First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, May 8, 2025

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 59

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Statements

Mining Day

Hon. Jagrup Brar

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

Wounded Warriors Fundraising Run

Rosalyn Bird

Resilience Centre and Support for Vancouver Filipino Community

Mable Elmore

Tourism in Okanagan-Shuswap

David Williams

Action Against Invasive Species

Stephanie Higginson

Legislature Staff and Role of Clerk’s Office

Rob Botterell

Child and Youth Mental Health Awareness and Services

Jennifer Blatherwick

Statements

Pope Leo XIV

John Rustad

Oral Questions

Restoration of Water and Sewage Services at Lakeview Trailer Park

John Rustad

Hon. Randene Neill

Court Case in Penticton and Comments by Cabinet Members on Issues Currently Before

Courts

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Government Action on Social Welfare and Community Well-Being

Rob Botterell

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Universal Ostrich Farms and Federal Avian Flu Cull

Jordan Kealy

Hon. Lana Popham

Ferry Replacement and Services

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Mike Farnworth

South Asian Museum Project and Support for South Asian Community

Gavin Dew

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Back-Country Land Use in Columbia Valley and Kootenays

Scott McInnis

Hon. Randene Neill

Support for Social Housing Tenants in Ladner

Ian Paton

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

CleanBC Targets and Program Review

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Adrian Dix

Government Accountability and Action on Issues

Peter Milobar

Hon. Adrian Dix

Government Reimbursement Payments for Rural Health Care Specialists

Hon. Josie Osborne

Sharon Hartwell

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2024

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2024

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act (continued)

Trevor Halford

Hon. Randene Neill

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Transit (continued)

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Kiel Giddens

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 5 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025 (continued)

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Thursday, May 8, 2025

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Kelly Greene.

Statements

Mining Day

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Happy Mining Day.

Today is Mining Day at the B.C. Legislature. I just want to say to the members that

mining provides 40,000 good, family-supporting jobs to the people of British Columbia,

supplies critical minerals, critical to grow the green economy, and advances reconciliation

with First Nations.

I also want to say that the jobs the mining sector provides are, on average, $130,000.

They are really family-supporting jobs. The mining product we export to Asia — 90

percent of the product goes to Asia. So that’s the other beauty of mining under the

current circumstances. We are talking about the tariff situation, diversifying our

trade. It’s already diversified.

[10:05 a.m.]

Today we have, between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., a dozen mining companies, some of the best

companies in the province. They are going to put booths at the Hall of Honour, and

I urge everyone from all sides to go there between 11 and three and talk to them.

They have samples, including gold samples you can take home. They have gold, copper,

molybdenum, silver, metallurgical gold, nickel — all that kind of stuff with them.

So I urge everyone to be there.

Very quickly, the companies that have representatives here today are these.

We have Taseko Mines. They have B.C.’s second-largest copper mine.

We have NorthIsle Copper and Gold mine. They are advancing their north Island project,

which is copper-gold-molybdenum.

Just 12 companies. I will be very quick.

Seabridge — they’re advancing another project that’s also gold, copper, silver.

And Teck Resources — they have 4,500 people working for them, and they have two mines,

the biggest mine in the country, Highland Valley Copper mine.

Elk Valley Resources….

The Speaker : Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : They are incredible mines.

The Speaker : Introductions — less than 30 seconds.

Introductions by Members

Darlene Rotchford : It is an honour and a privilege today to recognize, in our House, Capt. (Navy) Kevin

Whiteside. the base commander of CFB Esquimalt, Royal Navy, as well as Chief Petty

Officer 1st Class Susan Frisby, base chief petty officer. Today I had the honour of

giving them a proclamation on behalf of the province of British Columbia for the 80th

anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe.

As well, I am proud to say that they’re in the riding of Esquimalt-Colwood, and happy

to have them all here.

It’s Kevin’s, the base commander’s, first time here, so give him a big, warm welcome.

Rosalyn Bird : It is also my pleasure today to introduce Jacqueline Zweng, who is also with them.

She served with the Canadian Forces for 25 years as a cadet instructors cadre and,

over the past two years, has taken a role in the public affairs at the regional cadet

support unit. She is very passionate about volunteering and supporting our uniformed

personnel. It has been her honour to act as the director of the Wounded Warrior Run

since 2018.

Can we please all make her welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I have an incredible privilege today to introduce two people to the House. Rik Valentine

and Deb Borsos visit us from the incredibly stunning Argenta, British Columbia.

Now, Rik and Deb knew that it wasn’t if a fire would impact their community but when.

So over 20 years ago, they started the Argenta Safety and Preparedness Society.

They worked with a team of local volunteers for 20 years to train, get certified.

They applied for grants to purchase equipment, and they mapped their water source.

And they spent time building a relationship with B.C. wildfire service. Last summer,

when a wildfire started close to the community of Argenta, they were prepared to take

action to protect their community alongside B.C. wildfire service.

Rik and Deb are here in Victoria today because Rik is being awarded with the B.C.

Community Award for his incredible work. I would like to thank Rik and Deb for being

such brave and incredible community members, part of a team of locals who, alongside

the B.C. wildfire service, saved the community of Argenta last year.

Will this entire House please give a warm welcome to Rik and Deb.

Pete Davis : I would like to take a moment to recognize and warmly welcome the many mining companies

that are joining us here today, along with representatives of the Association for

Mineral Exploration and the Mining Association of B.C.

[10:10 a.m.]

Mining helped build this province, and it continues to be a vital engine of economic

growth, job creation and regional development across British Columbia. As the mining

critic for the official opposition, I’d like to welcome them.

Thank you for being here, and happy Mining Month.

Ward Stamer : I’d like to welcome the Private Forest Landowners Association that represents and

manages forest owners across the province of B.C. this morning, from the coastal to

the Interior, the large and the small, the veteran foresters and the novice tree farmers.

I’d like to welcome Jon Spalding, Jeff Czepil, Matt Merritt, Karen Brandt, Graham

Brewster, Mani Arnold, Sue Handel, Margaret Symon and Megan Hanacek, who is the CEO.

PFLA is a non-profit organization that represents and supports the protections of

key environmental values, fiscal responsibility and respect for private property rights.

Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Mr. Speaker, my critic beat me to the punch. I also want to, on behalf of the government

caucus, welcome, as the MLA across the way did, the Private Forest Landowners Association.

I had an opportunity to meet with them earlier today. They are doing incredible work.

They are punching well above their weight in communities right across the province.

I want to give a particular shout-out to the CEO, Megan Hanacek from Port McNeill

— just an incredible person, someone who we rely on very heavily in the forest service

for advice and guidance at all times.

Will the House please join me in making all of them feel very welcome here today.

Kiel Giddens : We’re celebrating a pretty important birthday in the city of Prince George today.

The iconic Mr. PG is celebrating his 65th birthday.

But don’t worry, Mr. Speaker. He has no plans to retire. He’ll be there for many years

to come and will wave at Macey Hansard on her next visit to Prince George.

Jordan Kealy : I would like to introduce a fellow farmer that has come to the House, Katie Pasitney

from Universal Ostrich Farms, an innovative and research-driven operation that has

spent the past three years developing antibody-based practices aimed at protecting

against diseases and viruses, including H5N1. This farm is not used for food consumption

and is purely research-based.

What makes Universal Ostrich Farms truly unique is not only its commitment to advancing

animal health and biosecurity but also its broader vision for the future of agriculture

in Canada. Their work highlights the incredible economic opportunity this kind of

innovation represents, helping create new industries, generate jobs and stabilize

our agriculture system in times of crisis, like the ones that we are currently facing.

Katie’s presence here today is a reminder of the critical role that science, innovation

and forward-thinking policy can play in protecting both our economy and the health

of our food systems.

Please welcome Katie.

Scott McInnis : I just want to welcome back my friend the mayor of Kimberley. Don McCormick is here

for several meetings related not only to the town of Kimberley, which I live in with

Don, but to our region as a whole.

I want to take a minute to thank the Minister of Health for taking time out of her

busy

schedule to meet with us yesterday.

Please welcome Mr. Don McCormick back to the House, everybody.

The Speaker : Minister of Mining, again, for a 30-second introduction.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : This is a new rule.

It is with mixed emotions that I rise to welcome my communications director. David

Haslam will be retiring after an extraordinary 28 years of service to the province

of British Columbia. I am sad to lose David as he has been a great part of my team,

but 28 years is a long and impressive run.

I want to wish him a happy and long retirement.

[10:15 a.m.]

I will introduce in 30 seconds two special individuals connected to the mining sector.

I welcome in the gallery today my friend Michael Goehring — he is the president and

CEO of the Mining Association of B.C. — and Trish Jacques, the chairperson of the

Association for Mineral Exploration.

I ask the members to please make them feel welcome.

Members’ Statements

Wounded Warriors Fundraising Run

Rosalyn Bird : I rise today to talk about an organization I have tremendous admiration for, Wounded

Warriors Canada.

It seems particularly fitting to draw attention to them today, on the 80th anniversary

of VE day. This date, May 8, 1945, marked the day millions of people rejoiced in the

news that Germany had surrendered and the war in Europe was finally over. We continue

to honour the heroes of the past and remember the sacrifices of today’s veterans.

Wounded Warriors is a national mental health service offering mental health support

providers dedicated to serving trauma-exposed professionals, their families and organizations.

They are focused on raising funds to support programs to assist military veterans

and first responders to overcome post-traumatic stress disorder and operational stress

injuries. The programs empower injured veterans, family members and their caregivers

to effectively transition to life after a traumatic injury.

The key fundraising event, held annually here on the Island, is the Wounded Warrior

Run. The event connects communities to support and raises awareness for crucial mental

health programs needed here on the Island.

This extraordinary journey, a run commencing in Port Hardy and finishing in Victoria

— eight days, eight runners, 800 kilometres — is in its 11th year, this year raising

$245,000.

Event director Jacqueline Zweng, joining us in the gallery today, has said that being

involved in the run is the highlight of her year and has been quoted: “We need to

talk about mental health. We need to help those people that protect our communities

every day.”

Also joining us today is a first-time runner, CFB Esquimalt base commander Kevin Whiteside,

who dedicated his journey to his late father, a Toronto police officer. He called

the run a call to action for communities to better understand the programs and the

support Wounded Warriors offers.

Thank you, Wounded Warriors, for the incredible support you continue to provide our

veterans. Let’s all honour the fallen and help the living.

[Applause.]

Resilience Centre and Support

for Vancouver Filipino Community

Mable Elmore : The scripture teaches us that there is a season to everything, that there is a time

to every purpose under the heavens. It’s a powerful reminder to all of us about the

cycle of life, its ebb and flow. I personally find great meaning in this lesson, especially

in the aftermath of the April 26 tragedy.

It’s now a time of healing for the Filipino community and beyond. The powerful journey

of healing has begun. One of the ways healing is being embraced is through the Resilience

Centre. The Resilience Centre serves as a safe gathering space for community members

to come together for a meal, connect and access wellness and coping supports. The

Resilience Centre was organized by the Filipino community in partnership with government,

non-profit and faith-based agencies.

I would like to mention and recognize the role of the city of Vancouver; the Vancouver

school board; the Archdiocese of Vancouver; Salvation Army; the Canadian Red Cross;

the Provincial Health Services Authority, who deployed the disaster psychosocial services

team; Vancouver Coastal Health; Foundry B.C.; St. John Ambulance B.C. and Yukon, for

their therapy dogs; the Filipino chefs meal train, which has been providing meals;

and a number of local restaurants and businesses who have come together to support

the community.

To cite an example, on May 6, around 100 people of all generations attended the Resilience

Centre, which is currently housed in the cafeteria of the Killarney Secondary School.

It’s the first time a Resilience Centre has been stood up in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, this is also a time and opportunity for us to ensure that

this healing becomes a sustainable process. Let’s continue to work together to help

bring about long-term rehabilitation and recovery.

[10:20 a.m.]

I ask everyone in the House to please extend, I know, your heartfelt thanks to everyone

working with incredible care and dedication to provide support.

Tourism in Okanagan-Shuswap

David Williams : As we head into the summer months, I want to take this opportunity to encourage all

British Columbians to rediscover the beauty, the adventure and the relaxation that

can be found right here in our own backyard.

I suggest starting with the North Okanagan–Shuswap. The Shuswap isn’t just a scenic

destination. It’s a true four-season resort experience. Whether you’re looking for

a luxury lakeside getaway or a rustic campground under the stars, our region has it

all.

You can cruise the Shuswap Lake on a houseboat, hike to the spectacular Margaret Falls

and Herald Provincial Park or spend a quiet evening camping in Scotch Creek. Families,

couples and solo travellers alike will find their perfect escape without ever leaving

British Columbia.

The region is rich in outdoor recreation and local culture. Our trails, our beaches

and our lakes make it a haven for adventurers and nature lovers alike. Our farmers

markets, wineries, artisan shops and community festivals offer a unique taste of rural

life, and let’s not forget our signature events.

From the rodeo thrills of the Falkland Stampede to the agricultural showcase of the

Interior Provincial Exhibition in Armstrong, as well as the incredible music and atmosphere

of the Roots and Blues Festival in Salmon Arm, we have it all.

More than that, choosing a vacation here at home means something. When you travel

within British Columbia, you’re not just enjoying the natural beauty; you’re helping

small businesses stay open. You’re supporting local jobs, and you’re strengthening

the varied communities that make this province so special. Every dollar spent in our

region stays in our province, creating a more resilient and prosperous future for

us all.

This summer let’s make that choice to stay close to home, explore B.C., support local

and experience the landscapes, the hospitality and the community spirit that make

British Columbia one of the best places on earth to live.

Action Against Invasive Species

Stephanie Higginson : Did you know that May is Invasive Species Action Month?

It’s invasive. Invasive species disrupt ecosystems, increase wildfire risk, cause

soil erosion, reduce biodiversity and adversely affect agricultural production and

water quality, all causing substantial economic and environmental damage.

Invasive species in B.C. are estimated to cost us over $2 billion in losses annually.

Frustratingly, many invasive species are introduced through everyday activities such

as gardening, hiking and boating. All of us can stop the spread of invasive species

through increased awareness and adopting responsible practices such as PlantWise and

PlayCleanGo.

We can’t fight these species alone, and fortunately, there are many amazing organizations

across B.C. dedicated to removing invasive species and protecting our ecosystems.

In the riding of Ladysmith-Oceanside, we are lucky enough to have a dedicated group

known as the Mid Island Stewardship Caucus taking action against invasive species.

MISC was formed in 2021 to allow environmental organizations in the mid-Island region

to come together and discuss stewardship activities and initiatives and support each

other to achieve their goals.

A few weeks ago I had the chance to meet with MISC in Qualicum Beach. It was a great

opportunity to discuss how we can support each other in our mutual stewardship goals

and hear about all the great work they are doing. I was impressed by their dedication

and their local knowledge, as well as their commitment to this cause.

B.C. and, while biased, Vancouver Island are home to some of the most beautiful, impressive

and unique ecosystems in the world, and I am so grateful to have so many individuals

dedicated to protecting our environment. If the work of MISC can teach us anything,

it’s that we can’t effectively control invasive species alone, but together we can

create real change to protect B.C.’s incredible ecosystems.

Remember, friends. Cut broom in bloom.

[10:25 a.m.]

Legislature Staff and

Role of Clerk’s Office

Rob Botterell : One of the true privileges of being a member of this House is the many opportunities

to represent constituents and all British Columbians in an incredibly wide range of

circumstances. There’s so much going on in this building that we are fortunate to

be able to participate in as MLAs.

Just this week I’ve had the pleasure of meeting with the Lieutenant Governor of Washington

state, discussed the Australian election and participated in the Capital Bike Commuter

Challenge. I learned about democracy sausages, a tradition in New Zealand and Australia

where voters eat hot dogs after casting their ballots. I met with stakeholders representing

interests as varied as housing, cattle farming and, I must say, a highlight, craft

beer.

At this moment, though, what I would like to do is take a moment to acknowledge the

roughly 1,600 staff in the Legislature who make this all possible. They’re working

long hours as we zoom through the last weeks of this session.

From the staff around us to staff in the Legislative Dining Room to the cleaning crew

to the librarians: thank you for all that you are doing for us.

I’d particularly like to thank the Clerks, who are doing exceptional work with a large

number of rookie MLAs, spread across three Houses and sitting extended hours.

The Clerk’s office has been exemplary as we establish the Special Committee on Democratic

and Electoral Reform. It’s been an astonishing process for me, and I’m sure for many

of you, as we imagine what a fair, effective, fully democratic process could look

like and the path to get us there.

In the upcoming days, the Clerk’s office will be sharing more with you about the work

of the committee, and I invite you and all of your constituents to fully participate

in this exciting work.

Child and Youth Mental Health

Awareness and Services

Jennifer Blatherwick : We all experience struggles with mental health. As a young child, as a teenager,

as a young adult, those hard times can be especially difficult. As a parent, it can

be challenging to know how to support them through a crisis or a long battle.

May 7 marks Youth Mental Health Day here in Canada. In B.C., this day began to be

recognized by FamilySmart, a non-profit that connects families who have a child or

youth struggling with mental health with other families who have experienced the same

journey. They facilitate peer support, parent helping parent to navigate their youth’s

challenge.

FamilySmart regularly hosts their Help for the Hard Times workshops, where they walk

parents through practical, hopeful responses after a child or youth has been a patient

in a psychiatric unit or had an ER visit due to their mental health.

Tonight they are offering a free online presentation from Guy Felicella. Guy is a

renowned advocate and speaker who talks on how connection and relationships can make

a difference in substance use and addiction, especially for youth.

I’d like to highlight some of the services that are available for youth in this province.

The Foundry, which offers online and phone support for youth and their families from

anywhere in the province, has many local centres in places like Abbotsford, Campbell

River, Comox Valley, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Kelowna, East Kootenays, Langley, the North

Shore and including one soon to be opening in my home of Coquitlam.

The teams there and online can provide help to find mental health care, preventative

and rehabilitative substance use services, physical and sexual health care, youth

and family peer supports and social services. They are amazing, they are kind, and

they are looking to help.

A big shout-out to Kistie and her team from SHARE, who are helping to establish the

Foundry in my community.

To the youth: reach out. Help someone you know to reach out. Let everyone know. Let

all of us let everyone know that there are people there waiting to listen.

John Rustad : I seek leave to do an introduction.

Leave granted.

Statements

Pope Leo XIV

John Rustad : Today Catholics around the world are welcoming a new leader, Pope Leo XIV, elected

to serve the head of the Roman Catholic Church and spiritual guide to over one billion

faithful. The selection of a new pope is a moment of reflection and renewal for many,

regardless of their own beliefs, and it marks a new

chapter in the church.

On behalf of my constituents and the colleagues in this House, I offer congratulations

to Pope Leo XIV. We wish him wisdom, steady guidance and strength as he fulfils his

calling and undertakes the burden of the Throne of Saint Peter.

[10:30 a.m.]

Oral Questions

Restoration of Water and Sewage

Services at Lakeview Trailer Park

John Rustad : Over 900 days ago water and sewage services failed at the Lakeview Trailer Court outside

of Fraser Lake in my riding.

This property is owned and managed by the provincial government. Over 900 days of

no running water, no flushing toilets, no showers, no ability to do laundry or any

other basics that most people take for granted.

Does the minister responsible for Land think this is acceptable, and when will this

government get off its backside and fix it?

Hon. Randene Neill : Thank you so much for the question.

I understand that this is in your riding, and this is an issue that we are working

hard to fix. Everybody — everybody — deserves a safe and secure place to call home.

The province doesn’t want to be a landlord in this case. But when someone…. When the

owner left without helping, we stepped in to help. So we are working to get this work

done this summer. There’s small window, and we’re going to ensure that all of the

residents have a safe and secure place to call home.

The Speaker : Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad : I want to thank the minister for that answer. Unfortunately, it’s the same answer

the residents have received the year before and the year before that. They are working

on it and promise it should get done over the course of the summer.

In the meantime, what we’re seeing is bottled water and porta-potties being provided

for the residents in that neighbourhood in those trailers. And the good folks, quite

frankly, have no other choice. There is no other housing available.

I doubt the minister has ever used the porta-potty in minus-30 degree temperature.

I can tell you something. I have, and it’s not a pleasant experience.

Can the minister today commit that this will be resolved this summer, not just another

promise to do this? Can I go back to tell my constituents that the porta-potty solution

will finally get flushed?

Hon. Randene Neill : Again, thank you. I appreciate you asking if I’ve ever used a porta-potty in minus

30-degree weather.

You know what? We can talk about it in the hallway. But it was interesting. It was

an interesting experience.

I understand the frustration, and I absolutely do not blame them at all. I worked

for a while in helping tenants in that way, and it is a stressful and tough experience.

When I was a journalist, I did a lot of stories on bad landlords not fulfilling the

responsibility that they needed to fulfil for their tenants.

We’re doing everything we can as a long-term solution. We’re continuing to explore

options to replace the water and sewer infrastructure that was poorly maintained in

the past by the owner.

In the interim, we are doing everything we can to make sure residents are safe. We’ve

halted pad fees for residents. We are supplying clean drinking water for them. We

understand the window for helping these tenants is small because we’ve got to get

the construction cracking soon. We are actively working on that.

We’ll have an answer for them very soon, and we’ll share it with you as well.

Court Case in Penticton and

Comments by Cabinet Members on

Issues Currently Before Courts

Steve Kooner : Garret Cole Sedawie is appearing today at the Penticton law courts, facing charges

of two counts of assault, mischief, endangering life, flight from police and driving

with a suspended licence.

Will the Attorney General stand in her place and condemn these vile actions?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, we have discussed this topic before.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

The Chair is not guided by anybody who is making comments. I am just reminding the

House that we have already dealt with these issues, but the Attorney General has the

prerogative and wants to answer.

Please, go ahead.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you, Speaker. I think the member would know as a lawyer that something that’s

before the court right now is something we should not be commenting on, especially

something that is before the court today. So I won’t be offering a comment on that.

Interjections.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, enough.

Member, you have a new question?

Steve Kooner : That’s very interesting. Here we have a government saying they cannot comment on

a case that’s currently being investigated and before the courts.

At the same time, this Premier has no problem commenting on a major case investigation

and a case that will be before the courts.

To the Attorney General, will the government make up its mind and decide if they are

going to follow their own rules?

The Speaker : Members, the Chair has already provided guidance on sub judice before. And now, again,

I caution members to be careful.

Again, your prerogative, Attorney General. If you want to answer, please proceed.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side have every confidence in our justice system to investigate, to lay

the charges, for the B.C. Crown prosecution service to do their independent work,

and the justice system and the judiciary to act in an independent fashion. We will

keep on upholding that system.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Government Action on Social Welfare

and Community Well-Being

Rob Botterell : This government claims to support British Columbians, yet one in ten live below the

poverty line. One-third of teens report needing but not seeking professional mental

health care. Six people are dying every day from a poison drug supply. And homelessness

continues to rise.

The absence of affordable housing, accessible health care, a robust social safety

net and community connection have created the difficult conditions we are seeing today.

To the Premier: in a time crying out for transformative change, what is your vision

for the future of B.C., and what exactly are you doing in 2025 to realize it?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I thank the member for the question.

The member knows, because we’ve met to talk, about the need for expanding more affordable

housing options for everyone. We’ve discussed options for seniors in this House. Of

course, we want to provide options for youth as well.

The member will know that not only are we expanding affordable housing options for

young people…. I was just in Kamloops visiting a site that’s just opened for young

people. I saw the hope in people’s faces when they get to see a place and it’s theirs.

We want to be expanding that in communities throughout the province.

We also are providing rent supplements for young people so that they can get into

market rental housing, so that they can find housing that perhaps is just outside

of their income bracket but can provide some certainty for them to stay in their communities.

We know there’s a lot more work to do, but we are doing that work right now.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : Clearly, the work you’re carrying out is not meeting the moment. There’s much more

to this than simply expanding housing.

British Columbians deserve more from their government. They deserve barrier-free access

to health care, mental health support, affordable housing we’ve discussed and accessible

public spaces to feel like they belong in this province.

We deserve a government that can prove that it cares for our collective well-being,

that our grandchildren will have a livable planet, that we will be met with care and

support when we seek help, and that our voices matter at decision-making tables.

To the Premier: what conditions do our communities need for you to feel like your

vision is being met?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, I thank the member for the question.

All those things that the member described are the same values that we have, the same

aspirations we have for young people in British Columbia, in all of our communities.

I don’t think there’s a member in this place that doesn’t want the same thing for

every single young person, whether they’re in our family, whether they’re in our community,

whether they’re our neighbours. I appreciate the member raising this, but housing

is central.

We understand that when you have housing, housing is health care. Housing is the ability

for people to get ahead in the economy. It’s central to everything we do.

[10:40 a.m.]

That’s why we’ve put so much attention…. That’s why the Premier has made investments

in affordable housing one of the central pillars of his work since he’s become Premier.

The largest expansion in affordable housing in the entire country, happening here

in British Columbia.

We know that we need to ensure that there are holistic supports in place. We’re going

to continue to do that work. I look forward to working with the member to make sure

that the vision that he described is a reality for young people across British Columbia.

Universal Ostrich Farms and

Federal Avian Flu Cull

Jordan Kealy : Today I’m advocating for Universal Ostrich Farms about an issue that’s international,

national, provincial and can even affect my own region or my own farm and cross over

to all different types of animal species.

This isn’t a particular farm. It isn’t just any regular farm. The farmstead in question

is conducting cutting-edge research into antibody development that could help fight

the avian flu and innovate solutions to treat viruses into the future. Despite having

no infection currently and strong commitment protocols, the CFIA is moving to destroy

their entire flock, based off of outdated policies.

My question is to the Premier or to the Minister of Agriculture. Will you commit to

standing up for this farm and advocate to the federal government and the CFIA to consider

a CFIA exemption or alternate options instead of blindly enforcing mass culls?

Hon. Lana Popham : Let me start out by saying that avian influenza has become incredibly challenging

for poultry and egg farmers in British Columbia, and my heart goes out to all farmers

who have had impacts or outbreaks on their farms.

Avian influenza, as the member knows, is a federally regulated disease, and the Canadian

Food Inspection Agency is the lead on investigating and responding to this virus.

Our government has been helping in the fight against avian flu by working directly

with farmers, providing support for testing, mapping and surveillance.

We have a table that we’ve pulled together with all of the feather flocks in what

we’re calling the peacetimes as we prepare for the next very intensive threat of AI

expected in September.

I think it’s important to remind this chamber that avian influenza is a highly, highly

pathogenic virus. It is deadly, and it’s dangerous. If it mutates into a widespread

human illness, the impacts would be catastrophic, and that is why severe measures

are taken when it spreads into domestic animals. That’s the context for why the federal

government, CFIA, is taking the steps they take.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jordan Kealy : I am here as a farmer myself. I have dedicated my life to being an ambassador to

farming.

There are different ways forward than doing these outdated mass culls. There are different

types of farms, different types of industries and different ways that we can approach

how we treat this item. Animals are being culled in mass numbers all over North America,

and we are not looking into major strategic ways, going forward, to deal with the

fact of these viruses.

My question to the Premier or to the Minister of Agriculture: what steps are you going

to take to save these 400 healthy, antibody-rich and H5N1-immune ostriches? Please

indicate how the culling of 400 magnificent, healthy, irreplaceable, dancing ostriches

can be humanely killed?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham : In 2022, avian influenza struck the B.C. poultry industry, devastating a really important

part of our agriculture sector. In attempts to get it under control, CFIA had to depopulate

millions of poultry birds, because that is the only effective way that we have to

stop it right now.

It is very emotional for all farmers who have to go through this. I have sat with

farmers in tears after their barns are depopulated. We are very concerned about the

emotional toll that avian influenza is taking on our farmer community, and we make

sure that they always know they can reach out if they need help. But it is extremely

difficult on the farmers and their entire families.

It also takes a financial toll. It has huge implications for food security, as we’ve

seen in the United States. I want to acknowledge that the farmers that are visiting

us in the House today are going through an incredibly difficult situation.

I’ve committed to meeting with them after question period, and their MLA for Kootenay-Monashee

is also joining that meeting.

I’ve also invited the MLA for Peace River North to join. I have no problem sitting

down with that farmer.

Ferry Replacement and Services

Harman Bhangu : Yesterday in estimates, the Minister of Transportation confirmed that four new ferries

are being brought online, while four aging ferries are being retired at the exact

same time. No net increase, no added capacity, just a billion-dollar merry-go-round.

It’s the same story as the Pattullo Bridge replacement, where this government spent

over $1 billion to replace a four-lane bridge with four lanes. In both cases, British

Columbians are paying more but getting exactly the same.

My question to the Minister of Transportation: can the minister explain how replacing

four ferries with four ferries, like replacing four lanes with four lanes, is supposed

to solve the chronic delays, long sailing waits and service gaps plaguing the B.C.

Ferry system?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : As I told the member yesterday and the member is aware, B.C. Ferries is not a Crown

corporation. It is an independent agency. It is currently embarked on modernizing

its fleet. It is getting four new ferries, as approved by the ferries commissioner,

who is an independent individual with specific responsibilities.

Just because you replace four with four does not mean you get identical capacity.

You can get increased capacity if you’re building modern, larger ships. In the same

way, when you build a new four-lane bridge that is literally twice the size of the

old bridge, you’re not going to get trucks taking up both lanes.

We are designing and building infrastructure to meet the needs of British Columbians

today and for tomorrow — whether it’s highways or whether it’s ferries, whether it’s

schools or hospitals; and we are going to continue doing that.

South Asian Museum Project and

Support for South Asian Community

Gavin Dew : During Sikh Heritage Month, many of us celebrated Vaisakhi, but we were also reminded

of this government’s election promise from five long years ago to establish a South

Asian Canadian heritage museum or cultural centre.

Surrey city council unanimously supported this initiative last year, yet there is

no funding allocated in the current B.C. budget, and in estimates, the minister was

unable to provide a timeline.

Was this just another empty election promise? When will we finally see a plan?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Our government believes that recognizing the incredible contributions that South

Asian communities have made to our province is crucial. We’ve done that through supporting

our museums, and we’ll continue to do that work.

[10:50 a.m.]

In fact, the member might not know, but we’re currently in consultation with the communities.

I say communities because there are members of the South Asian community from all

across this world. Not just India or Pakistan but, indeed, communities all over the

world have a diaspora from that community. Fiji — that’s my family connection to the

community through my husband and his family.

We’re in that process now. We want to make sure that communities in B.C. of South

Asians are engaged in the consultation. There wasn’t appropriate or enough response,

I think, from some communities in this province.

Our working committee, who have been advising me, asked me to extend the consultation

to ensure that we had appropriate response from rural British Columbia, in particular,

where we didn’t have enough response to understand fully what those communities wanted

to see to celebrate their culture, to acknowledge who they are and to acknowledge

the important work they’ve provided in growing this province. We’re doing that work

now.

I’m happy to take more questions and work with the community to see their needs met.

Mandeep Dhaliwal : It’s clear this was all about politics. Maybe they will bring it back for the next

election.

Why does this government only care about my community during elections?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I want to thank the member for the question.

First off, I reject the premise of the question. The member has the privilege of sitting

over there and looking over at the many faces from the South Asian community that

are represented in government. I can assure the….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I won’t take the bait from my friend across the way. I just will say that we have

done a considerable amount of work to engage with the South Asian community.

I can share with the member, because I was involved in this process as well it’s not

just a building. We want to make sure that when something gets built, it represents

the diversity of our community, that people see — in that building, in the artifacts

that are there, what’s being presented — a reflection of who we are. You don’t just

put a building up. Anybody can just put a building up.

We want to make sure that the community has buy-in, the community understands what’s

being put in there, who’s being represented and how they’re being represented. That

takes proper consultation. My friend from Tourism, Arts and Culture is doing that

work. My friend the Minister of Agriculture is doing that work. We want to get it

right, and that’s what we’re doing.

Back-Country Land Use in

Columbia Valley and Kootenays

Scott McInnis : Recently the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship sent out a half-baked

SurveyMonkey on land use to a handful of residents in the Columbia Valley and the

Kootenays — no advance notice, no posting on a website and no media release whatsoever.

Residents are already alarmed at an increase in arbitrary back-country closures without

meaningful public consultation.

Can the minister give an explanation to prospectors, hunters and everyday back-country

users of why their access is being cut off at an alarming rate?

Hon. Randene Neill : Thank you so much for the question.

Back-country use is not being turned off at an alarming rate — in fact, not at all.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Randene Neill : Speaking with so many of the people who love the back country…. Our job as government

is to get people to fall in love with nature, because when you fall in love with nature,

you want to protect it and help it. That is what we’re doing.

The survey was intended to understand where folks use the back country, how they use

it and what their values and priorities are. I know it did cause a bit of alarm, and

I don’t disagree with you that perhaps we could have done a bit better communicating

what our intentions were in this survey.

The very last thing we’re going to do is turn the back country off from folks who

love to use it.

[10:55 a.m.]

Support for Social Housing

Tenants in Ladner

Ian Paton : In my town of Ladner, the Willows complex has been a Red Door Housing and B.C. Housing

disaster, only built in the 1980s. In January, tenants of the Ladner Willows complex

building asked us for help. Their homes were set up for demolition, and they needed

B.C. Housing to explain how their rent subsidies could be used in the private market.

These were vulnerable, low-income tenants, already facing discrimination from landlords,

simply asking for a one-pager to help them relocate with dignity.

We called. We emailed five, six times and heard nothing from B.C. Housing through

my Ladner office. All we got — an email from the minister’s political staff.

How can this Premier defend a system where displaced tenants are ignored for months?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We want to ensure that everyone has access to housing in the communities that they

love. The member knows that we have 300 units of housing that are under construction

right now in the member’s riding — in my community as well.

This particular project has been a challenge. The member is well aware that we came

forward with a proposal to build housing for those individuals, and council rejected

the proposal.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member is correct. It did happen.

So what we were asked to do was go back, redraw, go back and engage with the community.

We have come forward with a new proposal, and it appears that we’re going to get support

from local government to do that.

The biggest challenge we have with housing is not the dollars. It’s to ensure that

we’re making sure that local governments support it and it’s done in a way that the

community supports.

The member knows this answer. I appreciate that perhaps they don’t have enough material

to ask questions today, but asking questions that he already knows the answer to is

not using this time well.

CleanBC Targets and Program Review

Donegal Wilson : It is apparent that this government has failed to meet their CleanBC targets.

Yesterday the minister stood with the Greens to announce another program review. Seven

years in, this government’s answer to failure is not action; it’s more reviews and

more empty promises.

Does this government really need a review to tell this House what we already know?

Their virtues don’t fit reality, and they have no hope to meet their own targets.

Hon. Adrian Dix : When you embark on an initiative as important as CleanBC, you put in mechanisms —

this happens in legislation all the time, frequently supported by the member and her

colleagues — to review that legislation. That is true of the CleanBC targets and CleanBC

legislation.

There was a review that is legislatively required for next year. We moved that review

forward, working with members in this Legislature and the B.C. Green Party, which,

it seems to me, makes a lot of sense. In other words, what they are suggesting is:

don’t follow what the Legislature passed into law. Fair enough.

What is less acceptable is that they are opposed to every possible action to address

climate change. They’re opposed to electrification. They’re opposed, the Leader of

the Opposition, to the North Coast transmission line. They’re opposed to wind projects.

They’re opposed to the low-carbon fuel standard. They are opposed to everything we

can do to address climate change, which also serves to build our economy.

That’s their problem. But doing a review of those programs to make sure they’re working

for people, that’s a good thing to do.

Government Accountability

and Action on Issues

Peter Milobar : Here’s the problem. This government did not campaign on perpetual reviews. This government

campaigned, after seven years in government, saying they still had all the answers

moving forward.

In fact, when it comes to their climate targets, here is what the then Minister of

Energy said during an October 7 debate that I was a part of. When I said they weren’t

going to meet their targets in 2030, she said, “There’s no doubt we have to do everything

we possibly can to reach the targets that we have, and that’s exactly what our government

has been focused on all the time,” except they’ve now admitted that they’re never

going to meet their targets.

Let’s look at the reviews they have. South Asian Canadian heritage museum — well,

that’s under review, further review. Ministry spending is under review. They didn’t

campaign on that. E-Comm 911 review. B.C. Timber Sales under review. Mental Health

Act review. Provincial Health Services Authority review. And now a CleanBC review.

[11:00 a.m.]

Those last few reviews…. We have the former Minister of Health, who destroyed our

health system, now reviewing energy projects…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Question, Member.

Peter Milobar : …and a former Energy Minister who couldn’t bring forward energy projects reviewing

the health services, and they’re going to somehow find a solution.

This government did not campaign on reviews. What they actually campaigned on is a

string of broken promises.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Peter Milobar : Here’s a suggestion for the Premier. Instead of manufacturing so many confidence

votes over the next few weeks, why doesn’t the Premier just save everyone a little

bit of time and the gamesmanship, go and visit the Lieutenant Governor today and let

the voters of B.C. give the Premier a review of his failed leadership?

Interjections.

The Speaker : That’s enough, Members. Thank you. That’s enough.

Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix : An opposition that is opposed to electrification projects, opposed to the energy

we need for the future, opposed to every single….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I think the B.C. Liberal alumni should be patient. We gave them an opportunity to

ask their question, and I’m happy to respond to that question.

Interjections.

The Speaker : The minister will conclude.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Our government is taking action in these areas. We’re taking action this week, this

week alone, with a second call for power that will drive economic growth in this province,

will drive an expression of interest into base capacity projects. We’re taking action

on the low-carbon fuel standard, saving and building jobs in Prince George. We’re

taking action.

All the member has is…. All they have, because they are so disunited about everything,

so disunited about everything over there…. All they want is a provincial election.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, I understand. I couldn’t find anybody who thinks that another provincial election

is what we need.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : What we need is action on the economy. What we need is action in response to Donald

Trump. What we need is action on health care and education. And that is exactly what

this government is delivering.

[End of question period.]

Government Reimbursement Payments

for Rural Health Care Specialists

Hon. Josie Osborne : I rise to respond to a question that I took on notice during Tuesday’s question period

from the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. The member made allegations regarding

reimbursement for specialists who travel and provide medical services for rural communities.

We know that it’s crucial to deliver care to people in B.C. when and where they need

it, and that, of course, includes rural and remote areas. The northern and isolation

travel assistance outreach program provides funding for physicians who visit eligible

rural and isolated communities to provide medical services. In 2023-2024, over 500

physicians received $5.4 million from the program. This funding supported 4,500 physician

trips and resulted in 85,000 patient visits.

The member claimed that a doctor who provided care to the patients at the Bulkley

Valley District Hospital, and I quote, “hasn’t received any of his 2024 expenses reimbursed

to date.” I can assure the House that this is not accurate. The doctor in question

has been reimbursed for expenses in 2024.

There was an issue with a few claims that were submitted for expenses that are generally

not eligible under the program, but, in cases like this, the ministry requires that

a reasonable explanation be provided why the expense was necessary to complete the

patient visits. Ministry staff recently met with this doctor, went through each of

their outstanding claims, and this issue has now been resolved. I am advised that

additional reimbursement payments are currently being processed.

The member also claimed that of the 30 specialists that travelled to the Bulkley Valley

District Hospital, some of them are waiting “as long as six months for their reimbursement

payments.”

[11:05 a.m.]

I can assure this House that ministry staff have worked to speed up processing times

for the over 500 physicians participating in the program and that, in fact, it takes

approximately two months for reimbursement payments to be processed after expense

claims are submitted.

Point of Order

John Rustad : I rise on a point of order. There was language used by the Premier in a heckle, calling

one of our members a hypocrite. I understand the issue is very sensitive to him in

the mistake he made, but I would ask that he withdraw that comment and apologize to

this House.

Hon. David Eby : Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Attorney General critic and members

of that side of the House asked you to caution the House about matters that were before

the court, that we shouldn’t talk about it. You directed the House accordingly. I

heard that caution. I respect that caution.

But to have the member then stand up and ask a question directly to me about a matter

that’s before the courts that we shouldn’t be talking about, according to their side,

that they lobbied you about, that you ruled on, is

an act of hypocrisy.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, regardless how the question is put and how we are tempted to answer the

question, despite all that, we must be very cautious that we never use unparliamentary

language in this chamber. So I ask the Premier to withdraw that word.

Hon. David Eby : I withdraw, hon. Speaker.

Debate Continued

Sharon Hartwell : I thank the minister for her answer.

The doctors came to me with this concern, and I brought it forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Sharon Hartwell : I have asked the minister several times for meetings to discuss things in Bulkley

Valley–Stikine, and I have not yet had a date to do that. If I can’t meet her in her

office, then we’re going to have a public consultation here in the House. If she’d

like to meet with me, I’m happy to do that.

The Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Minister, if you want to provide a very brief response, that’s fine, but there should

be no debate.

Point of Order

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member for Kelowna-Mission also referred to “a hypocrite.” I think it’s appropriate

for him to withdraw as well.

Gavin Dew : I withdraw.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Niki Sharma : I have the honour to present the 2024 annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

I also have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year

ended March 31, 2024.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 14.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Transportation

and Transit, to be followed by the Ministry of Labour.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee on Bill 5.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects

(Streamlined Permitting) Act

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Good morning, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order. I’d ask you to take

your conversations into the hallway so we can get underway to better understand Bill

Trevor Halford : It’s again an honour to continue my remarks on Bill 14 from where I left off last

night.

[11:10 a.m.]

This government might claim that this sweeping power is for efficiency, but I think

the history in this building, history of this government, teaches us otherwise. We’ve

seen when too much power rests in unchecked hands of a few, inefficiency and confusion

reign. British Columbians have seen repeatedly that decisions made behind closed doors,

without accountability or transparency, rarely serve the public interest effectively.

Let’s also highlight some of the worrying provisions concerning safety. Bill 14 allows

safety standards under the Safety Standards Act to be selectively disregarded for

level 3 streamlined projects. This selective application of critical safety regulations

puts workers, communities and first responders directly at risk.

The government has offered no compelling rationale for why these standards should

be compromised for streamlined projects. Workers deserve to know that their safety

is non-negotiable, not something that can be traded away in the name of expediency.

Moreover, the ability to bypass the environmental assessment process is deeply concerning.

Rigorous environmental assessments are not bureaucratic hurdles. They actually can

be essential tools to ensure that projects move forward sustainably, with minimal

harm to ecosystems and biodiversity.

Also, as I said last night, having these checks and balances is important because,

again, it sets a lot of these projects up for success. It allows groups, whether they’re

for the project or against the project, to come in and provide input and provide the

ability to put their lens on these projects and allow the regulator, independent,

to have that knowledge as they’re making decisions about these projects. I think that’s

pretty democratic. I think that’s pretty responsible. I think taking that away…. We’ve

seen what’s happened when that’s taken away, and it’s chaos.

There’s an image here, even within Bill 44, when this government decided to take away

public hearings because they knew that the opposition to this was fierce. But the

opposition…. When you silence the opposition, in many cases it gets stronger. They

get more emboldened against projects. Mark my words, that will happen with this.

Ignoring these processes is shortsighted, and it’s irresponsible. It risks not only

environmental harm but also long-term economic costs and liability that future generations

will have to bear.

Additionally, Bill 14 places undue authority in the hands of unelected officials to

suspend or cancel licences and permits arbitrarily. Now, imagine that. Imagine that

effect on businesses, entrepreneurs, who see their investments hinge on that unpredictability.

Again, it’s about moving goalposts. It’s about not knowing the rules of the game or

being in the middle of that game and having those rules change. That is exactly how

you shut out investment. Why would anybody take that risk? Not knowing if there’s

a change at a bureaucratic level, at a political level, you are now at that whim.

[11:15 a.m.]

You know, it’s crucial that we understand the gravity of this bill. Now, as the minister

will disagree with, it doesn’t merely adjust just a few procedural steps. It fundamentally

alters how decisions are made about public safety, environmental stewardship, local

autonomy and economic certainty in British Columbia. It sets a very, very dangerous

precedent that undermines principles we hold dear. Again, those principles are transparency,

accountability and democratic governance.

Now, in committee, we will be exploring the flaws of Bill 14, but our duty as elected

representatives is not merely to streamline the bureaucracy but to safeguard the trust,

safety and prosperity of the constituents that we represent. That’s why we must reject

this overreach and insist on legislation that genuinely reflects the values and interests

of all British Columbians. Whether it’s Surrey, Prince George, Fort St. John or Dawson

Creek, we must make sure that we’re putting legislation forward that represents all.

The problem with this legislation is this legislation will ultimately harm all.

An especially troubling aspect of Bill 14 is the provision related to the non-application

of the Safety Standards Act, specifically

section 17, which states, clearly, that

the Safety Standards Act will, effectively, not apply to level streamlined projects.

Now, you think about how important it is. We talk a lot in this building — we have

anniversaries to mark these dates — about the safety of our workers and the duty that

we have in this House to pass legislation or embolden legislation that makes our workers

more safe when they leave to go to work.

This legislation does the opposite, and that’s shameful. I’m not sure that that’s

aware to all members of this House — this exclusion, as concerning as it is. Safety

regulations exist precisely to protect workers, communities and first responders,

but waiving and diluting these critical safeguards under any circumstances is deeply

irresponsible and sets a horrible, horrible precedent.

Now, the government will say, and has said, that these exemptions are necessary to

accelerate project timelines, yet they provide no justification for why only these

particular projects should be allowed to bypass essential safety standards. It’s inexcusable.

I’m hopeful at second reading…. We’ve heard from the Minister of Energy, but I’m hopeful

that we hear from the Minister of Labour on her perspective on why it’s important

that we exempt safety standards — have her come into this House and defend that.

This creates a very disturbing double standard: one set of safety rules for regular

projects, another far weaker set for the streamlined projects. British Columbians

and, most importantly, workers in British Columbia deserve clarity and consistency,

not selective application of safety standards based on political expediency.

[11:20 a.m.]

The hypocrisy of this is pretty glaring. This government claims to be a party of the

workers, yet they’re prepared to circumvent critical safety standards because it suits

their political agenda for these renewable energy projects. How many workers is this

government willing to put at risk in this bill?

These projects. The minister has referenced nine wind farms and a transmission line.

For anybody that has seen these wind farms — I have; I’m sure many in this House have

— they’re enormous, and the construction of them is not easy. I’ve never done one,

but I’m imagining it’s pretty dangerous. That this government is willing to put the

safety of our workers at risk in this piece of legislation is incredibly disturbing

to me.

For a government that prides itself on standing up for workers in B.C., this bill

does the exact opposite. The contradiction undermines the very trust and integrity

that this government proposes to hold. We must ask ourselves: is it ever appropriate

to compromise the safety of our workers in our communities to expedite projects as

this government sees fit?

Again, the minister listed out nine, and the transmission line, but they have the

ability to go in behind closed doors and put whatever projects they want under this

legislation. That’s their prerogative to do. I disagree with that. I disagree with

the fact that this government is wanting to pick winners and losers when it comes

to providing energy for British Columbians.

That isn’t the path forward for success when it comes to getting energy. That isn’t

the path forward for success when it comes to protecting our taxpayers.

The government’s approach here suggests safety is almost negotiable. Negotiation of

what projects are streamlined or not and that affects worker safety is completely

unacceptable.

If you look at some of the projects that have gone on, whether they’re pipeline projects,

which this government all opposed at various times…. The Energy Minister opposed wind

energy. He opposed TMX. He opposed LNG. He opposed Site C consistently. Now he consistently,

somewhat, supports them. It depends on the day.

Look at the projects in my colleagues’ ridings. If you look at the LNG Canada project,

the billions of dollars that that’s brought in and the thousands of jobs that that’s

created in the private sector, they don’t compromise safety. Safety is one of the

biggest standards that they have, but a lot of that was outlined in the regulations,

in receiving their environmental assessment. It’s a huge part of that.

This government is not only compromising safety; it’s getting negotiated. I have a

problem with that. I don’t think British Columbians are expecting from this government,

or from any government, that in order to streamline projects, they will compromise

safety. Furthermore, this legislation leaves significant unanswered questions.

May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Deputy Speaker : Well, Member, we were just about to ask that very thing, so thank you very much.

Leave granted.

[11:25 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Trevor Halford : I am, I think, blessed with the fact that we’ve got two groups from Star of the Sea

Catholic School, grade 5, whom I had a chance to meet with on the steps.

Where are you guys? You’re behind me. I want to welcome you guys.

Some of them told me that they were up as early as four this morning.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford : I know. Anyway, I hope they enjoy it. I hope they all get ice cream on the ferry

ride back home. I hope they are respectful to their teachers and their parents.

I do want to give a great shout-out to White Rock city councillor Chris Trevelyan,

who is a teacher at Earl Marriott. Right now he’s enjoying coming over with his class

today.

I want to thank Chris for taking the time — and the teachers for doing that.

Welcome to these guys, and I hope they have a great trip back home.

Deputy Speaker : Indeed, welcome to everybody in the gallery. I hope you all get ice cream later on

today.

Debate Continued

Trevor Halford : Bill 14, this legislation, leaves significant unanswered questions. You know, this

government talks about consultation quite often. It has failed at consultation quite

often, but it talks about it.

Has this government conducted thorough consultations with workers or unions regarding

the waiving of their safety protections? The minister never talked about that yesterday

in his remarks. Maybe he did. I don’t speak French. When he did the French part of

it, maybe he did. I’ll have to check. Do they possess written submissions or evidence

from these workers acknowledging and consenting to these diminished standards?

Without clear answers to these critical questions, I don’t think this bill can be

justified. The rushed approval process permitted by this bill, combined with the suspension

of key safety regulations pose serious risks, not only to workers but to entire communities.

It places first responders in very difficult situations, potentially unprepared for

unique hazards that these expedited projects might present.

I think that we have a moral and legislative obligation to protect the health and

the safety of every citizen of British Columbia. Safety standards should never, ever

be optional. The fact that we are even having this conversation is alarming. We should

never, ever be compromising the safety of our workers.

In this House, I know that we’ve had people that have been first responders, and we’re

so grateful for their work and the work that they’ve done. We’ve had people that have

worked in forestry, in the LNG industry or in the energy industry. When they do those

jobs, there are risks associated with that work — big risks. Sometimes those risks

are fatal. It happens.

We have an anniversary — actually, on my birthday — every year for that. It’s an important

reflection for us to think about those people that have gone to work and not made

it back home. We have an obligation in this House to strengthen their safety standards,

not ever diminish them. There’s no need for that.

Why would we ever knowingly make our workers less safe? Why would we do that? This

legislation does that. There are fundamental protections to ensure our workers return

home safely to their families at the end of every day. This bill undermines that.

[11:30 a.m.]

One of the most troubling aspects of Bill 14 is the fertile ground it has and the

ability that it gives this government for political favouritism when it comes to who

is going to be included in these streamlined projects.

Now, we have seen how disastrous this has been when this government has done similar

stuff, whether they’re CBAs, community benefit agreements…. It sounds great. If you

go tell somebody, “Hey, it’s a community benefit agreement,” that’s a great title.

Whoever came up with that title? Hats off.

But what has it led to? Massive cost overruns and massive delays. Who pays for it?

The taxpayers and the people that are one day wanting to utilize that, whether it’s

a hospital — Cowichan has been an unmitigated disaster, which is a CBA — the Pattullo

Bridge or other projects that this government has done that shut out groups and shut

out First Nations.

That’s because this government has said that they are going to pick winners and losers.

Then in the end, we all lose, because we are faced with major overruns and major delays.

I don’t think, in general, the public is okay with that.

Now you add on the fact that they’re going to do something similar, that they’re going

to shut out consultation, they’re going to shut out public input, and by the way,

they’re going to diminish safety standards. This government has struggled, at best,

when it comes to getting things built. It has really struggled when it comes to getting

things built on time and on budget.

Now, the private sector can’t operate like that. If they do, they go out of business.

If the private sector operated like this government did, it would close up shop. They

don’t have the ability to do that.

But what we have here in this process with Bill 14 is an ability for this government

to sit behind closed doors and decide who is going to be successful and who is not.

We don’t know the criteria for that. We don’t. It could be from lobbying. It could

be from other aspects. The minister hasn’t been clear on that. But what is clear through

this legislation is that they will decide. They will decide who is successful and

who is not.

I don’t agree with that. I think that that’s a massive disservice to the people that

call British Columbia home. It’s a massive disservice to the workers of B.C. It’s

a massive disservice to the people that want to invest in British Columbia.

This is not streamlining. This is creating opportunities for preferential treatment

in an unfair advantage. We must ask directly: under this legislation, will projects

represented by lobbyists with close ties to the NDP find themselves at the front of

the line? I’m sure the minister will say: “No, no, no. This is meant to make sure

that doesn’t happen.” Well, how will we know? Because it’s not a fair process. It’s

a process that will be decided in a closed room.

[11:35 a.m.]

That’s a troubling aspect to even consider — the fact that this government will decide

who can play and who can’t.

What is that criteria? How will they make those decisions? I didn’t hear anything

from the minister on how that will be done. I heard a lot of revisionist history,

but nothing in terms of how those decisions will be made. I think that is ripe for

problems.

Again, we support renewable energy. I’ve been very clear on that. The real person

that has gone back and forth in their support for energy is the Minister of Energy.

That’s the inconsistency here.

I think that there’s a problem here when it comes to the fact that these decisions

on who’s going to have success and who won’t, under this legislation, will be made

by the cabinet. We don’t know what projects will then fit into a streamlined process,

so good luck having people come in and invest in B.C., not knowing if they’re going

to be the lucky ones to make that cut.

You know, this bill fails to establish transparent and consistent standards for the

imposition of levies and fees. Two neighbouring projects of identical scope could

easily face vastly different financial burdens without any clear justification or

standardized criteria provided up front.

The minister talks about wind farms. Let’s say, in Tumbler Ridge, we’re going to put

two more wind farms in, virtually mirroring each other across the highway. One of

those projects is in a streamlined process; one of them is not. Say the same number

of turbines. One of them will face very different regulations. One of them will face

very limited consultation. One of them will face very limited safety standards.

I don’t get it. Out of those two wind farms, then, that are across the street from

each other, across the highway, how are they going to make that determination of who’s

successful and who’s not? Who’s the winner, and who’s the loser? Who is paying more;

who is paying less? Who’s got more oversight, and who’s got less oversight? Who’s

got more consultation; who’s got less consultation? Who’s got more safety standards;

who’s got less safety standards?

That’s what Bill 14 is. It’s winners and losers. And it’s the fact that this government

has said that they are going to be the judge, jury and executioner on these projects.

So what happens is…. There’s a lot of potential investment in B.C., at a time that

we desperately need it, at a time where the Premier will go out and hold news conferences

and say: “We want you to come and build in B.C.” I agree. This doesn’t help. It makes

it worse.

We need efficiency — absolutely. We need to make sure that we’re not duplicating our

processes — absolutely. There are ways to do that.

[11:40 a.m.]

Scrimping on safety is not one of them. Sitting in a closed-door room deciding who’s

going to have success and who isn’t is not one of them. It’s changing the goal posts.

It’s putting power in the hands of those that have shown time and time again that

they’re not good with it.

CBAs — it’s proven out time and time again how incredibly costly and ineffective that

has become. What does it lead to? It leads to the fact that it’s actually less work

in B.C., higher taxes, delayed projects. But think about it. It’s like getting a lottery

ticket. It’s almost like getting a $10-a-day daycare spot. It’s pretty difficult.

We’re talking about nine projects and a transmission line right now. As soon as this

legislation is passed, if it is passed, that could change in a minute. Who’s been

lobbying the most? Who isn’t lobbying? Who do you have to talk to? Who’s making the

decisions? We don’t know, and that’s a massive problem.

Again, it’s about knowing what the playing field is. People will invest if they know,

if they know that they’re dealing with a credible regulator, if they know that they’re

dealing with a government that is transparent. Even if there are difficult hurdles

to overcome, let me know what they are, and we’ll make the decision. We will make

our FID, our final investment decision, as long as we know.

I’ve been in some of those rooms when they’re having those conversations, and I can

tell you if you don’t have clarity, you don’t have investment. It’s that simple. This

government should know that. They should know that. Picking winners and losers is

not the way to go here.

With that, I’m going to conclude my remarks.

I want to thank the Speaker, and I want to thank my colleagues, those that spoke,

and I’m sure there will be a number of government speakers.

With that, I will take my place, and I want to thank you for the opportunity today.

Hon. Randene Neill : It is my absolute pleasure and honour to speak about Bill 14.

This is a bill that is streamlining permitting for renewable energy projects. It’s

something that we need here in B.C., something that industry has been asking for.

We’re going to grow our clean energy in ways that we haven’t done in a long time.

So we’re taking action to speed up permitting, to meet growing demand for clean power.

At the same time, we’re going to address climate change and secure energy independence

for British Columbians in the face of unprecedented trade threats. We’re introducing

legislation that will ensure rapid permitting and robust regulation of renewable energy

projects and transmission lines in B.C. This will in no way reduce the stringent environmental

standards that this province is known for and is incredibly proud of.

The legislation will help simplify the approvals process for renewable energy projects,

eliminating the need for cross-ministry and agencies permitting by creating a single-window

agency model within the B.C. Energy Regulator. The B.C. Energy Regulator is an experienced

organization that has demonstrated success getting projects moving quickly, while

providing robust regulatory oversight for the life cycle of the projects.

Supporting renewable energy to become operational faster is critical towards strengthening

and diversifying our energy grid and our economy.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’m just going to answer a couple of questions that I’m sure folks have some questions

about, and we’ll see how long that takes us. For example, some questions might be:

why is this legislation being introduced now, and why was it expedited? Well, we’re

acting with urgency to increase B.C.’s energy independence and security in the face

of unprecedented trade threats from the U.S. and to strengthen and diversify our economy.

This legislation will simplify the approvals process for renewable energy projects,

eliminating the need for cross-ministry and agencies permitting by establishing the

B.C. Energy Regulator as the single window for permitting, in accordance with strict

environmental standards. It will help accelerate the permitting of these projects,

and it will deliver clean, affordable and reliable power to industry and communities.

This government is undertaking transformative work to streamline permitting and authorization

systems across government to provide for a faster, more efficient process driving

towards better outcomes. This is something that British Columbians have been asking

for.

We’re continuing to make progress towards permitting faster while maintaining high

environmental standards, as I said. We understand that systemic solutions are needed

to fix complex regulatory processes. We’ve been reviewing permitting processes to

ensure that we’re getting high-priority projects such as housing and connectivity

permitted faster by eliminating duplicate processes, by focusing resources and by

seeking solutions.

Another question that some people might be interested in knowing is: when can we expect

the legislation to be implemented? If approved, this proposed legislation would be

implemented in stages.

Phase 1, implemented by July 2025. The legislation would establish the BCER, the B.C.

Energy Regulator, as the primary permitting agency for the North Coast transmission

line project. The BCER will have delegated authorities for provincial natural resource

authorizations needed to authorize early works and support the smooth transition of

authorities for wind projects. That is phase 1.

Phase 2. By the fall of 2025, the B.C. Energy Regulator will be established as the

primary regulator and permitting authority for wind and solar energy projects. Wind

and solar projects will require a construction and operation permit from the B.C.

Energy Regulator.

Phase 3. By spring 2026, BCER board regulations would establish a robust regulatory

framework for the life cycle oversight of wind and solar projects that will ensure

safety and protection of the environment.

Another question may be: how would the infrastructure legislation impact this legislation?

Are there any overlaps? Our legislation is focused on renewable energy projects, specifically

wind and solar projects in the near term, and enables the B.C. Energy Regulator to

oversee these projects.

Another potential question might be: what is the full scope of the renewable energy

projects being included in this legislation? We’ll give you some examples. The renewable

sources include biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean, wind or other

renewable sources. However, the only types of projects being brought under the BCER

authority in the near term are wind, solar and transmission line projects. Hydroelectric

projects that include a dam are excluded from this legislation.

Another question may be: why is the province’s initial focus on streamlining the North

Coast transmission line and the B.C. Hydro call for power? Well, the wind and solar

projects selected by B.C. Hydro as part of the 2024 call for power represent a multi-billion-dollar

private capital investment into this province. The North Coast transmission line is

expected to unlock billions of dollars in investment on the north coast, and that

is good news for B.C. If we don’t act fast, there is a risk that renewable energy

projects and transmission lines will not only take longer but investment decisions

may be put at risk.

Another question is: how will the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship

and other natural resource ministries work with proponents of renewable projects that

have existing permits? Well, as the Minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship,

we are committed to the successful transition of the work to the B.C. Energy Regulator.

[11:50 a.m.]

Collectively, all of the natural resource ministries will ensure that proponents are

supported in the transition of the work to the B.C. Energy Regulator. No plans are

in the works at this point to transfer any staff to the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Both BCER and the province are committed to the success of this model and shift in

authorities, as many of these projects will require land and water authorizations,

close coordination between BCER and the ministries to appropriately manage the land

base, and provincial water resources will need to continue.

Another question people might be asking is: how quickly will streamlining get projects

up and running? We are committed, absolutely, to meeting the timelines and expectations

of businesses and investors while maintaining strong environmental standards, as we

have said repeatedly, but project timelines will be determined by the proponents and

their projects. Wind projects from our last call for power could begin operations

as early as 2028, and the North Coast transmission line is anticipated to be in service

by 2032.

Some questions that people are asking…. Does streamlining projects mean projects will

automatically be approved to proceed? No, absolutely not. Acceleration does not ensure

project approval. Streamlining is about providing clear and timely decisions to proponents,

whether the outcome is a yes or a no or, perhaps, even a yes with conditions.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Environmental protection and collaboration with Indigenous Peoples remain absolutely

fundamental to every decision the province and the B.C. Energy Regulator make.

I reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Randene Neill moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jessie Sunner : Committee of Supply,

Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates

of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and reports progress on the Ministry

of Labour and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson :

Section C reports progress on Bill 5 and requests leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation and Transit

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning members. I call Committee of Supply,

Section A, to order. We are meeting

today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,191,816,000 (continued) .

The Chair : Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing

remarks.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I know I want to appreciate the questions asked by my critic. I think we had a good

exchange on the issues of concern to them, as well as to the Third Party and, indeed,

some questions from some of the independents.

I want to thank my staff for being here, supporting.

With that, I’m prepared to move the committee rise and report the motion.

The Chair : Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,191,816,000 — approved.

The Chair : We will now take a short recess to set up for the next minister.

The committee recessed from 11:16 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply,

Section A, to order. We are meeting

today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $25,986,000.

The Chair : Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : Yes, I do. Thank you so much.

First, just let me say thank you so much to everybody for your patience and your cooperation

while I’m dealing with this terrible chest infection. I know that folks have really

had to work around the ability to be able to do this process virtually. While it’s

unfortunate — I’d much prefer to be there in person — I appreciate that we can carry

on with the work today with everybody’s cooperation and keeping everybody safe.

It’s a real honour today to be here to present the 2025-26 spending estimates for

the Ministry of Labour.

It’s an honour to be doing our work on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən people of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I’ll start by introducing the staff who are supporting this process from the Ministry

of Labour. I know you can’t see them, but they’ll be waving to you virtually: Mary

Sue Maloughney is the deputy minister; Lori Hawrychuk is the assistant deputy minister;

Brian Urquhart, executive financial officer; Michael Tanner, executive director of

labour policy and legislation branch.

We are also joined by staff from WorkSafeBC: Kevin La Freniere, head of stakeholder

experience, marketing and communications; Todd McDonald is the head of prevention

services; Mark Heywood, head of assessments, finance and chief financial officer;

Tanya Houghton, senior director, health care and specialized claims services. And

the many other staff who are supporting this process in my office as well.

It really is a tremendous honour to lead this ministry. As you may know, I come from

a labour background, and I’ve worked in many different roles in that world. I’ve spent

most of my working life advocating for and with health care workers and for our public

health care system. I care very deeply about dignity and respect for working people,

for their safety at work and for the understanding that people power our economy.

So when the Premier asked me to take this role on in government, I was more than happy

to jump at the opportunity.

You will know that Labour is a small ministry, but mighty and proud of the work that

we do in every corner of this province.

It’s our responsibility to make sure that working people in this province are safe

at their workplace; that their employer treats them with dignity and respect; that

vulnerable workers such as those working in B.C. on temporary work permits, people

working in the growing gig economy have access to fair working conditions; and that

we have the labour relations conditions and the relationships between workers and

employers that adapt to our changing economy and that put us in the best possible

position to grow good jobs and to build strong communities.

[11:30 a.m.]

Now, other governments have sometimes folded the responsibility for Labour in with

other ministries, but our government has a different vision. We know working people

are the backbone of our province. We know their needs must be front and centre in

government’s agenda.

It’s why we’ve gone to great lengths to address core needs for working people, to

make sure they get regular pay increases, to link our minimum wage to the cost of

living, to make sure that they’re safe at work whether they’re working with dangerous

substances or dangerous machinery or whether they work in the caring economy, which

is such an important engine for so much of our overall economy and unfortunately where

the risk of injury can be very high.

We’ve worked to make sure that they’re properly cared for if they experience injury

or illness at work. We’ve recognized that some jobs come with an elevated risk of

mental and emotional trauma, whether you’re a health care worker or a first responder.

So we introduced a mental health presumption allowing workers exposed to trauma to

file a claim with WorkSafe without the need to jump through hoops and be exposed to

re-traumatization by having to prove that their diagnosis is work-related.

Likewise, we know that firefighters, those workers who run to the danger that we all

run away from…. Their work regularly exposes them to carcinogens while on the job,

and they should not have to prove that their cancer is work-related in order to access

workers’ compensation benefits. So we’ve expanded the list of cancers that are covered

to 18 different types of cancers. And yes, indeed, we know that there is more to do.

We’re making sure that people can bargain collectively, can fulfil their Charter,

their constitutional right in this country to free association, to collective bargaining,

in order to improve their lives. We’re ensuring that the most vulnerable workers have

access to employment standards and to dispute resolution. And we know that in all

of these areas, there is more to do, and I am looking forward to building on that

work.

British Columbia is standing strong in the face of an unexpected trade war impacting

our workers, our economy, our communities, our country. Our government’s budget protects

the jobs and the services that British Columbians need while helping our economy withstand

the impact of unjustified tariffs. Our budget will carefully manage B.C.’s finances

and make investments in critical public services. We are putting people first, as

we will always do, and supporting businesses as we build a stronger future.

Of course, we do this in the context of our government’s plan to grow a strong economy.

We know that working people and the businesses in our province and the employers in

our province are all the critical engine of that. We will do this work by helping

people train for better jobs by making sure we’re getting projects built and by diversifying

where we sell our goods.

Within the Ministry of Labour, we have a clear commitment to prioritize health and

safety for all workers. I will continue to work alongside WorkSafeBC to focus on preventing

workplace injury and illness in the first instance, because it is vital that we not

only promote safe workplaces but also ensure robust compliance, enforcement, accountability

and transparency in the occupational health and safety system that workers rely on

in this province. When injuries do occur, we need to have meaningful programs in place

to assist workers in returning to their jobs.

We also know that the toxic drug crisis disproportionately affects people who work

in the trades. I will be working with the Minister of Health to make sure that people

working in the trades have access to the treatment options and programs they need

to meet their specific needs in an industry where we see, again, high injury rates,

an industry that we know takes a toll on people’s physical bodies. We will help them

get the care they need in the face of this ongoing crisis.

Our government also recognizes that workers facing domestic abuse, life-threatening

illnesses or significant risk of exploitation due to precarious status are made particularly

vulnerable by their social circumstances and sometimes by their gender. So we will

work to ensure that we have the programs and supports necessary to respond to their

particular needs.

[11:35 a.m.]

As our workplaces continue to evolve, we need to make sure that our labour laws are

keeping up. That means continuing to review the Labour Relations Code to ensure that

it is relevant for how we conduct collective bargaining in modern workplaces.

Our goal is clear. We need to protect workers, to support families and ensure our

economy remains strong and sustainable. Going forward, we will all work together to

make life better for working people. A big part of this is to ensure that we have

workplaces where the work is dignified, where we have strong relationships, where

workplaces are safe and secure and where we know that people can rely on the economy

that we’ve built for decent jobs.

Again, safety for workers will always be a priority, while also supporting the industries

that drive our economy. The Premier often says that there is no place in Canada better

situated to fight this trade war, to stand on our own two feet, because we have the

resources, we have the people, and we have the industries. We have the communities

to build such strength on to respond to the global circumstances that we’re in. That

is absolutely true, and it is the people who are going to see us through this.

The work of our ministry is really rooted in building the strong relationship between

workers and employers that fosters fair, healthy, safe working environments. Anybody

who works in the sector or comes out of labour relations knows that it’s really all

about relationships. That extends to the need for strong relationships in this place

to meet our goals.

In that regard, I’d like to acknowledge the Labour opposition critic, the member for

Prince George–Mackenzie, and the important role that he and his colleagues play on

the issues of importance to British Columbians, as well as the members of the Third

Party. I’m very much looking forward to the discussion ahead and pleased to answer

any questions about the budget and programs within the Ministry of Labour.

Just to give you a sense of what’s happening on this end, I’m in my office responding

to questions. The team from the ministry is just in the office next door. We’ll go

on mute when we need to huddle to collect the information to respond to questions.

Let’s just all keep each other informed as to whether this process is working okay

for everybody, and let us know if there are any challenges or issues on your end.

The Chair : I now recognize the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Kiel Giddens : Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m rising as the official opposition Labour critic, and

I appreciate the opportunity to scrutinize the Ministry of Labour’s 2025-2026 estimates.

I’ll join the minister in saying it is a tremendous honour to do this work and to

have this discussion on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It’s a unique honour

for me as well. I was a former staffer in the Ministry of Labour at one point earlier

on in my career, so I helped prepare estimates binders and do all this work, so for

me, it’s a unique and tremendous honour as well.

I do wish the Minister of Labour well and hope that it’s a speedy recovery. A little

bit different this time, speaking to a screen, but I think we’ll make do, and what

a wonder it is to have this technology, obviously, here in the Legislature to be able

to do so. I hope the Minister of Labour feels well very soon.

Given that I was a staffer, I want to also thank the staff at the Ministry of Labour.

I understand what the role is. It’s a unique ministry and very interesting policy

and legislation that’s a part of it. I think I would agree with the way that the minister

characterized it being small but mighty as a ministry. I do think that it’s very important

work, and I want to thank the staff for not only being here but for the public service

that they’re providing on behalf of the people in our province.

I will be focusing my questions on the ministry’s core functions, including things

like employment standards, obviously, and regulations, also policy and legislation.

This ministry is important for ensuring the dignity and fairness for workers.

[11:40 a.m.]

We also want a fair and commonsense approach for employers. Really, this ministry….

I think not everyone in the province might understand what it is, but it plays a vital

role in balancing the needs of both workers and employers, ensuring protections in

the workplace while also fostering the conditions necessary for job creation, economic

growth and investment. It’s a critical ministry, overall, for ensuring that labour

policy supports productivity, innovation and competitiveness across British Columbia.

I’ll also spend a significant time talking, discussing WorkSafeBC. The organization

plays, again, a critical function in supporting workers and their families through

fair compensation in the event of an injury, illness or death, an extremely important

function to make sure that’s there when workers need it in our province. Of course,

WorkSafe also promotes the prevention of these things from happening in the first

place.

I just want to acknowledge that last week there was the National Day of Mourning,

and I know this was something that was commemorated across the province. Here at the

Legislature, it was an honour to join the Speaker and the Parliamentary Secretary

for Labour as well as labour leaders locally on really commemorating those that have

lost their lives because of just simply going to work.

I think we can agree that workplace accidents are preventable, and everyone should

go home safely at the end of each and every workday. Overall, British Columbians,

I believe, deserve a balanced labour system that is safe, fair, efficient and fiscally

responsible.

With that, I’d like to begin. Before we adjourn for lunch, I think we’ll just have

maybe time for one or two questions here, but maybe I’ll start with a very basic one.

How does the 2025-26 budget compare to last year’s in real-dollar terms, and what

are the main increases or changes that the minister can share this year?

The Chair : Minister, if you could also move the motion after you’re done answering the question,

that’d be great.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : Thanks very much, Chair.

The ministry budget for ’25-26 sees an increase of $579,000 from the ’24-25 restated

estimates budget of $25.407 million.

I can say that the priority over the last number of years for investments in the ministry

budget has really been around bolstering employment standards, also ensuring that

we have the resources we need in the workers adviser office, for example, in terms

of the services that we’re able to provide to support access to dispute resolution

for front-line workers.

I’m happy to take more questions on that after lunch.

At this moment, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of

the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, report progress on the

Ministry of Labour and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee now is adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Birch Room

The House in Committee,

Section C.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 5 — Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2025, to order.

On clause 2 (continued) .

Peter Milobar : On the minister’s last answer last night, she referenced that the vice-chair would

have the authority to make a unilateral decision that would not ultimately wind up

going in front of cabinet with this change, because it would only be Treasury Board

dealing with any Assessment Authority Act issues in the assessment reviews.

[11:15 a.m.]

The minister referenced that the vice-chair would have that ability if things were

not considered to have a too substantial impact or to be too substantive an issue,

no materiality, those types. She didn’t use the word “materiality.” I’m just adding

that in to give that context of the level of decision that would or wouldn’t be allowed

as vice-chair.

I canvassed this before with a predecessor when the first changes were made, around

giving the ability to the chair and the vice-chair to make unilateral decisions, instead

of Treasury Board as a whole, on other issues. Since that change, has there been a

defined set of guiding principles that Treasury Board has agreed to and that spells

out very clearly what would be considered substantial or not? There wasn’t at the

time.

That couldn’t be answered at the time because what one vice-chair might think is substantial,

a different vice-chair might not. They might have a completely different

interpretation

of what would be considered substantial. Has there been any development of that with

the Treasury Board in terms of better defining the limits of the powers that this

ability to be a sole decision-maker has empowered?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : This is a standing practice, and there has not been a need to bring a review of this

practice. What I would say, though, is that when there is a decision made by the vice-chair

in this way, it is still minuted and presented to the Treasury Board. So there is

that additional step that the member might not be aware of.

Peter Milobar : Is the minister saying that a decision by the vice-chair is not final? If not, then

what is the point of empowering the vice-chair to have decision-making ability if

it ultimately still has to be ratified by the actual Treasury Board?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In fact, it’s not that the decision of the vice-chair is reviewed or isn’t final.

It’s that it’s communicated, so that all the Treasury Board is aware of the particular

decision.

Peter Milobar : Well, then that goes back to my previous concern raised, around whether there has

been any clear delineation of rules and

definitions around what would be considered

material, what would be considered substantive, what would be considered time-sensitive

or important.

[11:20 a.m.]

For a wide range of decisions, it has now been, under this government’s watch, that

power has been transferred over, instead of Treasury Board as a whole, to one individual.

A reporting-out mechanism is fine and dandy, except that the decision has already

been made, and it’s starting to be enacted by the time anything may be even reported

out. Simply informing Treasury Board of a decision doesn’t actually change what the

decision was. It just means Treasury Board has now been told.

With these types of changes coming in, which are meant to streamline…. I don’t take

issue with trying to streamline processes, by any means, but if the premise is to

try to streamline and still provide certainty and clarity for all parties that might

be involved in this — the landowner that might be involved and impacted by a decision

through B.C. Assessment, B.C. Assessment understanding the state of play with decisions

and how they may be made by government in cooperation with them — why has there not

been a

schedule like that developed?

I can understand that perhaps in the rush to change the legislation when that happened

— I believe it was back in 2021 or 2022 — that wasn’t necessarily provided at the

time. We’re several years past that, though. Certainly, there’s been more than enough

time to operationalize and understand what should be considered substantive or not.

Again, vice-chairs come and go at Treasury Board, so it seems to be a streamlining

process that is going to change and swing dramatically, depending on a personality

and their own view of what is substantive or not.

Has there not been anything developed? It’s sounding like not. If not, when will that

be actually developed?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : This is by convention, and there is not a decision ahead of us to fetter the discretion

of the vice-chair. Recommendations come from Treasury Board staff that advise the

vice-chair as to whether this is a decision that has been made by the vice-chair individually

or whether it should go to the Treasury Board.

I will share with the member there are decisions by vice-chairs to take issues that

may, in fact, be within their purview to decide upon that would not be…. The member

used the word “material,” but we would say highly consequential decisions might be

ones that we would expect a vice-chair to want to make, where they’ve asked for the

Treasury Board to weigh in. I think having that discretion is working very well, and

we have no intention to fetter that discretion.

Peter Milobar : Just to better understand the change in clause 2, though, previously, to approve

the B.C. Assessment Authority’s bylaws that set the taxes and rates for specified

land and improvements, that would go to Treasury Board as a whole. It would then get

reviewed by, basically, cabinet, Lieutenant Governor in Council, and then it’s done.

It’s approved.

[11:25 a.m.]

But that could, could it not, under that process, include the whole tax roll, the

whole assessment roll for the whole province? It’s not necessarily a single parcel

that we’re talking about. This is setting tax rates and land values of land and improvements,

potentially for the whole province at any given time.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just want to provide a little bit of clarity about what clause 2 is really referring

to here.

First of all, I have the sense, and the member can correct me if I’m misinterpreting,

that the member may think that this is about property taxes and assessments for individual

properties.

That in fact is not what this is about. This is in regards to the B.C. Assessment

budget approval process and budget requirements, not property values. I just want

to make sure that we’re both speaking about the same thing there.

[11:30 a.m.]

Essentially, B.C. Assessment is required to have a legislative timeline by which to

get their budgetary requirements approved. The Treasury Board has the expertise to

make recommendations to the vice-chair in regard to budgetary issues, and it’s appropriate

that the vice-chair would then make a decision.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Peter Milobar : I’m just wondering, with subsection (4), with the amount being determined, when was

the last time these income levels were updated?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I will provide a couple of choices here. We do know that the last time this was updated

was several years ago. I’m hearing from my team that it’s at least 2010.

We could take the time to find a precise answer or get back to you with a precise

answer — your decision.

Peter Milobar : Thank you, no. I don’t need a year-by-year breakdown, just the general overview of

it. That’s fine, especially if it’s that far back, at a minimum.

In this change, though, by repealing subsection (4) and substituting it with this

new one, is this considered — to the government’s balance sheet, not to the household

— a net-positive revenue source or a net-negative one? In other words, is this change

going to have more treasury money going out the door to households, or will they actually

be keeping a little bit more, expending a little bit less on the sales tax credit?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey : This particular change would be captured under technical measures, under page 59.

I’ll share with the member that this change is to align the language of the legislation

with its administration. CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, has been administering this

provision in the way that it was amended since the sales tax credit was reintroduced

in 2013. Really, it has essentially been administered as intended, not as written.

As such, there will be no impact, either on individuals for this change, or on the

fiscal plan.

Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On clause 6.

Peter Milobar : I’m just wondering who the minister consulted in increasing the venture capital tax

credit from $120,000 to $300,000.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I will share with the member a couple of things. The individual annual limit has

not been increased since 2019, when it was increased from $60,000 to $120,000. Since

then, inflation has eroded the tax credit’s real impact. Additionally, increasing

the limit to $300,000 will allow for investments of up to $1 million, which will make

it easier for businesses to secure the capital that they need.

I did hear the member’s question in regards to who we consulted with, and I would

share with the member two points on that. One is that it can be very difficult to

consult on tax measures, because they can influence behaviour and can be market-moving.

So we have to be very careful in consultation on tax measures.

The driver for this change comes from a couple of different places. One, my time in

the private sector and hearing from many folks who felt strongly that it’s important

that we create a better climate for investment — this is one tool that can be employed

for that.

Two, during my time at JEDI, I heard from a number of folks that this would be a mechanism

that would be very well received by folks who are looking for investors, particularly

angel investors and the class of super-angel investors that has emerged in British

Columbia as important investors in the community.

[11:40 a.m.]

I continue, in this role, to hear about the importance of increasing opportunities

for investment into British Columbia. This measure aligns with more work we have coming

on this file to ensure that British Columbia is a place where people want to make

investments. It’s deeply important to us as we work to grow our economy. This is a

small tool in that direction. That’s why we made the change.

Peter Milobar : I’m certainly not opposed to measures that try to make B.C. more competitive, attract

investment or help grow those types of projects.

Has the minister given any thought, given that…? It does seem to take a lng time in

between these jumps, and then when it happens, it’s quite substantive. Going from

$60,000 to $120,000 was quite a jump, but now this is, even on a percentage basis,

even a much higher jump than that.

Was there any thought given to triggering automatic increases to this over the next

several years to try to keep stimulating that type of investment growth — recognizing

that as things get more expensive, project or investment needs will continue to increase

— just to deliver the same style of potential investment project in the first place?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : To the member, I would just thank him for his thoughtful suggestion, frankly. We

did not consider that, but I appreciate the suggestion.

I will share with the member that what we are doing with this measure is keeping track

of how it lands and the additional investments it attracts through the Ministry of

Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation to ensure that, in fact, it is creating

a lift in investment — whether it’s been successful, whether it ought to be altered,

and so on, monitoring its uptake.

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 11:43 a.m.