Proceedings in the

Birch Room

The House in Committee,

Section C.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Jobs and Economic Growth

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call 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) .

Teresa Wat : The Premier announced casually in Surrey on March 19 — this should be the correct

day — that he would visit China. Maybe I missed an official news release. I just want

to know. Is there any official news release about the Premier’s trip to China?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yes. The Premier shared at a public event that he will be going on a trade mission

to China. We have not put out the details yet, but they will be coming out very soon.

Teresa Wat : It’s a little bit weird that, so far, the details of the trip…. I got it from singtao.ca,

through the…. The MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview is here. Sing Tao quoted this MLA as saying that the Premier will visit China from June 27 to July

3, going to Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Just want to confirm that before I talk about more details — the quoted MLA, Vancouver-Fraserview.

The Chair : Just to remind all members, we want to ensure that we are not making comments about

which members are or are not in the room in the moment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yes, if my friend across the way does a Google search, you’ll see it on Business in Vancouver and many publications that are talking about the Premier’s trip. Very soon, we’ll

be releasing a very detailed itinerary that the Premier is going to take. I’m certainly

happy to forward that on to the member when it’s ready.

Teresa Wat : But it was clearly stated in singtao.ca that the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview gave an exact date — as I said just now, June 27 to July 3 — stating that the Premier

will visit Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Plus, the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview was quoted as saying that the local businesses cannot join the Premier’s trip, but

they are welcome to attend events in China.

This is coming from an MLA from this government, so I would like to confirm how come.

It is really weird that a member of the government is giving details quoted by singtao.ca,

and yet it’s not been announced yet.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : If my friend has a detailed question to the Premier about what he’s said publicly,

during his estimates might be a good place for this question to come up.

I’ve shared a couple times that the detailed itinerary will be released very soon

so that the public and my friend across the way will be able to know which towns the

Premier is visiting. Normally — and the member will know because she was the minister

for trade — leading up to events, when the word gets out that there’s a trip coming,

often you have business leaders that are interested, you have academic partners that

are interested, you have not-for-profits that are interested, and that’s just normal

engagement that happens.

Teresa Wat : Yes, of course, after the Premier announced his trip to China, there was a lot of

interest in the community, especially among the Chinese business community.

[1:45 p.m.]

But what I’m trying to get at is that a member of this government was quoted as giving

details, even the exact date and the three cities that the Premier’s going to visit.

And I think the minister is responsible for this file.

I’m sure your media monitoring will have put out the report.

That’s what I want to confirm, because I was getting questions from my constituents

and the Chinese business community as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : That’s great to hear — that there’s interest in the member’s community around this

trip. Certainly, there’s going to be lots of interest, given how important these relationships

are.

If my friend across the way has a question about something the Premier is doing on

his travels, she can certainly ask him in estimates. What I can share with her is

that a detailed itinerary on his trip is going to be released very soon. We look forward

to releasing that in the very near future.

The Chair : Thank you, Minister.

Member, just a reminder. I think it’s important to recognize that the answer has been,

I think, clearly provided by the minister, so perhaps a different line of questioning

or a different approach might be helpful.

Teresa Wat : But I still have to ask another question concerning this one, if Madam Chair allows

me to do so.

The Chair : Please go ahead. I just wanted to point that out.

Teresa Wat : Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your direction. But the minister is responsible for

trade, and it’s just normal for a critic to direct the question to the minister.

I’m sure the minister is responsible for preparing the Premier’s trip to China. And

so is it…? I know that the minister said just now that it will be announced soon.

If it’s going to be announced soon, that means that the visit will take place soon,

in the summer. But from my experience, any foreign trade to Asia or to Europe has

to be planned at least half a year prior to the visit.

It looks a bit odd that the Premier announced it in March and then the trip will happen

in a few months’ time. It’s a bit rushed. Is it…? I just want to get more details

about why it was announced in such a big rush.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can assure the member that when trips are being planned, there’s a lot of work that

gets done in order to make them successful. Let’s just say, in a different situation,

when we work on a project or initiative, an announcement comes later. What I can share

with the member is that very soon we’ll be making the announcement. We’ll be able

to share details of where he’s going and the broad strokes, the itinerary.

I just am not able to share the announcement with the member at this time, but the

Premier has spoken publicly that he’s going to China. He has spoken on multiple occasions

that he’s going to China, that it’s coming up very soon. And once we have all the

things in order and we’re able to give the details, we’ll be sharing that.

Teresa Wat : Before I have to move to the next topic because I cannot get anything, again, I have

to emphasize that a member of this government has been telling the media about details

of the trip, even with the exact dates and the exact cities. The fact that local Chinese

business people cannot join this trade mission and have to be right in China in order

to attend any trade activities organized locally…. I just want to put it on record.

Since I didn’t get anything from this minister on a trade mission that the minister

should be totally responsible for, I’m going to switch to another question.

The Premier announced the Look West initiative some time ago. This is the government’s

signature trade diversification response to U.S. tariffs. Can the minister tell this

committee: what’s the total budget allocated to Look West in 2026 through ’27? How

much has been spent to date? Broken down by market — Japan, South Korea, India, Southeast

Asia, Europe, U.S.A. — what is the specific export dollar target B.C. has set for

each market?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Sorry I took an extra second there.

The member will know part of Look West…. Our goal was to attract $200 billion of investment

over the next decade to British Columbia. Both Canada and B.C. have a goal of doubling

trade to non-U.S. markets. That’s clear in our strategy. We’re investing, right now,

$11.8 million in our trade investment offices. I think that’s what the member was

asking.

I actually looked up the strategy that the member had when she was the minister for

this, and there weren’t exact targets at that time for markets. I think the goal was

to diversify, to lead some delegations at trade missions.

Certainly, those are the things we’re doing, but we’re going further by saying we

want to double the trade to non-U.S. markets in our strategy. It’s bold. Some say

it’s probably a little too ambitious, but we have to start with that and see where

we go.

[1:55 p.m.]

Teresa Wat : Because I’m running out of time, I’ll just turn to another question that I really

want to ask the minister.

The minister personally signed a Canadian mutual recognition agreement in Yellowknife on November 19, 2025, and described it as the largest set of red-tape reduction in

Canada’s history. It has been in place for roughly five months.

What measurable outcomes can the minister report to this committee today? Specifically,

how many B.C. businesses have used the CMRA provision to assess new provincial markets,

and has the ministry tracked any increases in B.C.’s interprovincial export value

since December 2025?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The economic impact, not according to me, but to IMF, Stats Canada, Greater Vancouver

Board of Trade…. They have highlighted many things. The removal of interprovincial

trade barriers could add $7.6 billion to the GDP. I think that’s what Greater Vancouver

Board of Trade has highlighted. Between IMF and Stats Canada, I’ve seen everything

from 7 percent to up to 21 percent drag on the economy.

The numbers are significant. It’s too early to see the data to show the impact, mainly

for two reasons. One is all provinces have till June 30, 2026, to list their exemptions.

Provinces are allowed to have exemptions where they feel they need to. It’s part of

the agreement.

By June 30, everyone has to list them. I suspect the true benefit of that is after

June 30 when all provinces list their exemptions so that companies that are operating

in the space can have more confidence to know what each jurisdiction’s rules are according

to the jurisdiction they want to operate in. So you won’t see an impact this year.

You’re likely to see more impacts going forward because of that. That’s an important

piece.

We fought hard in British Columbia to make sure that all the exemptions were posted

by provinces. I think it’s fair to say that not every province wanted to post publicly

their exceptions, but in order to get true benefit for everyone you needed to do that.

Then a second

part is we want to make sure the businesses understood how to leverage

this opportunity. Instead of every province creating something themselves, all the

provinces and all the players to the table agreed to create one document for all of

Canada for all businesses so that they understand how they can leverage these new

changes for their own business. All these things should be coming on very soon, but

June 30 is the big date for goods part of our agreement.

Teresa Wat : Thank you to the minister for the response, and it leads me to this question.

This agreement explicitly excludes food, alcohol and labour mobility. They are a very

significant area for B.C. producers and workers. B.C. and Alberta have made progress

on the direct-to-consumer wine sales.

When does the minister expect food and alcohol to be brought under the mutual recognition?

It will be by June 30? And the Labour Mobility Act as well.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There are three tables that are having conversations. There’s labour mobility table,

which we…. Our goal is to have an agreement this year. There’s the alcohol table,

which…. Our goal, again, is to have the deal done this year, as well as services.

The same thing. The hope, our goal is to have it this year.

The premiers have directed, at their last first ministers meetings, where they basically

agreed and directed select ministers to make sure that’s done…. The CMRA around services

is being chaired by B.C. and alcohol is being led by Minister of Agriculture but working

together. And then labour mobility is by Labour but still part of our table.

So we’ve got different ministries. Because they all have different specialties, they’re

able to take lead on different parts of it. But for all three of those, our goal is

to have the agreements for the first ministers this year.

Teresa Wat : Given the limitation on time…. My colleagues have a lot of questions for the minister.

I still have a number of questions. If the minister is kind enough, can I forward

the written questions to the ministry for a written response?

Yeah. Thank you so much for the interaction. We appreciate that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : If the member would like to have more time, maybe even meet with the staff to ask

questions, we can arrange that. We’ve done that for my friend who’s the official critic

for this. But if you want to do it in writing, we can do that in writing as well.

The Chair : Recognizing the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew : Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice to see you. Good to be back.

I’ll just close off on the trade file a little bit. You will forgive my focus on this

area, but if I could ask the minister just to speak a little bit more, within the

realm of what is in his scope, about what’s happening at the alcohol table on the

trade fund and if specifically there’s any update that he can provide with regard

to advancing the reduction of interprovincial trade barriers for wine and in particular

if he can expand a little bit on the goals that government currently has in terms

of trying to maximize opportunity for our wine-growing sector.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I really appreciate the member’s concern and advocacy on this part. We did canvass

this before the break. A week — not much of a break, and the member knows that.

I can’t share more details at this time. I can say that we’re close, but I almost

don’t want to jinx it. At the same time, partly because a lot of work that’s being

done has to go to different jurisdictions, things can still change. So I don’t want

to put anything on the record that that wouldn’t be 100 percent factual. So I can’t

share the details yet, other than to say that there’s good progress being made on

it.

Gavin Dew : I appreciate the confidentiality of those negotiations, and I look forward to seeing

more in the fullness of time.

I’ll just circle back to a few different topics that we may have covered off in part

prior to the break.

I understand that there will be a value-for-money audit of Web Summit spending undertaken.

I believe it’s by PwC. That’s my understanding from conversations that I had at Web

Summit. I just wanted to confirm whether that audit will be public.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Ministry of Finance’s estimates are coming up, and I think, given the context of the

questioning, it might be better suited for the Ministry of Finance. They’ll be in

a better place to share the answers to the member’s question.

Gavin Dew : I’ll look forward to learning more about that later.

I’m looking to get some clarity around AI data centre processes. I recognize there’s

going to be some overlap here between this ministry and the Ministry of Energy, but

I was struck that last week Telus announced that they have secured 85 megawatts of

electricity for AI data centres, rising to 150 megawatts by 2032. I certainly welcome

that announcement.

I am a little bit confused, because as far as I understood it from prior government

announcements, there was a competitive process underway, with the results to be announced

in September of 2026. There was no statement from Hydro, and there was no quote from

the Minister of Energy when that announcement was made last week. I’m just looking

to understand how that announcement that was made last week by Telus corresponds with

the competitive process that’s supposed to wrap up in September of 2026.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I don’t have anyone from Hydro here as part of my team, so I don’t want to say something.

I don’t have the details, and the team doesn’t have that information. So it is a question

better for the Minister of Energy. I’m sure you could just ask him in the hallway

or in a more formal setting.

But my team, I don’t have anyone from Hydro that’s on the call or in the room.

Gavin Dew : That’s fair. Obviously, Energy estimates have wrapped up, and I don’t know that this

rises to the test of being a question period question.

I am just, again, trying to understand what’s going on there, because it seems as

if it is completely contradictory to the process as laid out previously by government.

I’m not opposed to the announcement — pleased to see progress being made and pleased

to see that work happening by Telus. I’m just trying to understand how it fits with

the competitive process previously articulated. So we’ll have to get that answer somewhere

else.

Can I get an update on the policy measures being undertaken and the inventory work

being done to identify industrial land shortages by region, which have previously

featured in mandate letters for this ministry?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s too bad time is running out, because now we’re getting to the stuff that I love.

I think there are not many people that will, probably, love industrial land policy

more than the member and I. Sorry to everyone else that’s getting bored.

Oh, there are a few people here. You know what? We’ve got a good audience for this

conversation today. There’s a lot of interest in the room.

We’re doing a lot of work on this space. I think when industrial land conversation

comes up, there’s…. You know, in Metro Vancouver, there’s real pressure. In some parts

of Vancouver Island, there are real pressures. And then in some parts in the Interior,

in the North, people say: “We’ve got lots of industrial land.”

What we’re doing right now is we’re working with a vendor to create a comprehensive

map of where industrial lands are available. That work is important because right

now there’s no standardized way of collecting data on industrial land. That’s part

of the work we’re doing. The goal with this will be to have a bit of an inventory

of where industrial land is and what kind of industrial land we have. It will help

us inform our land use policies as we move forward.

Also, it will allow us to create opportunities, perhaps for clusters near highways,

to be able to create new opportunities for our ambitious goal of moving more goods

across the country through British Columbia. Well, you need the working land. You

need the industrial land. And where do you want the industrial land? You want it close

to highways. You want it close to infrastructure, where it already exists. This type

of work allows us to do that.

So I can’t give the member a timeline, but my hope is always this year. The team is

working pretty hard to get some basic information up, for us and for industry to use.

Gavin Dew : Does the minister envision moving toward an industrial land reserve system?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share with the member — he’ll probably already know this — that the B.C. Chamber

of Commerce, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade have called for some form of industrial

land reserve policy. We have not made a decision. It will be part of the consideration

because it has come forward from multiple organizations, but at this point, we haven’t

landed on what that will look like and how that will be as we go forward.

Gavin Dew : In principle, how will the ministry reconcile industrial land needs with housing targets,

environmental approvals and First Nations consultation?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : That’s a good question. We have to balance, in all of this, the needs around housing,

agriculture, conservation, economic growth opportunities and also ensuring regional

diversity. I can share with the member that we have already been engaging with communities

on what this can look like.

We had 108 engagements so far; 86 local governments have participated and shared their

feedback; 15 First Nations. We plan on continuing monthly engagements for several

months still, because there’s more information coming, and we want to make sure that

it lands well.

Then internally, the teams are doing work with Agriculture. They’re doing work with

Housing, because a lot of the policy folks are at the Ministry of Housing. There’s

a whole bunch of ministries that are working together on collecting that feedback

and making sure that it represents the different interests within the public and also

within government.

Gavin Dew : When can there realistically be expected to be an outcome on some of this? I would

point to the fact that six years ago, the Premier’s Food Security Task Force report

pointed to some directions around agri-industrial zoning, and that does not appear

to be moving at anything approaching anything more than a snail’s pace.

I’m just wondering. When might we actually see some policies enacted?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can’t give a definitive, but I can say that my goal is for by spring in the new

year.

Gavin Dew : The minister touched on the cross-ministerial aspects of all this. Again, I understand

there are aspects that are and are not under the minister’s jurisdiction. With that

said, there was obviously some reference to potential industrial land around highways.

I’m wondering if the minister can shed any light on what conversations have and have

not been undertaken around lower-quality farmland.

As the minister is surely aware, we produce 80 percent of our food on 20 percent of

our ALR land, and there are obviously some limitations to the mapping that was undertaken

at the time when the ALR was formed. We didn’t have GIS mapping. We didn’t have that

technology at that time. So we find ourselves in a situation where we have a tremendous

amount of lower-quality farmland, which processing is still not allowed on.

I wonder if the minister can shed light on, for example: will we allow processing

on class 4 farmland within one kilometre of highways? What are the parameters? Help

to shed some light on where we’re going in that regard.

I think a lot of folks that are in and around the ag sector have been waiting with

bated breath for a very long time to get some clarity on what standard might eventually

be enacted around that. So can the minister provide any directional indications, even

if it’s not the final outcome, of where we are going? Are we going toward a system

for agri-industrial processing that will be based on distance and quality? Where are

we going?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can’t make an announcement in the tiny House during estimates. I can share with

the member that, as I already highlighted, we’re working on industrial land policy.

Policy related to agricultural land is led by the Ministry of Agriculture, so I can’t

really comment on the work they’re doing other than that I believe the public prioritizes the need for protecting agricultural land.

We saw through the pandemic — we’ve seen through many challenges — that we need to

be able to have the food-growing ability and -production ability within British Columbia. We take that seriously. Work is happening,

but I can’t speak to any work that’s happening in the Ministry of Agriculture, because

that’s where that lead would happen.

Our focus is on just greater industrial land policy — how industrial land pushes against

agricultural land, how it pushes against housing, where it should be situated for

trade-enabling infrastructure. That’s what our engagement has been focused on.

Gavin Dew : I will leave that subject be, but I will just get in one final, final, final reiteration

of the fact that it’s been six years since the Premier’s Food Security Task Force

was rolled out, six years that people have been waiting for clarity around what’s

happening, six years of very incremental progress with regard to agri-industrial zoning

and to enabling processing. I certainly hope that we will actually see some finality

and some greater progress around that in the next short while.

I will start moving quickly around some different subjects, given that we’re going

to run out of time here.

Let’s talk about InBC for a minute. Where is the 2025-2026 annual report from InBC?

I believe the last report published was the 2025 report. What’s the timing on the

’26 report?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Just to the member’s previous comment, a lot has happened in the last six years. I

was just sitting here reflecting on the challenges that we’ve dealt with in the Ministry

of Agriculture and everywhere. Historic floods that we have not seen in, certainly,

my lifetime. We had the pandemic. We’ve had tariffs and duties.

I just don’t want to leave it as a characterization that no work is happening. There’s

a lot of work happening in that ministry in this space. Some of the challenges we’ve seen I don’t think we ever expected to

see, so I just want to give kudos to the ministry and the minister for taking on all

those things that are outside of our control in that time. Our Minister of Agriculture

has been through all of that — all the trauma that comes with it as well.

Now, to the question about InBC, we can share with the member that the reporting deadline

was March 31, so everything is in by March 31. Usually InBC will spend the summer

collecting that information, and the report will be tabled in the fall.

Gavin Dew : Can the minister share an update on actuals? The most recent that I appear to have

available is 2023 to 2024 actuals against performance measures. I’m just wondering

if he can share an update.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share with the member that about $196 million has been invested. Forty businesses

have received investments from InBC.

I’ll give a few examples just so that puts a little bit of colour for the record.

Mangrove Lithium, which has opened North America’s first commercial electrochemical lithium refinery in the best community in British Columbia — sorry, Kelowna

— Delta, B.C.

MarineLabs, whose coastal intelligence technology is operating four of Canada’s five

largest ports, including Port of Vancouver and Port of Prince Rupert. Marine Labs

was just named employer of the year in Victoria.

Novarc Technologies, whose AI-enabled welding technology is redefining industrial capabilities

in B.C. and beyond, including improving productivity and quality in shipbuilding,

construction, energy, water infrastructure….

I’ve got many more. I don’t want to go through all of them.

A more recent one was Photonic. The member will know from Web Summit. Photonic is

going to be a household name, I think, in the very near future, leading the way in

quantum and doing that from their home in Coquitlam.

I’ll leave it there, but if the member has more questions, I’d be happy to provide

the answers.

Gavin Dew : Thank you very much. Certainly pleased by the progress of Mangrove. I know that the

minister did misspeak in saying that Delta was the best community in British Columbia.

He obviously was mistaken because in fact that is Kelowna, but I would never call

him out on that publicly. I recognize that he has to tell the good people of Delta

that they’re the best community. I’m happy that the minister is proud of his community,

and I’m very pleased to see B.C. companies succeeding out of his community as well

as my own.

Turning to a more serious note, I am a little bit concerned about what appears to

be some governance churn happening with InBC. I know there has been a significant

number of departures from the board of InBC, which is in line with a pattern we seem

to have seen of boards, round tables and organizations falling apart under this ministry. Most of the individuals

on the board who had actual private sector investment experience appear to have departed.

In the last number of years, the founding CEO, Jill Earthy, stepped down in September

of 2025. As of the last information I have, there’s an interim CEO, Dr. Daniel Muzyka,

who also sits on the board in place. It has been a while. Is there any plan to hire

a new CEO or to refresh the governance of InBC?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Maybe I disagree with the member’s characterization of major changes. There have been

two people that have left the InBC board, and two new people have come in.

The member mentioned that there were previously two people with private sector experience.

There are now still two people that have got significant private sector experience,

but it’s not limited to just those two people. They all have some form of private

sector experience as part of their CVs.

We do have a new chief investment officer, Thomas Park, who is leading the helm. Of

course, the decision on the CEO is done by the board. They are independent. We’re

grateful for the interim CEO, who’s doing a pretty good job in that role. But I’m

sure he doesn’t want to stay forever, and the board will be doing that search, hopefully,

soon.

Gavin Dew : Certainly, Dr. Muzyka has an excellent reputation, and I’m confident he’s doing a great job. It would be

good to see a permanent CEO in place there sooner rather than later.

I will just sideline into a question that the minister may or may not be able to answer

but has arisen from the tech sector repeatedly. Is there any intention at any point

to re-establish a permanent Premier’s Technology Council?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I wouldn’t dare speak on what the Premier does. The Premier creates different advisory

boards when he feels the need to do that or they feel the need to do that, so I can’t

comment on that.

I can say to the member that the last time the Premier’s tech council existed, Innovate

B.C. wasn’t quite what Innovate B.C. is now. If you look at the board of Innovate

B.C., there are some really impressive people there that are giving advice to government.

But not only them. We do so much engagement across the board, and the ecosystem is

growing.

At this point, I’m not aware if the Premier has an interest. But again, during the

Premier’s estimates might be a better place to ask him.

Gavin Dew : I feel like I would be remiss if I didn’t make the point. The Minister of Finance

and I sat across from each other at a table at the B.C. tech awards, where that was raised as a primary advocacy item. So I certainly hope that the minister

will consider taking up that advocacy with the Premier or perhaps when he is the Premier.

You know, I’ve got to get you advocating early.

I want to circle back on something that was brought up in estimates about ten days

ago. With regard to engaging with partners and stakeholders, the minister stated:

“We’ve set up regular engagements with the partners, quarterly engagements with the

partners and direct connections with some of these organizations monthly, and we have

additional tables that we’ve created.” That was in answer to questions about ongoing

engagement of the business community and the loss of some of that connectivity.

I just wonder if the minister could elaborate on how many of those engagements he

has personally attended.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Within the last few months, I met with BIAs across the province, chamber of commerce

members across the province, board of trade, CFIB. My team has been meeting with them

as well. My ministry office has a person appointed to every one of those organizations,

where they can call weekly, monthly, whenever they need. So they’ve got a direct line

within our office.

Then late last year, when we were creating the Look West strategy, we also had round

tables with all of them as well.

Gavin Dew : We did actually check the minister’s public calendar for that, and the only round

table referenced is a steel round table late last year — up till December 2025, which

was the scope of calendar entries that we looked at. So just to confirm, is the minister

properly disclosing all meetings in his public calendar, or is there simply some error

here around the meetings that are being claimed but are not listed in his public calendar?

[2:50 p.m.- 2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I just had my team go through the releases.

For the member’s reference, February 2, Surrey and White Rock Board of Trade round

table; February 3, steel round table; February 9, 2:30, a round table with all the

chambers across the province; February 10, meetings with CFIB; March 12, round table

with all of the IBC members.

Gavin Dew : Those sound like one-off meetings. I get the impression from what the minister said

a couple of weeks ago that “they had created additional tables.” I’m just looking

to understand what those additional tables are that were created. There seems to be

a steel table. I’m not sure if that’s an ongoing table. I’m not sure if a one-off

meeting with BIAs is an ongoing table.

I’m just trying to understand whether the minister is overstating or under-reporting

the engagement that’s happening, because we could only find one table in the entirety

of disclosures up to the end of the last calendar year.

Are there in fact new, ongoing, recurring tables that have been created, or are these

just one-off meetings?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m a little lost for words here. Having meetings with all of the business improvement

association heads…. I mean, if you’ve got multiple across the province, that’s a round

table where they all get to share their ideas. Same with the chambers, where all the

heads of the chambers came on to a call, and there’s a lot of them. They got to ask

any question that they wanted, and we had a dialogue — steel, a round table.

If the member is just google-searching the word “table,” perhaps it maybe doesn’t

show up. But my commitment to these organizations was that we would bring all their

members forward together on a call where they could ask me questions or raise issues

that are important for them in their chamber or their local organization.

We’re in May. Session is busy. It’s always tough during session. So doing these meetings

in February and March…. I had committed to them that we would

schedule them regularly,

which we will. After the session is over, we’ll go back and set up another time for

another chance to touch base.

I can share with the member that in two weeks, I’ll be at the chamber AGM in Fort

St. John. That’ll be the next opportunity with them. But my commitment to them was

clear — that we would do this regularly and not just with a few heads of the organization.

In fact, I think it was welcomed by people, where they get to express their local

concern directly to me, as opposed to relying on it being filtered and only a few

items coming forward.

That’s the opportunity we wanted to create: more opportunity for each organization

within the organizations to be able to share their concerns. Anyways, the member said

there were no dates. I’ve clearly laid out those dates. And my commitment to them

is on the record.

Gavin Dew : The minister seems awfully defensive about a simple question. This is not a Google

search. This is the government’s proactive disclosure system, which, by the way, has

been not functioning for a good chunk of this calendar year. The last available calendar

dates we were able to look at were up to December of 2025.

[3:00 p.m.]

The minister is now indicating that he will go forward and set up meetings. I simply

quoted back what the minister said to him from the last round of conversation, which

was about two weeks ago, in which he said: “We’ve set up regular engagements with

the partners, quarterly engagements with the partners and direct connections with

some of the organizations monthly.”

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the minister to clarify. With what organizations,

as of two weeks ago, has he set up quarterly engagements, and with what organizations

has he set up regular monthly engagements? And thirdly, which additional tables have

been created that will be meeting on an ongoing basis?

Those are the minister’s exact words. They’re what he said. We’ve looked at what information

we could find that was made available through disclosure. I’m simply looking for the

minister to clarify his remarks of a couple of weeks ago, because he seems to not

like the tables that existed previously. He seems to not want to meet with them. There

have been a couple of one-offs that have been specified.

So just trying to understand. With what organizations have monthly meetings been set

up? With what organizations have quarterly meetings been set up? And what new ongoing

tables have been set up?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Perhaps why I might be coming across as a little annoyed at the member is that in

politics, this exchange happens all the time. But when a person gets up and purposely

mischaracterizes something to make a political point and then gets caught on it, maybe he should, you know, have the guts to stand up and say: “Hey, maybe I was wrong.”

He did this last week when we were here, where he read a letter that I wrote to the

Small Business Roundtable folks and suggested that I said to them something. Then

I clarified, because I had him read out the letter. In fact, it didn’t say that at

all. And now he has suggested that these meetings didn’t happen, and I just corrected

him on the record.

I don’t mind tough questions. In fact, I relish tough questions. I think that’s the

fun part about doing this work. I just don’t like being mischaracterized and suggestions

that something is happening when it’s not.

I said to the member that I met with these groups and I committed to them that we

would have regular meetings. In fact, if they wanted them quarterly, we would do them

quarterly. That’s my commitment. I have no problem meeting with any organization.

In fact, I enjoy it, quite frankly. I enjoy that more than just being in this building.

So if the member is asking if my commitment is to them on that, it’s clear. If the

member is questioning whether I had meetings and round tables with these organizations,

I just stated the fact here. And we’re going to continue to do that engagement as

we go forward.

Gavin Dew : I find it odd to have it suggested that I’m suggesting something has happened that

has not. I’ve read back the minister’s direct, exact words to him, and in those exact

words, he said: “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 we’ve created.”

I just asked him to clarify, in my last question: with which organizations have quarterly

meetings been scheduled, with which organizations have monthly meetings been scheduled,

and what tables have been set up? And the answer I got was no answer. The answer I

got was the minister being upset that I’m asking him a basic question about what meetings

he has happening because I can’t find any evidence that quarterly or monthly meetings

have happened. I can find one steel table referenced, not in Google but in his publicly

disclosed calendar.

I’m really not sure what the minister is so upset about at being asked to provide

basic accountability for who he’s meeting with, because he has shut down virtually

every other mechanism for engagement. And now he seems very, very upset that he’s

being asked to account for who he’s meeting with quarterly, who he’s meeting with

monthly, again, and looking for that to correspond with his publicly available calendar.

There appears to be some difference there between the exact words I quoted back from

the minister, the exact content of his calendar. And I’m not really sure what he’s

upset about, so let’s talk about something else.

The Business Council of British Columbia put out a survey on May 6 showing that 98

percent of respondents are very concerned about DRIPA applying to all laws in the

province. The same share of respondents also say they do not believe DRIPA is living

up to its original promise of creating greater investment certainty in B.C. Per the

Business Council, these findings stand in contrast to provincial government’s stated

objectives when the act was introduced in 2019.

[3:05 p.m.]

At that time, the Premier’s office said: “The new legislation aims to create further

certainty for investment and reaffirms B.C. as a world-class destination, providing

opportunities for business while creating a strong, inclusive economy. It provides

an additional tool for establishing rules, transparency and accountability when the

province works with Indigenous governing bodies, business and local governments on

decisions affecting Indigenous rights.”

I won’t go on to read out the entirety of the survey here, but it is very concerning;

98 percent of respondents are “very concerned” about DRIPA’s current implementation,

with the remaining 2 percent “somewhat concerned.” That is 100 percent of businesses

concerned. Now, obviously, that’s very problematic.

Only 3 percent of respondents say DRIPA is positively impacting business operations

by reducing time, cost, complexity or uncertainty in obtaining permits. This is one

of the business organizations that the minister has or has not been meeting with monthly,

quarterly.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide an update on what he’s hearing from

the business community with regard to DRIPA these days and whether it reconciles with

this survey.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yeah, I had a chance to look at the business survey. They sent the survey out to 197

members; 88 responded. So yeah, I mean, the percentages sound big until you put in

the context of how many people they asked and how many actually responded. That’s

not to negate that there are concerns among some business leaders. But to suggest

that 90-something percent of businesses have this concern, when really 88 people responded

to a survey that 197 got, I think that might be a bit of a stretch.

Now, that being said, everyone that I meet with understands that finding resolution

to challenges at the table is better than going through courts. The member will know

that, despite their rhetoric, we outperformed last year in GDP output. We’re leaders

in the country. We expect to be leaders in the country going forward, and all of that

is in the context of us working with First Nations.

The opposition can take it in a different direction and repeal and go back to court.

Lawyers will make a lot of money, I guess. But it won’t serve the province’s needs

and get us the outcomes we want.

We continue to engage with business leaders; $88 billion of potential investment that

we’ve got coming this year, in the next year or two years. We’ve got final investment decisions coming forward. We’ve already had significant

announcements coming forward in the last few months in the natural resource space.

We’ll continue to engage with leaders on this.

I don’t think there’s…. Despite what this survey says, there’s not one of those business

leaders that thinks that just fighting with First Nations and going to court is going

to resolve and make the business environment better, so we’re going to continue to

engage with them. We’re going to find solutions. We’re going to have people at the

table. That’s the best way forward.

Gavin Dew : The same survey showed about 74 percent of respondents say they are decreasing their

investment plans in B.C. About one in three say they’re reducing hiring plans in B.C.

To quote the CEO of the business council: “There’s been a huge shift since 2019, when

the vast majority of people supported DRIPA as a way to advance reconciliation and

create the certainty investors need.” The CEO goes on to say: “The desire to work

with Indigenous communities to create prosperity for all remains strong, but the message

from business leaders is clear. DRIPA isn’t working.”

I want to provide the minister an opportunity to rethink whether the right response

to a survey this, frankly, damning in terms of the state of business confidence and

the state of concern around DRIPA — whether he really wants his response to be to

question the response rate of the survey.

This is about as…. I mean, I will state in full disclosure that I’m a former board

member of the Business Council of British Columbia, so I know how significant it is

for that organization to put out a survey of this magnitude and impact which lays

bare a tremendous loss of business confidence in the approach that is being taken

to DRIPA.

I really would love to provide the minister an opportunity to rethink whether he wants

to attempt to undermine the credibility of this survey by talking about the response

rate.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m just saying facts. I’m just stating the facts that 197 individuals…. This is according

to their press release. I don’t know why the member…. I appreciate he was a member,

but I don’t know why he’s getting offended by something that they put out themselves

— 197 individuals, 88 responses were received. I don’t know.

It’s important to note that we’ve got tens of thousands of businesses across British

Columbia. All of them are important. So I don’t see an issue with putting out the

information that they put out themselves.

What I can tell the member is that with DRIPA, B.C. was an economic leader last year.

Under DRIPA, we have $88 billion of proposed projects that are in the pipeline already

this year. Several mines have come forward. Six LNG proposals are either moving forward

or close to operating or close to FID. We just saw ARC Resources in northwest B.C.

— Shell’s largest acquisition in decades.

To suggest it’s because of DRIPA that some of these business leaders are not wanting

to make additional investment…. There are a lot of things happening right now. If

you look at the trade uncertainties that people are dealing with…. You’re looking

at the challenges with the war. There are a lot of uncertainties. There’s a lot on

business leaders’ minds. I get that. I understand.

But to suggest that the economy is just going sideways because of DRIPA, when we’ve

seen for the last few years record investments come to the province with DRIPA….

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member says it’s not true. I welcome her to stand up and share her facts.

But it’s true. If she looks at the Stats Canada data for GDP output for the province

— she can just google it — she’ll see that it last year surpassed what the Business

Council of B.C. thought British Columbia was going to do. I think they projected it

was 1.6 or 1.7, and we came in at 2 percent.

We’re going to continue to find ways to bring people together at the table and find

solutions. That’s the only way. I know it’s a tough way. It’s easier just to say,

you know, “rip it up; throw it out” — all that rhetoric. But the reality is, as the

House Leader of the Conservatives said herself, that when…. Yeah, you’re going to

rip up DRIPA. But you’re going to replace it with something.

I guess the question would be: what are you going to replace it with? Something’s

going to be needed to be put in place because we have to find a way for us to continue

to work with our First Nations partners to advance economic opportunities.

I believe there is a way to do it. We’re showing it, and we have to get to the work.

We have to address where the concerns are, but it’s done thoughtfully, and it’s done

through dialogue.

Gavin Dew : I have to admit I’m still a little stunned here. The minister seems to think government

has done a spectacular job of articulating its vision.

I’m, again, reading this survey, and 83 percent of respondents disagreed that the

provincial government has clearly articulated its vision for reconciliation — 83 percent

disagree. That means 83 percent of these business leaders believe the government has

not clearly articulated its vision for reconciliation. A majority of respondents favour

repeal. That’s 59 percent of respondents. Amendment of DRIPA — that’s 31 percent,

with only 2 percent supporting no change. I’m just really struggling to reconcile

where the minister is getting his confidence from on this.

Yes, we are experiencing a geopolitical moment. Yes, there is a war in Iran. Yes,

we have experienced Trump tariffs. But this is what’s in the control of this government.

I’d say that the conversations I have with people in the business community, the conversations

that are reported in the media, the conversations that are in opinion research suggest

that people are tired of hearing this government make excuses and talk about Donald

Trump and Iran when they control stability and certainty on the land base. Again,

98 percent of respondents here disagree that DRIPA is living up to its promise of

creating investment certainty in B.C.

I’m just really confounded by the minister’s disregard for this extremely alarming

document that comes from one of the most credible business organizations in British

Columbia, which is ringing the alarm bell about DRIPA. The minister seems to be primarily

concerned with the sample size of a cry for help from, again, an organization representing

a huge chunk of the economy of this province.

[3:15 p.m.]

But I will switch to talking about small business, and we’ll see if he likes those

statistics any better. Over half of B.C. business owners say they are experiencing

increased crime; 60 percent are concerned about personal and staff safety due to crime in their communities,

according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which the minister has

met with recently.

There is such a level of frustration that people are not filing police reports because

they lack the belief that it will make a difference. We are facing a total loss of

confidence in our downtown business districts. I’m wondering if the minister could

speak about what strategy is emerging from his ministry.

Last year in estimates, we canvassed the matter of the securing small business rebate,

of which only about 20 percent of the money actually made it out the door and into

the pockets of small business because it was so poorly designed. So I’m wondering

if the minister can speak about any work that his ministry is undertaking in order

to understand the impact of this public safety crisis on small business, on job creation,

on business formation and on businesses exiting the province or exiting the market.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There were a lot of pieces in that question, so I’ll try to get at all of them.

We heard from small businesses that they were struggling to find the trained workforce

that they need. Part of the budget…. We doubled the skills-training funding to ensure

that the small businesses, medium-sized businesses have the skilled workers they need.

The member mentioned challenges on main street, on storefronts and businesses. He

has heard me say this multiple times, but my family ran a small business here. The

restaurant had many broken windows. That was more than a decade ago. I know how frustrating

that is for those businesses.

In the budget, $16 million to create the chronic offending intervention initiative.

So far, this program has seen a 50 percent reduction in interactions with police,

with individuals. Violent offence interactions have decreased 56 percent. Pretrial

remand rate has increased to 75 percent compared to the 56 percent before. And Crown

counsel is successfully securing detention in 84 percent of the cases. The program

has had success. We heard that from the business community, small businesses in particular.

We were able to put additional dollars in that.

The member will also know we’ve been doing a lot of work to cut red tape. We discussed

interprovincial trade barriers and how important that is.

The member mentioned CFIB’s report. You’ll note the CFIB gave us a B-plus in their

report, demonstrating continued economic leadership in our work to reduce red tape

for businesses. There’s more to do, more to come. We’re going to continue to engage

with them. We know that there are other items.

When we talk about small businesses, there’s such a wide variety of types of businesses.

But we’re going to continue to engage with them, whether that’s trades training that

they need or skilled people they need; whether that’s support with people who are

repeat offenders, which we have programming and dollars on; whether they’re wanting

to sell goods or services across the country; or whether they want to get an opportunity

to be part of Canada’s investments and B.C.’s investments in all the items that are

within the Look West strategy. We’re prepared to work with them on all of those.

Gavin Dew : Thank you very much. This will be my last question as I wrap up and hand over to my

colleague from the Greens.

So 80 percent of small businesses oppose the PST expansion, and 93 percent say Budget

2026 will not improve conditions for their businesses. Seven in ten businesses are

saying prices will go up as those costs are passed along. In the most egregious cases,

we have companies that are already dealing with a storefront apocalypse in their downtowns

who will now be asked to pay 7 percent more on security services.

The CFIB estimates an increase on individual businesses’ administrative costs of up

to $7,000 per year per employee, just to comply with PST requirements. So we’re looking

at a pretty dramatic impact from the PST.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m wondering if, as I close, the minister can provide any information as to whether

his ministry undertook any consultation, any research, any analysis as to what the

response to the PST expansion would be, what the impact would be for small businesses

and job creation and, having undertaken that information, what the results were. If

he can share what those results were? Did he or will he talk to the Finance Minister

about reversing this egregious and poorly timed expansion of the PST?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member has been around this place. He knows that tax policy happens at the Ministry

of Finance, for many reasons, and often tax policy is closely guarded by the Ministry

of Finance. Their estimates are coming up. I’m sure the member will be canvassing

there.

We continue to have one of the lowest small business taxes in the entire country,

which is important. In fact, we lowered it by 25 percent upon forming government,

and I highlighted all the investments we’re making in supporting the ecosystem — all

the things that small business has highlighted for us.

They asked us to continue to cut red tape, not only with interprovincial trade barriers

but also to make it easier for them to do business. We’re going through a very comprehensive

process on that.

A lot of small businesses talked to us about industrial land and wanted to protect

it so that they can grow their businesses here. I think we’ve highlighted that work.

We’ve heard from businesses that are worried about repeat offenders. We’ve highlighted

that.

Small businesses need the ability to have trained people.

All those investments come from the treasury, and dollars are needed. I appreciate

the investments that are in the budget for that, but tax policy questions will have

to go to the Minister of Finance.

The Chair : We are going to take a recess now. If everyone can be back for 3:42.

The committee recessed from 3:27 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair : I call Committee of Supply,

Section C, back to order. We are currently considering

the budget estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

Jeremy Valeriote : I only have 30 minutes, so I’ll try to be brief.

The strategic investment fund that the government finalized earlier this session is

set to put 400 million public dollars into private projects. The money is stated to

secure $20 billion in major economic projects and assist in the Look West strategy

of securing $200 billion. The stated ideal outcome is “revenue for stronger services.”

My question for the minister is: has his ministry or the government modelled long-term

public revenue from these investments, and how much public revenue is forecasted?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : A couple of things. One, the document that will help industry partners, the federal

government, understand the pathway forward is being worked on right now. We have to

go through a Treasury Board process. I think my critic had asked me about this last

week. We’re going to go through that process, and then we’re going to make it public

so people understand what the parameters are and who would be viable.

But I can share with the member that one of the key provisions for us will be leveraging

the federal government’s strategic investment fund. The critique of British Columbia

has been, in the past, that Ontario and Quebec have had strategic funds and have been

available to partner with the federal government, which has allowed them to, quite

frankly, get more dollars in their province than we have.

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

That’s what the fund’s value is. Now it sends a clear message to the federal government

that we have dollars and we’re interested in being partners.

An example would be a life sciences company, say like AbCellera, that wants to expand

drug discovery locally. The federal government comes in with a strategic investment,

and where would the province be?

There is another company that comes to my mind that does 3D printing of skin, Aspect

Biosystems. They’re an example of it. They have, of course, an important use for us,

for our health care facilities, but also perhaps a dual-use purpose for our national

defence to be able to have it on site for wounded soldiers.

The federal government might say: “Hey, we want to expand our investments in this

only if the province comes in.” That’s what we hear consistently from the federal

government. “We’ll come in if the province comes in.”

[3:50 p.m.]

We’ve never had the ability to have a strategic fund to partner with them, and now

we do.

Jeremy Valeriote : I appreciate the answer. It sounds like there are some pieces in process and some

pieces that have been made public. I think what I’m trying to parse out here is the

difference between a subsidy or a grant to private companies versus an investment,

the projected ROI. With some of these pieces still to be determined, I appreciate

the examples.

I’m trying to understand the parameters of what the kind of floor ROI would be in

these situations so that taxpayers can be assured that this isn’t money going into

a fund that won’t generate any returns. Is there modelling on even worst-case scenarios

of ROI for some of this investment?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think the member and I have…. We share the same desire for the outcome, which is:

what is the benefit beyond the jobs? What is the benefit for people? That’s why this

fund is so important. That’s why the legislative change part of the budget we made

was so important. We’re moving into a place that we have not been able to be because

laws here limited us from doing that, where through this fund, we can take equity,

we can provide loans, we can have some structures around profit-sharing, repayable

grants.

All of these tools are now available to us with this fund that we didn’t have available

to us before. It was always grant-based, where money went out with a tie to some form

of, you know, the number of jobs they would bring on or how many co-op students they

take on. There were different outcomes that we valued. Now we have the same ability

to have those but also get a financial return to the province.

That work is happening. We’re going through Treasury Board. Now, the member wants

to know what that exact number will look like, and it will vary. That’s really hard

to model out because we don’t know what’s going to come through the door. We don’t

know what the structure of every agreement will be, whether it’ll be loan structure,

whether it’ll be profit-sharing, whether it’ll be some form of equity.

There are just too many variables to necessarily model out. It really will be a case

of what comes through the door, what the federal government has an interest in. But

we have now the tools to be able to be at the table for the conversations, and that’s,

I think, the significant difference for us.

Jeremy Valeriote : Thank you. I’ll move on to the Look West strategy, which we’ve been going through

with great interest and detail.

At the end of the Look West plan, there are indications for what is next in the short,

medium and long term. Many of the outcomes indicate processes or completion of projects:

for example, legislation for the North Coast transmission line, which is complete;

announcement of B.C. Hydro’s AI process and data centres to access electricity in

the medium term; and in the long term, securing $200 billion in major project investment.

Some outcomes indicate benefits for some working-class British Columbians, for example,

training and upskilling people to build a strong economy and building B.C. as Canada’s

economic engine. What I’d like to better understand is the larger picture benefits

for British Columbians that will result from Look West. Something like transmission

lines is only a success if it benefits people tangibly, and “Canada’s economic engine”

is more of a communications pitch than a success measure.

Can the minister explain how, specifically, British Columbians will benefit if the

government achieves the success it’s looking for in Look West?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The Look West action plan is 100 percent targeted towards working people. If you look

at all the measures, there are benefits for people in British Columbia.

The member has mentioned a couple of things. The doubling of funding for skilled-trades

training. Obviously, with all the economic opportunities we see on the horizon, the

biggest thing we hear from partners, both in labour as well as industry, is: how are

we going to get the people to be able to do the jobs and take on this opportunity?

That’s why that funding is so important.

North Coast transmission line creates economic opportunities in regions. It provides

opportunity for power to displace diesel in many communities that have relied on other

forms to be able to power their communities.

[3:55 p.m.]

There’s a

section in the document around the marine industry and the significant opportunity

it means for both employment and economic development, not only for workers but for

communities, for First Nations communities. Many of them have come forward, especially

on the Island, to say: “We want to be part of that economic development.”

If you look at aerospace…. My colleague from Kelowna and I were having this conversation

about the huge economic opportunities for working people around aerospace in Kelowna,

in Abbotsford, in Victoria. My friend’s colleague, the MLA for Saanich South and I talked about the Look West strategy and what that means for the aerospace sector

in Sidney, where there’s a huge footprint.

There are so many elements of it, whether we’re talking about the movement of goods….

If Canada wants to double their exports to non-U.S. markets, that’s coming through

British Columbia. So how do we prepare for that? That means economic opportunities

for people to start small businesses. It means people in the transportation industry

are going to be needed to be able to move those goods. We’re going to have to figure

out how we get more efficiency through our ports.

Every element of the document is about: “How do we advance opportunities for working

people?” I think that’s why it resonates both with the public…. But we’ve heard it

resonates with the federal government on the key things that they want to advance

as well.

Jeremy Valeriote : The document has a number of goals, some of which are specific; some are quite broad.

But it’s appreciated to know, at least, where this is heading. I’m assuming that within

internal ministry documents, there are also some more detailed performance indicators

for a plan of this size.

Can the minister give some insight into what some of the specific performance indicators

are? And I’m going to focus particularly on tech and the life science sector because

of the numbers I mentioned before, but I’m also interested in tourism and agriculture

specifically. So are there specific performance indicators that can be shared on those

topics?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There are a lot of metrics that we have put in, a lot of targets we’ve put in the

strategy. I can share some of them. There are probably more, but I’ll go through some

of them.

The $200 billion investments over the next decade — the member has probably heard

that. We have put a bold target of doubling the employment in the tech community,

in the tech sector, to 400,000 over the next decade.

We have a goal of increasing the life sciences sector’s GDP contribution by 75 percent.

We have a target of landing 35 percent of national defence contracts in British Columbia.

For agriculture, we have a target of expanding our export opportunities by about 25

percent over the next decade.

Within the strategy, there are more detailed strategies that are coming or are being

worked on. We have an outdoor strategy, an outdoor rec strategy that’s being worked

on, which I know will be close to the member’s heart because there’s a strong ecosystem,

a strong manufacturing sector that is a hub in his community. That work is happening

with our ministry, with other ministries, and will be ready soon.

There is already a tourism strategy within it. That was announced just recently. We’re

also working on a more detailed industrial land policy. The member may have caught

this, but I’ll say it again. We’ve had 108, I believe, engagements on the industrial

strategy. We’ve had 80-something submissions from local governments. About 15 First

Nations have submitted ideas around industrial land or working land.

So there’s a whole bunch of…. We’ve got the big targets in the strategy, and then

we’re working through detailed strategies within each of those buckets. We’ve been

releasing them. We’ve announced some of them, but there’s more coming very soon.

Jeremy Valeriote : I might come back to industrial land, but I’ll just quickly move to AI and AI data

centres. The stated goal in Look West is to provide enough energy for AI data centres — to provide the electricity required.

Just last week the minister announced the provincial government assisted in the fast-tracking

of three AI data centres. Projects are being fast-tracked to be completed at the earliest

possible opportunity.

We’re trying to better understand how the province’s support here signals support

for regular British Columbians. Outside of the Telus shareholders’ interests, can

the minister tell working British Columbians what they’ll concretely receive in return

for dedicating electricity, water and public dollars to fast-track AI infrastructure?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the question from the member. Maybe I’ll clarify one thing. The member

said we’re fast-tracking AI data centres. I don’t recall seeing that anywhere. They

go through the regular processes that they have to, to get their permitting through

local governments, etc. I just wanted to clarify that, because it’s an important piece.

When we talk about sovereignty, AI data sovereignty or sovereignty of our data…. I

think the member is well read, and he’ll understand. The Cloud Act in the U.S. has got every jurisdiction in the

world a little spooked.

The reason why we need some sovereignty, some capacity of AI data centres on our home

soil, is to be able to do a few things. Protect people’s personal information, which

is vitally important. There’s a defence application. We need to have our information

around defence protected and not have it go through data centres in the U.S. or any

other jurisdiction. From an academic perspective, we have a lot of high-value research

that happens, and we need to protect that research as well. Those are just three examples.

The member’s question about what the benefit is for the public…. I think those are

three glaringly obvious benefits for citizens of British Columbia and Canada, and

that’s why we need it.

Now, we’re not talking about unlimited data centres, as the member will know. We have

allocated a limited amount of power for data centres, and that’s a balance between

knowing that we need our electricity for other types of activity, for homes, for electrifying

our economy but also acknowledging and understanding that we need some sovereign capacity

around data, around AI in our own jurisdiction, and we can’t rely on other jurisdictions.

Now, there’s a second part to it, which is that AI is everywhere. It’s already in

our communities. I know that not this leader of the Green Party but the other leader

of the Green Party put out videos and statements saying: “We’re going to ban AI data

centres and fight AI.”

Great. Good for you. Go for it, but remember that the algorithms that you depend on

to get your Instagram likes is running on AI. AI is operating within…. In fact, you’re

seeing benefits from that, just to get your message out to people. So you can’t be

saying, “We want to stop AI,” and yet you depend on the benefits of the AI.

So the challenge for us as lawmakers in this place is to understand that there are

some obvious benefits for us as a public. But how do we mitigate the concerns that

are legit from people? How do we ensure that people have the skills-training opportunities

to be able to pivot if they are impacted by that work? How do they get opportunities,

economic opportunities, good-paying jobs in sectors that are more AI-resilient? That’s why we doubled the funding for trades training in British Columbia.

Those are employment opportunities that are good-paying jobs for people.

How do we protect people from the concerns that we’ve seen around some chatbots, as

well as just protecting our public from AI not being used in a negative way? And that

work is happening as well. So it’s not just, “How do we see the benefits?” but also: “How do we protect the public?”

Now, we’ve been having some meaningful conversations with the federal government.

It’s our belief that we need to have a Canada approach to addressing these. The good

news for us is that there seems to be some reception there and understanding that

we need to do that. It’s work that the minister of state and the Attorney General

are leading.

[4:10 p.m.]

We have been clear to the federal government that if it doesn’t meet the test, if

it doesn’t meet the bar, then we will go alone. But we prefer to do a national approach.

And that’s not just us. The other provinces are saying the same thing.

We’re hoping we can address that so we can see the economic benefit; we can see the

opportunity for better health outcomes; have more sovereignty around our data, our

research; and address the harms along the way. I think both can be done.

Jeremy Valeriote : I appreciate the clarification on the local government processes, which I’ll assume

include consultation. But it does seem to me that these particular data centres have

bypassed if not environmental regulation then at least the Hydro bid process that’s

scheduled to be completed in September 2026. I think this was canvassed earlier, so

I won’t belabour it.

When it comes to data sovereignty, I do want to ask the minister…. It’s a laudable

goal, but how does the minister reconcile partnering with Telus, given what I understand

to be a massive data leak that has occurred through Telus in the last few weeks.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Protecting private data is, obviously, critically important, and certainly, Telus

will have to do what they need to do. Because they’re federally regulated, they have

to make sure that they’re taking the appropriate steps to do that. But to suggest

that Telus is somehow a problem is a problem, given that the member’s device that

he’s using today is running off of Telus’s systems.

We can’t have it both ways. We need our companies, Canadian companies, to be able

to have the capacity. But I would agree with the member that it’s vitally important

for them that they do what they need to do to protect our personal information. Not

having the capacity for these data centres — some capacity, within Canada — makes

our data even more vulnerable than perhaps it is today.

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m somewhat amused at the partisan aspect of this and the continued focus on our

party leader and my device, but I’ll leave that alone.

Given the minister’s mention of industrial land strategy, I will bring back a question

that I’d shelved because it was too constituency focused. I do try to want to ask

some broad, general questions.

The district of Squamish has brought to this ministry, over at least eight or nine

years, fully underutilized rail yards, former B.C. Rail yards, in Squamish, 96 acres

which, to me, represent…. I mean, I’m biased, but in an industrial land strategy,

they’re perfectly situated to enable the technology and innovation sector in Squamish.

The district has been in touch with the ministry recently, and I have to say I really

appreciate when ADMs such as this one say, basically: “We haven’t been able to identify

funds, and we don’t recommend investing additional effort.” That is actually really

helpful for a municipality to hear, because then they don’t go flogging a dead horse.

However, given what the minister just mentioned about industrial lands, I’m wondering

if there’s forecasting here of some potential funds that may be made available for

industrial lands, particularly in a port city like Squamish where, at last count,

$30 million invested would have a huge ROI in terms of attracting new tech businesses

near a port and in a growing community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Perhaps when I mentioned the member’s device, I should’ve…. Maybe I could say my device

or any member’s device in government. I wasn’t trying to be partisan in that sense.

It was more of just a general point on how our systems are running and why they’re

running here.

I appreciate the member raising Squamish. He has raised with me, for the record, that

site, I think, multiple times, and so I appreciate his advocacy. Yes, my team has

engaged with Squamish in those conversations, and he’s correct. At this point, in

this budget, we don’t have money for industrial lands, for this type of economic opportunity.

[4:15 p.m.]

But I can share with the member that part of the work we’re doing is identifying industrial

lands throughout the province that are strategically located for us to have a sense

of what’s happening on the land base around industrial land — who’s got what, what

kind of language they use around their zoning, what the inventory is.

So if somebody is potentially wanting to invest, and the local government says, “We’re looking for this type of company,” we’re able to play a matchmaker role and put them together. But when you don’t have

that one central inventory, it’s really whoever gets to you closest, or, quite often,

the company is doing the work themselves.

We are doing some of that work. Our hope is that by spring next year, we’ll have some

form of provincial inventory that will be there so we can do all those things that

I’ve highlighted.

The Chair : Thank you, Minister and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 38: ministry operations, $72,704,000 — approved.

The Chair : Thank you, Members.

I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 4:16 p.m.