The Paul Wells Show - B.C. Premier David Eby

Episode Date: September 27, 2023

B.C. Premier David Eby has a lot to contend with: a housing crisis, the opioid epidemic, healthcare, foreign interference, the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, federal-provincial relations, and the province's energy needs. We get into all of it.   You can get a premium version of this show with extra content by subscribing to Paul's newsletter: paulwells.substack.com

Did you know British Columbia's motto is the best place on earth? These days, that's not quite how it feels. We have a rapidly aging population. We have huge demand for long-term care. We have a really serious mental health and addiction crisis in the province that we're grappling with. Today, David Eby on the toughest job in British Columbia. Buckle up, this episode is jam-packed. I'm Paul Wells, the Journalist Fellow-in-Residence at the University of Toronto's Munk School. Welcome to The Paul Wells Show.

David Eby was in Ottawa on Monday to meet Justin Trudeau, but he sat down to talk to me first. If you've heard this podcast before, you know I like to have some fun small talk to put the guest at ease, get to know the person behind the news. Yeah, we got none of that for you this week. There was just so much to cover, starting with the assassination of Hardeep Singh Najjar, the Vancouver Sikh activist. Justin Trudeau blames the Indian government. Nijar, the Vancouver Sikh activist. Justin Trudeau blames the Indian government. CESAS was on the case for months before Nijar was killed. But nobody in Ottawa is showing David Eby their evidence. He told me that has to change. We also talked about housing, and drug overdoses, and foreign interference, and health care, federal-provincial relations, and energy. Eby's been the premier for less than a

year. He was the only candidate to replace John Horgan when Horgan retired for health reasons last year. So far, his plate's pretty full. He didn't grow up in BC. He moved there from Ontario in 2005, first as a human rights lawyer in Vancouver's downtown Eastside, and then as the terrible singer for a couple of local bands. Lucky for him, we didn't have time to talk about that part either. E.B. and his NDP government are still quite popular, but he's got more than enough headaches to keep him busy, and a federal government that doesn't always tell him

everything he needs to know, and a federal opposition leader, Pierre Poiliev, who sometimes seems to be running against him. He joined me in a studio at Canada's National Arts Centre. David Eby, thank you for joining me. Thanks for having me, Paul. You're meeting the Prime Minister today, but let me begin by asking about last week's big news, which was the Prime Minister's allegations about the assassination of

Hardeep Singh Nijjar. How did that affect your week back home in BC? Well, it's really a big deal in British Columbia. We have a huge expat community from India in British Columbia. And the news hit home very hard, particularly among the Sikh community, where there have been concerns about interference by the government of India for some time in their domestic political discussions. And a combination of a sense of relief that someone acknowledged that these things were true. And I would say a pretty broad sense of anger about the content of the allegations the prime minister made and the information he shared in the house. The claim that the Indian government was behind this killing, is that plausible to you? Had you asked me before the announcement,

I would have said, India is a democracy and one of the countries we're targeting for enhanced relations in terms of trade. And so I certainly personally found the announcement very shocking and disturbing. And for me, some of the frustration that I have about this is that there's an opportunity, I would say, for the federal government and their intelligence arms or the RCMP or CSIS to share more information provincially. arms or the RCMP or CSIS to share more information provincially. I mean, that really was quite disturbing to me that the prime minister had sufficiently credible information to make the allegation. Nijar was killed in June, mid-June of this year. If I said to you in May, there's something up with Hardeep Singh Nijar, would you have recognized the name? Would you have,

were his disputes with the Indian government something that were part of your preoccupations? Well, in recent memory, the protests in Surrey related to the treatment of farmers in the Punjab, particularly had a lot of salience in Metro Vancouver and British Columbia. Lots of people with, we support farmers, bumper stickers and that kind of thing. And so the discussion and the protest in relation to the Modi government relationship with the Sikh community in British Columbia and broadly was very much front of mind. And I was aware about concerns that had been raised about personal safety by people from the community. The tensions have been growing and the concerns about the more authoritarian leanings of the Indian government

on treatment of minorities in the Punjab, the response to protests in that community were very much raised with me by local activists and people who are concerned about it. I ask all this because Nijar was meeting with CSIS a couple times a week from February to June. They were telling him to stay in his house. They were letting him know that they believed that he was at some risk or maybe he and they were telling each other that he was at some risk. Is that a tenable situation? And is that a situation in which the premier or the government of British Columbia should be more closely involved? Well, I'm going to take a step back Paul to when I was briefed as the Attorney General and Minister responsible for gaming in British Columbia on the money laundering that was

happening in our province, allegations of transnational organized crime and the frustration that I had then that that information was not on the radar and the limited information that we had even then from the federal government about that particular activity. And then obviously there's been a very significant discussion about China and interference in politics in Canada. We've engaged with our elections BC head so that he has the capacity to independently of us ensure that we're protected and insulated from interference in that way. Again, we're operating quite in the dark in terms of what the federal government knows about that. And I've raised this issue on many occasions, and they have committed to finding ways to share more information. But whether it's India or China,

Iran or other governments and expat communities and interference in our politics in BC or public safety concerns, we just have not had the information that we need to be able to ensure that British Columbians are protected. And I keep raising it and I'm hopeful that we'll see some progress on this. Is the CSIS Act in the way in some form and does it need amending? When I meet with CSIS, they offer me what are called open source briefings, which are basically the content of newspapers, whatever you can find online. It's very frustrating, right? If you read the papers, it all sounds very familiar. And so they advise me that we are not the client. The provincial government is not the client and the federal government is. And so they're restricted in what they can share with us. And so this has been one of the areas of focus in our discussion with the federal government is. And so they're restricted in what they can share with us. And so this has been one of the areas of focus in our discussion with the federal government is reforming the

CSIS Act to be able to share that kind of information. Are there clearances that I can get personally even in order to be able to receive some of this information? Is it possible for the pro-Calistan movement in British Columbia to go too far? Rishi Sunak, the British prime minister last week was using terms like pro-Calistan extremism. Is that a thing? And is it something that you're preoccupied about? Well, I think when you're talking about any political protest movement, it can always go too far. That's why we have laws in Canada about that. But we also have free speech protections. And the concern that I have currently is that our free speech protections, the ability of British Columbians to speak out, whether it's about the

conditions of people living in Iran, whether it's the conditions of people living in China, the conditions of people living in India are being potentially interfered with by those governments. And people in British Columbia should be able to speak out on issues of interest to them without interference from external actors, especially government actors. Now, you're meeting the prime minister today, working visit, courtesy call? Well, this is very much a working visit. And one of the reasons why I'm here is it's become very apparent to me that the relationship between individuals is what drives the federal provincial relationship. Knowing ministers on a personal level is critically important. We have to make an extra effort to come out here, be more visible and be face-to-face with ministers, deepen those relationships and try to expand our influence on federal policies and programs so that British Columbians benefit.

I believe the last time you were in town was for the premier's meeting, the federal provincial meeting on health care, which was a weird day. The prime minister essentially invited the premiers to town so he could read a news release to them. And then he set aside a tranche of the money that he was announcing for federal provincial negotiations. First of all, the amount of money that was put on the table was a pretty small fraction of what the premiers had been saying they needed. Does that end the conversation? I think that for me, the piece that came out of the meeting was a level of relief that we had stability in health care funding. But I was really going into the meeting, and I think other premiers were as well, thinking that this was going to be our conversation about expanding around mental health, for example, or on addictions or on seniors care initiatives. And so it was disappointing that it was a flat line of our current funding.

It's a significant financial commitment, I understand, from the federal government. Grateful for that stability. It's helpful for us. But at the end of the day, when we look at our health care system, what's driving costs and what's happening in communities, we have a rapidly aging population. We have huge demand for long-term care. We have a really serious mental health and addiction crisis in the province that we're grappling with. And so the ability to have those conversations is critical.

And the door can't be closed because when we look at our government programs, health care is the dominant program. And the federal government is our main partner. And so those conversations do continue. We're talking about health care in our meetings, and the door can't be closed on that. It's too important, and there are too many ongoing issues for British Columbians that they're concerned about. We have a meeting coming up in Nova Scotia

of all the premiers to talk about health care strategies and best practices and to keep that momentum going. The second tranche of spending that was dependent on the outcome of some federal, provincial bilateral discussions. Did any of that change how British Columbia delivers healthcare in any way? No, I mean, we were, you know, there was a very significant discussion about accountability to the federal government or sort of agreements about how we're going to the federal government or sort of agreements about how we're going to spend the money or whatever. Like British Columbia, not an issue

for us. We dramatically overspend in terms of delivering. We go beyond minimum federal requirements. It's not an issue for us to say your money went to healthcare. Not only did your money go to healthcare, but we added a bunch of money to your money on cancer, on seniors care, on home care. And we're happy to have that discussion. We're not allocating it to some sort of politically oriented personal advantage program. This is to deliver healthcare. And so it hasn't been a challenge for us to enter into those kinds of agreements with the feds. And. You know, we're happy to be transparent around that kind of thing. And so, you know, if, if that's how they want to feel secure that, that their money is going where they would like it to go, we're happy to do that. Now I said this, you didn't, but it seems to me that executive federalism in this country is pretty badly broken. We're now two prime ministers deep in federal government being very reluctant to meet with the premiers as a group and preferring to sort of short circuit any real conversation by making the announcement as you walk in the door.

I mean, do you share that preoccupation, which is a wonky preoccupation and proves that I went to university in the eighties when federalism was pretty active. And do you think there's any way to fix it? Yeah. There's definitely an emphasis from this government on one-to-one agreements with provinces. So on childcare, for example, when we were first out of the gate with the feds on a childcare agreement, and we're always happy to engage in that if it benefits British Columbians. British Columbians don't wake up thinking about what's the relationship between the provincial government and the federal government.

You're rightly self-conscious to be asking a technical question like that, but it's an important question for our country and it's got to be difficult. We have a lot of conservative governments across the country and they're not there to necessarily be friendly to a federal liberal government. And we've had moments, frankly, where I think the line was crossed in terms of the discussion. But generally, I would say the discussion around the table is constructive. I think it would be beneficial to have more opportunities for us to meet as a group with the prime minister. And we do the same thing with municipal governments. Not every municipal government are card-carrying NDP members in British Columbia. Many are card-carrying

members of other parties. And the tone we're trying to get to in British Columbia with municipalities, and I think the reason it's front of mind, we just had our big municipalities, meaning the Union of BC municipalities. So I really felt a shift that a lot of the newly elected local governments are there to get things done for their communities and to deliver. And despite some fairly significant gulfs between some premiers and the federal government, I do think that the premiers are there to get things done for their people and that we can have those discussions around the table. And that the more frequently we meet, the less challenging it will be in terms of people trying

to score points. If you only meet once every couple of years, then everyone's trying to score a bunch of points in a short period of time. And I think if we meet more frequently, it takes some of that pressure off. Do you ever notice the federal government speaking directly to mayors, especially to the mayor of Vancouver? And does that ever bug you? Yeah, the federal government has really escalated their sort of direct approach to cities. And I think that's probably a phenomenon of the infrequent provincial meetings that we've had as a group. And I think it's necessary in terms of our big cities. I think the federal government should have a relationship with our big city mayors. I welcome that. It's not bad

news for us. But it's impossible. It's hard for us in British Columbia. We have 180 something municipalities. And the federal government certainly not going to be contacting them you know, it's hard for us in British Columbia. We have 180 something municipalities and the federal government certainly not going to be contacting them all directly or delivering programs to them all. So they, you know, they'll choose a few cities and that makes it hard. And so I understand the big cities and the need for that, but in terms of if they really want to do municipal programs, they want to support municipal programs, they do need to come through the provincial government to be able to be truly effective. And also one of the things that we recognize is our local governments are really frontline. And so when we issued a grant called the Growing Communities

Grant, we gave the money directly to the local governments and let them set the priorities about where they would spend it, capital or operating or whatever they wanted to do, community center, sewage pipes, up to them. And I think the ability of the feds to do that kind of work to provide municipalities with that kind of financial support, we would welcome that because there are huge needs. Prince Rupert, here's a city where the water pipes are on the verge of collapse. This is one of our biggest ports in the country. And if the water system collapses, then we're in big trouble. We put almost $100 million on the table for that city to fix their pipes. We're pushing the feds for money to match.

And there's a good example where they could be direct city funding, and we would welcome that. If you like discussions about big ideas like the ones on this show, I have a recommendation for another podcast. This Being Human is a show that features deep conversations about life, art, and the soul, informed by a Muslim worldview. Hosted by Abdul Rehman Malik, an award-winning journalist and educator, he talks to artists, musicians, writers, and other intellectuals about the work they do and the things that move them. This Being Human is a podcast from the Aga Khan Museum, produced by Antica Productions in partnership with TVO. Check it out. You can get it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts.

Let's talk about Pierre Poiliev. He has shot so much video in Vancouver lately that I'm starting to think he's going to qualify for a film tax credit. I want to talk about two files that he's championing, which are opioid policy and housing policy. But I do wonder, have you met the guy? Have you had a conversation with him since he became opposition leader?

No, I haven't, No. Would you like to? I think there's a lot of benefit in reducing partisan vibes. I'll describe it as on these big issues that matter to British Columbians in terms of those priorities, housing and the impact of the opioid epidemic. Yeah. Those are key issues in our province. And so as an opposition leader, he should be focused on those issues. Unfortunately, I think we're in a situation currently, not just in Canada, but in North America, where it is so partisan that these kinds of discussions can take on a character well beyond discussing the issue at hand. So I'm always happy to engage with people on the issues that matter to British

Columbians, especially if they have the ability to influence policy at the federal level. So I'd be happy to engage with Mr. Polyev on a policy discussion on that. My anxiety would be about polarizing or politicizing these incredibly challenging issues. So we have in BC, for example, you know, we have a policy, this decriminalization policy about keeping people alive so that they can get into treatment that all parties agreed on until we started to get close to the election. And then now it's becoming increasingly politicized. And I think in part because of some of the discussion that's coming from Mr. Polyev. Nobody's excited about the idea that somebody's addicted to drugs and they're going to street level dealers to buy drugs and that somehow a physician or a nurse would then

be providing prescription opioids to them. Nobody's excited about that. It's an act of desperation to keep people alive. We had almost 13,000 people die. I've been a drug prosecutor very briefly and I prosecuted someone for the possession of drugs, young indigenous woman, her file in particular stands out in my mind, where I watched and I was like, this woman came into the system, she wasn't made better by it. There was all this money and energy that went into that. She didn't come out the other end saying that was great and I feel better. And so to politicize this and say that this is causing other issues in the community, the fentanyl, the drugs that we're seeing in the community are causing the issues. We're trying to interrupt the supply. We're trying to interrupt

the relationship people have with dealers and get them into the medical system and get them into treatment and keep them alive. And so if that's the nature of the discussion, then that would be great. But if it's about progressive politics destroying civilization, then how's that going to advance us? One sometimes hears that there is a lot more space for treatment in Alberta than in British Columbia and a lot more effort to get people into treatment in Alberta than in British Columbia. Do you buy that? I agree that people say that. It's not true. Alberta struggles with

the same issue that we do, which is we need the psychiatric nurses around mental health. We need the addictions doctors. We need the people with the ability to provide the treatment. That's our biggest challenge. So we have a billion dollars in the budget around treatment. And our biggest challenge getting that money out the door is the people to deliver these services. We're building up a mental health and addiction infrastructure from zero. Alberta has the same thing. They've announced, what is it, 10 sites or something. I think they've got one almost open, right? And so to draw partisan lines around this stuff is, frankly, I find it frustrating. This is healthcare. It's necessary

healthcare for people. If Alberta's got a strategy to get those workers in place faster than we do, I want to know about it. Like, let's do it. And if we do, I'm sure Alberta wants to know about it as well. And there are pieces we've looked at from Alberta. I think they do a better job of ensuring access to methadone and opioid agonist therapies like that. I think they do a worse job in terms of finding ways to get people into the system so that they can benefit from those kinds of treatments. And so there are things that we do well, and there are things that we need to learn from other places. And the more that we can be cooperative on this, and in the conversations I've had with Premier Smith about this are constructive, and then the more everybody's going to benefit from it. I really, I do understand it's an issue in

BC we're grappling with around how we manage the street disorder that's associated with the fentanyl crisis that we're in. People with brain injuries who survived overdose and so on who are out in the streets and community. The more we work together to deal with these things, I think the better we'll be. You yourself, I believe as Attorney General, have shown some sympathy for the idea that people might need to be forced to go into treatment. Or forced, required. A lot of people say that simply doesn't work, that you need to pick your moment to begin your recovery. Do you still think that an obligation to undergo treatment would be something worth considering? Paul, the scenario that we're seeing in some of our emergency rooms is you have somebody who's brought in with an overdose, they get the Narcan and they sober up

and the withdrawal is so intense that they go back out in the community and use again and overdose again and they're back in the hospital again. I was speaking with emergency workers who talked about seeing people three, four times in a single day. The mayor of Burnaby, Mike Hurley, former firefighter, said one person he saw five times in a single day. So firefighters, emergency responders are already strained emergency rooms, former firefighter said one person he saw five times in a single day you know so firefighters

emergency responders are all already strained emergency rooms seeing the same person over and over and over we need a different way of approaching that so one of the things that I was told and pushing on this is anxiety that when people overdose that their friends or others will be reluctant to call 9-1-1 reluctant to bring them into the emergency room if they know that they might be detained for multiple days if they bring them in. And that will cause more people to die. So we're always trying to find the way to do this properly. So what we're doing with St. Paul's, which is a downtown hospital that's really frontline on this crisis, is a program where you go into the emergency room and you go seamlessly into detox on the site and seamlessly from detox to treatment so that

you move from the emergency room. If you have that moment of clarity, if you say, look, I want off this train, then you can go directly in the building. You don't get put in a cab to go somewhere else. You don't get told it's going to be a week's wait or whatever. And that seamless program we hope will be successful in the way that I would think and hope the mandatory treatment model would be successful in that it would give that person the chance to get out of that cycle of getting high, overdosing, coming back, getting high, overdosing, coming back. We'll see. There'll be careful research done about it. And there's still a lot of anxiety in the community about, especially young people who have addiction and their parents concerned when they come in,

obviously with an overdose, can we hold somebody in the hospital? That issue more challenging. I've also heard it argued, it has a certain surface plausibility that safe supply ends up being safe supply for dealers because the recipients of safe supply aren't getting a satisfactory fix off it, so they just sell it on a secondary market. I've heard that too. And it's important for people to know that almost 80% of the opioids that are available in British Columbia are prescription to people

for things like arthritis and other sort of pain management. Prescription opioids are a huge issue. And we also need to be concerned about diversion. So at the provincial level, we put research in place to see if that's true. We hear these stories and there was a physician who wrote a piece in the Globe and Mail I found very moving, very concerning. And we've worked with public health to ensure that the addictions physicians that are managing these programs for people have the safeguards in place to be able to ensure that people are actually taking the medication that they're carrying. And this is just one tool. There are many tools available to us and the focus on this particular piece sometimes neglects the other work that we're

doing as well around intervening. And so we do put a huge amount of confidence in nurses and physicians that are running this program to ensure that the people are receiving the prescriptions are actually using the drugs and not reselling them. And we're also doing the independent research to make sure that that's true and that the safeguards are actually in place. Housing. And incidentally, on both of these files, on opioids and on housing, there's a hell of a long paper trail for your involvement in these things going way back before Pierre Poiliev took out his cell phone camera. And I just wanted to make sure that we acknowledge that. the most extraordinary housing boom over the last 30, 40 years. It's still punishingly difficult to get an apartment or a condo in Vancouver. The prices are through the roof. So it's a real problem. What's missing in addressing it? There are a couple of key metrics to keep in

mind when you're talking about housing in British Columbia. And I can't speak for all the other provinces, but one of them is that we added 250,000 people to our province in the last two years. That is a massive population increase. Those are permanent residents, probably roughly the same number again in temporary foreign workers, international students in British Columbia. And when you're adding those kinds of numbers, it's very difficult in British Columbia. And when you're adding those kinds of numbers, it's very difficult to keep up. We have set records the last few years for housing starts, rental housing starts. We have programs to build more and more rental housing, which is all very good news. But municipalities have struggled to be able to approve in a timely way the housing that we need. The restrictive zoning rules that say you can only build one home on a single family

lot means that there's a whole area of housing that's totally missing and often describes the missing middle. It just means housing for people with a decent income that should be able to find a place they can buy or rent. And our ability as a provincial government is significantly different than the feds or the municipal governments in that we are separated from the frontline pressures of the neighbors that say we don't want that townhome next door to us, like the local governments are. We're in a better position than the federal government because we can set the zoning rules for the province. We can set the rules for approvals for the province. And so what we've been focusing on is how do we streamline processes to get more housing built faster? How do we restrict the excesses around short-term rentals, speculation, international money,

money laundering that have been taking place in our housing market? And the big piece we need the federal government on board for is around some of our initiatives related to using public land to build housing on. The model that's used in Seoul, it's used in Singapore, where government has been successful in building attainable housing for people by using public land. And the other is the infrastructure. So a lot of municipalities could bring on more housing, but they need a bridge, or they need sewage capacity, or you name it in terms of just the nuts and bolts of delivering a city that functions. And the federal government can play a really significant role there. So that's part of what I'm here to talk

about with the feds is those places where they can really make a big difference for us as we try to build out the housing for this massive growth in population we've seen. So people actually see a future for themselves in BC. It's been a challenge in BC for a long time since the earliest days of British Columbia. And it's always going to be a desirable place to live. But I do think that we can, if we work together, local, provincial, municipal, make some good headway on this issue. The feds have also lately decided to try a kind of carrot and stick approach. So Sean Fraser wrote to Calgary and said, you don't get housing accelerator money unless you accelerate the housing, unless you abandon some of these restricted zoning practices. Is that something you welcome?

Yeah, I think it's necessary. I think it's something we're doing provincially. So we're setting housing targets for municipalities. First, we funded them to do housing needs studies, so they know the housing they need for the population growth that we have in the province. Then we said, okay, take those housing needs studies and we're going to work together, we're going to set some targets. And then we're going to work together to help you hit those targets. And that could include carrots, funding with infrastructure and other pieces to get it done. And it could include, if you're unwilling to put the policies in place, consequences around the availability of grants and so on, and just won't be available to you

in the way it will be to cities that are able to hit those targets. The interesting thing is, sort of initially around that discussion, there was a lot of resistance, there was a lot of unhappiness about it. But as we've worked through it now, I think the municipalities in BC, there are exceptions, of course, are willing to engage in this. They see the desperate need and they see their role, frankly, in helping us deal with this crisis. And so I hope that that is what the outcome is for the federal government's approach as well. We've been trying to get them to say, we'll map up our accelerator money with your housing target cities. Let's make those the same cities.

So that's where we've been pushing the housing minister. Let's coordinate our programs. This is an idea where the province and the feds are working in coordination and see how that goes. And so I'm hopeful that that's where we end up. I don't even think you lived in British Columbia when three levels of government

negotiated a decade long plan for provision of social services, for provision of other government services. I've always been amazed that that isn't something that happens regularly. Is it time to talk about this sort of thing, not only for Vancouver, but for all those other municipalities? That would be fantastic. And that level of integration and coordination is really needed again. So the Vancouver agreement kind of came out of the HIV, AIDS crisis in the downtown East side, the really impoverished neighborhood, downtown Vancouver. And that neighborhood right now, I've not seen it worse. The impacts of the

fentanyl crisis down there is unbelievable. People really struggling. So our government, I've made a commitment that as premier, circle around that neighborhood, the province is going to coordinate, we're taking on the issue provincially because it's too big for the city now. And one of the conversations I've had with the federal government is, can we work together? And the Vancouver agreement fell apart immediately on the end of the Christian government. But the opportunity that's there, because this is a national issue, there shouldn't be a neighborhood like that in Canada. There shouldn't be people struggling like that in Canada. And it's one of the first places

that people see when they get off the cruise ships in Gastown, in Vancouver. And so the opportunity for us to coordinate there could be a really good model for other places. But absolutely, when you're talking about some of our major cities or key infrastructure areas or ports, or I think increased coordination like that would be really welcome from my perspective. And again, we have more in common with the federal government than many premiers across Canada. Maybe that wouldn't be a national strategy that would work, but certainly in British Columbia, we would welcome that kind of partnership. Can I ask a bit about the partisan context in British Columbia?

Because it's sort of changing these days. There is no liberal party anymore. It's BC United. And a string of polls going back, you know, some time suggests that you don't have to worry too much about this because your NDP party is just stomping the opposition. But the British Columbia Conservative Party does seem lately to be a bit resurgent. What's causing all those changes? I learned a long time ago, I shouldn't ask heads of government about their oppositions, but I'll take a shot. What's going on in the partisan landscape? When I was first elected was 2013. We had a 30-point lead in the polls, and we lost that election. And so I learned a very important lesson then, which is that when it comes to the polls,

and when it comes to British Columbia's politics, you don't take anything for granted, which I'm sure you've heard 100 politicians say in front of you, I'm going to be at the hundredth. And if we're not delivering for British Columbians on housing, public safety, on affordability, including the key housing piece and healthcare, then we're not going to be successful in the next election. It doesn't matter what the polls say right now. And so that is the total focus. And I hope that some of the reason why you're seeing positive results for us from British Columbian in the polls right now is because people understand that's my focus. It's these key areas where we are doing all, you know, we're allowing pharmacies to prescribe

for minor ailments and renew prescriptions. We have this coordinated effort with the colleges around nurses and physicians to bring in internationally credentialed people faster. It's showing results. We have the cancer strategy, new investments around cancer, new hospitals across the province. People are seeing, okay, we know not everything's fixed, but we can see the direction that you're going on these things. And my hope is that's what's driving when British Columbians are asked by a pollster, it's going to say, well, you know what, we're not happy with the state of things in terms of affordability, global inflation, the impact of the fentanyl crisis. We're worried about health care, but we see that the government's going in the right direction on these issues and getting things done, I think, is going to be our ticket to reelection. And that's what my total focus is in terms of the other parties, they're going to raise issues and, and, uh, and the federal scene

will have some impact and all these other things are going to change their names to get away from the records, whatever they need to do. But, uh, but the, at the end of the day, uh, that it's got to be the total focus. If people hear me talking about politics, they're going to be like, well, you don't understand, uh, what the realities are of my life, if that's what you're worried about. I want to back up about five or six minutes ago, you said there's 250,000 new people in British Columbia in how long? Two years. In two years. Well, whose idea was that? And is it sustainable? Well, I understand what's driving it. We see it in BC, we have a rapidly aging population during the pandemic. We saw across sectors, people make the decision to retire. And it doesn't matter if

you're talking about hospitality industry and tourism, healthcare, you name it, finding people to work the jobs that we have. If you'd asked me a decade ago when I started politics, what would be your big challenge? The idea that the big challenge would be finding people to take the jobs would be like, wow, what a wonderful problem to have. But it is a serious problem. And so what we're trying to do is take some control back over the immigration program through our provincial nominee program so that the folks that we're recruiting to come to British Columbia help us with the big challenges we face around healthcare. So we push the feds for an increase in our provincial nominee numbers, which is the immigration stream we control, get those international healthcare workers in place,

get childcare workers here, get people in construction that can help us build out the things that we need to build, especially if they're skilled trades and have experience in a particular type of welding or whatever it is. And so there's so many streams where we need people. And it's a huge benefit to us that we're one of the few countries left in the world that has open doors and is welcoming in this and there's broad political support for it. The worry I have is that if we don't build out the infrastructure, the housing, the education, the schools, the basics of community to meet the demand of the federal immigration targets, that social license will disappear and with it, all the advantages that come with it. So it is quite a serious matter that we address housing, that the federal government

addresses the impacts of the growth that we're seeing through this, because that social license is not guaranteed as we see in other places. So you share the concern that some people have that at some point we're going to run into an immigration backlash. I think you can already see the anxiety that people have about talking about the challenge that we face to meet the immigration number demand that we have in terms of services, we need to talk about it. We need to find a way to recognize all of the positive impacts of immigration and that it brings responsibilities. When you welcome someone to the country, you need to have the services in place to be able to support that person. And so that discussion is starting to gain some traction.

And with it is always the risk. And in BC, where the front lines of where this ends up, you can go back to, we're talking about the South Asian community, Kamigata Maru, where a boat full of desperate people was turned away. And some of the worst moments in our history, the anti-Assiatic riots that took place, the head tax, you can see where it goes. And in BC, those memories are recent enough, living survivors of this kind of racism, anti-immigrant sentiment.

Everyone's very careful about it as they should be. And we need to be able to talk about providing those minimum standards. This has been a far more kind of intense conversation. Usually we just kick back and spin some tunes and stuff like this, but there's so much to cover. And I want to hit one last file, which is energy. Ontario and Quebec, the provinces that I follow most closely, kind of just woke up and realized

they've got to essentially double their electricity production in the next several years. Quebec isn't sure whether they've got rivers to dam. Ontario doesn't know how they're going to generate that kind of energy. And yet you're marketing a BC clean energy advantage. Are you off the hook for those kinds of demand challenges or do you know how you're going to meet them? No, we're certainly not off the hook. We feel a huge sense of responsibility around this. We have massive potential to respond to the energy needs of our West Coast neighbors all the way down the United States. To the East, our neighbors in

Alberta, and to the North, our friends in the Yukon that are hungry for energy. And the ability for BC to provide that support is really significant. And our conversations with the federal government around transmission lines that cross over into other provinces or territories or down into the United States in terms of providing a clean energy export in the form of electricity, hydroelectricity, I think the opportunity is huge. Last year, this year will not be the case, but last year we made about a billion dollars exporting electricity to the United States. This is a huge economic driver for our province and for Canada potentially. And we also have big international companies visiting British Columbia to talk about hydrogen. We had Fortescue,

huge Australian mining company, their CEO fly to Prince George to meet with the mayor and the local First Nation, Clayton A First, to talk about a $2 billion hydrogen export plant to decarbonize steel operations around the world. POSCO, a huge Korean steelmaking firm, in conversations with BC about a site to export hydrogen to decarbonize their steelmaking operations in Korea. I think that if we move quickly, we're going to be able to seize on this. And that's the big question. Electricity does not move quickly.

It is the opposite. It's a highly regulated industry. It is a very slow moving beast. And so we put in place a task force at BC Hydro to find ways to move faster around bringing new transmission and generation online. And I think that this will help us grow our economy quite dramatically, support decarbonization around our major industries, and create decarbonization around our major industries, and create jobs and a legacy for our kids around climate change, which is really

exciting and important. And it is an advantage we have that the feds could partner with us to help deliver to our neighbors as well. Where does LNG fit into all this? Our government delivered the LNG Canada project, as well as wood fiber LNG, which just started construction, and Cedar LNG, which is the largest indigenous energy project in North America. And so we recognize, I recognize that LNG is part of our economic and energy mix, at the same time as we recognize that fossil fuel infrastructure, its days are numbered. And so we're not putting all our eggs in that basket. In fact, when I met with the companies that are the big proponents behind LNG Canada,

they're finding ways to pivot to clean energy sources like hydrogen, and they're going to be our partners in those projects as well. So we're all looking to decarbonize. We have different targets, 2030, 2040, 2050. The companies do, we do as a province, and we're finding ways to support each other to get to those kinds of targets in a way that subsidizes the future that we want, which is that zero carbon clean energy future that we were just talking about.

David Eby, take a deep breath. I think I'm going to let you off the hook. That was a faster run through more files than I'm used to doing, but I don't often get a British Columbia premier in town, so I wanted to make the best use of the time. Thanks so much for talking. Thanks for having me, Paul. Thanks for listening to The Paul Wells Show. The Paul Wells Show is produced by Antica

in partnership with the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Our producer is Kevin Sexton. Our executive producers are Laura Reguerre and Stuart Cox. Our opening theme music is by Kevin Bright and our closing theme music is by Andy Milne. Go to paulwells.substack.com to subscribe to my newsletter. You'll also get a premium version of this show with bonus content.

We'll be back next Wednesday.