Contents

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Don Prince

Hon. Rick Glumac: Last week we lost Don Prince. To know Don was to know Jackie and Don. They were together on every daily walk in Port Moody, on every adventure around the world and in every moment they shared.

He left us quietly, on his own terms, exactly as you’d expect of a man who lived his life with such quiet dignity. And Jackie was right there where she always was, by his side to the very end.

Jackie shared these words with me:

“Don was a proud Vancouver East Ender, yet he knew if we got together that it would mean he’d have to move to Port Moody. We met at a running club in Queens Park in 1994, and what a life we built from that moment. We shared so many wonderful running adventures, none more memorable than the Médoc marathon in the Bordeaux region of France.

“Don ran over 50 marathons, including Boston, and countless ultramarathons. The trails were truly his happy place. When a knee injury eventually took running from him, he didn’t step away. He showed up as a volunteer, cheering others across the finish line. We co-led a walking group at our local running store’s Tuesday evening clinic, insisting all the while that he wasn’t a leader, even as he led.

“Don gave generously to charities he believed in. He loved cars, birds, cruising, crib and poker, the newspaper crossword, our daily walks together and Rocky Point Ice Cream.”

[1:05 p.m.]

I knew Don for probably 20 years. He was a man of deep principle, someone who did things his own way, on his own terms, but whose heart was so generous. He gave so much of himself, quietly and without fanfare, to the people and to the causes that he believed in. Port Moody won’t ever be the same. I’ll miss him, and our community will miss him.

Don, we will never forget you.

Statements

Bhimrao Ambedkar

Sunita Dhir: Today I would like to pay tribute to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, lovingly remembered as Babasaheb Ambedkar, a visionary leader whose lifelong fight for equality, justice and human dignity continues to inspire generations around the world.

Born into a marginalized community and facing discrimination throughout his life, Dr. Ambedkar rose to become one of the most influential social reformers in history. He’s best known as the principal architect of the Constitution of India, for his tireless work to end caste discrimination and advance the rights of marginalized communities, women and workers. He believed deeply in the power of education, inclusion and equal opportunities for all.

In Vancouver, the legacy of Babasaheb lives on through the dedication and service of community organizations and leaders who continue to promote the teachings and values. I would especially like to recognize Chetna Association of Canada and Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha, Vancouver, Gilley Temple, for their important work in bringing communities together, preserving cultural heritage and advancing social harmony and empowerment.

As we honour Babasaheb Ambedkar, let us recommit ourselves to building communities rooted in compassion, equality and dignity for all. His legacy is not only part of history; it remains a guiding light for a more just and inclusive future.

Tributes

Nigel Woods and Kai Smart

Jeremy Valeriote: I attended two memorials in Whistler the weekend before last for very different people, both impressively well attended by hundreds of people. I wanted to mark these two very important people in the Sea to Sky community.

Nigel Woods lived to the age of 74, and he was a pillar of the Whistler community — first visited when he was a UVic student; founded Coastal Mountain Excavations, which shaped modern Whistler. It was Whistler’s oldest operating company.

From a chairlift, he spotted an island in Alpha Lake that he bought in 1974 for a sum unknown, but it had previously changed hands for $50. He built a home there, affectionately called Woods Island.

He was known in his family for his ZFL — zest for life. His daughter Carleigh said: “I’ve had friends only decide on their life partner because that person had the ZFL.” She said of Nigel: “You could be lined up in the village, 200 people deep, with little kids that are crying and it’s pouring down rain, and Nigel would be like: ‘It was the best day ever.’” There was always a silver lining.

It was said that if you rode a chairlift with him, he became your friend. And I have several people who told me examples of that.

His son Matt said he lived 100 lives in one, and he’ll be missed by his family and by the community.

Nigel was 74, which is still too early, but the hardest one for me was in the Whistler Conference Centre for 23-year-old Kai Smart, who is a rare breed.

He was born and raised in Whistler, the son of two Olympians, John and Julia, who were founders of Momentum Camps. Kai was first overall in B.C. as a competitive skier, and Kai and his brother Luke cut their teeth on the ski ramp their family had in the back of their house. Kai was a film-maker, focused on skiing but also on social and climate issues.

[1:10 p.m.]

Kai passed away from doing what he loved. He died from injuries he sustained in an avalanche while filming for a ski and climate film in Japan.

He’ll be sorely missed by his parents, John and Julia, and his brother, Luke.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

Talon Paul

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today with a pretty heavy heart to pay tribute to a very bright young man. Talon Paul was a son to Lauraleigh Paul, grandson to [an Indigenous language was spoken] of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm səlilwətaɬ Nations. He left us suddenly on May 4, 2026, at the age of 20 years old. He passed suddenly, and the family is gathering now in community. They have lit a fire for him, for his journey to meet our ancestors on the other side.

His mother writes:

“My sons are incredible humans. They make me so proud to be their mom. I am enlightened by their love and humbled by their wisdom. I’m inspired by their courage and determination to be true to themselves and each other. I have the utmost faith that they will always persevere and shine for their own destiny.

“They will never forget who they are, and as a family, we will reflect the love we need to heal and uplift our past, present and future. We can and we will get through anything we’re challenged by. Our ancestors have us, and we have each other.

“Prayers for my sons: may they always continue on the journey. Make their dreams come true. May they always have ancestral love and protection and know prosperous times for most of their being.

“I love the two of you with all of me.”

I just want to offer my prayers and my condolences to my dear friend Lauraleigh and for Koyas, who has lost a brother.

I just wanted to say those few words for them until I can be with them after the House adjourns.

Orders of the Day

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

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, estimates of the Legislative Assembly and the estimates of the officers of the Legislative Assembly.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

[1:15 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:16 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Public Safety and Solicitor General

The Chair: Members, I’ll call the Committee of Supply to order.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000.

The Chair: Did you have any opening remarks you’d like to make?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’m going to keep my opening remarks brief because I’d love to dedicate as much of our time together to the substance of the discussion and the debate. But I would just like to begin with a couple of acknowledgements.

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge my colleague across the aisle, the MLA for West Kelowna–Peachland, the critic for Public Safety, and all of his colleagues that will be participating in the estimates process for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to engage in discussion during committee stages of various bills. We’ve had the opportunity to meet with members of my team to offer technical briefings and have really appreciated the collegial, constructive discussions that we’ve been able to have around public safety, which is integral to the well-being of people in our province.

I’d also like to acknowledge the team from the ministry that will support me during estimates and also that works tirelessly every day with tremendous expertise and dedication to advance public safety for British Columbians.

Beside me, I’m joined by Deputy Solicitor General Tara Richards; by the assistant deputy minister of the policing and security branch and the director of policing and law enforcement services, Glen Lewis. Also behind me are Brian Sims and Jamie Lipp from the policing and security branch.

Then off to another room but who will be joining me throughout our discussions are a number of assistant deputy ministers: Erin Gunnarson of B.C. Corrections; Taryn Walsh of community safety and victim services branch; Dara Landry, who is ADM and executive financial officer of the corporate management services branch; Toby Louie, our ADM of RoadSafetyBC; Dr. Jatinder — also known as Taj — Baidwan, our chief coroner with the B.C. Coroners Service; David Hume, the ADM with the liquor and cannabis regulation branch; Megan Harris, the ADM with corporate strategic initiatives; as well as Rachel Chan, who is executive director of gambling supports division in the independent gambling control office.

They are supported by teams in Victoria and across the province that do their work with tremendous skill and commitment.

With that, I look forward to this estimates process.

[1:20 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: I have a few opening remarks too, if I may.

I just want to thank the minister and her staff for their preparations and attendance for these estimates regarding Budget 2026, as they relate to my role as His Majesty’s Official Opposition critic for Solicitor General and Public Safety.

Before I move into my lines of questioning, I have some brief remarks concerning my background with policing and public safety, which is perhaps why my side of the House sought fit to assign me to serve as critic for Solicitor General and Public Safety.

For those who are not aware, I served 19 years with the RCMP in Penticton, Kelowna, West Kelowna and Lake Country detachments. I was mainly involved with general duty policing. I was on bike patrol and downtown enforcement in Kelowna, where I dealt with the homeless population, nuisance calls in the downtown core related to small businesses and ensuring that they were safe, as well as drug and liquor enforcement — all while dealing with street-level drug addiction and drug trafficking.

I was on the crime reduction unit, dealing with problem residences across Kelowna, specifically dealing with property crime offences, where significant stolen property was being trafficked out of the residences, and specifically targeting prolific offenders.

I was also involved with the police and crisis team, or PACT, or the mental health car, where I rode around with a mental health nurse responding to mental health calls in Kelowna.

I was on the RCMP tactical team, or public order, where I received significant training and experience in dealing with public order events, such as protests and riots. This also resulted in emergency deployment for natural disasters all across B.C.

Finally, I was a road supervisor in Kelowna, supervising six constables. I know a little bit about front-line policing in British Columbia.

I would also like to recognize my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Panorama in his capacity as critic for community safety and transnational crime, with whom I have collaborated in our preparations for these estimates, also formerly with law enforcement, with the RCMP, which I know he will be able to explain himself.

Today we will start the work of oversight on the ministry operations vote in Budget 2026, with a focus on policing expenditures, public safety planning and the broader fiscal risks facing British Columbia.

This includes not only ongoing policing costs but also major event pressures, such as the upcoming FIFA World Cup. This will place significant and complex demands on our public safety system.

Across the province, we are seeing policing costs rise steadily, year over year. At the same time, municipalities are raising serious concerns about affordability. Staffing shortages remain persistent, and communities are questioning whether service levels are keeping pace with demand. These pressures are not occurring in isolation. They are compounded by large-scale event obligations that require substantial security planning, coordination and funding.

The World Cup provides a clear example of these challenges. Vancouver is set to host seven matches. While early projections place total event costs in the range of approximately $240 million to $260 million, there remains a significant lack of transparency around one of the most critical components — safety and security.

Historically, security represents one of the largest and most volatile cost drivers for events of this scale, yet there is no clear, defined public breakdown; no detailed risk adjustment estimate; and no clear contingency framework.

We have seen this pattern before. During the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, security costs escalated significantly beyond early projections, ultimately exceeding $900 million nationally.

Internationally, FIFA World Cup events have also demonstrated a consistent pattern of underestimating security expenditures early in the planning cycle.

With costs rising as risks evolve and operational requirements become clearer, at the same time, comparisons with other host jurisdictions raise further questions. Toronto, which is hosting six matches, has a higher overall projected cost range, and typical planning assumptions suggest that security can account for between 20 percent and 30 percent of total event costs.

In the United States, host cities often appear to carry lower local security costs, but this is largely due to the ability to draw an extensive federal security infrastructure, which reduces local expenditures but does not eliminate the underlying costs.

What this means for British Columbia is that taxpayers are likely more directly exposed to security cost risks, particularly if those risks are not fully disclosed or adequately planned for.

[1:25 p.m.]

Transparency is essential not only to ensure accountability but to allow municipalities, stakeholders and the public to understand the full scope of financial exposure.

The questions that I will follow with are designed to bring clarity to these issues. They focus on cost drivers, risk management, staffing capacity and the sustainability of current policing models. The goal is to ensure that public funds are being used effectively, that risks are clearly understood and that decisions made today do not create greater financial pressures in the future.

With that, I’d like to proceed with my questions.

Vancouver is scheduled to host seven FIFA World Cup matches at B.C. Place in 2026. Public reporting and government disclosures have placed total event costs in a broad range of approximately $49 million to $98 million and, in some cases, $260 million or more across all levels of government.

Updated projections in comparable jurisdictions suggest that costs continue to evolve as planning advances. Security is widely recognized as one of the largest cost drivers for mega-events, often representing between 20 percent and 30 percent of total expenditures in Canadian planning assumptions, and, in some international cases, exceeding initial projections significantly.

At present, there is no publicly released stand-alone security budget for the Vancouver matches. Security-related costs are expected to be embedded across multiple categories including policing, counterterrorism, venue security and crowd management.

Historical precedent — including the 2010 Olympic Games, where security costs exceeded $900 million nationally — demonstrates that early estimates frequently underestimate final expenditures due to evolving risk conditions, operational requirements and federal involvement.

Comparative analysis shows that Toronto, hosting six matches, has projected total costs in the range of approximately $300 million to $380 million, implying a substantial security component even without detailed public breakdowns.

In the U.S., host cities often rely on federal agencies and existing Homeland Security infrastructure, which can reduce the visibility of local costs but does not eliminate the overall expenditure. This creates a structural difference where Canadian jurisdictions may face more direct and transparent fiscal exposure.

Given these factors, the primary concern is not that Vancouver’s costs are necessarily out of line with peer cities but that the level of transparency, risk disclosure and contingency planning does not reflect the known volatility and scale of security expenditures for events of this magnitude.

So in the context of this budget, and taking into account FIFA events having a history of policing and security cost overruns, will there be cost overruns for FIFA in the policing and security context?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite for his introductory comments and also the question.

We are looking forward, in the province, to hosting the FIFA World Cup. This is a tremendously exciting opportunity for Vancouver, for British Columbia and for Canada, with an opportunity to shine a light on our tremendous province and generate significant economic benefits for the region in terms of jobs, investment and tourism. Ensuring a safe and secure games is a top priority for government and a firm commitment of government as well as this ministry.

I would like to confirm that planning has been underway for well over a year. Plans to ensure a secure games have been informed by extensive work between all three levels of government — municipal, provincial and federal — and multiple levels of policing.

[1:35 p.m.]

The Vancouver police department is the police of jurisdiction for FIFA, but B.C. RCMP are mobilized, as well as the federal RCMP.

The overall costs for safety and security continue to be informed by details that evolve as we get closer to the games and also taking into account perhaps changing geopolitical contexts. So we have committed to delivering, in the coming weeks, a comprehensive update as government, around costs, revenues and economic opportunities for FIFA, which will be delivered by the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and include significant updates related to the public safety costs.

I’d just also like to underscore that all levels of government are accountable and processes are in place to ensure accountability for the use of public funds. This work is prioritized. Plans are in place. A cost confirmation is thoroughly underway, and we look forward to a further update on this front.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister. Now, I just want to clarify a few things. There are a couple notes I was making as you were speaking there.

I understand how elaborate, obviously, planning is. That’s a reality for sure. But with the answer that you provided, it sounds like, and I want to be certain, either maybe you don’t know if there are overruns for FIFA…. It sounds like there’s a report coming out — I think you said in a few weeks — by the Ministry of Tourism. Is that not known currently by the government, or do you have any data on…?

My question to the minister: is there any data currently known by this government or by the minister’s ministry with respect to cost and if there are any overruns? Is that known now? Is it a no, or is it that we have to wait two weeks to find the answer?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question.

Elements of the costs are identified, have been planned for and are being refined as we get closer to the event. The member opposite acknowledged the complexity and the partnerships that characterize ensuring a safe and secured event of this scale, and specific aspects of cost-sharing between levels of government are being confirmed.

This will all be reflected in the comprehensive update that the government will be providing in the coming weeks around costs and revenues associated with the games.

Macklin McCall: I have to ask. Under the ministry’s operations vote in Budget 2026, what contingency funding has been set aside to address potential cost overruns in FIFA security planning?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The costs are not represented within the ministry’s operational budget. The funds for the games will be provided through the Ministry of Finance’s contingency vote.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister, for that.

Under the ministry’s operations vote in Budget 2026, what percentage of the total FIFA World Cup budget is currently allocated to policing and security functions?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As I’ve noted, the delivery of safe and secure World Cup games in B.C. relies on partnership between multiple levels of government and police, including the VPD, provincial police service, the RCMP and also the federal RCMP.

[1:50 p.m.]

The safety and security actions for FIFA will engage the provincial police service, which is a portion of the ministry’s budget. We will be, as I have noted, providing an update in the coming weeks that includes the details about the costs and revenues for these games.

Macklin McCall: That’s two questions where the plan or the report from tourism is coming in a few weeks. I’m going to assume that unless…. Correct me if this is incorrect, but perhaps the minister doesn’t know the answer to the question with respect to what percentage of the total FIFA World Cup budget is currently allocated.

I understand the original response, where, potentially, there’s more coming. But if I’m understanding the minister correctly, then currently it’s not known. That’s what I’m getting out of that. Correct me if I’m wrong in what I’m hearing.

I’ll move to the next question. Under the ministry’s operations vote in Budget 2026, why has the ministry not released a stand-alone security cost estimate for the Vancouver matches?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the questions.

I think it’s important to make a distinction. The costs to deliver safety and security for the games are not unknown. They are being refined in partnership with the levels of government that are engaged in planning and delivery of safe and secure games, being informed by the risk assessment that remains an evolving aspect of security planning, alongside an evolving geopolitical context and also as details of cost-sharing between partners are worked out.

But I think it is an important distinction that the costs are not unknown. They are being refined, and they will be shared in the coming weeks in the form of a comprehensive update from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the clarification, Minister.

My question for the minister is: how many ministries are going to be paying a portion of the FIFA security and policing costs?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: To restate an answer I provided earlier, the funds are being provided under the Ministry of Finance’s contingency vote.

Larry Neufeld: Regrettably, I’m out of time as far as waiting for my companion to come and introduce his class. I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Larry Neufeld: This is actually a colleague of mine’s class. Unfortunately, he can’t get here in time, so I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome the Southpointe Academy — 38 people, 34 grade 5s and grade 4s. I understand they’re on the government side at the moment. The MLA is Ian Paton.

I’d also like to have the House give a very warm welcome to the Southpointe Academy students and teacher Susan Hammerberg. Please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Macklin McCall: Why is the Minister of Tourism providing an update or a report on safety and security for FIFA, and not the Minister for Public Safety?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, in the update offered within the coming weeks, will provide an update about all costs, inclusive of public safety but all costs broadly, revenues and economic benefits that relate to the FIFA World Cup games.

Macklin McCall: Under the ministry’s operation vote in Budget 2026, can the minister provide a breakdown of security-related costs, including policing, counterterrorism, venue security and crowd management?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question, which I do think reflects and speaks to the complexity of planning and delivery of safe and secure games and also reflects the partnership across levels of government that is key to this work.

Things such as counterterrorism and border security, which are engaged in this work, are matters of federal jurisdiction. So as I’ve already noted, the cost-sharing and the costs that are being refined as we get closer to the event will be shared, and they continue to evolve in cooperation with our federal partners and as details are finalized in the lead-up to the games.

Macklin McCall: I just want to add something to that previous question. I asked about if the minister can provide a breakdown of security-related costs, including policing, counterterrorism, venue security and crowd management — pretty important things with a large venue with a lot of people. I appreciate the response from the minister for that.

With the previous responses, I just want to, for clarity’s sake, ask a follow-up, really, to that question. With what the minister said, then, will that information for those specific items be coming in the updates or the report from the Minister of Tourism?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think, as the member can appreciate, given his law enforcement background, there are certain security sensitivities related to information that informs the planning for safety and security for the games, and we’ll be able to provide the level of detail, as much detail as possible and as appropriate, given those sensitivities.

Some of the items that the member references in his question, such as counterterrorism, relate to matters of federal jurisdiction and so would not necessarily be part of the update that I referenced that the province will be provided.

But I can offer assurances that all expenditures and revenues are being carefully managed to ensure transparency, accountability and value for taxpayers.

Macklin McCall: Now, the event is five weeks out, I believe — five to four or 4½. It’s coming pretty quickly here, and the minister says that it’s still being planned.

Why isn’t the minister involved in the FIFA security, since it’s really her file? How involved is the minister in preparation for FIFA?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, I have been intimately engaged with planning and oversight related to safety and security for the World Cup from the early days of my appointment. Conversations with the federal Public Safety Minister and discussions between senior ministry staff and senior Ministry of Public Safety officials have been ongoing and really taking place on an almost daily basis.

The integrated safety and security unit was established to provide overall leadership, accountability and coordination for safety and security for the games.

[2:15 p.m.]

As I’ve stated, the VPD is the police of jurisdiction and sits on the ISSU, along with city of Vancouver. Representatives from my ministry and members of VPD and RCMP E division are also regularly in contact, not only with national partners but also with international partners and, for instance, other host cities related to the games.

So this is something that my team at the ministry is engaged with on a really ongoing basis. Again, we have a deep commitment to the safety and security of visitors, of athletes, of residents, of communities during the FIFA World Cup games.

Macklin McCall: Thank you to the minister for the response.

Now, we’re here with the budget, talking about dollars, and I haven’t really got any figures yet, so I just want to tweak my next question a little bit here. Can the minister state what assumptions were used in estimating FIFA-related security costs, including risk levels, staffing requirements and federal participation?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As we know, FIFA World Cup ’26 is the largest international sporting event in the world. Hosting it here in B.C. and Vancouver will be truly a once-in-a-generation opportunity for all British Columbians, especially those who love the game of soccer.

There are a number of assumptions that have guided our planning, and first and foremost is that our goal is to ensure safe and secure games for all, not only the fans and the athletes and visitors but also for communities of residents and people that are in the host city at all times.

I think another assumption is that we are, in hosting these events, truly on both the national stage and the international stage. Because of that, the planning needs to be deeply informed by the changing geopolitical landscape, by national factors.

Also, I think, core to the assumption is that planning and delivering a safe games requires collaboration and partnership. This goes beyond the VPD, which is the police of jurisdiction. This involves, as I’ve stated, provincial and federal police forces. We’ve had an assumption from the beginning of a strong federal partnership, that that would be needed, so we are grateful for that strong partnership that we have from all levels of government and all levels of police agencies.

Macklin McCall: The previous answer…. Asking about the minister’s involvement in planning and this type of thing, the minister said specifically…. “Intimately engaged” were the words that the minister used.

I just am wondering if the minister can…? In what ways specifically? Can the minister provide examples of how she’s intimately engaged in the planning? If the minister is intimately engaged in the planning of FIFA, then why don’t we have the numbers?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think, in my previous answer, I had an opportunity to touch on the work that has been underway that I have been involved with as minister. We pointed to my engagement of my federal counterpart at Public Safety Canada, as well as the commissioner of the federal RCMP. I was recently in Ottawa back in March meeting with both the Public Safety Canada Minister and Commissioner Duheme on matters related to FIFA.

Also, as minister, I have oversight of teams that are working in a very direct way on matters of planning and risk assessment with, of course, our police partners. We’ve talked about the police partners that are involved in this work, in the planning and preparations and in the delivery of safe games. When it comes to the integrated safety and security unit, the work of the VPD, of the RCMP, I have tremendous confidence in their skill, in their expertise that is key to the planning and the delivery of these games.

I also meet regularly with ministry counterparts, with other cabinet ministers with a role in the FIFA World Cup games and the province’s engagement with this file.

[2:30 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the response from the minister on that.

I appreciate the minister has said she’s met with a lot of key stakeholders, important players at multiple levels of government, international, and so on, as there’s a lot of planning, obviously, that goes into an event like this, and I appreciate that.

With all the engagement and the planning and the meetings that have gone on with those individuals, police partners, and so on…. All the meetings have happened, as the minister has said in a couple of her answers, but there has not been any real discussion here so far with respect to any budgetary facts.

With all of that said by the minister, is there anything with respect to the budget specifically for FIFA, with those meetings, that the minister could provide?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I have engaged directly and extensively with the federal government on matters that informed their commitment with regard to federal policing and was very pleased with the federal government’s commitment of $100 million for FIFA World Cup safety and security activities in B.C. That was certainly something that was discussed and, again, is key and reflective of the partnership that is at play here in ensuring a safe and secure games of notable stature for the province and significance for Canada generally.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister give an update on funding the FIFA president’s motorcade, or is that still in planning?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: This type of security assessment attached to the request of the president of FIFA is made by police. This would fall under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver police department. It’s my understanding that the VPD has commented on the request and indicated that there would not be the detail that has been requested.

Macklin McCall: My question to the minister. What portion of FIFA security costs is expected to be funded by the federal government versus the province and the municipalities?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. There isn’t a predetermined formula in terms of the cost breakdown between federal, provincial and municipal partners. This can really depend on the services that are engaged, based on risk assessments and other factors that are dynamic.

I’ve mentioned that planning is being refined until the games commence, but I should also note that planning is being assessed and refined during the games, on an ongoing basis by all partners.

I’ve noted the important coordination role of the integrated safety and security unit. But the ministry has a seat at that table and is part of the ongoing daily monitoring and assessment of measures and related costs that take place throughout the games as well. So that really speaks to the responsive nature of planning for the delivery of safe games and for an event of this scale that involves the police partnerships and the government partnerships that are so core to a successful and safe games.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister explain how the $100 million from the federal government will be spent?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The contribution of up to $100 million from the federal government is for our enhanced security operations related to the games. We are currently finalizing details of that contribution with our federal partners.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister state what lessons from the 2010 Olympic Games have been incorporated into FIFA security planning to prevent cost overruns?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I do appreciate this question because it really speaks to the elements that are engaged in planning and delivering a safe and secure games.

Really, planning takes into account lessons learned not only from events such as the 2010 Olympics but also from other World Cup host cities, from other major events. The landscape for protests has changed in the last 16 years. So all of that collective and evolving knowledge and expertise of our law enforcement partners and of the ministry is contributing to these games.

We will also be drawing on lessons learned managing all expenditures and revenues to ensure transparency and accountability and, importantly, value for taxpayers.

Macklin McCall: My next question. How will increases in threat levels, protest activity or geopolitical risk impact projected security costs?

[2:55 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for this question, which, I think, also speaks to the partnerships and the responsiveness that are so important to the delivery of safe games.

I’ve spoken of, and the member references, a changing geopolitical landscape that informs planning. Police are certainly engaged in monitoring threats on local, national and international levels. Planning is directly responsive to their assessments of risk levels in all three areas. Police have been, and will continue to be, responsive to those analyses as their work progresses.

I’ve touched on the partnership that we have with the federal RCMP. I think this is such an important opportunity to underscore just how important that partnership is. That partnership means that we’re able to draw on their resources and their expertise in terms of intelligence, for instance, or in terms of specialized units.

In my conversations with the federal Public Safety Minister, with the commissioner of the RCMP, with the deputy commissioner of E division, I’ve received a strong and a clear message that our federal police are there to support B.C., to support the VPD in the delivery of safe and successful games.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister confirm what safeguards are in place to ensure that FIFA-related policing costs do not reduce core policing services elsewhere in British Columbia?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. That really speaks to, again, the complexity of this work and also the importance of coordination with all parties.

In terms of a commitment to safety and security, that includes not just for the games themselves but, of course, reflects the need to maintain safety in communities and also takes into account the potential need to mobilize police in the event of an emergency. We know that FIFA is taking place during wildfire season in this province, so planning includes those factors as well.

[3:05 p.m.]

Because of our deep and our ongoing engagement with our partners in government and with multiple levels of law enforcement, we do have a commitment from the highest levels within the RCMP and within the government of Canada to ensure that, really, the requisite and appropriate resources for safety and security during FIFA World Cup are there and also that resources are there to respond to regular policing responsibilities and any emergencies in the province as necessary.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Minister.

My follow-up question to the minister: what impact will FIFA-related deployments have on staffing levels and overtime costs within RCMP, and what is the province doing to ensure costs are not downloaded onto municipalities?

[3:10 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: We’ve spoken about the Vancouver police department being the police of jurisdiction.

In addition to their own resources, the VPD has requested significant resources from the RCMP as the provincial police service. For municipalities, their costs are really governed by the contract that they have for RCMP policing. Those agreements, those contracts, do exist.

We do know that RCMP from beyond B.C. will also be brought into B.C., as needed, to support public safety.

I think another key point is that very highly detailed planning has gone into ensuring that there are safe and cost-effective games for all parties.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate the response from the minister. That doesn’t exactly answer the question, and I just want to expand on it, because I think this is a very important point to ensure we have correct.

I know and I understand that nationally, outside of British Columbia, more resources are being brought in. I’m going to put those aside and not focus on those in my question. I just want to focus specifically on British Columbia resources.

Yes, the VPD are the police of jurisdiction. We’ll exclude the VPD and municipal police. I just want to focus on RCMP — more specifically, as the minister said, the provincial RCMP. So provincial resources, as E division of B.C. RCMP, will be pulling resources to deploy into Vancouver. That’s essentially what the minister said.

I want to focus specifically on the provincial RCMP officers and then kind of segue back into the original question, just for clarity’s sake. I’m hoping the minister can provide an answer specific to this.

With respect to those provincial RCMP officers, the minister confirmed that resources from those detachments and those provincial units, whatever E division decides to do, will be pulling resources to Vancouver. That means there’ll be vacancies across the province at those RCMP detachments to deal with the event in Vancouver.

My original question…. And I’ll ask it again with that. I explained it a little more, so hopefully it makes more sense in terms of the E division resources.

What’s being done to ensure that those detachments across British Columbia that are giving up resources to go to Vancouver — that they have resources, enough police, to adequately police those communities and that those municipalities that are providing provincial police officers are not…? What is the province doing to ensure that those municipalities aren’t covering overtime costs and all of the other things that will be associated to adequately police those provincial detachments?

[3:20 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I think the response really reflects the strength of the RCMP in that they have profound expertise and deep experience in ensuring safety for large-scale events while also ensuring safety in communities and balancing that essential work of being able to be responsive to emerging needs, responsive in the case of an emergency, for instance, while also maintaining adequate and effective policing in communities.

The RCMP has given assurances that they will ensure that there will be adequate members in communities to ensure adequate and effective policing.

The oversight of that is really core to the work that we do at the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General in terms of our superintendents of policing. That happens in a very deep and ongoing way in terms of the superintendents and the assessment of any vacancies, for instance, or any shift in members to other jurisdictions.

That work is essential to ensuring that we deliver safe games and cost-effective games. The RCMP’s key role in this, and its ability to play such a key role in the safety for the games themselves and also the safety for British Columbians broadly, is really integral to our planning for the FIFA World Cup.

Macklin McCall: That doesn’t really answer my question. I appreciate the answer from the minister.

My question really was specifically about…. I know RCMP members are going to be moved around. I know that will be happening. It was specifically about the municipality. When officers are taken from the municipality to put them in Vancouver…. If you have ten RCMP officers in any community, let’s say, and two of those officers go to Vancouver, there are now two officers missing.

So the policing…. And even the minister spoke of wildfires and policing. I mean, it’s going to be in June. It’s going to be pretty busy. Those policing needs will probably increase. They’re probably not going to be going down.

Now, let’s say two officers have left. That municipality still has the policing needs, but they’re missing two officers, so those officers have to be replaced. I’m quite confident the RCMP could find bodies to fill that, but my question really is about who’s paying for that. Does the province cover those costs because the province is taking their officers from the municipality, or do the municipality and taxpayers in said community have to pay the cost because the province is pulling those RCMP resources away?

So can the minister just clarify that, specifically about the cost for those officers and if it’s on the backs of taxpayers in that municipality or if the province is paying for those officers.

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much to the member opposite.

First, I want to underscore the importance of…. Any decisions around shifting resources between communities is underpinned by the RCMP’s commitment to maintaining adequate and effective policing in communities and the role of the ministry in superintending that and ensuring that there is indeed adequate and effective levels of policing in communities.

For the deployment of officers, specifically for the FIFA World Cup, there is an approach, a very detailed approach, to shifting for officers that is in place to really mitigate against and minimize the possibilities of overtime.

Any considerations related to the movement of any resources is laid out in the policing agreement that the municipality has signed onto. So there would not be any surprises for the municipality in terms of a number of officers that would be deployed or in terms of any costs that would be incurred by the municipalities. That agreement is core to the cost and considerations relating to any movement of officers from a municipality to another community.

[3:40 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the response from the minister. I would have a follow-up question with this, and I have a few others that I would like to go into. However, I just want to say something with respect to what the minister said.

Thank you for the response, but I don’t believe that’s entirely accurate, and I would be asking more questions to really clarify this. As I said in my introduction, my opening…. I did state, and I wanted to say, that I was actually part of a provincial unit with the tac team, with the riot police, and was moved all over the province and know that very well.

I know that not all are RCMP detachments. We have municipal. We have provincial. I know that there are often some concerns where RCMP members are moved. I would like to go deeper into that question, just to summarize, basically, what I could say on this. But I’m not going to have the time to do that right now because I want to be respectful to my colleague, the MLA for Surrey-Panorama.

I just really want to quickly summarize. It’s been two hours that we’ve been speaking here, specifically on FIFA. At no time with my questions have I received any real numbers with respect to the budget.

I did indicate some numbers in my opening, and that’s been really it. I do understand the complexities of such a major event, and I agree with the minister on that. However, I haven’t really had a lot of answers with respect to dollars. This is budget estimates, and there’s been none of that.

I’m hoping, because the minister has said that there isn’t anything as of right now…. That’s what I get from what the minister has indicated. We’re five weeks out from FIFA, and we are a few weeks away until the report from the Minister of Tourism, so I’m hoping that there’s some more information here with respect to the costs and the breakdown of security for FIFA.

But as I said, I want to pass it over to the MLA for Surrey-Panorama.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Recognizing Surrey-Panorama.

Bryan Tepper: Hon. Chair, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Before I continue with my questions, I think it’s important that this House understand the perspective I bring to this debate.

I’m the MLA for Surrey-Panorama, but before I was elected to serve the people of British Columbia in this chamber, I served them as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I didn’t learn about policing from briefing notes. I learned about it on the streets of Surrey and the interior lands of the Williams Lake detachment. I served in E division in a counterterrorism unit, working to keep British Columbians safe from some of the most serious threats our province has faced.

I worked with the drug section in Surrey, investigating organized crime networks, dismantling drug operations and understanding how these criminal enterprises function from the inside. I worked in various plainclothes roles in Surrey during the gang conflict. I was on the ground during some of the most violent periods in Surrey’s history.

I know these networks. I know how they recruit. I know how they operate. I know their tactics, their structures and their vulnerabilities.

I retired as a sergeant in the Surrey RCMP, not behind a desk in Victoria but leading officers on the front line of one of the most challenging policing environments in Canada.

I was in charge of a district office in Guildford, engaging directly with the community. I sat down with business owners, with families, with community leaders. I listened to their concerns. I worked with them to find solutions. I built the relationships that are essential to effective policing.

I partook in quality assurance reviews for Surrey detachment, auditing the files, practices and policy of the largest RCMP detachment in Canada. That means I reviewed complex investigations, assessed operational procedures, identified systemic gaps and ensured accountability. I didn’t just do police work. I evaluated it at the highest level.

Perhaps most relevantly to this chamber, I served as treasurer of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada when we took the government to court for the right to associate, and we won.

[3:45 p.m.]

I understand the intersection of policing and politics. I understand what happens when governments make decisions that affect front-line officers without understanding the operational realities.

When I ask questions about policing, about organized crime, about community safety, about the gang and extortion crisis affecting our communities, I’m asking from a foundation of direct, hands-on experience. I’ve worked counterterrorism. I’ve investigated drug trafficking. I’ve disrupted gang operations. I’ve led officers. I’ve engaged communities. I’ve audited the largest detachment in the country.

I know what works and what doesn’t. I know the difference between political announcements and operational capacity. I know the difference between authorized positions and boots on the ground. I know the difference between a task force that gets results and a task force that gets press coverage.

I bring that experience to this House not to grandstand but to ensure the decisions we make here are grounded in operational reality, not political convenience. The people of Surrey and the people of British Columbia deserve evidence-based policy informed by people who have actually done the work. That’s the standard I hold myself to, and that’s the standard I expect from this government.

While I always strive for collegial discussion, I understand that this might get a little bit spicy. I do understand that a lot of these problems came from the current Minister of Transportation when he was Solicitor General and we had this transition in Surrey that was a real problem.

I have a lot of questions. I did give the minister a heads-up on a lot of the numbers that we may need, so hopefully, we can move just a little bit quicker while we’re doing this.

My first question would be: how many provincial RCMP officers do we have in B.C.?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Could I ask the member to repeat the question at the very end?

Bryan Tepper: How many provincial RCMP officers do we have in B.C.?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much to the member for the question.

The number of established members in the provincial RCMP as of January 1, 2026, is 2,400, and this does not include the provincial unit that is providing supports in Surrey during the police transition.

Bryan Tepper: How many positions did we have ten years ago?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just hoping for clarification on whether the member is referring to the established members ten years ago or the authorized strength ten years ago.

Bryan Tepper: I’d like to go with the authorized strength from both numbers, if that would be convenient.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The provincial annex, which was established as part of the 2012 provincial police service agreement, authorized 2,602 provincial members, and this number has remained the same since 2012.

It’s important to note, though, that while the authorized strength of the PPS has not changed, the province has made significant investments to ensure that that authorized strength is funded to its full complement — this was a significant advance that has been made — and that strategic and targeted investments have been made into provincewide teams, such as the provincial support team, the emergency response team, the major crimes unit, that provide really important and necessary capacity and expertise that supports community safety across our province.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

The 2,602 — there have been a few questions in question period and in the media where this minister has said that we’ve expanded and put in record amounts of spending into policing, into expanding that number. But if the number is the same, can I get an explanation as to how we’ve spent, from what I gather, double the amount of money but still have the same authorized strength?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I believe the comments that the member referred to that have been made previously in question periods and other discussions have not been that we have expanded the authorized strength. My previous answer spoke to the authorized strength being at that same level of 2,602.

What I have spoken about are the significant steps that we have taken to ensure that the authorized strength is funded to its full complement. This is that historic $230 million investment that I’ve often spoken about in this House, which has rolled out over three years as part of the province’s safer communities action plan. This investment was really about addressing long-standing staffing gaps, particularly in rural and remote communities, and we’ve had a chance in this House to talk about the distinct needs of rural and remote communities.

This investment is to address those vacancies and also to either stand up or to expand specialized investigative units. Even though we have seen rising inflation and investigative costs, the provincial police service is now close to its full authorized strength, with 256 additional members and 80 additional support staff that have now been hired.

This is significant work, so I don’t agree with the member’s characterization that there has been no change in terms of the policing levels in the province.

I’d like to speak about what this looks like on the ground in communities. Really, we have increased the resources, as I’ve noted, for rural and remote communities. As an example, 16 members have been added to provincial units across 15 communities, ranging from Agassiz to Vanderhoof.

Substantial additions in serious and organized crime in 2018 were made, such as additions to the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, which is the largest integrated unit in Canada directed to combatting organized crime, and also in units such as the anti-human trafficking unit, the illegal firearms enforcement unit and also the work of the uniform gang enforcement team.

We’ve also added 40 front-line members in 2019 in provincial units across 22 communities in our province, from Burns Lake all the way to 100 Mile and Agassiz.

These are really significant investments, and I’m happy to go into further detail, that really have brought the level of police in communities — ensuring that we have safe, thriving communities — to higher levels than they have ever been.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you to the minister. I think I understand that a previous minister, it sounds like, had not funded these positions, and now we are actually getting funding for them. I understand that. It works out very well.

I want to change gears a little bit and go to the Surrey police service. In 2019, I was looking at the transition, once again, that was overseen by the current Minister of Transportation, funny enough, who said this would be, I believe, a three-year transition. I was looking at it and looking from the outside, figuring it looked like, at the current recruitment rate they had, a 12-year process. Well, we are now at eight years, and we are not there yet — eight years of this transition.

Are we on a faster schedule than my 2019 projection of 12 years, or are we tracking slower than that?

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

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question about the Surrey transition, the transition from the RCMP to the Surrey police service, which, as the member knows, was initiated by the former mayor of Surrey and is unprecedented in terms of its scale and, really, in all aspects of this transition.

The transition continues towards completion, with the SPS now as the city’s police agency of jurisdiction and also supported by the RCMP, which is providing temporary transitional assistance. There have never been more officers deployed than there are currently in Surrey.

The transition completion really depends on the SPS expanding gradually to assume all remaining policing responsibilities in Surrey while the RCMP safely demobilizes in a measured manner that ensures continued stability in Surrey and broadly in B.C.

The provincial oversight and superintendence of the transition continues. That really is the province’s role — one of superintendence and oversight. We are working with all parties. The city, SPS, the RCMP have all been at the table and continue to be at the table so that the transition can be completed in a timely manner, with safety for the residents of Surrey as our North Star. Our commitment has been clear and steadfast that we will ensure that Surrey residents and officers are safe throughout the transition.

Bryan Tepper: As of January 25, 2025…. I think that’s supposed to be 2026, actually. The number the minister’s office had provided was 485 sworn Surrey police service officers.

Do we know how many there are as of today? I think you said they would have that number for today.

The Chair: Member, the team has requested a brief five-minute recess. We are going to take this chamber into recess for five minutes, and we’ll be right back.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call the chamber back to order where we are contemplating the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety. The minister is just taking some time to answer a question that was posed before our recess.

Hon. Nina Krieger: The most recent figure I’m able to share now is from April 1, 2026, and it includes soft vacancies and recruits in training. There were 850 local police officers in Surrey, and of these, 626 are SPS, and 223 are RCMP members assigned to provide temporary assistance.

[4:25 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: I’ve got a question about the breakdown of SPS by rank. Perhaps I could just ask: does the minister have the numbers for those? If they don’t, I don’t want to waste too much time on that.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I am able to share these numbers. There are 33 inspectors to chief constables — these are commissioned officers — 138 staff sergeants and sergeants and 454 constables, and this number includes just over 50 recruits that are currently in JIBC training. This adds up to 625, and then the difference to 626 is made up by the chief constable.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you very much for that answer.

I’m just checking, and I’m going to, again, try and speed this up a little bit because I did ask for the Vancouver numbers as well.

To skip all of the rest of it and get right down to it, the number’s slightly different from what was provided to me earlier on from another source, but very close. About 65 percent of the Surrey police service is constables, whereas you go to the Vancouver police department and 82½ percent of their force becomes constables.

[4:30 p.m.]

So my question, I guess, would be: is anybody overseeing who’s getting hired and why we’re basically so top-heavy and lacking in constables to actually do a lot of the front-line work in Surrey?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I do appreciate the question.

Both the Vancouver police department and Surrey police service do work policing very large urban communities. I do think it is important, though, to keep in mind that SPS is really a new and an evolving police service.

I think the balance between staffing that the member noted really reflects the need and the reality of building a police service from the ground up. That means ensuring that there are the appropriate policies and structures and training. That structure needs to be there, and it continues to be relied upon as SPS continues to grow.

In terms of oversight, under the Police Act, the board plays a key role in ensuring oversight and accountability to the public as well.

Bryan Tepper: I do appreciate that answer — a minister that does recognize the reality of growing a police force. So that answer is more than welcome, because clearly, it was not the original thought when this force was put into place through this government.

Again, thank you for that answer.

I’d like to now turn to police training capacity. I think we’ve got a little bit of a disturbing pattern of, again, why we don’t have the constables coming through like we should.

[4:35 p.m.]

I will ask…. The Justice Institute was able to graduate 192 officers in 2024. In 2025, we were told the capacity would be raised to 288 officers. So has that capacity increase been achieved?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The short answer to the question is yes, and this is work that I think we’re particularly proud of. I hear from police of jurisdiction, I hear from municipal leaders, from community members about the challenges around recruitment and retention of officers.

Endeavouring to be responsive to what we were hearing was really behind our province’s investment of $4 million to expand the training at the JIBC by 50 percent for the 2025-26 academic year from 192 to 288 officers. That was realized through the one-time investment.

Some of that investment included infrastructure that the JIBC was able to leverage further to further increase the Police Academy class size from 96 to 144. This means that as many as 432 trained police recruits will graduate from the academy in any given year. I’m pleased that the first expanded class will, in fact, begin on Monday.

This really reflects, I think, strong partnership and real work between the JIBC, between municipal police agencies, chiefs, boards and police associations, and really is important to ensuring that we have trained recruits to serve communities across the province.

[4:40 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for that answer.

I have several questions, but again, in the spirit of speeding things up and not waiting for the answers, I went back and analyzed the JIBC officer assignments from January 2024 to May 2025. The Vancouver police department asked for 91 officers. They were assigned 80, so 88 percent of what they requested. Surrey police service asked for 75 officers, and they were only able to assign them 46 officers. That’s 61 percent of their request.

Minister, if the VPD is receiving 88 percent, while SPS — which is, as we’re talking about, still building up to operational strength — only receives 61 percent, can you explain why SPS is being shortchanged when they need the service of the officers most urgently? Who makes that decision?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The JIBC determines the seat allocation. I think the numbers that the member’s referring to aren’t quite current.

Part of the reason for that $4 million investment in the expansion of seats at the JIBC, which was…. Really, the catalyst for that was the JIBC, the province, municipal departments, and it really reflected a joint effort. We were considering, in that investment, the needs of SPS, certainly, as a growing department, and also the needs of departments across the province. We know that there are many officers who are retiring, for instance, and that informs the training requirements in jurisdictions.

I’m really pleased to confirm that with the expansion I just walked through in my previous answer, now JIBC has the capacity to meet the request of every police department that is training officers at the JIBC.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer. That kind of throws off my question a little bit, because I was going to ask about the expanded training facilities that are allowed for Vancouver and Victoria.

If the JIBC can now meet the needs of the municipal detachments, why are we expanding the other two?

[4:45 p.m.]

If there’s a reason for that, why are we not allowing Surrey, as a growing force, to have their own training facility?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. Really such an important area to dig into — the training requirements of police agencies and the work that we’re doing to help meet those.

The two pilots that the member referenced for satellite campuses in Victoria and Vancouver have really been conceived of as pilots to address the surge capacity needs for Victoria and Vancouver policing.

When we announced these…. It really is a historic move forward to have satellite campuses tethered to the Justice Institute to maintain the high quality of instruction and ensure that consistent standards and practices are there across the board.

Chief Constable Wilson of the VicPD referenced in the announcement…. The Victoria satellite campus of the JI will serve not only the Victoria police department but also other police departments on the Island.

One of the deterrents for prospective officers was leaving their homes, their communities, to travel to New Westminster to participate in the JIBC training. Being able to offer training closer to home was a significant barrier that was reduced to address the recruitment needs of Island communities.

Then what the decision to approve the satellite campuses in Victoria and Vancouver did is also offer up more space should the SPS need this.

[4:50 p.m.]

We had conversations with the city of Surrey about their proposal to potentially host a satellite campus and ultimately determined that opening space within the Justice Institute itself would provide the adequate spaces to meet SPS’s needs and also not put an additional burden on the SPS, which, as we’ve just discussed, is a growing police service.

So we’ve arrived at a quite compelling and, I do think, historic, never-been-done solution to complementing the work of the JIBC, ensuring that the needs of SPS can be met and also allowing Victoria and Vancouver to really surge capacity at this time.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. Thank you for that answer.

I mean, really, from that answer, it sounds a lot like JIBC isn’t quite getting there to meeting SPS’s training needs. Given that we’ve just announced VPD would be allowed to train their own officers, why won’t we allow Surrey to train their own officers?

And, I would say, is your refusal to allow SPS to train their own officers an indication that you lack faith in the SPS and the previous NDP ministers who created this transition?

I will say I have no doubts about the officers and the members that work in any of our police detachments — all fabulous. It’s a system that we’re now fighting to get this policing under control in each and every one of ours. It’s just that Surrey happens to be the epicentre of the experiment and why we’re dealing with it.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Could the member just restate the question, please?

Bryan Tepper: So if we just go right to that, is the refusal to allow SPS to train their own officers an indication of lack of faith in the SPS and the previous NDP ministers who created this transition?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As we’ve spoken about SPS and their training requirements, I think I’ve had the opportunity to emphasize just how truly historic, large-scale, complex this transition has been, essentially standing up — we are at year 5 — a new police service in a large urban area. This is significant work.

On the training front, I think it’s important to note that the expansion of the JIBC, expanding capacity now twice, that I’ve noted, provides the requirements for training seats that Surrey has. The JIBC, with the additional capacity, has been able to be responsive, also, to Surrey’s incremental requests. Just recently they made a request for an additional five training seats over and above their initial ask, and that request was accommodated by the JIBC.

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that the satellite training campus that has been approved as a pilot in Victoria and in Vancouver is not an independent academy as much as truly a satellite campus that is strongly tethered to the Justice Institute in terms of curriculum and standards. So I don’t think the member’s characterization of this as a refusal to train officers quite aligns with what I’ve been able to touch on.

Really, the approach to training that we are taking for the province is endeavouring to be very responsive to the needs of communities, and that absolutely must include and does include Surrey as a very significant force being established right now.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

Well, basically, from the outside, it sure looks like the minister is downloading the costs of the transition to the city of Surrey for what has become a complete fiasco and not fair to the members on the road and running that detachment and policing that city. Eight years in, we’re not done yet.

My property tax notice wants to know: when will this transition be complete?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’m not sure I agree with the characterization that the member made about the shifting of costs per se, because the Police Act, per section 15, states that the city of Surrey is responsible for all the costs of its policing within its municipal boundaries. This means that the city is responsible for all policing costs, including the costs of implementing its police transition.

The province, though, has committed significant funds, $150 million over five years, to help with transition costs. Now four of the five districts have been transitioned, and the transition continues with the RCMP and the SPS working together. All parties — including the province, the federal government, the RCMP and the city of Surrey — are at the table, have been at the table and remain at the table to ensure a timely and safe completion of the transition.

Bryan Tepper: Speaking of transitioning, I will transition into another topic here with policing involved.

Five months ago, probably closer to six months ago now, there was testimony in the House of Commons that stated there were 50,000 people in Canada who were non-compliant with immigration orders, meaning they should be removed from the country. We also learned there are approximately 32,000 active deportation warrants in Canada.

[5:05 p.m.]

Given the open-source intelligence and real-world evidence that show that many perpetrators of extortion are foreign students here fraudulently or individuals already subject to deportation orders, I feel this should be a priority.

My question is: how many of those 50,000 immigration-non-compliant individuals are estimated to be in British Columbia?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member for the question. I know we’re transitioning the discussion from a focus on the SPS to the most recent question you asked.

I did want to briefly comment on the member’s characterization of the Surrey transition and underscore how hard SPS has been working, the RCMP has been working, the officers of the SPS, the police board, on this truly unprecedented transition. And I think we’re very fortunate to have the engagement of all of the parties at the table working towards the same goal, I believe, which is safe communities in Surrey.

In terms of the member’s question around the regional breakdown, that is not information that we would have. But that’s something that you could seek from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, so those would be federal figures.

But I think a bit of the subtext of the member’s question spoke to the involvement of people that are not in Canada lawfully and some of the extortion crimes that we’ve seen in Surrey and communities south of the Fraser here in B.C., recognizing that those crimes have a local impact and also are happening across Canada and do have a transnational impact.

Recognition of that was behind our decision to involve Canada Border Services Agency in the B.C. extortion task force from the very beginning, and their work has been integral to the results that we are seeing, with 25 individuals now removed from Canada, over 110 under investigation.

I can confirm that this number of 25 is now higher and that CBSA will be providing an update with updated figures next week. But certainly, CBSA is very key to our enforcement efforts to combat extortion in Surrey.

Bryan Tepper: Chair, given that the minister, when talking about extortions, said how closely the staff is working with the federal counterparts, and this being an issue that would lend to some sort of discussion, you would think….

I will say I did ask. And the response, earlier on, that I got was that it was a federal matter. But when I heard this story, I was very curious to look for the answer, so I was hoping that the minister would also be looking for this answer so that police resources in British Columbia could be directed towards dealing with some of these deportations or overstays that are in place.

The minister is asking the people of Surrey to live under threat of firebombs, shootings, extortions. Intelligence does tell us that most of the criminals involved are here illegally or have the active warrants out for them, and I can’t be told the ministerial staff has not briefed the minister on how many there are. And now we’ve got the people in B.C. living like this.

My question being: how do we justify not looking into that issue and directing the police to help deal with it?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I do think the question implies that there is not appropriate, adequate leveraging or advocacy or integration of federal resources and areas of responsibility. To be clear, I think the work that the member refers to isn’t necessarily the role of police here in our communities but it is the work of our federal partners, of Canada Border Services Agency.

That is why their involvement in the extortion task force is so key, allowing police to focus on their work, their investigative work, where the CBSA is able to focus on the removals that are contributing to significant developments in extortion cases.

We have, at every instance, engaged our federal counterparts in providing additional resources in terms of officers. There’s been a significant increase in the number of CBSA representatives on the B.C. extortion task force since its inception to present day. That work is important and essential.

[5:20 p.m.]

I’ve also been able to do some important advocacy to the federal government in terms of legislation, Bill C-12, and really urging the federal government to close loopholes in Canada’s immigration system that have been exploited by people engaged with extortion.

I do agree, I think, with the member that we need to work very closely in a very coordinated and responsive way with our partners across all levels of policing and government.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:21 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:21 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section A reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Darlene Rotchford: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth 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 ten o’clock, Tuesday, May 19.

The House adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:15 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation and Transit
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,196,576,000 (continued).

Harman Bhangu: I want to turn towards B.C. Ferries fares. The province provided a $500 million investment to limit fare increases over the current performance term. That funding was intended to prevent significant higher increases, with the ferry commissioner confirming that, without it, fares could have risen by approximately 9.2 percent annually. Instead, fares have increased by an average of 3.2 percent annually, beginning April 2024.

At the same time, B.C. Ferries has introduced discounted fare options intended to provide savings for customers who travel off-peak times or book in advance. However, fares are still increasing, year over year, and the current performance term has a defined endpoint. While increases have been moderated in the short term, a longer-term trajectory of fares remains uncertain, which raises straightforward questions.

What can the ferry users expect beyond the current performance term? What assumptions is the province currently using for fare increases in the next performance term beginning in 2028?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I would make these observations. The province doesn’t make assumptions in terms of what the fare increases will be. That is the job of B.C. Ferries and the ferries commissioner. B.C. Ferries operates as an independent entity under the Coastal Ferry Act. They work with the ferries commissioner, and they’ve got the authority and the board that make those decisions and prepare the assumptions for potential fares and fare increases.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm whether fare increases are expected to rise above the current levels once the $500 million provincial support concludes?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

Performance term 7 is what B.C. Ferries is working on now, in terms of the assumptions that they’re going to need to make in terms of what potential fares look like into that performance term. That’s the work that they are currently undertaking.

They have made clear that, like most industries and many transportation industries, they are facing cost pressures. Our expectation is that they will work to minimize those cost pressures and make sure that they’re doing that work so as to minimize impacts to ferry travellers.

Harman Bhangu: What discussions have taken place with B.C. Ferries or the commissioner regarding ferry trajectories beyond the current performance term?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Performance term 7 needs to be submitted to the commissioner in September. That’s the work that B.C. Ferries is doing.

There have been discussions, obviously, between the ferry corporation, the board, the authority and the commissioner. I’m aware of those discussions taking place. I know that B.C. Ferries is doing that work to have in place the performance term 7 document, which will go to the ferries commissioner in September.

Harman Bhangu: What measures is the province considering to ensure ferry users are not facing significantly higher fare increases after 2028?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That’s the work that’s underway right now by B.C. Ferries in terms of performance term 7, which starts in 2028. One of the key things that we expect them to be doing is to look at efficiencies internally in terms of being able to mitigate any potential impacts that that may have.

Again, that’s why the report that they submit to the commissioner will be crucial in determining what happens when that PT7 starts in 2028, which is just over two years from now.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm the current average annual fare increase being applied during this performance term?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The average fare increase in PT6 is what we are in right now. That increase, as set by the ferry commissioner, has been about 3.2 percent.

Harman Bhangu: What has been the cumulative increase in ferry fares since April 2024?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It’s 3.2 in 2024 and 3.2 in 2025.

[1:25 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: How much has the $500 million provincial contribution reduced fare increases on a per-user basis?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I can really only give you the overall, as opposed to the individual, because part of it depends on the ticket, what class you went. You know, are you a driver, car, truck, senior, reserved, discount — all of those things. But overall, from 9.2 percent down to 3.2 percent.

Harman Bhangu: How does the province define affordability when ferry fares continue to increase, year over year?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There are a number of ways in which we can define or recognize that B.C. Ferries is an affordable transportation system for people.

One has obviously been the $500 million put to help keep fares low and affordable. If you look at B.C. Ferries rate structures compared to international ferries in other parts of the world, particularly for a ferry fleet of its size — B.C. Ferries is one of the largest ferry fleets globally — it is very affordable compared to many other jurisdictions, particularly Europe, for example, or even the States.

We restored the seniors discount in 2019, so the seniors travel free mid-week. We have discounts for people with disabilities and for students.

There are a lot of things that B.C. Ferries has done to make travel on the ferries affordable, and I expect we’ll continue to do just that.

Harman Bhangu: Even with the $500 million and everything, fares seem to keep on increasing.

I want to move on to the procurement aspect of this. Turning to B.C. Ferries, the process for acquiring new vessels began with a request of a fleet renewal and a review by the independent ferries commissioner.

[1:30 p.m.]

That process included an extension to allow additional information to be submitted and ultimately resulted in a decision to approve the purchase of four new vessels rather than five. Following that decision, B.C. Ferries proceeded with a procurement and ultimately awarded a contract to build those vessels overseas, including in China.

That outcome has drawn attention to how procurement decisions are made, particularly when major components of publicly supported infrastructure are constructed outside of Canada. At the same time, the province has emphasized that B.C. Ferries operates independently and that procurement decisions are made through a global process.

However, the province is also a major funder of B.C. Ferries operation and capital plans, with significant public investment committed to maintaining service and supporting fleet renewal.

So what we have is a situation where the decision-making process is independent, the procurement outcomes include construction in China, and the financial support is public, which raises an important question. What role does government play in shaping outcomes when public dollars are involved?

My question. Can the minister confirm the timeline of events from the ferries commissioner extension to the final approval of the four vessels?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I’ll just say….

Look, B.C. Ferries is not directly reportable to me, but what we can do is get the information from the commissioner to confirm the timeline that you’re talking about. I’m happy to do that.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister. I look forward to that response.

What factors led the ferry commissioner to approve four vessels rather than five?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The ferry commissioner makes her decision on a combination of factors. One is financial information provided by B.C. Ferries and also additional information by B.C. Ferries — capacity and their overall strategy. It is made independently of the province and does not include input from the province.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm that the new B.C. Ferries vessels will be constructed in China?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, that is my understanding.

Harman Bhangu: What role, if any, did the province play in reviewing or responding to the decision to construct these vessels in China, following the commissioner’s approval?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I would say I expressed my disappointment, and I think I was quite vocal in that. The procurement process by B.C. Ferries is independent and is done — in terms of the number of ships, for example — through the ferry commissioner. But I made clear my disappointment in the procurement decision.

Harman Bhangu: What due diligence was undertaken with respect to the selection of a shipyard in China?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It’s my understanding that there was an extensive international procurement process underway — it took place before I became minister — that involved international companies globally as well. That would have reviewed their records, their abilities in terms of their history, their competency, all of those things, being able to provide what B.C. Ferries required. I know that they would have talked with Ottawa as well, for example. It would have been a pretty extensive, intensive process.

Harman Bhangu: Did the province assess the economic impact of constructing these vessels in China rather than Canada?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: This is an independent process through B.C. Ferries. The province does not have a direct role in that. It’s Ferries with the information provided to the commission in terms of the number of ships they want to have built. Ferries is the one that does that procurement process, and they do so as an independent body, independent of government.

Harman Bhangu: What consideration was given to Canadian or British Columbian shipyards before proceeding with construction in China?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member for that question.

What I can tell you is that it was an open process, and Canadian shipyards were invited to bid on those shipbuilding contracts.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm the cost difference between constructing these vessels in China versus other options?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

What I can tell you is that if they had gone with the next non-European country or other European countries that applied, that entered the procurement competition, the next bid was up to $1.2 billion more.

Harman Bhangu: What analysis was conducted to determine whether lower upfront costs associated with construction in China outweighed broader economic considerations?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

What we understand about the process that B.C. Ferries engaged in was an extensive analysis on a whole range of issues that went into determining the scope and the size of the procurement process. B.C. Ferries indicated that the next…. It was up to $1.2 billion more to build them in another jurisdiction.

Harman Bhangu: How does the province reconcile its significant financial support for B.C. Ferries with the outcome that these vessels are being constructed in China?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I understand what the member is saying. I’d like to see ships built here as much as possible. I know B.C. Ferries wanted and wants to get ships here as fast as possible. That was a key component, we understand, of their procurement process.

One of the issues, which is a challenge right now but also an opportunity for us, is the shipyard capacity here in B.C. and in Vancouver. They’re full. They’re full building the Coast Guard ships. They’re full building the naval ships, and that’s occupying a significant amount of time. So there’s a challenge in the capacity to be able to get the ferries you would want here. The public wants them now.

That being said, the fact that there is that much work underway, I think, gives capacity in terms of being able to establish over the longer term the ability to provide ships here, which is one of the reasons why we have been working closely and are working closely with Ottawa on a national shipbuilding strategy.

That’s not being done through this ministry but through the Ministry of Jobs, for example, working with them on how we ensure the long-term, sustainable shipbuilding industry here in Canada, where B.C. is a key component. Right now you’ve got the Seaspan shipyards in the harbour. You’ve got the Davie shipyard in Quebec. You’ve got the Irving yard in New Brunswick.

Over that long term…. I think that’s one of the key ways in which we can ensure the ability to build not just the Coast Guard vessels, not just the naval vessels but that capacity to build the kinds of ships that we may need here in B.C., from a commercial perspective, and with that I mean ferries.

Harman Bhangu: What mechanisms exist to ensure that publicly supported projects deliver economic benefits within British Columbia when major components are constructed in China?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There are actually some significant components that will be economic benefits here in British Columbia. One is on the maintenance and refits, for example. That work will be done here in B.C. The other is that a lot of the systems are procured and put in here as well.

Again, those are pretty significant financial benefits to the local economy, both on the maintenance side of the ships — particularly over the lifespan of those ships, that is a considerable amount of economic activity — and in the systems that go into the ships.

Harman Bhangu: What lessons has the province taken from this process, including the decisions to construct vessels in China, to inform future procurement decisions?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make a couple of observations.

This contract was well underway before we saw what has been happening in the United States with the current President and the upsetting, if you like, of the global order but also the relationship between this country and our neighbours to the south.

So both here in British Columbia and in provinces right across the country and the federal government in Ottawa, it is now a case of looking at how we become more self-reliant, how we ensure that, as a country, we’re working together to get maximum benefit for Canada. We need to be more self-reliant, not quite so dependent on our neighbours to the south. Our supply chains and how we procure things need to have that Canadian focus.

That’s very much why we’ve been engaged, for example, in reducing trading barriers between provinces. It’s why, I think, the engagement and the work in terms of the shipbuilding strategy that’s underway with Ottawa is important.

It also involves the federal government recognizing the unique challenges that we have here in B.C. in terms of our distance, in terms of many of the key components of construction and infrastructure. I’m digressing a little bit. We’re at one end of the country, and a lot of the steel, for example, is produced back east. There’s a big 3,000 miles of transportation that takes place to get that from there to here.

I think that procurement strategies for a whole range of things now are much different than they were prior to the disruption that we’ve seen caused by the President of the United States to the Canadian economy.

Harman Bhangu: As you know, there was that leaked report that said $2.7 billion in spinoff revenue was lost, and $1.2 billion was saved. We also lost 8,000 to 10,000 good-paying jobs right here in British Columbia, which could help a lot of British Columbians in this environment where jobs are scarce. People are looking to even leave this province. That could have been a way where someone can actually afford a living, put down some roots.

If all we’re going to do is ship our jobs overseas and send money overseas, there is no money circulating here. In another 60 years, we’ll be using taxpayer dollars, again, to recycle these products. So if there are no jobs, no income circulating here, there is no hope for the young, the youth here, to stick around here.

Also, with Seaspan…. I had met with them. They’re ahead of schedule on their naval ships. They actually could have been able to do it. John Horgan’s previous plan that he had implemented in 2021, which the current Premier shifted away from, could have actually helped us build those ships here.

I want to pass the floor off to my colleague from Prince George–North Cariboo.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s good to see you all bright and fresh this afternoon.

Thanks to my colleague from Langley-Abbotsford, the critic, and to the minister and his staff for being here today.

I have a few questions. My first question is about road maintenance contract extensions — five-year extensions. I’ll probably throw a few things in the mix together because I think I’ll get a better answer if you have a more detailed set of queries around the same point.

How many road maintenance contracts have received five-year extensions in the current fiscal cycle? What is the total value of these extensions? What specific performance metrics or contractor evaluations justified granting these extensions rather than proceeding to open tender? In that regard, did the ministry conduct a jurisdictional scan or cost-benefit analysis comparing extensions versus competitive rebidding?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

In terms of contracts, the number of contracts is 27. There are four contracts that did not get extensions, and 23 did. The annual value of those extensions is $492.5 million.

The extension contract process was complete in June 2025, looking at a number of factors, including continued delivery of reliable maintenance at fair prices and deferral of contract cost increases until the next procurement cycle in 2033.

I know the member asked about jurisdictional scans, and we do jurisdictional scans. At the time the extensions were out, we had done jurisdictional scans in Alberta and Ontario, for example, and we were finding out that the bids that they were getting there at the time we were doing extensions were coming in 10 percent higher than what they previously had been.

[2:00 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question.

My next question is about the impact on the ten-year contract renewal cycle. Do these five-year extensions effectively defer or reset the standard ten-year procurement cycle for road maintenance areas? If so, what is the revised timeline for full, competitive renewal of these contracts? Will future procurements be bundled or restructured as a result of these extensions?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll start with the four that did not get extensions. Their contracts expire in various months in 2029, but we start going to procurement for those contracts in 2027.

For the other contracts, the other 23, when they expire after the five-year extension, then they go back into it. Then it is like the full, open procurement process again.

Sheldon Clare: What risks has the ministry identified regarding reduced competition or market concentration due to delayed tendering? Can the minister confirm whether any legal or contractual constraints will limit future competition because of these extensions?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. There are ten contracting companies in the province engaged in providing the services for us, at the present time, that the reviews outlined.

I also just want to let the member know that these original contracts included the option for the five-year extension, so that was part of the original process in the awarding of those contracts in the first place.

Sheldon Clare: What role does the Ministry of Transportation and Transit play in the event of positive drug testing results for road maintenance staff and management, and does this have any effect on reassignment of contracts?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make a number of points.

One, I mean, obviously, the province…. Our expectation is that companies take safety as the number one priority and number one critical issue.

Two, these are private companies, and these are matters that are between the company and their employee. That being said, our expectation is that they have policies in place to deal with these kinds of situations.

The other point I’d like to make is that there are outside bodies and agencies that will also potentially be involved, depending on the situation. They can range from WorkSafe to the RCMP to national regulatory bodies that deal with industry safety standards.

All of those can come into play depending on the situation that is involved with a particular individual, company or incident.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

My next questions are about the Cariboo Road recovery projects. Based on information provided by the minister in last year’s ministry estimates, the Cariboo Road recovery projects are valued at $1.2 billion. The minister also stated recently in the House that the government is “not leaving federal money on the table.”

Considering the bulk of the Cariboo Road recovery projects have been committed to, and the federal funding is tied to the disaster financial assistance arrangements, will the ministry be spending the total $1.2 billion? If not, what is the projected total spending on the Cariboo Road recovery projects, and what is the projected value of the disaster financial assistance arrangements funding?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The $1.2 billion figure was an initial notional estimate with the feds in terms of what it looked like the projects were going to require, how much money is going to be required to fix them. Then as the design work takes place, they get a better, more accurate, more formalized number.

In terms of the actual cost for the recovery projects, it came in at $815 million. That is due to a combination of factors — as I said, a better understanding of the situation in each of the locations and also in terms of the design and the competitive bids that came in for those projects.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question.

What is the estimated cost for upcoming work on the Quesnel–Hixon Road project?

Are there updated cost estimates for the Kersley–Dale Landing Road project?

Has there been any further consideration to the issues with the Durrell Road situation and alternative routes that would support fire insurance and transportation in case of an emergency in the Dragon Mountain area?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

The Quesnel-Hixon upgrades are $40 million. That’ll be tendered later this year.

Kersley-Dale, the improvements there are also $40 million, and some of that work is already underway.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I don’t think that was a complete answer to my question, because I did ask, also, about the issue with Durrell Road. I just wondered about that.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. On Durrell Road, there’s been a…. I know the member’s interest in this particular road, and I appreciate his advocacy on behalf of his constituents. The ministry has done extensive work into looking at the area, what the most effective way to deal with the situation is on that slide and the challenge that that has presented.

It is of the view that the most effective way is the road closure and turnarounds for the residents. I know that’s not what the member wants to hear, but I will give the member credit for going to bat for his constituents on this issue.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response. I’ll continue to go to bat for my constituents, and more of them to follow.

My next questions are about B.C.’s Highway 97 interconnector at Quesnel. The Quesnel north-south interconnector has completed preliminary design but remains unfunded. What specific conditions must be met for the project to advance to detailed design and construction? Where does this project rank amongst Highway 97 priorities, given its identification as a long-term priority in the ministry’s 2018 Quesnel transportation study.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

Look, there are a lot of things that go into the decisions around the capital investment program and how things get moved up the program. There are things like cost, cost benefit, cost versus the benefit, traffic volume, safety, performance. All of those things go into it.

There are projects all over the province. In your neck of the woods, our focus has been very much, to date, on the reality of dealing with the slides that have occurred and those impacts they’ve had on the existing transportation system. That’s been very much where the focus has been.

Those are some of the things that go into determining how a project gets ranked.

[2:25 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

I had a conversation recently with a bridge engineer who I had inspect those bridges, along with another engineer from industry. He advised me that he spoke with the chief bridge engineer for the province of British Columbia and told him that he did not regard that bridge as being safe. I’m speaking of the one over the Quesnel River. I wonder if the minister has had a conversation with the chief bridge engineer and if he has been made aware of that safety concern.

Given that the Quesnel River Bridge and the rail overpass after it date to 1961 and are aging, what is the ministry’s risk assessment of continued reliance on these structures versus advancing the interconnector?

I would also mention that the bridge engineers that looked at that bridge also were given the Freedom of Information Act request with all the bridge reports and assessments that analyzed the safety and reliance on that bridge. They did have a good look at it.

I guess the other aspect to the question would be: how does the ministry justify investing in upgrades to infrastructure that may be replaced by a subsequent building of the interconnector?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I have not met with the chief bridge inspector.

When you and I spoke…. I have raised that with my staff, and I’ve not yet heard back from them.

At the same time, I also think it’s important to note that we have over 3,000 bridges in the province. We have one of the most comprehensive and rigorous inspection routines in the country. The bridge that you’re talking about is inspected annually. Safety is the key priority, and the inspections we’ve had are that that bridge is safe.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question.

I trust that your meeting with the chief bridge inspector will be informative and perhaps more educational as to the status of the Quesnel River Bridge, Minister. I look forward to the results of that particular meeting because I think you’ll find it most instructive and helpful.

[2:30 p.m.]

My next question has to do with infrastructure resilience and emergency preparedness regarding rail. In light of recent climate-related disruptions, what funding in Budget 2026 is directed towards strengthening rail infrastructure as a resilient alternative to highways? Has the ministry allocated funding to ensure rail corridors can support emergency logistics and supply chain continuity during extreme events?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. That is an important issue. So I’ll make a couple of observations. We don’t invest directly with the railways. They are federal. They are private companies, and they have significant financial resources, and track maintenance is very much their responsibility.

That being said, we also work very closely with them on the transportation routes, as we did during the atmospheric river, and we have a very good, strong working relationship. For example, I have contacts with both railways. One is CP, for example. I’m informed on a regular basis if there’s an issue involving a derailment, for example. Whether it’s large or small, I get contacted on that.

I can tell you that when it came to Tank Hill, for example, and when the rail line was severed, we were able to get together almost immediately with the railway, both the province and the railway looking at innovative solutions to be able to get Tank Hill addressed. We did it very quickly.

So it’s not a question of us putting resources, money, into the rail on a regular basis, but rather, it’s maintaining those good relationships. The communication lines are open and working very collaboratively and effectively when something does happen. Both the province and the railway understand the need to be able to have those transportation routes and supply chain routes open as quickly as possible when something happens.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response, sir.

My last question is related to the previous one. The south Vancouver Island rail corridor foundation in Nanaimo tells me that they had a safety inspection report done of their rail system, which indicates that if they slow down and all of that, it’s quite safe.

Has the province received a copy of that report? I was promised to get a copy of it, but that has not yet happened, and I’m wondering if the ministry has it. If they could share it, would they be willing to do so?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The railway corridor the member is talking about isn’t owned by the province. It’s owned by ICF.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’m not aware of the specific report, but that doesn’t mean that we have not received the report. If we have received the report, I will…. I don’t see it being an issue, because it is done by a third party. It’s not a provincial report. So we can let you know if we got it. It may well be that it’s on an existing website.

Harman Bhangu: In the city of Kelowna, can the minister provide an update for my colleagues on the next steps of funding for Highway 33, Clement extension and transit yard in Kelowna, on Highway 33 en route to Big White and Joe Ridge?

Can he provide an update on Daves Creek culvert replacement, which has been significantly delayed since its announced timeline?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Could the member clarify? Was it the Daves culvert?

Harman Bhangu: Yeah, the Daves Creek culvert replacement.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll deal with one project, and then we’ll get back to some of the other projects with my staff right here.

In terms of the Daves Creek culvert, the ministry did extensive examination of the site and the situation and determined that the most cost-effective way to deal with the issues at that culvert were to do increased armouring on the banks of the creek along with the increased monitoring when it’s particularly rainy. That’s the approach that the ministry has taken in terms of dealing with the situation that the member has just referenced.

Harman Bhangu: I’ll move on to a little bit of the inland ferries. There have been a lot of key recent major delays, as of April 2026, tied to shut-down vessels for most of the day, disrupting hourly crossings. There have been also planned and unplanned infrastructure upgrades being done during the whole process here. Also, it’s key in linking Revelstoke and the Nakusp corridor of Highway 23.

What I want to ask is: given the repeated shutdowns of the Galena Bay ferry due to both planned and unplanned maintenance, what contingency planning exists to ensure connectivity of the service on the critical corridor when the vessel is out of operation?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I can make a number of points for the member. Reliability on the ferry is very high, but there have been issues from time to time. Sometimes it has been around crewing but also around the propulsion system. There’s work underway right now to get an additional propulsion system as a backup if that issue arises with the Columbia ferry.

Harman Bhangu: The recent need to replace essential docking infrastructure highlights aging assets. What is the government’s long-term capital plan and timeline for full vessel replacements or major upgrades for the Upper Arrow Lake ferry?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There is long-term planning in terms of infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and the inland ferry. In this particular case, the vessel that we’re talking about is still the Columbia, which is still a fairly new vessel. It’s only ten years old at this point, so there’s still a pretty long life left in that vessel.

Harman Bhangu: Maintenance work on critical components was delayed and required disruptive shutdowns. What steps are being taken to improve maintenance and planning to avoid reactive service interruptions in the future?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Obviously, to avoid disruptions due to maintenance is of critical importance. That’s why, in terms of our contracts that we’ve got, there is a very high level of focus on the maintenance issue in the contracts that we want to see is in place. That’s on a regular basis, and that’s a key component of the maintenance contracts for the vessels and for the infrastructure.

At the same time, we do have, for the big assets, a major asset capital plan, in terms of looking at what the lifespan is of that on the long term, and it relates, for example, to your previous question around the ship. In this case, the vessel is about ten years old. That also takes into account maybe the components of that, so propulsion, for example, and looking at the need to get an additional propulsion system and that planning work in those….

[2:45 p.m.]

That’s the kind of activity and work that is critical to being able to avoid shutdowns due to maintenance.

Harman Bhangu: What analysis has been conducted on the economic impacts of ferry outages on communities like Nakusp and Revelstoke — particularly for tourism, forestry and commercial transport — and how is it being mitigated?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I don’t think there’s a specific study that I can point to. I also think it’s pretty common sense that if there’s a disruption that has an impact in terms of an economic impact…. It has a social impact. It has a frustration impact. All of those things come into play.

That’s why it’s crucial that we do the kind of work that we’ve been talking about in this discussion. I’ll relate that directly to the Columbia ferry, because of the link that it is between Revelstoke and Galena Bay and Nakusp, and the importance of that route and ensuring that we minimize disruption as much as possible.

If we identify where some of the problem issues are…. In the case of propulsion, that being one, then let’s make sure we’ve got that backup built in. As I said, that work is underway to ensure that’s in place, to be able to avoid or minimize the kinds of disruptions that impact…. They impact businesses. They impact people. It’s the kind of frustration that when you live in that area and depend on a ferry, you don’t want to have to experience.

Harman Bhangu: I want to know the updates on Crawford Bay and Balfour on the Kootenay Lake crossing. There’s a new terminal. Is that on time and on budget to be completed this year?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The terminal upgrades are now complete, and I’m not aware of them not being on budget.

Harman Bhangu: I just want to highlight something. I have been on the Galena ferry and the Upper Arrow. I’ve been all across the province. I’ve experienced the delays firsthand.

I’ve also talked to the workers, and what they have told me is that the hull is too light when wind affects it. That’s where the issues come. So that’s why I wanted to know. Is there a plan to actually fix that situation? In those parts, the wind actually does pick up, and that has been the main thing.

It kind of links back to the last time with the fast ferry fiasco. That was my main concern here, and that’s why I wanted to raise these issues.

Now I’d like to pass the floor over to my colleague from…. I’m going to go to Kamloops first. He has to get out of here quick.

[2:50 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Yes, I just got off a Zoom meeting, so thanks very much.

I have a question for the minister. I’m going to frame it, and he’ll know exactly where it’s coming from. The reason I’m going to frame it, if I can, is to try to put context into it. I’m just going to throw a couple of numbers out here, and then the minister can have the opportunity to respond.

From 2016 to 2026, the provincial government and the federal government have been able to invest $1.7 billion in highway improvements from Kamloops to the Alberta border on Highway 1. Now, that is framed under not only the opportunities to try to bring it up to a four-lane standard but also much-needed infrastructure changes, including, currently the R.W. Bruhn Bridge in Sicamous.

At the same time, we have Highway 5 from Kamloops to Jasper that at times has the same traffic flow of industrial transport trucks as Highway 1. We also know that when there are critical times, particularly in the winter and sometimes in the summer with crashes on Highway 1, Highway 5 is really the only dedicated route that these trucks can use, as with all the other users up and down North Thompson Valley.

My question to the minister is…. If we’ve spent, as a B.C. government and a federal government, $1.7 billion in that ten-year period, and only $10 million has been spent on Highway 5…. Part of that is improvements at Louis Creek for a CVSE turnout and some maintenance widening and that sort of thing.

Can the minister explain why we haven’t seen any critical infrastructure funding in the last ten years on Highway 5 and when we will be able to see those much-needed improvements in the future?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make a couple of observations.

Just in the sheer volume, Highway 1 does have twice the volume of traffic that Highway 5 does. That being said, I understand the advocacy that the member is making around Highway 5.

Upgrades themselves are not the only tool that the ministry has. Whether it’s pullouts, whether it’s increased enforcement and CVSE inspections and enforcement, those kinds of things taking place — the brushing, all of those things are things that we can do.

[2:55 p.m.]

One of the biggest challenges we have is also the need for a proper, in my view, cost-share program between the province and the federal government. That’s what allowed a lot of the improvements to take place on Highway 1. Feds said it’s a priority. It’s a priority for us.

Your area, as far as I’m concerned, is a priority. That is one of the things that we’re currently engaged with, with the federal government and at our FPT meetings — the need for a proper program that allows us to do more of what you are advocating for on some of those critical highway corridors.

Ward Stamer: I appreciate the minister’s response. I don’t disagree with the minister that, yes, the traffic counts are higher on Highway 1 than Highway 5. However, some of the things that the minister is talking about are maintenance.

What we’re only asking for is that…. Cost-sharing is great on some of these projects. But there seems to be a mindset in the MoTT world that because on Highway 1 they’re trying to accomplish this four-lane standard, that is what’s being pushed towards treasury branch on these new and additional projects. “We’ve already done this project, and now we’re going to do this next project, and now we’re going to do this next project.”

But many of us that have driven that corridor know full well that there are areas of that corridor that will never, ever be four-lane, unless the minister thinks that we’re going to be four-laning through Three Valley Gap or through Malakwa to Revelstoke or some of the other spots that are the choke points on Highway 1. That’s never going to happen.

Again, I believe that there have already been some critical improvements that have been identified in the last five years on Highway 5, including some bringing back on sightlines with rock and some additional ditching on some of the narrow areas in the canyons.

I appreciate the advocacy with the increase in enforcement, but when are we going to be able to see those long-term plans that are already on the drawing board? When are they actually going to be brought to revenue’s attention so that we can look, in the next three to five years, at when that work is going to occur?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, and I don’t disagree.

I mean, I’ve been to Three Valley Gap, and you’re right. It’s pretty narrow, and going through Jasper, the parks there are pretty narrow.

That being said, at the same time, I’m more than willing, if the member has got particular areas, for example, that…. We’ve talked about sightlines and things like that and pullouts that could benefit. I’m more than open to taking a look at that.

The bigger question of the bigger improvements really does require us to get additional funding in terms of the feds. It is one of those things where we are actively engaged in terms of trying to get additional capital funding.

At the end of the day, I could spend $1 billion in your riding. I could spend $1 billion in my riding. I could spend $1 billion in…. Let’s put it this way. The number of projects that are all legitimate, important and valuable is huge.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m going to do a little digression here. I know that the Trucking Association, the infrastructure associations in this country, have identified that we need to be spending about $55 billion a year in maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure we have in this country. Across the country, we’re spending about $25 billion a year, so very much aware of the challenge in the project. At the same time, there are initiatives and things that we can do. I’m happy to work with the member on that.

Ian Paton: I want to talk for a minute about…. A lot of people in this room may never have heard of Westham Island. Westham Island, and I think the minister has been there, is an island in my riding of Delta South. A lot of people don’t even know about it.

It’s about a 3,000-acre island on the Fraser River, kind of right across from Steveston. It’s made up of pretty much 100 percent farmland, except for the Reifel Bird Sanctuary, which I know the minister has been to several times. So there’s no commercial…. There are no corner stores. There are no grocery stores. There are no gas stations. It’s pretty much an agricultural island with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product.

To get to my point, we have a bridge, a single-lane bridge, called the Westham Island Bridge. It’s 115 years old, and it swings open to get boats through that want to go out Canoe Pass or out past Steveson.

Three or four months ago, a barge hit the bridge and damaged it so badly that no one could get on and off the island. The bridge was completely incapacitated for two months to get repaired. I even have grandkids that live on the island that had to take water taxis to get off the island. Farmers were going crazy about getting their potatoes and all their product on and off the island, which they do every day.

My question to the minister: how much information can you give me with your relationship with TransLink about the cost of the repairs, and where do you see the future going with this bridge? There have been many, many years of talk about a new bridge to Westham Island. Could I just get a rough idea of what you think the repair costs were and the future ideas of a new bridge to Westham Island?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I can take this opportunity to outline for members who may not be familiar with Westham Island and the Westham Island Bridge and, more importantly, how it became a TransLink bridge. That means that I will be going back to the olden days. Both the member and I remember the olden days.

So back in 1999, TransLink was created. Part of that creation of TransLink was the assumption and the creation of the regional transit system, which we call TransLink, and, at the same time, taking over the maintenance and repair of bridges and much of the regional road network. That took place at the time.

[3:05 p.m.]

Some people occasionally go: “Oh, it was downloaded.” The fact is, no, it wasn’t. There was an agreement in place. Part of the agreement was that in return for the creation of TransLink and the taking over by Metro — or GVRD, as it was back then — of the bridges and the maintenance of the roads, the road network, was the removal of the 40 percent hospital capital tax, which was part of your Metro property taxes at that time. That was the arrangement that was struck.

So Metro Vancouver is the only regional district in the province that does not pay the hospital capital tax. But of course, the bridge is a TransLink bridge, so the province doesn’t have a direct responsibility for that bridge.

During the recent issue with the barge collision with the bridge, EM, emergency management, certainly was there to help. We certainly cooperated with TransLink and helped them. We didn’t have to, but we did. So it’s important that bridge is in place.

What I do know is — I’m trying to get a figure in terms of what the cost of repair is for the member, and once I do, I will let the member know — that they are engaged now in the stage of: “Okay, what do we replace the bridge with? What does that look like?” That work, I know, is underway in TransLink, and it would become part of their investment plan.

Ian Paton: Thanks for that answer.

I guess I won’t dig too deep into it, because I know…. As a local MLA, I spent a lot of time with Kevin Quinn and all the people from TransLink, like meetings after meetings after meetings, farmers that wanted to string up anybody, including me, because they couldn’t get their product.

But I will say that TransLink and the city of Delta did a pretty good job of getting barges in place to get trucks and tractors and different things on and off the island. So it was a pretty good cooperation by everyone. I’d be amazed at the price of all these barges and water taxis and everything.

A couple more questions.

For this wooden bridge that’s 115 years old, there’s an actual person that sits — I can’t imagine this job — in this shack and waits until a boat comes along that says: “I need to open the bridge so I can get through.” There are certain times a year there may not be a boat that comes along for weeks if not months on end.

The operator actually swung the bridge over for a barge that we all know was way too wide and caused this massive amount of damage. So my question, and likely through TransLink…. But what can they do in the future? This has been talked about — about someone more trained to say: “Look, I’m not going to swing this bridge open because what you’re trying to get through isn’t going to fit. It could cause terrible damage.”

My second question, if I can lump two together. On the other side of the bridge, on the south side, are several float homes and some commercial fishing boats that desperately want this bridge to be able to swing open so they can get back and forth to shortcut to Steveston. But there are a lot of farmers on the island and residents now that say: “We want this bridge permanently locked shut so that it can never be damaged again by being swung open.”

So that’s my question, if you have any sort of insight on that. I guess, once again, do you have any sort of insight on the future, a date of a new bridge to Westham Island?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There are three different things and three different organizations.

The cost of repairs is still being determined by TransLink. The province was very much able to help with the cost of the barging. We were able to do that, and we were really very pleased and happy to do that.

In terms of the swinging of the bridge and the individual in the bridge, that is actually not under the province or under TransLink. It’s actually under navigation Canada, and that is a federal responsibility in terms of whether you can swing open or when you can swing open. That’s what I can tell the member.

If we may, can we have a ten-minute recess?

The Chair: Yes, we’ll reconvene at 3:20.

The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Harman Bhangu: Turning to the Fraser River tunnel project. This is one of the largest infrastructure investments currently underway in British Columbia. The project has progressed through planning, early works and into the development phase, where final design, cost structure and risk allocation are being determined.

At the time of announcement, the estimated cost was approximately $4.15 billion. Since the project has evolved, including changes in scope, progression through environmental phases, advancement of design and development agreement, the province has also indicated construction would begin in 2026.

We are now in 2026. At the same time, this project is being actively managed like major infrastructure projects that include ongoing cost tracking, internal projections and regular reporting.

While the final number may not yet be publicly confirmed, there should be a clear understanding within government of the cost, timeline and financial exposure associated with this project.

It has also been publicly raised that prior to the 2024 provincial election, the federal government had indicated a willingness to contribute funding towards this project. That raises additional questions about what was offered and how those discussions were handled.

There is also a question of long-term capacity, because once the crossing is built, it will define how people move through this corridor for decades, including whether future rail transit, such as SkyTrain, can be accommodated.

So the focus is now on clarity — clarity on cost, timing, funding — and whether this project is being built to meet future needs. Can the minister confirm the most recent internal cost estimate for the Fraser River tunnel project.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

In terms of the cost, we laid out in this year’s budget, over the next three years, how much is going to be expended on the construction on the project. That’s already out there in public information. At the same time, we’re working with the contractor in determining what the final cost is as they narrow and understand the full scope and come to…. The more concrete the design, the closer they are in terms of what the actual cost is going to be.

We’ve laid out what we will be spending over the next three years and working with the contractor to determine what that final cost of the project will be.

Ian Paton: I may just ask one question. I’ve asked my colleague if I could. The minister knows that in my riding of Delta South, we’re pretty uptight about a term, which he used as I first came in here, of re-pacing of our Delta Hospital extended care ward that’s being built.

I have a direct question to the minister. Do you see or can you tell me now if there’s going to be a re-pacing or a cancellation of the George Massey Tunnel replacement?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’m going to take the moment, and this is not a political shot at the member at all.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Well, not quite. Absolutely not.

Now, here’s where I will digress slightly. I do know that one of the candidates for the leadership of your party has said that they would cancel the project and go back to the bridge. Yes, actually. Yes, they did. I’d just like to remind them that the next election isn’t actually until 2028. By that time, there will be a lot of work done on this project. The decision is made. It’s the project the region wanted. We are building a tunnel. That’s it.

Harman Bhangu: What is the current cost range between internal planning processes? Is there a scenario where it would exceed $6 billion or a scenario where it would exceed $8 billion or a scenario where it would exceed $10 billion? What is the highest cost estimate currently?

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

It’ll be the same answers I gave earlier, which is that we’ve laid out over the next three budget years how much we’ll be spending on the project. We’re currently working with the contractor on what that final cost is going to be. Those are negotiations on work that is confidential and is currently underway.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm whether any federal funding agreement has been finalized on this project since the 2024 election?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

We have not received any formal funding offers from the federal government. It is very much a high priority for the province. I know the Premier has raised with the Prime Minister the importance of this project to the province. I have also raised that with the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Infrastructure.

Our expectation is that the federal government will be at the table with a substantial financial contribution in the same way that they have been at the table with other significant infrastructure projects in other parts of the country, such as Ontario and Quebec. British Columbia expects to get its fair share.

[3:30 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: When was the last meeting between the province and the federal government regarding funding on this project, and which federal ministers or officials have been directly engaged in those discussions?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: At the deputy minister level, my deputies have been meeting with the federal deputy ministers. At the political level, I have raised the matter with both the federal Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Infrastructure, Minister Robertson, and the Premier has raised it with the with the Prime Minister.

It has been done both here in Vancouver in person and also in Ottawa and at federal-provincial-territorial meetings, which I have also attended. So there’s a lot of work that is underway on this particular matter.

Harman Bhangu: What percentage of the total project cost is the province expecting the federal government to cover?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: That would be something we would negotiate with the federal government in Ottawa. But suffice it to say that we expect to be treated fairly in the same way that other provinces, in particular Ontario and Quebec, are treated by the federal government. So I would be looking for a significant contribution.

Harman Bhangu: What is the current expected completion date of the tunnel project?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’re working with the contractors as to what the final date will be. As I said earlier, we’re currently in negotiations around what the final cost will be. That will involve the scope.

I know this. If I give you a firm date right now…. I say date X, and somehow…. You’ll write it down, and if it’s not date X, then, of course, you’ll be going: “Not on time.” So I would say….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No, it’s not a question of that. It is about making sure that we’ve got…. Through the negotiation we’re currently engaged with the contractor, we will be able to provide a far more accurate date once that work is done. I think I will leave it there at this point.

[3:35 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: So let’s just get it on record that the timeline has changed.

What assumptions are driving cost increases compared to the original estimate?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

What I can tell him is that we’re working closely with the contractor to determine the most cost-effective and efficient construction methods in terms of determining what the final cost of the project will be. We’ve laid out what the expenditures are going to be over the next three years in the budget and, as I said, are working with a contractor in terms of the scope and most cost-effective ways and means of building the project.

Harman Bhangu: How will cost overruns be managed if they occur during construction? Also, what contingency funding has been set aside to address cost escalation?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member.

This project will have a contingency, just as every project has a contingency, and that is part and parcel of the negotiations that are currently underway with the contractor.

Harman Bhangu: What percentage is that contingency?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: It has not been decided yet because that’s part of the negotiations.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm whether the current design for this tunnel will allow for future SkyTrain infrastructure to accommodate within the crossing?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No, it will not contain space for SkyTrain. That has been determined, actually, not to be the most efficient way to meet the transportation needs. There will be dedicated lanes which will be for buses — so for example, rapid bus.

The issue in that particular area is that communities are quite spread out, where SkyTrain requires much more high-density routes, where it makes it most effective. TransLink has initiated studies on that, and it’s been determined that the most effective way is bus. That’s where the bus rapid transit routes are coming in, and that’s why the dedicated lanes will be there.

Harman Bhangu: Does the minister acknowledge that the bridge option would have provided greater flexibility for future rail transit expansion compared to the current tunnel design? You see the neighbouring communities. Like my colleague from Delta South has said, there is a lot of development happening in that area and also on the other side in the future growth.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question, but I have to disagree with the member on this one in terms of what he says, bridge versus tunnel. The reality is this. Delta is a fantastic place, but the three main communities are — one, two and three — kind of spread out. The bulk of Delta is farmland, some of the most productive farmland in the entire country. It is my expectation, and no doubt the member’s expectation, that it stays that way.

There will be growth in Delta. There’s no doubt about that. But the reality is that in terms of SkyTrain–type development, what you need is concentrated development in key town centres, which we have seen in terms of Metro. The tunnel was the option favoured by the metropolitan region.

If you look at the SkyTrain routes as they are currently constructed, they are going to the most…. You’re going out to the airport, which makes total sense. You’re going, obviously, to Vancouver, to New Westminster, through traditional increasingly high-dense areas. You’ve got the Expo and Millennium lines, where you’ve got the town centre nodes at Brentwood, at Coquitlam Centre, where significant tower density is taking place — 35-, 40-, 45-storey towers taking up, and those transit-oriented development nodes. That’s where SkyTrain is most suited.

For more spread-out communities in the suburbs, in particular areas in…. That’s why the demand from communities like in Surrey and in parts of your own neck of the woods and in Delta is the fast rapid bus with dedicated lanes that are going to be the most efficient way to be able to move people.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister, for the answers there.

I get with the time delays…. Last year during estimates, Pattullo Bridge, we came up with one time. Then in question period, it was another date. It moved back three times. I get why you’d be hesitant to commit to a date on that.

But I am here to represent the voice for British Columbians who this impacts. That’s why I’m asking these questions, to get them on record so I can hold the government to account for the average British Columbian, hard-working, blue-collar person who wants to know his tax dollars are being maximized.

On the tunnel project, my colleague from Delta South has a question or two left for you.

Ian Paton: I’ve got two or three questions about the George Massey Tunnel replacement.

The minister, I’m sure, has heard this a million times from the city of Delta. Right from the get-go, we’ve always talked about the fact we really only have one reasonable exit out of Ladner. It’s at Ladner Trunk Road and the old Highway 17A. But for years, coming out of the George Massey Tunnel from Richmond into the Delta side, you could take an exit into Ladner along River Road.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’ve always asked for this project to go ahead, for an overpass to go over the tunnel project so that River Road West, going into Ladner, could now connect up with what’s called Vasey Road, which goes by the new casino. That would be another exit out of Ladner. I’ve heard many times it’s not in the plans, but I’m asking today if there’s any movement on that idea.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I think he asked me this question last year, and I’m going to give the same answer as last year, which is that it’s not in the scope of the current project. Having said that, that’s not to say that in the future, it could not be built.

Ian Paton: There’s going to be land expropriated. As you are approaching the tunnel now on the right-hand side, there’s a little housing development called River West. There are about 12 homes in there. The trees have all been removed, and that land has been expropriated, I believe, from the city of Delta. I know it has been expropriated. I think it’s the city of Delta that owned it.

Now, when that tunnel comes out on the other side of the river on the Richmond side, there’s a farm family that’s been there for 100 years, the Hogler family. They own Richmond Country Farms. It’s a very productive farm. In fact, he has put in a huge vineyard, which is pretty rare down this way.

I’m asking how much more farmland will be expropriated with the exit of this tunnel. I can see not much is going to be expropriated on the Delta side, but I can see a bit of a mess of expropriated land on Mr. Hogler’s Richmond Country Farms, on the Richmond side, when the tunnel comes out heading towards Richmond.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

Since the beginning of the Steveston interchange project that took place there, we’ve been working closely with the Hogler family. It’s been very much a non-confrontational issue. We’ve been working collaboratively. There’s no indication of expropriation being required at this time, so that’s not been an issue that has come up.

Ian Paton: Deas Island Park is quite a famous, well-loved park in my riding, and there’s only, really, one entrance to it off of River Road. Deas Island Park is beautiful, with the rowing club, picnic tables, firepits, walking trails, even horse-riding trails.

[3:50 p.m.]

I know that the tunnel project is creating a staging area, and they’re working on it right now. You can see it as you drive in. I believe they have taken down close to 1,500 trees. And just recently….

Could the minister confirm that they are also going ahead to take down at least another 1,500 trees, so there’ll be over 3.8 hectares, I believe, of Deas Island Park that’s going to be deforested for the staging area?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The member is correct that 1,500 trees were taken down; 750 of those trees were actually on ministry right-of-way, and 750 were in the Deas Island Park. There will be additional trees taken down, but it will not be 1,500 trees. It will be 500 trees.

At the same time, I also want the member to know that there will be a complete restoration on the area once the tunnel project is complete, in terms of restoration around that park. I know the member, being familiar with riparian habitat down on the Fraser delta…. A lot of that will be trees such as willow and cottonwood that grow back very quickly.

We’re working very closely with Metro parks on that reforestation, revegetation process that will be done.

Ian Paton: To my colleague, I was going to ask one more, but I’ll ask two if you don’t mind.

Interjection.

Ian Paton: Okay.

Can you explain to me…. The people that make use of Deas Island Park, and not just Delta residents…. People from all over Metro Vancouver come out to use Deas Island Park. Really, the only entrance is off of the start of River Road heading towards Tilbury Industrial Park. There are going to be years and years upon thousands of trucks — whether they’re concrete trucks; whether they’re trucks hauling in steel, metal, everything.

How will that affect people, and will people be able to use Deas Island Park as they do today?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No, I appreciate the concern the member has. Whenever there’s a construction project that involves a park, obviously there is disruption. That being said, we’re working very closely with Metro parks to ensure that people can still access the park.

One of the key components of that will be a safety plan. I expect it is going to be a couple of years, but that being said, one of the key components is to make sure that people are still able to access that park in a safe way. That’s why we’re working very closely with Metro Vancouver on that.

[3:55 p.m.]

Ian Paton: One more question. If you look back to the black-and-white footage, grainy footage of the building of the George Massey Tunnel in 1958, it looked like a nightmare. The engineers look like they’re saying: “We’ll never attempt this again.” Tides, freshet currents, marine traffic.

This is what I’m getting to. In 1958, there was very little marine traffic on the Fraser River. Now, in 2026 or 2030 or whenever this happens, there is an incredible amount of marine traffic — whether it’s commercial fishing vessels; recreational vessels; massive car ferries delivering cars up to Annacis Island; a grain plant now on the Fraser River; lumber yards on the Fraser River; the Seaspan, which is right there. I mean, the marine traffic is unbelievable.

What has been put in place to handle the amount of marine traffic that’s going to have to use that river while the tunnel-building people are occupying this river with massive barges and cranes and whatnot to be able to plunk this concrete tube in the bottom of the river? I mean, excuse me, but I have heard that the river will literally be shut down to marine traffic for one or two days at a time, which is unacceptable to companies like Seaspan.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There will be, over the course of the construction of the project, up to eight 48-hour closures. We’ve been working closely with the port on the Fraser River, the marine companies that use that, so they understand, in terms of being able to mitigate impacts and things like that. They also understand the value of this project in terms of the overall ability to move goods throughout the Lower Mainland and the economic benefits that it’s going to build.

Part and parcel of that project is to understand these things. That’s why they’ve been identified, and it’s working with the appropriate port and companies.

Rosalyn Bird: As much as I like a good bridge conversation, I’m going to switch gears a little bit here, Minister, and draw your attention up to Highway 16, specifically the corridor that runs between Prince George and Prince Rupert, approximately 724 kilometres, commonly referred to as the Highway of Tears.

How many consultations has the ministry conducted in the past two years with First Nations and municipalities along Highway 16 regarding transportation safety? What specific concerns were raised if those consultations were had?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, Member, for the question.

We meet with the communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, on a regular basis along that entire highway corridor, not just over the last two years but on an ongoing basis.

Rosalyn Bird: In meeting with those communities, as I had stated in the original question, have there been any specific concerns that have been raised?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I’m not even going to go to the last two years, but going previous to that, particularly in my role when I was Solicitor General, because the concerns related to both transportation and, at that time, to my role as Solicitor General.

Some of the key ones, obviously, were safety in the forms of transportation — a lack of transportation available to go along the highway. Connectivity and the lack of self-service, for example, were key areas that were identified as being problematic. Then, obviously, there are the additional seasonal conditions on the road itself — speed, all those kinds of enforcements.

But if you were to ask me, two of the critical areas were a lack of accessible transportation and connectivity. They were two of the key ones. Many of those things also came out of the murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls report. That was back in 2018, 2017, around there.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that. Yes, I’m familiar with those issues also.

Can the minister describe how his ministry is coordinating with the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and other relevant ministers to address the transportation-related risks identified by the communities along this corridor.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There’s been a multi- and sort of cross-ministry approach to some of the challenges in terms of transportation and safety along the Highway 16.

With Citizens’ Services, for example, it has been almost now complete connectivity along the entire route as one of the key improvements in the area.

In terms of Transportation and Transit, you’ve got B.C. Bus North, funded by Northern Development Initiative Trust, and then B.C. Transit. One is a long haul; one is a multi-stopping place along the way.

Those are two examples of the cross-ministry work in terms of dealing with both the transit needs and the safety needs for Highway 16.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Minister, for that.

What metrics does the ministry use to evaluate whether transportation services along Highway 16 are actually reducing the vulnerability and improving safety outcomes, particularly for Indigenous women and girls?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: B.C. Transit works with local communities to determine what the service needs are in the area, so that’s how the determination is made.

I can tell you that since about 2017, when the service really started to take place, there have been over 20,000 rides that have been supplied or have been taken in transit improvements along the route.

Rosalyn Bird: Just to clarify, B.C. Transit has metrics they are monitoring to ensure that safety has improved or is remaining the same along the highway corridor?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question from the member.

In terms of safety, my ministry would track the road, collisions, those kinds of issues. PSSG would have tracking for the issues you’re referring to in terms of safety of individuals, incidences that occur, in terms of being able to say: “Okay, here’s what it was. Here’s what the trend line looks like.” That wouldn’t be something that would be within this ministry.

Rosalyn Bird: Appreciate that. Now I know where to get the information, so thank you for that.

Can the minister specify what funding has been allocated this fiscal year to improve or continue to improve transportation safety and access along Highway 16, and how does that compare to other years?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll just ask for clarification, Member. In terms of when you’re talking safety…. We’re talking about transportation safety improvements, as opposed to the programs for the individual safety of the person. That’s probably…. It could be policing. It could be help lines. It could be cell phone provisions. It could be a range of things, whereas with my ministry, we would be dealing with things like road improvements, sightline improvements, highway upgrades — things like that.

Rosalyn Bird: It’s a good question, and it does actually overlap over multiple ministries. I would offer to the minister if we could sit down and figure out where those pieces fit into and which ministry does monitor each thing. I’m happy to do that offline.

I do have one last question, though, in regards…. It sort of lines up with this, but it’s a slightly different question. There are a number of communities along the highway itself, but there are some very small or more remote communities that are actually off the highway. There have been complaints or concerns raised by some of those communities in the last few years.

My question to the minister is: are there any plans or are you looking at expanding publicly funded services from community to community in the northern region?

Interjection.

Rosalyn Bird: In terms of transportation, yes, please.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Yeah, we can have a conversation on that.

To that, in terms of some of the safety improvements, I know last year there was $34.7 million in terms of projects in the member’s riding. This year another $10 million is anticipated. Of course, that’s based on projects that are dependent on conditions and the roads and things like that. Those would be improvements in the member’s own riding.

In terms of the isolated communities the member has talked about, through NDIT we funded eight community shuttles last year, and there may be the potential for another intake this year. These, again, have the ability to serve smaller communities and smaller community runs.

I hope that assists.

Harman Bhangu: It’s getting late in the fourth quarter of estimates here, Mike. What would you say: run, pass or special teams?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Special teams.

Harman Bhangu: Let’s go.

Turning to the Cascadia high-speed rail project, this is a long-term transportation initiative that has been discussed for several years, with the objective of connecting Vancouver, Seattle and Portland through a high-speed rail corridor. This project has been advanced in partnerships with jurisdictions in the United States, particularly Washington state, which has had a lead role in planning and coordination.

The most recent publicly available cost estimate for full corridor is approximately $42 billion, based on the work completed in 2019. Since that time, there have been significant changes to economic conditions, inflation, construction, cost pressures and overall cost and feasibility of the project.

In the United States, the project has progressed through the Federal Railroad Administration corridor identification and development program, with federal funding supporting early planning work and advancement into subsequent phases. British Columbia remains involved through agreements and participation on technical and executive committees and has contributed funding for early planning and work.

At the same time, there has been limited clarity on the province’s current role, level of commitment and how this project is expected to advance within British Columbia.

What is the province’s approach to communicating progress on this report, and how does it ensure that updates reflect work happening in British Columbia?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

Washington state is the active lead on this particular potential project. They have funding from the U.S. federal government. B.C. is an active participant at the table. We are not providing funding, but we are engaged with the business community and Indigenous nations on the potential of this project as it would apply to B.C.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister clarify the province’s current role in the next phase of planning that is now underway in the United States?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Washington is the lead. They are engaged in service plan development, which includes looking at what potential routes, for example, might be possible. They share that information with B.C. to get B.C.’s perspective on things.

At the same time, we continue to do engagement with the business community and Indigenous nations.

Harman Bhangu: That could be a real big upside to the tourism too.

How does the ministry distinguish between announcements tied to planning progress and those tied to broader coordination with partners?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Could you just clarify that question again, please?

Harman Bhangu: How does the ministry distinguish between announcements tied to planning progress and those tied to broader coordination with partners?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. We’re working with Washington state. We’re engaging on this side with First Nations, for example, the business community. Washington state is taking the lead, so any announcements on progress would come through Washington state, and we would be partnering with them on that.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you to the minister.

The reason why I bring this up…. It was a huge election promise in the past, and my job is to represent British Columbians. There’s always a cost example, so I’m here to keep the government honest.

I want to move on to the Highway 1 Fraser Valley project. In reviewing the ministry’s work on Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley…. This is one of the most significant infrastructure commitments for a rapid-growing region. More than 80,000 drivers use this corridor every day, and it carries over $65 billion in goods annually. For families and businesses in Langley, Abbotsford and the neighbouring ridings and beyond, this project is part of their daily lives, getting to work, moving goods and staying connected through regions.

The government has described this as a phased project with multiple segments, moving forward, over time. Some early work has been completed, and other portions are currently under construction. But when you look at the full timeline, the reality is that key portions of this corridor are not expected to be completed until the end of the decade — in some cases, on to the next decade.

At the same time, traffic volumes continue to grow. Congestion remains a daily challenge for commuters. There are also major questions about what comes next, particularly east of Abbotsford, where planning is still underway and timelines and costs remain unclear.

[4:25 p.m.]

Beyond timelines, there is a broader question about whether the project as designed will actually meet long-term demands and whether the level of investment translates into meaningful improvement for drivers.

Can the minister provide a clear end-to-end timeline for when the full Highway 1 widening through the Fraser Valley from Langley through Abbotsford towards Chilliwack will be completed?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member because it’s an opportunity to outline some of the progress on what I think is a pretty major project and a pretty major project that is underway.

The member is right. There is significant congestion out there. It’s a high-growth area, and these improvements are critical.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Exactly. It is a lifeline. So I think it’s important to outline the work that has been done to date and work that is continuing to be done to date.

One of the key things in terms of this project is the number of B.C. firms, local firms with workers from the area, from the region, working on it, including significant numbers of apprentices. One of the key things to doing that was putting the project out in a distinct number of pieces, as opposed to putting out one project as a whole.

The project does have four phases.

Phase 1 was to the 216 Street interchange. That was completed in 2020.

Phase 2, the 216 to 264 Street, is in construction. Completion on that will be in 2029. There are three construction packages within that phase: the Glover Road underpass, which is now complete; the 232 interchange, which is in construction and 50 percent complete; and the CPKC, or as I like to call it, CP Rail.

I’m not a big fan of the additional “KC.” I worked for CP. It was CP Rail that went across the country. It was called the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I always call it the Canadian Pacific Railway, despite that they bought the Kansas City one.

That goes to tender. That went to tender in March of this year.

Phase 3 is the 264 Street to Mount Lehman Road. That’s in construction, with completion in 2028. There are three construction phases to that. The 264 Street interchange is in construction. That’s 54 percent complete. Mainline west — that’s 54 percent complete in construction. The Mount Lehman Road interchange in construction…. That is 32 percent complete.

Phase 3B will be Mount Lehman Road to Highway 11. That’s in design and procurement. That will be completed by 2031.

There are advanced works that are substantially complete. There are three construction packages. Peardonville Road overpass is in design. Mainline east is in procurement. Highway 11, in construction, is 10 percent complete.

[4:30 p.m.]

Then finally, phase 4 is Highway 11 to Yale Road West, and that is in planning. There’s planning under that and an integrated planning study underway. So there’s significant work in progress.

The other thing about this project that I think is really important is the innovation. I know the member is concerned about whether it meets the ability for the future, which it absolutely does. It’s what will seem to be a very cool interchange. It is the first diamond interchange in British Columbia. There are a couple in other parts of the country. You’re seeing them now in the States, and they really improve the flow of traffic. There are significant accident reductions by using this particular design of an overpass.

I know the member will probably have other questions on this, but I just wanted to give an outline of the work and the progress to date. I know that people in that area are watching this and are really happy to see it underway — not least of which is one of my nieces who lives in Abbotsford and lets me know about the traffic congestion.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister.

So phase 1. I just want to know…. You went over phase 1, phase 2. Then there’s phase 3A, phase 3B and phase 4. For phase 1, was that completed on time and on budget?

I also have questions regarding phase 4. I know the estimated total was $19 million. Has that gone up as well?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: On the first phase, that budget was started under the previous administration, so I will have to get back to you with the number on that.

I can tell you that in terms of phase 4, currently $42 million is budgeted in terms of the planning for that phase.

Harman Bhangu: That’s quite the increase.

I want to talk about capacity and design. How many net new general-purpose lanes will drivers actually see on Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley once the project is fully complete, accounting for HOV lanes and bus-on-shoulder lanes?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There’s some significantly increasing capacity. I’d just like to list them for the member.

There will be 57.6 kilometres of new HOV EV lanes, seven kilometres of truck-climbing lanes, 36.6 kilometres of bus-on-shoulder lanes, 13.8 kilometres of multi-use path. That’s sidewalk, bike lanes, for example. There will be nine structures, new interchanges. There will be five structure upgrades, interchanges upgrade, and there will be five additional mobility hubs.

Harman Bhangu: I asked for the net new lanes for general drivers. One thing is that this project has pictures online, and screenshots are forever. I’ve looked at it. It’s got two lanes in the middle. It’s got one for the HOV and a shoulder lane on the outside. So we might want to review that. I will show you the picture if you’d like to see it later on. It was on the website.

I had a lot of truckers reach out to me because now nine-axle trucks do not need an escort vehicle. It’s a great concern of theirs when there are two middle lanes and then there’s an HOV and a bus lane on the shoulder. So that picture was put out there. Maybe it was incorrect, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

What would the minister say to commuters in Langley and Abbotsford who are dealing with the congestion today and are being told that full relief may be years away?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

I’d say this. We are bringing online those projects as they are being completed. Langley is closest, and those are the ones that are being done first. Those improvements, when they’re done, are online, and they’re there for people to be able to use and have a good driving experience.

At the same time, there’s also significant transit infrastructure projects underway that are also going to help give the public out that way transportation options that they don’t currently have. For example, the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, which is going out to Langley city, is going to significantly reduce the time to go from Langley to Surrey Centre to Vancouver.

[4:40 p.m.]

You couple that with the work that’s underway on Highway 1, and those are pretty significant transportation and transit options that are happening. That’s not including the work that’s underway on the BRT, for example, that I know is also something that Langley is very much wanting to see developed, and the TransLink investment plan. That’s a whole other set of investments underway.

So there’s a lot going on in terms of transit and transportation improvements in the valley and for the area that the member represents.

Harman Bhangu: What is the current total projected cost of all phases of the Highway 1 Fraser Valley widening project compared to the first cost when the project was announced?

I’d like to pass the floor over to my colleague from Abbotsford South for a quick question.

Bruce Banman: Actually, if time permits, I have two.

We had a group of gentlemen come in and talk to us that have some concerns with regards to fire and being hired for B.C. Ferries. Here’s the question. The question is that if they have a beard, they’re automatically disqualified to be on the fire team.

As a matter of fact, it got to the point…. We know that B.C. Ferries is looking for applicants to be able to hire, and of two of them…. One was clean-shaven and the other one had a beard. They hired the clean-shaven one and did not hire the one with a beard, although they were equally qualified.

Now, as the minister knows, my son is the battalion chief for Vancouver fire. Vancouver has already gone through this. There is a gel that you can put on. As a matter of fact, they tried it for both tear gas and for inhalation wearing a mask, which is…. One is a negative pressure; one is a positive pressure. It absolutely worked.

So my question: is this discriminatory practice because it now gets into being a religious discrimination? Is this practice going to continue, or will B.C. Ferries be mandated to update with the proper ventilation gear?

There are those that go around the neck, or you can…. As I said, they can do it on the gel, and it is about the air infiltration that is important, not necessarily the mask. They’ve got it where it has to be a face seal, but that also can be a problem when all that’s required is a neck seal, and it’s actually superior in some cases, depending on the apparatus.

When it comes to something as serious as fire on a B.C. ferry, are we going to mandate that B.C. Ferries update this so they can actually get qualified people that want to do this job and also avoid the potential embarrassment that it becomes a religious impediment or discrimination as well?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I do know that there have been some changes in the federal rules and regulations around beards. They can now be worn, certainly for deck officers and below-deck officers — for engineers, for example.

I will check with B.C. Ferries and get back to the member in terms of if it applies to firefighters, for you.

Bruce Banman: I do appreciate that, Minister. As we have plenty of Sikhs that are in British Columbia in particular, this could be a very potentially embarrassing and discriminatory practice that, when there is a viable alternative, needs to come to an end, no matter how that comes to be, I would suggest.

I know that B.C. is monitoring EV bike usage, and in 2024, they introduced stricter definitions. We know that an EV bike that’s 500 watts or less is capable of 32 kilometres.

I have heard several concerns that those that use EV bikes — that the sole reason why this province is monitoring this is that they plan on implementing an insurance policy because at 32 kilometres an hour, an EV bike, which is considerably heavy due to the batteries, can do significant damage to a pedestrian or to a vehicle. Sometimes it’s the bikes that the EV riders themselves, the EV bikes, that could potentially be at fault.

Does this government have any plans to implement any kind of liability insurance for those that are using EV bikes as they become more and more popular?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. There are no plans.

There are certainly issues of concern around safety and around people not wearing helmets and riding scooters and carrying someone on their back and running stop signs and thinking that they don’t have to look right, left and whether traffic is coming on. There are issues, I think, around education, particularly around young people, around speed and your level of gravity when you stop and you go flying over one of those things. But there are no plans in terms of mandating insurance or bringing insurance.

Harman Bhangu: I’d like to move on to the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project. This is one of the largest transit investments currently underway in British Columbia. It is a 16-kilometre extension from King George Station to Langley city, with multiple new stations and major guideway construction. The project budget has increased from just over $4 billion to approximately $5.996 billion, including up to $1.3 billion in federal funding.

Construction began in late 2024, and now we’re in May of 2026. That means this project has been under construction for well over a year. Work is now clearly visible across the corridor. Guideways are going up, pillars are in place, and the station structures are beginning to emerge along Fraser Highway. The project will reshape how people move through the region. It will also reshape the land use, development patterns and daily life around each station.

[4:50 p.m.]

At that same time, the impacts are already being felt. Businesses are dealing with sustained disruption. Residents are living alongside ongoing construction. Major decisions are tied to the project, including the south of Fraser maintenance and storage facility involving land use, such as removing land from the ALR. The facility involves a 14-hectare site and a $7 million off-site commitment with a business case that was expected to move through approvals in 2025 and into early 2026.

The question at this stage is not whether the project will deliver benefits. It is how it is being delivered, how impacts are being managed today and whether the decisions being made today will hold up over time.

Can the minister confirm the current $5.996 billion project budget remains on track as of May 2026?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm current status of major construction activities along the full alignment?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to talk about, I think, one of the most impressive projects that is underway south of the Fraser. That is the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain system. It’s 16 kilometres, eight stations, going to completely reshape land use; 4,400 segments of rail, of concrete guideway. It’s 30 percent complete. All stations are under construction. There’s a significant amount of work that people are seeing.

Is it disruptive in terms of traffic? Absolutely. But people in Surrey and Langley are seeing something that is going to be there for a very long time, shaping their community, improving the community, significant economic development and activity occurring with the construction of this project. It is going to be really cool when it’s finished.

Harman Bhangu: What coordination has taken place with local police and transit police regarding enforcement at future stations and, if any has been made, to ensure adequate transit police presence once the line is operational?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just as in the rest of the SkyTrain system, TransLink, and it is TransLink that has the transit police force, would ensure and have the appropriate number of transit police officers to service the new 16-kilometre line, the eight stations that are there. All the residential development is going to be around those stations. Yeah, they will absolutely make sure they’ve got the required transit police to ensure safety and security at those stations.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm the current status of the business case for the south of Fraser maintenance and storage facility?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: This is a two-part project. The province acquired the land. The province is doing the preloading, which you can see underway. Once that is complete, then TransLink will be dealing with the operating centre and the construction site.

Harman Bhangu: What progress has been made in allocating or deploying the $7 million in offset funding?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The $7 million. In terms of offsetting, we’re working with the Ministry of Agriculture, the city of Surrey, First Nations and the local agricultural community on what would be the best use of the $7 million to achieve the most optimistic offsetting benefits.

Larry Neufeld: I’m going to let the minister guess why I stood up, and I can see by the look on his face that he knows what this question is. Taylor Bridge — absolutely a critical piece of infrastructure in the North, in the northeast. The economic value that would be lost from losing access to that bridge would be felt throughout the province, would be my suggestion.

Given that the original bridge has already collapsed once in 1957, the new bridge opened in 1960, which makes it 66 years old….

I have a three-part question. What was the original design life of the bridge, of the original structure? What is the replacement plan? What is the plan around the mitigation of the incredibly significant economic costs of losing access to that exceptionally critical piece of infrastructure?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I understand that for him, this is very important. It’s also important for me, because I do recognize the critical importance that that bridge plays in terms of not just the northeast of British Columbia but the province as a whole. It is a crucial piece of infrastructure.

I want to say I appreciate his advocacy because it makes my job, as minister advocating for this project to go ahead…. It assists me in doing that, so I just want to acknowledge that for the member.

Now, in terms of lifespan of the bridge, bridges built about that time were built to a 50-year standard. If you didn’t do any maintenance, it’s 50 years. But the reality is that you invest in the bridge over time, and that extends the life.

That being said, we know the bridge is coming to the end of its useful life. It needs to be replaced, and I fully acknowledge that.

There has been work in terms of getting it to the point where we’re able to move it forward, where it gets serious consideration on the capital plan. To date, in terms of the planning, about $31 million has been spent. There’ll be another $9 million over the next two years.

The following work planned for this year includes additional property acquisition, archaeological investigations, soil characterization testing — which we know is important, because your neck of the woods has got some pretty interesting and often very unstable soils, particularly on the north slope — north slope stability analysis and then, also, continued rehabilitation of key structural elements of the existing bridge.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t emphasize that bridges are inspected. They are safe, and that is of critical importance, I know, to you and to your constituents. But I want you to know that I attach a great deal of importance to this project.

Harman Bhangu: Following the decisions on Highway 1, it is important to revisit a broader commitment made by this government regarding transportation in the Fraser Valley. Once again, it is my job to hold the government to account and speak on behalf of British Columbians, especially the folks in the Fraser Valley.

In the 2020 election platform, the B.C. NDP committed to supporting expansion of rail up the Fraser Valley as part of planning for future clean transit projects with long-lasting economic benefits. The commitment was later reflected in the province’s work of the Fraser Valley integrated transportation and development plan, which examined long-term multimodal solutions for rapidly growing regions. That work explicitly included consideration of commuter rail options in the Fraser Valley, including potential use of existing corridors such as the historical interurban line.

At the time, this was framed as part of a forward-looking approach, one that would integrate road transit and rail infrastructure and support people and movement of goods. But several years later there has been no clear implementation of the commuter rail in the Fraser Valley.

At the same time, the province is making multi-billion-dollar investments on the Highway 1 corridor, decisions that will shape the region’s transportation network for decades, which raises an important question of whether the planning and design choices being made today are preserving future rail options or potentially limiting them. Once major infrastructure is built, opportunities that were once possible can quickly become much harder or even impossible to deliver.

The issue is not simply whether rail was studied. It is whether the province has followed through on its own public commitment in expanding rail in the Fraser Valley and whether current decisions have kept that option alive.

[5:05 p.m.]

So can the minister provide an update on the status of the Fraser Valley integrated transportation and development plan and any conclusions related to commuter rail?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. In part of my answer, the Chair may want to cover her ears, because I might say something against the community she represents. Just joking.

This issue of commuter rail is one of real importance and something I’ve been very much involved with. It was one of the reasons I ran for city council. I was a member of the city council in Port Coquitlam when Port Coquitlam and Port Moody — but not Coquitlam — pushed for and spearheaded the commuter rail program. That was more the fault of the mayor, as opposed to Coquitlam, at the time.

When we formed government in 1991, that was one of the key projects that government committed to and put in place. That was the West Coast Express, which runs along the north side of the Fraser all the way out to Mission, and I think has been an incredibly successful public transit project on the existing CP Rail main lines.

I am a big fan of commuter rail. I’d love to see it expanded out into the valley, but there are…. Right now, if you were to do it, you would have to use the existing CP Rail line, which would mean negotiating with CP Rail. For CP Rail, their primary concern is the movement of freight as opposed to passengers. That being said, the rail corridors are still very much there.

At the same time, the province has been very much focused on the Fraser Valley, in terms of transportation planning, twofold. One, obviously, is the No. 1 Highway going through and the work under that. The other has been the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, which is, in essence, a form of rail that links Vancouver, Surrey, out to Langley.

That does not take away from the ability in the future to use the existing other rail corridors. Even though Southern Railway has the old BCR route, and I talked about that with the member for Abbotsford South, it’s still something that I’m certainly interested in.

What we’ve been doing is very much an integrated transportation plan. It has been things such as the BRTs, the SkyTrain, the widening of the No. 1. That also ties in with the existing commuter rail on the north side of the Fraser.

Harman Bhangu: It looks like this was probably the first project that was re-paced, I guess.

How does the design of Highway 1 widening project account for the potential future integration of rail infrastructure along the corridor and whether there is sufficient right-of-way that has been preserved to accommodate future rail expansion alongside within the Highway 1 corridor?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Nothing on the construction of the No. 1 Highway widening project precludes the ability to do some form of, let’s say, light rail, for example, in the future.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on to the Ironworkers Bridge. Turning to the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, this is a critical crossing for North Shore, relied on by tens of thousands of commuters every day. The bridge has been in service since 1960, and while it continues to operate safely, it was not designed for today’s traffic volumes.

The province has acknowledged that ongoing congestion challenges arise when incidents disrupt travel across the corridor. In response, the ministry is undertaking a planning study to examine long-term options, including a potential replacement crossing and integration with transit, goods movement and general traffic. But at this stage, the work remains in study phase.

Phase 1 has been focused on reviewing existing conditions and constraints, while phase 2 is expected to move to more detailed analysis and engagement. At the same time, there are parallel discussions underway about rapid transit to the North Shore with no final decision yet on the technology or alignment. Even smaller-scale improvements, such as structural retrofits, do not yet have confirmed construction funding.

What we have is a situation where what we need is clear. The constraints are known. The planning work is underway. But the decisions have been made, and no funding has been secured for major improvements, which raises a simple question. When will this move from study into action? Can the minister provide an update on the current status of the Ironworkers Memorial planning study, including completion of phase 1 and timeline for phase 2?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Right now the phase that’s underway is working with TransLink, the local governments in the area and First Nations in the area to understand how the growth that is taking place has the potential for constraints or what it means in terms of the long-term future of the bridge and options around it.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:13 p.m.

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

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Jobs and Economic Growth
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $72,704,000 (continued).

Gavin Dew: For those who are watching, you’re tuning in to day 2 of estimates. Everyone in the room is deliriously tired because we were all up until at least 4 a.m., engaged in other business of the House. We’re going to try to keep our heads on straight today, but if we’re a little less than top-notch, that’s why.

Where we left off yesterday. I had asked the minister the story of why he gave up the coolest ministry name in the government, and he did provide what I felt was an appropriate and adequate answer to that question. I continue to hold the contention that under a new, Conservative government, the ministry will once again be restored to glory and will be appropriately retitled as JEDI — Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation — just for those who are interested to know whether there will, in fact, be a return of the JEDI.

[1:15 p.m.]

Where we were on substantive issues yesterday. We were talking about artificial intelligence. We canvassed some early parts of that discussion and began to dig into that. I think I’ll pick up on that topic and delve a little bit more into some of the breadth of AI.

I’ll start with this question: can the minister provide just a little bit more colour on the division of responsibility between Jobs and Economic Growth, the Minister of State for AI, Citizens’ Services, advanced education and the Premier’s office, along with the Attorney General, on AI?

We’ve seen a mixture of commentary around those issues that touch on the AI portfolio over the last period of time. I’m just trying to get a little bit of a clearer understanding as to how that all fits together.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. He’s correct. There are different responsibilities. That’s why the minister of state role is so important, because the minister of state now works with other partners.

The Minister of Citizens’ Services focuses on AI internally, how our systems can be better deployed and how we can optimize our operations. The Attorney General’s office is leading a lot of the work around harm and protection of the public from that.

The minister of state’s focus is around adoption or on attracting investment, working with the Post-Secondary Ministry around training. The role is critical — to work with all those partners, to move all those pieces forward.

Gavin Dew: Is the government focused more on regulating AI, adopting AI in public services, protecting jobs in government against AI or growing AI companies in B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I wouldn’t say it’s one or the other. All are important. We want to see more investments in this space. We want to see a productivity increase. So deployment of AI in an effective way is important.

[1:20 p.m.]

We want to make sure that workers are protected in this environment, which means giving them the tools and the education opportunities to harness the power of AI and also to be more resilient in the changing economy.

Lastly, we do want to protect the public, but we want to do it in a national frame, and that’s the conversation we’ve been having. I won’t go too much into it, but my colleague across the way knows about the role that AI could have played with the incident in Tumbler Ridge. Those are the kinds of spaces where we have to do something to protect the public.

Again, it wouldn’t be one or the other. I think we’ve got to do all of them as we move forward.

Governments around the world are grappling with all those things simultaneously, and we’re tackling those things as well. We do communicate with the federal government a lot. The minister of state and the Attorney General have been working with them on protecting the public. I’ve been speaking to my federal counterparts around different things that different provinces are concerned about, and we are trying to do a Team Canada approach.

Gavin Dew: Recognizing there is not yet a plan, philosophically, does B.C. plan to follow a U.S.-style, innovation-first model, a U.K.-style sectoral safety model or an EU-style regulatory model?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I note the member raised national governments in that example. I won’t do the direct comparisons between those national governments.

I can share that in our conversation with the federal government, their view has been around what we should do as a nation and that our partners should focus on enabling innovation, not as much in the regulation space. But there are places where we do need some regulations around protecting the public. We really want to see that adopted. We just want to see AI companies investing in growing opportunities here.

AI is everywhere. I think anyone that suggests that somehow you’re going to be able to stop AI is delusional in some way or another, but we can put guardrails in place to protect the public.

A few weeks ago I was touring a welding operation — they were talking about how they’re using AI — and talking to a guy that works there. He was one of those folks who never thought that AI-enabled tech would be supporting him in his work. But it is being deployed everywhere, and we want to harness that power for our economy.

Gavin Dew: How many public servants are currently using approved AI tools?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that everyone in government has approved AI tools available for them to use. It’s being led by Ministry of Citizens’ Services, so I can’t go too much into it, but tools are available for all public servants.

Gavin Dew: Does the minister have any statistics on what share of public servants are actually using approved AI tools or what share might be using unapproved AI tools?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That might be a better question at Citizens’ Services estimates.

Gavin Dew: I’m going to chomp around the margins of some of this stuff because I figure you may know, and it’s okay if you don’t.

Is the minister able to share if the government has set a productivity target for government AI adoption?

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: For productivity, a target for increased productivity.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member’s question is around AI use within government, and again that’s Citizens’ Services.

Gavin Dew: What is the budget for AI and new technologies inside this ministry or, if it’s not yet set, what is the order of magnitude expected?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member didn’t ask the specifics, but I’ll just share anyways. He’ll note that about $3.4 million has shifted from our budget to Citizens’ Services in an effort across government to centralize all services in one place, as well as deployment of AI tools. It’s not done now directly by ministries. It’s done centrally through Citizens’ Services, in order to deploy it more effectively across government.

Gavin Dew: I’ve had the opportunity to be at a couple of public events where the Minister of Finance and others have been very directly asked, including at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, about specifically what objectives they have, what their thinking is around the implementation of AI in a context where the public sector workforce has grown at a dramatically greater rate than the private sector workforce in this province.

I note that each time that question has been asked there has not been an answer. The Minister of Finance completely dodged the question on a number of occasions. So I would really love if somebody from the government could actually clearly articulate whether government actually has an attempt to use AI to manage the size of its workforce, as is being, I think, far more aggressively undertaken federally.

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s interest in this. I believe Finance estimates are still coming, so it is a place for that conversation to happen, as well as Citizens’ Services.

There is a lot of work happening in this space, and the member is correct. The Minister of Finance is a strong believer in the tech sector, as is the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who was previously in this ministry as well. Having two individuals who understand the power of tech leading those two roles and working together…. I think there are a lot of opportunities within government and — maybe a joint interest for the member and I — also opportunities for B.C. companies to get in and access procurement opportunities.

But again, I’m not dodging the question, because I think it’s a good one. It’s just that the work is being done by Citizens’ Services and some of it with the Ministry of Finance. So they’ll have more details for the member.

Gavin Dew: I recognize again that it’s a cross-ministry mandate. This is another reason why it is a source of great frustration that we have a Minister of State for AI and we have no discernible plan after seven months of having a minister of state in that mandate. That is a source of frustration.

Again, AI is a very integrative file that cuts across government, that cuts across the range of issues that we’re canvassing now. So it is frustrating to see the lack of a clear, coherent, integrated plan that would fit together.

As it relates to, specifically, economic development, AI obviously could be used to help summarize applications, flag missing information, triage files, draft standard correspondence and reduce routine administrative delays. Can the minister speak to which permitting or approval processes, specifically, government has identified as candidates for AI-enabled acceleration, what timeline reduction the minister is prepared to commit to and when that will be in place?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member knows that we don’t do permitting directly within our ministry.

I think he has expressed some frustration. Certainly, all the provinces at the table wanting to do a unified national approach to the strategy are also expressing some frustration that the national plan hasn’t been released, because we all have agreed to find ways to align. My understanding…. The minister that’s responsible will be here next week, I believe, at Web Summit. I’m looking forward to chatting with him.

They have identified some additional things that require them to do a little bit more due diligence before they announce theirs, and I’ve already shared with the member that ours will come out very soon after. We’re doing a lot of work behind the scenes to align that, and the minister of state has been doing a lot of work leading that work.

Now, the member’s question around AI deployment within ministries. We don’t do that in permitting, but I can share with the member that AI is being deployed in the permitting space. The WLRS Ministry is using AI widely now for their permitting, and probably it’s one of the reasons that they’re able to dramatically reduce a lot of the wait times that they had in their permitting process.

I can also share…. These are the ones I know about, because the minister of state has been engaging with different ministries. Forestry is using AI in their ministry around fire and protection for communities. Every ministry that is doing permitting work is deploying AI in different ways.

But our ministry doesn’t do permitting work, and that’s the only reason why I can’t share with him specifically.

Gavin Dew: I certainly recognize, again, that this is a very cross-cutting ministry that is sort of a Swiss Army knife or a glue for the government, so I will continue to ask questions that cut across those lines under the expectation that, at its best, that is what this ministry does.

[1:35 p.m.]

I think back to the hallowed years of the B.C. jobs plan, which was a key enabling document for a past government, and the role that the Jobs Ministry played in it, and I worry that the ministry has less influence and less impact than it did at that time. I would like to see it be a greater enabler of job creation and economic development cutting across government in the future, and it will be.

The minister talked about procurement. What share of B.C. government AI procurement is currently going to B.C.-based companies, Canadian companies and foreign-domiciled multinationals? Does the government track that, and what are the numbers?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member recognizing the role that this ministry plays in working across government. I know the member is aware of our Look West economic strategy that touches multiple ministries and helps drive economic growth in the province — hence the name, which he’s not a fan of, of the ministry.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, yeah, he just likes JEDI better — okay, for the record.

Again, on the question the member has asked, because the procurement is done through the Ministry of Citizen’s Services, they’ll have that information. I don’t have the folks here that have that information available to us.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that at a practical level, but I also return to my previous point. We have a Minister of State for AI. We have no plan, have no report, and we have no information. This is information that should be readily available from the Minister of State for AI.

Until I start seeing that kind of information being produced, and until I start seeing the Minister for AI actually leading on AI files, rather than anybody other than the Minister for AI being in the media, I will continue to believe we do not have an effective Minister of State for AI.

We need to see a plan. We need to see action by the minister of state. Industry needs to see activity, and it is alarming that we continue to see what appears to be a largely absent AI strategy. While I appreciate that the government wants to wait until the feds move first, I am very unimpressed by that.

The speed and pace of development in the AI world is extraordinarily fast. We are being left behind, comparatively. Seven months with the Minister of State for AI, no report, not much to say, no ability to quantify procurements, no ability to talk about what’s happening across ministries — very disappointing.

Let’s move on to some more questions about AI. Again, returning to the cross-cutting nature of the AI portfolio with Post-Secondary and with Jobs, AI literacy is now a core workforce skill in B.C.’s education and training system.

What is government doing to train people for today’s job market? In particular, what is government doing to enable incremental AI literacy? I think there’s a tendency in the conversation around AI to think about big, sexy AI, to think about extremely disruptive AI. I’d like to understand what’s being done to enable the incremental small business — the coffee shop, the tire shop, the incremental business person — to become more literate and for their future workforce to become more literate.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member asks questions of us that are targeted for other ministries. If we don’t have an answer, there’s an assumption that the work is not happening. I just want to make sure I clarify that that’s not actually the facts.

I’ve shared that there’s work happening across government. But if the question is how much procurement is happening through B.C. companies, that’s a question for Citizens’ Services, because they’ll have that data. We just don’t have the people here that have the exact answer. I can give him a vague answer, but that won’t help the member for what he’s looking for.

I’ve touched on the role the minister of state plays working with multiple ministries, because AI is everywhere. If this were just a singular ministry, it obviously would be a different situation, but it touches everything.

Now, as far as education goes, I can share with the member that we’re working right now with the Ministry of Education for a K-to-12 table on AI deployment in schools. That’s part of our Look West economic strategy. The minister of state is doing work on that with the Ministry of Education. Then the Ministry of Post-Secondary is obviously talking to our partners across the education space.

AI is everywhere. They’ve been dealing with this for some time. It’s not only our post-secondary spaces; it’s skills- and trades-training, and the list goes on. There’s a lot of work happening. In fact, SDPR even plays a role in supporting that. So there are multiple ministries that are touching this file and that are working on advancing this.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I appreciate the minister’s polite frustration at the scope of the questions around AI. I note that the Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence is not available for estimates, so I can’t ask those questions of the Minister of State for AI, who has no plan. I would sure love to be able to ask those questions. I would sure be curious as to why there is not a minister of artificial intelligence, given the scope of impact.

I’m just really trying to understand why it seems to be such a tacked-on, ornamental position without clear lines of governance, clear lines of accountability and a clear plan. I’m wondering if the minister can expand on whether there was any consideration of creating a full minister of artificial intelligence, whether there will be any conversation about that, and whether and when we’ll actually be able to get some serious accountability and a serious plan on AI from this government.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My friend across the way just made the case earlier that I don’t have influence in government. I don’t maybe agree with that, but when it comes to deciding cabinet, I definitely can tell him I have no influence in government and what ministries get struck and where.

The fact that we have our first minister of state dedicated to AI is huge. It hasn’t happened in the province before. It’s great to see the federal government put a minister in place as well.

I would note for my friend across the way that even the federal government…. Although they have a minister dedicated to AI, that minister has to work with six other ministers to advance their strategy, constantly working with my colleague Minister Joly, constantly working with their education folks, working with their defence folks. They see AI in the minister’s role similarly to the way we see our minister of state’s role, which is working with all of our partners to ensure they’re all pulling in the same direction.

So to the question of why we didn’t put a minister dedicated to that, we do have a minister dedicated to the work, and I appreciate the efforts he’s been putting in.

Gavin Dew: I think the minister walked into this one, with his note on not having influence over cabinet.

When he takes over from the Premier, will he commit to renaming the ministry as…?

The Chair: I’m just going to interrupt the member for Kelowna-Mission. Please direct your questions through the Chair.

[1:45 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Oh, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When the minister takes over from the Premier in the near future, will he commit to creating a full minister of artificial intelligence, and will he rename his ministry back to JEDI?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate estimate time, and I appreciate debate with my friend across the way because he has been asking thoughtful questions, and I’ve been trying to give thoughtful responses.

There is a time for this type of thing, and that’s question period. I love that time, as the member knows, and he loves it as well. So I would just suggest that we save the meaty questions, the discussion around our joint passion to move the economy forward here, and I’ll leave the fun debate that happens in the question period for question period.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the minister’s thoughtful response.

The minister touched on skilling and on the education system, K to 12 in particular. Again, recognizing the cross-cutting nature of the portfolio, can the minister provide some information around how the government is updating the K-to-12, post-secondary, apprenticeship, micro-credential and midcareer retraining so that British Columbians are ready for AI-shaped jobs rather than displaced by them?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A few things there.

AI deployment throughout our education system…. I touched on the K-to-12 piece. The conversation at the K-to-12 piece is similar to what’s happening in the post-secondary space — not only how AI is completely changing how education is done, whether that’s teachers trying to make sure that kids are actually learning and not just using AI to be able to get through….

I shared the story of a young man that I met last summer who was talking about how he got a B in English in university. I said: “Oh, that’s great.” My partner said to him: “What books were you reading in your university class?” And he said: “I didn’t read a single book.”

So it’s here. It’s in our communities, and it’s impacting post-secondary. It’s impacting K to 12.

Part of the working group for K to 12 is looking at the very question of: how do you use this power for good and enhance the education opportunities and also prepare our people? My friend is a teacher, so he would fully understand the challenge, the grappling challenge, that teachers are dealing with.

Now, in the post-secondary space, this is not a new conversation. It has been happening for some time. Almost every single program is being, I think, looked at through the lens of: how will this program and this education change with the lens of AI? It’s not because…. It’s because everyone has no choice. So that work is happening.

We engage with our post-secondary partners, who tell us of everything from people in life sciences and how they’re deploying AI to get better drug discovery to a welder making sure that their automated welding machine is getting to the right mark and getting the job done. It’s everywhere, so the institutions are all changing in that direction. It will be a key part of the federal government’s plan, and it will be an important part of whatever comes from us as well.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the thoughtful answer.

I want to talk for a minute about skills-biased job dislocation. AI will not affect all workers equally. It’s most likely to disrupt routine knowledge work, entry-level administrative jobs, junior analysts, customer service, communications, clerical roles and some professional services work. Like any other significant change, again, the impact will not be evenly spread.

Can the minister speak about whether or not the ministry or the Minister of State for AI has identified which B.C. occupations are the most exposed to AI-related displacement, and will he table that analysis?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There is no shortage of studies on this topic. I’ve read far too many of them. If you put it into ChatGPT right now, it’ll tell you an analysis and pull all of them out for you as well.

I think the bottom line is that every single job will have some form of impact with AI. I think that’s why it’s so important for those conversations we’re having with our education partners around what the skill sets are that we need to make sure our young people have — critical thinking, empathy, all these things — that will better position them to be able to navigate this fast-changing world we live in.

I mentioned to the member earlier that every single sector is being impacted. Accountants — I met with the B.C. accountants association, who talked about their industry and what that means for them. The health care space is being impacted already.

I met with a tech company leader the other day who said: “I’m not laying anybody off, because I need my people. But because of deployment of AI and the increase in productivity we’re seeing, I just may not be hiring as many people as I thought in the future.”

So the changes are happening at a very fast pace, and it’s in every sector.

Gavin Dew: It’s interesting that the minister suggested plugging it into ChatGPT, because I did that. Having plugged it into ChatGPT, I actually got a breakdown by industry, by employment, by high exposure share and by the estimated exposed workforce. I did that in the time he was answering the question.

In the seven months there has been a Minister of State for AI, the minister of state hasn’t done that. The minister of state has produced no report. The Minister of State for AI has produced no analysis. There is no government-driven plan that integrates all those various studies that are out there and that speaks of any kind of a plan to manage displaced workers in British Columbia.

So after seven months of having a Minister of State for AI who has no plan, the government doesn’t seem to have an AI job strategy at all. How can the government prepare workers for disruption if they haven’t even punched the numbers into ChatGPT and identified, as part of a plan, which workers are the most exposed?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: These estimates might be as long as the debate last night if we keep doing circles around the same topic.

The minister of state has been playing an important role in connecting with all our partners. He has been working with the federal government on our feedback to them on their national framework. Ours will be coming out very soon, aligned with them.

I assume the member has got the same critiques of the federal government, I guess, to say, “How come they don’t have a strategy? It must mean nothing’s happening” — which is false.

I shared with the member that there’s a whole host of things that are coming very soon. He should stay tuned. I know he’s got a bone to pick, it appears, with the minister of state, but I can assure him that he’s doing good work. He’s engaging with all our partners. He’s engaging with all of our various ministries to pull pieces together, and I look forward to being able to share the strategy very soon.

Gavin Dew: I would critique the federal government, but that’s not my job. My job is to critique the minister, and my critic portfolio includes artificial intelligence. So my job is to critique what is and is not being done or is or is not being shown transparently around artificial intelligence.

Right now we have a minister of state who has been in the job for seven months, who has no plan, who has no report — who has no anything, that I can discern, as to what’s happening. It’s nice that the minister of state is having a bunch of nice chats. But you know what? Given the speed with which knowledge is evolving, given the speed of analysis that I can literally conduct on my laptop, on ChatGPT, it is genuinely shocking.

Particularly at a time when we are seeing reports that this government has the worst private sector job creation in Canada over the last six years, and we are seeing generationally high youth unemployment and lost 40,000 jobs in the last two reported months, it is genuinely and earnestly shocking to me that I have seen nothing come out of the Minister of State for AI that speaks to a clear understanding and agenda around how young people are being affected.

Many young people depend on entry-level jobs to build basic workplace experience, but those are exactly the jobs that AI is automating first. We’re already facing a generational crisis of youth unemployment that has been driven by the reckless decriminalization experiment that the Premier foisted on the province, which has decimated our downtown business districts and led to a massive loss of first-time employment for young people, as our storefront sectors crumble.

They’re also facing serious, serious challenges around getting access to first jobs in tech-oriented or white-collar professions, where we’re seeing significant displacement. Both anecdotally and in the numbers, we’re seeing a lot of young people who are exactly the kind of people most likely to start companies and grow companies move out of British Columbia. They’re moving to Alberta. They’re moving to Austin, Texas. They’re moving elsewhere, and they’re not seeing opportunity.

I think there are good, positive, good-news stories that we want to hear, but the reality is that we are facing a generational crisis of youth unemployment in this province.

What is the government’s plan for youth employment? Where is the youth employment strategy that overlaps with the AI strategy that we haven’t seen yet? Is there one? When is it coming? When will we see it?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, it’s convenient that the member uses certain years to pick and choose his numbers for the economy. Since 2017, we’ve had the strongest GDP growth in the country. Employment — we’ve seen, since 2017, 332,600 total jobs in British Columbia, 143,300 private sector jobs. No doubt there are challenges. I think if you look across the world right now, there are challenges.

The member talked about retail sales. We led the country in retail sales.

If the member’s concern is around youth employment, okay, I appreciate.… Any time numbers are high for youth employment, we all should be concerned. I’ve got a youth at home, so I think through that lens as well. What is their future going to look like?

I think what is also important is to recognize that the reason why the budget doubled the funding for skilled-trades training in this province is because of the huge economic opportunities we see for the province coming in, investments coming in. We need to make sure our people are trained up and have those opportunities. Part of that work we’re doing with the Post-Secondary Ministry is also ensuring that our workforce in the tech space is ready to go.

[2:05 p.m.]

We’ve done a lot of work in that space, not only for targeted programming to train people up but also to support companies in their growth, to be able to hire people as well.

I guess we could do this back-and-forth for some time, but I’ll just re-emphasize it again. It’s critically important at this time that the strategies that we deploy, that the provinces deploy, align with the federal government. We’re a little frustrated that it got delayed by another couple months with the federal government, but I understand they’ll be releasing it very soon. Very soon after that, the member will see our strategy as well.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister confirm that the strategy will include an analysis of which occupations are most exposed to AI-related displacement?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member said he just went through ChatGPT and found 20 studies. How many studies would this member like, to get the same information that he has right in front of him in his computer?

The Chair: Just reminding all members, again, to direct your questions through the Chair.

Gavin Dew: You know, I think it’s rather rich to be upset at the idea that I can go on ChatGPT and pull up this analysis. I’m just really wondering why we’ve had a Minister of State for AI for seven months who has produced nothing, who has produced no report, no strategy.

We can plainly talk about the reality that we are facing a generational crisis of youth unemployment. We, I think, have a clear and consistent understanding that we are facing skills-biased job dislocation. We can understand these things.

But we have not seen the government table any thoughtful analysis of which industries are most likely to be displaced, what the mitigation strategy is, what the strategies are to enhance those areas where there is the greatest prospect for growth and, in particular, an overlapping strategy to protect the first rung of the career ladder for young British Columbians.

I think it’s a very, very simple question. I would just like to know, today, whether the minister will commit to tabling a youth employment strategy that delves into those aspects around AI as part of this AI strategy that will eventually, someday, be forthcoming.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would say to the member that he’ll have to stay tuned for the strategy, but young people will be reflected in the strategy, opportunities will be reflected in the strategy, and careers and opportunity in the future will be reflected in that strategy.

I think the member asked if we’ll be referencing or citing research, and we certainly will be.

Gavin Dew: I think we’re all looking forward to getting a clearer public disclosure on what the Minister of State for AI actually has been doing and seeing a plan and being able to have some accountability against that plan. I’d love to be able to ask these questions of the minister of state, but he’s not available here today.

Let’s talk about another area that’s crucially important in terms of the strategy. That is making sure that the incremental small business is able to gain greater AI literacy. We have seen an increasing focus around adoption of AI by, let’s call them, non-tech-first companies. The idea that tech is a horizontal, not a vertical…. The minister knows all the buzzwords.

There is a need to make sure that we’re helping and supporting the workforce and helping and supporting small businesses to become more literate, but it appears as though that’s actually being jammed up in government bureaucracy.

There is the opportunity to gain access to provincial government funding through the B.C. employer training grant, as I gather it. However, I have heard from stakeholders, specifically in recent correspondence from the Academy of Learning Career College, which has an already proven program, the foundational AI literacy program. They are stalled out with the regulatory body, the private training institutions regulatory unit, which has an approval process that can take up to 24 months. That’s a really serious issue.

Obviously, I was able to produce information the Minister of State for AI hasn’t produced, in about 24 seconds, off ChatGPT. The pace with which technology is developing is extremely fast. The pace with which AI is changing is extremely, extremely fast.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where there is funding, there is an entity that is trying to provide the exact kind of training that’s actually outlined as being an important priority in a number of government documents, including Look West. However, they’re actually holding back cohorts due to approval delay.

Recognizing again that there’s a cross-cutting aspect of AI, will the minister commit to having the Minister of State for AI go and have some conversations with the relevant folks to actually get this stuff moving? If we’re going to talk about getting this training, we cannot reasonably expect to have a 24-month approval process when 24 months is a lifetime in the development of AI and AI literacy for the workforce and for small business.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of this private academic institution. I appreciate the member raising it, and I’ll certainly put it through the system.

Gavin Dew: I’m just going to keep on talking about AI, because I really think it’s an important area, and I really would love to see more action on it that we can actually see, touch, feel, understand and have reported on by the Minister of State for AI, who has been in the job for seven months and hasn’t produced a report.

Let’s talk about wildfire. Last year in estimates, when the Minister of Citizens’ Services was the Minister of JEDI, back when it had a cool name, I was able to ask some questions around wildfire. I also did follow up on those questions with other relevant ministries.

One of the issues I flagged is that as far back as 2020, as negotiated in the NDP-Green CASA, there was actually a commitment to move forward with pilot programming around machine learning and the use of AI to help with wildfire detection and suppression. However, that project unfortunately did not continue. It was left to languish, and I’ve really never gotten a clear understanding of why.

There are so many opportunities around wildfire that could be leveraging AI to a greater extent and, again, that cut across ministries. As the minister is well aware, the 2023 wildfire season cost $817 million in suppression alone, and we produced in that year, I think, somewhere in the range of 23 percent of global wildfire emissions — a huge, huge level of emissions. We typically spend about nine times as much fighting wildfires as we do suppressing them.

I’m wondering why, whether in this ministry or in collaboration with this ministry, we’re not seeing ambitious investment in leveraging technology to actively prevent and suppress wildfire.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are using resources to both address the risks of fire and address actual fires. The member is correct to note that there is an industry forming around fire prevention.

I can share with the member that just today we announced $1 million for a company called Skyward, which is using AI in the first-ever field test of using AI to predict lightning so we can predict lightning strikes to be able to prevent fire.

We have created a specific stream for testing B.C. technologies that can help us address climate change–related impacts — in this case, as the member is mentioning, fire, but in flood situations and other types of mitigation as well. We do see a lot of opportunities in there. Today was an example of one company that we just supported in this space.

The Chair: Before I ask the member to speak, I’m going to request a five-minute or six-minute recess. Is that all right with everyone?

Interjection.

The Chair: Sure, absolutely. Go ahead, Member.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much.

The minister will likely be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of asking questions about AI and pointing out the absence of an AI strategy.

On the wildfire front, I will just briefly…. I think we’re probably largely on the same page on this, but I feel it’s important to point out that wildfire emissions produce in Canada about two to three times the emissions of the entirety of human industrial civilization. The massive, massive scope of emissions coming from wildfire is absolutely massive.

As someone who wants to be environmentally responsible, I think it behooves us to be very active in thinking about how we can be innovative on the wildfire front and how, in so doing, that also allows us to have a greater carbon budget to make sure that we’re able to grow industry. That is certainly, I think, a fantastic opportunity for us to do our part, make and contribute our share in terms of environmental responsibility while also growing all industries, including the resource sector, including the pipelines that the government opposes.

So let’s just close out on AI. One of the broad themes I really want to drive home, again, is that I think of this ministry as being the glue ministry. I think of it as being a Swiss Army knife that has the capability and, certainly, the talent to cut across a variety of different ministries, make sure that things are getting done and unlock the opportunity for jobs and economic development in the province. I think there is a tremendous opportunity there.

[2:25 p.m.]

I also have found in last year’s estimates, in this year’s estimates and in general that government is, frankly, quite siloed. There is a tendency for everything to be somewhere else and for there to not be a lot of cross-cutting conversation — whether that be around strategy, accountability or the ways in which resources are used.

The minister has touched on a variety of ways in which AI is being used or will be used in the conduct of government, WLRS permitting being an example. There are sure to be other areas.

With this fragmented approach and without a strategy from the Minister of State for AI, what does accountability look like when it comes to AI across the government? When AI-assisted government processes give bad advice, produce a biased result, mishandle personal information or contribute to an unfair decision, who’s accountable in government?

Is there one minister who’s responsible for AI ethics across the government? Is it the Minister of State for AI, or will responsibility be scattered across ministries if something goes wrong? Help me understand how that accountability mechanism exists.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Just to close a loop on the previous question, I appreciate the member’s point around the impacts on the climate from forest fires. Given that there were significant fires in his backyard, he knows there’s a human impact to it, and there’s also a working-forest impact — you know, less fibre available impacts the forest sector. We do see opportunities to deploy AI and technology to be able to address the problem. Technology can help us, and I’ve highlighted that, but there’s other programming we’re doing as well.

Then on the other piece, I appreciate the member highlighting the complexity of handling information and using AI. Hence, governments are taking a thoughtful approach to rolling out strategies and, in some cases, taking their time to get it right, because it is sensitive.

The member’s question was around who’s accountable. I would say that whichever ministry is dealing with personal, sensitive information is responsible for that information that their ministry is dealing with. The strategies that are being used for using AI are being done in a really thoughtful way, for that reason.

Chair, I know that you wanted to have a short recess for a washroom break, and we’ll come back to it.

The Chair: All right, members, you have heard. This Committee of Supply will take a short recess, and we’ll be back at 2:35.

The committee recessed from 2:28 p.m. to 2:38 p.m.

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order.

Gavin Dew: We’ve wrapped up talking about AI for now, and we’re going to move on to the rapid-fire round. I’ll try to cover off a couple of subjects that I’d just like to get a little bit of update on, and we’ll see if any of them elicit any further discussion. Let’s just roll through some of these.

Can the minister outline the current status of the B.C. intellectual property strategy?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The IP strategy continues to go on. It’s around building awareness, literacy and capacity within our tech ecosystem. I think the member probably already canvassed this last year, but there’s about $14½ million in the program between us and the federal government.

The response — we’ve had a really high demand for that program. The IP pathways program has been done through Innovate B.C. The IP Hub program continues to support a lot of SMEs through the IP process throughout British Columbia.

Gavin Dew: In regard to the IP strategy, what deliverables have been completed, quantifiably? What metrics are being tracked? How is the strategy being updated in light of AI data and U.S. competitiveness pressures?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: How about if I commit to the member that I’ll get him information on how many companies have been supported through the program and how many are currently through there? If there are any other kind of specifics he wants. I’ll get it back to him in writing.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I certainly appreciate that.

What’s going on with the innovation commissioner?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The position remains vacant, so there’s no one in the position now. Our team has been doing that work around advocacy to the federal government. We’ve had strong alignment with the federal government — better alignment now, I’d say, than we’ve had in the past with all of our programming, whether it’s through PacifiCan, whether it’s through the multiple ministry funds that exist.

At this point, the position is still vacant.

Gavin Dew: How long has it been vacant?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We can get the date, but it’s roughly 2024.

Gavin Dew: Okay, so we have no innovation commissioner for two years. We have a Minister of State for AI with no plan for seven months.

Whatever happened to the Emerging Economy Task Force?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was trying to get the exact date. The emerging task force was created around 2017 and concluded their work in 2020, so six years ago.

Gavin Dew: So it wasn’t 2020 when the minister took over as the Jobs Minister last time.

What happened, under his previous term as Jobs Minister, to those initiatives that were developed prior to him?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for taking me down memory lane.

[2:50 p.m.]

At that time, not only were we dealing with coming out of a pandemic, but we also were able to do some amazing work. The member will know that I brought in legislation to create InBC, which is there. We created the integrated marketplace at that time. We changed the small business venture tax credit. We created that. We created the manufacturing jobs fund. We created a life sciences strategy 1.0, which created wet lab space. We went to Ireland to attract a top-notch training program, which is now launched and opened here.

This will be a flashback for the member — B.C. Centre for Agritech Innovation, which he and I crossed paths on quite a bit, which is through SFU, around agritech.

There’s probably a whole host more. I mentioned the life sciences strategy. It definitely was a flurry of activity at the time, and all of those programs still exist to this day.

Gavin Dew: I don’t think that having no innovation commissioner for two years and abandoning the Emerging Economy Task Force constitutes still existing. It seems like there’s a fair bit of abandonment of initiatives.

Speaking of the Premier’s Food Security Task Force, that was also abandoned, because there appears to be an internal civil war in the Premier’s office…. It has been more than six years since the Premier’s Food Security Task Force reported, and there’s been very little progress around agri-industrial zoning. I’m wondering when, if ever, we might actually see serious progress on those initiatives versus tinkering around the margins.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I also should highlight that we created NorthX, which was another thing that was recommended out of the emerging task force, which is a partnership between Shell Canada and British Columbia. It still exists and does great work.

Let’s just say I would disagree with the member’s characterization that nothing came from it. I just gave him a massive list of programs that came directly from that work and that still exist today, that have had huge impacts on our economy and continue to have it.

The work around that strategy, which was welcomed by the province…. Most of the things we’ve moved forward on. There’s one policy piece that remains. It’s a conversation the Minister of Agriculture is having with stakeholders, and I hope to have something to share with the member very soon.

Gavin Dew: I would note it’s the same conversation that has been happening for more than six years, so I think folks are waiting for something to actually happen.

The minister touched on NorthX. I figured I should draw attention to the Northern Innovation Network, which his ministry defunded. He met with the Northern Innovation Network recently. I understand there are a number of other innovation clusters and accelerators that are very frustrated about what they see as a pullback of support and funding.

North island has gone under. Northern Innovation Network is on track to bleeding out. It has not seen ongoing, stable funding and has been begging for several years. I asked the same question, last year in estimates, to the minister’s predecessor.

Will the minister commit today to providing ongoing stable funding to organizations like the Northern Innovation Network?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciated meeting with the executive director. Our former MLA Dan Davies was here, as one of the board members. I recognized him in the House. I appreciated them coming down.

I did share with them that at this point, I don’t have any additional dollars in the budget to support their initiative. Their ask was to work with us, to work with the federal government as well, to find dollars for, maybe, forestry workers that are impacted, that maybe there might be dollars available for them to run SDPR programming. I committed that we would work with them to find additional pots of money. But at this point, my ministry did not have additional dollars.

Gavin Dew: To be honest, that’s pretty disappointing. I think it’s important to recognize that there is a considerable degree of frustration in the province among various innovation clusters, including in northern British Columbia, that feel as though the signal is being sent to them that if they want support, if they want structure, if they want….

[Interruption.]

Gavin Dew: Madam Chair, I would ask you to encourage the members not to throw candy across the room.

The Chair: Member. Member, can you please hold your comments?

I’ll remind members that there’s no food in this chamber. Thank you.

Gavin Dew: Sure. We’re all a little tired, and we’re all trying to get hopped up on sugar. But behave.

Look, there is a degree of frustration that exists — I think the minister knows it; the ministry knows it — around the lack of economic development support, particularly innovation support, for those clusters that are outside of the Lower Mainland. The Northern Innovation Network, I think, is a pretty strong example of that.

I did bring this exact subject last year, and there has not, apparently, been any progress. I think it’s important to recognize that groups, organizations and clusters like the Northern Innovation Network are important because they allow innovation to happen close to regions, close to the resource sector, close to industry, and there are tremendous success stories that have come out of that.

I think the other reality that we have to confront is that if we are effectively not supporting those kinds of regional innovation clusters, they will go elsewhere. People that could be creating jobs, creating opportunity, creating innovation, creating long-term wealth in areas like northern British Columbia are going to end up going to Alberta. They’re going to end up going to other places.

I do have serious concerns about that and about the serious lack of movement on support for, again, not exclusively the Northern Innovation Network but similar organizations. I really do hope that the minister will see fit to change the approach in that regard and think about introducing a more stable, predictable, long-term funding for a wider range of innovation clusters around the province.

One of the frustrations that comes from some of those organizations…. These are their words, not mine. It’s their frustration around the feeling that a lot of funding has gone toward supporting innovation and tech programming in the Lower Mainland — in their feeling, again — specifically Web Summit.

I’m a big supporter of Web Summit. I was involved, in the early days, in working to bring Web Summit here and, in fact, in constructing the concept of Road to Web Summit programming. But I’d really like to understand. Last year I asked very similar questions around Web Summit. I wanted to understand how we were making sure that there were substantive outcomes for all of British Columbia from Web Summit.

The programming that was available at the time was pretty basic, and I think there was a willingness to accept that it was the first year and that it would take some time to get up and running.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide further information on what happened last year in terms of broad participation from companies around the province in Web Summit, what the benefits were that accrued in terms of their exposure and what changed between last year and this year to make sure that Web Summit truly is beneficial to the entirety of British Columbia and to companies from all around the province.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The Web Summit, obviously, is a very big deal for tech, not for just Vancouver but for all of British Columbia. We had launched a Road to Web Summit initiative through Innovate B.C. to do the very thing the member highlights, to make sure that our companies throughout British Columbia knew how they could get on the road to the Web Summit and how they could participate and what that could look like.

I’ve asked the team to maybe get a summary from Innovate B.C. of how many companies participated and what that looked like. I’ll get that to the member.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that. That would be great.

Again, at the very, very early days of constructing the idea of the Road to Web Summit, the concept was to think of it like a bit of an Olympic torch relay, where the goal was to maximize the inclusion of communities in clusters around the province. I do think there has been an earnest, good effort made to try to accomplish that.

I just know that there is a level of frustration there. I would encourage the continued growth of that programming and of making sure that it’s really robust. I think that there’s a little bit of a feeling among some of the folks that have been engaged where it feels a little bit perfunctory or it feels like they’re sort of being offered the opportunity to have a booth.

Being offered the opportunity to have real and substantial engagement that could get them exposure to investment and to customer base from beyond their own communities or beyond B.C…. Again, I think that’s a great opportunity there, and I appreciate the efforts in that regard.

Can the minister talk about what the total public investment in Web Summit is across all ministries and Crown agencies, including direct funding, in-kind support, marketing staff time, venue support and related programming?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Our initial investment was $6 million over three years, so 2-2-2, as well as in-kind donations, a discount at PavCo.

Also, we staff the business-to-business pavilion, which, essentially, connects investors to companies, like pitch panels. We staff that. In fact, the team just notified me that we actually won an award for setting up that pitch panel type of event. It was very successful for our local companies.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, I appreciate that from the minister.

Can the minister tell me what the total fully loaded cost was, including those in-kind contributions? Those do have costs. I’d just like to understand what the total investment was.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll commit to getting back to the member. We have to reach out to PavCo to find out what the in-kind is. We’ll put, best we can, the numbers, and we’ll put it to the member in writing.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, I appreciate that very much.

How will the ministry measure return on investment from Web Summit throughout the totality of the time that it’s here and the totality of that three-year commitment? Does that include investment attraction, company creation, export deals, talent retention, venture capital, tourism, regional participation? Help me understand how it’s being measured and what has been measured so far in year 1.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are performance metrics in place. The member has highlighted some of the suggestions around that. There are investments beyond that as well. Some of the deal flows have NDAs, so we just don’t get a sense of what’s happening.

I know the next question the member will ask is: can we share that with him? It’s a little challenging because a lot of this is in partnership with ISED, and there’s sensitive information. We’d have to go to ISED first to get permission to do that. But I can confirm to the member that there are strong performance metrics in place for reporting out for ISED and for us.

Gavin Dew: I would expect no less. That’s appreciated.

I would certainly appreciate something being shared just around what that ROI is. Just helpful to understand. I appreciate the fact that that work is being done. I appreciate the rigour with which it’s being undertaken. It’s just always helpful to see exactly what’s happening there.

I do just want to…. Again, big fan of Web Summit, been to Web Summit, looking forward to being there on Monday. I think that there’s tremendous positive impact from Web Summit and potential for that to grow and leave a really strong legacy for our tech sector.

But as a representative of the Okanagan and as someone who talks to other regional innovation clusters elsewhere, I would just encourage a little bit more TLC from the ministry in terms of making sure that innovation clusters everywhere in the province feel those benefits, those opportunities and are really given the opportunity to get on a world stage through the incredible potential of Web Summit.

Thank you very much for the commitments to share that further information. I much appreciate it.

Let’s go back to a bit of a theme that I’ve touched on a little bit. I remain a little bit concerned at what I see as the abandonment of certain pillar institutions of certain initiatives under this ministry.

[3:10 p.m.]

The innovation commissioner is one example. The Emerging Economy Task Force, again, seems to have been cast adrift. We have a Minister for AI without a plan. Under the now Finance Minister’s time as Jobs Minister, leading into an election, and the now Citizen’s Services time as minister, we saw Small Business B.C. cast to the wind and go broke and government do everything they could to distance themselves from what looked like an emerging mismanagement scandal.

Subsequently, there were some efforts to bring elements of what had been happening under Small Business B.C. under the direct envelope of government. Obviously, after a considerable pause and loss of capacity, there was a rebuild of the export navigator program.

I’m wondering if I can get a retrospective overview with the benefit of hindsight and the benefit of distance. Could the minister explain exactly what happened there? Exactly what cleanup has been done? Exactly what capacity was lost in the demise of Small Business B.C. and the subsequent rebuild, or what capacity was built?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Two things.

One, to the previous question, I was able to get some information for the member through the Road to Web Summit. Through that program, they had 600 companies participate, which is pretty significant.

Twenty-five companies will be participating in the pitch panel. We’ve got 72 companies that will be profiled at the B.C. Pavilion this year, 200 companies attended the preparatory boot camps, and 500 companies will be on display. That’s pretty significant, I think, for our B.C. ecosystem.

On the second question, about Small Business B.C., the member knows it went insolvent. The board decided to close it down. He’s correct. The province didn’t have a role in that. What I can share is that there’s been a lot of work happening in the team to make sure that the supports that they were providing are still intact.

I can share that the first thing we prioritized was the export navigator program, because it was so important in the pathfinding services. So that has been still made available in whole. Businesses can now access a free one-on-one consultation, guidance, resources, business adviser designed to help them grow. That’s both in English and French.

There are also the resources that Small Business B.C. had. We have required all of them, so we’ve made that all available. Everything that Small Business B.C. did we are able to now provide.

The only two pieces that we won’t be providing at this moment…. They used to do a dinner for small businesses, and then there were some networking events. Those are the two things that we won’t, but everything else we are. And we’ve pulled together a B.C. business resource network of organizations that were involved with Small Business B.C. to bring them together to have conversations about what additional resources we need.

So essentially, I can share with the member that we’ve just reallocated the resources we were providing to Small Business B.C. to expand all those supports in partnership with small business organizations around the province.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the summary of the situation. I would just leave a question mark around the presumption or the statement that the ministry had no role. The ministry had direct representation consistent with several decades of provincial involvement with Small Business B.C. A staff member from the ministry was on the board and resigned conspicuously shortly before the organization declared itself to be in financial trouble.

Ample evidence suggests that the dinner that is no longer happening went dramatically, massively over budget, bankrupted the organization and led it to dip into its reserves in order to try to remain active in terms of cash flow. There were obviously very, very serious issues, and there was obviously an effort by government, which continues today, to distance themselves from what happened at Small Business B.C.

So I’m wondering. Was there any postmortem undertaken by the ministry in order to understand what happened at Small Business B.C. and to make sure that it never happens again?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I guess the main focus for the ministry was two things. One, that funds were not misappropriated or used for inappropriate things. That wasn’t the case. And second was: how do we scale up the important services that small businesses depended on, and how do we replace them? That has been our focus, and that’s where our work was.

Just for the record…. The member already knows this stuff, but I just want to put it on the record for those watching at home.

Right now on the gov.bc.ca website, we’ve included all the things that Small Business B.C. was making available to people, everything from how to write a business plan to templates that people depended on, how to import goods to Canada, how to export — a whole host of resources that they had available — as well as short videos in multiple languages around how to start a business, how to write a business plan, basics. All those things are still available on the website for any business that wants to get access to it.

As I’ve highlighted, now that we’ve been able to ensure that the supports that were there for businesses are still available, we’re starting to talk to the network about what is missing and what the additional things are that we can put forward.

Gavin Dew: Obviously, the minister has now had a lot of time to fully deconstruct what happened with Small Business B.C., but I do just want to get some clarity.

Can the minister confirm, on the record, that there was no inappropriate use of funds that went to Small Business B.C. that were meant to be flow-through funds that were intended to go to individual small businesses but were instead misappropriated and used for other purposes within Small Business B.C. — for example, in order to cover losses for the dinner that the minister is no longer doing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can confirm for the member that I’m not aware of any misappropriated funds from Small Business B.C. It went through an insolvency process, and through that process, we were able to get dollars back to government to be able to redeploy for other initiatives.

Gavin Dew: What share of the government dollars were recovered?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, we’re just trying to get the exact number for the member. I can share with the member that we were able to get $2.3 million back. That’s 81 percent of the total funding that was initially allotted to them, as well as through the process, and all the assets from Small Business B.C. as well.

Gavin Dew: What was the disposition of the other 19 percent?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s the number through the insolvency process. Through the process, multiple organizations make claims for the dollars. I can share that 81.3 percent of the dollars we had allocated were returned to us.

Gavin Dew: The minister has indicated that he was not aware of any misuse of funds, but he also wasn’t the minister at the time. Can he confirm whether the ministry was aware of any misuse of funds?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The ministry is not aware either.

Gavin Dew: Just to reconfirm, was there ever a postmortem conducted when a significant institution with decades of history providing support for small business collapsed? Was there a postmortem undertaken?

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just reiterate a few things. The analysis that will happen after was…. Were we happy with the service they were providing? Yes. The media analysis was: how do we fill the gap that they provided? We’ve addressed that. What about the funds that we were providing, and how do we ensure that those dollars come back? That was done. That was the analysis that we did after.

Also important for us, now when we go out to any partners to procure services, is making sure that there are structures in place that can adequately deliver the services we need. This was, again…. Canada and B.C. were involved in this.

Gavin Dew: Would the minister be so kind as to table that analysis in full?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We can send the member a link. The insolvency process — the reports are public, and we’re happy to share that with the member.

Gavin Dew: I’ve read all the insolvency reports. I’ve read all the information. I’ve spoken with insiders who are involved, and I probably know more about what happened than the minister.

So I’m really wondering whether the minister would be so kind as to table the ministry reports on what happened and any post-mortem that was undertaken, because I have very serious concerns about what happened there from the information that I have heard directly.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m sharing with the member the steps we took.

How do we go through the insolvency process to recover dollars? We did that.

How do we ensure that businesses that depend on the supports maintain that? We did that.

That is the process that we went through. I don’t know what else the member wants. That’s all I can share at this moment.

Gavin Dew: My perspective on the matter is that this was the embarrassing collapse of a multi-decade institution in terms of small business support. It collapsed in the middle of an election. There are legitimate questions to be asked about who knew what and when, and what they did about it. I’m looking for clarity on that. I would certainly appreciate it very much. I didn’t get much clarity last year on it.

So I’m looking for the benefit of hindsight. I’m looking to get some real clarity around exactly what happened with Small Business B.C. There’s something that smells there, based on every piece of information that I was able to elicit at that time.

There has been every effort by government to distance itself — despite having been very, very involved; despite having had a very active and influential role in steering the organization; despite having direct representation on the board; and despite having a very, very substantial level of involvement in shaping the organization over a period of not just months and years but decades. Again, I really do hope that the minister will undertake a fulsome postmortem of exactly what happened and make that available to the public.

I’ll move on to the next question.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: I think we’ve sufficiently canvassed that one. We don’t need to come back on it again.

I just want to go back to the information the minister very helpfully offered with regard to Web Summit. I appreciated those initial numbers around the companies that participated. It doesn’t need to be now, but as part of the information provided subsequently, if the minister would be so kind as to provide a breakdown of those companies. I think the number was 625 pitching — whatever it exactly was.

If we could get just a geographic breakdown of that, or any other subsectoral or thematic information that is available. Again, I’m just wanting to understand what the overall breakdown was. The overall encouragement is to make sure that we’re getting access to the opportunity there for companies from all around B.C. Is that a commitment the minister can make?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll do my best. Sometimes the companies have to consent for their information being shared, but we will circle back and get as much as we can for the member.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the offer to do that. Thank you very much.

Let’s move on to another long-standing institutional entity that has gone the way of the dodo under this minister. That’s the Major Projects Inventory. Until about a month ago, the Major Projects Inventory had been a reliable source of information on changes to construction activity for about 22 years.

About a month ago, roughly, government quietly and belatedly rolled out the Q3 2025 update many months late, and now there’s a notice on a government website that says no further reports will be produced and that the Major Projects Inventory will go offline after June 30. As far as I can tell from the website, that remains under the control of the ministry. What happened?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team has shared with me that it’s PSFS that has that inventory. It’s a better question for them.

I can share with the member that we track all major projects across the province. We prioritize major projects. We help track them and essentially support them to make sure that we can get all of them across the line. That work happens within the ministry.

[3:40 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: How does that tracking work overlap with the Major Projects Inventory, which is no longer going to exist? Just help me understand how these pieces fit together.

The Major Projects Inventory was pretty significant for 22 years. It seems like pretty relevant information. It included information on major projects with an estimated capital cost of $50 million or greater — a really valuable tool for economic development. It’s listed under economic development on the government website. It strikes me as being a pretty relevant area for overlap with the ministry responsible for economic growth.

I’m concerned about the loss of that, as I’m also concerned about changes to budget disclosure practices around major capital projects, just as I’m concerned about the Ministry of Infrastructure having a line in their service plan where there’s a goal for government projects completed on time, on budget, and the goal is “to be determined.” Evidently, the targeting, the goal wasn’t delivered on time and on budget to be in the budget.

I am concerned about that slippage in terms of disclosure, particularly in light of the conversation we had until 4 a.m. last night around freedom of information. Can the minister just, again, provide a little more illumination around how the work undertaken in this ministry is so completely distinct from the Major Projects Inventory? Where’s the disconnect there, and why are we shutting this down?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The inventory the member was talking about is not our ministry. We make public projects, major projects that the government is keeping an eye on and tracking. We share that list publicly, and we screen them to make sure that they’re legit companies, investors, and that they’re viable projects.

Not meaning every one of them is going to go through…. We want every one of them to go through. We’d love to…. We’re going to work hard to see them all come through, but it doesn’t mean that’s the case.

Again, if the question is around the inventory page — because I know it has roads and bridges, I think, that the member is referring to — that’s a better question for PSFS.

Gavin Dew: I’ll narrow the scope of my questions, then, about major projects.

Through the Mining estimates project, I attempted to get some information around the seven mining projects, which are a subset of the projects that the minister is talking about that are listed in Look West. There are seven mining projects that the Minister of Mines is fond of talking about, as is the Premier, as is the minister: Highland Valley Copper, Eskay Creek, Mount Milligan, Copper Mountain, Quintette, Mount Polley and Red Chris. It is a frequent habit of the government to recite the amount of anticipated investment on those mines.

[3:45 p.m.]

In the technical briefing for Mining estimates, I asked whether there existed a table that actually showed how much capital had actually been deployed to those projects so far and how many jobs had actually been created — actual numbers, not future-looking hypothetical numbers, at completion. At the time, I was told in the technical briefing that such a table existed, but during estimates, the minister refused to table it.

I wonder if the Minister of Jobs will be more forthcoming with that information. Is there, in fact, a table available of the major projects that are cited in Look West that shows how much capital has actually been deployed on those projects and how many jobs have actually been created? If so, will the minister make it available?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think this conversation is timely. We just launched — I believe this week; may have been Friday — a website that has all the major projects on it where there are the sizes of investments. I’m happy to send the member the link for that.

Then, as far as the actual capital that they’ve deployed, how many people they’ve hired, it’s not as easy of a tracker. There are NDAs involved, and there are publicly traded companies. It’s complicated. We do get updates. I’m happy to update those numbers as we go forward. But it’s not as easy as saying….

The company tells us they’re going to deploy, you know, $2 billion in, let’s say, a mine. These are publicly traded companies. They’re pretty transparent about the dollars they’re deploying. As they provide us updates, we try to make that publicly available.

But we do have a website now that has the major projects, and I’m happy to share the link with my friend.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the website. The website, from what I understand, shares those total potential investment numbers but no information on what capital is actually being deployed and what jobs have actually been created.

What I’m struggling to reconcile here is that when I get a technical briefing from the ministry — not this ministry; a different ministry — and they tell me that there is a table available that actually tracks how much capital has been deployed, perhaps to the best of their knowledge, perhaps in aggregate…. I don’t have the information on the table because I haven’t seen the table, because the minister refused to disclose it to me.

I’m just trying to understand that the government has gotten into the habit of making very big claims about very big capital investments and providing no detail on what has actually been spent.

Will the minister commit to providing information, whether it is in aggregate, whether it is by category, whatever the maximum amount of information that can actually be disclosed…? Will the minister provide that information on actual capital spent and actual jobs created?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t comment on the specific thing that the member was told by someone in a briefing. I can share with them that….

I know he’ll appreciate this. This is commercially sensitive information. These companies are NDA. If they say they’re going to employ this many people, and then they’re at 30 percent and they’ve maybe deployed this much capital or hired this many people and information that’s under NDA becomes public and they’re maybe not on pace or whatever, it has real impacts on those companies. So there is a sensitivity around sharing that information and then for us to make it public.

If the member is concerned that we have information and we’re not sharing it, these companies are all…. Most of them are all publicly traded companies that declare publicly where they’re at in their projects, how many people they’ve hired, how much capital they’ve deployed. They owe it to their shareholders.

If the member is suggesting there is some sort of grand conspiracy to hide the information from him, there’s not. These are people being hired and money being spent. If they give me that information, I’m happy to share that information. I’d be sharing it in question period every single day. But it’s not something that necessarily gets updated to us monthly. We do get that periodically, but it’s not our team that tracks specific dollars, capital.

We trust these publicly traded companies — when they say they’re going to deploy, for example, $2 billion on a mine or $1 billion on a mine — that as their capital plan rolls out and as they hire people and scale them up, they are proactively reporting them.

Woodfibre just recently proactively reported how many people they’ve hired on site and how much capital is being deployed. The mines do the same thing.

Gavin Dew: Certainly, I have no tinfoil hat conspiracy theory on this one. Just looking to get as much information as possible and, again, to understand the actual dollars deployed.

I fully recognize and understand both the elements around disclosure, particularly for companies for which it could be commercially sensitive or could move markets. I have no desire for inappropriate information to be disclosed, but it would be valuable for there to be a greater degree of disclosure, even if on an aggregate basis.

What I certainly never like to see is just claims about what might happen. I’d like to see information about what has happened, again on a commercially sensitive basis. I fully understand all those things. It would be valuable to get more information in that regard.

Let’s move on to a little bit more of the Look West strategy. There are a number of projects that have been listed on B.C.’s major projects list under the Look West umbrella that fall under the approval regime of the Canada Energy Regulator. Could the minister break down the breakdown of the responsible entities for approvals for all the different projects?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Two examples would be the Enbridge project and the Trans Mountain project. Obviously, that work is happening with the Ministry of Energy, so if the member is going to go into a list of questions around that permitting process, I suspect that that might be better for the Ministry of Energy, for their estimates.

Gavin Dew: No, not looking to dig into the Ministry of Energy. I’m just trying to understand some of the logic around the major projects list. Typically, those federal approval times are significantly shorter than the potential projects that fall under B.C. regulation.

Firstly, is there a reason it takes B.C. so much longer to approve projects than the federal government?

Secondly, again, not to throw a tinfoil hat on here or anything, but there seem to be a lot of projects or several projects that have been under federal jurisdiction that have been added to the Look West major project list which, ultimately, are not under the control of the provincial government.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: I’ll let you walk through all of the examples, but I think….

I’ll let the minister walk through all of the examples.

I’m just trying to understand again. I’m trying to understand some of the logic that we continue to see from this government where it appears to be a braggadocious talking point that B.C. has a disproportionate number of projects on the federal inventory, but to me, it just strikes me that that means we have more projects that are hung up and taking a long time.

I look at what happened…. The minister just mentioned Trans Mountain, which I worked on for several years, which took ten years to move forward. The previous project, built in 1952, took 18 months.

Again, I’m trying to understand some of the thought pattern around major projects. Are we just kind of claiming major projects in order to be able to put more dots on a map? What is the level of involvement with some of those federally regulated projects? Just help me understand the logic here.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We share the numbers, 40 percent, because it’s factual. It’s clear. In fact, you have Premiers complaining about why there are so many projects in B.C. and not as many in their provinces.

The fact that the member has worked on Trans Mountain…. I think he knows that you may go through a process with the federal government, but there are a lot of permits that still have to be issued in British Columbia — water-related, land-related, heritage-related. It’s important for us to fast-track those processes so we can continue to get these investments rolling out in our communities.

Gavin Dew: The minister is correct. I am intimately familiar with the process that was undertaken for Trans Mountain. I remember very distinctly this government, when in opposition, being the most vociferous opponent of that project. I would remind the minister that this government, this Premier, this Energy Minister actually were responsible for driving up the cost of that project by billions of dollars through their obstructionism. I will take no lessons in project expediting on oil pipelines from this government.

[4:00 p.m.]

I was there for three years. I remember the opposition and then government being prepared to use every single tool in the toolbox in order to stop that project. I remember the signal it sent to markets. I remember the great frustration that emerged. I remember a time when that was an order of magnitude of a $7 billion project, not a project that dramatically increased in cost due to factors directly related to the actions of what is now this government, again through its obstructionism.

Since we’re on that one, I always do like to bring back the fact that as far as I can tell, this government is now firmly in support of another expansion of the Trans Mountain project, including the addition of significant new pipe, including the addition of significant new pump stations, including the ability to process several hundred thousand more barrels through that pipeline and including the dredging of Burrard Inlet.

I would just like to provide an opportunity for the minister to walk through exactly what from…. Again, it’s a tremendous economic development opportunity here. Billions of dollars in capital will be spent. Many jobs will be created. There’s an opportunity to contribute to Canada’s success and growth of the resource sector.

Would the minister please describe his ministry’s or the government’s plan, as a whole, to make sure that they are expediting the addition of additional capacity to the Trans Mountain expansion project through the chemical, physical expansion of the line, as well as through the dredging of Burrard Inlet?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: What I just shared with the member is that we’ve been pretty clear to the federal government that if their desire is to have more oil get to the coast and to markets, optimizing the existing line would make more sense. We’ve made that pretty clear.

I can share with the member that the proponent doesn’t have a proposal yet. I know they’re doing some analysis and that there is some preliminary work happening around dredging, which is in the federal permitting space. We look forward to seeing what happens from that.

Gavin Dew: The Minister of Energy is fond of being very specific about which projects are real and which are not. Could the Minister of Jobs, just to clarify…? Does the government consider the further expansion of Trans Mountain to be a real project or not?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s no project yet. Normally what we do when a proponent comes forward is we would say it’s a real project. When it’s just in theory, we would say it’s not a real project.

Gavin Dew: What I think I’m hearing is that if and when such a project comes forward, the minister, the ministry and the government are on board to support it, to streamline it, to make sure that it moves quickly and to make sure that British Columbians can benefit from the job opportunities that emerge from that project.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mean, we can come up with 100 hypothetical types of projects right now. I would say that I’m happy to canvass this when a project comes forward. They’re going to have to go through the Canadian regulator. They’re going to have to go through the process to make sure the communities are safe, the consultation is done.

The case that we made to the federal government is still the same. Let’s optimize the existing line. Let’s get the most value for what the taxpayers have already paid for.

Gavin Dew: I just really want to drill in on the position here, because what I heard the minister just say is that the case has been made by this government to the federal government for: “Let’s optimize the existing line.” That’s very similar to things that the Minister of Energy has said.

What I think I hear is that this government is advocating to the federal government for the optimization of Trans Mountain. So I just want to clarify if that is a position that the minister is taking, that the government is taking, because I just heard the minister say that he was advocating, or the government was advocating to the federal government for an optimization of that line. I’m just getting confused about the position here.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to read into the record a quote the Premier put forward. He said: “Let’s figure out how we expand the capacity at the TMX pipeline, a pipeline that we fought tooth and nail and was imposed on us by Ottawa. But let’s sit down at the table and figure out a path forward.”

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the recitation of the Premier’s words. So just so that it’s really, really clear, the position of the government is that they are advocating to the federal government to optimize Trans Mountain. Correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s why I read the quote from the Premier. The member has asked me. I’ve answered this question.

[4:10 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Having clarified that the position of the government is that they support optimizing Trans Mountain and are advocating to the federal government to do so, can the minister please walk us through the role that his ministry will play in the overall strategy to expedite that project?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s no application at this point. If there’s an application, I’m happy to answer this question.

Gavin Dew: If and when there is an application, will the minister use every tool in the toolbox to ensure that the Trans Mountain optimization is built as quickly and efficiently as possible?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Any project that gets onto the major project list, we deploy all the tools available. We don’t do if-and-thens. We do real projects, agreed-upon, getting on the major project list, and then we do the work we need to get them across the line.

Gavin Dew: To confirm, if and when it is a real project, the minister will use every tool in the toolbox?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve already answered the question.

The Chair: Asked and answered.

This committee will take a five-minute recess. I will ask you to reconvene by 4:16 on my watch — everybody back in the room, please.

The committee recessed from 4:11 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. We are doing the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

Gavin Dew: I think we can move on from using every tool in the toolbox to get pipelines built, the new position of the government. Let’s move on to another issue.

I have flagged, over the course of these estimates, my concern with the collapse or the setting adrift of various different institutions and entities that, it would seem, should be important to this ministry. I want to turn now to the Small Business Roundtable, which appears to have just been abandoned by this ministry.

After years, literally decades, of work in ensuring that there was an ongoing, proactive, engaged voice for small business, the task force was again sidelined. After last being convened in February 2024, for what I understand was about a 15-minute meeting, and after two years of radio silence, the minister formally shut it down on December 30, 2025, in a letter. Why?

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct. The committee hadn’t convened since ’24.

What I can share with the member is that, I think, we have over 70 organizations that represent SMEs in British Columbia. A lot of questions around why certain groups are at the meetings, why others are not, and how you get on.

I met with the organizations that were representative of this group, and I’ve committed to a structured, regular engagement with all of them. With the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, I’ve agreed to meet with them quarterly, with all their members, to get feedback of what they’re hearing. Same with the BIAs. CFIB now has a direct link to my office where, every month, they’re connecting with my team.

The member across the way will know all the CFIB members. Many of them work here, in this building. In fact, almost all of them worked for the opposition at some point. But some good people over there. Similar with the restaurant folks as well. I know my colleague the Minister of Agriculture meets with the restaurant industry folks all the time as well.

On top of that, we have round tables we’ve created around intraprovincial trade. CFIB is part of that conversation. We also have SMEs on a table around steel and what’s happening with the federal government’s steel policy. We’ve got so many tables.

My message to some of the bigger organizations was: “Let’s just set a regular time where I can engage with every one of your members so I can hear from them directly, and that will keep us better informed.”

Then, lastly, we launched the ease of doing business portal. We spent a lot of time talking about using technology to get better outcomes. Now our partners can submit, automatically, any policies that they believe will make it easier for them to do business, and they’ve been doing it. They’ve been using that portal and just submitting ideas that they have. That’s been helpful for us as well.

Gavin Dew: I happen to have the letter sent by the minister to one of the former members of the Small Business Roundtable on December 30, 2025, in which they were politely relieved of duty. I notice that in that letter, the minister outlines that the Small Business Roundtable has been replaced, among other things, by the trade and economic security task force.

I’m just wondering, because I don’t believe in time machines…. The minister shut down the trade and economic security task force in August 2025. So why did he write a letter to the Small Business Roundtable in December 2025 telling them that they had been replaced by a table he had already shut down?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Issues arise, and we bring business leaders together to address them. I’m proud of having good relationships with leaders in the business community. I’ve spent a lot of time in building those relationships. We don’t always agree. That’s normal. But surely, they know that they can reach out and raise their concerns, and I will listen, whether that was putting together committees of leaders through the pandemic to dealing with the tariffs.

In the case of that committee the member refers to, we did bring people together. It was very helpful. It helped us, during a very challenging time, to gather information. Now we want to continue to do that engagement, and that’s what I’ve highlighted to the member.

We’ve built systems with all these organizations to figure out how we can regularly engage with them. When we have specific issues, we’re nimble enough to pull together groups — like, for example, around steel. We know we have an issue around steel, around some policy changes from the federal government. We’re able to now move quickly and bring partners together from different sectors.

It’s not one table that rules them all. It’s creating multiple opportunities for organizations and, directly, companies to engage with government.

[4:30 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the breadth of the answer, but the question was really, very specifically: how does it make sense to tell a group you’re shutting down on December 30 that they’ll be replaced by a group you shut down in August?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m happy to answer this question, but perhaps the member should read the full paragraph of the letter into the record, because it provides a lot more context than the member implied.

Gavin Dew: Certainly. I will provide the full context and timeline into the record for the minister’s awareness.

The Small Business Roundtable, after numerous years of service and after producing significant reports that included recommendations like addressing the impact of the employer health tax and other things, some of which were addressed and many of which were not, last was convened in February of 2024 by the minister’s predecessor. I’m not aware of whether the minister ever met with the Small Business Roundtable.

After not hearing any formal status updates from the ministry or anybody else that I’m aware of, the Small Business Roundtable simply floated in limbo. Again, these were not paid individuals. These were volunteers, long-serving volunteers who had produced substantive work and who, as far as I’m aware, had been very engaged with past ministers.

So February 2024 was the last meeting of the Small Business Roundtable. And then, after nearly two years of silence, the members of the Small Business Roundtable received a letter on December 30 of 2025, saying:

“I am writing today to thank you for your service as a member of British Columbia’s Small Business Roundtable. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for your dedication to improving the business climate in British Columbia and the willingness to share your knowledge and experience with government.

“After careful consideration” — and in parentheses, I will note that did not include meeting with the Small Business Roundtable — “I have decided to conclude the Small Business Roundtable. Digital tools for communication and engagement have made collaboration with the broader business community an easier and more frequent opportunity for government.

[4:35 p.m.]

“The trade and economic security task force and development of the Look West plan, our targeted strategy to deliver major projects, expand skills training and grow key sectors to strengthen the economy, have demonstrated the effectiveness of these tools to give business a timely and strong voice with government.”

As I understand it, the language here is that digital tools for communication engagement are to replace the Small Business Roundtable. That’s the context. And in the paragraph, which the minister has explicitly asked me to read out, it specifically says that the trade and economic security task force has demonstrated the effectiveness of those tools. Well, the trade and economic security task force was shut down in August, and the letter was written in December.

So I’m just trying to understand. If you’re reading this as a member of the Small Business Roundtable, you’re not only being sent a Dear John letter, and you’re not only being told that the round table you’ve been part of for years is so irrelevant that the minister could not be bothered to meet with you but would rather have an online Google form to receive information; you’re also being told that you’re being replaced by an organization that the minister shut down months earlier.

I’m just trying to understand the logic behind that way of communicating with long-serving volunteers that are highly engaged in the community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I wanted the member to read it because, in fact, what the member said now in the letter is not what he implied earlier. The letter clearly states that the trade and economic security task force and development of the Look West plan are examples of the engagement we’re doing, not saying that that’s what you’re being replaced with.

I don’t mind having tough conversations. What I don’t appreciate is suggestions of something when it doesn’t exist. Perhaps the member didn’t imply that, but I’ll just reiterate what the letter says. It just shares examples of other engagement government does and examples of the Look West plan and how those engagements helped for better outcomes.

I’ve already highlighted for the member that I’ve met with the organizations. I’ve spoken to them about the ease of doing business initiative, set up regular meetings with them, not just with a few people but with all of their members so that they all can have a chance to speak to government and share their concerns directly — not filtered; directly. Some of those conversations have been very direct, and I appreciate them.

Again, up to this point, the conversation has been pretty straightforward and respectful, but I don’t appreciate the implying that the letter said something when it actually said something totally different.

Gavin Dew: I want to be very clear. This is not something I read into the letter. This is me having had several conversations with former members of the Small Business Roundtable whose understanding of the letter, that they were sent after almost two years of no clear communication, was: “You are being replaced by an organization that has already been shut down.”

I understand if the minister’s hackles are up over the insinuation that he didn’t fob off the Small Business Roundtable, but I’ll just go back to my pattern of disengagement, my pattern of institutions being ignored and set adrift.

I’m curious. When was the last time that a minister of jobs attended the B.C. Economic Development Association conference?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I don’t have the calendars of my colleagues, but I can share that when I was the minister here, I did attend their conference. I can also share that they have a conference coming up, May 11 to 14. It is the same time as Web Summit, so it was difficult for me to be there.

I can share with the member that our MLA for rural development will be attending on behalf of government, and our ministry does regularly engage with them.

Gavin Dew: I look forward to speaking at the conference next week, as I did last year. I appreciated the invitation to be there, which I could not help but gather was because it had been some years since the actual minister showed up to talk to a large gathering of economic development professionals, which is rather disappointing.

Historically, over the years, all the way back to the ’90s — under NDP governments, B.C. Liberal governments, and so forth — it was very normal that the Minister of Jobs or another senior minister would attend that conference. Unfortunately, over the last number of years, that stopped happening. That doesn’t really send much of a signal.

I’m also curious whether the minister can share why it is that the ministry pulled funding from that organization and that conference.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s great to hear that the member is able to make it. That’s fantastic. I think it’s good to have people there. I’ve highlighted that my colleague is going to be attending and looks forward to hearing from the delegates.

I would say that we don’t have a line item in the budget for associations that represent professionals. It’s similar to accountants. We don’t provide the accountants association regular grants. When we have dollars available, we certainly do that. That would be the same in this case.

Gavin Dew: As I understand it, the ministry funded the organization for $20,000 in 2024, and then indicated they would not be funding them in 2025 or going forward. I find this very frustrating because what we have here, again, is a pattern.

We have the collapse of Small Business B.C. We have the shutdown of the Small Business Roundtable. We have the shutdown of the trade and economic security task force. We have the defunding of the B.C. Economic Development Association. We have nobody showing up to the B.C. Economic Development Association for years. We have the defunding of organizations like the Northern Innovation Network.

This is frustrating, especially for organizations outside of urban areas that are trying very hard to be supportive of economic development, that are trying very hard to be supportive of innovation and that feel as if they’re not being heard, that they’re being ignored, that they’re being left behind. In fact, they’re seeing the dissolution of the very institutions and channels that existed to give them the opportunity to be at the table with government, be part of the economic-development picture.

I can’t help but feel as if something is wrong when we have this sustained pattern of all of these institutions falling apart — the Emerging Economy Task Force gone, the innovation commissioner unstaffed for two years. It seems as though there is this sort of novelty engagement for a fleeting moment with a new initiative, a new strategy, a new brand, a new name.

That’s why I’m so worried about the fact that we have a Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence who’s been on the job for seven months and who has no plan. I can only assume, based on the pattern that has developed in this ministry and in this government, that as we look back a year from now or two years from now, maybe there won’t be a Minister of State for AI anymore because the novelty goes away. I’m just really worried about this sustained pattern.

I’m wondering what the minister is going to do in order to try to rebuild confidence with some of these organizations that feel as if they have been cast adrift from their relationships with government and how we’re going to make sure that we actually don’t continue to lose these institutions that are such an important part of making sure that government is, in fact, in touch with businesses and with those folks who are supporting economic development.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Clearly, the member had a story he wanted to tell before he came here, and he’s trying to paint a picture. Let me share with him some of the information he shared.

One, I just shared with him that there’s an economic development conference and my colleague is attending.

He mentioned Small Business B.C. I shared with him that we were able to work around the clock to ensure that all the services that were being provided are now being provided. In fact, a network has been created to expand those services.

He mentioned the Small Business Roundtable. I’ve told him that we’ve set up regular engagements with the partners, quarterly engagements with the partners and direct connections with some of the organizations monthly. And we have additional tables that we’ve created.

He mentioned the Emerging Economy Task Force, which was a short-term group that was writing a report in 2020, six years ago.

I get it. He’s trying to tell a story, but it’s a little bit of a stretch.

We continue to engage with our partners. We have many tables on various topics. Interprovincial trade. We are engaging with folks on steel. We’re engaging with folks on tariffs. There’s a Small Business B.C. replacement of supports that we’ve provided.

[4:50 p.m.]

It’s important to do that work, and it keeps us busy. All my colleagues are doing that work. Sometimes new opportunities arise, and you need to capture that.

I’ll just take the member back to his early comment, because he said: “Well, you guys launched a strategy, and you were the minister here. What do you really have to show for yourself?” I’ll just remind him, again, that since the Emerging Economy Task Force and in our initial strategy, when I was here as minister last, these were the things that we were able to launch in B.C., which is an investment body supporting B.C. companies.

We launched integrated marketplace, which still exists. We introduced the small business venture tax credit; the manufacturing jobs fund, which still exists and is supporting companies. We created NorthX, which is a partnership between Shell Canada and B.C., and the B.C. Centre for Agritech Innovation, which is supporting businesses.

We created the life sciences strategy, which is bearing fruit. We have the fastest life-science sector in the entire country, and that was because our partners came together and said: “These are the key things we need.” And we brought them all across the line.

I’ll just wrap up by saying that, again, I understand this is a narrative that the member wants to tell. But we have responded to every one of these things and then some, and we’ll continue to do that work.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister share what is the target date for publishing a public action plan emerging from the ease of doing business initiative?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: So far, from the submissions that we’ve had, we’ve had 23 actions that we’ve completed. We have 211 in progress, 79 under construction and around 100 that we are still making a plan around. And 17 of the proposals were not feasible.

We do intend to make all of this information public so that our partners can see all of their suggestions and where they are.

Gavin Dew: When?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t give the member an exact date, but I’ll say very soon.

[4:55 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I will hold the minister to that.

Now, a recent report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business — we’ll perhaps circle back to this in more depth later — showed six consecutive quarters of more businesses exiting the economy than entering. They’ve called that an entrepreneurial drought. If we look at their numbers, specifically in B.C., more than half of small business owners declined to recommend starting a business in B.C. at this time.

Although they do cite the ongoing trade war, which this minister and every other minister in this government is very fond of talking about — everything other than things under their own control — unfortunately, the reality is that these small businesses cite high taxes, regulations, red tape and other things that are in the control of this government as some of the most substantial reasons that they’re struggling and that they would not recommend starting a business in British Columbia today.

With that being the case, does the minister believe that B.C. is an easier place to start and grow a business today than it was a few years ago? What data shows that that’s actually true?

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

[5:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair. The last Chair was really tough on us, so I hope you’re a little more lenient.

Susie Chant: I heard that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Oh my gosh, I didn’t realize the other Chair was sitting beside me. That’s a little awkward.

Thanks to the member. Yeah, I had a chance to go through the report. I know it’s a national report, and they’re highlighting a challenge that they believe exists across the country. I can share with the member that the actual stats from Stats Canada show that B.C. had the second-highest active growth in businesses last year. That’s despite the challenges we have around global uncertainty, fuel costs, trade instability.

It is a tough time for businesses across North America, no doubt about it. But B.C.’s numbers are much more resilient than the rest of the country. In fact, what we’ve also seen is, in a challenging time, when you see insolvencies across the country, we’re one of the lower provinces in the country.

Of course, they highlight the need for us to reduce red tape, which we’re doing through the ease of doing business review, as well as the work we’re doing around interprovincial trade barriers. In fact, the CFIB has been providing a lot of advice on what can be done on that, which we appreciate. I would also acknowledge that in their annual report card, they gave British Columbia a B-plus for our work around and our leadership around reducing red tape, not only here in British Columbia but across the country.

Gavin Dew: I will not make the mistake of sucking up to one Chair at the expense of another, who are all tired. Clearly the minister was not on his game there, but he may well be facing future punitive action from the outgoing Chair of the committee today.

Let’s move on to another subject with the limited time that we have left today. Can the minister provide an update on efforts to align economic trust with DRIPA?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All of the trusts do their best to represent their entire regions, and part of that work is working with First Nations partners. There’s a lot of economic development happening, and there’s a lot of opportunity for collaboration.

The trusts are doing their engagement within their own areas at their own pace. Some are much further along, and they’ve got ideas of what they would like to do in their region and how they can strengthen their partnership. Some have basically said they need more time, and we respect all their positions.

[5:05 p.m.]

So we’re letting each of the trusts go through their process and engage at the pace that they’re at. When we have more information or we have some trusts that are ready to move forward to maybe have more representation on their board or have different structures, we’re obviously willing to work with them. But I do acknowledge that every different trust is in a different place, and we’ve been and giving them the space to do their work.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister explain government’s understanding and approach to First Nations’ co-governance of economic trusts through the process that it is currently enacting?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a lot of First Nations in communities that are doing work in economic development. They want to be able to partner with other communities. The trusts play an important role in economic development in those partnerships.

We have had trusts come to us and say that they would like to have more representation from the nations in their communities. We have some trusts who say: “We need a lot more time to engage and to figure out what that relationship and that partnership could look like.”

We respect the different paces they’re at, and we have said that for those trusts that would like to move quicker, we’re willing to work with them. Those that need more time to figure out what that relationship looks like can get to get back to us as their engagement moves forward.

Gavin Dew: Now, I share the understanding that the minister has provided, but I have heard some concerns, particularly around the lack of role for rural municipalities in the co-development of new approaches to governance.

Specifically, I understand there is a co-development process working with First Nations who are intended to co-govern the trusts in future. But a significant number of the items in the draft intentions paper which have nothing to do with First Nations are being developed exclusively through co-development between the province and First Nations, to the exclusion of rural municipalities. So what’s going on, and why are rural municipalities, which currently have a significant role in these trusts, being excluded from the development of this draft intentions paper?

Specifically, it appears, from my understanding, from the letter that I’m holding addressed to the minister, that there are 12 changes proposed to governance, three of which are related to including First Nations in trust governance and nine of which do not pertain to including First Nations in decision-making. Yet it is only the province and First Nations that are involved in the co-development of these future structures, to the exclusion of rural municipalities. How does that work?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for sharing if he’s getting that feedback. What I can share with the members is what I have already said, which is that we will bring some ideas forward. The trusts will have an opportunity to think through the ideas, see if they work for them.

They’ll be able to work at their own pace. They’ll be able to give us suggestions on where they want to go. We’ll be able to engage communities as well. And I fully appreciate that some trusts may be in a different place. And another trust may be in a different place.

I’ll give the member an example. On the Island, the trusts are in a different place. I’m getting letters from every single local government and First Nation saying that we want to do this together in partnership. That’s great. And then in some communities, and the member may be hearing from some, they’re saying: “Whoa, we need more time. We need to think this through — what the relationship will look like.”

What I’m saying is that we respect each trust to be at their own pace, to have their own conversations.

Gavin Dew: I hear where the minister is coming from in terms of the notion that each trust will develop different perspectives. They have.

This is a letter to the minister from December 10 of 2025, and it outlines specifically and exactly the perspective that the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior has arrived at. And there is, again, a welcoming of opportunities for collaboration. But again, according to this letter, which was sent to the minister in December, there are concerns about the co-governance and the lack of role for local government in defining this new approach.

There are concerns that there are 12 recommendations coming forward, three of which relate to First Nations co-governance of trusts, nine of which do not. But it is only First Nations who are at the table with the province, not local government who traditionally have played a role in governance here. There is, further, concern that other items appear to insert the province as a directive authority, which abrogates the independence of the trusts.

So why is it that we have, obviously, a variety of different experiences and perceptions happening among these trusts? I don’t have any strong opinion as to who’s correct. I’m just trying to understand why it is that we have a process going through, where municipal governments have been cut out of the conversation about First Nations co-governance, that also inserts the province as a directive authority over entities that were previously independent, and there is not a role at the table for those rural municipalities.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All the trusts are going through the same process. What I’ve shared with the member is…. I’ve probably got 17 letters from communities on Vancouver Island that are asking us to help them with their trust to allow them to do more work in partnership with First Nations. As the member notes, with the Southern Interior Trust, they’ve got concerns, and they would like things to be done differently.

My message to the member here is that we will respect the trusts and their ability to do their work effectively. We believe that we’ll get better outcomes if we’re partnering and finding ways to connect on economic development. I think that’s when everyone will get better outcomes, everyone will benefit. That’s the intention. We want all boats to rise together, but we fully acknowledge that not everybody’s in the same place.

If some trusts are moving faster and they want to see something, and another trust wants to see something different, there is the flexibility that’s going to be provided there. I look forward to continuing to engage with them. My team has been engaging with them regularly, and we’ll find a pathway forward. It may look different for different trusts, and that’s okay, because they’re serving different populations. They’ve, perhaps, slightly different priorities, and that’s not a bad thing.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:17 p.m.