First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, May 29, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 74

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

Tributes

Pam Horton

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Patricia Boyle

Hon. Lisa Beare

Dave Phillips

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M215 — Parental Transparency and Age-Appropriate Education Act

Mandeep Dhaliwal

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. David Eby

Rob Botterell

John Rustad

Supply Motions

Reports of Resolutions from Committee of Supply

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Funds Granted for Public Service

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Funds Granted for Capital Expenditures, Loans, Investments and Other Financing Requirements

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

Committee of the Whole

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

Reporting of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act

Bill 11 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 13 —Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act

Bill M202 — Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act

Bill M204 — Perinatal and Postnatal Mental Health Strategy Act

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 39 — Change to Terms of Reference for Statutory Officers Appointment Special

Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Motion 43 — Change to Terms of Reference for Finance Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Adjournment Motion

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Thursday, May 29, 2025

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Pam Horton

Hon. Bowinn Ma : Today I rise with deep sadness to acknowledge the passing of a friend and lifelong

advocate, Pam Horton.

Pam was the first executive director of Disability Alliance B.C., and her advocacy

for disability rights spanned over five decades. As a founding member of TransLink’s

Access Transit Users Advisory Committee, Pam was instrumental in the fight to bring

wheelchair-accessible public transit to Metro Vancouver.

Pam was also a committed supporter of survivors of domestic and sexual violence and,

in her later years, an advocate for seniors. Pam exemplified living life with purpose,

with compassion and with service.

My deepest condolences go to Pam’s family, friends and others who have been touched

by her life and her work. She was a pillar of our community, and she will be greatly

missed.

Her legacy of remarkable service will not be forgotten, and she should inspire all

of us to take grounded perspectives in our service to our communities.

Patricia Boyle

Hon. Lisa Beare : Today I am delighted to stand here and recognize and celebrate Patricia Boyle, assistant

deputy minister of our child care division in the Ministry of Education and Child

Care. She’s retiring this week after 18 years of service with the provincial government.

Patti became the ADM for child care in 2022, sharing her deep experience from the

leadership roles she has held across government in justice, public safety and social

development. She has been so dedicated to supporting the work of the ChildCareBC plan

and increasing access and affordability, inclusivity and high-quality child care for

all British Columbians.

Her commitment to solving challenges collaboratively and to building strong relationships

is seen by everyone who has worked with her.

I am so grateful for her and her service, and I congratulate her and wish her great

joy on the next part of her life.

[1:05 p.m.]

Dave Phillips

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : It’s a real honour today to rise to pay tribute to a fallen firefighter. New Westminster’s

own Capt. Dave Phillips — or Super Dave, as he was known — tragically died last year

at the age of 63 from an occupational-acquired cancer.

He served our community with pride as a member of New Westminster’s fire and rescue

services. He was a loving spouse to Debby. He was a dedicated father to Jessica and

Taylor, for whom he was a bonus dad. He was such a good brother to Deborah Phillips.

He was a son, he was a friend, he was a mentor, and he was a deeply valued member

of our community.

For 17 years before becoming a firefighter, Dave worked as a lead on the ramp with

Air Canada. While he was there, he was an active member of the International Association

of Machinists, and he helped found the Air Canada Flying Pirates hockey club. He was

a big sports fan.

He became a New West firefighter in August of 1995. He was part of a group of recruits

that year who dubbed themselves the Super Six. In 2014, Dave was promoted to the position

of fire and rescue services training captain, one of the founding members of the training

division. He was instrumental in developing many of the standardized procedures and

policies and training that are used to this very day and that help keep firefighters

safe.

He was a mentor, and he was a leader. He never shied away from a challenge. He was

resourceful, and he had a strong work ethic. He was also active in his union, the

International Association of Fire Fighters Local 256, serving as a union executive

member, and of course was very involved in the Fire Fighters Charitable Society, which

does so much in our community and, I know, in every single community across this province.

Captain Dave retired in 2020 after a distinguished 25-year career. But that hard-earned

retirement was tragically cut short when he was diagnosed with cancer, which he developed

as a result of his work as a firefighter and which he fought very, very hard to try

to beat. Sadly, last November we lost Dave to that cancer.

In December, he was honoured with the most profound honour that can be given a firefighter,

with a line-of-duty-death service in New Westminster. Firefighters came from all over

British Columbia to pay their respects to Dave and his loved ones. His colleagues

shared incredible stories of his compassion and selflessness, his legendary leadership.

One of those stories that had been captured by Theresa McManus, who was then a reporter

from the then New Westminster Record , was told by Deputy Chief Jeff Gill. It was about how Dave, in the wake of the attacks

on September 11, 2001, made arrangements for him and his colleagues to go to New York

and to support the recovery efforts at Ground Zero. They attended funeral services

during the day, and they worked at recovery efforts at night. According to Gill, the

trip was a life-altering experience for them all, and they came back with a very new

perspective on life and their occupation.

That service was such an outpouring of love and support from our community for someone

who gave so much and deserved a long, happy and healthy retirement. I want to express

my heartfelt condolences on behalf of our whole chamber to Dave’s family.

I know that we know this. Every March we gather here at the Legislature on the south

lawn to pay tribute to fallen firefighters. And sadly, we lose far too many firefighters

to occupational disease. It is a stark and sobering reminder that firefighters and

first responders not only put their lives on the line for us in our moment of need,

but they bear the toll of the physical and emotional exposure to extremely hazardous

conditions. And they sometimes pay the ultimate price.

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

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

You live on in the hearts of the people who loved you, the members of IAFF Local 256

and the whole community that you selflessly served.

We are forever grateful.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M215 — Parental Transparency

and Age-Appropriate Education Act

Mandeep Dhaliwal presented a bill intituled Parental Transparency and Age-Appropriate

Education Act.

Mandeep Dhaliwal : I move that the bill entitled the Parental Transparency and Age-Appropriate Education

Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

read a first time now.

[1:10 p.m.]

Parents across the province demand to know that the books that their children read

are age-appropriate. For years, the NDP have allowed inappropriate books in our schools.

The books are clearly harmful and do not support student achievement.

On March 11, the Minister of Education committed to a review of age-appropriate books.

This bill would make that commitment official and in law. This bill will do what Alberta

has already done. This bill will do what the Minister of Education has already promised

to do.

It’s time to ensure that all school books are age-appropriate and that parents’ concerns

about what their kids read are heard. Parents are a vital part of the education community

and have been excluded by this government. It’s time to change that.

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

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

Motion approved.

Mandeep Dhaliwal : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:13 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

(continued)

The Chair : I call the committee to order.

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

Jeremy Valeriote : The issues with consultation and cooperation that I brought up before the break reflect

a broader concern over the Premier’s consolidation of power in cabinet. Throughout

this session, this government has repeatedly attempted to consolidate more power within

cabinet and the Premier’s office, to much public criticism.

We saw this with Bill 7, then Bill 14 and again with Bill 15 — each a measure giving

sweeping powers to cabinet at the expense of necessary legislative debate and process.

The Premier said, “In extraordinary times, we need extraordinary powers,” yet doing

so overrides central functions of democracy.

Every British Columbian deserves to have their beliefs represented by an elected legislative

body. This is especially relevant given the fact that this was one of the closest

provincial elections in recent times. Instead, this government gives quasi-legislative

powers to a select cabinet at the expense of this diverse Legislature chosen by the

electorate.

[1:15 p.m.]

Every strong and trustworthy government must have accountability measures in place.

If this government finds it necessary to replace legislative debate with cabinet orders,

what equivalent mechanisms will be implemented to ensure accountability and transparency?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : To say I disagree with the member’s characterization of our government and the way

we’re operating is probably an understatement — but especially the leader of the Green

Party, for Pete’s sake. I mean, we just issued a report together, as the member will

recall.

I understand he’s got a narrative he’s trying to push, but the report that we both….

I’m looking. It’s got both our signatures on the bottom here, the executive

summary,

that reads:

“The cooperation and responsible government accord between the B.C. Green caucus and

the B.C. New Democrat caucus reflects a shared commitment to working collaboratively

on issues that matter to people.”

Skipping down:

“The key accountability measure within the agreement is a requirement to report out

on a quarterly basis on progress in meeting these accord commitments. We’re pleased

to report that a number of policies have been implemented, and reviews have gotten

underway within the first quarter of the accord, including the delivery of enhanced

rental housing supplements for low-income seniors and families, $50 million to support

improved access to heat pumps for low- and middle-income households.

“Both parties agree that the relevant implementation provisions in the accord have

been put in place and were consistently applied during the reporting period. Likewise,

legislative efficacy provisions in the accord are largely being carried out, and when

challenges arise, both parties are working to address them in good faith.

“We look forward to continuing to work constructively together to achieve our shared

goals and look forward to providing further update on our work together.”

Second quarterly report, 2025.

The member asked this question, and I don’t know if he wants to clip it for people

who don’t know what we’ve committed to, what we’re actually doing with the Green Party.

“The Government House Leader will” — No. 1 in our agreement — “regularly meet with

the B.C. Green caucus House Leader to discuss business of the Legislative Assembly

in an agreed-upon cadence; provide a list of the government’s projected legislative

agenda to the B.C. Green caucus House Leader for each legislative session, at the

earliest opportunity, that includes the number of bills and a description of legislation.

This will also specify the last day of introduction for legislation that is intended

to be passed.

“The Government House Leader will keep the Green House Leader updated of any changes

in a timely matter, discuss with the Green House Leader any legislation that could

be eligible as exposure to legislation.”

[1:25 p.m.]

It continues:

“Provide the Green caucus briefings that include technical and consultative drafts

of each piece of proposed legislation, provide advance notice of the legislative week,

provide 24-hour notice of planned….”

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

I’ll say this. We have not seen Green Party support on a number of bills that have

come through this House, despite that commitment. We’re maintaining the commitment

to the Green Party, because we do have a commitment to work with them. To hear the

member suggest that somehow he and his colleague have been deprived the opportunity

to influence the government’s agenda on behalf of their constituents and all British

Columbians is a bit much.

I would add to that that one of the bills that he specifically listed as being so

offensive to him includes Bill 7, where there was an amendment brought forward by

the Green Party to establish an all-party legislative committee to review regulations

that are brought under Bill 7. This was their proposal, which we adopted and put into

the bill. The select standing committee will review any regulations made, will ensure

that there is a

summary of the regulation, the rationale for it and any other prescribed

information.

I think there are two things happening here. One is that we’re working very closely

with the Green Party on our shared priorities, where we can make a coordinated difference

for British Columbia. I think it’s very positive. I think it’s very positive for British

Columbians and positive for democracy. I think the Green Party should publicly acknowledge

that. They have, in the report, and so did we.

The other thing is that we actually firmly believe that we need to grow our economy.

We need to build schools and hospitals and roads faster. We need to ensure we’re supporting

British Columbians in every corner of this province. We have to do those things in

order to be able to deliver services for people that people are counting on, including

health care and other issues that are of crucial importance, I know, to the Green

Party members.

That is what Bills 14 and 15 were about. I know the members voted against them. I

know they voted against our amendment for Bill 15. That’s okay. They’re representing

their constituents as they believe best.

I want the members to also know that just because the government doesn’t agree with

them about a particular policy or a particular direction, it does not mean that it

is inherently antidemocratic. It just means we don’t agree.

Where we do agree, I think we’re doing very good work. We’re supporting British Columbians,

and I hope that cooperation continues.

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m a bit puzzled by the Premier’s answer, given that my question was about consolidation

of power in cabinet and cabinet giving itself the ability to write regulations on

legislation that’s introduced a month beforehand. I appreciate the Premier’s review

of our agreement with the government. Those shared projects are important, and we

have been quite public about our support and appreciation for that.

What my question related to were bills, one of which we voted for — agreed. I appreciate

the government’s willingness to amend it to provide more oversight. However, that

patience seemed to run out on Bills 14 and 15, when we suggested the same measures.

If cabinet wants to give itself these powers, then at least they should be transparent,

and somebody should have some oversight. Sorry, not somebody. This Legislature should

have oversight over them.

We are talking about two separate issues here. One is an agreement with government

to support the government and get some mutually agreed-upon projects done. The other

is the legislative side, where we are fully opposed to what is, really, an unprecedented

granting of powers to cabinet and a bypassing of this legislative body.

We tend to go off on tangents, and I hesitate to bring this up. But this government….

We’ve spoken a lot about Donald Trump in this House because it is a clear threat.

We appreciate the sentiment and the protections that the government has tried to put

into place to diversify our economy and reduce barriers to interprovincial trade.

But in some ways, this government is playing directly from Trump’s playbook when it

comes to centralizing power. Experts have remarked that this government has attempted

to consolidate legislative power within cabinet in a similar manner.

[1:30 p.m.]

Without being lectured about the contents of an agreement that we are still supportive

of…. I’m struggling to understand why this government finds it necessary to give cabinet

these sweeping powers that are, really, outside of the norm for this government, yet

condemns others for the same philosophy in the exercise of power.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : The statutes enabling regulations from executive council are not unusual. They are

quite common. They enable government to move quickly. There are transparency mechanisms

attached to it. They are published and publicly available. Government is accountable

for regulations as much as they are for laws. Members can feel free to raise issues

with regulations in this place, and they often do.

Beyond that, the member is asking why. “Why would you do this? Why not have it all

passed through legislation?” Well, the regulation enables us to address specific —

let’s start with Bill 15 — individual projects that are facing unnecessary delays.

Everybody agrees that they are unnecessary, but we didn’t have the tools to be able

to allow them to proceed.

An example: two post-secondary student housing projects, desperately needed student

housing in the province. Everybody wanted them to be built. One was held up for a

year by provincial heritage and road permits. One was held up for a year because of

an amendment that was needed to an official community plan, even though it was supported

by the local government.

A school seismic replacement project that was delayed by six months, with all the

costs that that brought with it, is waiting for a municipal permit. The school is

supported by the city. The Water Sustainability Act delayed a new elementary school

for more than a year.

The regulations allow us to address these individual projects and the specific circumstances

of the delay that are preventing the public from enjoying these important amenities

and also, incidentally, driving up the cost, which is why we have support from the

mayors of cities.

A good example of a city that would require regulation…. The mayor of the city of

Grand Forks talks about the catastrophic flooding the city faced in 2018. He explains

that “in the year following, we completed over 40 different permitting processes to

build back stronger,” so 40 different processes. With the regulations here, the province

could support the city in not having to go through 40 different processes.

That’s why he says: “I hope this legislation could be used to help more communities

rebuild what they’ve lost in a faster, more streamlined way so municipalities can

stay focused on supporting people and not lengthy or overlapping approval processes.”

Mayors also support it in relation to housing and hospitals, as the mayor of the city

of New West talked about, or infrastructure like pipes and sewers, as the mayor of

Prince George talked about. That’s Bill 15. That’s why we need those regulations.

That’s why we need that regulatory power.

For Bill 14, I think the member, having stood in this place, including today, raising

concern about climate change, the urgency of renewable electricity and the desire

that we transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources of energy….

Seeing the Green Party vote against Bill 14 was a surprise to me because Bill 14 doesn’t

exempt projects from oversight and due process. It passes it to the B.C. Energy Regulator,

which already regulates oil and gas in the province. It has done so for 25 years.

It’s regulated hydrogen for four years, a very similar provision around hydrogen we

passed four years ago with the support of this House.

Now we want to give the Energy Regulator the ability to regulate transmission lines

and wind farms, and suddenly it’s become a great affront to democracy. That’s not

the case. What it does is allow us to do these things faster on the pace that we have

to, both for economic competitiveness but also for reducing emissions and costs as

we transition to an electrified province.

Just to reassure the member about that bill, the environmental impact of these projects

will still be reviewed as part of the permitting process, maintaining high environmental

standards. That includes their team of biologists, engineers, hydrologists, agrologists,

archaeologists that are all well versed in reviewing energy projects and have done

so, successfully, for many years, almost 30 years, in the province. Environmental

impact is a crucial part of the work that they do.

I hope the member can now, with some additional explanation, understand why it is

that there are regulatory powers here, what they are intended for, what they will

do, how the different bills work, and why it would be impractical to come back to

the Legislature for every additional school project that we are working with the municipality

to try to deliver.

[1:40 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : It’s the day after the passage of Bills 7, 14 and 15 by the narrowest of margins,

with 50 MLAs, representing 51 percent of the popular vote, voting against these bills;

with over 200 First Nations across the province calling on the government to take

the summer to get this right; with, as the Premier has mentioned, local governments,

as represented by the UBCM, calling for taking the summer to get this right; with

the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, representing thousands and thousands of businesses,

calling for taking the summer to get this right.

And since we are actually seeming to go back down into the weeds, I just want to make

sure for the record that it’s recognized that it’s not just the representative organizations

that are raising these concerns. We, too, talked to mayors. Victoria mayor Marianne

Alto, Saanich councillor Nathalie Chambers, Esquimalt mayor Barbara Desjardins, View

Royal mayor Sid Tobias and Sooke mayor Maja Tait are all opposed to Bill 15.

The opposition isn’t that we don’t need this type of legislation. The opposition is

in the way in which the legislation is structured and the need to take time to get

it right. The Premier will well know that regulation power within the power of cabinet,

without a whole lot of detail in the legislation, is at the core of the concerns of

First Nations, local governments, the chamber of commerce and others.

So here we are the day after. It’s actually a great day. It’s a great day for lawyers,

and it’s a great day for lobbyists. For lawyers, it’s a great day because the First

Nations in this province have been very clear that they expect to have to go to court

to ensure that the legislation is implemented in a way that respects their right,

title and interests.

It’s a great day for lobbyists because what we’ve done through this legislation, particularly

Bill 15, is we’ve set up a two-track process where, if you can get designated as a

provincially significant project, then you’re going to have access to priority tools

to move things along faster.

I’ll come to the question momentarily, but I just want to make it clear, too, that

none of the groups that are calling for taking an extra three months are not sensitive

to the fact that there’s a need to deal with the types of challenges the Premier has

mentioned on schools, hospitals and roads. But would the world come to an end if we

took a few more months and actually built consensus rather than locking in division

in a key area of governance?

Nobody is trying to step back from the need to deal with crisis. Nobody is trying

to step back from the need to, in certain specified circumstances, be able to move

more quickly. But the legislation, as we discussed in the time we had, has some real

flaws that can be and could have been addressed.

[1:45 p.m.]

The question I’d like to pose to the Premier: in the absence of legislative oversight….

In the case of Bill 7 we have an all-party committee oversight. In Bills 14 and 15,

we have none. In the case of Bill 7, we have the publication of regulations plus rationale

in a way that is publicly accessible. In 14 and 15, we don’t. In Bill 7, we actually

have a sunset clause on these. In Bills 14 and 15, we don’t.

[1:50 p.m.]

In the absence of the types of transparency and legislative oversight protections

that the government could have included in these bills, particularly 14 and 15, what

is the Premier’s vision for ensuring accountability for the implementation of this

legislation?

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

Oh, hi, everybody.

I’ll start with the kids. That’s a good place to start, as always. We have St. Francis

Xavier School. Your MLA from Strathcona welcomes you to the House. It’s nice to see

all of you.

This is a group of 28 grade 5s and their grownups.

Nice to see you. Welcome to the House.

Let me just start with the premise that 51 percent of the House was opposed to the

approach of the government and that there was this unified agreement. It couldn’t

be further from the truth.

Obviously, the Green Party has their perspective, which was articulated by the member,

that there needs to be additional consultation with Indigenous groups, there needs

to be additional consultation with municipalities, that time needs to be taken. But

to assume that that perspective is shared by the remainder of the members who voted

against it is not correct.

This is what the leader of the Conservative Party tweeted, his perspective about how

to get projects done. He is opposed to the bill because “the B.C. NDP is giving First

Nations an absolute veto over whether or not projects in B.C. can be given priority

status by government. This Premier’s veto….” He uses my last name, but I’ll just say

“Premier’s” instead. “This Premier’s veto is part of a larger pattern, and it’s not

normal.

“British Columbians are in agreement on reconciliation, having respect for First Nations

culture and rights, including title. However, B.C.’s provincial government is supposed

to govern for all British Columbians. The Premier’s NDP should not be giving any special

group veto on whether or not projects are prioritized by B.C.’s government.

“Two, veto powers over land rights and access rights on privately owned property in

B.C. Three, veto over access to and use of public lands in B.C. The B.C. NDP’s veto

approach is setting back reconciliation, driving away investment, undermining B.C.’s

economy and breaking down trust between British Columbians.”

The member says that he wants to get to consensus, he wants to get to, as I understood

it, some sort of additional process here because 51 percent of the House voted against

it, which is not correct. The majority of votes voted for it.

The actual challenge here is that the people that the Green Party aligned with…. Their

perspective is that there shouldn’t be consideration of trying to get to consent with

First Nations, that that approach is handing a veto to First Nations and therefore

is wrong and therefore should be opposed.

The other objection is around our work to protect wild spaces, which the Leader of

the Opposition confirmed yesterday, which he called nonsense, the idea of protecting

30 percent of our land base by 2030, outlining his concern that it was a conspiracy

that the World Economic Forum was directing policy in British Columbia.

The executive director of the Conservative Party tweets, “Do we live in a racial oligarchy?

This is getting wildly out of hand,” talking about working with First Nations in partnership

on the regulations for Bill 15.

So please don’t pretend that the Conservative Party agrees with the very rational

perspective put forward by the Green Party that Indigenous People need to be involved

directly in partnership in projects on the land. They view that as a racial oligarchy.

The majority of this House supports progressive relations with Indigenous People.

While we may have points of disagreement about how to get there through particular

initiatives, it is not correct to suggest that the opposition is united on this.

The second issue is that there are, in fact, nations that we’re working with directly.

I mentioned earlier the work that we did on Monday with three nations in the northwest

on a remarkable opportunity to lift up communities, to lift up a region and, also,

to lift up the province and the country as a whole: our partnership with the Tāłtān,

the Taku River Tlingit and the Kaska First Nation.

[1:55 p.m.]

Also, I am holding a letter here from the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government, which wrote to me, saying: “Given the economic uncertainty introduced

by the new trade policies of the U.S., NLG, Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government, fully understands the need for British Columbia to move swiftly

on these matters and is well placed to provide meaningful input in expedited circumstances.

In fact, we have been advocating for a more efficient and effective regulatory regime

for some time now, and we have valuable input based on our ongoing experiences through

various regulatory processes for the projects.”

I welcome the correspondence and the offer of involvement because that is, in fact,

our commitment. The member asked: “How do we want to ensure accountability around

the regulations?” Under these acts, our commitment is to engage with nations, with

local governments and other key stakeholders as we develop the regulations to ensure

that the legislation actually does what we intend, which is to speed up projects across

the province.

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

this initiative.

Maybe the member hasn’t had this experience. I’d be surprised if it were true. But

I regularly have people coming and saying: “Look, we’re really excited about this

new school in our community” or “We’re excited about this new hospital. Is there anything

that can be done to get it done faster?” “Our business has this project. We’re dealing

with the province; we’re dealing with the city. Is there anything we can do to get

this done faster?” Just again and again.

The member says he recognizes it but, at the same time, wants us to delay. He says

three months. It’s four months before we sit again. I don’t know how long the process

is that he envisions for the fall session. And then additional legislation, additional

provisions. And then further engagement process on the regulations.

This is an urgent matter. The hits to our economy from just seafood and softwood lumber

actions by the United States are significant, and more are coming. As people’s jobs

are directly affected by this, the urgency will be quite profound. We have to move

before we start to see really terrible impacts.

We can already see the slowdown of businesses, saying: “Well, hold on. Before we invest,

let’s get certainty about where the Americans are going with this. Let’s get some

stability in the relationship between Canada and the U.S.” That’s also impacting our

economy. We’re seeing that globally as business leaders make important decisions about

investment that affect all British Columbians and all Canadians and certainly people

around the world.

Finally, the member read out a list of mayors from the CRD who don’t understand why

this bill is needed. I would think the mayors of the CRD, if anywhere, would know.

These mayors the member consulted with — I certainly don’t hold them responsible.

I don’t think they were around at the time. But they surely know the story of the

Victoria sewage treatment plant.

This was in the ’90s. Washington state was threatening a tourism boycott of British

Columbia because we were flushing raw sewage from Victoria into the harbour. In 2004,

Victoria was directed — I say Victoria, but it’s actually the CRD — to put in a sewage

treatment plant. It took 16 years to put in a sewage treatment plant. It didn’t open

until 2020.

It’s an example of the challenge that we can run into, where we have a whole bunch

of different municipalities and they were debating about who was going to pay what.

The delay continued and continued to the point that Victoria, despite being full of

people who are quite committed to environmental protection, was the last remaining

major community to pump raw sewage into surrounding waters in Canada.

Members might remember Mr. Floatie, which was a seven-foot-tall — well, members can

imagine — mascot that tried to bring attention to the fact that this issue was not

getting resolved.

These are the kinds of things we’re talking about. They’re not minor issues. They’re

serious issues. If your school can’t get built in the community, if your sewage treatment

plant can’t get built, if your housing can’t get built, if your business is struggling

with processes even though all of the officials involved support the project and it’s

stuck, which can happen….

We’re fixing the underlying provisions as well, and I look forward to having additional

legislative amendments come forward to the House around the underlying processes.

[2:00 p.m.]

But in the interim, we’ve got to get building here. We added 300,000 people in the

last two years to this province. That is huge. Three months, four months, six months,

eight months may not sound like a lot to that member, but it is a long time if you’re

waiting for approval for your business. It is a long time if you’re waiting for construction

to start on your new school. It can be a whole school year for a student.

I look forward to the member’s feedback on the regulations. That’s our commitment

to the Green Party: to work with them. I am sure we’ll be able to come to consensus

about how to support British Columbians.

Jeremy Valeriote : On behalf of my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands, an apology

that he couldn’t stay to listen to the answer to his question that he’d wanted to

ask. He did have a previously arranged meeting with the Government House Leader, so

I take the Premier’s response.

For the record, perhaps I misheard, but I think that perhaps the Premier suggested

that the Green Party, the Third Party, had concerns over a First Nations veto. I just

want to clarify that that’s not the case. That may or may not be the concern of the

Conservative Party, the opposition party, but ours was around consultation.

Anyway, I’m going to try and bring the temperature down a bit and move to a different

topic: leadership of the public service. This is of interest to me, having been both

staff and elected in local government and now in provincial government. We have concerns

about this government’s ability to provide clear direction to the public service and

to ensure they’re producing strong legislation in a timely way.

Yesterday the Premier mentioned that rookie MLAs and tariff urgency forced some of

the rushed legislation and late sittings. I acknowledge that’s part of it, but when

we look at this session, we’ve seen a back-loading of legislation, considering that

the session began four months after election day. We’ve seen the bulk of the bills

introduced late in the session, and then we’ve had extended hours, waiting for the

government to introduce bills that were simply not ready or not fully thought through.

This seems like a failure, an inability to set the legislative agenda and to clearly

identify what it needs from the public service and when. I would like to hear from

the Premier how we can correct this lack of direction and ensure that the public service

is able to fulfil the legislative agenda that he sets.

Hon. David Eby : I disagree with the member’s characterization about the bills in front of the House.

These are bills that were developed to respond to an unprecedented threat to our economy

and to our country by the President of the United States, or I guess unprecedented

in modern times, and to put forward a number of mechanisms around internal trade,

strengthening our economy and sending a message back to the United States that we

don’t find their conduct acceptable.

[2:05 p.m.]

What the member may see as failure, I see as flexibility. There was a provision in

Bill 7 that raised concern of some members in this place and outside of the House

as well. We had a look at the provision and made the decision to pull that

section

of the bill.

It doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the provision could be necessary, but it did

mean that the level of concern that was raised about it meant that we were prepared

to try to seek support for the bill without it, going forward. Of course, that support

never showed up, but the bill still passed. Fortunately, because we have to remove

internal trade barriers across the country, the bill enables us to do that.

I want to underline that this activity by the President started almost immediately

after our election and required all members in this place to consider how that impacts

agendas, whether as opposition or as government, what positions we were going to take

and how we were going to best support British Columbians. It required the public service

to move very quickly as well. I’m very grateful to the work of the public service.

The plans that we had for where we were going to be going in the session were upended

by the President’s activities and the need to respond in a meaningful way. It required

many late nights from the public service to assist in delivering that. It required

great support and cooperation of a huge number of people to be able to deliver this

meaningful framework that is going to enable us to build British Columbia into the

economic engine of Canada’s future, the new Canada that is emerging from this moment,

a Canada where we stand on our own two feet.

We wouldn’t have been able to achieve that without the amazing work of the public

service, and I wanted to thank them on the record for that.

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

I just want to talk about overall vision, especially in light of the Premier mentioning

the plans that were in place before the tariff threats. As I mentioned in this House,

there’s a huge amount of uncertainty and unease currently — an affordability crisis,

trade threats. Many or all of us are concerned about the future of our province, so

we need strong leaders who can walk us through unprecedented times, deliver hope and

make necessary change.

I think that some or many British Columbians are uncertain about this Premier’s overall

plan. After nearly three years in office and, granted, the tail end of COVID and then

other short-term threats, what is the overarching vision or narrative?

We’ve talked a little bit too much about our neighbours to the south, but we’re making

these comparisons, and we’re left without an understanding of this government’s priorities.

It mirrors our electoral system, which tends to emphasize what each party is not rather

than what it is and encourages voting against something rather than for something.

We need leadership that has a clear vision and can clearly and transparently communicate

this.

Given that the Premier mentioned plans that had to be amended because of the tariff

threats and the bills that were brought forward because of this immediate threat,

I would like to understand a bit more about the long-term strategy and vision that

the Premier sees for the province and who’s involved in developing this long-term

strategy and the timeline and process of how this long-term planning and visioning

is done.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : The member was there during the election, I know, when we were campaigning on some

core priorities for British Columbians — addressing the cost of living; supporting

them with challenges that they’re facing around affordability, including housing;

ensuring we have a strong public health care system accessible in the province; issues

around public safety and community safety, ensuring that our downtowns are safe for

people; and then, finally, growing a strong economy for British Columbians. There’s

good progress on those initiatives.

We hired 1,000 family doctors in the last two years. We’ve cut wait times for U.S.

nurses from months to days to get registered to work in British Columbia. The new

medical school at SFU is going to launch in September, the first new medical school

in western Canada in 50 years. It added 128 new seats for doctors at UBC.

On the cost of living, ICBC rates have been flat. We did another ICBC rebate. Hydro

rates are 12 percent below the rate of inflation over our time in government. Rents

are down for the tenth month in a row. Our rental housing work is making a difference.

We’ve cut child care fees in half, on average, from $47 a day to $19 a day for people.

On public safety, crime is down 7 percent in Vancouver, double digits in Kamloops,

Kelowna and many other communities. We’ve got more work to do there.

On a strong economy, we’ve reduced permitting times and opened new hospitals and schools:

226 school projects and 30 hospitals and health care projects built or underway since

2017, just an astonishing amount of construction across the province to respond to

unprecedented growth of 300,000 people moving to our province to call it home.

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

The threat of the actions coming at us from south of the border has required a fairly

significant pivot to ensuring that we are responding in a way that fulfils our responsibility,

frankly, as British Columbians to all Canadians. Our ports ship out products for provinces

across Canada to Asia and the rest of the world. It brings a certain obligation on

us to ensure that we’re supporting that.

The resources that we have in this province are often the same resources that are

being restricted by China to the United States and other countries. We have the opportunity

to provide those resources to other countries and to do so in a way that is both ethical

and responsible from an environmental perspective as well. We’re keen to do that.

Things have changed quite dramatically. Even looking at the war in Ukraine, the pivot

in the EU away from sourcing energy and raw material from Russia creates opportunity

for British Columbia and for Canada.

[2:15 p.m.]

As these global changes happen, as this instability happens, we can’t miss this opportunity

both to ensure we’re protecting British Columbians and supporting them with good-paying

jobs and with revenue for the province so that we’re able to provide services, but

also fulfilling our global responsibility, our responsibility to Canada and the world,

especially liberal democracies, to support and to play our part. That’s why you’ve

seen significant bills coming forward in this House focusing on making sure that we’re

able to do this as quickly as possible while maintaining our high standards.

It has resulted in a shift. The vision is a significant one. British Columbia will

be the engine of Canada’s economy, of the new Canada that is emerging from this moment

of global instability. Our resources, our people, our cheap electricity, our clean

electricity — these are the foundational elements, along with our access to two-thirds

of the world’s population through our ports.

By growing our economy, by seizing this moment, by fulfilling our role and the obligation

on us, we will do two things. We’ll support Canadians, but we’ll also make sure we’re

able to deliver the strong public services that people depend on.

It’s a significant piece of work. It is a big swing, but we are called on to step

up to bat right now. We’re going to do our darndest to ensure that we meet the moment

for all Canadians.

John Rustad : I want to thank the leader of the Green Party for coming in and doing his periods

of questions. It’s interesting following some of the questions and some of the responses.

I want to start with a little

summary of some of the things that we talked about last

night, yesterday afternoon. We talked about opening up new mines without a serious

plan on ports. We talked about energy production in this province and the shortfall

that we have. We talked about the fact that energy prices are likely going to go up

dramatically, although the Premier won’t admit that or won’t come clean to the people

in this province. We also talked about a number of other issues associated with getting

our economy going.

What I want to focus on just for the moment actually is the purpose of moving forward

things like Bill 7, which was the tariff response, the response to Trump. The Premier

came and started when all this stuff happened. He talked about elbows up: “We’re going

to do everything we can. We’re going to be part of Team Canada.”

Then on April 10, the Prime Minister dropped all of our counter-tariffs. Elbows down.

It’s left me wondering what part of the anatomy the Premier does have up in the air

when it comes to dealing with Trump. When I look at….

Well, you might have had your foot up. I don’t know. What do you think ends up in

the air, Mr. Premier? I think that was perfectly fair language to use in this chamber.

And if you don’t like it, well, I’m sorry. What could I say?

The reality for the Premier is he talks about being on Team Canada. He has a large

Canadian flag out in front of the building. He’s wrapping himself in the flag.

I’ll just simply start with one very simple question. We need a new oil pipeline to

the west coast. We need a new oil pipeline from the middle of this country out to

the Pacific Ocean. We need extra capacity, more than the Trans Mountain capacity that

has been built.

Does the Premier support a new oil pipeline from Canada, from the Alberta provinces,

out to our west coast?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : The member is advocating a project that has no proponent, has no funding; nobody

has stepped up to do it.

I don’t know if the member is advocating for the federal government to build another

pipeline, a heavy oil pipeline, to the north coast of B.C. I don’t know what the cost

of that would be — $20 billion or $30 billion.

I’m surprised, though, that the member did not raise — he should — that we have a

massive piece of publicly owned infrastructure here in the Lower Mainland, the TMX

pipeline, that is not operating at capacity. More than half a million barrels under

capacity. That would be…. If the member is particularly keen, if Alberta is particularly

keen, on increasing heavy oil exports, it seems like a place to start that costs taxpayers

somewhere in $30 billion. We should at least get our money’s worth out of it if we

have it.

But what I feel the member is doing is he knows there’s no proponent. He knows there’s

no funding. He knows there’s no proposed project. He’s trying to drive divisions between

British Columbia and Alberta when we’ve got a lot of work to do together.

I was at Western Premiers, with Premier Smith, with other western Premiers. We agreed

on an economic corridor from northwest ports right through to Manitoba, giving British

Columbia businesses access to Asia and Europe, creating prosperity for western provinces.

That would be a good thing for the member to support.

If, and I stress if, the Premier of Alberta is successful in getting the federal government

or private proponent to advance a pipeline project, we’ll cross that bridge when we

come to it. We’re not there yet, but this corridor would assist in electricity transmission

and clean energy transmission and trade goods. We think there’s an opportunity to

double the rail lines. That would increase efficiency and access to ports. These are

the kinds of projects that bring people together rather than drive them apart.

[2:25 p.m.]

There’s some irony in the member’s question about the President of the United States,

because for weeks — well, for months — we watched Conservatives apologize for and

suggest the government needed to comply with Donald Trump. The member eventually got

there. He said it was because of the threat to tariff the film industry, the same

film industry that its members derided as a group of elites that were disconnected

from rural communities when in fact many people in rural communities work the film

industry.

The member opposed retaliatory tariffs. The member opposed taking bourbon off the

shelves. He said: “I still think banning is just not the approach we need to take.”

The member opposed removing internal trade barriers. The member opposed….

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby : The member voted against….

Interjections.

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

The issue is the member voted against the bill to remove internal trade barriers.

The member said that our targeted response to red states was unfair to Republicans.

He said: “It’s dangerous and irresponsible for the NDP to specifically tariff only

Republican states who may not be at fault simply because the current U.S. President

is Republican. This verges on cross-border political interference.”

His member for Peace River North said: “Banning Kentucky bourbon is ridiculous.”

The member for Chilliwack said: “And there we have it. The Premier needs to comply

with Trump for the greater good.”

The member for Courtenay-Comox: “Retaliatory tariffs create uncertainty, and uncertainty

is the enemy of prosperity.”

The member for Prince George–Valemount: “Firing Bonnie Henry would be a safe and effective

way for the NDP to protect B.C. from targeted tariffs.”

The president of the Conservative Party flew to Washington to attend Trump’s inauguration

even while he was threatening our country with punitive tariffs. And then, just ahead

at the Conservative convention, the member endorsed that same person for party president,

Aisha Estey.

The member for Langley-Willowbrook endorsed Trump’s views of the border, saying: “We

must take urgent action to secure our borders and stop illegal mass migration of criminals

and terrorists.”

The member for Langley–Walnut Grove thought that the President was making simple neighbourly

requests, saying: “It’s a simple neighbourly request to make. Fix the border.”

The MLA for Salmon Arm–Shuswap tweeted a picture of western Canada calling it the

republic of western Canada advocating for us to become a protectorate of the United

States like Guam.

The member for Surrey-Panorama welcomed a YouTuber named mistersunshinebaby who he

called a true Canadian patriot. Mistersunshinebaby posted a video and said: “The fat

pig Doug Ford in Ontario is ready to cut off the power, and Liberals are cheering

him on. This is quite literally by definition

an act of war.”

He endorsed the President’s attack on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling him “the freaking

Ukrainian grifter,” and cheered on Trump’s attack on the President of Ukraine. That

same YouTuber, the great patriot endorsed by the Conservatives, apologized to the

Americans over the trade war.

I could continue, but I think you get the picture. In terms of standing strong for

British Columbia and Canadians, I’m glad the member has arrived here. It was a bit

of a journey, but we did get here. Hopefully, we can all stand united in strengthening

our economy and standing on Canada’s own two feet, and for B.C. to fulfil its role

and responsibility of being the economic engine of the entire country.

John Rustad : That’s interesting. We put out our ten-point plan in response long before the Premier

did his thing. Also, on March 3, I introduced the bill Free Trade and Mobility Act

Within Canada, which the Premier seems to not even recognize. And he certainly just

made false statements with regards to our position on trade. But I get it, that’s

what he likes to do. It’s just lots of rhetoric as opposed to answering a simple question:

do you support a new pipeline? He wouldn’t answer it. Just like he hasn’t answered

any other question that I’ve put forward to him straight up.

We could get through this in a fast period of time. The Premier would like to go on

long rants, political rants. Fine. We will stay here until the LG gets here if that’s

what the Premier would like to do. I haven’t got a problem with doing that.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’m just trying to get some simple answers because the Premier has said in his opening

statement here: “Saying no won’t cut it.” Yet when the Premier of Alberta asked about

putting on a second oil pipeline, the Premier said no.

Which is it? He stands up and says: “No isn’t an option.” And then he says no to our

Premier next door when it was asked about putting a new pipeline in out to our west

coast.

This is what I’m trying to get to and trying to understand. The Premier wraps himself

in the flag, says we’ve got to do these things. The Prime Minister drops the tariffs

because he realizes that he has to take a delicate approach in terms of dealing with

the trade, to make sure that we protect jobs, and the Premier wants to continue on

being bombastic.

He actually wants to cut off or to put a tax on trade on the trucks that are going

through to Alaska. What do you think the response is going to be on that? Yet this

same Premier has not once stood in this House defending our softwood lumber and telling

us how he’s gone to Ottawa and how he’s gone to Washington to fight to get a softwood

lumber deal.

We brought forward a plan to put a carbon tax on thermal coal being shipped through

Vancouver. It’s a plan to be able to put a small amount of tax in place so we can

start creating some leverage to get a softwood lumber deal. The Premier went and talked

to the Prime Minister about it, and of course, there’s been nothing but crickets since

then, which is to be expected. Pass it on to somebody else.

Same thing when we ran during the election. We talked about putting a police force

in place to deal with our ports, to deal with securing our ports, because the federal

government was not doing it. He said: “Oh, that’s federal jurisdiction.”

We have massive drug labs going on in this province. We have a massive problem with

fentanyl. British Columbia is known as a destination for being able to bring drugs

into North America and move them around. We should be taking these steps, but once

again, this Premier says: “Well, that’s Ottawa’s problem.” Not a Team Canada approach

at all — stepping up the plate to do the job that’s needed to protect British Columbians.

If the Premier isn’t interested in answering a question about putting in an oil pipeline,

which I think, quite frankly…. Maybe I shouldn’t say that. He has answered the question.

He’s said no, so that’s fine. Because we need more than just the additional 500,000-barrel

capacity that’s coming through Trans Mountain.

We need more than that. We need to do the dredging. We need to make sure that we have

that additional capacity from that line. I think that would be a good thing to see,

and I’m glad this Premier has stopped saying: “We’re going to use every tool in the

book to stop this project.” Clearly, he’s had a transformation on the road to Damascus

when it comes to a project like that. But the question is whether or not he is willing

to actually go a step further.

We today ship about three million barrels of oil a day to the Americans, at a 20 percent

discount. Three million barrels of oil a day from Canada, at a 20 percent discount

— billions upon billions of dollars every day, hundreds of billions of dollars every

year that could be realized in Canada, that could be realized as part of our economy

if only we could get, maybe, another pipeline to the coast so that we don’t have to

sell it at a discount to the Americans.

Wouldn’t that be something that we could champion? Wouldn’t that be something where

we’d be wrapping ourselves in the flag and saying: “Yes, we’re Team Canada. We want

to do everything we can to make sure that Canadians are not reliant on having to trade

with the Americans but that we can get the best value for our resources and get it

offshore.”

Maybe — wouldn’t that be something, Madam Chair? — we could think about even more

refining capacity, since we only have 40 percent capacity in B.C. We’re reliant on

buying refined products from — guess who — the Americans, the very Americans that

this Premier wants to tick off with his approach in terms of how he’s doing things.

Why doesn’t he follow the Prime Minister’s lead and realize that he has to take a

more delicate approach, that he has to get to a place where we can come at it with

strength? Where we are no longer reliant on the Americans, so that we can strengthen

our trade positions. Where we can create some leverage, like we can with thermal coal

being shipped through Vancouver.

There are things that could be done, and the Premier says: “We finally got there.”

I suggest the Premier is late to the party, because we were talking about all these

things during the election, and he opposed everything that we had on our platform,

everything we did on our platform. All of this is what we ran on, long before Trump

won, long before the Premier decided to wrap himself in a flag and change his tunes.

[2:35 p.m.]

Now, I’m glad that he’s found his conversion on the road to Damascus, because there

are lots of things that maybe we could get done. He asked me if I would join him in

terms of doing this. I will not join the NDP in their approach. They’ve destroyed

this province. It’s been eight years of absolute decimation in B.C.

A 0.14 percent GDP per capita — that’s what he can brag about? That’s what the average

has been in British Columbia for ten years, the worst GDP per capita since the Great

Depression on a per-capita basis. And he touts: “Well, it’s better than the other

provinces.” I’m sorry. That doesn’t cut it. It’s ten times worse than the OECD nation

average.

Those are the straight numbers. You know what? I love math, because math is impervious

to fertilizer, which tends to get spread a lot by our Premier.

I want to maybe switch to another topic because, obviously, we’re not going to get

anywhere on wrapping itself in the Canadian flag and dealing with Trump and trying

to actually be a team player when it comes to moving our products offshore.

The Premier is about to go on a trade mission to Asia. Happy he’s going to go there.

We’re going to have some companies and stuff going. We’re going to have a few of the

cabinet ministers, I’m sure, going on this junket.

The question I have for the Premier is this.

There are 13 independent trade offices that were closed. Yes, they’ve got trade that’s

attached to embassies, but they’re no longer independent trade. What have we seen

as the results under the NDP? We have seen a significant decline in trade with every

major Asian country, under this NDP — a significant decline. We have seen trade….

Guess what. The one place where trade is actually going up? With the Americans. Interesting.

Perhaps the question to the Premier is one that’s very simple. On this trade mission,

as he goes, is he going to be taking the steps that are necessary to get independent

trade offices back up and running so that companies can go and build those relationships?

Does he have any potential, let’s say, measurable outcomes that he’s expecting from

a trade mission like this which will actually reverse the decline in our trade with

the Asian countries that has happened under this Premier’s watch?

[2:40 p.m.]

The Chair : Recognizing the Deputy Premier, the Attorney General.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to take a moment to welcome the wonderful articling students from the

Ministry of the Attorney General, who are here to watch the estimates.

I want to thank them for all their work in their articling. I’m sure they’re learning

a lot of things in the different posts that they’re at, and I appreciate their contributions.

Debate Continued

Hon. David Eby : The member insists on three-minute introductions to what he describes as his very

simple questions, demanding that I not respond to the occasionally outrageous things

that he says.

It’s not true. Since 2017, B.C. has had some of the highest GDP growth in the country.

Our growth was 20.3 percent over the period, second among provinces, behind only P.E.I.

Now, if the member is saying, “Let’s have more growth in the province,” well, he’s

going to find no opposition here. We’re going to do that.

The member said, bizarrely, that he hadn’t heard anything about softwood lumber from

our government. Day one of our new government, the minister responsible wrote to the

federal government about softwood lumber duties.

On April 5, 2025, I made a statement — released a statement, issued it to the media

— about softwood lumber duties and advocated with the then Prime Minister. The new

Prime Minister prioritized softwood lumber and is prioritizing a strong, good-faith

effort to address softwood lumber with the Americans in any new trade agreement.

I’ve advocated for it at every table; as the Premier of Manitoba has advocated for

canola and for his agricultural industries; as has the Premier of Saskatchewan, impacted

by Chinese tariffs; and the Premier of Ontario, auto parts. Each province has been

affected differently by aggressive American trade action.

[2:45 p.m.]

The member encourages me to advocate for federal funding for a new pipeline where

there is no proponent and no project. Here in B.C., we have literally $50 billion

in mines with proponents that want to go. We have billions of dollars in energy projects

in B.C. that have proponents that are ready to go. We have billions of dollars in

port investments that have proponents that are ready to go. These are the things I’m

advocating for, that we’re seeking to ensure get delivered for British Columbians

and for Canadians and that I will continue to advocate for.

The member advises that I should take a gentle approach with the President of the

United States, whose foot is in the air now.

With respect to trade stats, the member made quite a misstatement about trade. With

South Korea, our trade is up 9 percent; Australia, our trade is up 15 percent; Taiwan,

our trade is up 4 percent; Germany, our trade is up 2 percent; and U.K., our trade

is up 2 percent. For the countries I’m visiting, our trade will be up quite significantly

once the LNG Canada pipeline begins operations in the next couple of months.

The member questions our strategy around trade offices and asks about metrics. Fiscal

year 2023-24, in the co-located Asian offices, the ministry recorded a total of 14

investment deals and 98 trade deals. The year before that, in the Asian offices, the

ministry recorded six investment deals and 47 trade deals. Our work will be to go

and to do our best to deliver more investment deals and trade deals with these countries

— Japan, Korea and Malaysia. We’re doing important work with them, and I hope to expand

it.

This is also as much about reassuring our trading partners that B.C. remains a stable,

reliable partner in this time of global uncertainty. It’s certainly a critical message

that they need to hear from us.

The member called it a junket, by which I can only assume that he would not be doing

this if he were in office. I’ll just have to disagree with him about that. Premiers

across Canada are doing this work to make sure that we’re promoting our provinces,

and British Columbia is certainly not going to get left behind on my watch. We’ve

opened new offices in Vietnam, Taiwan and Mexico City in order to continue this work

that we’re doing, expanding trade and diversifying away from the United States.

The member suggested that he was a great fan of math. If that were true, he would

have a different position on climate change.

John Rustad : Given the Premier’s comments about the carbon tax, I can only draw the same conclusion

I said yesterday, which is that he is a denier of climate change as well, since he

says the carbon tax was the way to save and do all the things. We don’t want to go

back and revisit all those things that we’ve talked about before. But it is funny

how sometimes the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to those sorts of comments.

I want to switch topics, because clearly, from an economic perspective, there is one

other major issue in British Columbia. There are a lot of agreements that are being

reached with First Nations — support, reconciliation and the approach that we need

to take. I’d like to know from the Premier exactly what the impact of the Haida deal

will be on the private landowners in the Haida Gwaii islands.

[2:50 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Hon. David Eby : I appreciate the patience of the member. I wanted to get the exact provisions. I

know the member has spoken about this before.

There is an agreement with the Haida Nation, and there is legislation that enacts

the agreement. Both are clear. Estates in fee simple, fee simple interests, lawyer

language for private property, are not affected. In the agreement,

section 4, specific

jurisdictional matters, specifically sections 4.4 through 4.6:

“4.4. The Haida Nation consents to and will honour fee simple interests, including

those held by Haida citizens.

“4.5. The Haida Nation consents to fee simple interests on Haida Gwaii continuing

under British Columbia jurisdiction.

“4.6. For greater certainty, this agreement and the recognition of Haida Aboriginal

title do not alter or derogate from those fee simple interests or any rights or interests

associated with them.”

That agreement, enacted in the 2024 Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act,

section

4.3, “Estates in fee simple” — again, lawyer language for private property: “The following

interests in and rights in relation to land on Haida Gwaii, whether arising before

or after this

section comes into force, are confirmed and continued: (

a) an estate

in fee simple; (

b) an interest in or right in relation to land that derives from,

burdens or otherwise relates to an estate in fee simple.”

There is an interim provision, 4.4, that also confirms subsection (4): “Interests

in and rights in relation to land on Haida Gwaii, other than interests or rights referred

to in

section 4.3.” So if we missed anything in

section 4.3, they are continued as

well.

The agreement was historic and significant and important, and the member rose in this

place and said some important words. He said:

“I want to start by saying congratulations. The path has been a long journey for the

Haida people. You set out a very important milestone for First Nations across the

province, as you have historically as well.”

Further on:

“I remember when I was minister back in 2016. There was a court case that was coming

forward from Haida to claim title over the islands over Haida Gwaii. I went at that

time into the Attorney General’s office, and I talked to the staff. I said: ‘What

are we going to do about this case coming forward?’ They reassured me. They said:

‘We have a very strong case. We’re going to win this case in court.’

[3:05 p.m.]

“I looked at them quite frankly, and I said: ‘Are you guys crazy? The Haida people

have defended the Haida Gwaii islands for thousands of years. They’ve fought. They’ve

defended it. How on earth do you expect that we would actually win this in court?’

“It was into 2017, in discussions with the Attorney General’s office. I said to them:

‘We actually need to put together an offer to recognize title.’ Of course, that work

died after the 2017 election, but I am glad this process has gone forward.

“To the Haida people, to the people here, to the people that have worked for generations

for this recognition, once again, congratulations. It is an important step for all

of British Columbia. I look forward, quite frankly, to making sure that, as this process

goes forward, the interests of all people in British Columbia are taken into consideration,

so that true reconciliation can be achieved.

“Once again, congratulations.”

That same member, the next day, stood out in front of the Legislature and said the

following about the bill he had just delivered that speech about: “The NDP is undermining

your private property rights. The Haida deal means First Nations title could end up

being applied to all private property in B.C. This is a mess.”

Then he released a video.

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

NDP has now created….”

This is the next day.

“The NDP has created an unbelievable precedent for people in British Columbia. The

precedent is that Aboriginal title could exist underneath your private property. So

what does this mean? It means that the province is now going to be looking at having

to pay compensation to First Nations for alienating that Aboriginal title.

“Once again, what does this mean for you? Who knows? The question really will become:

is the province now going to be on the hook for trillions of dollars in compensation?

Are you, as a property owner, going to have to be paying that compensation?

“There are lots of questions that are out there, but this government has now created

this precedent for the taxpayers and for the people of British Columbia. It is not

the right thing to be doing.”

The next day.

“This should have been resolved before this incident has come forward. The government

has now put all of us in British Columbia at risk, and that is not the way a government

should be. They should be addressing the issues for all British Columbians, not just

for Indigenous people.”

Same member. The same member, the Leader of the Opposition. Which member is going

to show up? Is it the member that openly acknowledges that when he was a minister,

he walked into the AG’s office and said: “We’ll never win this case”? Is it the same

member who looked at the bill and read the provisions that I just read into Hansard that said that fee simple private property rights are not affected — that the Haida

recognize that they remain under British Columbia, that everyone agreed to that —

and then went out on the lawn and recorded that video?

John Rustad : I honestly don’t think the Premier truly understands the reason for being here, in

terms of the Premier’s estimates.

I asked a question: what would the impact be? We’ve got lots of rhetoric and lots

of talk but zero actual answers to the question — just like all the other questions,

quite frankly, I’ve asked over our time together. I wish we had three weeks to go

over it, because I would sit here and keep dragging him through this until we actually

got some answers.

It’s a simple question I asked. What are the impacts on private properties? Let me,

perhaps, put it in different terms so that maybe the Premier can answer.

Haida law can apply to Haida title land. Haida title land now exists underneath private

land. What Haida law is available, or could be implemented, on private land? Could

that include taxation? Could that include building codes? Could that include restrictions

on lands?

[3:10 p.m.]

In addition to that, there is a case coming that the province is required to compensate

the Haida people for the impact on title land. The impact on title land means, by

definition from the Tsilhqot’in case, that the Indigenous people — in this case, the

Haida people — have the rights to benefit from title land. If those rights are taken

away, then there is compensation required.

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

And by 2026, if it’s not solved, the Haida say they’re going to go back to court to

get that compensation solved.

So now we have title being defined underneath private land. Clearly, private land

impacts the right to benefit from the land. Clearly, private land impacts the Indigenous

rights of title. So there is going to be a compensation required. Is the province

going to pay that? Are individual landowners going to pay that, or are all of us collectively,

as landowners or taxpayers in this province, going to pay it? There will be an impact.

The question is how broadly that impact will be spread. I’m trying to get to understand

what the Premier is thinking is in terms of how this will be implemented.

Furthermore, I would love to get the Premier to give us reassurances that Haida law,

which now will apply to private land, will not be implemented in any way that could

potentially impact the rights for a private property owner to utilize the land as

see fit — to be able to build on it, to be able to live on it, to be able to travel

to it, to have access to it. I’m trying to understand if those rights, as a private

property owner, will be impacted by this agreement.

This is why I’m asking this question. He can throw all the rhetoric and stuff around,

but the people of the province need to know. Because this isn’t just about Haida.

There are other areas in the province as well — pretty much the entire province, including

downtown Vancouver, etc. — that are going to be impacted.

When this deal was negotiated, private property and infrastructure should have not

been declared as title. It has created a liability. So I stand by my words, both in

the Legislature…. Because I congratulate the Haida people on achieving what should

have been achieved, and I’m happy for that. But private property and infrastructure

should not have been included.

Again, to the Premier, perhaps they can reassure the property owners that Haida law

will not apply any constraints, any taxation or any other types of impediments for

them to be able to access and enjoy their private property on Haida Gwaii.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : I tried to make sense of what the member said, justifying his appalling conduct in

the House and then out front. I couldn’t understand what he was talking about.

The agreement is explicit. “The Haida Nation consents to and will honour fee simple

interests, including those held by Haida citizens. The Haida Nation consents to fee

simple interests on Haida Gwaii continuing under British Columbia jurisdiction” —

section 4.5 of the agreement.

“For greater certainty, this agreement and the recognition of Haida Aboriginal title

do not alter or derogate” — those are words that mean changing in a bad way — “these

fee simple interests,” where fee simple interests means private property interests,

“or any rights or interests associated with them.” So no impact.

Section 4.12: “Existing local governments will continue to exercise jurisdiction under

provincial laws.”

Section 4.14 — maybe it’s a matter of concern for the member; I don’t know: “Nothing

in this agreement precludes a local government and the Haida Nation from entering

into agreements on matters of mutual interest.” Local government might work with the

Haida on coordinated service delivery or something like that. I imagine there are

lots that they could agree to cooperate on.

Section 4.15: “Nothing in this agreement” — nothing in this agreement — “affects the

ongoing provision of public services by British Columbia and local governments, including

health, education, transportation and fire and emergency services, with respect to

Haida Gwaii.”

Section 4.16: “For greater certainty, nothing in this agreement derogates” — which

means to take away from in a bad way, or remove from — “British Columbia’s interests

in provincial public highways in accordance with

section 57 of the Transportation

Act.” So no impact.

Maybe the best measurement of whether or not people are anxious about fee simple property

rights on Haida Gwaii, or what they think when they read these provisions — that the

rights continue, that the municipalities continue, provincial jurisdiction continues

— is the fact that on Haida Gwaii, 2024 assessment values, compared to 2025…. In 2025,

those home values were up 8 percent.

Typical assessed value in 2024 was $283,000. Typical assessed value in 2025 was $305,000.

So people are buying property. Property values are holding and increasing because

there is some stability, and there is some certainty. The litigation threat and concerns

that people had about how this is going to work with private property have been addressed

by the agreements. That was part of the point of the agreements.

The member continually, in his question, conflated what the Haida impact is on private

land owners with what is private land’s impact on the Haida. The Haida agreement impact

on private land owners? I’ve outlined the sections. The answer is none. It says it

in five different ways. The impact of the fact that there is private land on Haida

Gwaii in terms of title claim and overall compensation….

[3:20 p.m.]

The member mentions the Tŝilhqot’in decision. That was the decision the government

lost when the member was minister responsible for the file, a historic declaration

of title from the Supreme Court of Canada that threw the region into chaos because

the government refused to sit down and work out an agreement like this — the complete

wrong way to approach this.

We’re still dealing with issues, in partnership with the Tŝilhqot’in, that came out

of that court declaration. This is to avoid that and ensure that we’re reaching cooperative

agreement.

There’s no question there has been an impact on the Haida, in terms of impact on their

title in the area. It is a serious matter that the member recognized — at least, he

very briefly recognized it — when he gave a speech in this place, when he was the

minister responsible, saying that there was zero chance that we could win that lawsuit,

in his assessment. We’ll continue to work with the Haida on that.

The member’s continual fearmongering among private property owners on Haida Gwaii

— despite the fact that he delivered such an important and, frankly, moving speech

in the House about his time as minister and how he understood the challenges and how

we needed to move forward together — I don’t think is of any assistance in the work

we need to do in this province.

John Rustad : Once again the Premier didn’t answer the question, which was in regard to compensation

that is going to be required and who is going to have to pay that — whether that will

be private property owners that will pay that, whether that’s the province that will

pay it through general revenues, whether it’ll be taxation in some other form, whether

it will ultimately be paid by property taxes.

I get it. The Premier doesn’t want to talk about that because he doesn’t want to talk

about the impact that will happen to people in this province or property owners in

this province in terms of that compensation. So that’s fine, in terms of it.

Let’s do talk about the Tŝilhqot’in case that’s going on in the Cariboo. You know

what? It would have been nice if the government of the day had negotiated it, because

it was the NDP government that failed to negotiate it, which brought it to court.

It was the NDP’s failure in the ’90s that led to the Tŝilhqot’in case and to the damage

that’s being done. So I’m happy that you like to point fingers at the government that

caused a problem, because perhaps you should point them at yourself once in a while.

When we look at the Tŝilhqot’in case, though, in particular…. The Tŝilhqot’in case

declared title over roads, which challenged the access to the private property. Those

roads haven’t been maintained. The access to those properties has been restricted.

The value of those properties has declined. So you can, perhaps, forgive me for being

concerned about title being declared under infrastructure, given the results that

we have seen from the first title case in Canadian history. That has a pretty significant

impact to those properties, obviously, in terms of it.

I also want to wonder this in terms of licence holders, whether they are guide-outfitters,

whether it is forestry, whether they’re fishing lodges or any other type of thing.

I’m wondering about, in particular, what’s going on with Haida Gwaii but also, quite

frankly, what’s gone on in the Tŝilhqot’in case, because government has refused to

address the impacts to people who have been impacted, the licences that have been

impacted.

I’ll give you the example here. We have one case — numerous cases, quite frankly —

in the Tŝilhqot’in area where there has been the loss of property, the loss of rights,

I should say, to the people that are in that area and to their livelihoods, and they’ve

been devastated by the result. They’ve been continually asking the province for compensation.

They’ve been continually asking and pursuing the province to address their rights,

to have the province stand up to what it should have for its commitments.

When it impacts private property or when it impacts licence holders, whether it’s

through a court agreement or through a negotiated agreement, there should be compensation.

I’ll just ask the Premier whether or not he does plan, at some point, to address those

that have been impacted by the title agreement in the Tŝilhqot’in area for their loss

of livelihood and for their loss of access and values that have happened because of

the title case.

[3:25 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : There is currently litigation underway. There are four guide-outfitters with overlaps

of the declared title area. In August 2023, litigation was initiated by one of them.

The litigation is seeking compensation for alleged losses. As a result, we are restricted

in our ability to share detailed information at this time.

What I can say broadly is that government does seek to work with people who are affected

by court decisions, including title decisions, to come to resolution in ways that

protect as many interests as possible. It’s obviously a challenging thing. It was

the first title declaration in Canadian history.

Just a quick fact-check for the member: the Tŝilhqot’in decision, the Roger William

case, was concluded in 2014, which was 13 years after the members of the B.C. Liberals

came to power.

John Rustad : More and more misleading information from the Premier.

It started in the ’90s, Premier, if you really want to know about that particular

case.

The Chair : Members, just a quick warning to everybody. I know the engagement here has been interesting

for the afternoon, but let’s not suggest that each other is misleading anybody.

John Rustad : Thank you for that guidance.

However, the case did go in the starting process in the ’90s and wound its way all

the way through various levels of courts, getting up into where it is. It’s unfortunate

that those impacted are now in court.

I understand the Premier would be sensitive about wanting to comment about something

that could be a legal proceeding, given earlier statements that the Premier has made,

and I wouldn’t expect that he would make comments about that.

However, it’s unfortunate that it got to that place, because these individuals asked

for negotiations with the government for years, with no success and with no interest

in the government being able to hold up to its rights in protecting all the people

in this province from issues that may be impacting.

Perhaps let’s take a look at a different agreement. There’s an agreement that was

announced in January — which, of course, had been signed six months earlier and kept

secret from the people in British Columbia instead of making it public, which was

a shame. It would have been very interesting to have that information out and about

before an election, but I guess the government carries forward with its most secretive

status in Canadian history, according to the press, with its approach to how it does

things.

The shíshálh foundation agreement, if I have this correct, gives exclusive decision-making

authority to the nation in the territory, or certainly over parts within that agreement.

I guess the question to the Premier, with regard to that agreement, is: how will this

impact private property?

Will it impact private property in terms of that decision-making capability, both

in terms of access and use as well as the benefits to the areas surrounding those

private properties?

[3:35 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare : I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare : I would bring to your attention guests in the gallery: Langley home learners teacher

Pam Duggan and students, 15 people — seven grade 8 to 11s and adults.

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

Debate Continued

Hon. David Eby : The member asked about exclusive decision-making capacity for shíshálh. In the agreement

with shíshálh First Nation, the government agreed to explore the possibility of an

exclusive decision-making authority for shíshálh that would be defined over a specific

territory and a specific subject matter. Both sides agreed that it would not include

docks, which I know is a point of concern in the community.

An example of an exclusive decision-making opportunity is a nation having the exclusive

right to regulate their own hunters. Examples of that are the Tsawwassen 2009 agreement

and the 2011 Maa-nulth agreement, both of which were negotiated under the previous

administration. This is not a new authority for nations to be able to exercise.

It may provide the member some assurance, and perhaps others as well, that provincial

legislation would be required before such an exclusive jurisdiction right could be

affirmed. It would be introduced in the House and robustly debated.

The goal here is to work forward with shíshálh First Nations and the broader community.

It would involve extensive engagement with stakeholders in the territory — non-Indigenous

stakeholders as well — to understand the full implications before any decisions were

made.

Hopefully that’s of assistance to the member.

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

[3:45 p.m.]

Maybe just another simple question around this, and that’s dealing with the property

rights of the folks in Pender Harbour. They bought properties many years ago. Many

of those properties were sold many, many years ago with water access. That was how

that they could access those properties. Docks have been removed or are in the process

or under threat of being removed, giving significant access problems for those properties.

I’m just wondering if this is the approach that the Premier supports in terms of removing

that access to those properties, and if so, whether compensation will be provided

to those property owners for the loss of value of the access in the properties.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : We, leading up to and in the summer of 2024, made updates to the dock management

plan, working with the shíshálh and with community members, including, and I want

to recognize the Waterfront Protection Coalition for their work with us on this. It

resulted in an announcement in August of some changes to the dock management plan,

which are as follows. Hopefully, this addresses the member’s question.

The dock management plan allows existing dock and boathouse owners in salt water,

as of July 1, 2024, to keep their existing as-built structures and register them through

an online self-registration form. The province and the shíshálh will review the docks

and boathouses and transition them into a longer 20-year renewable authorization within

the next three years or sooner.

There may be requirements for upgrade — for example, ten years to update Styrofoam

to encapsulated or non-Styrofoam floatation systems, these little white Styrofoam

floaty balls you’ll see floating around in the water. That’s why that is a requirement.

Ten years to upgrade to light, transparent decking or another supported option which

minimizes impact on fish and two years to update any actively breaking apart Styrofoam,

which I think is generous, given the impact on fish.

The removal of requirement for environmental or archaeological reports for existing

docks and boathouses. There may be some very specific and limited scenarios where

that is not the case, but for the vast majority, those are not required. There was

some discussion that they would be. However, a new dock or a replacement dock would

be required to complete an environmental and archaeological report.

This was a reassurance to dock and boathouse owners that are in the water, as of July

1, 2024, that they can keep their docks in the water and continue to have access.

John Rustad : I note that we have a little bit more time left to go through. I want to move over

and talk a little bit about drugs, particularly the homeless and the problem with

addictions in terms of what’s going on in the province.

[3:55 p.m.]

Maybe just to start off with a little question. There’s a program called the HEART

and HEARTH program, which is something I think that is talked about. I’m getting a

thumbs-up from the Minister of Housing over there. I’m sure he’ll come over and give

some political diatribe for the Premier to be able to add to this conversation.

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

Is the assistance dealing with an encampment a contingency upon the province requiring

a jurisdiction to have the HEART and HEARTH program?

Sorry. Let me rephrase that, because I recognize I’ve stumbled over the words on it.

You’ve got a jurisdiction that has an encampment. They’ve got a problem. They need

to get rid of this problem, and they’re wondering if the province will step up to

the plate to help deal with this or if there is a pre-requirement for them to be enrolled

in the HEART and HEARTH program.

Hon. David Eby : The province has entered into HEART and HEARTH agreements with a number of communities

and shown some success in closing encampments. We’re fans of the program. There have

been really positive outcomes in communities like Prince George, but it’s not the

only mechanism. We also have supportive housing and other housing funding that can

be deployed to provide support to a community that’s trying to resolve an encampment.

[4:00 p.m.]

John Rustad : I guess just following up on that a little bit, where communities have shelters,

is the provincial support and contingency of those shelters contingent upon them enrolled

in the HEART and HEARTH programs?

I’m just trying to understand the difference between the community shelters and actions

that government can take versus these programs that government provides and wants

communities enrolled in.

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

John Rustad : I want to switch over to another topic. Over the years under the NDP, the Premier’s

budget has obviously increased fairly significantly. I think that this year it’s about

$18.4 million in terms of the overall budget.

Could the Premier, perhaps, start by providing me just a quick

summary of the number

of advisers that the Premier has and the number of contracts to consultants that may

be under the Premier’s office?

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

Hon. David Eby : I’m sure the member will understand our desire to be as accurate as possible in the

response. I wonder if the member wants to ask another question while the team is double-checking

the answer to his first question.

John Rustad : Thank you, I appreciate that.

So let me understand this right. In terms of the Premier’s budget, it’s up 6 percent

from last year, up 20 percent since he took power, up 100 percent since 2016, since

the NDP came into power. Hence the question about the staffing levels and, particularly,

the special advisers and that side of things.

As part of the previous question — which was, of course, asking how many people were

involved there — I’m just wondering whether the Premier can give some specifics about

some of his top paid advisers, such as Penny Ballem and any other special advisers,

in terms of the salaries that they are receiving, as well as details on their contract.

Should they be terminated, what would be the compensation for individuals like that

upon leaving office — or leaving the position, I should say?

[4:15 p.m.]

The Chair : It is, of course, the third time that we’ve heard an electronic device this afternoon.

We gave the birthday girl a break, but maybe we could have all electronic devices

silenced this afternoon. Thanks.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby : Penny Ballem has recently taken on the role of head of PHSA. As a result, her charge

to the province is $1 a year. She is paid for her administrative role.

The Premier’s office budget last year came under budget by $1.289 million. The actuals

were $16.088 million. That compares favourably, I think, to the 2008-09 Premier’s

office budget, which was $14.1 million in 2008 dollars, which would be $20 million

in 2025 dollars.

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

year of $1.073 million.

That’s the result of $325,000 for the shared recovery mandate; $486,000 for the Premier’s

office for two purposes — one is for staff to support the new Minister of State for

Local Governments and Rural Communities, and we expect and are budgeting for additional

travel requirements related to international trade; and $262,000 for intergovernmental

relations to support the local government relations function as well as the anticipated

international trade work, which is underway. We’re leaving for Asia on Saturday.

The member was asking about termination of Dr. Ballem. There would be no severance

from the contract if her position were terminated.

John Rustad : Roughly doing the math in terms of the increase, just so that the Premier can confirm

that there are no wage increases for anybody in his office…. Apparently that seemed

to be the amount.

An unrelated question, but I’ll ask at the same time just to try to get the information

through. Under the NDP government, back in 2017, they started the process, or re-initiated

their process from the 1990s, of having political staff in cabinet ministers’ constituent

offices. I would like to know and have the Premier confirm that that is still the

case, that political staff are located for cabinet ministers in their constituent

offices.

So the two questions, if I may.

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Mandeep Dhaliwal : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mandeep Dhaliwal : I would love to introduce my friend. He came from the USA. He is my childhood friend,

Mandeep Singh Bal. He is also a field hockey player, international player.

He’s my backbone, and he helped me at a lot of places. I really appreciate that.

Please welcome. Thank you.

Debate Continued

Hon. David Eby : It’s my understanding that there are some executive assistants that work for ministers

in community offices. They often are part-time but not exclusively. They provide assistance

to the minister in home communities for that minister. That is a continuation of arrangements

that have been in place since 2019.

I’ll have to ensure accuracy to provide a list to the member of salaries for members

of the Premier’s office. I’m happy to provide that to him in writing. We’re still

working on the comprehensive contract list.

John Rustad : Recognizing that we’re pretty much out of time, I’ve just got a few more things I

want to throw out there. The reason for asking particularly about salaries and benefits….

I mean, the Premier’s office has gone up by, like I say, 6 percent this year. The

Premier’s office has gone up by 100 percent since 2016, since the NDP took power.

At the same time, inflation has gone up by about 20 percent over that same period

of time, so obviously the significant increase in spending.

When you look at the severances for people like Matt Smith, close to $300,000; Amber

Hockin, which is about $200,000; Geoff Meggs, which is about $340,000; Lori Wanamaker;

Dr. Victoria Lee — obviously there were significant severances that were set up in

terms of that. It’s something that may be worth looking at in terms of all of those

numbers associated with that and whether or not that’s appropriate.

But like I say, I think we’re pretty much getting out of time. My ability to wait

longer for the Premier to answer some questions is obviously at an end, as I look

at the Government House Leader looking at me with daggers in his eyes saying: “Can’t

we end this?”

I also look at the significant expansion in GCPE, in the government communications,

and the budget that has increased on an annual basis there. The point is we are seeing

additional spending in the Premier’s office, we’re seeing additional spending in most

Premier’s offices, we’re seeing additional spending in government communications and

government advertising — some would argue potentially partisan in terms of some of

that advertising — and at the same time, we’re running a massive deficit.

[4:35 p.m.]

If you believe the Moody’s $14.3 billion deficit…. Certainly the Finance Minister

says it’s close to $11 billion deficit. Who knows what the answer is? Because the

Finance Minister has said it’s just a snapshot in time as opposed to what it’s supposed

to be, which is a projection of what the budget should be over the course of the year.

Clearly, cutting the carbon tax out has already cut $2 billion out of the budget.

GDP numbers are coming in lower.

There are many other revenue points. For example, even the property transfer taxes,

housing sales, all these types of activities are obviously trending in the wrong direction

from a budget perspective. We have seen five debt downgrades now in British Columbia.

So you look at all these things, and you wonder: how is it that spending on the political

staff and political advertising is going up when they’re asking everybody else to

tighten their belts, and they’re running massive deficits with regards to how this

government is operating?

We’ve canvassed a lot of things. You know, we need to get our economy going. I think

we pointed out numerous shortfalls in terms of the plans and structure that are in

place. We’ve seen, over the eight years under this government, nothing but barriers

being created to actually getting stuff done in this province, to the point where

the government is now needing to override its own barriers and legislation to try

to even get something done. We’ve seen virtually every capital project that this government

has touched massively over cost and behind schedule.

We have seen, obviously, a significant increase in drugs and in related issues associated

with drug use and homelessness associated with addictions. We have not seen any significant

plan for dealing with treatment and recovery in this province. Particularly when you

look at things like abstinence-based recovery, the absolute refusal of this government

to do significant investment in a proven and positive way to be able to find a path

for people — not for everybody, but clearly a path that can be significant and different

in terms of its treatment.

We’ve seen an effort by this government around housing, with its low-barrier housing.

People do need housing. There’s no question we need to be able to do that. But the

reality is these things are basically becoming drug dens; the criminal activity that

is happening around them is becoming a real problem.

Certainly, push-back with neighbourhoods all over the place across this province,

saying, “We don’t want these in our neighbourhood,” because of the reputation and

the problems that have come with it. You know, the city of Nanaimo is a prime example

of that, as well as many other cities around the province.

We as the opposition have spent a great deal of time talking about all the ER closures,

all the problems around this province that have happened around health care, the structural

problems that we have within our health care system that have only gotten worse over

eight years. They have not gotten better. Government, the Minister of Health in particular,

continually talks about: “We’re going to do more.” Well, the definition of insanity

is doing more of the same and expecting a different result. There need to be changes.

There need to be some structural differences in terms of how these processes go.

We’ve heard from this government on a wide range of other issues that have been raised

by us as the opposition around the deficiencies in the health care system: the people

that have fallen through the cracks, the individuals that are not receiving the treatments

that need to be done.

When it comes to things like involuntary care and mental health, there’s a huge review

that’s needed. The Lapu-Lapu tragedy was absolutely horrendous, but it highlighted

a significant problem which needs to be addressed, needs to be looked at.

This government is refusing to do an independent inquiry in terms of mental health

and the failures of our mental health system to try to get help. Instead, what the

Premier seems to do is hire a friend to give advice in terms of things like the Downtown

Eastside, which has significant mental health and addiction issues, expecting a report

— not even asking for any deliverables, nothing more than a phone call to the minister

on a monthly basis.

This is not the way to solve problems. There are many answers that are out there,

but we’ve got a government that is ignoring these and deciding, for whatever reasons,

to just carry head-on. The prime examples of this are certainly the legislations that

have been moving through this House, where the opposition is coming from every corner,

whether it’s environmentalists or First Nations, whether it’s community leaders or

business leaders.

The response from government has just been: “Trust us.” Well, you know, it would have

to be somewhat…. Perhaps excuse the fact that…. How can anybody trust when there has

been virtually no progress on any of these major files for eight years?

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

[4:40 p.m.]

I get that the Premier has a very different take on it. I’m sure we’re about to hear

something with a lot of rose-coloured glasses put on. That is just the reality of

politics going back and forth. But it’s the people in British Columbia that are facing

this.

We can argue points back and forth in his Legislature. But I’ve met too many families

now, too many young individuals that have left for other jurisdictions, like Alberta,

that have left here because they can’t afford to live here. They can’t afford to raise

a family here. They can’t afford housing here. They’re struggling just to put food

on the table.

So many other companies I’ve talked to have moved their operations south of the border,

saying, “We’ll have to wait for a different government. We’ll have to wait for changes,”

because there’s no confidence to be able to invest and be in British Columbia. This

is the mess that has been created in British Columbia by this government, and it’s

only been exacerbated.

Probably the real

summary of this was the one glimmer of hope in the election campaign,

the $1,000 grocery rebate, centrepiece that this Premier promised to deliver and obviously

has failed to deliver. That little bit of hope that people had to be able to help

with their day-to-day bills in this province.

We’ve got a government that is ignoring the problems they’ve got with the targets

of EV sales and how that’s going to be impacting the ability for people to buy new

vehicles in this province in the very near future. We’ve got a government that has

promised a new taxation model for TransLink to be able to solve their problems, without

providing details. Clearly, it’s looking like it’s going to be a vehicle levy, once

again impacting the costs of people on a day-to-day basis in terms of being able to

survive and just to be able to prosper in this province.

You have many other of these sort of things that are going on, and I’m sorry for rattling

on in this, but it is frustrating when we’re not getting answers out of this government,

certainly in question period. Through the estimates process, many ministers have refused

to be able to provide any kinds of detailed answers to questions that should have

been straightforward, especially when it comes to the budget and managing the finances

in this province.

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

my remarks.

Hon. David Eby : The member was asking about expenditure in the Premier’s office and contracts. There

are two current contracts in the Premier’s office. One is Vanessa Richards, who is

providing training to staff. There are two contracts. The contract has been paused,

but the amount paid has been $38,300. There is a second contract with Convergence

Consulting. The spend has been $36,278.25.

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

of hand.

Just for perspective, Nova Scotia’s Premier’s office spends $2.5 million more. They

have 20 percent of our population. Alberta’s Premier’s office spends $49 million.

We spend $18 million. Nova Scotia spends $21 million. Ontario spends $61 million.

We compare favourably with other provinces, perhaps.

There are some benefits that come from being able to be out and advocating for your

province in different ways, which is why there was a slight increase in our Premier’s

office budget for trade missions and advocating for the province internationally,

especially in a sensitive time.

The province faces a grave economic threat. It’s being realized in the softwood lumber

sector right now, but it’s certainly not limited to that. Our seafood sector has been

hit by tariffs from China as well. There is a global reordering of trade happening,

led by the President of the United States, who has vowed to annex Canada and to attack

our economy and impoverish us, vowing that Americans don’t need what we have, which

is patently untrue.

While our government has been out defending B.C., fighting for British Columbians

and Canadians, the opposition has had different ideas, members on their side advocating

that western Canada become a protectorate of the U.S., opposing our action of taking

red states’ liquor off the shelves, saying we should comply with Trump and today the

Leader of the Opposition saying I need to be more gentle with Donald Trump.

[4:45 p.m.]

Beyond their lacklustre response to the economic threat facing us and their opposition

to bills that will build our province — schools, hospitals, roads that are desperately

needed — fast-track the billions of dollars in economic projects that have actual

proponents that are keen to work with us and the federal government to employ people

and build prosperity not just for British Columbians but for the whole country….

While we’re doing that work, what do we see the opposition doing? They’re hosting

a homophobic anti-choice group at the Legislature. Their leader is travelling to Ottawa

to suggest that our clean energy initiative, resulting in $6 billion in private sector

investment in the province, is unicorn farts. Calling for a pay raise for politicians,

a $90,000 pay raise, and defending his own MLAs for collecting two taxpayer salaries

while they are working here.

Never mind that. He says: “Well, maybe if the Conservatives had a chance to put in

their plan, life would be better for British Columbians.”

Well, I am skeptical about how increasing class sizes in fast-growing communities

makes life better for students in school. How banning books about climate change improves

outcomes for our kids. Telling police not to enforce federal gun laws — how is that

going to improve public safety? That’s something the member actually campaigned on

in the last election. Astonishing.

His advocacy against our housing policies that would allow rental homes to be converted

back into Airbnbs, allow speculators to empty people out of their homes, leave homes

vacant as an investment — how would that bring down the cost of housing? To cap it

off, his advocacy for an Alberta-style car insurance system, while Albertans see skyrocketing

car insurance rates…. British Columbians have had six years of flat ICBC rates and

yet another rebate this year.

These are the bright ideas we’re hearing from the Leader of the Opposition and his

suggestions for our province — obviously, a very different vision.

My vision, our vision as a government, is that B.C. will be the economic engine of

the new Canada that is emerging from this global reordering that’s happening. We have

an obligation to British Columbians and to all Canadians to seize the opportunity

that’s in front of us, not just to do it for good-paying jobs for British Columbians

but also for all Canadians. Our ports face two-thirds of the world’s population. We

are the key gateway to diversifying trade.

The member was quite dismissive of the hard work of British Columbians in challenging

times. I know it hasn’t been easy for people, but I’m proud of the fact that since

2017, we have some of the highest GDP growth in the country, second only to PEI. I

don’t know what happened in PEI, but we had 20 percent GDP growth. So far this year,

we have the second-highest increase in private sector employment in the entire country

in these very challenging times.

In 2022 and ’23, we attracted a record-setting $117 billion in capital investment,

73 percent more than when we took office in 2017. We see even more amazing opportunity

for British Columbians, which is why we passed the legislation we passed.

The member decried the state of health. Well, I can tell the member we’re concerned

too. That’s why we’ve taken action. We’ve hired 1,000 family doctors in the past two

years. We’ve cut wait times for U.S. nurses to come up to Canada and work here, and

demand to come and work in British Columbia has doubled as a result. The new medical

school opens next year.

Rents are down — housing, the member said — for the tenth month in a row. They’re

still too high. We’ve got more work to do. But we are doing that work, and we’re seeing

results.

Child care fees when we took government were $47 a day, down to $19 a day; 226 school

projects and 30 hospital projects built or underway since 2017. What we inherited

was a massive infrastructure debt. In Fort St. James, in the member’s own community,

the hospital was a double-wide trailer. We’ve replaced it. A brand-new hospital just

opened in Fort St. James.

The member is concerned about crime. Well, so are we. That’s why we’ve taken action.

Crime is down 7 percent in Vancouver, down by double digits in Kamloops, Kelowna and

many other communities. What we’re doing is working. We’ve got to keep doing it and

do more of it.

The work of all of us in this place is important. I am proud of our team. I am proud

of that team that includes all of these amazing MLAs here but also the incredible

staff who support us on the public service side, who have worked and pivoted on a

dime in a remarkable time to assist us in responding to the threat from the President

to get our province oriented, to seize the opportunity that these threats have created

to diversify our markets and to lead Canada as the country’s economic engine.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’m excited about that. I’m very grateful to the staff for their support of us, and

particularly to the staff around me who assisted me through this estimates process.

I know that all my colleagues feel the same way. I know we’re all keen to go home

to our families, but the work will continue for all of us, I’m sure, as we advocate

for British Columbians and for this amazing province we call home, in this incredible

country of Canada, which we’re all so proud to be a part of.

On this side of the House, we’re committed to building. We’re committed to growing

and increasing prosperity, defending our sovereignty and standing up for the true

north, strong and free. That’s what we’re all about, and that’s what we’re committed

to.

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

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

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

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

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:51 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:51 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore : Committee of Supply,

Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates

of the Office of the Premier and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

Supply.

Supply Motions

Reports of Resolutions from

Committee of Supply

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on March 31, April 1,

2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 29, 30, May 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 27, 28 and 29 be now received,

taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

Funds Granted for Public Service

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,

the sum of 82 billion, 146 million, 902 thousand dollars towards defraying the charges

and expenses of the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2026. This sum includes the sum that was authorized to be paid under

section 1

of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2025 .]

Motion approved.

Funds Granted for Capital Expenditures,

Loans, Investments and Other

Financing Requirements

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,

the sum of 1 billion, 560 million, 352 thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements

for capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the

Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026. This sum includes the sum that

was authorized to be paid under

section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2025 .]

Motion approved.

[4:55 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

Hon. Brenda Bailey presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a

bill intituled Supply Act, 2025–2026.

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

This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government

programs for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read

and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply after consideration

of the main estimates.

In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated

revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements

of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.

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

this day.

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

Motion approved.

The Speaker : Hon. Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the

bill is being circulated and transmitted electronically to members participating remotely.

I remind members that as the final supply bill is founded on resolutions passed in

the Committee of Supply and adopted upon a motion by this House, it is considered

an administrative act. Accordingly, in keeping with the practice of this House, this

bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Apart from the brief introductory remarks already made by the Minister of Finance,

pursuant to practice recommendation 5, the bill is not subject to further debate.

[5:00 p.m.]

Members, while we are waiting for the bill to be delivered electronically to members

online, the Government House Leader wants to make an announcement.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that we are all anxious to leave, but there is one

thing that the very dedicated staff who we have all praised here today are very anxious

that each and every one of us does. That is that when we leave here, we empty and

clean our desks. They don’t have to do that; we do.

Just reminding everybody: when we leave, clean your desks so they don’t have to.

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

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act, 2025–2026

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

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

Motion approved.

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