235. Premier David Eby: DRIPA, the Cost of Living Crisis & the Future of BC

Premier David Eby joins Aaron Pete to discuss DRIPA, BC’s economy, rising deficits, reconciliation tensions, the cost of living crisis, and criticism facing his government.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

A lot's flurring in the news in regards to the decision not to move forward with amendments to DRIPA. Can you walk us through the timeline?

SPEAKER_01 0:08

Our uh partners were very clear. They wanted no amendments to the Declaration Act. Uh, and it seemed essential that amendments would have to happen to put us back to the position we were before the court decision.

SPEAKER_00 0:18

How are you digesting kind of the outcome of this?

SPEAKER_01 0:21

There was never a world in which we wanted to or be in the position of uh unilaterally changing this law that could not be more directly related to indigenous people.

SPEAKER_00 0:30

Are you looking at Nikki Sharma as your successor?

SPEAKER_01 0:32

Nikki would be an incredible premier, no question about it. Uh, but there is already currently a premier.

SPEAKER_00 0:37

How do you justify expanding the PST onto more services while people are already struggling with food, rent, and mortgages?

SPEAKER_01 0:44

Our economy has shifted uh to a more service uh-oriented economy away from uh goods production and the PST because we never moved to the HST.

SPEAKER_00 0:53

Can you leave listeners with the plan, the vision, the direction that our government is heading in right now? Premier, thank you very much for being willing to join us today. You do not need an introduction. Uh, I greatly appreciate your time. I'm wondering if we can start. As you know, a lot's flurring in the news in regards to the decision not to move forward with amendments to DRIPA. Can you walk us through the timeline? I'll just give you the space to walk us through the journey you've been on in regards to these proposed amendments and deciding ultimately not to proceed.

SPEAKER_01 1:33

Yeah, sure. It's uh it's uh it's a lengthy uh journey, but uh but let's do it. Um, so uh we got a decision from the Court of Appeal called Gakatla, uh named for the First Nation that was challenging the Mineral Tenure Act, uh, and they challenged uh the Mineral Tenure Act under two uh sections of law. One is section 35 in the Constitution, there where they were successful. It's not a constitutional law. And the other was the Declaration Act. Uh the trial court uh said you can't challenge the Mineral Tenure Act using the declarate declaration act in this way. Courts shouldn't do that job. Uh at the Court of Appeal, uh, the court split. Uh two judges said yes, uh, the court can review laws like this, whether or not they're consistent with the Declaration Act. And one judge said, no, uh, that's not the place of the court. So we uh uh ended up in a situation where in the Court of Appeal decision, um, the court uh found that the Declaration Act had been brought into British Columbia law in full effect uh immediately, uh, which means that anyone, indigenous or not, could challenge a law or statutory decision in the province using the Declaration Act and get an order from the court that the government needed to take some steps to address it. It's a big uh litigation challenge for us, uh significant litigation risk for the province, and not what the act was intended to do. We set out an action plan with clear steps about uh what we were going to do next, uh what legislation we were gonna do next, and uh to do it in an orderly fashion together. So the the goal and engagement with nations out of the court decision was look, can we get back to where we were before the court decision? Uh, doing it a step-by-step method rather than the whole thing at once. Um, and uh that's where we ran into trouble. Um, our uh partners were very clear. They wanted no amendments to the Declaration Act. Uh, and it seemed uh essential uh that amendments would have to happen to put us back to the position we were before the court decision. Uh and so we began work on uh amendments that we would be pitching to First Nations leaders. Uh when we presented them, the response was Are you kidding me? You're going to unilaterally amend this law that we co-designed together. And I was like, okay, well, that makes that objection makes a lot of sense to me. So how about we came back with a second proposal was we'll put the relevant sections of the act on hold. We have the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. Uh, and in the interim, uh or after the Supreme Court of Canada decision, we'll work on how we uh deal with whatever the final call is on this. Um, and uh that was uh a little bit better received, but still not well received um by nations. And uh and there was just no um it was us pitching stuff uh was uh was uh a bit of the dynamic. And uh and so uh I made the call uh that we should go. We should uh introduce it, we should uh we needed this pause, we needed the protection for the province for key decisions around major projects and other pieces. And uh it was uh as we were calling the chiefs to say, this is what we're doing, uh, and we're gonna set up a process afterwards um that uh the attorney general had some conversations with First Nations Leadership Council uh as part of those calls that were going out. And she said, Look, I think there's a road here where um there's a willingness to sit down at the table and try to find a path with chiefs uh and uh and to define it, have a defined end date and uh and potentially be able to mutually support something in the next legislative session. So we had a conversation uh with FNLC, the First Nations Leadership Council, and reached agreement on uh a joint statement saying that we would work together on some kind of solution without defining what it is, uh, before the next legislative session, uh, that we would do it uh in partnership with chiefs across the province. Uh and uh and so that's the process we're on right now. Uh we're in this, uh we're setting up the process for uh us to uh do this work between now and October uh and uh and be in a position to introduce something uh to address the province's legal concerns, but we also think there are uh areas that the chiefs would like to address as well during this conversation.

SPEAKER_00 5:45

How do you feel about that? Seeing as you had made, I think, uh an executive decision, a leadership decision to proceed, and you're in this situation where I think the uncertainty is going to linger for a period of time. Obviously, as you may have seen, there's been a lot of negative reaction, uh, Moamir being one from Van Culler, who's really calling out this indecisiveness back and forth and feeling like there's uncertainty. How are you digesting kind of the outcome of this?

SPEAKER_01 6:13

Well, um, even if we'd introduced uh the temporary pause in the legislature, it was with the aim of sitting down with nations and getting to something that we can mutually agree on. So there would still be that question of well, what's the final answer going to look like? Uh what this costs us is um a period of about six months uh where people could file litigation challenges. Um, and uh, and you know, the courts move quickly, but they don't move that quickly. So maybe uh, you know, we can be hopeful about uh what the impact's going to be there uh is minimal. And but it does it there, there is an impact there. But the the benefit um is significant of having a lasting and durable solution. And if there's an opportunity to get that, that's where I want to get. Um, and you know, the where we were in this kind of like, we're we're going this way, we're gonna do it this way. I know you don't like it, but we're doing it anyway. Uh was a deeply uncomfortable uh position for me, for our whole caucus, uh, and uh and not consistent with how we've tried to do things since forming government. Uh and so finding that path forward to a stable, long-lasting solution um is uh is worth uh the time. And uh, and so uh as is uh trying to find that path together um for the long term.

SPEAKER_00 7:32

I have to confess, Premier, as a First Nations chief, I feel rather uncomfortable with the dynamic you've been put in in regards to this, just seeing uh a group of voices, some of which are not formally elected by British Columbians, having this level of influence on your ability to make decisions, your government's ability to make decisions. I just feel a bit uneasy. And I'm wondering if you can walk me through how how you and your government have kind of concluded on this pathway.

SPEAKER_01 8:02

Yeah, I think, you know, the the law is literally called the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. We drafted it together with uh with Indigenous people. It was uh a transformational law. Court decisions come along, we have to deal with it. Um, and um, and I think there's recognition now, increasingly, that the province is committed to dealing with this. We have to deal with it. Um, but there was never a world in which we wanted to or be in the position of uh unilaterally changing this law that is directly related to, like could not be more directly related to Indigenous people. And uh, and that was what led to the deep discomfort and frankly a sense of relief that we were able to get to the table now with all of the uh key voices and be able to uh take a swing at getting to a lasting solution on this. Um, and so I I have heard those critiques that um that, you know, that, oh, this means that, you know, that the government's not directly in control or whatever. I mean, we I believe we had the votes. I believe we could have gone ahead. It was a decision to take a step back and find that durable path together. Um, that, you know, engaging, it's it's not unique to our Indigenous work. It was engaging with family doctors that led to the work connecting more people with family doctors, changes to the law and improving the pathways for American doctors to come. It was like with ICBC, it was engaging with the disability community, saying we need to support people injured in accidents, but we can't afford this system anymore. How can we work together and find that path? So, and and you know, it's not the same, but it is in some ways like ICBC was a really hard issue. It took four different swings at it to get there. And this one is so much more sensitive, so much more delicate, so much more history. Uh, and uh, and and probably the hardest issue I've ever worked on is Premier. And um, and I I really uh want to be at the table to to design the solution together because it is it is squarely about uh the future of the province and indigenous people. And doing it without Indigenous people at the table feels very wrong.

SPEAKER_00 10:02

You mentioned this, and I'm just wondering how do you respond to your critics and their frustrations with the the changes throughout this process? Is that just noise that you're taking in, or how do you digest their their frustration with the um I think you you're aware of how Musqueam responded to your comments about where they were at with their agreement, and you had said you weren't aware and there was some miscommunication on that front. How are you feeling about some of the criticisms you've receiving?

SPEAKER_01 10:31

You know, I uh I understand uh that people want uh and I also want uh certainty and clarity for the province going forward. Um, we just fundamentally disagree about how to get there. Um, the the main critics that we have are the Conservative Party, I sit across from them. Uh their view is that by um abolishing the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People Act, uh, that that's gonna solve this issue. Uh it is not. We have uh multi-billion dollar investments across the province that depend on this legislation, agreements around children and youth, uh, and uh and uh some really heavy lifting that's being done under this act. So it would impact jobs for British Columbians, it would impact long-standing social issues that need to be addressed. It's not just symbolic legislation. This is actually working legislation that's being deployed in the province. And so it is important, um, I think, for anyone who uh who uh says, look, I don't agree with this. I think that um it should be repealed. Um, I think the province shouldn't be working with First Nations, but things, which are things that the the conservatives are saying, uh, to explain uh how they would address the fact that the province was settled largely without treaty. The fact that the courts have repeatedly recognized uh indigenous rights and title in British Columbia under uh multiple governments, BC, Liberal, NDP, uh, and uh they certainly would under a conservative government too. And so, how are you going to provide that certainty? How are you gonna provide that so that someone could invest billions of dollars in the province in major projects? We are uh still a resource uh dependent province in many ways. Uh, and so our economy, a lot of jobs depend on getting this right uh and providing that stability. And so when we have $50 billion in major projects in the next 12 months that have Indigenous partners as investors, it's their project or as major supporters or receiving benefits uh from those agreements. And you're uh going to blow up uh this act that underlies their uh child welfare work or that underlies the environmental assessment that we did together that uh approves the project to go ahead. Like, can you explain what the strategy is here and how that doesn't impact uh so many British Columbians? Uh they're not able to do it and they're not able to say what next after the repeal of the Declaration Act. And that's the crucial part, of course.

SPEAKER_00 12:56

Sincerely, and as an as a First Nations person myself, I feel that we are couldn't have been more at odds with British Columbians at this stage with the Cowichin decision, the Musqueam Agreement, and the 215 uh unmarked graves or anomalies, as some put it. Um, we have more and more separation between us. And I worry about how things are feeling more and more divided. And as you might know, the the comments I get in my comment section on Twitter and stuff are calling me a grifter, calling me uh negative names, and I can handle that. But I'm just I'm worried about the trajectory between the relationship. This doesn't feel like two parties reconciling and being closer together right now. It feels like we couldn't be farther apart. Um, I'll be honest, I don't exactly know where the end goal is for reconciliation. And a lot of people ask me where I'm at on that. And I believe there should be an end date to reconciliation. We should have benchmarkers where we can start to close these things out, where we can bring peace and we can move forward as one province uh that serves all British Columbians. And I'm just wondering, how do you digest that? Are you seeing what I'm seeing, or or am I starting to spend too much time on Twitter?

SPEAKER_01 14:09

Um, you know, both could be true. Uh Twitter is not a healthy place. Um, uh, you know, I think uh I think you're right. Um I think we've seen a rise in racism generally. Um, and there are many communities uh that are seeing that uh in the province, uh, but it's not unique to British Columbia. It is uh uh a phenomenon that I believe has been enabled by uh some very bad uh political decision making in the United States. Um, but regardless of that, there is a specific uh anti-indigenous racism that we have seen on the rise in the province. Uh, and it's driven by a couple of things, I think. There are people who see political advantage uh in this division. Um, and uh, and that's really unfortunate. Um, there's a long history of anti-indigenous racism, and without question, uh, some people feel emboldened by the current environment. But there's a huge number of people that are kind of on the fence about all this. They're like, well, I don't know, you know, how is this gonna go? And uh what are we, you know, what are we doing this for, and what's the point of it? And um, and and that is uh uh a job and responsibility of the provincial government, uh, and uh and also uh a partnership with uh Indigenous leadership uh to do a better job of communicating uh what we're doing here, what the benefits are, uh, and how this work lifts communities up. When we sign a treaty with a nation, it's very well documented, the economic impact for the nation as well as the surrounding community, jobs, prosperity, opportunity, better health outcomes, you name it, um, it lifts everybody up. This is why we do the work. Um, and uh and we have not done a good job of selling that. And uh, and we can, and we will uh because we have to. The work is not going away. Uh, bridging that divide uh requires at least the majority of British Columbians to understand that this work has to be done and that when it is done, projects move faster, people have more opportunities for jobs, health outcomes uh in Indigenous communities are way better, so it's cheaper for the healthcare system, but it's also addressing long-standing uh justice issues. You put all those pieces together. Uh, I do believe we have something that we can sell to the public, and we haven't done a good enough job of it. And part of it, I think, is that as uh as new democrats, just something so obvious to us uh that we have to do this work. This is important work, it's necessary. And there's a whole bunch of people who are like, they're just going about their lives, they're just doing their thing, they're not thinking about it. They're like, well, I don't understand why uh the government's giving away all this property uh to the First Nations. Like, I mean, and and what about my house? How's this gonna affect my house? And uh, and so we really need to, and we are uh in the process of doing uh a reset about how uh we're engaging British Columbians on that because we've got to bring everybody along, otherwise it won't be durable work. Uh this work can be undone and reversed.

SPEAKER_00 16:55

That is very good news because I do put myself in the shoes of somebody who lives in Richmond who feels like my house is always sold to me as something that is like my retirement plan and they're uncertain. And so it's easy to look at First Nations people and go, you're the reason why my life has become less certain. You're the reason I have less confidence. And I don't think that's racism. I think that's just a place of fear, uncertainty, a cost of living crisis. And I think the more I look at them as the enemy and they look at me as the enemy, the more we're divided and the less we're able to move forward. Uh, one quick question I did have to cover the DRIPA stuff is Van Palmer had commented that you have, in this interview and in a conversation, uh raised um Attorney General Nikki Sharma. And uh in an article he they wrote, um, had said that you are potentially looking at them as uh as your successor. Uh is this true? Are you looking at Nikki Sharma as your successor?

SPEAKER_01 17:49

Uh Nikki's amazing. Uh Nikki would be an incredible premier, no question about it. Uh, but there is already currently a premier. Uh and uh and we've got a lot of amazing uh caucus members um not currently thinking about secession, uh, but uh but certainly when the time comes, I hope she thinks about it.

SPEAKER_00 18:07

The next question is on cost of living. How do you justify expanding the PST onto more services while people are already struggling with food, rent, and mortgages?

SPEAKER_01 18:17

Yeah, great question. So um one of the crucial pieces for me uh was that the provincial tax burden on British Columbians, uh, especially uh lower and middle income British Columbians, um uh be manageable in times of affordability crisis. Um the full and the cumulative tax burden on British Columbians earning $149,000 or less is uh the uh the income tax burden is the lowest in Canada. Uh and the overall tax burden uh is uh among the lowest in Canada. We actually cut taxes uh for the lowest income bracket uh and the middle income bracket, although it's a very uh marginal tax cut for middle income British Columbians. Um, the focus of the budget and the supports in the budget are for lower income British Columbians. On the PST, um, there are an array of services uh that um our economy has shifted uh to a more service uh-oriented economy away from uh goods production. Uh and the PST, because we never moved to the HST, um uh the uh the PST doesn't apply, uh has not applied to those services. Um so when you're talking about like uh geotechnical services or engineering services, um the uh six out of eight provinces already tax these things and uh and we'll be the seventh out of eight provinces. So it doesn't put it us at a competitive disadvantage with other provinces and it recognizes the shift that's taken place in terms of uh what's sold in the province. We have to have that revenue to pay for public services.

SPEAKER_00 19:50

At what point does government spending start making inflation and cost pressures worse?

SPEAKER_01 19:57

Well, I can tell you that uh the the deficit is too high uh and we have to bring it down. Uh we're doing a lot of work to do that. Um, and uh I can also tell you that in terms of people's dependence on government services, uh, it probably uh hasn't been more acute uh than right now because of global inflation. You know, we see uh most recently the impact of the war in Iran on the price of gas, the price of diesel, uh diesel in particular is going to get passed through and the price of groceries. Uh, so will the cost of fertilizer also impacted. Uh, and even before that, uh people were seeing inflation as a result of uh the slowing global economy. Uh and and you know, I there are definitely uh factors uh related to uh government spending, but compared to the global events that uh we're sustaining right now, uh, they are uh infitesimal. And so uh the question is, is now the time to uh to really make families bear the brunt uh in order to close that uh gap? Uh and the answer was, you know, we can't justify that when there's an opportunity to grow the economy, to close the gap instead. Uh and so we've really been focused. Major projects are a significant part of this strategy. The $50 billion of investments that are reaching final investment this year that I told you about earlier reflect thousands of jobs, a huge boost in provincial revenue uh to support public services. Uh, and uh, and this is the way that we're going to have to close that gap uh because uh while we can reduce administration costs and bloat, there's room for us to do that. We're reducing the public service, uh public sector uh by uh 15,000 positions. Uh at the end of the day, you are talking about if you want to close that gap, you're talking about cutting doctors, nurses, uh healthcare professionals, teachers, uh, substance uh abuse uh support workers, addictions workers, and others. And we've seen that movie before. It happened in 2001 in BC. And we're just not prepared to do that if we have another option, and we do.

SPEAKER_00 21:55

Uh a few quick questions with repeated credit uh downgrades. Rising deficits. How should people try? Why are you asking people to trust the government's economic management?

SPEAKER_01 22:09

Well, the reality is at the end of the day that we're not in a unique position financially, either in Canada or around the world. So if you're looking at deficits, we're not the largest deficit in Canada. That's Ontario. Ontario's $500 billion in debt. We're at $230 billion, less than half. New Brunswick had a record deficit. Ottawa has a record deficit. The United States has a record deficit. The EU has record deficits. Japan has record deficits. The UK has record deficits. What we are seeing is the cost of delivering services and building infrastructure is increasing faster than the costs, than the revenue generated to pay for those services within national and subnational governments. It is acute in British Columbia. Our forest sector has been badly hurt by American tariffs and also by a decrease in available fiber. Our real estate market is slow. That's been a major source of revenue for the provincial government for many years, and resource price has been really unpredictable. So these components are showing up in British Columbia in a very significant way. And the reason for British Columbians to support what the government is doing here is uh twofold. One is uh we are protecting the core services that they depend on in this really precarious time. And the second is uh that we have a clear route to grow the economy, to drive the um payments to be able to close that gap further without having to go to them uh for further taxes and without having to uh engage in those cuts that would hurt them. And so uh the uh the uh vision of uh the conservative party is not clear uh because we said question period, and one question will be like, why don't you spend more on this? And then the next question is uh why is the deficit so high? Uh and so at some point uh they'll have to articulate what their vision is, what they're gonna cut. Uh they had an unguarded moment. One of their members said that education and healthcare would face the brunt of cuts uh if they were in government. Uh maybe that's the case. Uh, but in any event, I look forward to seeing what their proposals are. Ours is very clear.

SPEAKER_00 24:11

With great respect, the Tumblr Ridge investigation is nearing completion. What accountability should people expect when it concludes?

SPEAKER_01 24:20

Uh that's a good question. Um, there are three buckets uh of uh of issues related to Tumblr Ridge. The first is uh the guns. Um, why were the guns returned to the uh shooter's house? Uh what were the safeguards around the guns? Uh, were these guns that were uh properly registered? All these questions is subject to the police uh investigation uh that's ongoing, but uh we're told we'll conclude soon. The second is mental health services. You know, were there uh red flags that were ignored? Uh were there services that should have been provided that weren't? Uh we struggle in Tumblr Ridge, as well as many rural communities, to provide emergency health care doctors and nurses uh to be able to keep open those healthcare centers in a time of shortage of emergency health workers, of healthcare workers. Um, and so uh the same is true for mental health services. We recently expanded before the incident services in Tumblr Ridge, but they were delivered partially virtually, which is not the same. Uh and so the question about uh how do we deliver rural uh mental health services? How do we identify issues uh where someone could potentially uh be violent if in fact there were flags that were raised and they weren't acted on? Uh so that uh is uh is the second set of questions. The third is uh is uh the role of uh tech platform, in this case, OpenAI, uh the knowledge that they had in advance of the shooting that the shooter was using their uh artificial intelligence uh program, chatbot, to plan uh the shooting. We don't know the details yet of what that looked like, but we do know what happened, and we do know the company is prepared to apologize that it was so serious that multiple employees flagged it for senior management and they decided not to intervene. So uh those questions and many others will be answered, uh certainly uh potentially through the police investigation, uh certainly through the coroner's inquest uh that's scheduled. And if we can't get all the answers we need on these and other issues, uh then we'll have to proceed to a public inquiry because the public needs to know uh on this and on the Lapu Lapu uh attack uh that uh that if if only one thing pounds out of this, that it uh we're taking all the steps to make sure it never happens again.

SPEAKER_00 26:29

Thank you. Last question. There's been reporting from journalists like Sam Cooper raising concerns about individuals connected to your network about potential foreign interference. Uh, are you confident that no one advising or associated with your government has ties that would concern Canadian national security agencies?

SPEAKER_01 26:46

I don't think any uh politician in Canada um should uh be boldly uh suggesting that they are not being targeted by foreign interference or that individuals' uh inner circles are not being targeted and manipulated for the purposes of foreign interference. This is why I've been continually pressing the federal government uh for access to any intelligence that they have about issues of foreign interference in British Columbia, including individuals uh and uh and organizations. Um, we're a bit vulnerable there as politicians, and I'll I'll include all politicians of all stripes in this, in the sense that often there's information that's held by CSIS, the RCMP, or others that for privacy reasons doesn't get disclosed to us. And so then, you know, you attend a community event uh with a particular organization or in a photograph with an individual, uh, and it's uh it's very hard to know um, you know, whether or not uh this uh is an individual or an organization that may be under the control of a foreign government. The second thing that's challenging right now uh is uh especially in a time when our economy is under direct threat from our largest and most trusted trading partner, uh, we're having to expand our outreach to countries where we know there are issues of foreign interference, India, China. And unfortunately, with the US, there are serious concerns about interference in relation to independence in Alberta, for example. Uh, so how do we manage that need to grow the economy and engage with these massive markets with the fact that governments feel increasingly comfortable interfering outside of their borders? Um, so there are not easy answers on this, but it does require a strong partnership with the federal government that has the ability to gather this information and uh ideally provide it to us so that we can act accordingly to protect British Columbians and of course uh to ensure that we're uh getting information that's free from foreign interference.

SPEAKER_00 28:36

I think British Columbians, and you might know this better than me, are exhausted. They're facing a cost of living crisis, affordability continues to become harder, there's uncertainty with our relationship with the US, there's a lack of clarity on private property rights from their perspective. There's just a lot going on. And I'm wondering, can you leave listeners with the plan, the vision, the direction that our government is heading in right now uh to bring some ease to their to their day-to-day life?

SPEAKER_01 29:04

Yeah, I mean, I I think um, you know, if people are feeling uneasy, they're certainly not alone. And and I would include myself uh in that group. It is uh wild time globally. And so for us as a province, uh, what is required is ensuring that we're doing everything we can to strengthen what we have here at home, uh, to ensure that we're protecting what makes this place amazing. And that is uh core to our whole strategy of leaning into our strengths, whether it's around uh resource development through mining, or whether it's through energy development through LNG and clean electricity projects, or whether it's through our life sciences sector or our tech sectors uh in uh in urban centers. Um, the Look West strategy uh emphasizes uh how government is leaning into these strengths, working with the federal government uh to ensure that British Columbia weathers this well and it's working. Uh, we're projected to be the second fastest growing province in Canada next year in terms of uh economic growth. That means more jobs, higher wages, and better opportunities for British Columbians. Uh, and um we are redoubling our efforts uh with the federal government and internationally uh to increase those opportunities that we have that other provinces don't because we have the ports, because we have these resources. Um, you know, we've had four new or uh major mine expansions uh in the last four months worth billions of dollars of investment, reach final investment decision. These take a period of time to come up and get running, but that washes through the whole economy, right through. There are 180 firms in Surrey that provide mining services. So this is the work that we're doing. Uh, we are in a very good position compared to many places around the globe. Uh, and the government is going to push hard on our advantages uh to leverage the opportunities for British Columbians to deal with this through structural, not through a one-time payment, but through structural changes that increase wages and the wealth of British Columbians, as well as, and it and it will, projects like LNG Canada Phase 2, Solisms LG, uh lifting the Canadian dollar for when we have to buy things internationally as well.

SPEAKER_00 31:11

Thank you, Premier, for being willing to do this. Huge shout out to you and your team. Uh, I know we had to reschedule this. You have a lot going on, um, but I'm just very grateful for the time. I think this is an uncertain time, and I'm grateful to hear there's a plan to start to share uh the work that's taking place and share some of those good news stories so people understand what's taking place. I know you're getting a lot of criticism, and I think it's just important, at least from my perspective, to remember that we're all just human beings. Everybody involved wants the best for our province. We have different philosophies and political perspectives on how to get there, but I think we need to continue to remember cooler heads need to prevail. Throwing mud is not productive, and I'm just I'm grateful you were willing to share the time today.

SPEAKER_01 31:53

Better thanks for the conversation. Good to see you.