Contents

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Kiel Giddens.

Introductions by Members

Stephanie Higginson: I rise on behalf of myself, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky to welcome our 30 local scientists who are here with the Science Meets Parliament program, which is a non-partisan initiative put on by the incredible team at the Canadian Science Policy Centre. They’re here for the third year running.

I’m just looking around to see where I can see them all. Today they’re going to be meeting with MLAs, whether it’s attending our meetings, having meals. Some of you have already met with them.

[10:05 a.m.]

We can all agree that good and current research shapes good and current policy.

I’d like to welcome Mehrdad Hariri, Wendi Zhou, Zaineb Taleb, Matt McTaggart, Trushar Patel, Chris Caputo and Andrea Mellor, who are the key organizers of this event. I look forward to seeing all of the members here tonight at the reception in the Hall of Honour.

Would you please help me welcome them and make them feel welcome when you see them in the House today.

Brennan Day: I rise today to welcome Denise Praill of Canuck Place. She is the president and CEO of this extraordinary organization that provides compassionate pediatric palliative care and support to children with life-threatening illnesses and the families who love them. Their work brings comfort, dignity and hope to families during some of their most difficult moments.

Please join me in making Denise feel very welcome.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’d like to welcome Dominic Lai, director of Dragon Boat B.C., to the chambers today.

Dragon boat events are such an important cultural and athletic demonstration, and Dragon Boat B.C. does such important work bringing these events to life. I know, as the MLA for Richmond-Steveston, that the energy and excitement of Steveston’s dragon boat races are an important part of our summer, and they’ll be back in 2027. I’m very excited about that.

Please can everybody help me make him welcome.

Kiel Giddens: I’d like to introduce a special guest today. The Leader of the Official Opposition’s mother is here, Patti Halford. I’d also like to introduce his aunt Judy MacKenzie. They’re here to surprise the Leader of the Official Opposition, because today is his birthday, so they’re here to take him for lunch in the dining room.

Some Hon. Members:

“Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday, dear Trevor,

Happy birthday to you.”

The Speaker: Should we allow him to speak now?

I think we’ve got consensus.

Go ahead, Leader of the Official Opposition.

Trevor Halford: Now I’m going to feel really bad about question period in about 20 minutes.

No, I want to thank the members for that.

I want to welcome, obviously, my mom to the House. It’s always great to see Mom. Lunch will be on me, not her, but I don’t mind that at all.

Welcome, Judy. It’s great to see you here today as well.

I did actually want to quickly introduce the Canadian Finance and Leasing Association, who’s in the House today. Michael Rothe, Hugh Swandel, Mike Rusch and Marcel Buerkler, I want to say welcome to the House to you today. Happy to hear you.

Tributes

John Garrett

Trevor Halford: On a more serious note, I was sad to wake up and find the news that B.C. has lost a legend this morning in the sports community in John Garrett — a great man, a goaltender for the Canucks and a very familiar and comforting voice to all that heard him as he did Canucks games. I know he was actually covering the Las Vegas series. Also a Surrey resident.

So very sad that we learned of Mr. Garrett’s passing this morning. A good human being, and I was sad to hear that news. I know all members of this House share that, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family, his friends and his fans across this province.

Introductions by Members

Susie Chant: I’m going to be very naughty and introduce a particular scientist today. She fills me with awe, and I had the opportunity to talk to her for about an hour this morning, which was quite remarkable.

Nancy Clark, who is a registered nurse, a bachelor of science in nursing, a master of science in nursing, a PhD in science and nursing, is on a Michael Smith research grant right at the moment. She’s working on working with new immigrants and integrating them into the health system and looking at ways that we can do much better at that particular task.

She’s using social determinants of health to look at how we make things better for the people not only in our province already but for those who join us here in the health area.

[10:10 a.m.]

I am very, very happy to have her here, and I hope that the chamber will make her most welcome.

Korky Neufeld: It’s not often you get an email from a grade 7 student, which means that my wife is not my only fan. But Abby Nelson and her grade 7 classmates from Vernon Christian School along with teacher Amanda Gaythorpe and parents are here today.

On behalf of myself and also the member for Vernon-Lumby, I’d just like to say, Abby, thank you so much for the email. Great meeting you this morning, and I hope you have a wonderful tour with you and your classmates.

May the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’d like to note that we are joined in the gallery today by representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress. We have Orion Irvine, who is the regional director; and Lily Chang, the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress.

Of course, they’re here because today, April 28, is the Day of Mourning. I invite all members of the House to join us on the front stairs to commemorate this day over the lunch hour.

I also want to express my deep gratitude for the work of the Canadian Labour Congress in really being an important partner as we move through some of the most volatile times our country has ever experienced. The voice of labour is so critical in that. Thank you for your work.

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

Hon. Randene Neill: It is my pleasure to introduce four guests about whom we spoke during QP in the House yesterday. They are all from the watershed security fund, and they are integral partners with creating this $100 million fund with the province in 2023.

A big round of applause to Mark Gifford, from the Real Estate Foundation of B.C.; Leanne Sexsmith, from the Real Estate Foundation of B.C.; the wonderful, amazing Lydia Hwitsum, from the First Nations water caucus; and Jenna Duncan, from the First Nations Fisheries Council.

Welcome to the House.

Harwinder Sandhu: I am beyond thrilled and excited today to welcome one of the greatest schools in Vernon-Lumby. Vernon Christian School students are here in the gallery, and they are joined by their awesome teachers, Amanda Gaythorpe as well as Andy Overend, and of course, chaperones. They play an important role — Courtney, Rudi, Renee, Louise.

Many members of this House will agree with me that for many communities, it’s not just a ferry ride to come to Victoria. It takes lots of planning, effort, resources, money to come to this gallery. I just want to say: would the House please make them feel very welcome, where they’re learning about democracy. As well, they will be meeting with many of us.

I think all of you have received an email, so if you can please answer their brilliant questions, that would be fantastic. I have had the opportunity to engage with them over the years, and they are exceptional students. The school does such a good job with them.

Would the members please join me to make my guests feel very welcome.

Welcome.

Scott McInnis: I’d like to join my friends from Ladysmith-Oceanside as well as West Vancouver–Sea to Sky in welcoming Science Meets Parliament 2026. This is just a fantastic initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you, personally, for organizing this through your office.

I know B.C. is an innovation hub on the planet for science and innovation and technology, and we are absolutely thrilled, all members, to have you here today. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Two introductions, if I may, today.

I wanted to join my colleagues to welcome the students that are here from Vernon, and especially Evalina, who was a student who wrote to me. I want to congratulate the teachers for organizing this. It’s so lovely to hear directly from these students and to get to talk a little bit about our work.

It’s important that we all recognize that we were grade 7 students once, and you, too, could be here participating in democracy.

I hope you take that as a learning, and congratulations to your students. Lovely to have you here.

I also just wanted to add my voice to welcoming Dominic Lai into the House. Dom is an incredible person in our community who does so much. Dragon Boat B.C. is more than just a physical activity. It’s a cultural activity.

[10:15 a.m.]

They’ve done so much to contribute to building community in Vancouver and far beyond. It is a wonderful organization.

Lovely to have you here, Dom.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Somewhere in the gallery here today is my constituency adviser Steven MacAskill. Hopefully he’s made his way in. There he is.

Steven is a soon-to-be lawyer working on his degree at UBC but casually provides support to my office virtually. He’s pleased to be joined by his partner Sam Sharpe, and I hope this will be a very entertaining question period for them.

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

Dana Lajeunesse: A few weeks ago I had the privilege of visiting the folks at the Victoria Hand Project in their lab at UVic and to look at and learn about the work that they’re doing.

The Victoria Hand Project uses locally developed technology to make a global difference, providing custom, functional upper-limb prosthetics to people in low-resource and conflict-affected regions around the world. By equipping partner clinics with 3D printers, software, hands-on training and ongoing support, they empower communities to produce prosthetics at no cost to recipients, right where they’re needed.

At the same time, their work here at home, training the next generation of engineers at their base at UVic, ensures that this impact is sustainable, innovative and proudly rooted in Victoria.

Please join me in welcoming chief technology officer Nick Dechev, CEO Michael Peirone, mechanical engineer Kim Arklie and business development officer Becky Hof.

Darlene Rotchford: I would be remiss to not also recognize Orion Irvine with the CLC in this House. I know how much he hates these things, so it gives me extra joy.

During my time at the Victoria Labour Council, Orion was assigned to it, and I can truly say part of my journey was having Orion, which is why I stand here today, for all of his tireless advocacy for Victoria Labour Council in supporting us group of misfits, as I would joke. But all kidding aside, during COVID, I could not have done it without him. So I just wanted to actually thank him on the record so he now can picket me later.

Again, can the House make him feel extra welcome.

Steve Morissette: Thanks to my colleague for recognizing and welcoming the Vernon Christian School here.

I, too, would also like to thank Bailey. Bailey was born in Trail in my riding, and she sent me a letter to ask some questions of me.

Thank you, Bailey. It’s great to have young people interact with us, and I really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Members’ Statements

Chilliwack Recreation and Tourism

Heather Maahs: Chilliwack literally has it all. Located in the heart of the Fraser Valley, surrounded by beautiful mountains and flanked by the mighty Fraser and Vedder River, lie the fertile fields of hay and, of course, our famous Chilliwack corn. It’s all going in the ground as we speak.

Do you enjoy fishing? Chilliwack boasts a dozen fishing guide companies.

Or how about the exciting, and a little scary, river rafting? We have three companies.

Come and stay for a week, a weekend or a day excursion. Fish for those amazing dinosaur fish, the sturgeon, but catch and release only.

There are literally dozens of mountain hikes — Mount Thom, Mount Cheam, Elk Mountain, just to name a few. You can choose your difficulty level — a nice stroll or a robust, cardio-enhancing workout.

Or how about horseback riding? There are at least ten stables for riding. Or you can come and take lessons.

And lest we forget, the incredible Circle Farm tours that showcase all the locals and their hidden gems: Minter Country Gardens, Rustic Soap Co., Anita’s Bread, Farmhouse Brewing, Hofstede’s Country Barn and the Local Harvest, to name a few.

Of course, there are plenty of places to go camping, for a swim, either in Cultus or a nice cold mountain-spring-fed lake like Lindeman.

[10:20 a.m.]

While you’re driving in town, look for signs that sell farm-fresh eggs on roadsides, or pick up a bouquet at a roadside flower stand. Include a stop for some amazing Gouda cheese at Smits and Co.w. And I must mention again, if your timing is right, you’ll also find lots of corn stands with fresh, same-day-cut corn on the cob to enjoy.

So put Chilliwack on your list for a fabulous place to visit for lots of family fun and a lovely country getaway.

Day of Mourning for Workers

George Anderson: Today, on the National Day of Mourning, we remember workers who left home expecting to come home and never did. In British Columbia last year, 138 workers lost their lives because of workplace injury or illness.

Behind every number is a name, a face and a future that should still be here today. They left behind half-finished breakfasts, text messages unanswered and families whose lives would be forever divided into before and after.

If we are going to honour them honestly, then we must speak honestly. Too often, the people who profit most from work are the ones who are furthest away from its risk. Too often, those in boardrooms speak of productivity and margins while working people carry that pressure in their backs, in their lungs, psychologically and sometimes with their lives.

And when something goes wrong, it is not the boardroom that pays the price. It is the worker — the apprentice; the care aide; the truck driver; the person who gets up early, works through pain and asks for nothing more radical than the chance to come home safe. A worker is a human being, a family’s source of stability and someone’s whole world.

Today we do not just mourn the dead. We accept a responsibility to the living, a responsibility to the young worker on their first shift, a responsibility to the tradesperson on the scaffold, a responsibility to every person who leaves home believing they will return. Because what does it say about us if the people who build our province are the very people we fail to protect? What does it say about us if profit is counted more carefully than pain?

Let this day leave us with a truth that we cannot look away from — that a worker’s life is not the price of doing business, that mourning without change is hollow and that no society can call itself just when wealth is built on preventable suffering.

Courtenay Lawn Bowling Club

Brennan Day: This weekend I had the immense privilege of joining the Courtenay Lawn Bowling Club to celebrate their 100th anniversary, a century of community connection and people showing up for one another here in the Comox Valley. Clubs like this don’t last by accident. They last because generations choose to be part of something bigger than themselves. It’s deeply Canadian — no fanfare, just commitment to community, open to all ages and ability and built on inclusion.

I was honoured to take part in the celebration, raising the flag and standing alongside so many who’ve carried this club forward over the years.

I had the honour of throwing the opening bowl — absolutely no pressure — in front of a crowd of hundreds. Expectations were extremely low. I approached it with the confidence of somebody that had absolutely no idea what they were doing, which turns out was entirely accurate. They handed me the bowl, which as it turns out, for many of you that don’t know, is not round, and gave me a few quick instructions.

So there I am, standing on the green, trying to look like I belong in this group, knowing full well this could end very badly for me, but somehow, against all odds, I let it go and hit the jack right in the middle.

Now, I’ve been told that’s what you’re supposed to do, and I’ve also been told that doesn’t generally happen on your first try. But in a way, that moment kind of shapes the spirit of the day. You show up, you give it your best, you share a laugh, and sometimes things just roll your way. That’s the spirit of the day like that — not just ceremony but laughter, stories and community.

To everyone who has been part of the club over the past century: thank you.

As we celebrate the next hundred years, we also take on the responsibility to carry it forward. Under the watch of club president Susan Toresdhal, there will be a fantastic hundred years in their future.

25th Anniversary
of Miracle Newspaper
and Role in Muslim Community

Amna Shah: Today I recognize a trail-blazing publication in British Columbia, the Miracle newspaper. For 25 years, the Miracle has served as the first bilingual, biweekly newspaper dedicated to the Muslim community in our province.

[10:25 a.m.]

This anniversary marks not only a remarkable milestone in publishing but a testament to resilience, vision and community spirit. When Nusrat Hussain founded the Miracle in 2001, he saw a growing Muslim community across the Lower Mainland that was vibrant and full of potential, yet fragmented and relatively unseen. There was no single platform to share stories, highlight achievements or connect people to the issues that mattered most to them. Out of that need, the Miracle was born.

Since then, this paper has become a bridge — connecting families; amplifying local businesses; and creating space for writers, leaders and voices that might otherwise go unheard. It has helped foster pride, identity and belonging within the community that it serves.

When Mohammad Naseer Pirzada took on the responsibility of continuing this work, the journey was not always easy. Like many community-driven publications, there were moments of uncertainty, times when continuing to the next issue was not guaranteed, yet through determination and with the support of the entire Pirzada family across generations, the Miracle endured and flourished.

That matters, because without the Miracle, countless stories might have never been told, businesses might have remained unseen and connections might have never been formed. Its impact goes beyond ink and paper. It has strengthened the social fabric of British Columbia.

Today I offer my sincere congratulations to Naseer Pirzada and everyone who has contributed to the Miracle newspaper over the last 25 years. Your work has uplifted a community and enriched our province. I wish you continued success for the next 25 years and beyond.

Day of Mourning for Workers

Kiel Giddens: As we’ve heard today, this Legislature joins many communities and families across British Columbia to mark the National Day of Mourning, a day to remember workers who’ve lost their lives, been injured or been made ill because of their work.

According to WorkSafe, last year alone 138 workers in our province lost their lives due to workplace injury or illness — 79 of those deaths were caused by occupational disease, many from exposures that may have happened decades before; 41 workers died from traumatic incidents on the job; and 18 were killed in work-related motor vehicle incidents.

Behind every one of those numbers is a person, a family, a future that was taken too soon. I know that many British Columbians are deeply mourning the loss of community members, colleagues or loved ones.

My own community has experienced that grief as well. Last week marked 14 years since the Lakeland Mills tragedy in Prince George. Twenty-two workers were injured. Two workers, Alan Little and Glenn Roche, never made it home. They deserved to return to their families on April 23, 2012. That truth must continue to guide us.

The Day of Mourning calls on all of us, especially those of us in this House, to ensure that workplaces are not only productive but safe; that workers are properly trained, protected and empowered; and that safety is treated as fundamental, not optional. Safety is a shared responsibility, and leadership matters.

I want to thank the workers who stand up for their own safety and the safety of the colleague next to them.

I want to thank the labour leaders for their important voice on safety.

I want to thank the employers who care for the well-being of their employees.

I want to thank the Speaker and all members of this House who have made contributions to safer legal protections.

I want to thank all of those individuals that share a commitment to workplace safety.

Today as we remember those we have lost, all of us together renew our own commitments to workers, because every worker in British Columbia deserves to return home safely at the end of the day.

Science Meets Parliament

Steve Morissette: I rise today to celebrate Science Meets Parliament, taking place this week, here in the British Columbia Legislature with 30 visiting researchers.

This initiative brings scientists and parliamentarians together in a shared spirit of learning, collaboration and evidence-based decision-making. It is an opportunity for us, as elected representatives, to deepen our understanding of the complex challenges facing our province and to hear directly from those working on the front lines of discovery and innovation.

[10:30 a.m.]

Across British Columbia and beyond, researchers are advancing work in areas that touch every aspect of our daily lives — from strengthening health systems to a focus on prevention and wellness; to helping families, workplaces and communities thrive. This work matters. It reflects the real needs of people in every corner of our province, including rural and remote communities.

We are also seeing leadership in bringing care closer to home, ensuring that people can access the services they need without having to travel far from their support networks. Scientists and innovators are transforming research into strategic advantage, supporting economic growth, improving public services and positioning British Columbia as a leader in a rapidly changing world.

At the same time, their work is helping us better understand and protect our natural systems, which are under increasing pressure; and guiding how we build the homes and communities of the future stronger, more resilient and more sustainable.

I want to thank all of the participating scientists for sharing their knowledge, their curiosity and their commitment to improving lives.

I encourage all members of this House to take full advantage of this opportunity to listen, to learn and to engage.

Oral Questions

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and
Relationship with First Nations

Trevor Halford: I want to read something from the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations regarding DRIPA. “So I think at this file…. I think it would be best that he puts it under the responsibility of another minister such as the Attorney General or other minister.”

Given that the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations wants the Attorney General in charge of the DRIPA file, we can only assume that it was the Attorney General who told the Premier to stand down on what the Premier said were amendments of the utmost importance. We know this because it was the Premier who said publicly that he tapped the Attorney General on the shoulder, took her advice and decided not to go forward with amendments that he deemed to be completely necessary to protect the legalities of British Columbians.

This is a simple question to the Attorney General, which she has dodged numerous times over the last week. Did the Attorney General direct the Premier to stand down on these amendments regarding DRIPA and to pause this legislation and to do absolutely nothing to protect British Columbians and their property rights?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re a team over here, and we work closely together to solve what are really important challenges to address for the province. I’ve been working with the Premier on this file since the beginning. What we are approaching now is a durable solution to what is a serious challenge that we’ve been very open about.

Unfortunately, the opposition has taken a different tack when it comes to how they approach this issue. They’re all about slogans without any real solution. But what is the most troubling for me is the fearmongering, because they’re using that fear to raise money for political purposes.

I just have a few quotes right here — I could go on all day — from leadership candidates that are telling mistruths about DRIPA and Indigenous People coming after property rights. Peter Milobar….

Sorry. The member for Kamloops Centre.

Interjections.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m sorry.

The member for Kamloops Centre: “Your property is under threat now. Donate now.”

Yuri Fulmer: “No more using DRIPA as an excuse to surrender your future. If you agree…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …it’s time to stop the voluntary transfer of your land and money. Pitch in here to support my campaign.”

They are using fearmongering to raise money for their political campaigns, while we over here are addressing the real challenges that are facing British Columbians and working together to do that.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: You know what’s amazing about that answer? It’s that last week if you actually listened, the Premier read out a quote that he had on the Simi Sara show. It was a great interview. I think everybody should listen to it.

What they should listen to, in fact, are the first couple of minutes of that interview when the Premier says that he understands that people are concerned about their property rights. This was last week, and the Premier said: “We would even go as far as backstopping mortgages.” The Premier said that numerous times. He said that again last week.

[10:35 a.m.]

Then you fast-forward seven minutes into that interview, and what does the Premier say? The Premier says that the opposition is fearmongering when it comes to property rights. Seven minutes later, and he already changed his position. No wonder people are confused about where this government stands when it comes to property rights in British Columbia.

When it comes to the Regional Chief of the Assembly, he said another quote, and I think this is really important: “I think it’s really important that we have somebody that can put the necessary energy, and perhaps the resources, behind it so we can really get moving in implementing, in fully implementing — doubling down and implementing — DRIPA.”

Listen. A simple question to the Attorney General. Can she admit that this wasn’t about getting support for changes to DRIPA to protect property owners’ rights? In fact, the negotiations that she has spearheaded herself are directly related to a co-governance model that this Premier and this government have signed off on without the authority of elected people in British Columbia.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m sorry to say I’m struggling to make sense of that question. I’m not sure. It’s not surprising, because they like to offer slogans and not solutions.

What the Premier was talking about in that radio interview was a real challenge…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South, come to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …that we’re tackling with solutions.

Not only are we taking the legal action necessary to defend private property rights in this province, including all the tools that the Premier mentioned in that radio interview, but we’re also sitting down with our partners to solve what is a problem that we’ve been very clear about.

We’re going to continue to be focused on the solutions that are needed to solve this challenging problem.

I know that they’ll continue to be focused on raising money off people’s fear.

The Speaker: Member, second supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Let me simplify it. I’ll ask a very direct, brief question to the Attorney General.

Will she, or anybody on that side of the House, introduce amendments to DRIPA in this fall session? Can she guarantee that that will happen, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are hard at work right now coming up with solutions to the challenges that we’ve faced since the Gitxaała decision.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That work is underway, and we are committed to doing that together, with the ideas that have come forward from many parties on how we can solve this challenge.

We’re going to do that by bringing in a durable solution that actually addresses the challenges, instead of fearmongering and trying to bring misinformation into this conversation.

We’re going to do it in a way that lifts everybody up and supports the good work under DRIPA and gets our economy continuing to move.

Mining Project in Okanagan
and U.S. Indigenous Tribe
Involvement in Court Case

Scott McInnis: Yesterday we learned that the Attorney General consented to having the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy, a U.S. tribe, become a respondent in litigation at stopping a critical mineral project in the Kootenays. Again, this project is being co-developed with the Osoyoos Indian Band.

This is extremely concerning. Hon. Justice Dley echoed this point in a recent judgment, saying: “There is much to WHY’s concern about the manner in which the Sn̓ʕaýckstx had attached itself to this application.”

My question to the Attorney General is very straightforward. Why did she make a choice to allow an American tribe to intervene here when she did not have to?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can’t talk about active court cases before this House, and I won’t. There are good reasons for it. How we show up in court and how we show up with our litigation strategy in representing the province in everything we do is something that is very protected in terms of: I won’t compromise our work in a courtroom by answering specifics of a case here.

What I will say is that we have been clear that when it comes to the work with local First Nations, that takes priority. We stand beside our First Nations partners in this province through litigation and through our work, including the challenges that are coming from nations that exist outside of this province.

[10:40 a.m.]

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: What the Attorney General just said completely contradicts the statements from Chief Louie. Chief Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band said yesterday, in a response I had here in the House: “When WHY Resources counsel objected to the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy’s participation as a party respondent and advised the Attorney General counsel to reconsider their support, your counsel refused to do so.”

My question to the Attorney General. Is one of the 20 DRIPA cases that she cannot name brought forward by the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I struggle to understand that question, but what I will say…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …is that I’ve been clear that I won’t talk about the contents of litigation decisions in something that’s before the courts, because we won’t compromise our position in the court by doing that.

We’ve been clear on this side of the House, as a government, what our position is in supporting local First Nations and working together with them on many projects, not only under DRIPA but through many groundbreaking agreements that lift all boats in this province and bring billions of dollars of investment to everybody.

Review of Mental Health Act
and Clinical Guidance to
Health Care Workers

Rob Botterell: It’s starting to feel a little bit like Groundhog Day, so I’m going to try another form of question.

One year ago the Premier announced his government would review the Mental Health Act. It was a sliver of hope in the wake of tragedy.

The Mental Health Act is archaic and embarrassingly out of step with modern understandings of mental health. In 1964, when the Mental Health Act was written, residential schools and Indian hospitals were operating under the colonial guise of care while conducting non-consensual medical experiments. Involuntary sterilization was common practice against people who were declared mentally defective. Being queer was considered a mental disorder.

The Mental Health Act must be reviewed and reformed, but a year after a review was promised, we still don’t know who is doing the review, who is being consulted or what questions they’re trying to answer.

My question to the Minister of Health. What are the terms of reference for the review of the Mental Health Act, and when will they be public?

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

There’s no doubt that the Mental Health Act, as an older piece of legislation, needs significant reform, and the member outlines many of the reasons why. That’s why we’ve made the commitment to do that work with a review of the Mental Health Act.

The work is underway in the ministry right now to determine the scope and the terms of reference, as the member talks about, while we wait for the results of the Charter challenge. It’s very important that as this work progresses, we want to incorporate the voices that need to be at this table — people with lived and living experience, people who work with families, Indigenous voices. That is all part of it, and when the work is ready to be announced, of course, we will do just that.

In the meantime, though, we haven’t waited to make some important changes to the Mental Health Act, one of them being the provision of Independent Rights Advice Service for people who are detained under the Mental Health Act. That’s an important modernization of it, providing people with the opportunity to provide that independent legal advice that they need and deserve.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: I hope this doesn’t signal a change in direction where all government work is put on the never-never plan because of Charter challenges. But I digress.

One of the reasons we desperately need to review the Mental Health Act is to resolve the dangerous confusion clinicians are feeling thanks to this government’s sporadic clinical guidance memos. One mental health advocate told us that these memos read like they were scrawled on a napkin. The advice is unclear. Front-line health care workers are unsure of their directives. Patients are at risk.

This is particularly concerning because these memos are preoccupied with involuntary treatment, which scientific evidence shows is one of the most invasive, ineffective and expensive responses to a mental health crisis.

[10:45 a.m.]

My question to the minister. Can the Minister of Health explain how these memos are created, how medical professions are expected to respond and what legislative guardrails are in place to ensure this guidance is evidence-based?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As the member knows, we are in estimates right now in the Ministry of Health, and yesterday we had the opportunity to have quite a bit of a discussion about the work that Dr. Daniel Vigo has been providing with the ministry. I’ll invite more questions from the member when it’s their turn in estimates.

Dr. Vigo has provided valuable advice that helps clinicians reduce some of the uncertainty in the application of the Mental Health Act when it comes to providing that advice for both adults and for children, particularly in the area of individuals who are experiencing concurrent disorders around severe mental illness, of course, which is what the Mental Health Act is directed at, but combined together with substance use issues and sometimes acquired brain injuries.

It is important that this advice is provided. There is an oversight committee between the Ministry of Health, working with health authorities and Dr. Vigo to ensure that that advice is provided to front-line clinicians to support them in the questions that they have about that. That work is ongoing. Would be pleased to talk to the member more about it.

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and
Relationship with First Nations

Lorne Doerkson: The province is co-governing B.C.’s legislative agenda with groups of leaders that aren’t elected by all British Columbians, who have “no obligation to the public interest for the other 5.7 million British Columbians.” Those are not my words. Those are the words of Geoffrey Moyse.

Members of this House are elected to govern on behalf of every single British Columbian. During these new negotiations, who in government speaks on behalf of the 5.7 million British Columbians that are not at the table?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s just so much wrong with that question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are elected to represent the public. When we’re talking about health care decisions, we talk to doctors. We talk to nurses. When we’re talking about schools, we talk to teachers. We talk to students. We work with parties across this province…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …not only the business community. When we’re making business decisions, when we’re making even work with Indigenous People, we sit down with them to try to solve problems together. It’s what government should do to provide lasting solutions to the challenges we’re facing.

I’m not sure what the member is asking us to do. If the member is asking us to make decisions without talking to people, we won’t do that.

Donegal Wilson: The Premier announced last Monday that rather than proceed with legislation, this government will now sit down together with the First Nations Leadership Council to find a path forward.

Let’s examine his track record on transparency and let it speak for itself. On the Haida Gwaii deal in September 2025, the Minister of Indigenous Relations found out afterwards. On the shíshálh agreement, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, who is also the local MLA, also was not briefed.

My question to the Attorney General. Will she commit today that the negotiations underway with the First Nations Leadership Council will be conducted transparently, or will British Columbians, once again, find out what their government has agreed to after the deal is done?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I hear, from the questions, that they either don’t want us to work with First Nations People, or if we do, we should be transparent. I think we should work with First Nations People, and we should be transparent.

Okay. So we’re going with her point of view, not the leader’s. Okay. All right. All right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Members. Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I helped unite the Conservatives. It’s wonderful.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Thank you. Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: So, on that question, I helped unite the Conservatives. They couldn’t figure out if they should work with First Nations or not. That member thinks we should, transparently. Those other ones don’t think we should, but they’ve decided to take her point of view. Finally, a moment of clarity from the Conservatives over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: You know, when we enter this work….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s lovely when they scream and shout, because it just shows they have no respect for working with First Nations People. The minute we talk about working with First Nations People, they claim that it’s co-governance.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: When we work with doctors, is it co-governance? When we work with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, is it co-governance? No, because it’s about othering. They take somebody who they see as vulnerable. They other them, and then they say working with those people is somehow a horrible thing.

It’s not, hon. Members. It’s not, hon. Speaker. We work with First Nations People. We work with all British Columbians, and I’m proud of that.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m very glad that the other side actually heard something that somebody is saying to them, and I have never heard doctors say they are co-governing.

When the opposition asked yesterday if the province is co-governing, the Premier said: “The opposition is deliberately twisting this to spread fear.” This is not true. We are simply seeking clarity over this incredibly important issue, as we cannot trust this government. We have just heard the abysmal track record.

The Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations says that they have entered into co-governance. The Premier says they have not.

Will the Premier publicly acknowledge this co-governance is now the root of all of this chaos?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Our position is pretty clear on this side.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South, you don’t have to speak for everything. Please.

Attorney General will continue.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In order to solve problems, we need to sit down with people across this province to understand different perspectives. When there are challenges with hospitals, we sit down with people working in those hospitals. When there are challenges with schools, we sit down with teachers and our local school boards. This is the work of government.

When we’re talking about DRIPA, which is about Indigenous People, we are going to sit down with Indigenous People to solve this problem, including other stakeholders.

I’m not sure anything embedded in what they’re asking is a real solution. Again, they’re conflating things, and they’re making things different than the actual facts on the ground. We’re going to stay focused on solving the problems that we need to solve, and that means sitting down with everybody to do it.

Korky Neufeld: This government should be governing for all British Columbians. This government postponed amendments to DRIPA for six months and has committed to having these discussions behind closed doors and has entered into co-governance with an unelected group who has made it clear that they are against any sort of changes to DRIPA.

Robin Junger, a former chief provincial treaty negotiator and deputy minister, said: “I’m not surprised to see where we are. I’m troubled to see where we are. I think it’s fair to say we’re in a democratic crisis right now.”

Is the Attorney General dismissing these comments, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, I am dismissing those comments.

We are working really hard to solve a challenge with our partners and with other stakeholders across this province that we’ve been very clear about. Our approach is different than the other side, who have said that we should stop talking to all First Nations, which would just end up with them being in court repeatedly over those challenges.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are going to continue to respect not only the rights and title of Indigenous People — which is what the courts have directed us to, over and over again, in this province, no matter who is in government — but we’re going to do so in a different way, by bringing people together, lifting everybody up and finding solutions to really challenging problems.

Government Handling of
DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Korky Neufeld: You know, after nine long years, that side of the House has caused this confusion, not this side of the House.

[10:55 a.m.]

The Premier keeps touting section 7 agreements under DRIPA as the only viable pathway forward for resource development with First Nations. He also says there’s no veto in place for nations under this agreement.

The Tāłtān are a very pro-resource-development nation. However, the government has taken away any leverage in negotiating a fair deal for the benefit of all British Columbians under section 7. On page 4 of a release by the Tāłtān related to the Eskay Creek gold mine, it says: “If the Tahltan Central Government board decides not to consent, the project cannot go ahead.”

To the Attorney General, does she agree that, in fact, this DRIPA agreement requires permission or grants veto power to the Tāłtān?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to talk about what working together with all partners in the province does for our economy. Construction on the North Coast transmission line…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Wait for your turn.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …which they opposed, a project that will unlock tens of billions of private sector investment and employ thousands of British Columbians. Also $50 billion plus in major projects, reaching final investment decisions in our province over the next 12 months. The Eskay Creek mine, moving forward through a joint process with the Tāłtān — again, billions of dollars of investment.

Let’s talk about mining in this province. So 2025 saw the strongest mining exploration expenditure on record in B.C., $750 million in mining exploration. Spending jumped 36 percent, the biggest increase ever.

We are unlocking investment in this province by making sure we work with everybody to do that, and we will not apologize for that.

Ward Stamer: I want to read something into the record: “We’re going to be as transparent as possible.” Those are the words of the Attorney General when being asked about the 20 court cases as a result of the Gitxaała decision. She also said: “The reason that the number is out there is because of the art of transparency.” I wasn’t aware that transparency is an art.

My question: if the Attorney General is so committed to transparency, will she name those 20 court cases today?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think if the whole quote was read, the rest of it would say that I will not release the contents of the court cases. My job as Attorney General is to make sure…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …we balance the litigation interests and the rights of the province, and I’m going to make sure that happens with respect to the privilege and the solicitor-client privilege and everything involved in our court cases. That’s the way I fulfil my role as Attorney General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have been clear, along with the Premier, about the challenge that we face with our litigation, and we’ll continue to speak openly with British Columbians about how we’re going to solve that challenge and the process that we’re going to take to get there.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Government Priorities

Claire Rattée: January 20 of this year: “It is not for the courts to take over, and that’s why we’re going to amend the declaration in the spring to make that intent explicit.” That was the Premier. The Premier was clear on numerous occasions that legislation to amend DRIPA would be tabled this session, until he wasn’t.

Now we’re being told it’s being tabled in the fall session, maybe. Now it sounds like that’s not the case. I don’t disagree that the government should be consulting with First Nations on this, but the reality is that they should have started this last year when these problems began.

This government’s track record is clear. They don’t properly consult until something ends up in court, and all British Columbians end up paying the price for their incompetence.

My question is to the Attorney General. Since the Premier’s word obviously cannot be trusted, what is the exact timeline for when these amendments will be tabled in this House? Will it be in the fall session? And why should British Columbians trust your government to actually deliver?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Premier has articulated to the people of British Columbia the process that we’re undertaking right now. That is to sit down with First Nations, the FNLC, Modern Treaty Nations, the Chiefs, to undertake intense discussions about coming up with a solution to the litigation challenge that we’ve been very open about.

[11:00 a.m.]

I’m happy to say that what’s coming from our discussions are solutions, and we’re doing so in a respectful way, understanding the interests of all parties, which is, I think, what British Columbians expect of us when it comes to solving challenges.

The Premier has also said that we have a six-month period, and if anything is to be introduced, it would be in the next fall session.

The Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: That was interesting. “If anything is to be introduced, it’ll be in the fall session.” I assume from that that British Columbians can take that there likely won’t be any changes to DRIPA coming forward.

The reality is that this government’s track record on consulting with First Nations is clear. I want to make it very clear from my perspective. You do need to be consulting with First Nations, but we’ve had a clear track record that we’ve seen play out in just the last year. We have treaties where nations haven’t been consulted. We’ve had pipelines where nations haven’t been consulted. Time and again, we end up in court as a result of the incompetence of this government to do proper consultation, even when those nations are residing in government-held ridings.

We have heard time and again that this government doesn’t come to the table, doesn’t take those issues seriously.

Interjection.

Claire Rattée: I’m getting there, thank you.

The problem is that I don’t know how we can trust at this point that this consultation is actually being done properly or taken seriously, and I don’t know why it was not started last year.

Interjection.

Claire Rattée: Yeah, I do actually have a question.

Interjections.

Claire Rattée: Oh, really? Really.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Claire Rattée: Yeah, exactly. And why don’t you take a look at the amount of time that that side takes to respond to a question?

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: The member for Skeena has the floor.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Claire Rattée: The Attorney General has said today that they are approaching a durable solution. We don’t know what that solution is because maybe, maybe not, something will be tabled in the fall. She has said, “We have been clear that working with local First Nations takes priority,” yet again, as I’ve mentioned, numerous nations haven’t been consulted.

The Speaker: Member, ask a question now, please.

Claire Rattée: Talk about what working together with all partners does.

The Speaker: Question.

Claire Rattée: My question is very simple. If there is not going to be legislation tabled in the fall, what can British Columbians take from that? What is going to happen with DRIPA? Can they feel confident that we aren’t going to end up in court again before the fall session?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, we will continue to work hard with British Columbians to listen to them, to ask their advice, to seek their solutions so that we can govern in a better way. That’s how you lead good government.

But you know what? On the other side, when you ask about the North Coast transmission line…. We consult with the public. We try to generate activity so we can open new mines, so we can get new opportunity in the northwest.

What is their consultation period? To say no. What do we do when we talk about clean energy?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: What’s their consultation? To say no. What do they do when we talk about improving livelihoods, family livelihoods with First Nations communities? They say no. Education? No. Health care? No. The party of no to everything over there. It’s getting tiring.

We listen. We work. We solve problems while they say no.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[11:05 a.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health
(continued)

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $35,968,875,000 (continued).

Claire Rattée: Just before I pick up where we left off yesterday, I’m wondering if the minister was able to get that updated document with the number of beds and the breakdown by region and all of that.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, it’s my understanding it was sent out. But we do have a physical copy here, which we can pass to the member.

Claire Rattée: That would be great. Thank you. I’m sorry, I didn’t see that in my inbox yet.

While that’s happening, I’m just going to pick up where we had left off yesterday. We were talking about involuntary care and those 28 net new beds that were in Alouette and Surrey Pretrial.

I just wanted to clarify that what I meant when I was asking that was that those 28 are the only beds that are for the sole purpose of involuntary care. These two facilities are solely focused around involuntary care, while there are other beds that are in separate facilities that could be used dual purpose. They could be used for one or the other, depending on the situation.

The 153 and the 266, those can kind of go back and forth. But those two facilities, the number of beds there are the only ones that are solely for the purpose of involuntary treatment.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Welcome back, to the member for Skeena. I’m looking forward to the conversation we’ll have for the next hour.

Again, back to Surrey Pretrial Centre, which has ten beds designated under the Mental Health Act for psychiatric care; and Spiritwood Homes, as they are now called, in Maple Ridge, which has 18 beds designated under the Mental Health Act…. I want to be very clear that these beds are not designated for the exclusive use of individuals who are receiving involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act.

Now, in practice, most of the beds at Spiritwood Homes are very high-needs residents or patients with high-risk behaviours. Most people, generally, will be receiving involuntary care under the Mental Health Act.

Surrey Pretrial Centre — the same could be said. But I want to be clear that if there is an individual who goes into crisis, who, in discussions with a clinician, is offered psychiatric treatment and voluntarily accepts that treatment, they can use that bed in Surrey Pretrial. It is not held empty because we’re waiting for somebody who is being involuntarily held under the Mental Health Act to use that bed.

Again, the designation of the beds is as psychiatric beds to receive that care. It is a clinical decision whether the patient will receive that care involuntarily, and that, of course, can only be done when the conditions explicitly listed in the Mental Health Act are met and the clinical assessment has been made.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister. That does help clarify it for me.

Then, if I’m correct in my math here, that means that we have 447 beds in this province that could theoretically provide involuntary treatment. The reason that I’m asking that is because Dr. Vigo estimates that there are approximately 2,500 people in British Columbia that have mental health, substance use and a brain injury as a concurrent disorder. That’s a pretty low percentage. We’re not even at half, as far as bed capacity.

My question to the minister is, essentially: does she believe that this is enough? What is the plan to address this? What is the current utilization rate of the beds that exist?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I want to be clear that there are hundreds and hundreds of more beds than just the 447 that we were talking about specifically yesterday. I read into the record the beds that we have announced as a government that we would modernize and create net new, and then together with the Spiritwood Homes and the Surrey Pretrial Centre, that makes up the 447 number.

But I also yesterday referred to the number of designated beds under the Mental Health Act for psychiatric care. That is actually nearly 2,100. Again, there are 930 acute care beds, 952 tertiary beds, 190 beds at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, the ten at Surrey Pretrial and the 18 at Spiritwood. Again, that’s nearly 2,100 designated beds for psychiatric care.

Yesterday I also referred to, when we were talking about that, just over 400 beds that were announced, some net new, some modernized as part of government’s plans to expand this type of care.

As the Premier and others have spoken openly about, too, with the work that Dr. Vigo is doing with government and providing advice on this small group of people experiencing this triad of concurrent disorders of severe mental illness, acquired brain injury and substance use disorders….

The type of care that is required for those people is something that government is committed to continuing to build out — looking at sites right now in Surrey and in Prince George, and in time, expanding to other areas of the province — because we know it is important for people to get care as close to home as possible.

We also know, sadly, that this population of people experiencing these concurrent disorders has grown in very, very large part due to the toxic drug crisis that the province is experiencing.

Claire Rattée: The reason I was asking about those 447 in relation to the 2,500 people that are experiencing those three concurrent disorders is because, as the minister had already mentioned, that is a very small portion of the population. So that’s just 2,500 right there, and those are people that are not likely to voluntarily seek it. They may, but most of them are not likely to, and that’s kind of the target audience for who we’re looking at when we’re looking at involuntary care.

The 2,100 beds, even if we were factoring that into the equation, still wouldn’t actually serve 2,500 people that are estimated to be living with all three concurrent disorders. Not to mention the fact that if that’s a small part of the population, we can assume that there are thousands and thousands more British Columbians that also voluntarily need access to either treatment or a psychiatric bed or a combination of the two, whatever that may look like.

That’s why I made the comment about that 447 beds, because those are the ones that are solely targeted at that audience of 2,500, roughly, give or take. I was really looking to see if we have a plan to be able to address that, notwithstanding the need to address not having sufficient capacity for treatment beds. I will get to that, again, a little bit later.

There was a January 2026 Ombudsperson report that assessed the implementations of the recommendations that were made in the 2019 report on involuntary care under the Mental Health Act.

[11:20 a.m.]

I am hoping that the minister can explain why there has been no progress on recommendation 7 — to implement an appropriate way of identifying involuntary patients who are clients of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia. Will this recommendation be met prior to the introduction of the 100 involuntary beds mentioned by the Premier at the UBCM convention?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I would like the chamber to welcome a school group from my riding of Nanaimo–Gabriola Island. In the gallery are grades 6 and 7 students from Cinnabar Valley Elementary.

Big hello, and really glad you’re here. This is the people’s House, so it’s really good that you’re here. What you’re witnessing here is the specialist from the Conservative Party, official opposition, asking questions of the Health Minister about her budget. This particular conversation, you can tell, is about mental health and addictions.

The minister, who’s elected from Tofino and that part of Vancouver Island…. This is part of her 18 hours of questions. She’s answering questions about how she spends her budget, and I’m really glad that you’re here to witness it.

Will the gallery please make my fellow students very welcome.

[11:25 a.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just coming back to the previous answer, we were talking about the number of Mental Health Act–designated beds in the psychiatric system in British Columbia. I want to be clear that it’s not…. I don’t think the member is intending this, but it’s not a strict kind of apples-to-apples comparison of one bed, one person when comparing the number of beds that are available for a population of people. People don’t occupy a bed for an entire year, for example. One bed can service several people.

At the same time noting, too, as we talked about yesterday, that there are different levels of care. People can step up and step down as they move — sometimes into an acute care facility or a longer-term facility, a tertiary bed; and sometimes receiving community supports, for example, through mental health teams or through an ACT team.

Also, just to make the point that not all psychiatric care needs to be delivered in a bed. That is why the relationship between a patient and their care provider team is so important to determine what is best for that person with the situation that they are in and what they are facing, to provide the most appropriate level of care. Of course, in some cases, that must be bed-based, but in other cases, it is not always required and, in fact, can be much better and healthier for a patient or person to be able to receive psychiatric care in community.

Moving on to the member’s question about the Ombudsperson’s 2019 report, I’m going to just take this opportunity to provide a brief update from 2026 and the update that the Ombudsperson’s office themselves provided. This was a report that made 24 recommendations regarding the Mental Health Act compliance and rights protections. In their 2026 update, the Ombudsperson’s office reported that 12 of the 24 recommendations are fully implemented, eight are partially implemented, and four have not demonstrated substantial progress yet.

The ministry and the health authorities are actively working together and have responded to many, many areas of what the report pointed to — for example, establishing clear and consistent provincial standards for involuntary admissions procedures under the Mental Health Act; establishing a regular audit of designated facilities compliance with Mental Health Act forms completion requirements.

Through the audits, we are continuing to see improvements in those Mental Health Act form completion rates compared to 2019; and also in the implementation of policies and requirements for processes for completing form 5, the consent for treatment to ensure that treatment is appropriately authorized and documented.

As well, improvements to processes around form 16, notification to near relatives, ensuring that more patients’ families or loved ones are receiving information about their loved ones’ status; reviewing and making improvements to training that is offered to those who exercise authorities under the Mental Health Act; addressing issues related to records management for Mental Health Act forms for involuntarily admitted patients; implementation of the Independent Rights Advice Service and an updated guide to the Mental Health Act, which will be published in the next several months.

In addition to this, the member has asked specifically about recommendation 7, recommending that the Ministry of Health and health authorities develop and implement, in consultation with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, an appropriate method for identifying patients who are clients of the Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C.

Under the Mental Health Act, it actually requires that we provide notification to the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia about all patients who are taken in involuntarily under the Mental Health Act. What we need to do is work to devise a system that is more manageable.

In the notification process, this is something that is important, of course, not just to the PGT but also incredibly important to families and has been the subject of much discussion amongst people with lived and living experience and their families and will comprise a part of the Mental Health Act review.

Under the Mental Health Act review, looking specifically at notification processes and procedures will help us to address this recommendation. That is why the substantive change or developments that perhaps the member is seeking to learn more about haven’t occurred yet. But I’m encouraged to know that that work will be underway, and it will be part of the Mental Health Act review.

[11:30 a.m.]

Claire Rattée: On the first part of the response there, I do understand and recognize that one bed is not necessarily one person, but that was also partially why I asked a couple of times about utilization rates, to try and better understand where we were at with that.

I’m still going through this Ombudsperson report. Recommendation 19 requires the board of directors for each health authority to establish a 100 percent compliance rate in form completion for the involuntary admissions process under the Mental Health Act as a yearly performance measure.

Apparently, there’s been no progress made on that recommendation. The deadline was March 2021.

It also notes that the rate of completion for form 5 was another major concern outlined in the report, particularly due to Bill 32 repealing the deemed-consent provision in the Mental Health Act. When this was introduced, I raised concerns about scrapping deemed consent without creating a replacement framework.

I’m wondering if the minister agrees with the Ombudsperson that the rate of completion for form 5 is concerning and that Bill 32 has potentially created some uncertainty for involuntary care standards and if that needs to be further looked at and why no progress has been made on recommendation 19.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you again to the member for the focus on the importance of the proper and complete use of form 5s under the Mental Health Act that provide that direction for involuntary care. This was the focus of the Ombudsperson’s report in 2019 and then became, as I was just describing, the subject of work between the Ministry of Health and health authorities.

Now, since the report was released in 2019, the ministry and health authorities have been reporting their progress on the completion of all forms. There are six different forms typically used under the act, as the member knows. For example, starting in Q2 of 2020, forms 4.1 and 4.2 showed a 58 and 55 percent completion rate. But four years later, at Q2 2024, that had jumped to 89 and 91 percent.

With reference to form 5 specifically, in Q2 2020, the completion rate was just 27 percent. Now, that is clearly unacceptable. Two years later it had jumped to 49 percent. Two years after that again, Q2 2024, it’s up at 74 percent.

[11:35 a.m.]

After the amendments to the Mental Health Act last fall that the member and I debated here in this House, I issued a directive to all of the health authorities with my expectation that that work would continue to reach a 100 percent compliance rate. Now, I don’t have an updated figure newer than Q2 2024 to provide to the member, but certainly, as we receive that, just as we have with the completion rates from previous audits, we’ll make that public.

Claire Rattée: Moving on to a slightly different topic, did the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research receive approval from the ministry for a two-year extension to 2026 on the safe supply evaluation?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We tracked down the specifics, which are that, yes, the institute has received two separate one-year extensions for an evaluation of the prescribed alternatives program, and that now expires September 2026.

Claire Rattée: The FOI that I received indicated that the final report would have been completed March of this year, so I’m wondering if the report has been completed. And will it be made public?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The ministry has received an interim report, which is under review right now by the ministry staff. We’ve not received a final report. Of course, with the new September 2026 ending of the contract, we’ll expect to see further reporting by then.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members.

I’d like the legislative chamber to welcome the grade 6-7 class from Cinnabar Valley Elementary in my riding of Nanaimo–Gabriola Island, here with their teacher Tabitha Oakley.

We’re really glad that you’re here. You’re in the people’s House, and what you’re witnessing is an exchange between the Mental Health and Addictions critic for the Conservative opposition on this side asking questions of the Health Minister about her budget, focusing on the issues of mental health and addictions.

Sitting behind the minister are members of her public service. When a question is asked, then the minister asks her public service for advice. This is the opposite of question period, where everything happens really quickly. This is kind of like watching paint dry.

The critic has 15 minutes to ask her question. The minister has 15 minutes to answer her question. The purpose is to get as much information out…. It’s not really a debate; it’s an information-seeking exercise. This is like hour 3 of 18 hours of questions that the Health Minister will get. She’s elected in Tofino.

I’ll just say we’re really glad you’re here.

Thank you to the Chair for letting me introduce my school members.

Debate Continued

Claire Rattée: Sorry, I don’t know if I maybe missed it. I was asking if that report is going to be made public, whether it’s the interim report or the final report.

Hon. Josie Osborne: All along, the institute has been releasing some of the results as they’ve made findings in the work that they’ve done. Just noting the role of the federal government, too, in commissioning some of this work, they’ve also committed to publishing their results through peer-reviewed journals and papers. Certainly, that will be public.

[11:45 a.m.]

Some of the interim results are showing that prescribed alternatives are associated with substantial reductions in mortality and that clients are reporting reduced use of unregulated substances and better outcomes, particularly when the dosing is adequate and when they have stable housing as well — interesting initial results. I’m looking forward to seeing the continued reporting coming from the institute and the eventual publication, yes, of their findings.

Claire Rattée: We know right now that there are fewer people accessing safe supply or prescribed alternatives than there were at the peak of the program. It seems like that number is continuing to go down, based on what I’ve seen.

We also know that the government has spent roughly $8.87 million every year on safe supply. I’m wondering how much money is going to be allocated for that this year, given that we have fewer and fewer people accessing the program.

Hon. Josie Osborne: As the member indicates, the province has allocated $8.87 million per year to support both the prescribed alternative programs as well as the evaluation work that’s underway.

Also, as the member has indicated, the number of persons who are dispensed any prescribed alternatives — which in December 2025 was 3,409 individuals — is down from the number of people at the peak, when 5,189 were dispensed any prescribed alternatives. That was March 2023. The number of clinicians that are providing prescribed alternatives, as of December 2025, was also 685.

I do want to say, though, that in looking at the prescribed alternative program, it is also important to take into account other forms of treatment that are related to the care that these clients, these patients, are receiving. Together, co-prescribing opioid prescribed alternatives, for example, with opioid agonist treatment can form common practice and is helping patients adjust to OAT more quickly and to maintain their engagement with OAT.

When looking at the envelope of funding that provides this direct kind of care to British Columbians, I think it’s important to consider both those programs together.

[11:50 a.m.]

In December 2025, the same month for which I just cited the figure of 3,409 people who were dispensed prescribed alternatives, there were also, of those, 2,345 who were dispensed both PA and OAT within the same month. So 75 percent of people who were receiving an opioid prescribed alternative back in December 2025 were also receiving OAT at the same time.

Claire Rattée: I don’t understand. Does that mean that we’re not changing that budget, that the budget is staying the same? We’re spending the exact same amount even though there are far fewer people utilizing the program? I’m just trying to get clarity on how much money we’re anticipating to actually get spent on that this year. There’s no change?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yeah, the $8.87 million is an envelope of funding that is provided for the prescribed alternative program. Then as the number of patients who receive it fluctuates…. It may go up, it may come down, but it is encompassed within an envelope.

Now, if the number decreases and the expenses don’t total $8.87 million, well then, clearly there’s a surplus in that particular part of the Ministry of Health’s envelope. But we want to be sure that there is adequate funding for those individuals who are receiving this form of care, and it continues to be an important form of care for people.

Claire Rattée: Was there a surplus for that last year?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Because this most previous fiscal year, ’25-26, isn’t closed out, I cannot tell you what the total amount is yet.

But I can tell the member that in 2024-2025, for the opioid prescribed alternatives drug program, the subtotal was $17.3 million.

Claire Rattée: I want to ask some questions about Red Fish Healing Centre. It’s been several years since a second location was promised by this government. I asked in budget estimates a year ago about that second location, and I was told that the work was still underway to scout a new location. I recall being frustrated with that response at the time, and I’m going to be really frustrated if I get it again, because this is something that has been promised for several years now.

I’m hoping that the minister has an update on where we are at with the second location for that facility.

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Good news for the member.

This gives me an opportunity to talk about government’s progress with respect to expanding the model of care that Red Fish Centre in Coquitlam is providing. As the member knows, this is a mixture of involuntary and voluntary patients who are receiving the intense care — we would call it quaternary beds, in most cases — for people often with high-risk behaviours and who need high intensity of services, too, around concurrent disorders.

Now, we’ve spoken quite a bit in this House over the past year about the expansion of beds that can be used for involuntary care into Prince George and Surrey. The vision, really, is that these become like a hub-and-spoke model with Red Fish in Coquitlam, where the facilities in Prince George and in Surrey that are actively being planned right now for development and opening will provide that type of care for concurrent disorders. So while it may not be a Red Fish Healing Centre per se, again, it’s this hub-and-spoke model.

The work that Dr. Vigo has been doing in providing advice on this particular population of patients, the type of care that is needed and the importance of being able to provide that kind of care out in regional health authorities is really important.

We’ve seen incredible successes at the Red Fish Healing Centre, and knowing that we will be able to provide that model of care to a similar population of patients in those centres is an important part of expanding that model.

While I don’t have a precise estimate of the number of beds yet in those two centres, as the planning work is completed and government is able to make further announcements about exactly where those two projects are, of course, that will be released.

Then at the same time, Dr. Vigo continues to work together with the Ministry of Health and the health authorities about identifying further sites, next in Interior and in Vancouver Island Health Authority.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:57 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 16 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jessie Sunner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 16 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I will call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 16 to order.

On clause 7 (continued).

Larry Neufeld: I feel like I accomplished almost everything I needed to yesterday, so this will be a little quicker.

With respect to the conversation that we had yesterday, I was very happy to hear from the minister comments to the effect of flexibility. People can buy what they like. I very much agree with that. I’ve said it many times. If you choose to own an electric vehicle, absolutely, I support that 100 percent. And I’ve made very clear what my concerns are around mandating that.

[11:10 a.m.]

The minister did make some very interesting comments yesterday, and I’m pleased to hear them. I believe that February, if I was not mistaken, was a record sales month in the province.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: March. Thank you for that correction. Fantastic. Great.

My question to the minister is: if we’re setting records, why do we require a mandate when the market itself is making the decision?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s good to see you.

It’s good to see everybody. This is going to be a fun debate. I sensed that, and that’s why we’re drawing so well in the committee today.

The question is pretty straightforward.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It appears my fan club is on the other side.

But I’d say that what we intend to do with this mandate, understanding that EVs are good for our economy, are good for human health….

We, significantly, have had troubles, which I think everyone acknowledges, in terms of getting access to the cars. We want people to have the opportunity to buy. This is a moment when the price differential between EVs and other cars is declining, when the range of EVs is expanding. We want British Columbians to have an opportunity to participate, help us meet, yes, our economic and climate targets.

That’s why we’re proceeding with this legislation. The legislation strongly supports the purchase of EVs for all of the reasons I’ve described — the economic reasons, the climate action reasons, the health reasons. Less pollution is good for human health in a general sense. These are the reasons we’re doing it. Here and everywhere else in the world, they are recognizing that, through rapid, almost exponential growth of EVs.

There has been some change in the policy climate in the United States of America with respect to EVs. We have to recognize that. We had some short-term impacts, like the behaviour of Mr. Musk in the Trump administration, which dramatically hurt, at least for a period, the sales of Teslas in our province.

This is an opportunity for British Columbians. We want to make sure they have access to the cars, and that’s what the mandates do. They support the federal mandate. The federal mandate, effectively, using tailpipe emissions, to 75 percent in 2035…. We’re matching that. We’re saying that that is a target that allows us to be flexible, as the member suggests, and reasonable in the level we’re at.

But I’m very pleased that we’ve seen here, in the last month, a return and, indeed, an increase over what we saw at the beginning of the Trump administration, which had a negative short-term effect on sales here in British Columbia.

We’re No. 1 in Canada. But I’m not satisfied with being No. 1. We want to do better. I don’t think most people look at these questions and say: “I want to be better than Nova Scotia.” They want to say that we want to improve our economy and our health and our opportunities for people.

It is changing the marketplace and becoming more affordable, both for new car sales, which are affected here, but also through used car sales, a market I’m much more interested in myself. Used car sales, because we have now 229,000 EVs on the road and growing, are going to continue to climb as well.

Finally, I’d just note the important question of cost to drive and range, the improvements being made in EVs in our marketplace. We want to have access to that. Electricity is less volatile than gasoline, and I think there are a lot of people in British Columbia who wish, in the wake of what’s happening between the United States and Israel and Iran, that they owned an EV right now.

Just to put the number, there is a significant difference in costs at $1.40 a litre. There is below that, but at $1.40 a litre, there’s a significant increase, difference in cost, but we’re well above that now because of world market conditions. I think what this says is that we’re on the right track with this legislation, consistent with the federal government and giving opportunity to people in B.C.

Larry Neufeld: In response to the minister, I don’t disagree with a large portion of what he said.

My question actually, or my comment, is around…. If the market is already dictating a massive uptake, as we’ve identified in March, why do we require a mandate? Why don’t we allow the people to make their own decision to purchase these vehicles instead of forcing them to?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the people do make their decision, right? And I’m delighted in B.C. that we lead the country in EVs and we lead the country in hybrids. By definition, therefore, we’re lowest in the country in ICE vehicles. That’s what the people want to see, and I’m very proud of that.

What we need to do, though, is give people the opportunity, the idea. It’s in the not very recent past where people had to wait eight, nine, 12 months on a list to buy the EV that they want. Just as EVs, just at this time, are across the world becoming the vehicle of choice — and in many respects, the best cars — we want to make sure people have access here. That’s why we think the mandates, admittedly amended to reflect where we are, continue to be important.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Larry Neufeld: In the last response, the minister did speak of hybrids, and that is something I’ve recently looked at myself, quite honestly.

With respect to the hybrids — and I believe this fits better into clause 8 than it does 7, which is why I left the question — the request by the Premier of Ontario to the Premier of British Columbia over allowing hybrid vehicles to be included in the ZEV, in the mandate, would allow Canadians to purchase Canadian-built vehicles that would fit that mandate. I’m wondering if the minister would like to comment to that, please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I would be…. I’m surprised that the Premier of Ontario isn’t thanking the people of B.C. for buying so many Ontario-built hybrids, because people in B.C…. They’ve shown this again and again, recently, with respect, for example, to going to the United States to make purchases in response to our current circumstances with the American government. The people of B.C. have spoken. They’ve spoken about buying B.C.

They’ve taken action. We see this in the cross-border sales. We see it in the short-term visits. We see it in the visits to the United States. We see it in travel patterns, where in an unprecedented way, people in B.C. are shopping and vacationing in B.C. and in Canada, including Ontario.

So what I would say to the Premier of Ontario is that we have made changes to the law here, but we believe in EVs, and by the way, the Premier of Ontario should as well. The Premier of Ontario and his province have received very significant federal subsidies in this space. They’ve received very significant federal support.

I’m a Canadian. I want us to buy Canadian as much as possible, and I support when Ontario does well. But Ontario, to be frank, hasn’t delivered in this space as much as they should want to. They have a very poor charging network. I heard someone from Ontario say: “It’s colder in Toronto.” Well, it isn’t colder in Toronto than it is in Montreal. In Montreal, they’re doing three times as well here.

The benefit of Canadian automobile policy is primarily to Ontario, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. So I think that the Premier of Ontario and, I’m hopeful, the people of Ontario will do their share in helping us meet our national goals. It shouldn’t just be the people of B.C. standing up. The people of Ontario should have the opportunity to do their national goals, and I believe, knowing Ontarians, they absolutely want to do that if granted the opportunity.

I’m hopeful that the Premier of Ontario, consistent with his letter to the Premier of B.C., will do his part in doing what we’re doing, putting in place a remarkable charging system, the best in Canada here in B.C., and that he’ll follow the province of Quebec and support that system so that people in Toronto, in the Soo, in Sudbury and in Thunder Bay will do what we’re doing across British Columbia, which is improving the economy, improving human health — because they don’t produce gasoline in Ontario either — and improving affordability for people.

[11:20 a.m.]

I would encourage the Premier of Ontario not to express these views about legislation in B.C., although I welcome debate, and I’m delighted to hear from him.

I’m delighted to hear from colleagues across the country but also to participate in what we’re trying to do together as a country, which I think will set Canada apart from the United States and improve our economic, fiscal and personal resilience against the kind of shocks we’ve seen, including the intermittency of fossil fuels that we’ve seen as a result of the Iran war.

Rob Botterell: It’s certainly enjoyable to be here today to hear the answers to questions for the minister. It’s a highlight of the day.

I just wanted to raise a question. There are MLAs that have the privilege and the joy of living around Prince George and north of Prince George. Some of those MLAs are saying: “Electric vehicles, EVs — great idea, but certainly not in this part of B.C. because it gets cold here in the winter.”

Knowing that the minister has in-depth knowledge and appreciation of all of the benefits and challenges that EVs involve, I’m curious what the minister’s view is of EVs in northern B.C., considering that in Norway the average temperature in winter is minus 7 degrees and sometimes goes to minus 20 or 30. Passenger vehicles in Norway…. As I understand it, EVs are around 95 percent.

I don’t know if this has been canvassed before, but I’d like to raise just a question about temperature and EVs.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Interestingly, earlier in the debate, I was praising the hon. member in his profession. Perhaps his colleague will fill him in on that.

But I wanted to say a couple of things. As I was discussing yesterday, there’s a different car market in the Interior than here. I think we just have to acknowledge that there’s a dramatic…. Than here in Victoria and in Vancouver….

There are a lot of trucks in Victoria and Vancouver if you drive around. Of course there are. It’s a very popular thing for all kinds of reasons — work and personal preference. There are a lot of trucks here. But there are a lot more trucks…. It’s not a non-EV space, but it’s a less developed EV space. So it’s understandable that you would have a different approach in different parts of the province equally.

We have been and we’ve sort of completed the EV charging network…. We need to do a better job in regions of addressing that issue, especially when distances are longer and issues of range anxiety are more. We have to acknowledge that there’s a different reality in the North and EV sales reflect that reality and to be respectful of that, and that’s what we’re continuing to do.

What’s happening, though, and you’ll see this…. There’s a very significant article I recommend to the member today about the evolution in range and the reduction in price of EVs and the evolution in range, which is going to significantly improve that. What we need to do as a province is ensure that we have a charging network in the North worthy of our plan and our policies so it’s there for people who want to make that choice.

Secondly, technological improvements will improve the situation in the North now — both in terms of range and in terms of reliability, on these questions. So I think we have to understand the difference, respect the difference but pursue policies that allow the inevitable result, which is the increasing growth of EV sales across the province.

That’s the equality of the policy, I think, which is charging networks and access in ensuring that people have access to cars and trucks in different regions, while reflecting legitimate differences between regions and people’s circumstances in those regions and the nature of the car market in those regions.

I was telling people yesterday that the best lesson I ever got on the car market in B.C. was from Jim Pattison, who talked to me about trucks in some places and cars in some places and how people have different needs from their vehicles and different plans. I think we see that in different regions.

[11:25 a.m.]

But the overriding provincial policy should be to ensure that there is, absolutely, that opportunity in the North, and as circumstances change — especially on technology, especially on technology on different kinds of cars — that will be reflected in purchases as well.

Larry Neufeld: To the minister and perhaps a colleague to my left, I would like to tell a little story that I have told in the House before that might illustrate the differences between…. I don’t live north of Prince George. I, in fact, live at Mile Zero of the Alaska Highway, which I mentioned yesterday is a 2,400-ish kilometre road.

One of my typical days of work…. I’ve lived in the North my entire life, with the exception of my university days, and I’ve worked in the North for 33 years as a professional. I wouldn’t say a typical day. A reasonably common day would involve me getting into a vehicle at, say, 4:30 in the morning, driving eight hours to a job site — eight hours. It wasn’t minus 20. It was minus 35, minus 40. That eight-hour drive still didn’t get me to the northern border of this province.

I live a 14-hour drive from Vancouver. I live probably a ten- to 12-hour drive from the Northwest Territories. This is a massive province. It is an incredibly massive province. Where I was going is so far off the grid that we would call…. The only main thoroughfare would’ve been the Alaska Highway. Where I was going was probably four hours off of the highway. The likelihood of a fast-charging station in that area is beyond remote. I would suggest that….

The company that I was running at the time, we hired many, many young, fresh university graduates. I’ve said this in the House before when I’ve discussed this topic. We would never send someone out without spare fuel in their vehicle in the wintertime. It is literally life and death. At minus 40…. Yes, we have work clothing. We have supplies. How long are you going to survive in a howling wind at minus 40 without a heat source?

Again, the minister has recognized it, and I very much appreciate that. I live in a different part of the world, and rightfully or wrongfully, people might look at me strangely because I choose to be there. I love being there. That will never change.

My question — it is getting there. My question would be around the hybrids. Back to the scenario where we talked about why the hybrids are not included as an evolutionary step toward the full ZEV situation. For me, absolutely. Fantastic. Yes, I will send those young folk out there, and I will continue down that path, and I would own one myself. In fact, as I said earlier, I’ve been looking at it.

With respect to, again, the market forces driving it, is that something that the government is considering including? If not, why not?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I appreciate the member’s comments about some of the realities he’s facing. What I would say as well…. I won’t give him a hard time about, if you’re off grid, having a charging station that might be fuelled by propane. I won’t get into that discussion again, but it also raises questions of equality. It’s different, I agree, when you’re way off grid.

But if you’re, say, going to a worksite that has a lot of people working at it, that might make sense for people. That might make sense if they’re going to a worksite for 80 or 100 kilometres, meaning they’re spending much more of their money on transportation fuel, to give people that opportunity. I think his constituents should have that opportunity, whether they’re in Dawson Creek or they’re in Chetwynd or they’re in Tumbler or wherever they are. It’s not an issue.

That’s why I think the changes to the legislation are good, because we don’t get into this false debate. We get into a debate where we’re lifting all boats and giving opportunities everywhere, and we’re recognizing that because of some of the circumstances the member described, there are differences between what people wish.

There are also differences…. The member and I are of an age. I was born in 1964. He’s, I’m sure, a younger man than me. But still we’re of an age where the transition is more challenging.

[11:30 a.m.]

It is true. I don’t talk about gateway…. I never talked about gateways when I was Minister of Health, I think, but I’ll talk about it in terms of EVs. It may be the case, in some cases, that hybrids are, for some people, a gateway to moving to a full EV. As I mentioned, I personally drive a 2003 Nissan Sentra. For those of us who’ve driven ICE cars all our lives, in fact, it’s a harder transition to make, and sometimes the transition you’re seeing people make is hybrids first, then EVs second, and I welcome that.

I also welcome the fact that without incentives…. Hybrid cars have been effectively around in the marketplace much more significantly, much longer than EVs. There’s access to adequate hybrid cars in B.C. and, clearly, British Columbians, more than anyone else in the country, are not buying internal combustion engines in spite of the differences between the two. I think that’s an important consideration.

It might be better, if we were playing a numbers game, to say: “Oh, well, we’ve got EVs and hybrids. It’s not 25.3 percent; it’s 44.7 percent.” That may look better in my annual report, but the function here is to really make the savings that EVs bring and ensuring that people have access to EVs.

I’ll just say, finally, that we’re seeing the evolution of that market and what it will look like. We couldn’t have imagined, I think, EVs with the range we’re seeing now even five years ago. In some cases, on low-cost EVs, we’re seeing an increase in range of two, three, four times in the marketplace.

Equally, EV work trucks are evolving in the marketplace in many parts of the world. Especially parts of the world that are seeing advantageous…. They are seeing a lack right now, because of the disruption in the global energy market, of ICE cars or ICE trucks. So there are those developments of EV trucks and generating stations on worksites that will create more opportunities, not in every circumstance but in many circumstances.

Jeremy Valeriote: I didn’t think I was going to get sucked into this debate, but I declared my personal bias at second reading. I’m reminded of…. I’m of an age where I remember a show on NPR on Saturday mornings. It was two guys with thick New York accents, and the show was called Car Talk. I can’t do the accent, sorry. I feel like that’s the realm that we’ve entered.

But I’m going to continue, because I personally own an EV — thankfully with a range of 400 kilometres, compared to the 120 that I drove for a long time, which was horrible between Whistler and Vancouver — and I own a hybrid. And I love the EV.

I can’t stand the hybrid because it wants to turn its engine on at every moment — below 3 degrees, if I push the accelerator too fast, if I turn on the defrost. Every time the engine turns on, I know what I’m doing to our climate in a very small way, so I’m supportive of keeping hybrids out of this equation.

I’m going to draw the parallel between natural gas and coal. They might have been a great transition 20 or 30 years ago if we got on the ball on climate change and we weren’t trying to catch up too late, too fast. But I think they’re great for range anxiety. People are not quite there, but I don’t think they should ever be…. We’re talking about zero-emission vehicles, and a hybrid is definitely not that. In fact, my hybrid gets not that much better mileage than probably the minister’s 2003 Nissan Sentra.

I’m just going to move on to regional differences, and I’ll get to my question. I fully appreciate that if you’re starting out on the Alaska Highway, for the very small number of us that are doing that, or driving eight hours, this may not…. A truck with a range of 500 kilometres may not work for you, based on the charging capacity.

I do want to state for the record that in very cold temperatures, an EV is not suddenly a hunk of junk. We’re talking about maybe a 20 percent loss, maybe at maximum a 30 percent loss in range. So your 500 kilometres might go down to 350 kilometres.

I fully understand the reduction to 75 percent. It should include all those cases that the member is talking about — people who are in the North, not enough charging, driving hugely long distances.

[11:35 a.m.]

But I want to clarify with the minister. I feel like the remaining 25 percent can fully include people who are in those situations in the North. The member mentioned a row of F-150 Lightnings. That’s another one I’m actually interested in buying, although there seems to have been a stoppage in production of them.

Under this mandate, is there any reason why a car dealer in Prince George or Dawson Creek would have to line up a whole row of F-150 Lightnings only to be able to sell ICE cars? I don’t fully understand how that could occur within this equation.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer to the question is no, by the way. But I try to bring more to the table than just the no, so I’m going to say just a few more things.

There are many reasons why vehicle stock can be high or low at any given time. We have a lot of insight into this because of the really remarkable job the New Car Dealers Association has done in the promotion of EVs. They’ve been essential partners in that, and I want to say about them that the new car dealers around B.C. and in every region of B.C. have really been remarkable. They’ve joined with enthusiasm in this exercise, and they’re one of the main reasons why we’re No. 1 in Canada. Our car dealers have been, on this question for British Columbia, essential partners and important.

The stock can be high or low at a given time, including model-specific factors such as the announcement of new models and overall market conditions. According to the S&P Global, light-duty vehicle sales in Canada declined 2.4 percent in the first quarter of 2026. That suggests an impact on consumer demand, which is, we believe, rebounding in the second quarter in general.

For example, in B.C., the F-150 Lightning was one of the top-selling ZEV models in 2025, with over 1,950 sales. While this vehicle was purchased in all regions of the province, most sales occurred in the Lower Mainland — 69 percent.

When Ford announced the discontinuation of the F-150 Lightning in December 2025…. We may now be seeing the effects on consumer confidence contributing to slower sales and to higher dealer inventory. These factors happen in a marketplace like this.

There are, for example, 90 to 100 unsold Ford F-150 Lightning vehicles currently in inventory across the province, but relatively few of those are in the North. There are approximately, I believe, 20 in Prince George. So that tells you that what we’re seeing in the actual marketplace doesn’t reflect the legitimate concern that people would raise.

Larry Neufeld: Just for the record, I do have a different perspective that I’d like to share from that which was shared by the minister.

My understanding from local dealers is that they were being given an allocation by the manufacturer because the manufacturer is dictated to meet these numbers. In order for the dealer to receive X number of ICE vehicles, they were forced to take X number of electrics. That was my understanding of the situation that I described the other day with rows of them lined up. In the North, they weren’t selling.

I was wondering if the minister could comment on that, please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The ZEV Act does not require dealerships in the North to have certain percentages of ZEVs in their inventory. Auto manufacturers and dealers are responsible for determining which ZEVs are supplied for consumer sales in each region. This is for obvious reasons.

Overall, the largest number of ZEVs at the moment is sold in the Metro Vancouver region, as you’d expect. It’s the largest region but also the largest share. If you think of the Metro Vancouver region as having 56 percent of the province’s population…. It’s closer to 75, 77 percent of ZEV sales. So that reflects that, and we look at that as we develop policy.

[11:40 a.m.]

That said, I think it’s important that people in all regions have the same opportunities. That’s particularly true when there were provincial rebates. If people in the North who wanted to buy a ZEV couldn’t have access to it, I think the member, as a representative of the North, would legitimately say: “Well, what the heck?”

So that’s the way the policy works. One of the reasons it’s been so successful is the work with the New Car Dealers Association. I meet with car dealers regularly on this question, and I’m happy to meet with the car dealers the member refers to.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to move us on to the big picture on this. As stated, from our caucus’s point of view, a little disappointed in downgrading the 100 percent to 75 percent, but we understand the need for pragmatism and reality in the market. This clause removes interim targets and moves them into regulation.

We’ve talked about this in a briefing, but for the record, I’d like to make sure I understand the minister’s intentions for setting the levels of interim targets in regulation and how far in advance the intent is to set these interim targets.

If I can bolt on another question, what types of modelling or data will be looked at to set interim targets in regulation? Obviously, my concern here is that we’d just follow the market instead of setting aspirational targets for the market.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, first of all, the federal government has set its target, as the member will know, for 2035 at 75 percent, and we’ve mirrored that. It has some utility, I think, as it gets us off some debates where people say: “We won’t have a choice of what we’ll have access to.”

An aspirational goal. If we were to get there, the benefits for the economy of B.C., for affordability in B.C., for human health in B.C. — setting aside the climate action question, which is an important question as well — would be profound. I think that’s an ambitious goal for us to reach. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is we have said we’re not planning to follow the market, although I expect the market to respond. We’re actually seeing people setting the market themselves. That’s ultimately what’s going to drive sales as well. Making sure we have the availability of stock here, the advancement of lower-cost EVs, the increase in range of EVs — all of these are dynamically changing the market. We’re observing that here in British Columbia, in Canada, in North America and then in the world.

The changes that the federal government made, for example, in bringing in new — I think it’ll be 45,000 to 48,000, increasing to 68,000 — EVs from China, where, obviously, EVs have had a lot of success, have high range and low cost, will be a benefit, I think, to consumers of EVs and will benefit us in the marketplace. That’s the first set of things.

The second set of things is that the interim targets that the federal government is going to produce to get to 75 percent and that they’re preparing will come out soon. As I’ve said — the member and I have had this discussion before — it’s my preference for those targets to be aligned. If they’re looking at 75 percent by 2035, then the path there is one that we’re talking to them about and that they’re talking to us about. So there are not different targets in different years in different jurisdictions.

You bet I want to reach the targets. I think my view of targets, in a general sense, is that they should be aspirational but doable, and that’s what we’re seeking to do here.

Once the federal government publishes, and we expect that to be in June and July, its “Road to 2035,” which we’re also having input on, we’re going to try, as much as possible, to align to that road so that there aren’t two targets in the jurisdictions — understanding that, if the federal target is X in a given year, British Columbia is already far ahead of other jurisdictions. We’re already pulling more of our weight, and we’ll need to continue to do so.

Jeremy Valeriote: The removal of 100 percent, essentially, is a repeal of a ban on ICE vehicles, which, I think, is good for public perception, public relations and choice.

[11:45 a.m.]

Does the ministry have any internal modelling on when a 100 percent phase-out will happen, based on market conditions, following achieving the target of 75 percent ZEVs by 2035?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, but I would say 100 percent would have led to the phase-out of hybrid vehicles as well. This is an interesting fact as well. I think it makes sense to do that. We’re not modelled out from there. Obviously, we’re working with the federal government to do that. I would say that that would be an enormous achievement, to get there.

By the way, just to say on the record, I believe we’re going to get there. I think that ensuring that British Columbians have that option and alternative…. With the elimination of the price gap, the volatility in gasoline prices and the advantages of these cars, which are outstanding-performing vehicles, all of that’s a benefit. We won’t need to press anyone.

I’ll just move, perhaps, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.