Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 38, International Credentials Recognition Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

In the third House, committee room C, I call the Committee of the Whole for Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALS
RECOGNITION ACT

Hon. A. Mercier: I move that the International Credential Recognition Act be read a second time now.

For too long, the international credential assessment process for internationally trained professionals in British Columbia has been long and difficult.

[2:30 p.m.]

This is why we’ve introduced Bill 38, the International Credentials Recognition Act, to focus on removing unfair and unnecessary barriers standing in the way of internationally trained professionals actually working in the fields that they’ve trained for in British Columbia. This act is about promoting transparency, fairness and efficiency in professional regulatory bodies. It impacts 29 professions and 18 regulators.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The fact is that we are in a supply-driven labour market. The labour market outlook tells us that in the next ten years, by 2032, we can expect to have over one million job vacancies, a stunning 80 percent of which will require some degree of post-secondary. And 40 percent of these jobs are projected to be filled through immigration. That’s a pretty significant thing when you consider that most of these job vacancies, two-thirds of them, are caused by traditional retirement in the labour market.

Now, the fact is that British Columbia is growing. We’ve added 250,000 new immigrants to British Columbia, newcomers, in the past two years. This gets talked about a lot as a labour shortage. But the reality is, I think, that this is far more of a matching issue that’s happening right now, where we have people with the skills, and we have people with the training, here in B.C., that are unable to practise in their chosen professions and are effectively barred from it by a maze of very complicated regulatory processes.

It’s not just about economics or the labour market in a real sense. International credential recognition and the barriers that are in place for internationally trained professionals are a question of basic fairness. This is, in many ways, a social justice issue.

Since taking this file on last year, I began with the team in post-secondary, a series of engagements with internationally trained professionals, immigrant-serving organizations, professional regulatory bodies, advocacy groups, employers and domestically trained professionals. Collectively, we talked to well over 1,000 people about a pretty important topic.

There are a couple of conclusions I drew from that that were pretty stark. One is that the experience of going through the international credential recognition process for internationally trained professionals is long. It’s complicated. Many people told me it was demeaning. It stood in stark contrast to what a lot of folks who immigrate to Canada felt they were promised when they came here, which was…. They immigrated through a points system that prioritized having professional certifications, like being an engineer, without it being necessarily transparent how difficult credential recognition was when they got here.

It’s a basic fairness issue, and it really came across that everyone we spoke to, including everyone that I spoke to that was in a professional regulatory body or worked for a professional college…. No one I spoke to would defend the system as it stands now. Everyone agreed that there needs to be significant change. Now, there are disagreements on the degree of change. But there wasn’t a disagreement in kind, which is that what we have now isn’t working.

There are a couple of stories that really stuck with me in particular and, I think, really went to inform the drafting of this legislation.

I remember speaking, at one of the engagements, to an Iranian engineer. He told me about every step of the process that he went through to get his engineering licence. He told me that most immigrants don’t come here by themselves. They come here with their families or with the hope of bringing their families over. It’s a big leap, when you’re a trained professional, to leave your vocation and leave your career and start again, start fresh. There’s a huge economic cost to it.

He told me about the years it took to go through the process, all of the red tape along the way and the cost. To finally get to the end of it, to finally get to the point where he’s proven his competencies, where he’s gotten the equivalency of education recognized and everything else, and to be told at the end: “By the way, you have to go do a year or more of Canadian work experience.”

[2:35 p.m.]

What that means, for the members here…. The Canadian work experience requirement is a requirement that when you’re an internationally trained professional, you work under the supervision of a Canadian professional for a length of time before your licence is recognized. It’s a catch-22 for a lot of internationally trained professionals because they have to go and find someone to take them on, which can often mean moving, if you can find anyone at all, and working at a cut rate.

I’ll never forget what he said to me. He said: “Look, I did everything I was told to do. It was a nightmare to figure out how to become licensed.” He did everything that he was told to do, and then he got to the end of the process, and he was told: “Your 20-plus years’ experience as an engineer abroad weren’t worth a single day in Canada.” That really stuck with me.

We heard from so many internationally trained professionals about redundant and expensive English language requirements. I remember speaking to one professional from Hong Kong who talked to me about…. He had a master’s degree from the United Kingdom. He’d lived in the U.K., been educated in the U.K., and he had to write an English exam when he came and he got his PR. Then he had to write another English exam, the same exam, when he went to apply for his licence.

Then, in the period of time it took the regulator to assess whether or not his application was complete — not assess the application on the merits but assess whether or not it was complete — he had to retake English exams every 12 months. He told me, “Look, the longer I spend here, the better my English is getting. I haven’t forgotten how to speak English since I came to Canada, and I came from an English-speaking country,” the United Kingdom, where he did his education.

I heard that story or a variant of that story so many times over the course of engagements. There are so many layered processes, redundant processes and expensive processes that just add an insult to injury for internationally trained professionals who are just working so hard to get through this.

When we announced the legislation the other day with the Premier, we had Alice Wong come and speak, who’s an internationally trained social worker that, I think, very, very aptly summarized the story I’ve heard now from so many internationally trained professionals, about just feeling left alone completely to their own devices to navigate a system that’s not advertised to them in any kind of way.

To me, it all really highlighted the difficulty with how Canada holds itself out to the world with the points system, saying, “We want you because you’re a professional,” and what happens when folks come and go through the certification process. There is a lot of work that we have to do there, and this bill is a part of that.

I want to say, as well, that regulators play an incredibly important role in all of this. I think regulators do two really core things. They make sure that public safety and the public interest are protected, but they also make sure that the integrity of the profession is protected. That’s as it should be. They are there to be partners within that process. And I heard that time and again across the board.

Sometimes some regulators are comparatively smaller than others and require more assistance to meet standards and guidelines, and we need to be there for them. That’s a message that was taken away.

Since we came into government in 2017, we have done so much work moving this file forward. We introduced the credential assessment improvement fund in 2019 that addresses exactly the issue I just raised.

That is a fund that is there for regulators who are seeking to improve their processes for international applicants and to engage in projects that streamline or facilitate the international credential assessment process. Effectively, as government we will fund those projects so that they can meet those. I think that’s a very core fund to be there, as well, as we put these standards into place.

Just last year in this House, we introduced the Health Professions and Occupations Act, which sets out a superintendent of health professions, which has authority over extrajurisdictional applicants policy with a set of health professions that it’s applicable to and provides health oversight. I think that’s an incredibly important bill that does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to international credential recognition.

[2:40 p.m.]

We need to build that work out. We’ve focused on the health professions. We’ve done a lot on the health professions, and I’ll talk about that, but we’ve focused on them because of the high importance and salience health takes in our society. We need to extend that work out beyond that to the rest of the professions.

Just a few months ago I announced, as well, the International Credential Fund, which is a $1½ million fund administered by a non-profit called ASPECT B.C. That’s there for immigrant-serving organizations specifically, to help with a series of measures for international credential assessment and to help the internationally trained professionals going through that assessment.

For instance, one thing that was really identified for us was a need for mentorship, and a need for mentorship from peers with lived experience going through the process to help navigate it. That fund is being used for projects like that, which, I think, is incredibly important as we get into the work of this act.

We are taking action by extending that work that we started with health and extending that to 29 professions, from engineers and lawyers and architects to paramedics, social workers and veterinarians. This will touch a significant amount of people and a significant amount of professions.

I’m going to talk a bit about what this bill does. I don’t propose to take too much time at second reading. I’m going to talk about what this bill does, but I just want to say first what it doesn’t do.

What this bill doesn’t do is interfere with or prescribe the substantive ability of professional regulatory bodies to set criteria related to competencies and technical knowledge. I think that would be, frankly, inappropriate, and I think most people would agree with that — that the professional regulatory bodies which are closest to the professions are the best situated to make decisions on the knowledge and skills needed for scope of practice.

That being said, there are so many process-oriented steps that need to be fixed. This is a very process-oriented bill in terms of removing, effectively, bureaucracy around this. We have had multiple regulators across multiple professions, all of which, over decades, have evolved their own processes to greater or lesser extents, and there hasn’t been a streamlining or a rationalizing around it.

This act is going to promote transparency, efficiency and fairness in that process, and it’s going to start by doing some pretty significant things. We are going to remove the Canadian work experience requirements across these professions. That is going to save years of people’s lives before they can go into and work their professions.

The amount of professionals I’ve talked to who have just given up and walked away because of barriers like this is staggering. I think this is something really significant that’s going to affect and change a lot of lives.

You know, I was struck by the fact that…. I spoke to a lot of regulators that told me during the engagement: “Hey, look, we know the Canadian work experience requirement isn’t actually measuring what we want it to measure. We need to move to competency-based assessments.” I think this is going to be a core part of helping make that shift to a better system.

Another provision here in this act is the limitations and restrictions on redundant and expensive language tests. You ought not to have to continually prove that you speak English just because an arbitrary expiry date was put on the test. This legislation is going to make sure that that’s there.

I can’t stress enough — I’ve said it, but I can’t stress it enough — what a big deal this was for all of the internationally trained professionals I’ve talked to, that have talked about just walking away when they’re sitting there hitting refresh on a computer, waiting to see if their application has been assessed, and they’re told: “Go prove you speak English again.”

There are also a lot of things in here that are going to help with timelines. In particular, there will be a responsibility upon regulators, for third parties that they contract with, to check the veracity of credentials. That’s important because it’s very clear to me that a lot of slippage in time happens there, as soon as the work is contracted out. So it’s about making the regulator accountable for that.

[2:45 p.m.]

As well, setting maximum processing timelines on regulators and a whole measure of requirements to keep the process timely and focused. We’re also going to tackle unfair fee differentials for international applicants and domestically trained applicants so that it’s comparable and based on reasonable grounds.

Something that I think is very significant on the professional regulatory side is making sure that there are reporting requirements and that there’s data collection that happens. I’m not going to name names, but I did speak to one regulator that told me pretty frankly that they don’t keep data on international applicants.

If you don’t have eyes on the problem, then how can you assess how well you’re doing at it? I think this is pretty critically important. There are a lot of regulators who have really embraced this approach and have used some funds from the credential assessment improvement fund — I’m thinking of engineers and geoscientists, for example — to do that work.

Transparency is a key part of this. It sounds so simple, but there are so many internationally trained professionals that come to Canada…. As I said before, with the points system, they’re told: “Hey, come here; you’re an engineer.” “Hey, come here; you’re a veterinarian.” Then aren’t told or given a clear pathway to credential recognition. This will require professional regulatory authorities to publish the pathway on their websites and to issue reports on the progress of that.

Most importantly, and the thing I heard across the board from immigrant-serving organizations, from professionals, from folks, is that for any of this to work, for any of this to land where the rubber hits the road, enforcement and oversight are absolutely critical, which is why one of the core things this act does is set up a superintendent of international credential recognition.

That superintendent is going to work hand in hand with the superintendent of the health professions and occupations on establishing guidelines around timelines and best practices. But the superintendent of international credential recognition is going to have some fairly significant authorities in order to get to compliance with professional regulators.

We’ve had some experience with this now in government. We introduced, in a previous session, the office of the superintendent of professional governance, through the Professional Governance Act. We intend to leverage the experience of the office of the superintendent of professional government. We can do this at no additional cost, using the FTEs we have with the OSPG and in the ministry in order to bring those best practices to bear and to make sure that we’re focused on an education-to-compliance model so that we can get more folks working here faster.

I think this is long overdue. I’m really excited about it, and I think it’s going to make a lot of positive changes in a lot of folks’ lives. I’m looking forward to, and I welcome, the debate.

G. Kyllo: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill 38. The bill aims to expedite the international recognition of international credentials here in British Columbia.

For years, B.C. United has consistently advocated for fast-tracking of credential recognition here in the province of B.C. However, after silence and inaction from the NDP, it’s a welcome surprise that government has finally recognized the importance of internationally trained professionals to our workforce.

B.C. has long been held in high esteem for our beautiful landscapes and our strong economy, attracting immigrants who want to call British Columbia home while pursuing a career in their trained profession. Unfortunately, this has not been the reality for many.

Foreign trade professionals have been left disappointed as a promise of building a career here in B.C. has been jeopardized by unnecessarily complex red tape and bureaucracy. Ultimately, these unfair processes are leading many to give up on the possibility of working in their previous field and choose alternative careers, diminishing British Columbians’ workforce potential.

[2:50 p.m.]

We’re even starting to hear stories of immigrants considering leaving British Columbia because life is too expensive and the profession that they are trained in is now out of reach simply due to exhaustive bureaucratic challenges. Streamlining and expediting the recognition of international credentials is crucial to officially harness the skills of an ever-growing workforce.

While this bill does have some sensible measures, and we certainly welcome the intention of streamlining approvals in these 29 professions, there’s little in this bill that gives us confidence that we’ll start seeing better results.

This is, in essence, a bill to make international credential approval faster, yet it contains no target time range in which this will happen, and there’s no detailed timeline that this process will follow.

We see consistently from this government big, bold announcements, but seldom do we see the homework being undertaken to consult with different industry groups or, in this case, with the regulators to clearly understand what the current timeline is.

What is the current backlog? What is the number of international trained professionals that are actually seeking to have their credentials recognized in B.C.?

We certainly have not seen any of that homework being done to understand what the baseline is. What is the current backlog that exists within the 19 different regulators that have accountability for these 29 professions? What is the fastest timeline that an international individual could expect to have their credentials recognized? What’s the longest time period?

Government has failed. I certainly stand to be corrected. But again, the government has failed to actually reach out to the regulators and have a good understanding of how big a problem this really is.

My concern with this piece of legislation…. Without that baseline data being established, how will we know with the new superintendent and the millions of additional dollars of bureaucratic red-tape to create this new office…? How are we going to have confidence and in any way, shape or form be able to measure the success of the superintendent in the years ahead?

We’ve seen this with the reckless process this government has undertaken around drug decriminalization. The federal government asked for that baseline data to be understood so that the federal government could actually have some semblance of understanding on whether these policies of this NDP government are actually improving the situation or not.

But they failed to do their homework. This is again yet another example where a big announcement, millions of additional dollars, a whole new bureaucracy, a new deputy minister with a whole bunch of additional staff….

I’m quite certain that when this piece of legislation was brought forward to Treasury Board or to cabinet, there must have been an outset of an established budget, but we’re failing to see any reference to it. The minister failed to answer the question when the question was posed by the media about what this is going to cost taxpayers.

It’s a real challenge, and I think everybody in British Columbia would understand the concept: if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Data should drive decisions. Yet in the absence of the baseline data, how will we know whether this piece of legislation is actually serving international professionals that seek to have their credentials recognized here in British Columbia when government has not done that baseline work?

This is all stick and no carrot. Where are the incentives? Where is the collaboration? Where is the opportunity to work with the regulators to better understand, as the minister had indicated, the very important work that the regulators undertake as far as ensuring public safety, the integrity of the profession?

Clearly, the regulator will continue to have full control over the standards and the guidelines to determine the competencies, the technical knowledge of internationally trained professionals.

It’s quite concerning to see a government that seems to know best. The government is going to be heavy-handed and start policing the regulators, but again, to my initial point, it is not establishing that baseline data. So how will British Columbians know in the years ahead…? How are internationally trained professionals…? How will they know that the process is actually improving or potentially getting worse?

[2:55 p.m.]

That’s certainly one of the concerns, and we’ll certainly be looking forward to, in committee stage, asking more detailed questions about that process.

Now, the only mention of timing specifically in the bill is that it must be enacted on a “reasonable timeline,” yet when we go to the definitions at the front end of the bill, there’s no definition for a reasonable timeline. So I’m sure that the regulators will be wondering: what does government understand to be a reasonable timeline? I’m interested in finding out what a reasonable timeline is. Is that a year? Is it two years? Is it five years? We don’t know.

As we go through the scrutiny of the bill, clause by clause, line by line, it’ll be very important, and I hope that the minister will have the opportunity, to better clarify what reasonable timeline actually refers to, because that is really the only clear definition of a timeline that’s actually set out in the bill as far as the amount of time that a regulator may have to undertake to ensure the competencies and the knowledge and skill set of those internationally trained professionals.

Now, if government’s track record is any indication, all we’ll see is just another announcement followed by continued delays, little transparency and, unfortunately, disappointing results. I’m also left a bit confused at how the government plans to measure the results of the bill without that baseline data. And how will we know if it’s working as intended and if the approval process really has been sped up?

Furthermore, in a fashion that has become typical of the government, Bill 38 fails to include key recommendations from the What We Heard report. We understand that there was a significant consultation process that was undertaken by the ministry, and it was culminated in a report that came out towards the end of July called What We Heard.

Now, within that What We Heard report implementation, there were eight themes that were actually identified. I think I’ll read those into the record now.

Theme 1: “Streamlining complex processes and shortening timelines.”

Theme 2: “Improving the accessibility, consistency and transparency of information about the licensure process and requirements.”

Theme 3: “Exploring alternative pathways for credential recognition.”

Theme 4: “Exploring more flexible approaches to demon­strate language proficiency.”

Theme 5: “Introducing performance standards for data and reporting.”

Theme 6: “Increasing financial and other supports for internationally trained professionals and regulatory authorities.”

Theme 7: “Improving coordination between government and regulatory authorities at the provincial and federal level.”

Theme 8: “Strengthening collaboration between regulatory authorities, educational institutions, employers and immigrant-serving organizations to support licensure integration.”

So eight themes identified. From what I can see, only three of those themes have largely been addressed in this legislation.

The important pieces…. This is where I think it’s important to take note of the approach of this government. The opportunities for collaborating, for working with regulators to try and find workable solutions to better understanding all of the different processes the regulators go through in ensuring the integrity and the skill set of those individuals that are coming to British Columbia to have their international credentials recognized here….

That whole aspect seems to have failed or not been addressed by government. Government has taken the heavy-handed-stick approach to spend a whole bunch more millions of dollars, of tax dollars. Put another superintendent in charge with a whole bunch more staff to come in with the club and to have the opportunity of fining organizations significant amounts of dollars for those that aren’t complying with what we have yet to understand from this government as far as what a reasonable timeline is.

I think that not just British Columbians and foreign professionals would be concerned, but I think the regulators also are likely quite concerned. And I’m certainly interested to find out what true consultation was undertaken directly with the regulators, not just the general public and those individuals that are sitting and waiting for their credentials to be recognized here in British Columbia.

[3:00 p.m.]

Now, the omission of many of the recommendations raises concerns about government’s thoroughness in its approach to international credential recognition. British Columbians need tangible results. Unfortunately, the NDP believes that the answer to clearing bureaucratic hurdles is to pile on more bureaucratic government hurdles and more bureaucracy.

Since the NDP took government in 2017, we’ve seen a 36 percent expansion in the public service. Think about that — a 36 percent increase in the public service, adding over 137,000 additional workers. The cost is $17 billion a year. Despite the bloated public service, results are worse across the board. Spending money aimlessly and adding bureaucracy does not get the results that British Columbians are looking for.

This legislation seems more inclined towards increasing regulations and red tape instead of fostering collaboration with the regulators, as we’ve been discussing here this afternoon, or providing incentives for the regulators to ensure that they have the opportunity and the supports necessary to achieve a common goal. The common goal is to increase and ease the opportunity for internationally-trained professionals to have their credentials recognized here in B.C. without negatively impacting the opportunity for the regulator to ensure that the public is not put at risk. Ultimately the legislation comes after years of NDP inaction and fails to provide the urgency that’s required.

It’s interesting, as we look to finding opportunities for having foreign trade professionals have their credentials recognized here. I think it’s also worth noting, though, that there are other trained individuals in British Columbia that have been discriminated against and not provided that opportunity to work here in B.C., largely on account of the community benefits agreements.

The CBAs put requirements where only unionized workers that belong to a subset, a very small group of unions, the B.C. building trade unions, are given preferential treatment for working on public infrastructure projects in B.C. Both in horizontal and now in vertical construction, it’s added and layered on billions of additional dollars in cost and led to huge cost overruns.

We have a government, on one hand, trying to put pressure on the regulators to expedite the opportunity for national professionals to have their credentials recognized to work here in the trained professions in B.C. We have other trained British Columbians and Canadian citizens who are denied the opportunity to work on government infrastructure projects because they do not belong to one of the NDP’s 19 handpicked unions. That’s unfortunate.

I certainly don’t disagree with the opportunity for government to make decisions around open shop, closed shop. But to go so far is to deny the opportunity for a worker in B.C., who should have the right to choose to associate, to belong to a union of their choosing…. To have that right diminished and slashed and downtrodden because some unions, maybe, are not so supportive of this current government….

The discriminatory behaviour of this government, of establishing a very finite set of criteria by which if you want to work on a government infrastructure project in B.C., you don’t have the choice of choosing your union to represent you…. If you want to go to work on a taxpayer-funded project in B.C., you have no choice but to have to join one of these 19 handpicked unions, which are, of course, NDP-friendly unions. That is offensive.

[3:05 p.m.]

I certainly look forward to comments from my colleague and from others that may wish to speak here in second reading. I certainly look forward to the opportunity to have further scrutiny of this piece of legislation in committee stage.

R. Parmar: I’m particularly proud to stand in this House today as the MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca on behalf of all of the people of Langford–Juan de Fuca to speak about a very important piece of legislation. Though, after hearing the last 15 minutes or so, I got the sense from the MLA for Shuswap that he doesn’t agree that this is an important legislation that is delivering for people. It’s always a pleasure to get to stand in this House and talk about the value of community benefit agreements and how they’re delivering for people.

I’m going to spend some time actually talking about Bill 38. What I would add is that it’s one of the historic pieces of legislation to be introduced in this House and again, nation-leading in itself.

I spent a lot of time on the doors this year, knocking on a lot of doors throughout Langford and Sooke, even out to Port Renfrew, talking to people about the issues that matter to them, whether that was more housing, access to child care or investments in health care. This one caught me off guard with the amount of times it came up at the doorstep.

There was one particular constituent who I came across who lives on El Paseo Place in the southern part of Langford in the Happy Valley at Latoria area. I remember knocking on her door. She’s from Czechoslovakia, immigrated here over 20 years ago and is a proud resident of Langford and British Columbia.

She brought with her skills and abilities from her home country and all of the time, energy and money that she spent getting a master’s degree, only to come to Canada, only to come to British Columbia over 20 years ago and be told that when she was trying to get her credentials recognized, a master’s degree, they would only recognize one credit. That was a slap in the face to her and to her family and really impacted the trajectory of her life in so many ways.

That really touched me in a big way. It’s something that I often talk to people about when I’m talking about this legislation — that constituent who really showed me the need for this type of legislation and the need for government to take action. That’s what this legislation is all about. It’s about delivering for people. It’s about working with regulators and working with the private sector and working with business.

When I look at this legislation, this is a job creation tool in so many ways. For too long, under many governments, going back 30, 40, 50 years, when we had tons of immigrants coming to this country, we said to immigrants: “We want you to be here. We want you to be here in British Columbia.” But, clearly, we told them that we didn’t want their skills. By bringing forward this legislation, in so many ways we’re rectifying that.

We have a talent shortage in British Columbia. I certainly see that in my community of Langford–Juan de Fuca in terms of the different business owners that I talk to. We’re particularly excited in Langford–Juan de Fuca, because we’re going to be opening up a new university, a new post-secondary institution, about this time next year.

When I think of the opportunities that that gives to people from the tech sector and all across many sectors, the opportunity to immigrate here and utilize their skills, that’s good for them. But more so, that’s good for us as a government and as a society — the ability for people to come from all walks of life and utilize those skills and deliver important services in so many ways.

As you may know, I served as a school board trustee and chair of my school board for almost ten years. One of the issues that we came across in our local school board was specialized teachers — in getting access to music teachers and, in particular, French immersion teachers. The amount of times that I would go into a classroom and a young student would pull me aside and say, “I’m a French immersion student,” and I’d say: “That’s fantastic. I wish I did French immersion. I wish I was trilingual. It didn’t work out, unfortunately. I’ve got Punjabi, though, so I’m happy about that.”

They pulled me aside and said: “I’m a French immersion student, but I want you to know that I have a substitute today.” I’m like: “Okay, cool. Substitutes are great.” They’re like: “Do you know what my substitute speaks in class?” I’m like: “French?” “No, English.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Because of the shortage of French immersion teachers we have in British Columbia, and in particular we were having in the Sooke school district, whenever a French immersion teacher called in sick, there would be an English teacher in front of them. That certainly impacted students at John Stubbs Memorial School; at Belmont; now Royal Bay, which has the French immersion project; and at a whole host of other schools across the province.

Look, I’m going to be brief. This legislation is about delivering for people. It’s about taking on an initiative that’s impacting families all across the country.

I had an opportunity to be in Ukraine and now meet with many new refugees who have made British Columbia and Langford–Juan de Fuca their home. They’ve talked to me about the challenges they’re facing with having their credentials recognized. When they saw this legislation, they saw hope. They saw an opportunity for their credentials to be recognized, and they saw an opportunity for them to be recognized for the work they did in their home country and for them to be able to continue doing that work here. So it’s pretty simple.

After hearing the member talk about this legislation as more red tape and more regulation, it was great to see, when the legislation was introduced by my friend the Minister of State for Workforce Development…. Bridgitte Anderson, who is the president of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, simply called it “a commonsense initiative.” It’s too bad the Conservative members are not here. I think they would have enjoyed that quote.

I’m particularly proud of the work that the minister has done. I know that he has done a lot of engagement in communities all across the province. I’m certainly looking forward to having him come to my community to talk about this important legislation and what it’s going to mean for new immigrants and for people in our communities.

I’ll end by saying that as much as this legislation is important for the next generation, we have another generation that is not going to get a chance to benefit from this. To those who have arrived in B.C. over the years — I certainly have many family members who would fit this bill — and didn’t see their hard-earned credentials recognized or who faced countless challenges that led them to go into a different field because they didn’t want to go through significant waiting periods…. I want them to know that our government is truly sorry and that I’m truly sorry.

With today’s legislation, with Bill 38 introduced in this House and being debated now…. Hopefully, it will be passed in due course. I want them to know….

We see you, we hear you, and we will deliver for the next generation of British Columbians. In particular, for the people in Langford–Juan de Fuca, I want you to know that the conversations that I had, especially with that wonderful woman on El Paseo Place….

We’re taking action on the issues that matter to her and on the issue that she raised with me.

C. Oakes: I rise in response to Bill 38, the International Credentials Recognition Act.

Certainly, B.C. United has consistently advocated for the fast-tracking of credential recognition and the importance of streamlining and expediting the recognition of international credentials. We do believe it’s crucial to efficiently harness the skills of a diverse workforce. We certainly support that.

I would like to take a moment, perhaps, just to respond to a few things that the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca talked about. I do agree. It is critically important that we look at workforce development. We have labour shortage challenges across this province. The member talked about this being a piece of legislation that provides hope for people looking to come and follow that Canadian dream. We want to have that message out there.

I want to talk for a moment about the hope that we can provide to British Columbians. I want to spend a moment to share what I have heard, across this province, from student union groups, advocates and people that are looking at following their dreams.

[3:15 p.m.]

The diminishing sense of hope that I’ve heard from British Columbians with following their dreams, whether it’s to be a music teacher, an engineer, a teacher, an early childhood educator, a technician, a social worker, a veterinarian, a lawyer, a biologist, an architect or a chartered accountant…. I could go on and on, on the list that’s recognized here.

I think it’s important. First and foremost, we should always ensure that we’re providing every opportunity for British Columbians to have access to that incredibly important post-secondary education in our province.

I would like to go over some data I’ve read in this House before that is incredibly relevant and important. Over the last decade, the total head count enrolments across all programs in the B.C. public post-secondary system have declined by 3 percent, from nearly 431,630 people in 2012-2013 to 420,777 in 2021-2022. At the same time, we’ve seen significant student growth in our K to 12 as a lot more people move to British Columbia.

I raise these important statistics…. What they’re saying is that we have a generation…. We have students in every part of this province that are deciding not to or, for whatever reason, are not able to go into post-secondary education and provide critically important services that all the public in this province rely on.

We look at B.C. colleges. They’ve experienced domestic enrolment declines over the last three years. Rural colleges that once offered a full suite of course options have dramatically reduced program offerings.

Part of the challenge is…. Of course, we went through COVID, and that has dramatically changed how people access post-secondary education.

How that’s relevant to the bill that is before us today is…. We do need to understand the benchmark and the labour focus needs in each of the areas that have been identified. I think the first benchmark and the first thing we need to look at is: what is happening in British Columbia? Where has our workforce gone?

I hear that across this province. How do we instil hope in British Columbia? How do we make sure our kids know that there are opportunities to not just go into post-secondary and follow their dreams but that the seats are going to be available to them so that they can finish their post-secondary education in British Columbia?

A lot of the people that I’ve talked to in relation to this bill, actually, are British Columbians that have had to go out of province to complete their education. Now they are looking at getting their credentials recognized, and this is a good piece of legislation to help them recognize their credentials.

Perhaps the first question we should be asking, as members of this House, is: are we doing everything possible to make sure British Columbians have access in each of those areas to fulfil their educational dreams?

The notary public group is on this list. I had the opportunity to meet with them last week. One of the things that they mentioned…. There is only one place in British Columbia where you can actually get certified for training. That’s SFU, and there’s a limited amount of seats. They said that one of the things that they could do is….They could grow the opportunities for British Columbians to get access to that if we had more seats available in British Columbia.

That was feedback that was brought to us that we could look at. I think it’s a reasonable thing that we could certainly pursue.

When we look at improving accessibility and transparency…. One of the things I heard….

I want to absolutely thank the College of New Caledonia Students Union, which I had the opportunity to meet with last week. They brought forward some very important ideas that they’ve asked me to bring forward here to this House.

[3:20 p.m.]

I also had the ability to tour the Aboriginal resource centre at the College of New Caledonia. Here are some of the things that I learned and some of the barriers that our local Indigenous students are facing.

One of the challenges is the number of credits that’s required to be full-time under INAC. That creates a barrier for our Indigenous students to pursue…. Whether it’s a technical agrologist or a registered professional forester, there are barriers that are included today in British Columbia and that we should be looking at.

That was something that our students say: “You know what? When you’re looking at bringing forward legislation and when you’re looking at these bills, don’t forget about us. Bring our examples to the floor.” I committed to do that, and will commit to work towards helping them find a reasonable way to reduce barriers for Indigenous youth on pursuing education. The other thing is about language proficiency. I think that’s a very important piece. I certainly appreciate the fact that it’s in this legislation.

Here’s something I heard as well at the College of New Caledonia and through the Indigenous resource centre. They mentioned the fact that one of the challenges for upskilling in British Columbia is that it’s not modular. If you fail one part of the upskilling or the training piece of that, you have to start from scratch. That was a really good idea that was brought forward. Again, I committed to bring that forward.

We look at the importance of financial support. One of the things that the students also raised, across all the student unions, as we look at providing financial incentives for these types of programs — we talked about the nursing before, but now we’ve got this new list — is to make sure that we’re also including those supports for the graduates in British Columbia. That’s a reasonable ask that has been brought forward.

I go through this list of what I’ve heard because, again, the member from Langford–Juan de Fuca came and talked about what he’d heard on the doorstep. Well, this is what I’m hearing on the doorstep. I think it’s always wise for us to listen to what people are saying. If there’s a way that we can improve things, that’s always a benefit for all of us. I appreciate the opportunity to say that.

One of the things that that comes down to is that I heard we do need to look at the funding review. If we’re looking at making sure we’re maximizing the workforce and making sure everyone has the opportunity for hope in this province, then I think…. Again, I’m going to continue to pressure the government on the long-awaited funding review that was due…. Well, it’s well overdue. Please make sure you move forward on that, because that’s critically important for British Columbia, and it’s critically important for students.

The other piece of that is the international education strategy. I heard from international students across this province, and I want to spend a moment on this. A lot of international students right now are really struggling. The first thing I want to recognize is that our international students from South Asia have a lot of concerns around what is happening geopolitically. There is a concern about what impact that will have on their education.

The reality is…. It is our hope that the international students that come from across the globe to get access to our education system decide to make British Columbia their home. That’s what we want. We want to be a welcoming society where international students can come and know that there is a pathway to citizenship, that there’s a pathway to good-paying, family-supporting jobs here in British Columbia.

That’s why the message, too, from the students is: please, to the government, come forward with the international education strategy, because that’s critically important.

[3:25 p.m.]

Going back to this piece of legislation, one of the things I think I heard the members…. I do think it’s very important that we look at ways, across government, to streamline, use simple language and reduce red tape, because it’s critically important.

I would like to offer a suggestion to the government. You have, in your public service, a remarkable team that I had the privilege of working with when I was the Minister of Red Tape Reduction. They are an exceptional group of public servants that had a strong lens of how you use commonsense language, how you reduce red tape, with that whole idea that redundancies and silos amongst ministries can really add costs to every level of government and ultimately impact our workforce development.

My question, as the government continues to grow bureaucratic systems: have you looked internally, have you looked to the skill set that we may already have within government and that could do the same work that is being identified in this legislation, without creating additional layers of costs? Every time you stand up a superintendent’s office — and we will have the opportunity to explore this, of course, when we go through the bill debate — is a significant cost. It’s a significant cost to taxpayers, and often the challenge becomes: is it going to create more bureaucratic red tape, as opposed to streamline and reduce that?

We’ll have the opportunity to discuss that when we go through sections of the bill. I think that’s critically important. We want to make sure that the steps that are being taken will, from a workforce development piece, create results and provide some support to those gaps that we currently have in the workforce.

I also want to talk to the people who have made British Columbia your destination of choice and the place to raise your families, raise your children, your grandchildren. We want everyone to have the ability to fully utilize their skills. I think this is an important piece to recognize that. We’ll go through, and where there are opportunities to improve upon that, I hope the members opposite will be open, the government will be open to ideas that we may present that may help improve upon this piece of legislation. Ultimately, we want to make sure it suits the needs of British Columbians.

The expanded new definitions — I think it’s important to look at what that is. Again, we’ll have the opportunity to go through that. We do have to look at accountability measures with the superintendent. I think that’s critically important. I know that there are things that have been outlined in the legislation, but how does the accountability work?

I know that there has been another superintendent office that has been stood up. We haven’t really seen the results of that yet. From an accountability perspective, I think it’s going to be an important piece for us to explore. Going back to those benchmarks, I think it’s critically important that results happen when things get measured. I think that’s an important piece: understanding where we’re coming from, what that benchmark is and how we can move that benchmark.

Of course, at all times, safety, health and welfare are critical. We want to make sure that those standards are definitely put in place and that nobody is taken advantage of. We want to make sure that that isn’t lost in this new piece of legislation.

We want to make sure, when we’re looking at exemptions: well, how does that exemption process work? What are the decisions respecting those exemptions? What does that look like? Does that help with transparency? Does that create challenges with transparency? Those are all pieces that we will be reviewing in the sections.

[3:30 p.m.]

Of course, enforcement. Well, with this legislation that has been put forward, what happens if it’s not achieving the results that we’re hoping for? What does that look like from an enforcement perspective? Depending on the regulations that are put in place, what powers will the government actually have around the enforcement or the direction for the superintendent’s office? What reprisals are allowed by the regulatory authorities?

It’s a little bit challenging when we don’t know what regulation has been put forward. So that always has become an issue. We’ve seen a lot of legislation being brought forward by the NDP, where you get the legislation, but all the regulations will come after, and we don’t really know what those regulations are till after. So it’s a little bit challenging for us to debate on that. That will be an important piece that we will be reviewing when we go through the legislation on this. I think that’s important.

In closing, I do look forward to the opportunity to go through this piece of legislation. I think having what we heard as an initial document and having gone out and talked to people across British Columbia is important.

I will put in another…. I will ask kindly that…. There is an important group, a secretariat, out there that sometimes is forgotten about. That’s the small business secretariat. The reason I mentioned this is because they’ve done incredible work over a number of different governments. They cross a large segment of society. It has the opportunity to have that small business lens on legislation and things that are being brought forward to provide….

It’s one thing for us as legislators to say: “This looks like a good idea, but how does it actually work on the ground?” That common sense. When you roll things out, what are the repercussions? What are the unintended consequences? So having another organization, such as the Small Business Roundtable, have a review of some of this type of legislation, anything around workforce development, is important.

That comes back to the commitment that we had made, B.C. United, when we were in government about the small business accord. Every piece of legislation that is being brought forward has that small business lens on it, because we understand that if you are increasing red tape, and if you are increasing the challenges with regulations, it can drive up costs to everyday British Columbians and have unintended consequences.

What we don’t want in this piece of legislation being brought forward is to have the real impact on what I talked about around the workforce and the students today who are studying and want to pursue their dreams of the list that has been identified here. We don’t want those types of unintended consequences.

Finally, it is always very important to have that strong lens of red tape and what it means to the average British Columbian, having simple language, having transparency, making sure that the redundancies are removed from all pieces of legislation. Just because one ministry says X, and then you have that duplication, it has real consequences. We’re seeing that across the board in government, everything from health care to housing.

This piece of legislation…. Because it talked about red tape reduction and streamlining, I thought it warranted me to talk about our perspectives as B.C. United around reducing red tape and the impacts it can have on British Columbians.

In closing, I look forward to having the opportunity to review this legislation. I appreciate the member’s comments that have arisen. At the end of the day, getting an education here in British Columbia and following your dreams in British Columbia and having hope for a future in British Columbia is what we want.

We want, internationally, our reputation to be that British Columbia is that wonderful, affordable place where you can follow your dreams, and you can pursue your education, and at all times, the services, whether it’s health care or education or housing, will be provided to you.

[3:35 p.m.]

J. Sims: It is a pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill 38, International Credentials Recognition Act.

I want to thank our minister for the amazing job he did leading up to this piece of legislation. I wanted this legislation in place, let me tell you, quite a few years ago when we formed government.

But it takes time. It takes time to consult not only with the different professional groups and British Columbians, but it also takes time to work with the regulatory bodies so that we can bring forward legislation that will serve British Columbians and will serve British Columbians who live here now and those who will become British Columbians when they move here in the future.

There is no dichotomy in my mind about international recognition of credentials. In 1975, I chose to make Canada my destination home. In 1977, I arrived in B.C. — a teacher. But because I arrived from England via Quebec, I got my credentials almost straight away. Unheard of nowadays, but in those days, it was super fast.

But I can tell you. It’s not like that with everyone, and that’s what I want to focus on: the human side of this legislation.

I heard my colleague, who I have a lot of respect for, talk about red tape. If anybody dislikes the word “red tape,” it’s me, because it was in the name of reducing red tape that a certain government, the party that sits on that side, when they sat on this side, gutted support for special needs kids when they took away all the criteria for designations and then just made it a pooled amount of money, because those designations used to drive funding.

As a classroom teacher and then as the BCTF president, I fought on that issue tirelessly. So for me, red tape is synonymous with that.

I’m so pleased to see that this piece of legislation is about streamlining. It’s about making it easier. It’s about providing support to people who want to get their credentials recognized both financially and through process as well.

I’m not telling any tales when I tell you that our immigration system is disjointed. When people apply to come, it used to be the points system. Then it became the skilled workers class.

Here you are sitting in, let me choose, New Delhi — surprise, surprise. Or you’re sitting in London or sitting in Dublin, and you fill out an application to emigrate because, for whatever reason, you want to go to beautiful, beautiful Canada and head to British Columbia. When they fill out those forms, based on their education and their work experience…. You get points that then help to qualify you — that’s how I got here — to come to this country.

But the vast majority who have come over the last number of decades, currently as well…. They come here based on their credentials, and you should see the shock on their faces when they get here and find out those credentials cannot be used to get a job.

If ever there was a Monty Python sketch in the making, this one is it. It’s a huge disservice. People feel duped. People feel misled. When they get here, they think they’re going to be a practising doctor. They think they’re going to be a teacher. They think they’re going to be an engineer. After all, the Canadian government selected them based on that criteria.

When they get here, taxi driver. It’s not bad being a taxi driver, not bad working at different jobs. But when you spent your lifetime and lots of resources to train in a certain field and that’s your passion, imagine how it feels. Very human cases.

[3:40 p.m.]

I started to hear about this long before I became a Member of Parliament or a member of the Legislature. I first started to hear about this when I was a teacher from other teachers who couldn’t get their credentials, or it would take so long and be so expensive.

Later on, when I moved to Vancouver and I would be sitting in a certain Yellow Cab — I’ll say it — when I was sitting in a cab, I would be listening to the drivers telling me: “I’m a doctor. I’m an engineer. I am a lawyer. I am this. I am a nurse.” “You’re driving a taxi,” and they said: “Because I could not get anything else.”

The road to getting your credentials recognized is long and arduous and very, very expensive. No new immigrant that arrives in a new country ready to settle has the wherewithal — or a very rare one does — to have the financial resources. After all, they’ve got families to support too. They’re coming to a new country, and there are all the challenges that come with it. I’ve experienced those. I spoke the language, and I had a job in my field. But many do not.

I will always remember this particular, I will say, young man — at my age, everybody is young now — telling me how he used to be a doctor in Morocco. He was a heart specialist there. He was driving a cab here in B.C. because he, one, could not work out the process, and two, when he got helped with the process, could not afford it.

He would basically have to spend three to four to five years, he told me, in order to be practising something he used to practise in a nationally recognized, internationally renowned hospital back in his homeland. Yet he could not get a job in the health sector.

Let me tell you a story about a constituent of mine who came to see me when I was a Member of Parliament. She qualified, and so did her husband, to come to this country mainly based on their credentials. She was a doctor in Islamabad at a teaching hospital. She was head of the surgical ward. She was teaching other doctors.

After years and years of butting her head trying to get in the system, she gave up. She gave up, because she could see no way that she could practise her profession. She felt betrayed, and that’s the word she used. “I came here. I got accepted to come to Canada, to B.C., because I had the right kind of education. I had the credentials for a job area that they needed. But once I get here, I can’t work in my specialty area.”

She is not unique. If I had 12 hours, I would not run out of specific stories I have heard over the last 20, 30 years.

I think, because of that alone, I really want to do a shout-out to our Premier, who directed the minister, who did his work and has brought this legislation forward. It’s long overdue, because it’s the right thing to do. We made promises when people applied to come here, and then we broke them once they got here. We undervalued them. Many of them went into depression.

Now when they see this…. I’ve had at least three, once we announced this, come into my office and say: “I’m so happy for the new ones. It’s been 30 years for me, 20 years for me, 15 years for me. I’m not sure how this will work for me, but I’m so happy that others who come here as professionals with skill sets will not have to have the fight with regulatory bodies or with getting their credentials recognized.”

[3:45 p.m.]

When I think of the progress we’ve made there, it’s huge.

I absolutely agree that our students in British Columbia need to have spaces in our post-secondary institutions, but it was a bit rich coming from the other side when I remember what they did to the post-secondary institutions in the way of funding and the number of seats that disappeared.

Also, let me tell you about something as simple as gutting the apprenticeship program. For three decades…. Sorry, 2½ decades. My math wasn’t my strong point, but I lost it there for a second. For about 2½ decades, we had our skilled trades gutted. The apprenticeship programs were renowned across Canada and North America.

I was a high school teacher and a counselor, and I worked with students who started their drafting, did auto mechanics, did woodworking, made beautiful cabinets, and a student who designed my house using the CAD program, which he learned at school. All wonderful things we used to have, and we watched all of those disappear.

Once again, I am so happy with the work that’s been done in growing our trades and growing for the future, but also, the trades that are recognized here in foreign credentials will also go a long way to growing a productive and much-needed workforce. I absolutely agree.

I heard just yesterday about a young woman who wants to go into nursing, and I encourage her. I told her how our government has created 600 new seats since we’ve been in government. More to come. We’ve grown the number of seats at UBC in the medical school, both in residency and the undergrad, but here is the clincher. We also have a new medical school that will be opening in Surrey, and they’ve already started to work with internationally trained medical doctors to get their credentials on the go.

Lots needs to be done, but I would say that we have done a lot already. I always agree that international students who come here — they put a lot of trust in us. But they also bring a lot of credentials with them that go unrecognized right now. Sometimes, their undergraduate credentials go unrecognized. Sometimes, if they’ve been teaching overseas, it goes unrecognized, and this will open up some of those doors for them as well.

As my colleague from Cariboo North said, British Columbia is one of the fastest-growing provinces. I come from the city of Surrey, and I disagree with my colleague from Langford–Juan de Fuca. I believe Surrey is the most vibrant, the most diverse and an absolutely amazing city to raise your kids, to live, work and play — all of those things. Absolutely. The city of Surrey is where it’s at.

By the way, every one of us who sits in here wants and knows that the riding we come from is the best there is, and so it should be. It doesn’t matter where you sit, because we are representing those constituents, but because my riding is so diverse, it also has so many people — a large percentage who have experienced the very issue we’re trying to address here, which is recognition of international credentials.

By the way, I want to say I know my colleague across the way talked about funding for post-secondary and the international students getting a fair playing field here. I agree with that. I think that they should get their classes if they’ve been promised classes. That they shouldn’t come here and then have to wait six months to a year to get into a physical class while they’re paying what I would say is very hefty student fees.

[3:50 p.m.]

I will also say this. For all who come here from another country, if we are saying, when we assess whether we’re going to admit you into this country or not, if we’re using those credentials at that stage, then we should also have a pathway for recognition of those credentials when they get here that are not an unbearable burden.

I’m going to tell you about a dentist who moved here from Mexico — 15 years of practice in Mexico, four years of practice in the U.S. Yet when he comes to B.C., what he was told was that it would probably cost him, in total, just over $200,000 to get his credentials with the courses he had to take — and giving up an income.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about you, but when I arrived in this country…. Both my husband and I are teachers, and we both came to teaching jobs. But what we came with was less than $1,000 in our bank account, and we were the lucky ones.

There are those who arrive here with maybe $20, $25, and there are those who, when they arrive here, don’t have a job. So they’re landing here thinking: “I’m a doctor. I’m a dentist. I’m a teacher. I’m a nurse. There’s a huge shortage in Canada. They’re going to hire me straight away. I don’t have to worry, because I’ll be earning.” Then we throw curveball after curveball at people so they can’t practise their profession.

I don’t have to tell anybody in this room, because you have business people in your community as well…. Whether it’s health care, whether it’s teachers, whether it’s the trades — all levels of employment — I have employers coming to tell me: “We’re finding it hard to recruit. We’ve got empty places.”

I am so proud of the work that the Health Minister has done on recruitment of international nurses but also on recognizing and giving a pathway to those who are here so that they can get their credentials in nursing. In the same way, with the doctors, now with the assistant doctor model, people will be in an earning mode much earlier than they would have been otherwise.

What this particular piece of legislation does…. I have to take on one thing. A person said to me: “I see you’ve got real estate agents on this list.” This legislation isn’t about one thing. It is about looking at all the regulated professions and making sure that we are removing the barriers.

That doesn’t mean Canada is now going to go start recruiting real estate agents or any of the other lists that are on there. What that list shows, and it’s a very comprehensive list, is that those are the regulating bodies we have right here, outside of the health sector right here in B.C., and those will be streamlined for credential recognition. That is a good thing. In case anybody ever comes in the future who’s got credentials, because we’ve allowed them into this country, then they have a right to work here. Then they can use the credentials they have.

Let me say that there was a time we would have been saying: “What about the standards?” And I still say that. This is not about lowering the standards. This is not about reducing the level of care. The qualifications still have to be there.

What this is about is how we recognize those credentials, creating pathways, removing barriers — I like that word better than red tape — and then making sure that people know how to go about it. When I say “removing barriers” — both reducing them in the financial area as well as in the process.

[3:55 p.m.]

If I was a young nurse arriving from the Philippines right now…. And I actually have a daughter-in-law arriving from the Philippines any day. If a nurse arrives, unless they know someone here, it would be very, very difficult for them to navigate the system to get their credentials recognized. I’m so happy that British Columbia — our Health Minister — has put a process in place that helps to guide people and navigate them through the process. That is an example of how we not only reduce barriers but how we move forward in recognizing these talents.

B.C. is a wonderful place to live, but we know that our strength comes from our diversity, and our diversity comes from every corner of this planet, from many parts. They come here for many reasons. Some came as refugees. Some come as students and then get work permits and then get permanent residency. Some come directly because they have the skill set, and they get the required number of points to come here.

Whichever path they come in, I believe it behooves any government to make sure that once these people are here, that we are there to assist them so they can be their best, so they can contribute to a vibrant British Columbia in the fields of their choice, in the areas of their profession.

We are, as a province, dependent upon people coming here from other countries. As a country, we are dependent on bringing people here from other countries. Because of that, we have to make sure that we don’t promise them one thing when they are sitting way over there in their homeland, practising their profession and having a fairly good lifestyle, and then once they come here, they find out that that lifestyle cannot be maintained because they can’t practise their profession.

I have been urging the federal government that there needs to be a look at the point system, at the skilled worker section, to make sure the promises and commitments we make to people over there, once they arrive here, are kept.

One of our commitments nationally is to our international students — that once they have finished, they do have a pathway to permanent residency. We have to make sure that that pathway to residency is supported and we are opening doors and not siloing.

One thing I’ve always loved about Canada: once you are here, you are a Canadian. Once you get your citizenship, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We have Canadians right now who are qualified doctors, qualified nurses, qualified teachers, qualified engineers — I could go on — who are not being treated equally. This piece of legislation will go a long way to international credential recognition, and we’ll live up to the commitment we make to people when we try to entice them to come to Canada.

As I said earlier, I have lots more to say, but I am going to stop with this. I can tell you that people in my riding and people in every riding, I would say, in the Lower Mainland, and I can speak especially for every riding in Surrey, will be looking at this piece of legislation and saying “about time.” We need this.

I can tell you something else. There are those who are not immigrants, either now or over the last ten years, and they will be saying: “This is common sense. We have all these doctors sitting here not being able to practise. We have all these nurses. We have all these teachers. We have all these other health care workers. We have engineers. We need them.” We need them, and this legislation will go a long way.

[4:00 p.m.]

Once again, thank you to the minister for the stellar job he did in consultation. I also want to do a huge shout-out to every regulatory body that has cooperated with us. It would not have happened without their support and cooperation. This is a collaborative effort, and because it is collaborative, we have to do a huge shout-out to everyone who has played a role in this.

I want to thank my colleagues across the way, as well, who also…. At least one I heard has spoken in favour of this legislation, and I am very happy to see that. I know that a colleague sitting right across the way from me has had many of his constituents talk to him about foreign credential recognition, a colleague from Abbotsford.

I’m sure that he will also agree that this piece of legislation is just what we need, and I’m sure he is wishing they had done it earlier.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Let’s be clear. The best riding in the province is Kelowna–Lake Country, while you’re keeping a list.

Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: The Chair has grossly violated the principle of impartiality from the chair.

I was not intending, actually, to inject myself into the discussion today. I’ve listened carefully to the remarks. I am inclined — very, very briefly, though — to accept the invitation that was just delivered by my colleague from Surrey and to acknowledge that I have brought to this House, as have many other members, the challenges that many are experiencing, particularly in the health sector. The member, the previous speaker from Surrey, cited many, many examples.

I think the next speaker will be the minister in closing the debate. I know we will have an opportunity to canvass this in committee, but I heard the repeated references to health care workers, nurses, doctors. I’m looking at the schedule in the bill, and it doesn’t include those. It is pointedly silent on the very kinds of workers that the previous speaker just spent a great deal of time….

Now, I may be misreading the bill. I’m not trying to be clever here. If I’m wrong and the previous speaker is right, I’m happy to hear that from the minister.

But this is a fundamental part of the bill. To stand in the House and proclaim to the world…. First of all, we all agree that the challenge facing health care workers — we’ve heard it; we’ve struggled with it. The minister would say he’s trying to deal with it. I don’t think very successfully yet.

To suggest that this bill is intended to address that, when schedules 1, 2 and 3 list the very professions that it is intended to address…. It excludes those. It excludes those health care workers.

I think it’s important for the minister to clear that up now. If I’m wrong, I apologize, and I apologize to the previous speaker. But it seems to me that there is, by design, nothing in this legislation that will address the issue in the health care professions.

If I’m wrong, I’m glad I’m wrong. But if I’m right, I hope the minister will confirm that.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate, please.

Hon. A. Mercier: It seems, in the last little bit there, it got kind of heated. I’d like to suggest, although there is a lot of disagreement, that we could all agree that Langley is the best constituency or riding in the province. I’d offer that as a reasonable compromise to the members, if the Chair will indulge me.

[4:05 p.m.]

I want to thank everyone for sharing the stories of their constituents, the internationally credentialed professionals that they know and the trouble that they’ve gone through on what is a long and arduous journey — and which shouldn’t be — to get their credentials recognized.

In particular, I’d like to thank the member for Surrey-Panorama and the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca on speaking to the folks that they’ve talked to about this. I’d also like to thank the member for Shuswap and the member for Cariboo North for laying out, as well, the questions they have going into the committee process, which will be helpful in ensuring that we have a measured and, I think, fairly interesting debate.

I’ll go through, and I’ll answer some of the questions and assertions that have been made throughout this process, which is that the health professions are incredibly important. The member for Abbotsford West is right. I do think that we’ve done a considerable amount of work there, and we are seeing considerable success in terms of the health professions. We started with them first.

The member will recall the introduction of the Health Professions and Occupations Act, which the opposition voted for before they voted against. The HPOA — I’ll just call it the HPOA, the health professions act — sets up a superintendent of health professions with specific authority over extra-jurisdictional credentials and a whole range of powers. That superintendent will work hand in hand with the superintendent here as we go to set guidelines.

This is a system or approach that is very similar to Ontario, which has a very successful model dealing with it differently because, of course, with the health professions, there is a whole range of different complexities, with the harmonization and the labour mobility agreements and whatnot and everything else, that require, in some degrees, a deeper approach. I think that this overall approach does this.

Let’s be clear. We’ve shaved 18 to 24 months off the time it takes for an internationally educated nurse to go through the process by removing unfair barriers in that. What we need to do now is replicate that work across the board with the rest of the professions, which is what we want to do.

I agree with the member for Cariboo North when she said: “Results happen when things get measured.” And I heard some comments from the member for Shuswap about baselining data.

This has been one of the fundamental issues with the complexity of the regulatory landscape, which is that you have so many different regulators that have, in some instances, no real obligation to collect data or to report out on data in terms of licensure. Who’s applying? How often? Who walks away? When do they walk away? What parts of the process are a problem? That’s information we need, which is why this bill sets that out and gives the enforcement and compliance mechanisms to do that. I look forward to having that conversation in committee.

I’ll note, as well, that I look forward to speaking about the recommendations from the what-we-heard report. Of course, not all of those recommendations will be actioned in legislation. Some of them are actioned in non-legislative means. The Credential Assessment Improvement Fund, which is an incentive for regulators to then go and meet those data requirements, etc., is a good example of that.

I’ll close by saying that I disagree with the member for Cariboo North when she says there’s a diminishing sense of hope for British Columbians getting into the workforce and getting into the professions. When I talk to young British Columbians, I see so much hope about the opportunity in front of them. I don’t think that sets up any kind of dichotomy where we’re choosing between treating international professionals fairly and creating opportunities for folks here in British Columbia. I think we can do both. We are doing both, and this act is an important part of that.

With that, I’ll take my place, and I’ll just say I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Chair: The question is second reading of Bill 38.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Mercier: I move that the bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38, International Credentials Recognition Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Ralston: I call second reading debate of Bill 39, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

[4:10 p.m.]

BILL 39 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that Bill 39 be read a second time now.

I’m pleased to present and speak to Bill 39, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act. Bill 39 will amend the existing Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. The Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, or ZEV Act, was originally passed on May 30, 2019 and the ZEV regulation on May 30, 2020. The passing of the act and regulation made British Columbia the first jurisdiction in the world to require that all new vehicles sold be zero-emission by 2040.

Since then, B.C. has seen incredible growth in the use of zero-emission vehicles. In fact, the number of ZEVs on our roads has increased by 2,500 percent in the past six years.

Additionally, other jurisdictions have followed B.C.’s leadership and announced or implemented similar zero-emission requirements. B.C. has consistently exceeded its annual ZEV sales targets since the ZEV Act was first passed in 2019.

As a result of the current ZEV mandate and government’s investments, to date in 2023, ZEV sales make up over 20 percent of all new light-duty vehicle sales, which is the highest percentage for any province or territory in Canada. British Columbians are adopting ZEVs at record setting rates.

A recent study by B.C. Hydro shows that about 40 percent of British Columbians are looking at purchasing a new vehicle in the next three years, and at least three quarters of them are interested in electric.

In response to the changing market, the province’s CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 committed to accelerated light-duty ZEV sales targets as a key measure to reduce pollution and contribute to cleaner air. Our suite of go electric programs is making ZEVs more affordable; building out infrastructure in homes, workplaces and public places across B.C.; and ensuring that there is a trained workforce to support the transition.

We have committed to completing the electric highway in 2024, enabling British Columbians to drive every highway and major road in their EV. Just last week we announced additional funding for our home and workplace charger rebates. It is clear that the market is now ready for increased ZEV targets and that British Columbians are ready for increased supply and consumer choice.

This is what the ZEV Act amendments will do. These amendments will increase the supply of zero-emission cars and light trucks to British Columbia, reducing waiting times for British Columbians to get into ZEVs and encouraging automakers to make ZEVs more affordable and accessible for all British Columbians.

These amendments will benefit all British Columbians by creating more ZEV options to choose from at various price ranges to help them make the switch to a vehicle that’s powered by clean energy, ensuring cleaner air in our communities.

These amendments will allow the province to continue to build on the success of our current ZEV Act and go electric programs, help us meet our CleanBC Roadmap greenhouse gas emission reductions targets and remain a world leader in ZEV adoption.

The ZEV Act establishes the overarching framework and authorities for the legislated ZEV requirements here in British Columbia. The proposed amendments will bring accelerated targets, and that includes moving the year that 100 percent of vehicles must be zero-emission from 2040 to 2035.

The amendments also address lessons learned under the first two compliance periods under the ZEV Act. They align, where possible, with other jurisdictions, including Quebec and California. This helps us ensure that British Columbians have access to the same ZEV supply as Quebec and California.

The amendments will also require ZEVs to be registered in B.C. for the first time to earn credits and require vehicle suppliers to report on vehicles supplied into the province instead of consumer sales.

They’ll ensure that any false or misleading information provided under an initiative agreement is subject to the same compliance and enforcement options as currently exist for model year reports, supplementary reports and information requests. They’ll require vehicle suppliers to provide the ministry with ZEV sales forecast data.

They’ll require the Insurance Corp. of B.C., ICBC, to disclose vehicle-related information and records collected and kept by ICBC to the director for the purposes of the enforcement of this act.

They’ll create new regulation-making authorities to allow for future regulations to place new quality assurance and labeling requirements on vehicles to earn credits under the act.

[4:15 p.m.]

They’ll enable the province to derate supplier credit balances to reflect the change to one credit per vehicle at the end of the model year 2025 compliance period, and they changed the publication date of the provincial targets report to April 30, requiring suppliers to report their total light-duty vehicle sales in their model year report.

The original ZEV Act and regulation and these amendments were informed by extensive consultation. This included engagement with First Nations on the proposed amendments through the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 Indigenous engagement process, and a ZEV Act and regulation formal review intentions paper to start targeting stakeholders for comment in 2022 alongside numerous webinars and meetings.

The ZEV Act and regulation are designed to be flexible. The regulatory regime and penalty structure have flexibility built in via the credit system that offers multiple compliance pathways and a grace year for penalties.

The proposed amendments take into consideration rural and northern needs by enabling plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to count towards the EV targets.

The province committed to conducting regular formal reviews of the ZEV Act and regulation, to review market trends, receive input from stakeholders and allow for any necessary adjustments to the ZEV Act and regulation.

Here in B.C., while we are leaders in the ZEV space, we are by no means alone in moving towards these accelerated targets. The proposed amendments will ensure that British Columbians have access to the same ZEV supply that California and Quebec have access to.

There are so many different models of ZEVs available today, not just full electric but also plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and this gives a little more flexibility and reassurance for some people.

We’re also making it easier for people to adopt ZEVs with rebates for new car purchases by eliminating the PST on used zero-emission vehicles and with rebates for chargers at home, workplaces and in public places.

These amendments are needed now to help ensure automakers are supplying affordable ZEVs to B.C. in a variety of models to suit any British Columbians’ driving needs.

T. Shypitka: I’m happy to rise and speak to Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, 2023. Just as a little disclaimer, we’ll probably be throwing a lot of initialism and acronyms out there like ZEV and Z-E-V and ICE and I-C-E and all these things.

For people at home, ZEV or Z-EV will be zero-emission vehicles and ICE will be internal combustion engines just so that we don’t lose all those millions and millions that are watching this intriguing debate right now.

I do thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. You look at the bill. It’s not a very big bill. It’s quite short. It identifies, as the minister said, primarily to increase targets that are already in place right now.

I guess with Bill 39, the first question I have is: what is the intended purpose other than what the minister just stated? Because it seems simple enough on the outside, but the devil is always in the details of that and regulation as we know. I’ll get into that a little bit more in detail as I go through my debate speech here.

The second one: is it good for British Columbians in the short term? We all understand that we want to do the aspirational thing and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make a cleaner and greener future for not only us but our kids and our grandkids. But will this accomplish that goal, or will it have unintended consequences?

I think that’s kind of a theme that we’ve seen a few times before with this NDP government. They put in motion these bills without really thinking about what the unintended consequences will be. I’ve got several examples of that as I go through the speech today.

We saw the release that came out, and I’ll read from that release. I’ll take a quote from it. “The amendments to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act will help increase access and choice for ZEV car buyers, while new provincial funding will help expand B.C.’s charging network.”

I’ll talk about that funding a little bit later on. But, as I said before, this sounds harmless enough. Who wouldn’t want to help with access and provide choice for ZEV car buyers? Once again, I’ll be going into a little bit of detail as well later on.

But as everyone knows, there’s a cost to everything, and the devil is always in the details. Those details will be revealed in the regulations when they come out after this legislation is passed.

[4:20 p.m.]

The minister also stated in the news release: “With the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, our government was the first in the world to put an EV sales target into law. British Columbia is the leader in Canada on the switch to electric vehicles, and thanks to the success we’ve seen, we’re accelerating our work so we can hit our 100 percent EV sales target five years earlier.”

Once again, it sounds ambitious. I guess what the minister is saying here is that more is better. So what could possibly go wrong with this? Well, as we’ve seen from this NDP government…. Unintended consequences, as I’ve said. We saw it with the speculation tax, hitting innocent British Columbians with family cabins; a decriminalization policy that has now spun completely out of control; and a recent bill on short-term home rentals that will put in jeopardy those British Columbians for financial relief in their greatest time of need. This Bill 39 reflects eerily some of that legislation we’ve seen already.

Like the short-term-rental bill, this bill is designed to cover up this government’s own shortcomings on failing to meet their targets and getting results that they promised British Columbians. As the minister pointed out, British Columbia was the first in the world to put an EV sales target into law, as the rest of the world now puts into play their own strategies. Unfortunately, B.C. does not live alone on a self-sufficient island. It depends on resources outside of its jurisdiction in order to make whole its promises and obligations.

Before we make arbitrary decisions on provisional targets — which is, I believe, what this is — we need to be reasonable and responsible with our approaches so we can deliver the results we desire. That is what this side of the House represents: reasonable, responsible and result-driven.

The new targets have been drastically increased to something that was already, by the minister’s own acknowledgment, the first of its kind anywhere. What we’re seeing with this legislation is a 26 percent target by 2026. Currently we’re at 10 percent by 2025. So that’s a 2½-fold increase in just relatively the same time frame.

But it jumps dramatically after that. Currently we have 30 percent targeted sales for ZEVs by 2030. That will now go to 90 percent — so a 300 percent increase there. Then, of course, we are moving to 100 percent by 2035. Currently, we have the 100 percent by 2040. So we’ve ramped it up by five years, moving that target from 2040 to 2035.

The question that comes from this aggressive increase is: why are we putting this upon ourselves at this time, and who are we trying to catch with these targets? Now, the minister did acknowledge a couple of jurisdictions, Quebec and California, that have similar-type targets. Those are two jurisdictions worldwide.

Unfortunately, the resources that we get to strengthen our infrastructure and the manufacturing of ZEVs and lithium batteries come from, not those jurisdictions…. They come globally. So to answer the first question, why this aggressive increase, is only to look at the NDP’s own climate change accountability report. This is a report the NDP put out to get a fix on how they’re doing, accountability, with their climate change goals. That indicates there is a gap in meeting their 2030 target.

Admittedly, they have failed to meet those targets. There are some gaps there. So now government is in panic mode, just like we saw with short-term rentals. They had promises for affordable housing in this province. They couldn’t make them. So now they’re going to put them on the backs of other folks, such as those short-term rental owners. That’s no different than this bill. They’re going to put it on the backs of those car dealers in British Columbia to make sure they up the ante and get 100 percent of their ZEVs online by 2035.

This is not putting the cart in front of the horse as much as it’s putting the ZEV in front of the ICE, as I’ve put it. The first internal combustion engine…. Well, I know that’s kind of a…. I’m getting groans from the Speaker here. Wow. Tough crowd. Tough crowd.

[4:25 p.m.]

Just for historical facts — sorry, hon. Speaker — the first internal combustion engine was delivered by Carl Benz back in 1886. A three-wheeler, to be precise. It was referred to in the patent as a Motorwagen. It’s one word, for Hansard up there. Motorwagen is one word.

Carl Benz was referred to as the father of the car, father of the automobile industry, although that would be challenged by Henry Ford with the introduction of the assembly line. We all know the success and the revolution that came from that. But Carl Benz, back in 1886, introduced the car, the Motorwagen.

It’s been 140 years, and this legislation needs to eliminate new sales in the next ten, when nobody in the world really is doing this other than a couple of jurisdictions that were highlighted by the minister. So you’ve got to wonder what kind of unintended consequences there will be.

The puritans of this bill will say that it is to reduce carbon emissions, with more electric vehicles, in order to have a greener planet, which I can understand. However, many reports, including one from Volvo, indicate that manufacturing an EV generates 70 percent more emissions than that of an ICE-powered counterpart. I will concede that by the end of the life of both types of vehicles, the EV will surpass the ICE vehicle — somewhere around the halfway mark, around 100,000 kilometres in. The point is that we really need to examine the complete supply chain, not only in production but as sales as well.

Lithium, the main component for EV batteries, is mined by a process that brings brine from the underground aquifers, and it is pumped to the surface and into evaporating ponds. I’m just going to go into a little bit of a process here on how we get lithium in the first place. Keep in the mindset that we’re trying to reduce greenhouse gases.

First of all, lithium is pumped from aquifers underground, which contain high salt content, and it’s brought into evaporating ponds. The brine then moves from pond to pond. That’s from about 18 months to about two years. The pools turn a brighter blue as brine evaporates and changes composition. Lime and sodium carbonate are added to remove impurities and by-products. The shallow depths and refraction of light also change the colour of the pools.

Once the concentration of lithium ion in the brine is high enough, the slurry is pumped to a processing plant to be filtered and dried. This takes a couple of years to get it to this point.

An Hon. Member: There’s not a test later on this, is there?

T. Shypitka: Well, there is a bit of a test. It’s a test for British Columbians, whether we should be doing, you know, all this amping up.

This leaves behind a white powder, which needs to be further purified. Then it is poured into one-tonne bags and ready to ship. Once lithium is mined and processed, the powder concentrate undergoes a complicated chemical transformation to become a solid metal. Now that could be used for batteries.

Right now in many plants…. There are some processing plants in the States. There are actually several. I think there’s one in North Carolina. One of these plants can produce about 5,000 metric tonnes a year of lithium through this slurry process, this evaporation process. That 5,000 metric tonnes are good enough for about 80,000 vehicles.

Global sales in ’22 of EVs was almost eight million, so if you can imagine…. If we’re going to amp up and triple down and double down and eliminate and have every jurisdiction follow, we’re going to need some consistency across all industries and all jurisdictions to bring the supply chain to facilitate these goals. If everyone was to follow suit with these ambitious goals, I would dare say that eight million EVs would…. It’s probably going to amp up to about 30 million or 40 million by 2035. That is a lot of mining. That is a lot of lithium.

Then it calls into play the global supply of lithium. Right now…. There were about 634,000 metric tonnes produced in 2022, and in 2030, it’s estimated that about 2.14 million metric tonnes of lithium will be needed. Once again, I think that’s on the conservative side of thinking things, especially if we continue with putting the cart in front of the horse. I’ll say that so that I don’t get more groans.

There is actually a call-out right now, and there are lots of folks that can bring analysis to this, that says there is a lithium shortage in the world right now.

[4:30 p.m.]

Lithium could see a disaster in not being available for projects like this by as early as 2025. That’s only a year and a half away.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We will need to do a lot more money to meet the targets we are setting for B.C., as well as in coordination with other jurisdictions to ensure that mine materials are there for us, especially if we aggressively are putting ourselves too far ahead of the curve. I guess the answer to the question is still unknown, on why we are trying to get so far in front of this. Perhaps the minister will answer this question in committee stage.

In a time when other jurisdictions here at home and around the world are dialling back their commitments, in some ways, to climate targets, here in B.C. we’re ramping it up at unreasonable levels. Just recently the Prime Minister of Britain — last month, I believe, on September 21 — said that he will push back a ban on selling new petrol and diesel cars, dramatically slow down plans to phase out gas boilers, and reject calls to regulate efficiency for homeowners.

It’s not because he doesn’t want to move forward with addressing climate change, but the rationale for this shift was to find a more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic way of reaching net zero. It has to be realistic; just because you say it, it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. There have to be some markers that are put down to make those things achievable.

Here in Canada, just here at home, three days ago, our Prime Minister announced a three-year pause on the carbon tax on home heating oil, a move aimed at people in Atlantic Canada. Here’s another move that was just made by our own government here in Canada to dial back some of these targets that we have, because it needs to be practical. That’s all I’m saying to this bill right now. We need to take a step back: “Is this practical? What are the unintended consequences?”

One has to wonder if this bill was introduced to have achievable results, or if the bill was developed to fill the gaps in the NDP’s own Climate Change Accountability Report. As I said, there were gaps in that report, and putting this legislation through would certainly close that gap. You have to wonder, once this bill is passed, if all of a sudden, that gap can be presented as closer to being filled, with the unrealistic and incredible piece of legislation that this is.

In this legislation, we also question whether or not light-duty vehicles would include motorbikes. I haven’t had an answer on that. We’ll ask that one in committee stage. I also wonder if it would include electric bikes. I know that it would have to be a registered vehicle, which an electric bike isn’t.

Just as a sidebar, some of these electric bikes are getting pretty fast. The motors are getting pretty big. And they are motors, so they are motorbikes.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Well, people could argue that, but I mean, it’s a bike that has a motor. I mean, literally….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, but these are…. Well, they’re pretty fast. I’ll just put it that way. I almost got hit by one the other day, actually. They’re very stealthy as well. It was at nighttime, there was no light on the bike, and it came whizzing by. You know, they’re speeding.

In this Legislature….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Okay, I’m going to get relevance called on me here.

Deputy Speaker: When your own member does it, then it’s bad, yeah.

T. Shypitka: I’m calling myself out here. That’s pretty sad.

We will also question the paltry $7 million announced to subsidize home and business charging stations. This is quite a joke when you think about the millions, if not billions, that will be needed to carry out our charging infrastructure.

This infrastructure would be for things like taxis, transport and delivery-style trucks, and it’d be critical. If we are going to change legislation to increase sales on zero-emission vehicles, we have to consider all parts of the supply chain, all parts of transportation, not just ma and pa running to the grocery store on Sundays. There’s a lot more to it than that.

[4:35 p.m.]

When the average rural traveller, such as in the places where I live, suffers range anxiety, especially going up mountain passes on a cold winter’s night, we need the infrastructure to support these aggressive targets. I live in the Kootenays. We have wide fluctuations in temperature. It’s not uncommon to see plus 40 in the summertime, but then it’s also not super uncommon to see minus 40 in the wintertime.

We also live in a really high elevation. Cranbrook is at about 3,000 feet, and quite often when we travel to our neighbouring jurisdictions, we go over mountain passes. The Kootenay Pass is right near my riding, and quite often, in the wintertime, on cold winter nights — a very steep grade — people suffer that range anxiety that comes from a zero-emission vehicle, or an electric vehicle, I should say.

Quite often, and it’s happened to me numerous times, you’ll be riding up a pass, and all of a sudden you’ll get a road closure. A roadblock is put up because they are conducting avalanche control. Sometimes you can sit in those avalanche control…. You know, in the roadblock, you can sit there for hours. If you’ve got an electric vehicle, and it’s minus 30, minus 35, you might start to panic a bit.

So we need to ensure that those charging stations are around and that there are enough of them. Kootenay Pass is a transport corridor for a lot of supply trucks, small ones as well. So we need to make sure that the infrastructure is there. It’s going to take a lot more than $7 million, I would say, to make sure that that buildout is happening.

This bill will also penalize those car dealers that don’t adhere to B.C.’s stand-alone ZEV targets. These fines for jumping the gun on this will indirectly impede car manufacturers’ ability to develop more EVs as well as drive up the cost on EVs for consumers.

I’ve got a letter here from Honda Canada, and this was delivered to the Premier and to the minister. I’ll just read a little excerpt from the letter here from Honda Canada.

“In 2022, Honda and Acura sales in British Columbia represented 6.55 percent of total light-duty vehicle sales and 13.4 percent for passenger cars alone.” So that’s a fairly substantial amount. “Honda Canada has one of the lowest GHG-emitting in Canada, and over the next few years, they plan on bringing more products aimed at reducing GHG emissions, including hybrids, the Honda Prologue and Acura ZDX electric SUVs, which will be available in 2024, as well as affordable EVs that will be available starting in 2027.”

Before I go into this a little deeper, we have to consider that manufacturers right now are already coming out with the 2024s. We’ve got targets here for 2026. This could upend all that manufacturing, the quantity of the manufacturing to be in line with these types of targets.

If not, what happens to those car sales dealerships in B.C. that now may be left out of even getting supplies from places like Honda because they just don’t have it in their own mandate to match what B.C. has, which we’ve already established as aggressive? It’s the highest in Canada and one of the highest, if not the highest in the world.

Going back to the letter:

“Honda Canada’s goal is to have EVs make up 40 percent of its fleet in 2030 and 80 percent by 2035. However, to date, EV consumer uptake still faces numerous challenges, and the province has limited eligibility for incentives for consumers by introducing an income test requirement.”

Quite honestly, EVs are more expensive than the average ICE vehicle.

“In addition to British Columbia’s and the federal government’s luxury tax” — which I can go into a little bit later as well — “these measures will act as a disincentive for the adoption of EVs compared to an equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle.

“Moreover, the increase in penalties for non-compliance to $20,000 per vehicle will unfairly target a company that has shown leadership in decarbonizing its fleet and will drastically affect the resources and the funds Honda Canada needs to transition to the electrification of our products to meet the mobility, lifestyle and budget needs of British Columbia’s residents.”

[4:40 p.m.]

I spoke earlier to the minister’s quote — “helping, access and choice.” This does nothing to do that.

Going back to the letter:

“Given the unreasonable targets of British Columbia’s mandate, Honda Canada has paid close to $60 million to comply until 2025 and could pay up to $550 million between 2026 and 2030 if the province proceeds, as intended, with a 90 percent target in 2030. Those funds could be more beneficially used to support dealership sales, as well as invest in R and D and manufacturing, to bring ZEVs to market in a timely and feasible way.”

When we get too ahead of ourselves, the unintended consequences could actually hurt the goals that we’re aspiring to see. By putting these unrealistic targets in place without the thought of what manufacturers can actually produce, I would argue that these aggressive targets will hamper the exact solutions we all want to see in the long run. That’s why I said at the onset: is this good for British Columbians in the short term? I think, from letters such as this from Honda Canada, the answer is obviously no.

I’ll go on to the letter. It says: “Regrettably, the government has not released any analysis or evidence to justify the significant increases.” I’m going back and forth here, but this is what I said earlier. Is this new piece of legislation…? Why now? Why are we ramping this up? We’re already ahead of the game. We’ve already got very aggressive targets in place. We’re the first in the world, as the minister said, to bring this type of targeting system for ZEVs. We’re the first in the world to do it. But here we’re double-downing on our own legislation, and for what?

The folks on the other side say: “Well, because we’ve got to get greener. We’ve got to electrify the economy that much faster. We have to look out for the betterment of our future as far as carbon emissions go.” I agree that’s the long-term goal, but we’re going to shoot ourselves in the foot if we don’t have a reasonable and responsible pathway to see those long-term aspirations.

There’s no evidence that suggests — and that will be something in committee stage, I’m sure — why we have to have these significant increases.

“Government has also not provided a cost-benefit analysis supporting its assumptions and possible impact on manufacturers and dealers. We’re greatly concerned that the proposed changes fail to account adequately for the costs to OEMs and dealers of complying with the ZEV mandate.

“It should also be kept in mind that the province only represents 10 percent of Canadian sales. This added cost could result in higher prices for vehicles for consumers, reduce dealer profitability and have a spillover effect on their employees and other local businesses that rely on dealer operations.

“Other consequences of implementing these changes may include a reduction in vehicle offerings and/or availability to our consumers, leakage of sales to neighbouring jurisdictions and an overall decrease in Honda Canada’s ability to supply British Columbia’s market due to the high cost of compliance. The proposed changes would make the compliance burden disproportionate to the province’s market size.”

We’re talking about proportionality to the targets we’re putting in place here in Canada as compared to the rest of Canada. Ten percent of the sales only come from B.C., yet we’re going to put targets in place that could force the hand of manufacturers to upend their strategies to be responsible. I think, as Honda Canada points out, they have some of the most stringent greenhouse gas emission practices anywhere, so you’re harming those people that are doing the right thing in the first place.

What they also said in here was the leakage to other jurisdictions of sales. Now, I know myself, being from the Kootenays…. We border Alberta. I’ve got a couple of colleagues that are sitting here — they may be talking to this as well — that are from the Peace region, and they also border Alberta.

[4:45 p.m.]

When those choices, for the reasons I identified as far as range anxiety, cost…. The cost of EVs is higher than it is for electric vehicles. Those sales will then leak to Alberta, and that’s not good for dealers. That’s also part of what they talked about in this letter — that profitability for dealers could come crashing down. Then, all of a sudden, the choice that the minister wants for all British Columbians doesn’t exist, because we don’t have dealers anymore. They’re super concerned about this.

With the couple of minutes I’ve got left, I’ll just finish off….

Well, I’m the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Members, the designated speaker….

Of course, just for everyone’s knowledge, the House appreciates it when you identify as this at the beginning, so folks can schedule. But please proceed.

T. Shypitka: Oh, sorry. I didn’t…. Apologies, Mr. Speaker.

I’ll go into the letter a little bit longer here. “In light of the significant impacts that the proposed changes will have on our business and the hard-working residents of British Columbia we employ, we urge you to ask the Premier and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation to align the ZEV targets with those proposed by the federal government.”

Now, that would be reasonable. The federal government is 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035. So it’s still the same 100 percent by 2035, but they’ve reduced it now to 60 percent by 2030. Given what this letter said earlier and what Honda Canada’s targets are now, it seems like they’re prepared to meet in the middle somewhere and offer up 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035.

To me, that’s extending the olive branch on an industry, on a company that’s doing everything right as far as addressing greenhouse gas emissions. They’re offering this suggestion up, and I would concur that government needs to go back and talk to industry to see exactly what’s going to work for everybody. We are a small piece in Canada’s big picture here, and if we’re not in synergy with Canadian regulations, at the very least, we are in jeopardy of unintended consequences, which is what this debate is all about.

I’ll go on to the letter.

“We also need the ministry to undertake a more rigorous and transparent cost-benefit analysis that shows the true impact and reflects the real cost of the ZEV mandate on consumers and dealers in the province, as well as a more robust plan for increasing infrastructure.”

That is something I think some other members will be talking about, increasing the infrastructure. What’s the cost in that?

“Based on discussions to date, we are of the firm view that the proposed changes are unworkable and unrealistic and both understate the cost of compliance and minimize the impact on retail automobile dealers. Our hope is that by undertaking this analysis, we can work to ensure that the policies that are pursued are focused on driving demand for EVs and support the continued viability of our dealers in British Columbia.

“Since both jurisdictions are aiming for the same goal in 2035, we hope that your government will seriously consider our request to align with the federal targets to ensure that British Columbians continue to have access to a variety of products offered at prices they can afford, without overburdening our industry.”

To me, that is what reasonable collaboration looks like, and I don’t see it with this bill.

We talk about the luxury tax. Right now the luxury tax in B.C. is $58,000 for a new vehicle. The average used vehicle in B.C. right now is $55,000. The average new vehicle in B.C. is $66,000, yet our luxury tax is $58,000.

Now, when you put that into the context of ZEVs, as this bill talks about, that average cost is going to go up, especially with the non-compliance that will be impacted on car dealers for not performing the way that they’re being told to do. It’s not that they don’t want to do it. It’s whether it’s realistic or not. That’s a hard tightrope to walk when you’re a dealer, knowing what you should be doing and what you can do.

[4:50 p.m.]

I know a lot of car dealers, and I think we all do, that are just honest, hard-working people that want to fill a demand. If we don’t have honest and realistic legislation, it puts them in a pretty tough spot. Like I said before, the unintended consequences could actually hurt the same goals we all aspire to in the long run. It’s the short-term, unintended consequences that I am very concerned about.

This government had chances and had choices, independent power producers being one of them. We put a halt on those IPPs, on those clean energy projects that were not only private sector–driven, but they were also Indigenous-owned clean energy projects in the province. They could have provided that infrastructure that this bill would adapt to.

I’ve got a First Nation in my riding. They wanted to put a huge solar project in place, but the standing offer program was discontinued, and they were out of luck. That infrastructure that they would have put in would have assisted in implementing legislation such as this. We stalled them out, and now the province has a call for power all of a sudden.

As of about four or five months ago, government said we didn’t need any more power. The Integrated Resource Plan at B.C. Hydro said: “We’re flush with power. We got a surplus of power. We don’t need any partners. We don’t need IPPs.” Well, four months ago, they changed their tune, after a couple of years of going through it in estimates with the minister, saying: “I don’t understand this.”

We’ve got such a demand. We’re in an unprecedented time. We’re trying to electrify the economy. We’re trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We’re trying to electrify industry, whether it’s LNG…. We’re trying to put a heat pump in every home. We’re trying to put an EV-charging station in every home. We’ve got a housing crisis. We’re going to have to bring in another 500,000 to 700,000 units here in the next ten years.

That is all a direct draw off the grid. Not to mention new industries such as crypto mining, data storage — huge energy draws. But we missed the opportunity there. Now we’re scrambling. That’s what I’m saying.

When I look at Bill 39, it looks a lot like a lot of other bills where this is desperation legislation. We can’t meet our targets. We’ve got gaps in our own accountability reports. We’ve got to do something. “Oh, I know — we’re just going to crank up the sales from 30 percent to 90 percent. That’ll fix it.”

This is desperation legislation. I’m sure there are going to be a few others that will be talking to this.

With that, I’m not supportive of the bill, but I do look forward to committee stage so that we can address some of those issues. Maybe there can be some clarity on this, but right now I’m pessimistic.

R. Merrifield: I think it’s incredibly arrogant to think that B.C., with this bill and this acceleration, could somehow result and move Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, etc.

This bill will not result in better access or more zero-emission vehicles being available. I will go on record today by saying that this bill will result in higher costs for British Columbians.

It is arrogant to compare ourselves to California — if taken as an independent economy, the seventh-largest economy in the world. It is arrogant to think that we in B.C. could somehow move manufacturers to the same extent that California can.

[4:55 p.m.]

Having grown up in California, I can tell you that right now, if you ride your beach cruiser bicycle from Newport Beach to Huntington Pier, you know what you will see? Gorgeous white-sand beaches, amazing ocean views, and, dotted all along in the sea, offshore rigs. That beautiful, blue-facaded building, as you near Huntington Pier, that kind of looks like a water park is a refinery.

California has the privilege of accelerating their environmental agenda on the backbone of an incredibly vibrant oil and gas industry. They have the luxury of propelling forward their green economy because manufacturing, aerospace and technology industries thrive in California. Meanwhile, we in B.C. have economists from Bank of Montreal, TD, BCBC telling us that we are about to suck $28 billion, based on the NDP’s numbers — not anyone’s manufactured numbers, the NDP’s own numbers — year after year after year out of our economy. And this bill wants us to go faster?

I have serious reservations about Bill 39. On the surface, sure. It makes a pretty press conference verbiage launch — 26 percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030, 100 percent by 2035. But if we peel back the layers, we can see that this roadmap of CleanBC is leading us to a cliff.

The acceleration of going faster towards that cliff is one that British Columbians simply cannot afford right now. I had the honour and privilege this morning of delivering questions to this government from desperate citizens, desperate constituents who can no longer make ends meet. This bill is accelerating our unaffordability.

Let’s start by just looking at the government’s own documents. The NDP government’s climate change accountability report already raises the eyebrow. It suggests that there’s a gap in meeting the 2030 target. Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t just a simple gap. It is a glaring issue that tells us that even the government recognizes its own inability to fulfil these promises.

As someone who has studied the emissions of every single industry within B.C., I can tell you that light-duty transportation is not our biggest issue. It is not where you want to start. Heavy-duty transportation, possibly. Light-duty? No. Non-essential travel is not British Columbia’s biggest emitter. So why would we penalize British Columbians, try to squeeze out any amount that we can from them?

Let’s just expand on the issue of that 2030 target gap. While the government’s climate change accountability report may seem benign to the untrained eye, those of us that have been following climate policy for years know that small gaps can quickly turn into yawning chasms. These are not just numbers on a page. They translate into real-world impact. Missing these targets has implications, not just for our generation, but for our children and grandchildren. Every year we delay compounds the challenges.

[5:00 p.m.]

If we do not have economic prosperity in our province, we will not meet our targets. The green economy does not pay for itself. The budget doesn’t balance itself.

We have right now less than a zero percent growth in private sector jobs over the last five years. News flash: government jobs don’t create GDP. The government cannot keep taxing individuals, trying desperately to fund CleanBC. We have to have a thriving economy.

If we look at what this is actually costing us…. Let’s talk just about budgeting. The go electric EV charger rebate program, well, we got another $7 million rolled out into it as of October 31. But we need to remember that the initial program ran out of funds in June. Why? Because nobody can afford to pay for these. We’re going to tax individuals and tax everyone that we possibly can, and then we’re going to bleed out these small amounts that aren’t really enough to get us to where we need.

This new budget figure isn’t a treat for the people of B.C. It’s more like a trick. Where is the long-term planning?

This reminds me of the rebate program for electric bikes that ended up having the same issue. Eight hours after it was launched, it was drained. Why? Because who in British Columbia right now can afford a $2,000 bike? I have people who can’t afford bread. Cheese has become a luxury item. Wait. Wait. Wait. I hesitate to say that just in case the NDP decide to put a luxury tax on cheese.

When we take a closer look at go electric EV charger rebate programs, a $7 million allocation is not just insufficient. It’s borderline irresponsible. This is not merely criticism. This is actually a call for accountability. In any planning endeavour, particularly in public policy, particularly with something as grandiose and big and needed as CleanBC, foresight and risk management are essential. You cannot have an environmental policy in a vacuum without having strong, solid economic prosperity and planning.

Rebate programs are going to continue to be a mouse wheel where demand will outstrip supply, because people can’t afford it anymore. Ignoring this can only be interpreted as an absolute failure to take this issue seriously. This is not the time for token gestures. We need substantive, well-funded initiatives based on economic prosperity.

If you think that we in opposition are the only ones sounding the alarm bells…. You’ve heard from my colleague from Kootenay East just about what industry stakeholders believe. Dealers across this province have expressed grave concerns about this legislation. Correspondences have flooded the inboxes, I’m sure, of the ministers as well as us, decrying how these regulations will impose severe burdens on original equipment manufacturers and dealers.

So what does this mean? Well, simply put, this is not going to give better access. This is not going to lower costs of ZEVs. Simply put, the increased costs are going to be shifted to consumers. News flash: consumers can’t afford it. Cars will become more expensive, making electric vehicles — I don’t know — an option only for the well-off. Well, so much for accessibility and inclusivity.

The New Car Dealers Association of B.C. supports the view that I’ve just expressed, advocating for a more flexible approach to EV targets. They rightly contend that the current rules may produce unintended consequences, including inflation of prices of new and used vehicles, which will in turn slow down the adoption of zero-emission vehicles. The concerns from dealers and manufacturers are not just the typical resistance to new regulations that one might expect.

These are credible worries. They are not in control of their entire supply chain. These decisions are being made way outside of B.C. And B.C. is a flea in these manufacturers’ worlds.

[5:05 p.m.]

Will these new rules simply create a market for luxury electric vehicles that only the well-off can afford, thereby widening the inequality gap? If that happens, the entire purpose of a green transition will be undermined, turning it into a transition that caters only to the privileged few.

Let’s not forget the consumers. Range anxiety that was mentioned by my colleague is a substantial issue for the people of British Columbia. We live in a province with challenging terrains, with communities separated by mountainous regions and extensive roads. In the winter, these conditions are exacerbated, making range anxiety not just a buzzword but a very real concern.

This isn’t just a concern for those in rural and remote areas. These are concerns for those that live in the Lower Mainland. I have had people coming from the Lower Mainland to visit me in the Okanagan who have declined, saying they have an electric vehicle and they aren’t sure it will make it.

I don’t think I need to underscore, though, the dangers of being stranded on a mountain road in freezing temperatures because your electric vehicle ran out of juice or your battery isn’t going to work at minus 35.

Range anxiety is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but let’s unpack what it, actually, means for an average British Columbian family. Imagine you’re a working parent in one of our smaller, more isolated communities. You have a tight budget, and you are concerned about your environment. You hear about the government incentives for electric vehicles, but when you look into it you realize your nearest charging station is an hour away. That’s not convenient. That’s a major logistical challenge that will deter many potential electric vehicle users and that’s if it’s an hour away.

Even if we were to put aside range anxiety, one of the questions…. There’s a question of infrastructure especially in the Interior and the North, but really infrastructure all around. Our province should be leading the development of electric charging stations, yet what we’ve seen is a patchwork approach with significant gaps in charging infrastructure.

Regarding this infrastructure, let’s talk about numbers. According to various industry reports, we need not hundreds but thousands more charging stations to make electric vehicle use practical and appealing. The current piecemeal approach is far from what is required.

But that’s if we could, actually, have the charging stations. Let’s assume that we have all the charging stations that we need. We don’t have the electricity that we need. My colleague for Kootenay East and I have been sounding the alarm bell over and over again that we don’t have enough electricity.

And who guessed it? Wow. “We don’t have enough electricity” was announced by B.C. Hydro just four months ago. I don’t know. I guess we considered ourselves smarter than researchers from SFU and from UBC and whistleblowers from inside of B.C. Hydro itself.

The B.C. Utilities Commission….Well, they’re asking the question, and they asked the question of Fortis B.C. as to whether or not Fortis B.C., had enough electricity — not for the Okanagan, not for the whole of the Interior — just for Kelowna’s electrification needs? Their conclusion was that it will take $3.4 billion to supply enough electricity to meet the goals inside of CleanBC.

News flash: $3.4 billion is $28,333 per resident of B.C. — man, woman and child. That means a family of four is going to be at about $114,000. I’m sorry, but right now, if you told every family in Kelowna that they were going to be responsible for $114,000, they can’t do it.

[5:10 p.m.]

Moreover, for a province that is promoting the adoption of electric vehicles, this government has been very, very sloppy about looking at the issue of generating the electricity needed. The NDP has repeatedly blocked private sector and Indigenous-owned clean energy projects and, for the last seven years that they’ve been in power, has rejected almost all of them.

Will this have an effect? Absolutely. And yes, it has a tragic effect on economic reconciliation for our Indigenous neighbours. But it also has a glaring effect and reflects a lack of support of community-driven sustainability initiatives.

The delay on Site C is a glaring example. Instead of harnessing our own resources for clean energy, we were forced, and we are forced right now, to purchase coal- and gas-generated electricity from the United States. We are exporting our environmental responsibilities and importing pollution, defeating the very essence of the clean energy goals we’ve set for ourselves.

Clean Energy B.C. has provided jaw-dropping statistics. To fully electrify the LNG sector, they estimate we need to increase our electricity production by over 70 percent. A recent Pembina report is even less encouraging, stating that achieving our LNG ambitions will require the equivalent of 8.4 Site C dams.

Regarding electricity supply, the stance against private sector involvement is not just counterproductive. It’s nonsensical. We need all hands on deck to meet our energy requirements for the future, especially if we are encouraging a shift to electric vehicles.

By standing in the way of Indigenous-owned and private sector clean energy projects, we’re not just limiting our energy options. We’re also hampering economic development and job creation in those sectors.

The Clean Energy B.C. and the Pembina report should serve as a wake-up call. If our grand plans for LNG materialize, our already struggling electric infrastructure will be woefully insufficient. And we can’t have CleanBC without an economy and prosperity. So how are we planning to achieve this massive ramp-up in electricity production? Well, it’s a question that remains unanswered.

We are also sticking all of our eggs in one electric basket. To go first in this particular area, when we are a teetering economy, is simply too risky. We need other innovation and technology. We need to massively increase battery storage and to understand how we can best facilitate all renewables, not just electricity. Escalating our time frames is not going to allow that innovation and technology to take place. Absolutely opposite that — it’s going to be some of the most expensive choices we could ever make, all on the backs of the taxpayer in B.C.

Under our previous B.C. United government, British Columbia was recognized as a leader in the fight against climate change. We were admired around the world for our balanced approach to economic development held in tension with environmental sustainability. When the B.C. United were in power, our province was at the forefront of climate change action. We knew that environmental protection and economic prosperity could go hand in hand. That’s what good governance is all about: finding the balanced path that serves the present without mortgaging the future.

What we’re seeing right now under this NDP government is a step back not just in action but also in thought leadership. In contrast, what we see now is a government that has been paying lip service to climate change action. Billions of taxpayer dollars have gone into this government’s plan, yet our progress has stalled.

[5:15 p.m.]

We are behind on our targets and lagging in electrification.

In closing, we have serious reservations about Bill 39. We look forward to a rigorous examination of this legislation in the committee stage. We have a responsibility to protect our environment for future generations, yes, but not to the absolute detriment of British Columbians’ prosperity and ability to make a living. It should be done judiciously and not through hastily implemented, rushed, inadequately funded and ill-conceived policies.

As we move forward to committee stage, let’s not just go through the motions. Let’s ask the tough questions. Let’s demand real answers, not just platitudes. Hopefully, we can get them. Above all, let’s remember why we’re here. I’m not here for anything other than to serve and advocate for my constituents, for all British Columbians, for my kids’ kids and, indeed, all future generations, because they’re all relying on us getting this right.

This isn’t just a bill. It’s a litmus test of our seriousness in facing one of the greatest challenges of our time: climate change. We can only do it through economic prosperity. As we dissect and debate Bill 39 in the coming days, I’m going to do so trying to understand its far-reaching implications and trying to hold in tension both our economy and our environment.

E. Ross: I’ll try, but I can’t match the passion from the member for Kelowna-Mission. It was interesting listening to her dissect all the different issues related to Bill 39, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, 2023. Really, what we’re talking about is speeding up the idea of British Columbians purchasing more electric vehicles.

There’s a lot to this, and I think the goal is a noble goal. I mean, everybody really wants to reduce emissions, not just here in B.C. but in Canada and worldwide, especially in First World countries.

There are a lot of questions about the electric car industry that kind of relate to what happened to B.C. in the natural gas industry. Looking back at the natural gas industry, the export of natural gas to Asia, we pretty much missed the boat. We were too late. Everybody else got to the markets before us, even though B.C. was the first one to consider exporting LNG to Asia back in 2004.

Today we’re talking about one major project, LNG Canada, at 14 million tonnes for phase 1. That’s been approved, but the 14 million tonnes for phase 2 has not been approved. That was accomplished by this NDP government in getting it over the finish line, even though they didn’t do the heavy lifting of consulting First Nations and in fact opposed LNG exports up until 2017.

I have acknowledged before in this House that it was under the previous Premier that LNG got over the finish line but with a massive tax break in the provincial sales tax. We gave them a huge tax break, the biggest in B.C. history, and then followed it up with a massive carbon tax break, at 30 bucks a tonne. That really amounts to billions of dollars that will not make it into the coffers of the B.C. government.

[5:20 p.m.]

It’s quite interesting now that we’re talking about tax breaks being given by the federal government to Atlantic Canada but not to B.C. Well, we’ve got the same situation here where the government gave a huge tax break, two of them, to LNG Canada but will not consider giving tax breaks to the citizens.

In looking at the electric car issue coming up in B.C.…. I got here in 2017, and it wasn’t really a big issue where I came from. I was chief councillor for Haisla Nation council for six years before I got here. We didn’t really know that the electric car issue was an issue in B.C. We were actually so focused on engaging with forestry and mining and LNG.

This was the first time I saw in detail how much work had gone into not only just electric cars in terms of emissions but overall for the last 30, 40 years, in terms of environmental management, in terms of reducing not only our impact on air but also reducing our impact on land and water.

I was quite, actually, thrilled at the idea that we were actually looking at all these different impacts, because that’s what my band had been doing 50 years ago — looking at environmental impacts on land, water and air. When it became fashionable, that’s when First Nations started to really come to the forefront in terms of trying to reduce our impact on the environment as well as mitigate past impacts.

Up in Skeena where I represent — Kitimat, Terrace, Nisg̱a’a, Kitsumkalum, Kitselas, Kitamaat Village — I’ve asked all around my riding about what the interest is in electric cars. There’s very few, to be honest. But the ones I have talked to have not talked about their ideal vision about reducing emissions. It’s all about the novelty of owning an electric car and how much speed it gets from zero to 60 as opposed to a gas-powered engine and all the electricity that goes into it.

Of course, everybody knows the downside of owning an electric vehicle when you’re talking about batteries in cold weather or even some of the other issues that are affecting electric cars.

But it hasn’t really affected us. We’ve got two new electric charging stations in Kitimat that nobody uses. They just sit there. I’m not quite sure about Terrace, but nobody has come to me saying: “We have to accelerate the targets of electric cars being utilized in B.C. by 2030 or 2035.”

Really, when we’re talking about this, we’re talking about a previous act that was brought into B.C. by the B.C. NDP government. Now we’re talking about an amended act to speed up the amount of vehicles on our highways that are powered by lithium batteries.

The previous target under the previous bill was that 26 percent of vehicles must be zero-emission by 2026. This amendment says instead of 20 percent by 2025…. Sorry. Reverse that. The previous target was 20 percent by 2025, and the new target is 26 percent by 2026. The previous target in the previous bill was 30 percent by 2030 and 90 percent by 2030. Instead of 100 percent by 2040, it is 100 percent by 2035 in this new bill.

Very ambitious. But really haven’t addressed a number of things, like affordability. A lot of the people that I represent cannot dream of owning an electric vehicle, let alone trying to think about how to charge it, how to pay for it.

There are so many questions that I get asked about electric vehicles that I can’t answer. Will it be charged in their garage at home? Will they be given free electricity? I think right now the B.C. government is realizing they just can’t give out free electricity anymore. It was good in the beginning to give it out as an incentive, give out free electricity, but you can’t sustain that, especially with the amount of deficit that this B.C. government has incurred, and the debt.

[5:25 p.m.]

You just can’t keep giving out free electricity. You can’t keep building free electric car infrastructure and not get a return. At some point, we’re going to have to consider that — the affordability factor.

Over the years, I’ve tried to listen to everybody and tried to keep an open mind in terms of the emissions-free future, which is slightly different than saying that we’re going to go full bore on electric vehicles. There’s a difference.

Why I say I think we might be missing the boat is because the world has actually changed its priority. Initially, because of the Paris targets, everybody wanted to reduce their emissions drastically. They thought that going with electric vehicles was the way to go.

Now a lot of nations are starting to understand that they can’t just do it overnight. They can’t do it within five years or ten years or 15 years. Geopolitics has made the reality of energy even more serious today. Germany is no longer talking about clean energy. They’re talking about starting up coal plants again. They’re talking about getting away from dependence on Russian natural gas, but they can’t get away from it.

I was shocked to hear that Germany still relies on natural gas coming from Russia. I was quite surprised at that. I really thought they had built terminals to accept natural gas to fulfil their energy needs within two years, which is quite remarkable, to fully wean themselves off natural gas from Russia. Turns out that’s not the case, which gets back to what we’re talking about here.

Something I learned a long time ago is that especially for our first-world society, energy is the foundation of everything that we take for granted. It has given us a good quality of life in terms of affordability and conveniences. Now it seems, apart from the idea that we want to reduce emissions, that we want to make life harder for British Columbians in light of an affordability crisis.

I haven’t seen the government yet talk about who’s going to pay for all this. I understand that the consumer is going to pay for the vehicle, maybe through additional subsidies. But who’s going to pay for the infrastructure upgrades? I haven’t seen that yet. Maybe that comes out in regulation. Maybe that comes out with higher rates through B.C. Hydro. Maybe it gets passed on to the taxpayer through higher taxes or deficit financing. We haven’t really seen that just yet.

Why I ask that is because we’ve been talking a lot about B.C. Hydro upgrades from Prince George to Kitimat for the purpose of exporting LNG. We’ve been talking about that now for 15 years. I was part of two consultations in my community of Kitimat. We supported it because we wanted to see that LNG get to Asia with as little emissions as possible.

Unfortunately, it didn’t work out, and now LNG Canada will burn natural gas to operate its turbines for the first phase, which will be converting natural gas to liquid natural gas. We’re talking about 14 million tonnes annually. The emissions factor there…. We missed the boat on electrifying that industry for the purpose of reducing emissions.

A couple of years ago, I was in here, and part of the conversation was how we’re going to electrify our whole society and our whole economy. One of the conversations we had was that we were going to electrify the gas fields of B.C. It didn’t work out, only because of the vast distances of our gas fields. This goes back to the idea of electrifying our economy and our society by forcing everybody to buy electric cars.

[5:30 p.m.]

We haven’t talked about the supply of gas. If we couldn’t come up with a supply of gas for LNG Canada, the largest private investment in Canadian history, $40 billion, shipping 14 million tonnes out of phase 1 alone, then how are we going to do this? We can’t even provide the infrastructure, from Prince George to Terrace, for the purpose of LNG. We couldn’t do it.

The latest round that B.C. Hydro has come up with, just for an upgrade…. It doesn’t have a customer, by the way. I did question the minister on this in estimates. The latest B.C. Hydro plan, under the Energy Minister, was to upgrade the B.C. Hydro infrastructure from Prince George to Terrace alone, and that cost was $3 billion, with no customer.

I assume that Cedar LNG, which was created by my band while I was chief councillor there, as well as Nisg̱a’a Lisims will be expected to utilize electricity, and they’ll have to pay the price for that. They’ll have to pay the bill. I’m also assuming that the infrastructure upgrade is already good enough, from Terrace to Kitimat, for those LNG projects, but I can guarantee you the infrastructure is not there from Terrace to Nisg̱a’a.

The $3 billion price tag…. Forget about building the infrastructure for electric cars. Forget about that for a second. We still haven’t come to terms with who’s going to pay the $3 billion price tag for the upgrade from Prince George to Terrace.

In terms of missing the boat…. Keep an eye on energy trends across the world. Yes, Asia wanted our natural gas badly. India wanted our natural gas badly. Europe could use it, but of course, there are shipping issues that will exclude that. We didn’t provide it. We didn’t do it.

In terms of Bill 39, when everybody else is moving away from electric vehicles…. Japan is moving towards ammonia. Did everybody know that ammonia is a fuel that could power up a country? I didn’t. I thought ammonia was something you found under your kitchen sink.

I see the members from the Peace agree with me.

It’s amazing to see….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: One member has the floor, Member. That member is the member for Skeena.

E. Ross: Thank you.

Japan is building the infrastructure to accept ammonia. They want a zero-emissions economy and society. Here we are in B.C. saying: “We’ll stick to powering up our economy and society using electric vehicles, even though we know that the lithium supply is going to get more expensive as more and more countries look to electric vehicles.”

There’s not a lot of supply of lithium in the world right now. Some of the biggest lithium mines in Canada are not even owned by Canada, not even operated by Canada. Really, those lithium batteries will not come from Canada per se, except for the east, but that was heavily subsidized by the government back there.

The point is…. The rest of the world is using different methods to achieve zero emissions. In looking through the bill, Bill 39, I didn’t see that flexibility to say: “Okay. This bill will include everything that promotes zero emissions.”

[5:35 p.m.]

It seems we’re just focusing on electric cars, even though we don’t have the infrastructure. We don’t have an idea of the cost for infrastructure. We haven’t even considered some of the issues related to electric cars. We haven’t considered firefighting.

Now, all vehicles catch fire — all vehicles. It doesn’t matter if it’s electric or not. Lithium batteries provide a different firefighting technique that we haven’t fully equipped our firefighters with yet. An electric fire can burn for hours. They’re coming up with new methods to put these fires out.

Fire stations across B.C. are not equipped to fight lithium battery fires. You need blankets. They’re testing out blankets, I’m assuming, to deprive the fire of oxygen, even though this is a chemical reaction, a chemical fire. That’s what it is. They’re also saying that we should be supplying our fire stations with aerosols.

The other area that I think, later on, we could look at, if we are seriously considering this, is…. We could legislate that all manufacturers have to put in fail-safe measures, not only to prevent fires but also to put them out inside the vehicles. These fires are actually quite scary. It’s not to say that we don’t have fires with gas combustion engines as well, but those are a lot easier to put out than battery-powered vehicles.

In terms of our infrastructure and our grid…. We’re talking about increasing the amount of people that depend on our grid for electricity, yet our grid, so far, is so fragile. We’re slow to upgrade our grid. When we’re talking about Bill 39…. This bill will be enforceable on all people in British Columbia, but we haven’t really considered the grid itself and whether or not we can actually handle this kind of a load.

When Enbridge’s natural gas pipeline ruptured two years ago…. Was it two years ago? When was it — two or three years ago? I thought that was a simple matter of just shutting down the pipeline, fixing the rupture and then getting that gas flowing again from northeastern B.C. down to the Lower Mainland and to Vancouver residents who utilize natural gas for heating and cooking. It turns out there was a lot more to it than that.

The people who depended on natural gas, who didn’t have it anymore in the Lower Mainland, quickly switched to electricity. As I understand it, the grid was in danger of overload. There were too many people that were looking to cook, use their air conditioners, use their furnaces. You name it. We could have had a blackout across B.C., because we don’t have the infrastructure for increased loads.

When we’re talking about the supply, we’re talking about Site C, of course. If we don’t have enough supply for the LNG industry to be electrified…. Ultimately, we’re aiming for that, in terms of Nisg̱a’a LNG as well as Cedar LNG and, I’m assuming, wood fibre. Where does this electricity come from?

The standing offer program, which actually promoted clean energy from independent power producers and which was under the previous government, the B.C. Liberals — the B.C. United party now — was actually struck down by this NDP government. Then it was brought back in. I think the NDP realized we do have a supply issue.

I think it’s going to have to be all hands on deck. I don’t want to be in a position like Germany, where we say: “We’re at a crisis level in terms of electrical supply. So let’s look at coal, nuclear. Let’s look at all these different issues right away, quick, so we don’t have any blackouts.”

[5:40 p.m.]

I don’t see…. Maybe it’s another piece of legislation that comes in to answer this, in terms of supply and infrastructure costs and timelines to achieve those goals, but in this bill here, it just says: “We’re going to ramp it up.” That’s all I see.

We’re talking about infrastructure costs. We’re just not talking about the grid itself. I understand the grid to be a network of power lines that spreads across Canada, across B.C. and across North America. That’s how I view it. For those millions at home that showed up to watch the member for Kootenay East, a lot of your electrical supply likely comes from the United States. Guess what. The United States still uses coal to produce electricity, so to say electricity is a green energy source in B.C. is not quite accurate.

It’s the same way with natural gas. It’s a network of lines that transport that energy to your house. In saying that, we haven’t even talked about how your neighbourhood infrastructure gets upgraded so that you can choose the electric vehicle of your choice. Not only are we talking about billions of dollars, if not trillions, to upgrade our entire electricity grid; we’re also talking about how we get your neighbourhood infrastructure upgraded, maybe even your home itself. We don’t know, because the technology is still changing.

Like I say, different parts of the world are moving to different energy sources. While we potentially put the residents of B.C. in a very tough spot in terms of affordability and being forced to buy an electric vehicle, the rest of the world will be switching to different energy sources to achieve the same goals, like purchasing ammonia from Alberta, which will get shipped through Prince Rupert. I think it’s a great idea — ammonia.

I would love it if the B.C. government could cooperate with the federal government to relieve the liability issues on CN Rail to make sure that the ammonia coming from Alberta…. McLeod Lake First Nation gets their ammonia shipped to Japan. It’s a great economic opportunity, and Japan will reduce its emissions without this Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, which basically forces residents of B.C. to buy an electric vehicle.

By the way, does anybody know this? I know we’re not in committee stage. For you at home, we’re not at committee stage; we’re at second reading right now. Committee stage is actually third reading. We’re not there, but I’ve got an open question.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll relay a question through you; there’s nobody to ask over there, right? It’s not committee stage. Does this relate to secondhand vehicles?

T. Shypitka: That’s what I was going to say.

E. Ross: Did I steal your question? Did I steal that?

T. Shypitka: In a roundabout way.

E. Ross: The Speaker is not going to answer.

There are a lot of different questions here. I just think we missed the boat on electric vehicles, and I think there are a lot of questions yet to be understood, but I will wait for a third reading, in committee stage, to see if we can flesh it out. Especially, I’ll be watching the member for Kootenay East.

M. Bernier: It’s always entertaining to go after my colleague from Skeena.

I never thought, when we’re discussing Bill 39, that he would be bringing up vehicle fires as part of the debate. I just want to flag in Hansard, on the record, that I still drive a 1985 Fiero — one of the few that didn’t catch fire, and one of the few that’s still on the road in mint condition. It didn’t catch fire, so I didn’t quite understand where the member for Skeena was going.

When I’m looking at Bill 39 here, I was just talking with my colleague from Peace River North. We were looking at this bill, and the first word that came to our minds was “dumb.” I’d like to say a few other words, but I’d probably end up on No Context BC, so I won’t go there.

[5:45 p.m.]

Let me quantify this. We’re looking at accelerating and forcing people on how they’re going to make their consumer decisions. I understand the virtue-signalling that this government likes to do. I understand the photo ops that they like to partake in. I also, in fairness, understand the objective of trying to make sure we’re doing everything we can to lower our carbon emissions, not just in the province of British Columbia but nationally and globally.

I’ve got a news flash: if there’s anybody in the NDP that actually thinks that this is achievable, I’m waiting for them to stand up, say that and put it on the record. I can guarantee you right now, and I’m willing to put it on the record, that the NDP will not be able to achieve these targets.

It’s going to be like a lot of their other goals and plans that they do and that are aspirational. Fair enough — if they want to stand up and say this is aspirational, good on them. Unfortunately, they’re trying to put in legislation to tell people how to live their lives and what they’re going to do.

Here’s the challenge with that. Yes, technology has advanced. Yes, there are more options out there. Yes, we have an extremely high price for gasoline at the pumps right now. So what are people doing? They’re making consumer decisions on whether that’s the choice they want, to go on having an internal combustion engine — I’m not going to use ICE, an acronym — or whether they’re going to go to an EV, an electric vehicle.

As my colleague from Kelowna-Mission was saying, there’s arrogance of this government to actually tell people how they should live in this respect, how they should make their purchases — and, more importantly, expecting that the suppliers, the large companies, are going to follow suit. Everything is supply and demand–driven. It doesn’t matter what this government tells people to do. The companies are going to deal with what the supply and demand is.

A case in point: I drove around my riding and looked at the auto dealerships. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you would not be surprised, being from down in the Lower Mainland area and knowing what goes on in the Peace region, that almost all the vehicles you see on the lots are half-ton or larger pickup trucks, because that’s what’s needed. They’re, obviously, gas vehicles.

I talk about supply and demand. I looked around, and I was able to find — I’m sure any of my businesses up north will correct me if I’m wrong — one electric vehicle, up in the south Peace, on the lots. It wasn’t sold; it was on the lot. I know of two people in my entire riding that own electric vehicles.

I asked questions a couple of years ago of this government, when they had their original targets that they’d put forward. What’s going to happen if they put this into law? As this government will ram it through regardless of the reality and practicality of this decision, I’ll go back to my original comment of being dumb.

I’ve asked this question, and I’ve never got a clear answer. What’s stopping somebody — I live on the Alberta border — from now going right across the border, five minutes away, and buying an internal combustion engine? Alberta is going to be smart and look at other ways of trying to lower carbon emissions. They’re not going to do some crazy law like this. I’d be surprised if they do. Is everybody just going to go into Alberta, buy it, and then bring it into British Columbia? That’s what we’re going to see up in my region.

Is it going to change anything? No, other than inconvenience and added costs to people. The reason why they’ll do that…. I know my colleague from Peace River North will speak after me, probably in more detail, on this.

News flash: our rural communities are mostly industry-based. What do they need? Usually, it’s large vehicles that travel long distances.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m waiting for the NDP minister to speak up to explain to me if in Dease Lake, where one minister is from in the NDP, they have superb charging facilities up north. I know probably up in Liard, they don’t have them. Fort Nelson or even Tumbler Ridge and Chetwynd in my riding don’t have them. I flagged that because it’s back to virtue-signalling.

Again, I’d have no problem if the government wanted to put forward a bill that said: “We hope someday, as technology continues to advance and as people are going to continue to make consumer choices, that we’ll have more and more EVs happening.” We’re seeing it happen already. The government can tout that, even though it had really not much to do with them.

If we don’t have the charging infrastructure, there’s a reason why people in a lot of other rural or remote communities are not choosing EVs. There are a lot of reasons, but that’s just one.

Somebody thought it would be a smart idea between Dawson Creek and Prince George to put in a charging station, thinking it’s the right thing to do because we weren’t able to go from one community to the other without having to stop to charge.

Let’s put a charging station in the middle, in an area where there’s no cell service. It’s a slow trickle charge, and people are telling me it’s about six hours just to get enough charging capacity in their vehicle to make it to the next community because it’s not a fast-charge system. How many vehicles do you actually think I’ve ever seen stopped at that charging facility, and why aren’t they? Well, because it’s dumb.

It’s not that I’m against electric vehicles. In fact, one of my daughters owns two of them. My daughter and her husband each have a Tesla. They live down in the Lower Mainland. It’s practical for them. It makes sense for them. The unfortunate part of that, though, is they can never drive up to visit me anymore. They have to fly because there are not enough charging facilities to get from Abbotsford, where they live, up to Dawson Creek.

That kind of helps them in the Lower Mainland. Practicality makes sense. There might be a lot of people that just choose not to buy a vehicle and use transportation that’s offered to them, which, again, we don’t have in most of our rural and remote communities. By that, I mean public transportation.

I’ve also heard from numerous organizations, stratas, especially down in the Lower Mainland and here in Victoria too, that have said: “Who’s paying for this?” You put this in…. I looked at the one about two blocks away from here. There are 300 parking stalls in a large strata complex. I went and asked them. They said: “Obviously, when it was built ten years ago, this wasn’t taken into consideration. There’s no infrastructure within this complex to meet the demands of electrification.” That will go with, I would argue, almost every apartment or strata complex that’s built.

They told me — and of course, I come from an electrical background, so I know this a fair bit — tens and tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade the electrical infrastructure into a building. So to all of the people who have been complaining about strata fees going up, once this bill is passed, you better start planning. Your strata fees are going to skyrocket if you don’t have the means of electrification ten years from now or whatever it’s going to be.

I’m sure this government will realize, as they go forward, that this is an aspirational bill, that it will not have any force and effect in the sense of reality on the ground — as you’ve heard from lots of our colleagues on this side — for it to be actually realistically achievable, especially, with the arguments we’re trying to say, for all of British Columbia.

This is another perfect example of us in one corner of the province putting forward a piece of legislation that is not realistic for most people, most communities, most families for a lot of different reasons.

[5:55 p.m.]

As my colleague, or a few colleagues, before me have even said, where is this power coming from? I haven’t seen any piece of legislation put forward by the NDP government prior to this to say, “Don’t worry. We’ve got a plan on how we’re going to electrify the province,” other than anything aspirational.

Almost every study that I’ve seen has said that if you are going to electrify all the vehicles in the province, like this government is proposing in this bill, you need to build about five or six more Site C–equivalents in the next ten years. Or what this government is saying is they have no problem buying dirty energy from other jurisdictions, which we already do right now in peak times.

Interestingly, when the NDP got into government, one of the first things they did was cancel IPPs, independent power producers, that were actually looking at bringing in wind farms, run-of-river projects, solar projects. Why? Because for some reason, the now Premier and others called it dirty power. Interesting. They also opposed Site C, and said we don’t need all this power.

Now, go figure. Reality kicks in. The government wants to put forward this bill to electrify vehicles, and we want to do this right away. Now, all of a sudden, our Premier comes out and says, “Oh, we got it wrong” — paraphrasing his comments, of course. “We don’t have enough power. I guess we should open it up for IPPs again. I guess we should look at how we can power the province,” which, by the way, can take five, seven, ten years in order to get some of these projects built, unfortunately. Even worse, some of them, depending on the permitting requirement.

That wasn’t really thinking ahead, was it? That wasn’t really planning for the future. This government continues to do that, coming out with all these announcements that don’t logically hit the ground as being achievable.

Now, as I said, technology has advanced, and people are making different choices because of that. Technology has not advanced to the point where in ridings like mine and many others in the north electric vehicles will work well in the wintertime.

I own a hybrid vehicle, personally, so, luckily, in the wintertime, I can still use that. The batteries struggle as soon as it hits minus 20, and I’m running off of the internal combustion engine, but at least I have that option. What this government is telling me is that you won’t have that option anymore.

By the way, all those people that work in the oil and gas sector, you’re not going to be able to operate your big welding trucks anymore. This bill is saying…. I think we are looking at anything almost like a three-quarter ton or under has to be electric. That’s probably 90 percent of the vehicles in my riding.

As I mentioned, right now I probably have two people that I know of that have electric vehicles. This government is saying that that has to somehow change from two to 100 percent in the next few years. Again, not practical, not logical.

We talked about trying to achieve policies to lower our carbon emissions. Under the B.C. Liberals at the time, now B.C. United, we were recognized as one of the most proactive governments in the world when it came to looking at ways to lower our carbon emissions — some of the policies that came in, some of the goals that were achieved.

In the last seven years, regardless of all the virtue-signalling that this government does and all the announcements, our emissions have skyrocketed, but it’s not because of vehicles.

Do vehicles play a part? Absolutely. I’m not naive enough to say they don’t. But to think that this government is going to say everybody has to have an electric vehicle within the next ten years, putting the pressure on our businesses, putting pressure on our families through cost, through business pressures….

[6:00 p.m.]

I’ve already heard from some people in my riding that own dealerships and that just say: “You know what? I get to move my dealership five miles away, and I don’t have to listen to the NDP rules anymore. I don’t want to, but as long as the NDP is in government, I almost cherish the day of moving my company to Alberta because of that.”

Interjection.

M. Bernier: And lots are, as my colleague from Kootenay East just said, who also lives close to the Alberta border so has lived experience in that.

I wasn’t originally intending on speaking to this bill, because when I first heard about it, I thought that it was going to be a little bit more flexible and aspirational, not so prescriptive that it is actually going to hurt people and families. If you are fortunate enough to live in a large metropolitan area that has started building out the infrastructure, that has public transit opportunities and that has flexibility in what can or cannot be achieved, then fill your boots. If that’s what people want to support, then obviously, they have that option, but not everybody can.

That’s why I chose to stand up and speak to this: to remind this government that what they are doing — and what they are doing over and over again in this Legislature, frankly — is taking people’s life choices away from them. It’s another top-down, government-knows-best approach, and I guarantee you that it’s not something that people in my riding can support.

Will they choose to buy an electric vehicle someday, if the infrastructure is there, the price is right and the technology advances? Possibly, but it’s their choice to do that. At some point, as things change within society, let’s say, and we have fewer and fewer opportunities for internal combustion engines, maybe we’ll see less gas being produced, for different reasons, and people might be looking at different choices. But that’s not happening right now, and I guarantee you that will not happen within the next five to ten years.

We’ve seen this government, time and time again, make announcements and promises and then have to turn around and…. They will never admit it, but they will turn around and then say, “Oops. You know, we’ve got to change that, because it’s not achievable,” or just pretend they didn’t make the announcement to begin with, like the renters rebate and 114,000 houses. I mean, the list goes on and on, of what this government has promised and was unable to achieve.

Again, I guarantee you, on the record, if the government is crazy enough to try to continue pushing this through and following through with it, that in ten years from now, we’ll be standing here saying: “Yet another bill and promise that this government has failed on.” Surprise, surprise. It’s a trend, for sure.

It’s not that I want government to fail, necessarily. I’d like government to actually put forward practical pieces of legislation that are going to help people, help families and help our communities.

If they do that…. I think the government will acknowledge that when they put forward pieces of legislation like that, they’ll usually see support, if not unanimous support, in this House. I don’t know about the B.C. Conservatives, because who knows what they’re going to vote on or when they’re going to vote on it, or if they even show up to speak. They haven’t been speaking to many of the bills so far, but it’s interesting to see what they’re maybe going to say to this one.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Again, like my colleague from Kootenay East had said in his comments — and just said behind me now too — the cost of this to consumers could be astronomical.

[6:05 p.m.]

My colleague from Skeena also talked about used vehicles. I think I’m going to hold onto that ’85 Fiero that I have, because it might be worth $1 million come 2035, as somebody is going to want to buy a used vehicle that they can still drive around when they’re forced by this government to have an electric only.

In all seriousness, this is one of the things that I’ve heard too. Do used vehicles apply? No, this is talking about new. So what this government is, in essence, saying is, instead of going out and maybe upgrading to a newer vehicle, electric or internal combustion, which are more environmentally friendly: “No. Keep driving that 1975 Buick Regal around that’s spewing out oil.” Carbon emissions are through the roof, but keep driving that around instead.

I’m waiting to see if that’s the direction and the advice that the members opposite want to speak to. With that, I do find it surprising — and we’re not over in debates yet — that so far it’s only been the opposition speaking to this bill, let alone against the bill, but to this bill.

You would think, if this is like a hallmark piece of legislation about saving the environment, that we would have NDP member after NDP member standing up saying: “I support this wholeheartedly. I can’t wait to get rid of all of the vehicles in British Columbia that are burning gas, and I completely support making sure every single family is told how to buy a vehicle going forward. This is going to magically save the world.” I haven’t seen one yet do it, but in all fairness, we’re not done yet. Well, even the minister spoke very quickly on it, when she presented the bill.

We are standing up and talking about this, because I think it’s important to highlight, once again, the flaws in what I would say is a rushed piece of legislation. Ironically, right after the NDP were criticizing the federal Liberal Party — rightfully so, I should say, but beside that — for their quick and rushed announcements around reducing carbon tax for some people, and the NDP had a problem with that…. But they have no problem doing the same things themselves.

Now, I stand to be corrected, because when I finished talking about this at home — I talked to my auto dealers; I talked to my constituents — I am more than willing, and I’ll say this on the record, if I hear wholeheartedly from everybody in my riding that I’m wrong, and they all want electric vehicles, “The NDP is right; tell me what to do,” I’ll come back in the House and apologize. I think I’m pretty safe, though, with my commentary on this one of how my riding feels.

This piece of legislation, Bill 39, is not practical. It’s not realistic, as I’ve said. I’ve, again, used another couple of words or a word, and I won’t repeat it. I don’t want to keep getting a look from the Chair. You know, I’m not trying to make light of this, all kidding aside, because this is serious.

This is important to talk about, and every single one of us on this side of the House…. Surprisingly, even including our colleague from the B.C. Conservative Party announced today that, yes, climate change is real. Of course we want to look at ways to look at reducing the carbon emissions, if we have a role that we can play in doing that. Why do you think we were such huge promoters of things like LNG, which is going to get China off of a huge amount of coal-fired power generation?

[6:10 p.m.]

I’ve said this to people, and I think I’m pretty close on this fact, too, if you look at this LNG project and if we built one more, British Columbia could actually tout itself as being a carbon-neutral province, the first carbon-neutral jurisdiction in the world. Why? Because we’ve promoted things like LNG, clean electricity, things that are actually going to help globally reduce carbon emissions.

If this NDP government is so naive to think that bringing forward Bill 39 to tell everybody they have to get rid of their internal combustion engine is going to make a dent at all in carbon emissions, well, I’ve got an ’85 Fiero to sell them.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Price is going up.

If we’re going to do anything, we should be promoting more opportunities to reduce global emissions. We do not live in a bubble. I hate to tell you that. Every day here in Victoria we’re breathing air that at one point went across China. That’s bringing those carbon molecules to us.

Can we try to do our part? Absolutely. That’s what we’ve been saying all along. That’s what our party has always stood for: how do we look at doing our part? But our part is not telling people how they have to live their lives in an unrealistic, unattainable, unaffordable way.

I know my colleague from Peace River North, who’s going to speak after me, will continue on with some of the thoughts or concepts — I know he lives in the same world as I do up in the Peace region — on the struggles and frustrations that people will have with this piece of legislation. There’s a reason why we’re now speaking to it. We’re hoping this government will actually, at committee stage, I guess, look at themselves, maybe look in the mirror, and realize that this isn’t the right step to go as written.

It’s one thing with the first piece of legislation that they had brought forward to look at electrifying. It’s another thing now to say, “We want to accelerate it. We’re going to amend our own policies” that were not realistic, “and we’re going to make them even worse,” which is what this piece of legislation does.

Enjoy the photo op. Enjoy the accolades from very few people. Enjoy the fact that, once again, another NDP promise will not be able to be achieved, which, again, is a theme. As you might be able to guess, I struggle with supporting this bill, and appreciate the House’s time to express my opinions.

D. Davies: I stood here in this House in 2019 and debated Bill 28, which was an absolute ridiculous bill then, to which I debated the ridiculous-ability — if that is even a word. And here we are again. Whoop, there it is. The bill is even worse, Bill 39, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2023.

When I first looked at this, I wasn’t even sure where I was going to start because there are so many issues and so many negative impacts that this piece of legislation is going to have on not only my riding and Peace River South but rural and interior British Columbia — the challenges that this is going to pose.

Over the years, I’ve talked about my riding and the uniqueness of it. We always talk about the diversity of this province. I’m quite proud it’s a very diverse province. You know, Vancouver Island has things and the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan, the Shuswap, the northeast, the northwest. We’re all proud of that diversity, and I believe we all embrace that diversity of this great province.

[6:15 p.m.]

Peace River North very specifically is almost the largest riding in the province. It’s second by a few thousand kilometres, but it’s about 170,000 square kilometres. I can drive from the south end of my riding, and by the time I get to the north end, from when I leave, into Watson Lake, Yukon, it’s about a 15½ hour drive, and I’m still in my riding.

I believe the member for North Vancouver–Seymour drove that.

Interjection.

D. Davies: And it wasn’t in an electric vehicle, was it?

Interjection.

D. Davies: No, it wasn’t in an electric vehicle. Okay. Well, it is impossible.

This is what I want to talk about — that diversity of our province. We see so many bills come forward by this NDP government that are those cookie-cutter approaches. I remember this, and I know many colleagues were on local government as well, and you see these cookie-cutter legislation pieces coming out that just don’t work across the entire province as they might in Vancouver, as they might on the Island. This is one such piece of legislation that will not work across the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We look at the debate here around moving people into electric cars, and I don’t think that there’s an argument, for the most part, but again, it depends on where you are. The electric cars work well in the Lower Mainland. Nobody argues that. The Island — nobody argues that. But when we talk about certain areas of the province….

Tomorrow is Halloween, by the way. My children will go out trick-or-treating tomorrow. They’ll put on a costume, and then they’ll put on their snowsuit over top of their costume. Nobody ever sees kids trick-or-treating in Peace River North because they have a snowsuit over…. Peace River South is the same, and I’m sure the Kootenays is the same. We’ve already had minus-17-degree temperatures last week and six or seven inches of snow.

M. Bernier: Maybe this bill is a trick, not a treat.

D. Davies: Yes, it’s definitely a trick.

But this is the difference when we look at just the environment that we all live in, the different environments that we live in, across the board. We can be easily minus 25 by right now. In many cases we have. We trick-or-treated a few years ago, and it was 20, 25 below. We did one block, and that was about all we could do.

We are stuck in this weather pattern up in the northwest and parts of the Interior, the southeast and northeast, where we’re in this weather pattern now until about April that will be fluctuating between anywhere from zero on a really, really nice day, to minus 30 or minus 35.

The reason I’m talking about this weather is because electric cars, of course, require a battery, a lithium-ion battery, which has huge issues with cold weather. We know for a fact…. And even Tesla, in its own documentation states the absolute issues that they have.

Well, I can read both. I can read the Tesla one, or I can read the American Automobile Association, who also did a study a couple of years back on the batteries. They’re talking about when driving on the highway when the weather is roughly 20 degrees Fahrenheit, your distance would be reduced 59 miles per 100 miles — so yeah, almost 60 percent. Now of course, this is looking at having your heater on, and you will have your heater on, probably the seat warmer, certainly for the first little while when it’s 20 below.

Oh, by the way, let me convert this: 20 degrees Fahrenheit is minus 6.6. That is a really, really nice day right about now. A reduction of 94 kilometres per 160 kilometres.

[6:20 p.m.]

So this is the impact when we look at…. Tesla’s numbers are not much different than the American Automobile Association. They’re not much different when they talk about the performance issues around the batteries of electric cars.

Now again, we’re not arguing that electric cars are a bad thing. But they don’t, and they won’t, work everywhere. Yes, technology will move forward. Technology will improve. We get that. But this piece of legislation, moving the numbers up into…. Well, right now we’re at around 18 percent electric vehicles in British Columbia. By 2026, a couple of years from now, they’re hoping to have 26 percent. Okay, that’s maybe doable. By 2030, they want 90 percent electric vehicles. Seven years from now, to force…. I use the word “force,” because that’s exactly what this government is doing. It’s forcing people to go buy an electric car.

By 2035 — originally 2040, now 2035 in this new legislation — 100 percent of all the vehicles purchased in British Columbia that are…. Well, by the weight that’s in the act, it’s three-quarter tonnes or less. There are not many other vehicles outside of that weight class left, other than if you’re talking about a one-tonne pickup. It’s been mentioned before. Already, these vehicles have the luxury tax on them.

When you’re looking at a one-tonne pickup, equipped out with everything on it, you’re looking at $130,000 to $140,000 just to have a pickup to go to work. The challenge is that that’s where this is going to hit a lot of people. That is unfair on this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, with that look in your eyes, I can see that you want me to move adjournment. So I will reserve the right to continue my remarks later.

With that, I move adjournment of debate.

D. Davies moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. N. Sharma moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.