First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, April 7, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 35

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

Introductions by Members

Personal Statements

Message of Appreciation

Darlene Rotchford

Introductions by Members

Statements

Prince George Cougars Hockey Team

Kiel Giddens

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

Tourism Week and Support for Tourism Industry

Nina Krieger

LNG Canada Project in Kitimat

Claire Rattée

Green Shirt Day and Importance of Organ Donation

Jessie Sunner

Set Free Recovery Treatment Centre

Rosalyn Bird

Stand Up for Mental Health Program

Janet Routledge

Traffic Incident and Recognition of Victoria Emergency Services

Macklin McCall

Oral Questions

Forest Industry Trade Issues and Proposal for Carbon Tax on U.S. Thermal Coal

John Rustad

Hon. David Eby

Forest Industry Trade Issues and Support for Forest Workers

John Rustad

Hon. David Eby

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Ward Stamer

Forest Industry Conditions and Council of Forest Industries Recommendations

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Power for LNG Facilities and LNG Development Policies

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Adrian Dix

Forest Industry Conditions and Support for Forest Workers

Peter Milobar

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Kiel Giddens

Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

Ian Paton

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain Project

Brent Chapman

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Pattullo Bridge Project

Trevor Halford

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Question of Privilege

Peter Milobar

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. Niki Sharma

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Brennan Day

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Brennan Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Scott McInnis

Hon. Josie Osborne

Gavin Dew

Brennan Day

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care (continued)

Lynne Block

Hon. Lisa Beare

Reann Gasper

Scott McInnis

Steve Kooner

Hon Chan

Gavin Dew

Donegal Wilson

Ward Stamer

David Williams

Misty Van Popta

Korky Neufeld

Estimates: Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

Hon. Anne Kang

Korky Neufeld

Monday, April 7, 2025

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Well, it’s Tourism Week in British Columbia — indeed, across Canada — and I’m just

so excited to welcome some leaders of the 127,000-strong workforce that provides tourism

opportunities in our province.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Anthony Everett, CEO of Tourism Vancouver

Island; Brian Cant, vice-president with Tourism Vancouver Island; Paul Hawes with

the B.C. Hotel Association; Kathy MacRae, co-chair of the Adventure Tourism Coalition.

And a special welcome. Members may have heard that up on the north Island, a very

special tourism location…. I’d urge you to visit it when you get a chance, Telegraph

Cove. There had been a fire over New Year’s, very much damaging some of the businesses

and incredible attractions there.

They fought back. They stood up. They’re building those businesses back, and they

want you to all know they’re open for business, and they hope you come visit them

up in Telegraph Cove as well.

Please welcome Madison Tremblay with the Telegraph Cove Resort.

Happy Tourism Week. Invite your friends.

[1:35 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld : I’d like my wife to stand up so I can embarrass her. We have the thrill of enjoying

our two grandchildren: our grandson, Barrett, who’s five; and granddaughter, Everly,

who’s two.

Thank you for raising four great kids. I was going to say helping me raise, but let’s

be truthful — for raising our four children. Thanks for standing by me through all

the twists and turns, highs and lows of life. It’s made our bond stronger. My greatest

gift is your love for me.

Let’s welcome her to House, please.

Susie Chant : Joining us today in the members’ gallery is Her Excellency Dato’ Dr. Shazelina Zainul

Abidin, and accompanying her is the consul general of Malaysia in Vancouver, Mr. Mohd

Afandi bin Abu Bakar. This is Dr. Shazelina’s first official visit to Victoria, and

I had the pleasure of having lunch with Her Excellency and the consul general, hosted

by you, Mr. Speaker.

I also had the honour of attending Open House, Malaysia Style yesterday in Vancouver,

which was a wonderful event. They will be meeting with some of my colleagues and the

Premier later today.

Would this House please make our guests feel most welcome.

Personal Statements

Message of Appreciation

Darlene Rotchford : I just want to take a moment to thank everyone in the House for welcoming me back

and for all the kind words that I received via email, messages from not just the people

in this House but across British Columbia.

Thank you.

Introductions by Members

Gavin Dew : The prospect of crime and violence leaves communities in fear for the safety of themselves

and their families. That’s where North Cowichan Couns. Tek Manhas, Mike Caljouw and

Bruce Findlay come in, as well as Travis Berthiaume, the owner of Duncan’s Dairy Queen.

These four are founders of Clean Up V9L, a founding member of the Save Our Streets

coalition, which seeks to support government in implementing solutions to ensure that

our communities and business districts remain safe places to live, work and play.

Would everyone please make them feel very welcome.

Jessie Sunner : Today I have the honour of welcoming my husband, Darcy, into this House for the first

time, as well as our family who’s travelled all the way from Duncan to be here: Darshin;

Jackie; Alanna; and the most special guest, Rosie, who went on a wonderful tour of

the House today and wore her special princess dress for the occasion.

If you will all join me in please making them feel welcome.

Statements

Prince George Cougars Hockey Team

Kiel Giddens : Mr. Speaker, I feel it’s my duty to keep you informed of WHL playoff action in the

city of Prince George. Tonight the Prince George Cougars will be in game 7 against

the Portland Winterhawks.

I ask the House to please join me in cheering on our Prince George Cougars tonight.

Introductions by Members

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : I would also like to welcome my former colleagues, North Cowichan Couns. Caljouw,

Findlay and Manhas.

Will the House make them feel welcome.

It’s really nice to see you today.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I have got a couple of sets of introductions.

Firstly, in the gallery today we have Shawn Pettipas, the director of corporate purpose

and mobility marketing at BCAA; as well as Sam Green, the marketing and content specialist

at BCAA; alongside Alex MacDonald.

They are here to raise awareness for their Fireweed Pin campaign. Many members of

the House are wearing them. It’s a campaign that raises funds for resilient minds,

a CMHA program that offers mental health supports to fire service workers and the

United Way’s wildfire recovery fund. It’s a beautiful pin that was designed by Charlene

Johnny, a Quw’utsun Tribes artist.

I hope the members of this House will join me in making them feel very welcome today.

They’re just right up there.

I don’t see them up here, but they’re somewhere, maybe behind me. I had lunch with

the Victoria Bengali community today. It was such an honour, just a couple of years

ago, to get an invitation to one of their events, and I kept coming back. I know that

some of my colleagues, like the MLA for Victoria–Swan Lake, were able to join in the

Mother Language Day event just a few weeks ago.

[1:40 p.m.]

I hope you’ll join me…. For many of them, this is their first time watching question

period, first time in the House. There they are.

We have Shaibal Datta, Tapati Datta, Shobnam Sultana, Arup Chakraborty, Arjun Banik,

Anirban Mandal and Rajib Kumar Das.

Will the House please join me in making this incredible group very welcome.

Jessie Sunner : I also have a very special birthday wish to give to my younger brother, Amirdeep,

who turned 30 today.

I’m just wishing you all the best. Welcome to your 30s. I hope this is good enough

of a birthday present for you.

Sheldon Clare : I’d like to advise the House of the birthday of the member for Abbotsford-Mission

and wish her all the very best for her birthday.

If you want to join me in singing “Happy Birthday,” I’d be up for it.

Some Hon. Members :

“Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday, member for Abbotsford-Mission,

Happy birthday to you.”

Members’ Statements

Tourism Week and

Support for Tourism Industry

Nina Krieger : Every corner of this province offers something unforgettable, whether strolling our

City of Gardens here in Victoria, storm-watching on the west coast of Vancouver Island,

seeking the thrill of observing wildlife on the Cariboo-Chilcotin coast or relaxing

in a mountain chalet in the Kootenays; whether tasting award-winning wines in the

Okanagan and Cowichan valleys, cheering on athletes at the Invictus Games and FIFA

World Cup or stargazing and learning about Indigenous knowledge based on observations

of the night sky.

With breathtaking landscapes, vibrant cities and rich cultures, British Columbia truly

has something for everyone. Today marks the beginning of Tourism Week here in B.C.

and a time to celebrate the rich offerings of our province and to thank the people

and businesses that drive our tourism industry with their energy, passion and exceptional

hospitality. Their hard work strengthens our communities and makes B.C. a world-class

destination.

Tourism is an economic powerhouse with nearly 17,000 businesses and 126,000 people

employed. It contributes $22.1 billion in annual revenue and $9.7 billion to our GDP.

Tourism is one of our largest small business generators, and Indigenous tourism is

one of the fastest-growing parts of the sector.

Over the past four years, our government has invested a record $500 million to ensure

our tourism industry remains strong and resilient. Destination B.C. markets our province

globally, sharing our “Super, natural British Columbia” brand with visitors from around

the world. And we continue to welcome everyone to visit.

This week, as always, let’s champion tourism, a great source of pride for our province,

and recognize the incredible people who make B.C. such a welcoming and inspiring place

to visit.

LNG Canada Project in Kitimat

Claire Rattée : I rise today filled with pride to mark a historic milestone for my riding of Skeena

and for our province. Last week the very first LNG carrier safely reached Kitimat.

This marks a critical step forward in the commissioning process, as the LNG on board

will be used for equipment testing and system cool-down, bringing us one step closer

to first exports from LNG Canada.

This isn’t just a technical milestone; it’s the result of more than a decade of vision,

persistence and collaboration.

One of the proudest moments of my life was on my birthday, October 1, 2018, when the

final investment decision for phase 1 of LNG Canada was announced. After four years

of working on Kitimat council to help this project come to life, it was not only the

best present I could have asked for but also a deeply rewarding way to close out my

time in local government before entering federal politics.

[1:45 p.m.]

I want to take a moment to recognize some of my colleagues who deserve credit for

bringing this vision to life: my predecessor, Ellis Ross; Chief Councillor Crystal

Smith; Mayor Phil Germuth; and both the Haisla Nation Council and district of Kitimat

council, past and present. Their continued vision, strength, advocacy and commitment

to the responsible development of our region made this milestone possible.

The benefits of this project for Skeena cannot be overstated. It has brought jobs

to our region, created training and apprenticeship opportunities, generated spinoff

benefits for local businesses and provided a new source of revenue for municipalities

and First Nations alike. Just as importantly, it has laid a collaborative framework

that others can now follow, such as Cedar LNG, the first Indigenous majority–owned

LNG export facility in Canada.

In terms of environmental standards, marine safety protocols and partnership models,

LNG Canada has paved the way for more projects to move forward with confidence, credibility

and community support.

This project is not only about energy; it is about economic reconciliation, responsible

development and long-term prosperity. It’s about Canada playing a role on the global

stage in helping reduce emissions by displacing coal with cleaner, lower-emission

natural gas.

I am so incredibly proud of what this means for our people and our future. We are

not just witnessing history; we are building it.

Green Shirt Day and

Importance of Organ Donation

Jessie Sunner : I rise today to recognize Green Shirt Day, which highlights the incredible impact

that organ and tissue donors have across Canada. This year marks the sixth anniversary

of the first Green Shirt Day.

Our government and B.C. Transplant continue to encourage people to make the important

choice to improve access to life-saving transplants by registering their decision

on organ donation. One organ donor has the potential to save up to eight lives.

In 2018, Logan Boulet was among the 16 people who tragically lost their lives in a

bus crash. Just five weeks before that fateful day, Logan had registered to be an

organ donor. Thanks to his decision, six people received life-saving transplants.

His selfless act became the catalyst for the first Green Shirt Day, a movement that

continues to inspire Canadians across the country to embrace organ donation.

In B.C. in 2024, 481 people received a transplant from 90 living and 118 deceased

donors. There are currently more than 6,400 British Columbians that are alive today

because of the selfless gift of life from donors across the province.

There is more work to do. Although 90 percent of British Columbians support organ

donation, only about one-third have registered their decision on organ donation. I

encourage everyone to take two minutes, the time that it takes to listen to this speech,

to register as an organ donor. The website is easy to remember: registeryourdecision.ca.

I invite all members to reflect on the importance of this day and the importance of

words we use in this House to centre the experience of donors and their families.

On behalf of our government and B.C. Transplant, I want to thank all the amazing people

that have chosen to give the most amazing gift, the gift of life.

Set Free Recovery Treatment Centre

Rosalyn Bird : Today I’m pleased to talk about a new and much-needed recovery house that is now

operating in Prince George. Set Free Recovery offers a Christian faith– and abstinence-based

treatment model.

Twenty years ago while living in the Lower Mainland, Richard and Angie, the operators,

saw a need. In response, they created and founded a Christian charitable ministry

in the Fraser Valley. The ministry grew from the basement of their home to serving

and helping men in recovery at ten sites throughout the Fraser Valley. They designed

a program based on their own journeys of recovery.

It was and remains grounded in personal experience and the belief that the most effective

way to overcome addiction is to build faith through hope and to completely refrain

from using mind-altering substances. The program offered wraparound treatment, including

aftercare upon successful completion of the four phases: intake stabilization, reintegration,

developing your recovery and continuing your recovery — all 30-day minimums.

It was an in-depth, self-discovery and Christ-centred program that was very structured,

goal- and accountability-focused. It included topics like recovery challenges, relapse

prevention, introduction to boundaries, effective communication and the development

of personal, emotional and life skills. Aftercare offered a safe, drug-free environment

the men could call their home, further developing their recovery skills while working

or going to school.

After 20 years, Richard and Angie stepped down from that ministry to fulfil another

vision, bringing recovery to Prince George, where Richard’s own addiction started

39 years ago. Set Free Recovery is the first Christian recovery ministry in the North.

Within six months of returning to Prince George, they opened their first site.

[1:50 p.m.]

They want to expand and are looking for rental opportunities both in and out of town

to increase the number of program spaces available. I would like to extend a heartfelt

thanks to Richard and Angie for their commitment to offer B.C. residents another recovery

option.

I wish them much continued success and welcome them to Prince George.

Stand Up for Mental Health Program

Janet Routledge : Mental health and addiction is no laughing matter, but for some, laughter is a lifeline.

Last year I attended a stand-up comedy show performed by people recovering from mental

health and addiction issues, and they were very funny. They were performing as participants

in a program called Stand Up for Mental Health.

While Stand Up for Mental Health is not intended as therapy, the program has helped

hundreds of people overcome long-standing depression and phobias. It has helped them

overcome the stigma associated with addiction and build their self-confidence. In

the words of Stand Up for Mental Health founder David Granirer: “There is something

incredibly healing for the comics to tell a roomful of people exactly who they are

and have the audience laugh and cheer.”

David, who is himself a stand-up comic and suffers from a bipolar disorder, founded

Stand Up for Mental Health in 2004. He got the idea by watching students in his Langara

comedy clinic class. While the class had nothing to do with mental health, he observed

students having life-changing experiences.

The initial Stand Up for Mental Health program is six months long. Comics do two shows,

a debut and a grad show. After completing the initial program, comics can enter the

Stand Up for Mental Health alumni program to continue to perform.

David and the program have been widely recognized. He has received the Meritorious

Service medal from the Governor General. He has trained more than 700 mental health

comics, who have performed for the military, corporations, unions, colleges and universities,

even the U.S. Secret Service.

In closing, and also in David Granirer’s own words: “People with mental health issues

are always being told what they can’t do. In Stand Up for Mental Health, the public

sees what they can do.”

Traffic Incident and Recognition

of Victoria Emergency Services

Macklin McCall : I rise today to share a personal experience and express my deepest appreciation for

the exceptional work of the emergency services in Victoria.

This past Friday, as the sun was shining and spring had arrived in full force, I found

myself walking through the bustling streets of downtown Victoria. People were out

enjoying the beautiful day — cycling, walking, driving — and the downtown core was

vibrant with activity.

However, in an instant, my attention was drawn to a tragic event. A cyclist was struck

by a pickup truck right in front of me. Within moments, a crowd gathered to assist,

but it was the immediate response of our emergency services that truly stood out.

I immediately called 911, and I must say, the professionalism I encountered from both

the Victoria police department dispatcher and the B.C. Ambulance Service dispatcher

was remarkable. They were not only courteous and respectful, but they demonstrated

genuine care for the cyclist’s well-being. They guided me on the best course of action

and ensured that my safety, as well as that of the cyclist, was prioritized.

Within mere minutes, despite the heavy Friday traffic, the fire department, Victoria

police and BCAS arrived on the scene. The response was swift, thorough and professional.

The firefighters were quick to stabilize the situation. BCAS provided immediate medical

care, and Victoria police launched their investigation with professionalism and efficiency.

As a former police officer with 20 years of experience, I can say with confidence

that the response time, the coordination of services and the professionalism displayed

by these dedicated men and women were exceptional. It is clear to me that Victoria’s

emergency services are second to none. This kind of quick and coordinated response

is a testament to the high-quality service provided by our first responders.

It is important that we as a province recognize and appreciate the hard work, dedication

and skill of our police officers, paramedics, firefighters and dispatchers who go

above and beyond every single day to protect our communities.

On behalf of all British Columbians, I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to the Victoria

emergency services and to all those who serve across our province.

Your commitment to keeping us safe and your professionalism in times of crisis are

deeply appreciated, and thank you for your service.

[1:55 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Forest Industry Trade Issues

and Proposal for Carbon Tax on

U.S. Thermal Coal

John Rustad : B.C.’s forest sector is in crisis. Mill closures and job losses have been the hallmark

of this NDP government for eight years.

Last year I warned about the increase in the duties, and here we are now, facing the

34 percent increase that we knew about a year ago. The NDP — what have they done?

Well, absolutely nothing in eight years. You can’t solve a problem with the same level

of thinking that created it.

We put forward a serious proposal: hit U.S. coal shipments with a carbon tax until

a softwood lumber agreement is reached, a real tool to help give B.C. leverage and

be able to support our forestry workers.

A simple question to the Premier. Will the Premier please tell the people of B.C.

what his new Liberal puppet master, Mark Carney, has told him to say on this file?

Hon. David Eby : Obviously, the President’s attack on our forest sector, one that he has been committing

to deliver since he was elected…. He says he doesn’t need our wood, and we all know

that’s not true.

One in ten sticks of lumber in the U.S. comes from B.C., $7 billion last year alone.

He says that he is going to do a national security investigation of our timber industry,

which is obviously ludicrous and absurd. We’ll stand with the forest industry.

I was up there in Prince George on Friday with COFI, the Council of Forest Industries,

hearing firsthand from the forest sector about their recommendations about responding

to this.

Ministry staff are currently working on a proposal to defer stumpage revenue for the

forest sector, to give them some relief. We expanded the vehicles that can be used

to move pulp more economically. We are using resources internally to advocate for

B.C. wood products internationally, diversify markets.

We’ve got more to do. I thank the member for his support for the sector. I’ll leave

it at that.

The Speaker : Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

Forest Industry Trade Issues

and Support for Forest Workers

John Rustad : I heard the Premier’s speech up in Prince George, and unfortunately, it was awfully

short on any kind of details. The reality is that it’s been eight years, and the NDP

have delivered nothing but federal talking points and nothing but doing damage to

B.C.’s critical forest industry.

Mills are shutting down, workers are being laid off, and companies are shifting their

operations to the U.S. At the Council of Forest Industries, I heard many other stories

around that. For example, the Vancouver-founded and Delta-based furniture manufacturing

Prepac is shuttering its operations after 45 years and moving to the U.S.A.

Other companies that I spoke with up at COFI talked about the fact that they’ve been

operating for decades in British Columbia, and now all of their workers are south

of the border. They’re still leaving their company here, but they aren’t having any

hope whatsoever of being able to operate in British Columbia.

It’s been eight years of NDP failure on the forestry file. And like I say, you can’t

solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it.

How can the forest workers of B.C. truly believe that this NDP government can do anything

but deliver more decline and job losses?

Hon. David Eby : Our industry is under direct attack right now by the President of the United States,

by Donald Trump.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Member, he has just barely started.

Take your time.

Hon. David Eby : This is a….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, take it easy.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. David Eby : This is a sector that has faced huge challenges — the pine beetle, changing….

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby : This is an industry that lost more than 10,000 jobs under the B.C. Liberals, so I

won’t take any advice from the member that’s heckling.

Pine beetle….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, are you interested in listening to the answer or not?

Hon. David Eby : Is the member going to stand up and ask a question?

This is a serious issue: pine beetle, wildfire, right now very low timber prices and

a President committed to destroying the industry. Now is the time for all members

of this place to stand together against President Trump and his attacks not just on

our softwood industry but Ontario’s….

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby : The bleachers.

[2:00 p.m.]

Not just stand up for our softwood industry, but for Ontario’s auto industry, for

the manufacturing industries of all of our provinces that are under attack right now.

What do we see from the Conservatives? We see the MLA for Shuswap tweet out a graphic

advocating western separatism and that our province should become a protectorate of

the United States. These are the ideas that are coming from the Conservatives to respond

to these attacks from the President. They can’t even stand together to condemn the

President’s actions.

I would invite a motion where we all stand together to condemn the President, because

we did that, and they didn’t vote for it.

The Speaker : Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

John Rustad : Well, very simply, the Premier wants to blame Donald Trump. But the reality is these

additional doubling of the duties were planned last year before Trump was in office

and nothing from this government. Absolutely nothing.

He wants to blame Trump for the job losses. The reality is he lost close to 20,000

jobs under the NDP, even though they promised they wouldn’t be closing mills. How

can this be seen as anything but a complete failure by this government? They talk

about wanting value-added, but the reality is you can’t add value when there are no

jobs and there is no thing.

When will this government actually take our forest sector seriously and become a champion

for what is a cornerstone industry for this province?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : First of all, on this side of the House, we are not going to take a lecture from

a former Minister of Forests who was part of a government that saw 45,000 jobs lost

in our forest sector.

I was in West Kelowna a couple of weeks ago, and I met a guy named Bill. He’s been

working at the Gorman Brothers Mill for 48 years.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I did get a picture with him, member across the way, because that guy matters to

me.

When we talk about tariffs, these are not decimal points. These are lives that are

being impacted. Bill has been working his butt off for 48 years. For 48 years, he’s

been supporting his family. He’s been supporting the people of West Kelowna. Donald

Trump is attacking his livelihood.

That’s why on this side of the House, we are going to step up, as we have been. We

are not going to let Donald Trump attack our forest sector.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It’s like every time we mention Donald Trump these guys freak out, as if they’re

defending him. What is going on?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Let me be crystal-clear. We are not going to let Donald Trump attack our forest sector.

We are not going to let Americans take paycheques away from our forestry workers.

On this side of the House, we’re going to stand up for our forest sector like we’ve

done ever since we formed government.

Ward Stamer : The NDP knew that these softwood lumber duties were scheduled to increase long before

the tariffs were a threat, and that wasn’t a surprise.

It’s inexcusable that they’ve done nothing to shield B.C. businesses with that impact.

While this government talks about economic strategy, B.C. businesses are overwhelmed

by increased costs, red tape and trade barriers.

Why did this Premier take a four-month holiday instead of working on a plan to protect

B.C. workers?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Maybe the kids in the basement need a raise, because that was a terrible question.

Holy smokes.

Let’s just be very crystal-clear. We’re going to stand up for the forest sector on

this side of the House. It’s why the Premier met with the Prime Minister today and

made it very clear that the federal government has to step up. When we were talking

about the auto sector in Ontario, the federal government brings dollars to the table.

We need to ensure that those same dollars are being brought to British Columbia and

supporting our forest sector.

It’s why on my first day, member across the way, I sent a letter to my federal counterparts

asking them to use every tool in their toolbox to stand up for our forest sector,

including developing a loan guarantee program. This is not something that was thought

of just by our government. This was something we’ve been working with the industry

on, with the B.C. Lumber Trade Council. It’s something I reiterated to my federal

counterpart last night in conversation with him and something the Premier has raised

as well.

[2:05 p.m.]

Trade diversification — I couldn’t agree more. Why did the federal government cut

funding for trade diversification two years ago to Crown agencies like FII? On this

side of the House, we are working hard to ensure that we are expanding markets. It’s

why we’ve got more boots on the ground, having conversations in other parts of the

world. That’s why we’re working with industry to ensure that we can increase value-added

opportunities and get more B.C.-made wood products to places like Japan, to Korea,

to India…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : … and Europe. On this side of the House, we’re going to continue doing this important

work.

The Speaker : Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

Forest Industry Conditions

and Council of Forest Industries

Recommendations

Ward Stamer : Yes, we can walk the walk or talk the talk, but when the minister talks about being

involved in the industry…. I’m speaking from experience, not just from a book, okay?

I don’t necessarily need to go on a listening-and-learning tour, because I heard,

clear and decisive, last week at COFI, what is necessary for this industry. COFI released

a competitive sustainability release last week that said our harvest levels have declined

annually by 6½ percent over the last ten years. Our forest sector has also had the

sharpest GDP drop amongst all the regions studied.

We know the minister won’t listen to us, but will he at least listen to COFI and implement

all of their strategic action plans that they outlined in their April 2025 report?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : When I became the Minister of Forests, I recognized that I didn’t come from the forests

sector. I didn’t work in this industry for many decades, like the member across the

way. So on the day that he was appointed the critic, I sent him a letter.

I sent him a letter saying that I’d love to meet with him, and I’d love to put partisanship

aside. This sector faces big challenges, and I wanted to use the skills that he’s

gained in his time as a local mayor and in his time working in the forest sector to

be able to work together.

We finally did have a meeting a few months later, when he made time for me, and he

didn’t bring any solutions to the table.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : So you bet, Mr. Speaker, I will keep listening and learning, because I want to ensure

that when we are making decisions….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Minister.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I want to ensure that when we are making decisions on this side of the House, they’re

founded on the issues that matter to people — people like Bill and people like Jack

Gardner, who opened up a new mill in Salmon Arm, taking over the Teal-Jones facility

just a couple of weeks ago. Those are the people that I’ve met on the ground and that

are influencing not just me but the entire forest service.

I will say once again: if the member has any ideas, I welcome them. I’m sure we’re

going to get a chance to be able to dive through those in estimates; but if he’s got

time and if he’s got ideas, I’d love to hear them.

Power for LNG Facilities and

LNG Development Policies

Jeremy Valeriote : This government has weakened a policy that required new LNG export plants to meet

net-zero emissions by 2030. Last month the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions

quietly wrote to the environmental assessment office, stating that LNG projects are

not required to be net zero by 2030, but net-zero-ready by 2030.

If LNG facilities can’t connect to the electricity grid by 2030, they don’t have to

worry about the emissions required to liquefy methane for shipping, by, you guessed

it, burning methane in vast quantities. Massive provincial spending to expand B.C.’s

power supply should be for the benefit of all British Columbians, not the fracked

methane–LNG export industry.

My question is for the Minister of Energy. It seems to be B.C. Hydro’s responsibility

to supply electricity to industrial export projects. Who will pay for these connections,

and how will it impact taxpayers and electricity ratepayers?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The letter is a clarification of current policy with respect to new LNG facilities.

The LNG facilities must still achieve net-zero emissions by 2030, but if grid electricity

is not reasonably available by that date, proponents will not be penalized for factors

beyond their control. That seems reasonable to me.

The policy on new LNG projects remains the same, because such a policy is good for

the economy, good for the climate, and the right approach to economic development

in B.C.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : This policy change represents a concerning shift in the B.C. government’s policies

that prioritize LNG development at the expense of B.C.’s climate commitments.

[2:10 p.m.]

For a project like Ksi Lisims LNG, liquefying using fossil gas instead of electricity

means another 1.8 million tonnes of CO 2 emissions per year, equivalent to more than half a million cars on the road. Now

the facility’s net-zero-ready plan could simply ignore those emissions. There’s no

deadline required for when LNG would actually need to reach net zero. In addition

to other breaks, emissions pricing gifts a two-year start-up exemption for emissions

when gas flaring is at its maximum.

My question for the minister: how much more relaxation of climate policies for the

LNG export industry should British Columbians expect and prepare for?

Hon. Adrian Dix : LNG facilities must provide a credible net-zero plan and reduce all non-electricity

emissions. It’s that straightforward. The policy was that before the letter. The policy

is that now. The clarification only applies if a facility cannot reasonably get grid

electricity by 2030, and then the policy does apply.

We are, as the member knows, across B.C., engaging in one of the most ambitious clean

energy, renewable energy programs in the history of Canada. We are going to continue

to pursue those goals.

That’s good for our overall economy. The price of renewable electricity is going down.

We think investing now — contrary to what other jurisdictions may be doing, especially

those south of the border — is the right thing for our economy and the right thing

for B.C.

Forest Industry Conditions

and Support for Forest Workers

Peter Milobar : It’s been quite the day of evasion of forestry questions by this government. We asked

a very direct question about using a carbon tax levy on dirty American coal coming

through our ports to try to leverage a softwood deal. The Premier completely ignored

it. The minister decided to use the NDP gem of “every tool in the toolbox.” I thought

that would have been banished from NDP speaking notes after the Kinder Morgan debacle.

B.C. is the highest-cost forestry jurisdiction not just in Canada but North America

and, as best as we can tell, the world. So when duties are going to spike to over

34 percent, the damage affects workers like Bill.

I would point out that those duties are set, and the

schedule was set out by the Biden-Harris

administration, that same Harris that our Finance Minister proudly campaigned for

in September.

Companies in B.C., forest companies, are shifting their operations to other parts

of Canada, other parts of the United States, and instead of fighting to make the forest

industry more competitive, this government is chasing away value-added companies as

well.

Has the Minister of Finance done any analysis at all on how uncompetitive B.C.’s position

is in the forest sector, and when can we expect to see that analysis?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question.

I think it is concerning. It’s certainly concerning for us on this side of the House

that we’ve yet to see the members opposite condemn the President’s decisions to double

countervailing duties. We have yet to see that.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, come to order.

Member. Member, that’s enough.

Okay, continue. Then we’ll….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Have a seat.

Anybody else?

Kiel Giddens : Forestry workers just got another gut punch of uncertainty this weekend, and workers

can’t handle anymore.

In my riding alone, in the last four years, Mackenzie Pulp shut permanently in 2021,

Canfor PG Pulp closed in 2023, Bear Lake’s Polar sawmill closed last year and Northwood

Pulp was cut to just one production line. Each of these represents hundreds of jobs.

My community is hurting, and forestry families want answers. If this government says

they’re defending forestry workers, why does it keep getting worse?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : These are serious issues. I appreciate the member opposite asking the question.

I was in his community just a couple of weeks ago. I had an opportunity to be in Mackenzie.

Being on the ground matters. It matters to people. You can do Zoom calls here from

Victoria, but if you ask Joan Atkinson, the mayor of Mackenzie, it matters to her

that the Minister of Forests is in her community, because Mackenzie matters to me.

[2:15 p.m.]

I had an opportunity to meet with Pat Glazier, who owns East Fraser Fiber, and to

see the operations there.

I went and toured Conifex, and I shared with them that because of the work that they’ve

been doing at their forest landscape planning table, they had a request before me

for block blending that looks at finding ways to be able to reduce costs associated

with getting fibre from the northern parts of Mackenzie down to those mills. I approved

that.

I worked with the people at that FLP table because that work matters to me, and Mackenzie

matters to me. I know it does to the members opposite sometimes, when it’s relevant,

but I hope it works for the member across the way.

I’d gladly meet with him to talk about the steps that we’re taking to support communities

like Mackenzie.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens : I know the member is new to his role, but 30 sawmills have closed under this government’s

watch. That’s their record.

The COFI report released last week indicates B.C. is falling further behind globally.

Wood supply security, investment attractiveness and tax system competitiveness rank

the lowest among all regions. With the highest log costs in North America, the ministry

is projecting harvest levels dropping to 29 million cubic metres in this government’s

budget documents. Meanwhile, the minister’s mandate is to reach 45 million cubic metres.

Real jobs and real people are at stake with these numbers.

This minister talks a good game, but will he resign if he can’t meet his mandate?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : If there’s one thing we have learned, it is that we cannot control the President

of the United States and this attack….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : If the members across the way fought for workers the same way they fought for Trump,

I would seriously respect them.

To the member….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We’ve got a lot of work to do before us. It’s why the Premier and I were at the COFI

convention talking to people….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, are we interested in any answers at all?

If you let him finish, it’ll be greatly appreciated.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

Forestry is a very important topic, and I’m glad the members opposite have taken time

to be able to raise this issue. I’ve been waiting for some number of weeks.

We laid out a number of initiatives at the COFI convention, a number of initiatives

from the Premier and myself. We provided an update….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We launched a number of key initiatives. We provided an update on our B.C. Timber

Sales review, ensuring that we’re playing a larger role in wildfire. In 2023, we had

the worst wildfire season on record in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Wow.

In that one year alone, we lost 20 years’ worth of harvestable fibre in this province.

That is significant. That is a significant impact.

I want to reiterate to the members across the way and to all British Columbians that

on this side of the House, we’re going to stand up for the forest sector. We’re going

to ensure that we’re restoring confidence in the sector, and we’re going to ensure

every single day that we’re standing up for workers like Bill, because that’s our

job.

Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

Ian Paton : The George Massey bridge would have opened three years ago. This government abandoned

that plan, promising a smaller tunnel project to open in 2030.

We’ve now learned that they refused federal dollars to build it. An insider has shared

that the contractor is still in testing phase, facing significant design problems

and struggling to determine a viable construction method, all without an environmental

assessment.

Why would this cash-strapped government refuse federal funding to replace the tunnel?

[2:20 p.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker : Anybody else? Any more comments? No?

The minister can start.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : The province has not refused any funding from the federal government. In fact, the

province is working with the federal government to ensure that British Columbia gets

a significant financial contribution in what is a nation-building project, a $4.1 billion tunnel. There is significant work underway, and we’re proud of the work that’s

being done by British Columbians in getting that ready and building that project.

I listened to the member across the way, and the opposition wanted to cancel it and

go back to a bridge. At a time when we are under threat from the United States….

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Members, order.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Once again, they demonstrate that they don’t listen, because if they listened to

the ports, the ports made it clear they wanted a tunnel, not a bridge, so that they

can get ships up the river, ships to take our goods to overseas markets — overseas

markets that we want to diversify because of the threats that we find from south of

the border.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : The member over there says: “What ships?” If he’d talk to the ports, they’d tell

you that they want to be able to get ships up the river.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : A tunnel allows that to happen.

Interjection.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Member, stop it.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : That opposition demonstrates why they’re sitting over there and we’re sitting over

here, fighting for British Columbia.

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain Project

Brent Chapman : British Columbians depend on transit, but Swartz Bay ferry customers who use transit

continue to stand exposed to the elements, waiting for their buses, for the simple

lack of cover.

Surrey transit customers, and they are still customers, have to wait daily for buses

that are late or not coming at all. The Surrey-Langley SkyTrain station is one year

delayed and $2 billion over budget.

If this minister can’t see that day-to-day services are reliably delivered, why should

the people of Surrey and Langley believe the minister can complete this absolutely

integral project for the fastest-growing part of the province?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I thank the member for the question, for the opportunity to give him the same answer

that I gave him the last time he asked a question — that if he went to, for example,

Fraser Highway at 156 in Surrey, he’d see those massive concrete pylons coming out

of the ground on a $4.9 billion project building SkyTrain.

Sixteen kilometres of track. Eight new stations. Cutting the time going from Langley

city all the way to Surrey centre to 22 minutes. Travelling to Vancouver in an hour.

Stimulating huge amounts of residential development. People having transit options.

A project that they didn’t even want to do. The largest investment south of the Fraser

in 30 years.

Pattullo Bridge Project

Trevor Halford : Here is one thing we do know. If it ain’t over budget, and if it ain’t delayed, it

ain’t NDP. That’s true. That is a fact.

Now, another fact is the Pattullo bridge — again, over budget and delayed. Who’s helping

with that project? Acciona, the same company that was fired from the North Shore wastewater

plant after it blew billions of taxpayer money.

[2:25 p.m.]

My question to the minister is a simple one. How can this minister allow a company

to oversee a project that has completely, in partnership with this government, wasted

billions of dollars of taxpayer money?

The Speaker : Now let him answer, okay.

Minister.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Well, I hear the question from the member, and it reminds me of what they did when

they were on this side of the House. If they sell a land, it doesn’t get built.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, we are almost done. Just a few more minutes, okay.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : You know, later this year I am looking forward to the opening of a brand-new Pattullo

bridge, a brand-new Pattullo bridge that is going to improve traffic options for British

Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : It’s going to improve commerce. It’s going to be four lanes. It’s going to have transit

for….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. It’s not funny, Members, okay.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : The only thing is that opposition. That is the saddest opposition I have seen in

my entire time in this place.

We are going to be opening an incredible new Pattullo bridge, which has trained British

Columbia workers, which is going to improve transportation in the Lower Mainland and

which is part of the largest capital investment in transportation infrastructure in

the history of this province. We’re going to continue to build this province.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

Peter Milobar : I rise on a point of privilege.

Under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, government is supposed to provide

an accurate reflection of their anticipated tax revenues, expenses and deficit based

on their priorities, economic projections and tax changes that the government is intending

on implementing.

Sections 5, 6 and 7, especially

section 7, are very clear in the expectation of accuracy

of the fiscal plan to be presented to this House for the purposes of main estimates.

To accomplish this, the government provides the budget and main estimates to this

chamber. They also present legislation to deal with any changes to the tax structure

of B.C. that will result in what the government feels would create a material change

to revenues and tax credits as part of the budget document.

This legislation has the changes that tie in directly to the anticipated tax revenues

and expenses that the government has projected. On two occasions after the March 4

introduction of the budget, government has introduced legislation to enact changes

to a variety of taxes in B.C. In the case of the tax changes in Bill 5, the Budget

Measures Implementation Act, those tax changes have been incorporated into the budget

and, as a result, also their main estimates of that budget.

However, the second piece of legislation created and introduced by this government,

Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, has not been incorporated into the budget or the

main estimates. There are several statements by the Minister of Finance over the last

week that have led me to call this point of privilege.

When the Minister of Finance was questioned March 31 during the Bill 6, Supply Act

(No. 1), 2025, Committee of the Whole debate, the minister was asked if revenues or

expenditures of the government had been adjusted with the introduction of Bill 8.

The minister refused to say if the impacts of Bill 8 had been considered, even though

Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, had been considered and was reflected

in the budget and also reflected within Bill 6.

When the Minister of Finance was asked, in Bill 6 Committee of the Whole debate, if

there would be interim supply estimates or updates due to a significant change of

the government’s budget, the minister answered no, but opposition could inquire as

part of the estimates process to each minister. This, once again, seems to be in complete

contravention of the Budget Transparency Act,

section 7.

Later in the day, on March 31, when the Minister of Finance was asked if there would

be program cuts or an increased deficit during Committee of the Whole debate on Bill

8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, the minister would not provide any specifics.

I recognize privilege is to be raised at the first opportunity, which brings us to

question period, Thursday, April 3, when the Minister of Finance was questioned about

the Moody’s credit downgrade, citing a deficit growing to $14.3 billion. The minister

answered that the opposition was making up numbers. This projected deficit was in

the new statements from Moody’s and not created by the official opposition.

[2:30 p.m.]

In fact, in their review of the budget impacts to determine their own downgrade of

B.C.’s credit rating, Moody’s cited that the removal of the carbon tax would create

a $2 billion shortfall. The fact that the Finance Minister refuses to update this

chamber with an accurate portrayal of government’s intended revenues, expenses and

deficit is quite literally impeding the work of the official opposition and putting

B.C.’s credit rating at further risk.

One more example of inaccuracies from the Finance Minister is that the government

has repeatedly indicated that the climate action tax credit has been eliminated as

a result of Bill 8. However, a check of the orders in council webpage published just

before entering this chamber shows that the climate action tax credit regulation is

still in effect and was last amended on May 13, 2024.

The lack of regulatory changes to the climate action tax credit at a time people are

filing their income tax returns and receiving their tax assessments back creates another

$1 billion expenditure question unaccounted for in the budget.

The request from the official opposition is really quite straightforward. Main estimates

should be paused until such a time as the government can provide an accurate depiction

of its budget in relation to revenues, expenditures and deficit based on its own legislation

and decisions.

Simply put, how can the official opposition properly assess the ministers’ spending

decisions and budget estimates if those same ministers aren’t even sure what their

own spending plan from government is?

It is impossible for the official opposition to properly scrutinize a budget that

does not have revenues and expenses in balance. This is not to say that the government

needs to provide a so-called balanced budget, but they do need to provide a proper

reconciliation of anticipated revenues, the expenses by ministry and the anticipated

deficit. Revenues plus deficit must equal the expenditures, or the official opposition

has not been provided a factually accurate reflection of the budget for the purposes

of main estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I have the Hansard transcripts for your review as well as the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act and other documents like screenshots of the orders in council page, the carbon

tax regulations as well, for you to consider during your deliberations on this matter.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’d like to reserve my right to respond.

The Speaker : Members, we’ll take it under advisement, and we’ll get back to the Minister of Finance

later on.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Niki Sharma : I reserve my right to raise a question of privilege.

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates in the Ministry

of Education to be followed by the estimates in the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education.

[2:35 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $34,996,928,000 (continued) .

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, where we’re going to

contemplate the budget estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Claire Rattée : It’s good to see the minister back here. I’m excited to get back into estimates.

To start today, I want to follow up on a few things that we touched on last week that

I didn’t really get responses on. Last week I asked a simple question that wasn’t

answered: how many days should somebody in B.C. have to wait to access treatment for

addiction?

We’re in the middle of a toxic drug crisis, so time is quite literally the difference

between life and death. I’m going to ask again. What is the ministry’s acceptable

standard for wait times for someone trying to access treatment services in this province,

and if you do not currently have a benchmark or target, why not?

[2:40 p.m.]

Last week you said that it was 31 days currently and that the target was 32 days but

acknowledged that that was far too long still and that there was work to do. I think

the people of British Columbia deserve to understand whether or not there is a target

that we are trying to work towards in this province.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Welcome back to the Health critic team. Good to be back in estimates and having these

conversations. I really appreciate the question from the member.

Around wait times again, and I may have said this last week, I want to remark, first

of all, that this government is the first government in Canada to introduce wait-time

benchmarks for publicly funded treatment beds. I think that’s an important thing to

note, because you can manage what you measure.

Measuring wait times is an important thing so we understand the experience that people

are going through and the waits that they are facing, at the same time as we continue

to build out a continuous and seamless system of care to reduce the wait time and

to reduce the gaps as people move between different stages of a recovery process.

I recognize just how important that is.

[2:45 p.m.]

We were able, in fiscal ’23-24, to surpass the forecast we had made for that year.

But I recognize that there is more work to do, and that’s one of the reasons why the

Road to Recovery program has become such an important part of the work that we’re

focused on and the work that we’re committed to continuing to expand throughout health

authorities in British Columbia.

Again, the importance of Road to Recovery in really meeting people where they are

at, in using the Access Central system to be able to medically assess and effectively

triage people so that they are able to enter into the right kind of treatment and

recovery that’s appropriate for them at that time, recognizing, too, that not everybody

needs a bed and that there are treatment services they can access that may not be

bed-based. That’s why we will continue to do that work.

I’ll note, too, that between October 2023 and November 2024, with the over 22,000

calls that were received through Access Central and over 2,000 people that were supported

into a withdrawal management bed, there was a median wait time of one day for those

clients that were prioritized as urgent.

Again, that prioritization is a really important part of the Road to Recovery system

and having Access Central there to be able to do that work. This work will continue

with the publicly funded treatment beds that government will continue to invest in

and reducing wait times, again, because I think everybody accepts just how important

it is to meet people where they’re at and ensure that they can get the treatment and

recovery services for them.

I’m going to take up just a little bit more time here because last week there were

some questions that the member opposite raised, and I would like to provide that update

and read some responses into the record.

One of the questions last week was a request to provide an updated number of British

Columbians, people in B.C., who are living with an opioid use disorder, and I committed

to getting that information as soon as possible.

I want to thank again the member for her question and regarding, particularly, the

discrepancy in the number of people who are estimated to have an opioid use disorder

in B.C. referenced in the former Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions ’24-25 to

’26-27 service plan and the Ministry of Health ’25-26 to ’27-28 service plan.

The ’24-25 to ’26-27 service plan that was published in February 2024 stated: “As

of November 2023, approximately 104,765 people in B.C. are estimated to have an opioid

use disorder, with 24,377 people receiving opioid agonist treatment, or OAT.” That’s

on page 12.

There is a typo, and I apologize for that, but it should have read: “As of August

31, 2021, 104,765 people in B.C. are estimated to have an opioid use disorder, and

in the month of November 2023, 24,377 people were receiving OAT.”

The ’25-26 to ’27-28 service plan published in March 2025 provided an updated estimate:

“As of December 31, 2022, approximately 112,318 people in B.C. were estimated to have

an opioid use disorder, although many may have not been diagnosed, with 23,414 people

receiving a dispensation for OAT from a community pharmacy in December 2024.” That’s

page 12.

The estimated number of individuals with an opioid use disorder is based on Dr. Bohdan

Nosyk’s Cascade of Care for Opioid Use Disorder research, which links PharmaNet, Vital Statistics, B.C. Coroners Service, MSP billing,

emergency department visits, hospitalizations and perinatal care data.

There is a two-year data lag in accessing updated data, and the change in the estimated

number of individuals with an opioid use disorder — in August 31, 2021, of 104,765

versus the December 31, 2022, number of 112,318 — is a result of new updated data

received in 2024.

I would like to provide another response to a question that was asked last week, and

that was around the Ledger program for children. It’s moved from the purpose-built

Queen Alexandra facility to another location. The member had asked what type of consultation

would be taking place and had some questions around that facility.

[2:50 p.m.]

I want to just read into the record an update around that.

First of all, I would begin by saying again that ensuring that children and youth

who are experiencing a significant mental health crisis have access to high-quality

and appropriate care is an absolute key priority. These are essential services for

these kids and youth.

I understand that Island Health, in collaboration with their partners, has begun the

planning process for a dedicated in-patient mental health and substance use crisis

stabilization unit for children and youth. Now, this unit, if it happens, will be

completely separate from the adult unit. This unit will provide stabilization assessment,

initiation of treatment, continued short-term treatment when needed, as well as discharge

planning into appropriate care environments.

The planning for an in-patient crisis stabilization unit for children and youth has

been integrated with planning for enhancements and shifting of the tertiary care model

in place at Queen Alexandra Centre for Children’s Health. It would include our relocation

of bed-based services to Eric Martin Pavilion on the Royal Jubilee Hospital site,

fourth floor, for longer-stay tertiary patients.

The intention here is to create this continuous service for children and youth, and

their families, who are experiencing severe mental health challenges, to help address

outdated patient infrastructure at the Queen Alexandra site and improve access and

safety for children, youth, families and staff, given the Queen Alexandra site’s isolated

location. Children and youth mental health and substance use out-patient services

that are currently offered from the Queen Alexandra site will continue to use that

site along with the children’s rehabilitation services portfolio.

Now, on to planning. I understand that Island Health has engaged a planning company.

They have an architect to develop a service model and a functional plan for the Eric

Martin Pavilion space. The engagement that they’ll undertake with key partners will

include Indigenous Nations. It will include families. This fourth-floor site in the

pavilion would be renovated to modern care standards with a therapeutic care environment

that includes family and cultural spaces.

This planning, and I want to emphasize this, is in its very, very early stages. The

expected implementation date is still several years away. A key part of this process,

of course, will be engaging with staff and with clinical experts to ensure that the

needs of children, youth and their families who receive the services as they’re currently

being delivered through the Ledger House, and in the future location, and that the

safety of the staff continue to be key priorities that will continue to inform this

work.

I hope that provides a little bit more information for the member based on the question

that she asked last week.

With that, I await the next question.

Claire Rattée : Twice now, in these estimates, I have asked for a benchmark, a target, a specific

number of days that this ministry is moving towards for what is considered reasonable

for somebody in British Columbia to have to wait to be able to access treatment services.

Twice now I have not received a response. Obviously, there was a benchmark. There

was a target originally of 32 days, and it seems that because it has come down to

31 days…. All I can assume from that is that this ministry thinks that that’s good

enough. I’m not sure. I can’t get a response.

I’m not sure how the public can have confidence in the government’s response to this

crisis if we can’t commit to a maximum or minimum wait time for treatment access,

but regardless of that, I find it interesting that in the minister’s response it was

referenced that British Columbia is the first province to introduce wait-time benchmarks.

I find that interesting because our neighbour, the province of Alberta, is being internationally

praised as setting the standard for this. Their standard is 24 hours.

I would like to try and find another way to ask this question and ask: what does timely

access to care mean to this government? Is it two days? Is it two weeks? Is it two

months? We don’t seem to have a set standard across any part of health right now,

whether it’s accessing treatment, whether it’s accessing diagnostic services, surgeries….

I would like to understand what does timely access to care actually mean to this government.

[2:55 p.m.]

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

I think it’s important to clearly differentiate what access and what benchmarks, or

standards for access to treatment beds, is like.

[3:00 p.m.]

The member cites quick access in our neighbouring province of Alberta of 24 hours.

Again, here I will emphasize that we are the first province to provide a benchmark

for wait times into bed-based treatment, but as I’ve said several times, we know that

not all treatment needs to be bed-based and that treatment can occur much more quickly.

In fact, that connection needs to be made much more quickly for people. Timely access

to care and timely access to a treatment bed are not exactly the same things.

The opioid treatment access line, which our government established in late August

2024, provides same-day access to an addictions medicine physician and can provide

OAT prescriptions on that same day. In fact, since August 27, 2024, when the line

was stood up, 240 OAT prescriptions have been provided, and the staff on that line

have fielded 1,100 incoming calls, connecting people who are ready at the moment they

want to pick up the phone and talk to somebody about this, so they can connect with

somebody on the same day.

The second piece we’ve been talking about is around Road to Recovery and, again, same-day

access to a clinical assessment, to a medical assessment, and the ability to be matched

with the type of treatment that is best for that person at that time, with a median

wait time of one day for withdrawal management in the Road to Recovery program, for

those people who are assessed to be most medically urgent in needing that.

What I am trying to demonstrate here is that this government, in building a system

of mental health and substance use care for people that had been grossly underfunded

before our coming into government in 2017, has required millions and millions of dollars

and so much dedication and effort by so many people.

We are working towards that goal of providing a seamless system of care for people,

while in the midst of a toxic drug crisis that clearly has impacted thousands and

thousands of people and families and that, with the changing nature of the toxic drugs

themselves, continues to be a very big challenge and a very big crisis to battle.

I really appreciate the member’s experiences that she brings into this House and the

questions that she asks, because I think what it exemplifies is that we here, in this

House, are all deeply committed to providing care for people and that this must be

done along the entire spectrum of care. From prevention through to treatment and recovery

and aftercare, we have got to continue to build these services.

We’ve got to continue to build in bed-based treatment and to continue to improve access

to non-bed-based treatment the services that people need in all aspects of their lives,

recognizing that this is not just a medical issue for so many people but it is about

addressing — from the very, very early years of a person’s life — the social determinants

of health and the way we need to work across ministries on housing and life skills

supports, enabling people to work, enabling people to access education and, of course,

enabling people to access timely care, especially should they find themselves in this

situation with the kind of mental health and substance use disorders we’re seeing

in society.

I remain deeply committed to this work. I know the member opposite does as well, and

I look forward to continued discussion on this.

Claire Rattée : I appreciate the response, but respectfully, while I understand that not everybody

needs access to bed-based care, the vast majority need access to bed-based care. The

vast majority do, for multiple reasons, one of which being that the vast majority

of those people are currently unhoused.

When we don’t have a specific wait time for people to be able to get into a bed-based

treatment service…. And that’s what I hear overwhelmingly, when I speak to people

who are struggling actively with addiction, that they are looking for access to. You’ll

have to forgive me. It’s very frustrating to not get a response to that question.

I’m going to move on.

I’m wondering if the minister can explain why some treatment centres that are currently

operating with ministry funding are not allowing clients to smoke cigarettes or e-cigarettes

while they’re in treatment, particularly given the fact that many people are being

put in so-called wet facilities or wet supportive housing, where they’re allowed to

use illegal substances.

[3:05 p.m.]

I would like to understand what the rationale is behind that choice, as it is a huge

barrier for a lot of people that want to access treatment services. I know we’ve spoken

about this before, but I myself went to a bed-based treatment centre because I struggled

with addiction. If I hadn’t been allowed to smoke in there — I’ll be honest — I may

not have gone.

I hear that consistently from people, because many people that struggle with addiction

also struggle with nicotine addiction. I understand that smoking is not healthy for

you. I think we’re all aware of that. But at the end of the day, if that’s going to

be a barrier for somebody actually accessing treatment….

And I think that it’s a reasonable one — that somebody that’s going through that very

difficult process of recovery be allowed to still smoke a cigarette, particularly

given the fact that we want to encourage more culturally appropriate healing spaces

for people as well. I do not understand the rationale behind some treatment centres

being allowed to ban smoking of cigarettes or e-cigarettes on the property.

I think that that’s something that definitely needs to be addressed. I would like

to know from the minister if there is a specific policy in place that’s allowing them

to do that, or if this needs to be looked at.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : There is no Ministry of Health policy that prohibits smoking, the use of cigarettes

or e-cigarettes. It does depend, and there may be some differences from site to site

that I wanted to spend a little bit of time digging into, on a provider’s service

model.

For example, in a private facility that is privately run and has no public dollars

being spent there, they will determine their own policy. In more of a mixed use, where

there might be, say, a private facility that has some beds that are publicly funded

and the rest of the beds that are private beds, again, they will develop policies

that are based on their model of care.

Health authorities work closely with their contracted services, with a mind to doing

everything possible to reduce barriers for people to access treatment. I take the

member’s point very well that we want to do everything we can to reduce barriers for

people who are accessing treatment and recovery services.

In the past several months, I’ve visited two publicly funded treatment and recovery

services. One was Red Fish Healing Centre where, actually, in order to go outside

and be able to talk to a couple of the clients, I had to go out to the smoking pit

to do that. So they do have an ability there on site.

Then the second was visiting the Road to Recovery program at St. Paul’s Hospital,

where I noticed it’s actually built into the schedule. There’s a

schedule posted,

and it’s got smoking breaks provided right there, recognizing that people need access

to that.

Because of the member’s question, though, if there’s a particular site or service

that the member is aware of a policy that she thinks should be looked into, I’d be

very happy to receive that information and work with her to do everything we can to

get clarity on that.

Claire Rattée : I appreciate that response, and I will follow up with the minister privately on that.

I’m hoping now that the minister might be able to follow up on couple of things that

were talked about last week.

Last Tuesday I had requested, during estimates, to find out about the ratios of abstinence

and/or faith-based centres that were receiving funding through the ministry right

now versus non-abstinence or faith-based. I had also requested some updates around

the Provincial Peer Network.

That was last Tuesday. I was told that I would have the information by Wednesday.

Then I was told Thursday, and so on and so forth. Now we’re on to next Monday. It’s

been almost a week, so I’m really hoping that the minister has access to that information

and can either provide it to me now…. I’m not sure. I would just really like to actually

get access to that, because it’s been very difficult for me to have any line of questioning

around it without that information.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you for the patience. We have those lists and that information ready. I am

going to suggest, rather than reading it all into the record, we will just email it

to you, and I think we can accomplish that today.

Claire Rattée : I appreciate that. Thank you.

I’m going to shift gears just slightly here, and I have a couple of questions for

the minister.

The member for Surrey City Centre was appointed by the Premier as the Parliamentary

Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions, a role that comes with an additional $18,000

taxpayer-funded salary. She does not appear to have a mandate letter from the Premier,

and she has not appeared in estimates. To date, I have seen no public work from her

on this file.

I’m hoping that the minister can explain specifically what the responsibilities of

the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions are. And if there isn’t

a clear answer for that, then why are British Columbians paying an extra salary for

a role that appears to have no mandate and no measurable outcomes?

Hon. Josie Osborne : I am very grateful to have the service and the assistance of the MLA for Surrey City

Centre in her role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Addictions.

Now, it was the custom in the past that parliamentary secretaries got their own stand-alone

mandate letters, but that practice changed in this last government, and her key deliverables

are embedded in my mandate letter.

They are to work with me to ensure that the voices of key stakeholders — including

addictions and mental health doctors and other medical professionals, people with

lived experience, families and public health officials — are included in our ongoing

policy and legislative response to people in crisis due to addiction and mental health;

and second, to ensure that issues and opportunities identified are communicated to

me and ministry staff for consideration and possible implementation.

Since day one, that is exactly the work that she’s been engaged in. Again, I have

to say that I’m really grateful for that work, because with the Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions coming back into the fold of the Ministry of Health, time is

always limited for individuals, and I really depend on the parliamentary secretaries,

all three of the parliamentary secretaries that I work with, to be part of the eyes

and ears out there. So her work in meeting with stakeholders, directly touring facilities,

talking with people has been a big help to me and to ministry staff. In these early

months, she’s demonstrating that track record of an ability to be able to do that,

and I’ll continue to depend on that.

I think it’s all right for me to, on her behalf, offer the member the opportunity,

as I’ve offered the member the opportunity to sit down and talk, and I’d be very happy

to have the parliamentary secretary join us on that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Claire Rattée : Thank you to the minister for that response. I was just hoping, I guess, to hear

what the actual deliverables would be of that role, but we can definitely sit down

and discuss that privately.

I’m going to move on now to naloxone. I’m wondering if the ministry currently has

a system in place to track the return on investment for naloxone kits. Specifically,

can you tell us how many kits are distributed and are actually used in overdose reversals

versus how many are unused or discarded?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and an opportunity to talk about naloxone

and it being a life-saving medicine that can very quickly reverse the effects of drug

poisoning or overdose from opioids.

[3:25 p.m.]

As the member knows but other British Columbians may not know, naloxone is available

in two different forms, an intramuscular form and an intranasal form. Both formulations

have similar efficacy.

Right now intramuscular naloxone kits are available free of charge to anybody in British

Columbia who is at risk of experiencing or witnessing an overdose, and that’s via

the B.C. Centre for Disease Control’s take-home-naloxone program. As of December 2024,

take-home-naloxone kits are available at more than 2,360 locations, and that includes

896 community pharmacies.

We do understand that intranasal naloxone can be more appropriate for people who face

barriers to using intramuscular naloxone. That might include people who have dexterity

limits, people living in cold climates, youth who are unfamiliar with the use and

administering of needles and Indigenous peoples. That’s why, in May 2024, we initiated

a series of pilot programs to explore expanding access to nasal naloxone. Those kits

are available for specific high-needs groups in priority locations.

That makes sure that while we want to ensure that intramuscular naloxone is available

for everybody, there is also the specific training available for people and for those

priority populations, that the intranasal naloxone is available for people. So 501,000

kits were distributed by the take-home-naloxone program in 2024.

There is no tracking mechanism for how many are used or not used. But perhaps the

most significant figure, I think, to contemplate is the fact that between January

2019 and October 2024, an estimated 31,430 death events were prevented by the use

of take-home naloxone, demonstrating the value of this program, the importance of

having access to this life-saving medicine and why we are committed to ensure that

it is available for British Columbians.

Claire Rattée : I appreciate the minister’s response on that. I think she’s sort of deduced where

I’m going with this, because it is towards nasal naloxone. I appreciate that response,

because I am a very strong proponent of naloxone kits. I’m also a strong proponent

of making sure that they are being used efficiently and that we are saving as many

lives as possible with them.

The reason I’m going down this line of questioning is because we know anecdotally

that the intravenous naloxone kits are frequently disassembled for the syringes and

the medical supplies and that the naloxone vials are discarded. I know that on a personal

level because I’ve spent time walking around Pandora Street, walking around the Downtown

Eastside, and I hear that from people on the streets.

I’ve talked to people that it’s taken, in a situation of an overdose, a woman that

had overdosed…. They had to put together nine different kits that were clipped up

along the fences to be able to put one kit together to be able to actually save her

life.

I think it’s important to note that a recent Angus Reid poll also showed that 75 percent

of Canadians would prefer to administer naloxone via a nasal spray rather than injection.

I think the only groups, honestly, that don’t prefer it are obviously going to be

health care workers, first responders, people that are comfortable administering intravenously.

The reason that I’m going in this direction is because I would like to understand

if the ministry has explored transitioning to nasal naloxone as the standard format

for general public distribution and what the current percentage breakdown of nasal

versus injectable naloxone is that’s being distributed. And if it’s not currently

the primary format being distributed, which my understanding is that it is not, what

are the barriers to that? Is it cost? Is it supplies? Is it procurement contracts?

Is it something else?

We know that most IV naloxone kits are not being used for their intended purpose,

so I would think that an option that cannot be used for the purposes of anything besides

saving a life would be more cost-effective, regardless of the cost differences, given

the fact that there will be less waste, and it will be more people’s lives saved,

in theory.

[3:30 p.m.]

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

As stated in my previous answer, there have been 501,000 intramuscular or injectable

naloxone kits distributed in 2024.

[3:35 p.m.]

Also, beginning in May 2024, when we initiated a pilot project to distribute nasal

naloxone kits in different settings…. The target here is 60,000 kits to be distributed,

and I will note that they are significantly more expensive than the intramuscular

kits.

The way they have been distributed so far: through the Ministry of Post-Secondary

Education and Future Skills, 1,600 kits distributed to 25 post-secondary institutions

and 25 First Nations–mandated institutions in 2024; 50,000 kits being distributed

through the take-home-naloxone program that I previously described to 150 community

sites and up to 700 pharmacies, prioritizing, again, people who have dexterity limits,

people living in cold climates and youth and Indigenous peoples; and then lastly,

8,400 kits being distributed to public institutions via the Ministry of Citizens’

Services product distribution centre. These are places like libraries, secondary schools,

fire halls, other public places.

This is a pilot program, as I described, and we will be evaluating the program. Results

will be available this year to inform future planning and helping to make some of

those decisions, including the kinds of trade-offs that the member describes.

I think one of the challenges is that it is very…. As I said, the number of intramuscular

naloxone kits, whether they are used or unused, is not specifically tracked. It is

very difficult, I recognize, to accurately estimate the numbers and also to draw inferences

from how they are being used — a kit that may be partially used and is discarded versus

a kit that sits in somebody’s car for the entire time because it’s never been needed

and expires versus a kit that has been taken apart for other purposes.

I recognize the challenge in knowing exactly the disposition of each and every kit.

But again, the way the increase of interest in this program has been growing, the

growing familiarity with people in their ability to use intramuscular naloxone and

the wider availability of training….

For example, community action teams have been out at public events like farmers markets

and other places where they are talking to people about what naloxone is, why it’s

used, why it’s important, how to use it — all part of increasing access for people

to this life-saving medication. Again, with the number of death events that have been

averted, which…. Obviously, you can’t put a price on that. It is absolutely invaluable

for each and every one of those persons.

Again, I appreciate the questions from the member.

Claire Rattée : Thank you to the minister for that response.

I kind of have a two-part, follow-up question to that. I would like to understand

better what “significantly more expensive” is for the nasal naloxone versus the intramuscular,

mostly because I do know what the cost of the nasal naloxone kits is.

My understanding is also that the government is currently tasked with the warehousing

and delivery, essentially, of those intramuscular naloxone kits,

whereas there are

companies that are ready and willing, as part of their cost with the nasal naloxone,

to take over that distribution and that warehousing. I assume that would play a factor

in the overall cost there, so I’d like to understand what those cost differences are.

I would also like to understand the minister’s views or thought processes around the

difference between the two versions of naloxone, as far as both being effective with

taxpayer dollars and saving lives, given that we know that nasal naloxone is far simpler

to administer. It’s far quicker to administer, and because there is a very critical

window, a time frame in which that needs to be administered if somebody has had an

overdose.

I think there are a number of factors that, for me, would point to the idea that nasal

naloxone would definitely save more lives than the intramuscular version, as far as

being used throughout the general public. I’m just curious what the minister’s thoughts

are on that and what that actual cost difference looks like when you factor in all

of those things.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Yeah, as I mentioned, there is a difference in the cost between intramuscular and

nasal naloxone kits. We know right now that a nasal naloxone kit can be as much as

double or triple the cost of an intramuscular kit.

The premise here is really around finding the appropriate balance between the cost

of two different types of administering naloxone with the suitability of its use,

the people that it is being used by and for and the different settings that are out

there, which is why the pilot program with nasal naloxone is really important and

I think will provide some very, very good insights into the suitability of its use

there.

Again, that premise around ensuring that people have training, if necessary, and knowing

that nasal naloxone is very simple to administer…. For reasons that I described previously

around dexterity and temperature and familiarity of people, it can be absolutely the

best way forward.

There is an entire division inside the Ministry of Health, of course, responsible

for evaluating pharmaceuticals of all types, including the naloxone program, the take-home-naloxone

program.

[3:45 p.m.]

Understanding, again, that that evaluation of cost and effectiveness with the appropriateness

of use in different settings is…. That information that will come forward in the pilot

program will be really important in informing steps that are taken forward. Of course,

we want to ensure efficient and effective use of taxpayer funds and, at the same time,

ensure we’re doing everything we can to save lives in the best way possible with that.

If the member has a line of sight into this that’s something, again, that she would

like to discuss later, then I’d be very happy to talk with her more about that.

Claire Rattée : Thank you to the minister for the response.

I’m not sure if I missed it in there, though, what the cost differences actually are.

What are we currently, as taxpayers, funding? What is that cost for an intramuscular

kit? What is the cost for the nasal naloxone kits that are being used right now in

this pilot project? I would assume that we can at least have those figures of what

it costs per kit.

Again, as I said previously, has the idea of not having to deal with the distribution

and the warehousing and everything been factored in? Has the efficiency of the product

been factored in, as well as that there won’t be a risk of these kits being used for

not their intended purpose? I don’t understand if those things have been factored

in.

I do understand there’s a pilot project underway right now, but I would like to understand

more clearly…. These are all things that we know, so how has that been factored into

the decision at this point to not full-scale roll out a nasal naloxone program? I’m

also curious if the minister can provide us with a date of when that pilot project

will be completed and we will have an understanding of what the findings and outcomes

were and how that’s going to inform the future decisions.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : The pilot program, the nasal naloxone program, has $7.4 million of funding,

whereas

the base budget for the take-home-naloxone program in Budget 2024 is now at $12.06

million of funding, which gives a bit of a sense of the difference between the costs

currently. Now, that includes, and it will be different for each program: distribution

and warehousing, assembly, storage, training, education, communications, which is

going to look different for the two different programs.

The member asks specifically around the evaluation. The ministry will undertake a

programmatic evaluation of the nasal naloxone pilot. That started in May 2024, and

we want to go through an entire year up to May 2025. That evaluation should be done

by late summer.

Claire Rattée : I just was asking, because I do have my own numbers on what those two different types

of kits cost. I was hoping that I could be provided with specifically what the cost

of each kit is. I’m hoping that maybe at some point the minister could get that information

to me based on what the government contracts are currently, what they are spending

per each kit.

Moving on, I wanted to talk a little bit about the nasal naloxone in post-secondary

institutions. The ministry previously committed to expanding nasal naloxone into all

post-secondary institutions. I’m assuming, based on the responses we’ve received already,

that that hasn’t been completed.

I am wondering. Is that based solely on the fact that this pilot program is not finished?

I do understand that part of the pilot program is it being rolled out to post-secondary

institutions, but it was my understanding, at least, that there was a commitment already

to make sure it was rolled out to all post-secondary institutions in light of some

tragic events that happened previously.

Also, I spoke to this earlier, but there’s that critical one- to three-minute window

for responding to overdoses. So I’m also wondering if the ministry is ensuring that

these nasal naloxone kits, if they are rolled out, will be strategically placed in

accessible, visible locations to ensure that that is not an issue.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : I can confirm that all post-secondary institutions have received nasal naloxone kits,

and that was done by last September. That was the commitment of our government.

It is the responsibility of the post-secondary institution, then, around communications

and training so the appropriate place to take any more detailed questions would be

to the estimates of the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

I also commented on the fact that the pilot program involves 8,400 kits to be distributed

to eligible public agencies, and I can confirm they all have been distributed. That

includes public spaces like libraries, secondary schools and fire halls.

Claire Rattée : Further, talking just a bit more about public access and awareness with naloxone,

there was a recent CMAJ study recommending transit stops as high-impact naloxone placement locations. I’m

wondering if the ministry has considered placing kits on public buses and at transit

hubs in B.C. and if they have engaged with transit unions or municipalities on this.

[4:00 p.m.]

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

I really appreciate the question, because I think this is about finding opportunities

and making connections with other organizations and agencies where life-saving medications

like naloxone can be distributed. Part of the evaluation that we are always doing

as government is looking at ways to increase distribution and those opportunities

that arise.

For organizations like…. Be it B.C. Transit or TransLink, municipalities or labour

unions who bring those opportunities forward, I very much welcome that and am really

happy to also follow up directly, as a result of this question and our conversation

today and last week, with our colleagues in other ministries that have responsibilities

around this.

We’ll continue to focus on the take-home-naloxone program and making naloxone kits

available to the public and again just point to the increasing familiarity and interest

that people have in this program.

I can also confirm that the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, for example,

does fund nasal naloxone kits for municipal and transit police — again, a step in

the right direction in terms of increasing the availability and distribution of life-saving

naloxone.

Claire Rattée : Again, I’m going to try and ask a question about distribution and making sure that

there’s public access.

If AEDs are already widely distributed across the province — it’s estimated right

now that there are more than 10,000 units — I would think that this would be a simple

and cost-effective way to increase visibility and access. I’m wondering if the ministry

has considered co-locating naloxone kits next to AEDs in public facilities.

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member.

I think that’s a fantastic idea. Co-locating life-saving devices and medications together

makes sense, and there may well be certain places where that’s already happening.

The member may know about that.

I think working with those organizations and places where AEDs are already available

and that also have or will be, in the future, if they step forward as well, acquiring

nasal naloxone…. Again, thinking public settings, like libraries and community halls,

for example…. I appreciate the idea and will definitely take that under advisement

and forward.

Claire Rattée : This will likely be my last question for a little while, before I hand the floor

over to my colleague for Courtenay-Comox.

It’s just around public awareness campaigns. Texas has launched a state-level public

campaign on naloxone awareness, so I’m kind of wondering why B.C. hasn’t done the

same, whether that be around how to recognize an overdose, administer naloxone, reduce

stigma around it.

But I’m also curious, as a secondary part to that question, whether or not the ministry

is looking at including in that better understanding for people that are addicted

to drugs that may need to use naloxone. There doesn’t seem to be very clear communication

to people that are at risk, that are within those groups, of the fact that while naloxone

can save their life, any overdose puts them at very likely risk of a permanent brain

injury.

My fear is that with naloxone being rolled out the way that it has been…. I’m very

grateful that it has saved lives, but we also have a concurrent crisis of permanent

brain injury happening in this province.

[4:05 p.m.]

It doesn’t appear to me that the ministry has done anything on that, at this point,

to ensure that the public and anybody that is using these substances understand those

real negative effects of what can happen. I would think that when you are doing these

public awareness campaigns, when you’re doing training around the use of naloxone,

that’s a perfect time to really drive that point home concurrently of just how dangerous

it is to use these substances. The fact that you can be saved from an overdose does

not mean that you will get off scot-free, essentially.

Again, as I said, we know that there is a concurrent crisis of permanent brain injury,

and I think we need to be doing everything that we can to ensure that is stopped.

I would assume that this ministry is aware of that and is doing something on that,

so I would just like to hear what it is.

[4:10 p.m.]

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

I appreciate that the emphasis on ensuring programs like the take-home-naloxone program

and trying to prevent deaths created by overdose obviously cannot be the sole purpose

or sole focus. We have to do everything we can upstream to prevent addiction in the

first place and create awareness around that and public campaigns. I’ll speak to the

public awareness campaigns in a moment.

But I just want to say that’s why we need to continue our emphasis on reasons for

addiction in the first place; continue to address the social determinants of health,

factors that can make a real difference in a person’s life in terms of their likelihood

or the course of their life that might lead them to a place of substance use, addiction;

continue to do everything we can as a government, working across ministries, around

access to housing and supportive housing, all of the wraparound supports that people

require in life; and continue to do everything we can to reduce poverty, increase

access to nutritious foods and increase access to education.

All of these social determinants of health really form a foundation and a basis, I

think, for this work that impacts people in their lives in so many ways.

With respect to prevention and the upstream investments that have to continue around

child and youth mental health, for example, establishing Foundries around the province

for youth to be able to access all kinds of different supports in one place, under

one roof; continuing to expand the integrated child and youth teams present around

the province; continuing to increase access to mental health in schools — bringing

in counsellors in schools, for example.

An area that we haven’t really canvassed too much in estimates this time is other

populations that we know are experiencing substance use issues, like the construction

industry, for example, so directed awareness campaigns and support programs designed

for the construction industry.

The government uses a couple of different awareness programs, and I just want to talk

briefly about them.

First of all, the Supports for Substance Use public information campaign that we use

to raise awareness and really foster a sense of hope, too, by highlighting the availability

of supports and services for substance use treatment and recovery and, again, emphasizing

those individual recovery stories. We know that everybody’s journey is different.

We want to make sure that people understand that a one-size-fits-all process is not

the answer here, that recovery is possible for each person and that there’s a whole

range of supports that can be provided for people to help tailor the type of treatment

and recovery options for that person.

For example, in 2024, that campaign, Supports for Substance Use, underwent three different

phases. There were three different waves of material and awareness that were broadcast

across television, radio and digital platforms throughout the province. This awareness

campaign is designed to target the general population as well, not just specific,

at-risk groups.

In addition to traditional advertising channels, using some strategic partnerships

with organizations like the B.C. Lions and the Vancouver Canucks to reach target audiences

and to really amplify the messages throughout the year. The Supports for Substance

Use campaign points people back to the HelpStartsHere.gov.bc.ca website, which is

a centralized website to help all people in British Columbia find resources and the

services for mental health and substance use issues.

I’ll speak briefly about the Youth Drug Prevention public information campaign, which

launched at the same time as the Supports for Substance Use campaign and provides

fact-based information on the risks that are associated with street drugs to youth

and their families. It’s an initiative that specifically targets middle school–aged

youth and their families through transit shelter ads, for example, digital platforms

[4:15 p.m.]

Again, the Youth Drug Prevention public information campaign ran in a wave in 2024,

and it will run again.

The Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills Ministry launched a response to the

overdose public information campaign in August of 2024, last summer, aimed at reaching

post-secondary students in B.C. Again, building awareness about how to spot and respond

to an overdose, complementing the rollout of nasal naloxone kits into post-secondary

institutions, all completed by last September and, again, driving people to a centralized

place of information — in this case, the respondtooverdose.gov.bc.ca website.

I hope that helps to explain some of the initiatives that government is undertaking

around public awareness.

I think that the MLA for Skeena is going to be handing off questions to her colleague.

I just want to say a thank-you for the last days of dialogue and a really constructive

back-and-forth in answering questions. I appreciate her interventions and her thoughtfulness

and her commitment to this issue.

With that, I say thank you.

Brennan Day : Minister, again, I would like to echo your sentiments. The member for Skeena did

an amazing job.

I’m just going to make a few comments before I get into questions. I know it’s getting

late in the day. If anybody does need to take a brief recess at any point, please

let us know. I’m happy to continue.

I’ll get started.

After last week’s and this afternoon’s productive discussion on mental health and

addictions, one I was pleased to attend with my colleague from Skeena, I’m looking

forward to spending the next eight hours focused on two of the most pressing and personal

challenges facing our province: rural health and seniors health. We’ll break them

into two equal segments, approximately four hours each, depending on time.

Nowhere are the cracks in our health care system more visible than rural British Columbia.

From communities without a family doctor to emergency rooms operating on reduced hours

or not at all, the gaps are not only growing; they are becoming life-threatening.

When people must travel hours for basic care or are left wondering whether an ambulance

will arrive in time, and if it will take ten minutes or ten hours to get to the nearest

ER that isn’t closed, we have a duty, not just a political one but a moral one, to

ask hard questions and demand better from the $35 billion we are spending in this

budget.

As my colleague from Kamloops Centre raised today as a point of privilege, I would

also like to note in advance that this debate we are having is about a budget that,

seven days into this budget year, is already inaccurate due to the repeal of the carbon

tax and the $2 billion hole that may now affect health care in B.C. This government

has not come clean as to what will be cut and if this health care budget will be affected

or if we’re going to be adding that figure to the debt of $10.9 billion that this

budget creates.

I want to express my appreciation to the many advocacy organizations, health care

professionals and front-line staff, especially those in rural and remote areas, who

have taken the time, often at great personal risk, to share their insights. Many have

spoken up in spite of gag orders that threaten their careers. That takes courage.

Your voices matter. I’m here today, as are my colleagues, to ensure that these voices

are heard in this chamber loudly, clearly and with purpose. Sunlight is always the

best disinfectant.

In the interests of time, transparency and accountability, I’ve organized my questions

into themes, so I won’t stray too far from a question set. In the last session, responses

from the minister averaged about eight minutes each, so this structure is designed

to make the best possible use of the hours we have here today. Let’s leave the clock

management to the B.C. Lions when they attend the playoffs again next year.

Finally, I want to thank the minister and her team for being here. This is an enormous

file with real consequences for real people. While we can be and often are collegial

outside of this room, I won’t shy away from asking the important questions here today.

British Columbians demand answers.

For the first question, I will come back to and echo my colleague’s question regarding

the Standing Committee on Health. The Select Standing Committee on Health has not

met since October 2022. Given the health care crisis and numerous stakeholder concerns,

why has the standing committee not been reconvened? The additional $30,000 that this

committee will cost to top up the Chair and co-Chair’s salary is a paltry sum when

we’re discussing a $35 billion Health budget.

Will this new minister commit to standing up the standing committee and listening

to nurses, doctors and medical professionals or continue to operate in the shadows,

as her predecessor did, while British Columbians are left waiting for care?

British Columbians are literally dying to know, Minister.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Welcome to the member for Courtenay-Comox.

Good to have you here. I’m sure we’re going to have lots of great discussion.

He and I have had the opportunity, actually, to talk about this outside of the chamber.

I appreciate the suggestion around the Select Standing Committee on Health. He is

correct that it last convened around a specific topic: the toxic drug crisis. Any

select standing committee requires terms of reference from this House, from this Legislature,

to operate. I welcome further discussion about what that could look like, so I would

invite the member to have more discussion.

Certainly, in the last 4½ months, we’ve had a number of opportunities here in the

House to talk about different and important health care issues to British Columbians

and also in my travels and, certainly in his travels too, to hear from British Columbians,

mayors, community leaders, health care providers and workers in many different places

about topical issues and those that are of most interest.

[4:25 p.m.]

Select standing committees provide an opportunity to dive deeper into some of those

topics, and I welcome more conversation with the member.

Brennan Day : Minister, thank you for the response — I think, perhaps, bipartisan. Maybe we could

include the Third Party as well, to have a discussion over what those terms of reference

might be. It would be appreciated.

For reference, federally the Standing Committee on Health meets weekly when the House

is in session. I don’t feel that’s unreasonable, given the sheer scope of what we’re

trying to do and the budget that is now being administered under this ministry. I

think everybody here in this House on both sides would welcome additional voices at

the table to ensure that everybody is being heard.

Minister, I can see that the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Health hasn’t joined

us today during these proceedings. My colleague from Skeena asked this question already,

so I’ll reframe the question.

With her pay top-up and very little accountability being covered under your mandate

letter…. Again, deliverables from those positions are lacklustre and very ill-defined.

When was the mandate letter stopped for parliamentary secretaries? Will you commit

to reinstituting it for parliamentary secretaries, given that you oversee three, I

believe?

The Chair : Just a reminder to members not to refer to a member being absent from this chamber

at this very moment.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

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

As I explained to the member for Skeena previously, there used to be mandate letters

that were specific to parliamentary secretaries. It is the Premier’s prerogative as

to how mandate letters are delivered, and the choice was to embed the parliamentary

secretaries’ mandate commitments into the main ministry mandate letter.

A Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Health is a person who has been mandated to work

with me “to engage key stakeholders” — I’m reading directly from the mandate letter

— “including front-line service providers in rural and Indigenous communities, and

seek their advice on how to best deliver accessible, effective care in their unique

and remote communities.” And second: “Ensure that issues and opportunities identified

are communicated” to me and ministry staff for consideration and possible implementation.

As the member has pointed out several times, the Ministry of Health is a large one.

These issues touch British Columbians in communities large and small, whether young

and old, and it is really important to have as many people out engaging with stakeholders,

hearing directly from communities and people on the issues that matter most to them.

[4:30 p.m.]

Parliamentary secretaries provide an invaluable role in that way, literally like an

extension of the eyes and ears of the minister in undertaking some of that engagement,

the travelling, speaking with people and coming back and providing advice directly

to me and staff.

I am fortunate, in that sense, to have three parliamentary secretaries, each with

a particular emphasis and focus in their work, to provide some of that feedback and

input to me because, of course, one minister can only spend 24 hours a day doing certain

things and travel to certain places.

Again, this is an invaluable role. I’ve already benefited greatly from all three parliamentary

secretaries and the experience that they bring and the voices that they are hearing

and the matters that they are communicating back to me.

Brennan Day : That certainly seems good. I don’t want to cheapen the work that they are doing.

Please do not get me wrong. I just want to make sure that they are accountable to

the budget and the additional salary they’re getting.

Obviously, in health care we have a significantly overwhelming amount of vice-presidents,

and I certainly hope this doesn’t turn into another Island Health issue.

Moving along, in the face of PHSA’s ballooning administration costs, up 148 percent

between 2018 and 2024, your ministry has appointed Dr. Penny Ballem to lead the review

of B.C.’s health authorities.

This same Dr. Ballem, a former deputy Health Minister and NDP donor, was paid over

$400,000 for ten months of work in 2021. Recently, following her term as adviser to

both you and the Premier, she is now back as interim CEO of PHSA at a similar cost

to taxpayers.

There’s no timeline for this review, as you stated the other day, no plan to release

the findings publicly and no commitment to transparency, as you repeatedly stated

to the member from Skeena in last Thursday’s session.

Given the scale of overspending by this government, $3 billion in 2023 alone, why

did you choose not to appoint an independent third-party auditor?

And finally, will you commit to tracking and publicly reporting the return on investment

of this review so we can properly understand the value that British Columbians are

getting for these health care dollars?

The Chair : Member, just a reminder to direct your questions and answers through the Chair. Thank

you.

[4:35 p.m.]

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

Initiating the review into the Provincial Health Services Authority is the beginning

of reviews that will be undertaken in the regional health authorities in time as well,

an important part of our government’s commitment to ensuring that each and every dollar

spent in the public health care system is being maximized for its efficiency and its

effectiveness in being able to deliver front-line services to British Columbians.

It is important to have people who are skilled and have the expertise required to

help lead the review. Dr. Ballem has come in as an interim CEO of the Provincial Health

Services Authority to do this work. She has a 35-year track record of health sector

experience, both in the public and private sector, as well as, of course, being a

medical doctor, a physician herself, and her clinical experience as well.

I’ll note that Dr. Ballem was the deputy minister during the Gordon Campbell government.

So this is about her commitment to effective health care being delivered for British

Columbians, her commitment to assist our government in undertaking this administrative

review, looking at the front-line services that PHSA provides but also looking at

the roles and responsibilities and the internal structures and governance of the PHSA.

The review will take some time, of course. It needs to be done diligently. It needs

to be done carefully. It needs to involve the health care providers and employees

of the PHSA and others in the health care sector in helping to determine the changes

that will need to be made.

Those recommendations will come to me from a review team. That team is being led by

Dr. Ballem but includes, of course, ministry officials and also includes an independent

consulting firm that will undertake the bulk of the heavy lifting and the work of

the review itself in assessing the status and collecting the data and being able to

bring forward a firm that has undertaken this kind of work before and is third partywell-positioned

to do that.

[4:40 p.m.]

Again, this work is around providing government with recommendations on changes to

make to ensure that the efficiencies are there and that every dollar is being used

and is being maximized and used in the best way possible.

As I’ve stated before, I look forward to the first update that I’ve requested in six

weeks’ time, at which time I’ll have more to say around the scope of the review as

we get underway in the early days here, and being able to talk a bit more concretely

around some of the expected outcomes or the timelines. I am committed to providing

public updates as they become available.

Brennan Day : I didn’t really hear an answer there.

Based on my discussions with both former city of Vancouver staff, former health care

staff and former employees of the PHSA, her record is questionable at best, given

the fact that she was the architect of the current system.

I would agree with you that we need yet another third-party auditor for her to oversee,

adding yet more bureaucracy to the system. We can agree third party is good. The person

running it is still questionable.

I’ll move on to the next question. We don’t need to relitigate Thursday’s discussions.

Brineura, a product of BioMarin, an American pharma company, is keeping little Charleigh

alive, who’s been the topic of this House repeatedly, at a cost of about $800,000

per year.

This question focuses, as do the next three questions, around tariffs.

Given the threat of tariffs to broad sections of our economy here in British Columbia,

can the minister please let us know how much of the total spending in the $35 billion

of this House budget is for procurement of American goods and services, including

drug procurement, that is under threat of increased costs under these tariffs? What

impact is your ministry projecting to the overall Health budget?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question around Trump’s unjustified tariffs and potential

impacts on pharmaceuticals. I’m going to answer the question specifically around pharmaceuticals

but, of course, note that our government remains incredibly concerned and is doing

everything possible to mitigate impacts to British Columbians and do the work that

is needed to respond to these tariffs.

So far, there has not been a noticeable impact on pharmacare as a result of these

unjustified tariffs. The member maybe already knows or will be interested to know

that Canada imports about 70 percent of pharmaceuticals, and approximately 16 percent

come from the U.S. Of course, this is a global supply chain, and that means the effects

of tariffs could be widespread.

We’re concerned, of course, that these tariffs imposed by the U.S. on global supply

chains will lead to disruptions. This is something we obviously want to do everything

we can to mitigate for those drugs that are made in the U.S., possibly even other

countries. The majority of active pharmaceutical ingredients is imported from China

and India, for example, but even those may be affected through what is taking place

right now.

Now, if drug prices are expected to increase, there is some assurance in the fact

that our existing contracts with manufacturers will help to ensure that drugs remain

affordable for British Columbians. We do have a newly established drug shortage unit.

Those people in this unit are working to mitigate any drug shortage by working with

Health Canada and working with health care providers.

I also want to state clearly that we have concerns. I have concerns that proposed

goods, including pharmaceutical items, could lead to a worsening access. That is something

that we oppose, and there is lobbying underway to try to prevent this.

Again, tariffs would potentially add prices that will impact PharmaCare, that would

impact private insurers. It will impact patients. That’s why we’ve provided a response

directly to, and advocated directly to, the federal government that pharmaceuticals

should not be included in the list of retaliatory tariffs.

Brennan Day : Just a quick follow-up. Three billion dollars, approximately, in Canada are imported

in U.S. drugs. What percentage of those are bound for B.C.?

[4:50 p.m.]

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

We know that 13½ percent of the Canadian population resides here in B.C. The number

that the member is asking for specifically is not at my fingertips. It’s not at our

fingertips. So I take that under advisement and thank the member for that understanding.

I also failed to acknowledge my incredible staff that are here supporting me today,

so I just want to take a moment to introduce them.

I am joined today by Cynthia Johansen, who is our new deputy minister in the Ministry

of Health, having started just last week. Mark Armitage is associate deputy minister

in the Ministry of Health.

Behind me, I am joined by Ian Rongve and Miranda Mason, and they are both assistant

deputy ministers. Rob Byers, our assistant deputy minister and CF