4:00 p.m.]

John Rustad: I guess just following up on that a little bit, where communities have shelters, is the provincial support and contingency of those shelters contingent upon them enrolled in the heart and hearth program?

I’m just trying to understand the difference between the community shelters and actions that government can take versus these programs that government provides and wants communities enrolled in.

of those shelters contingent upon them enrolled in the HEART and HEARTH program? programs?

I’m just trying to understand the difference between the community shelters and actions that government can take versus these programs that government provides and wants communities enrolled in.

Hon. David Eby: No, it’s not a prerequisite.

John Rustad: I want to switch over to another topic. Over the years under the NDP, the Premier’s budget has obviously increased fairly significantly. I think this year, it’s about $18.4 million in terms of the overall budget.

Could the Premier perhaps start by providing just a quick summary of the number of advisors that the Premier has and the number of contracts to consultants that may be under the Premier’s office?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I’m sure the member will understand our desire to be as accurate as possible in the response. I wonder if the member wants to ask another question while the team is double-checking the answer to his first question.

John Rustad: Thank you, I appreciate that.

So let me understand this right. In terms of the Premier’s budget, it’s up 6 percent from last year, up 20 percent since he took power, up 100 percent since 2016, since the NDP came into power. Hence the question about the staffing levels and, particularly, the special advisers and that side of things.

As part of the previous question, which was of course asking how many people were involved there, I’m just wondering whether the Premier can give some specifics about some of his top paid advisers, such as Penny Ballem and any other special advisers, in terms of the salaries that they are receiving, as well as details on their contract. Should they be terminated, what would be the compensation for individuals like that upon leaving office — or leaving the position, I should say?

[4:15 p.m.]

The Chair: It is, of course, the third time that we’ve heard an electronic device this afternoon. We gave the birthday girl a break, but maybe we could have all electronic devices silenced this afternoon. Thanks.

electronic devices silenced this afternoon. Thanks.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Penny Ballem has recently taken on the role of head of PHSA. As a result, her charge to the province is $1 a year. She is paid as the

Hon. David Eby: Penny Ballem has recently taken on the role of head of PHSA. As a result, her charge to the province is $1 a year. She is paid for her administrative role.

The Premier’s office budget last year came under budget by $1.289 million. The actuals were $16.088 million. It compares favourably, I think, to the 2008-09 Premier’s office budget, which was $14.1 million in 2008 dollars, which would be $20 million in 2025 dollars.

The budget for this year is $18.45 million. There is a slight increase from the previous year of $1.073 million.

That’s the result of $325,000 for the shared recovery mandate; $486,000 for the Premier’s office for two purposes — one is for staff to support the new minister of state for local governments and rural communities, and we expect and are budgeting for additional travel requirements related to international trade — and $262,000 for intergovernmental relations to support the local government relations function, as well as the anticipated international trade work, which is underway. We’re leaving for Asia on Saturday.

The member was asking about termination of Dr. Ballem. There would be no severance from the contract if her position were terminated.

John Rustad: Roughly doing the math in terms of the increase, just so that the Premier can confirm that there are no wage increases for anybody in his office…. Apparently that seemed to be the amount.

An unrelated question, but I’ll ask at the same time just to try to get the information through. Under the NDP government, back in 2017, they started the process, or re-initiated their process from the 1990s, of having political staff in cabinet ministers’ constituent offices. I would like to know and have the Premier confirm that that is still the case, that political staff are located for cabinet ministers in their constituent offices.

So the two questions, if I may.

[4:25 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

[4:30 p.m.]

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I would love to introduce my friend. He came from the USA. He is my childhood friend, Mandeep Singh Bal. He is also a field hockey player, international player. He’s my backbone, and he helped me at a lot of places. I really appreciate that, and please welcome. Thank you.

Debate Continued

Hon. David Eby: It’s my understanding that there are some executive assistants that work for ministers in community offices. They often are part-time but not exclusively. They provide assistance to the minister in home communities for that minister. That is a continuation of arrangements that have been in place since 2019.

I’ll have to ensure accuracy to provide a list to the member of salaries for members of the Premier’s office. I’m happy to provide that to him in writing. We’re still working on the comprehensive contract list.

John Rustad: Recognizing that we’re pretty much out of time, I’ve just got a few more things I just want to throw out there. The reason for asking particularly about salaries and benefits…. I mean, the Premier’s office has gone up by, like I say, 6 percent this year. The Premier’s office has gone up by 100 percent since 2016, since the NDP took power. At the same time, inflation has gone up by about 20 percent over that same period of time, so obviously the significant increase in spending.

When you look at the severances for people like Matt Smith, close to $300,000, Amber Hockin, which is about $200,000, Geoff Meggs, which is about $340,000, Lori Wanamaker, Dr. Victoria Lee, obviously there were significant severances that were set up in terms of that. It’s something that may be worth looking at in terms of all of those numbers associated with that and whether or not that’s appropriate.

But as I can say, I think we’re pretty much getting out of time. So my ability to wait longer for the Premier to answer some questions is obviously at an end, as I look at the Government House Leader looking at me with daggers in his eyes saying: “Can’t we end this?”

I also look at the significant expansion in GCPE, in the government communications, and the budget that has increased on an annual basis there. The point is, we are seeing additional spending in the Premier’s office, we’re seeing additional spending in most Premier’s offices, we’re seeing additional spending in government communications and government advertising — some would argue potentially partisan in terms of some of that advertising — and at the same time, we’re running a massive deficit.

[4:35 p.m.]

If you believe the Moody’s $14.3 billion deficit…. Certainly the Finance Minister says it’s close to $11 billion deficit. Who knows what the answer is, because the Finance Minister has said it’s just a snapshot in time, as opposed to what it’s supposed to be, which is a projection of what the budget should be over the course of the year. Clearly, cutting the carbon tax out has already cut $2 billion out of the budget. GDP numbers are coming in lower. There are many other revenue points. For example,

in time, as opposed to what it’s supposed to be, which is a projection of what the budget should be over the course of the year.

Clearly, cutting the carbon tax out has already cut $2 billion out of the budget. GDP numbers are coming in lower. There are many other revenue points. For example, even the property transfer taxes, housing sales, all these types of activities are obviously trending in the wrong direction, from a budget and a budget perspective. We have seen five debt downgrades now in British Columbia.

So you look at all these things, and you wonder: how is it that spending on the political staff and political advertising is going up when they’re asking everybody else to tighten their belts and they’re running massive deficits with regards to how this government is operating?

We’ve canvassed a lot of things. You know, we need to get our economy going. I think we pointed out numerous shortfalls in terms of the plans and structure that are in place.

We’ve seen, over the eight years under this government, nothing but barriers being created to actually getting stuff done in this province, to the point where the government is now needing to override its own barriers and legislation to try to even get something done. We’ve seen virtually every capital project that this government has touched massively over cost and behind schedule.

We have seen, obviously, a significant increase in drugs and in related issues associated with drug use and homelessness associated with addictions. We have not seen any significant plan for dealing with recovery, with treatment and recovery in this province. Particularly when you look at things like abstinence-based recovery, the absolute refusal of this government to do significant investment in a proven and positive way to be able to find a path for people — not for everybody, but clearly a path that can be significant and different in terms of its treatment….

We’ve seen an effort by this government around housing, with its low-barrier housing. People do need housing. There’s no question we need to be able to do that. But the reality of these things basically becoming drug dens — the criminal activity that is happening around them is becoming a real problem.

Certainly, push-back with neighbourhoods all over the place across this province, saying, “We don’t want these in our neighbourhood,” because of the reputation and the problems that have come with it. You know, the city of Nanaimo is a prime example of that, as well as many other cities around the province.

We as the opposition have spent a great deal of time talking about all the ER closures, all the problems around this province that have happened around health care, the structural problems that we have within our health care system that have only gotten worse over eight years. They have not gotten better.

Government, the Minister of Health in particular, continually talks about: “We’re going to do more.” Well, the definition of insanity is doing more of the same and expecting a different result. There need to be changes. There need to be some structural differences in terms of how these processes go.

We’ve heard from this government on a wide range of other issues that have been raised by us as the opposition around the deficiencies in the health care system: the people that have fallen through the cracks, the individuals that are not receiving the treatments that need to be done.

When it comes to things like involuntary care and mental health, there’s a huge review that’s needed. The Lapu-Lapu tragedy was absolutely horrendous, but it highlighted a significant problem which needs to be addressed, needs to be looked at.

This government is refusing to do an independent inquiry in terms of mental health and the failures of our mental health system to try to get help. Instead, what the Premier seems to do is hire a friend to give advice in terms of things like the Downtown Eastside, which has significant mental health and addiction issues, expecting a report — not even asking for any deliverables, nothing more than a phone call to the minister on a monthly basis.

This is not the way to solve problems. There are many answers that are out there, but we’ve got a government that is ignoring these and reciting, for whatever reasons, to just carry head on.

The prime examples of this are certainly the legislations that have been moving through this House, where the opposition is coming from every corner, whether it’s environmentalists or First Nations, whether it’s community leaders or business leaders. The response from government has just been: “Trust us.” Well, you know, it would have to be somewhat…. Perhaps excuse the fact that…. How can anybody trust when there has been virtually no progress on any of these major files for eight years?

That’s just the record. That’s the reality. We’re facing all this.

[4:40 p.m.]

I get that the Premier has a very different take on it. I’m sure we’re about to hear something with a lot of rose-coloured glasses put on. That is just the reality of politics going back and forth. But it’s the people in British Columbia that are facing this.

We can argue back and forth, points back in his Legislature

that’s the reality. We’re facing all this. I get that the Premier has a very different take on it, and I’m sure we’re about to hear something with a lot of rose-coloured glasses put on. That is just the reality of politics going back and forth.

But it’s the people in British Columbia that are facing this. We can argue back and forth points back in his Legislature. But I’ve met too many families now, too many young individuals that have left for other jurisdictions, like Alberta, that have left here because they can’t afford to live here. They can’t afford to raise a family here. They can’t afford housing here. They’re struggling just to put food on the table.

So many other companies I’ve talked to have moved their operations south of the border, saying, “We’ll have to wait for a different government. We’ll have to wait for changes,” because there’s no confidence to be able to invest and be in British Columbia. This is the mess that has been created in British Columbia by this government, and it’s only been exacerbated.

Probably the real summary of this was the one glimmer of hope in the election campaign, the $1,000 grocery rebate, centrepiece that this Premier promised to deliver and obviously has failed to deliver. That little bit of hope that people had to be able to help with their day-to-day bills in this province.

We’ve got a government that is ignoring the problems they’ve got with the targets of EV sales and how that’s going to be impacting the ability for people to buy new vehicles in this province in the very near future. We’ve got a government that has promised a new taxation model for TransLink to be able to solve their problems without providing details. Clearly, it’s looking like it’s going to be a vehicle levy, once again impacting the costs of people on a day-to-day basis in terms of being able to survive and just to be able to prosper in this province.

You have many other of these sort of things that are going on, and I’m sorry for rattling on in this, but it is frustrating when we’re not getting answers out of this government, certainly in question period. Through the estimates process, many ministers have refused to be able to provide any kind of detailed answers to questions that should have been straightforward, especially when it comes to the budget and managing the finances in this province.

So with that, I want to thank the Premier’s staff for this process, and I will conclude my remarks.

Hon. David Eby: The member was asking about expenditure in the Premier’s office and contracts. There are two current contracts in the Premier’s office. One is Vanessa Richards, who is providing training to staff. There are two contracts. The contract has been paused, but the amount paid has been $38,300. There is a second contract with Convergence Consulting. The spend has been $36,278.25.

The overall expenditure on the Premier’s office, the member suggests, is quite out of hand.

Just for perspective, Nova Scotia’s Premier’s office spends $2.5 million more. They have 20 percent of our population. Alberta’s Premier’s office spends $49 million. We spend $18 million. Nova Scotia spends $21 million. Ontario spends $61 million. We compare favourably with other provinces, perhaps.

There are some benefits that come from being able to be out and advocating for your province in different ways, which is why there was a slight increase in our Premier’s office budget for trade missions and advocating for the province internationally, especially in a sensitive time.

The province faces a grave economic threat. It’s being realized in the softwood lumber sector right now, but it’s certainly not limited to that. Our seafood sector has been hit by tariffs from China as well. There is a global reordering of trade happening, led by the President of the United States, who has vowed to annex Canada and to attack our economy and impoverish us, vowing that Americans don’t need what we have, which is patently untrue.

While our government has been out defending B.C., fighting for British Columbians and Canadians, the opposition has had different ideas, members on their side advocating that western Canada become a protectorate of the U.S., opposing our action of taking red state liquor off the shelves, saying we should comply with Trump and today the Leader of the Opposition saying I need to be more gentle with Donald Trump.

[4:45 p.m.]

Beyond their lacklustre response to the economic threat facing us and their opposition to bills that will build our province — schools, hospitals, roads that are desperately needed — fast-track the billions of dollars in economic projects that have actual proponents that are keen to work with us and the federal government to employ people and build prosperity,

lacklustre response to the economic threat facing us and their opposition to bills that will build our province schools, hospitals, roads that are desperately needed, fast-track the billions of dollars in economic projects that have actual proponents that are keen to work with us in the federal government to employ people and build prosperity not just for British Columbians but for the whole country.

While we’re doing that work, what do we see the opposition doing? They’re hosting a homophobic anti-choice group at the Legislature. Their leader’s travelling to Ottawa to suggest that our clean energy initiative, resulting in $6 billion in private sector investment in the province, is unicorn farts. Calling for a pay raise for politicians, a $90,000 pay raise, and defending his own MLAs for collecting two taxpayer salaries while they are working here.

Never mind that. He says: “Well, maybe if the Conservatives had a chance to put in their plan, life would be better for British Columbians.” Well, I am skeptical about how increasing class sizes in fast-growing communities makes life better for students in school. How banning books about climate change improves outcomes for our kids. Telling police not to enforce federal gun laws — how is that going to improve public safety? That’s something the member actually campaigned on in the last election. Astonishing.

His advocacy against our housing policies that would allow rental homes to be converted back into Airbnbs, allow speculators to empty people out of their homes, leave homes vacant as an investment. How would that bring down the cost of housing? To cap it off, his advocacy for an Alberta-style car insurance system, while Albertans see skyrocketing car insurance rates…. British Columbians have had six years of flat ICBC rates and yet another rebate this year.

These are the bright ideas we’re hearing from the Leader of the Opposition and his suggestions for our province. Obviously, a very different vision. My vision, our vision as a government, is that B.C. will be the economic engine of the new Canada that is emerging from this global reordering that’s happening. We have an obligation to British Columbians and to all Canadians to seize the opportunity that’s in front of us, and not just to do it for good-paying jobs for British Columbians, but also for all Canadians. Our ports face two-thirds of the world’s population. We are the key gateway to diversifying trade.

The member was quite dismissive of the hard work of British Columbians in challenging times. I know it hasn’t been easy for people, but I’m proud of the fact that since 2017, we have some of the highest GDP growth in the country, second only to PEI. I don’t know what happened in PEI, but we had 20 percent GDP growth. So far this year, we have the second highest increase in private sector employment in the entire country in these very challenging times.

In 2022 and ‘23, we attracted a record-setting $117 billion in capital investment, 73 percent more than when we took office in 2017. We see even more amazing opportunity for British Columbians, which is why we passed the legislation we passed.

The member decried the state of health. Well, I can tell the member we’re concerned too. That’s why we’ve taken action. We’ve hired 1,000 family doctors in the past two years. We’ve cut wait times for U.S. nurses to come up to Canada and work here, and demand to come and work in British Columbia has doubled as a result. The new medical school opens next year.

Rents are down — housing, the member said — for the tenth month in a row. They’re still too high. We’ve got more work to do. But we are doing that work, and we’re seeing results.

Child care fees when we took government were $47 a day, down to $19 a day; 226 school projects and 30 hospital projects built or underway since 2017. What we inherited was a massive infrastructure debt. In Fort St. James, in the member’s own community, the hospital was a double-wide trailer. We’ve replaced it. A brand-new hospital just opened in Fort St. James.

The member is concerned about crime. Well, so are we. That’s why we’ve taken action. Crime is down 7 percent in Vancouver, down by double digits in Kamloops, Kelowna and many other communities. What we’re doing is working. We’ve got to keep doing it and do more of it.

The work of all of us in this place is important. I am proud of our team. I am proud of that team that includes all of these amazing MLAs here, but also the incredible staff who support us on the public service side, who have worked and pivoted on a dime in a remarkable time to assist us in responding to the threat from the President to get our province oriented, to seize the opportunity that these threats have created to diversify our markets and to lead Canada as the country’s economic engine.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’m excited about that. I’m very grateful to the staff for their support of us, and particularly to the staff around me who assisted me through this estimates process. I know that all my colleagues feel the same way. I know we’re all keen to go home to our families, but the work will continue for all of us, I’m sure, as we advocate

I’m excited about that.

I’m very grateful to the staff for their support of us, and particularly to the staff around me who assisted me through this estimates process. I know that all of my colleagues feel the same way. I know we’re all keen to go home to our families, but the work will continue for all of us, I’m sure, as we advocate for British Columbians and for this amazing province we call home, in this incredible country of Canada, which we’re all so proud to be a part of.

On this side of the House, we’re committed to building. We’re committed to growing and increasing prosperity, defending our sovereignty and standing up for the true North strong and free. That’s what we’re all about, and that’s what we’re committed to.

Hon. Chair, it is my keen desire to move the final vote.

The Chair: Hearing no further questions, I will now call Vote 11.

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

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:51 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:51 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call for the consideration of the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply.

Supply Motions

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Hon. Speaker, I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on March 31, April 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 29, 30, May 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 27, 28, and 29 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 82 billion, 146 million, 902 thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026. This sum includes the sum that was authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2025.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of 1 billion, 560 million, 352 thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements for capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026. This sum includes the sum that was authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2025.]

Motion approved.

[4:55 p.m.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025-2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2025-2026.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that Bill 16 be introduced and read a first time now.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025-2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2025-2026.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that Bill 16 be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.

It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

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

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated and transmitted electronically to members participating remotely.

I remind members that as the final supply bill is founded on resolutions passed in the Committee of Supply and adopted upon a motion by this House, it is considered an administrative act. Accordingly, in keeping with the practice of this House, this bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Apart from the brief introductory remarks already made by the Minister of Finance, pursuant to practice recommendation 5, the bill is not subject to further debate.

[5:00 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, while we are awaiting the bill being delivered electronically to members online, the Government House Leader wants to make an announcement.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that we are all anxious to leave, but there is one thing that the very dedicated staff that we have all praised here today are very anxious that each and every one of us does. That is that when we leave here, we empty and clean our desks. They don’t have to do that; we do. So just reminding everybody: when we leave, clean your desks, so they don’t have to.

The Speaker: Members, the bill has now been delivered electronically to all the members.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act 2025-2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that Bill 16 be read a second time now.

The Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 16 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 5:03 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 16 — Supply Act 2025-2026

The Chair: All right. I call the committee to order.

On clause 1.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Clause 3 approved.

Schedule 1 approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 16 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:04 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[5:05 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act 2025-2026

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 16 reports the bill complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act 2025-2026

The Speaker: The question is the third reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Now, Mr. Speaker.

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

Division has been called.

[5:10 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, given that all members are in House, is there an agreement to waive the time?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 16.

Madam Clerk will connect with people online. I don’t see any blurred background today.

Motion approved on the following division: YEAS — 48, NAYS — 44. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The Speaker: Members, His Honour, the Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await his arrival.

[5:15 p.m.]

His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

The Administrator: Please be seated.

Kate Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly):

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025

Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act

Infrastructure Projects Act

Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act

Perinatal and Postnatal Mental Health Strategy Act

In His Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2025-2026.

In His Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator thanks his Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

The Administrator: Before we break, and because this is the final session of the Legislature, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, I want to thank all of you in this room for your hard work over the last while, and I wish you all the very best for a relaxing, enjoyable and well-deserved summer break. Thank you.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 39 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 39 of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper which amends the terms of reference for the Special Committee to Appoint Statutory Officers.

[That in addition to the terms of reference provided to the Special Committee to Appoint Statutory Officers by the Legislative Assembly on February 24, 2025, the Special Committee be further empowered to recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of:

a. An individual to hold office as Merit Commissioner, pursuant to section 5.01 of the Public Service Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.  385); and,

b. An individual to hold office as Ombudsperson, pursuant to section 2 of the Ombudsperson Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.  40).

That the Special Committee report to the House on its recommendations as soon as possible, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 43 on the order paper.

I move Motion 43 of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper which amends the terms of reference for the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

The motion on notice was based on the report stage of the bill and not the third reading version. However, I also move a small amendment to refer to the correct section in the act being section 21 rather than section 28.2 as appears in Motion 43.

[That in addition to the terms of reference provided to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services by the Legislative Assembly on February 24, 2025, the Committee be designated as the Committee referred to in section 28.2 of the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.]

[5:20 p.m.]

Motion approved.

bill and not the third reading version. However, I also move a small amendment to refer to the correct section in the act being section 21 rather than section 28.2 as it appears in motion 43.

Amendment approved.

Motion as amended approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move, one, that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the 43rd parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to all members that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date.

Two, that by agreement of the Speaker and the House Leaders of each recognized caucus, the location of sittings and means of conducting sittings of this House may be altered if required due to an emergency situation or public health measures and that such agreement constitute the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give notice to all members of the agreement and shall table it for it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next sitting.

Three, that in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in their stead for the purpose of this order. In the event that the Deputy Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in their stead for the purpose of this order. And in the event that the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, another member designated collectively by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in their stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: At the end of this session, I wish everybody a safe, happy summer. We’ll see you all in the fall.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Have a safe summer. This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:22 p.m.