Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 14, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 400
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2024
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I know you’ll be delighted to hear bonne Journée de la francophonie. Happy B.C. Francophone Day.
Aujourd’hui nous célébrons la journée de la francophonie. Today we celebrate B.C. Francophone Day. I’d like to introduce some very important guests who are joining us to celebrate la Journée de la francophonie. Geoffroy de Nanteuil, the honorary consul general of France in Victoria, and his son Pierre are here.
Thank you for being here and representing la France.
Marie-Nicole Dubois, Présidente de la Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique qui représente 49 organismes francophones repartis dans toute la province. The Federation of Francophones represents 49 organizations all over British Columbia. It’s wonderful to have them here.
Also, Claudya Leclerc, Geneviève Poitras and Sophie Audet of the Conseil jeunesse francophone, who will be recognized today, and the many representatives of B.C. francophone organizations who are joining us today at lunch. We hope that all members of the House will take the opportunity to join us.
On behalf of the House, I want to welcome everybody to the Hall of Honour at noon and also ask everyone to make our guests welcome.
We also, members on all sides of the House this morning, had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Canadian Parents for French, B.C. and Yukon branch. And I hope members won’t hold it against this outstanding organization that I used to work for them.
I wanted to acknowledge Alex Hughes, the president; Jason Howe, the executive director; and Nancy Taylor, who I used to work with back in the day, the vice-president of the organization.
Members, as I say, from all sides — the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, the member from north Nanaimo, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, the Minister of Forests, my colleague the member from Langley — were all there this morning, amongst many others.
We all wish all of our guests today welcome, et bonne Journée de la francophonie.
[French text provided by Hon. A. Dix.]
E. Ross: In the House, we have a frequent visitor, who has returned to visit us again. He comes down to watch our question period. He comes down to watch our estimates and our two-minute statements, which he loves.
Jon Coleman is a strong advocate for native issues as well as contractor issues and labour issues out in Cowichan. I think we will see him a lot more in the next couple of months.
Would the House please welcome back Jon Coleman from Cowichan.
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency David Cohen, Ambassador of the United States to Canada. Accompanying him is the consul general of the United States at Vancouver, James DeHart.
This is Ambassador Cohen’s first official visit to Victoria. Yesterday he had the opportunity to meet with Her Honour at Government House and later with the Premier and the Minister of Finance. The relationship between Canada and the United States, of course, and indeed British Columbia, is deep and enduring.
Would the House please make them feel welcome.
R. Merrifield: Well, I would like to welcome to the House a force from the Island here, Mr. Tek Manhas. If you’ve met Tek, you know his passion for the business community as a Duncan-Cowichan chamber board member, Community Futures board member, fringe festival board member and the B.C. Forest Discovery board liaison, but most well known as a North Cowichan city councillor.
Thank you so much.
Would the House please join me in welcoming him.
N. Letnick: I would like to join with the Minister of Health to welcome all the representatives from the francophone community in our province pour la Journée de la francophonie.
As the minister said, we will be celebrating that today in the Hall of Honour. It actually falls on March 20, if I’m correct, next week. Since we’re not going to be here and celebrating it together, we’ll be celebrating it at home.
I must add, though, for me, the Journée de la francophonie is every day in my house because I married a French-Canadian woman, so we make sure that we speak French as much as possible.
On behalf of the official opposition, welcome to the Fédération des francophones, des francophiles, and la Fédération des parents francophones There are over 300,000 of them in this province, and it’s growing all the time.
Please make them feel very welcome.
Tributes
CONNIE EAVES
Hon. B. Bailey: I rise this morning to pay my respects to an incredible woman, Dr. Connie Eaves, who passed away last Thursday, March 7, after her battle with cancer.
Dr. Eaves was an inspiration and mentor to generations of female scientists, providing significant contributions to cancer and stem cell research. She was also the co-founder of the Terry Fox laboratory with her husband, Dr. Alan Eaves, in Vancouver. Our scientific community is collectively richer for her efforts throughout the years.
I would like to share some words written by her son David, which perfectly sum up the person she was.
“I shared my mother. She was as much a parent to the family of scientists she helped raise as she was to her maternal children. When asked about her successes, she opined: ‘If I look back at my own career, I think some of the proudest moments are watching the successful defences of every PhD I have ever trained as a supervisor.’
“Maybe nothing fazed her, and rarely was she over sentimental or emotional, but there was never any doubt that love and family were at the heart of her approach to science and to life. And there was a lot of love, more than enough to go around.”
On behalf of all of us in this House, the people’s House, condolences to the Eaves family and the B.C. scientific community on this monumental loss.
Introductions by Members
A. Olsen: It’s my pleasure to introduce today a group of firefighters that I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, and their advocacy over…. In my time as an MLA, these firefighters have tirelessly advocated for the well-being and protection of their profession.
Could the House please welcome Todd Schierling, president of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association; Brian Catinus, the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Fire Fighters Association; Alex Levitt, the president of the Central Saanich Firefighters Association; and Warren Nuyens of the Salt Spring Fire Fighters Association.
Both Alex and Warren have committed to protecting and serving the residents within Saanich North and the Islands, and I raise my hands to them specifically and to all firefighters who put their lives on the line and risk themselves in order to protect us.
Could the House please make them and all of their colleagues feel very welcome today.
Hon. G. Lore: I have six guests today, and they are among my cutest constituents. My daughter Eve and my son Asher are here, and they’re joined by their friends Rowan, Simone and Isaiah. They’re here to see how our democracy works, or to skip school for the morning.
I know all of my colleagues in this House know what this job requires of us. My gratitude to my babies for their patience and love and support as I do this work. Also wrangling these seven-, eight-, nine- and ten-year-olds is my partner, Rob, who is taking the year to look after my kids and be my sign guy, and then will return to the Ministry of Finance.
I appreciate the opportunity to introduce them and hope the House will help me make all six of them very welcome.
M. Dykeman: I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce a constituent of mine who is joining us in the gallery, Sushant Kadam, who is an MBA student at Trinity Western University. I had the privilege of meeting him recently. He came to my office with some fantastic ideas related to community enrichment. I know he’s keen to learn more about the B.C. Legislature, and my amazing constituency assistant, Carly Haugen, is joining him today and giving him a tour.
If you see him in the hallways, please say hi.
I was wondering if everyone in the Legislature today could please join me in making him feel very welcome.
K. Paddon: Earlier this week I introduced my constituency advisers, who are here for the week to see things in person, and I would be remiss if, today, I didn’t take the opportunity to introduce somebody who supports those who support what we do. I would like to welcome Kelly Moon and, of course, constituency adviser Lorna Moon, her partner, to the chamber.
If you see them around, please make them most welcome.
Hon. L. Beare: Today here in the chamber we’re joined by members of the Alma Mater Society of UBC Vancouver. The Alma Mater Society of UBC Vancouver is a student union that represents 61,000 undergraduate and graduate students. We have Joshua Kim, vice-president, external affairs, and Bandhul Vikas Khanna, associate vice-president of external affairs.
They have been in Victoria since yesterday, meeting with groups all over government with priorities such as accessible transit, affordable post-secondary education and preventing sexualized and gender-based violence on campuses.
As elected officials and representatives of their members, I want to thank them for their leadership, and I look forward to speaking with them this afternoon. Please join me in welcoming them.
D. Routley: I’d like the members to help me welcome Tom Harkins, who is in the gallery.
Tom is a devoted B.C. NDP supporter who’s always there at the parades, at every booth, at every fair. Most notably, he is the bedrock of the sign crew. Tom builds the toughest signs, and they’re always up first and down first. We’re proud of everything he does.
Thank you very much, Tom, for all that you do.
Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to introduce a guest who’s in the gallery with us today, Linda Sheintin. She’s in town visiting her granddaughter Rosie. She hasn’t been to Victoria in 20 years, and I understand she’s immensely enjoying herself here.
She’s a former librarian. She’s really enjoying Victoria’s reputation as the book capital of our province, as well as a capital in every other way. She is also known as the mother of my ministerial adviser, Joey Mitchell.
Will the House make Linda most welcome.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would also welcome Ambassador Cohen to the chamber, as the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. We appreciate the time he took to tour the Belleville international ferry terminal this morning.
This is obviously a crucial link between our two countries, a very vital economic link, and a very important maritime border between our countries. It remains an enduring service between Vancouver Island and British Columbia and great communities like Port Angeles and Seattle.
We thank him for being here and showing interest in investments that we’re making as a government that are going to strengthen the ties even further between our countries.
Tributes
TERRACE YOUTH HOCKEY TEAMS
E. Ross: An incredible accomplishment in Skeena: not one but all three young Terrace hockey teams have won their zone playoffs and will be representing Terrace in their provincial tournaments.
The under-18s will be making the long trip to Nelson. The under-15s won the zones against Smithers, guaranteeing them a spot in their provincials, taking place in Quesnel. The under-13s won their zones against Smithers as well, and they will be going to Aldergrove for their provincials.
Congratulations to the coaches, the parents and the supporters.
And of course, good luck to all the players. Your hard work and dedication have definitely paid off.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COST
RECOVERY ACT
Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. This bill follows the success of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act to provide a generally applicable litigation-based way for government to recover a broad range of health-related expenditures from wrongdoers.
It will allow government to sue wrongdoers, regardless of if they are individuals or corporations or other entities, who either cause or contribute to the disease, illness or injury or the risk of disease, illness or injury. Currently, the costs of some wrongdoers are covered by the province and not the wrongdoer.
This bill is intended to hold wrongdoers accountable for their harmful conduct, including the promotion, marketing and distribution of harmful products. This will shift the financial burden of public health harms from the province to the wrongdoer. By shifting the financial burden this way, this bill will help protect people living in British Columbia by encouraging responsible action that does not promote profits above the health, safety and well-being of the people of British Columbia.
The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 12, Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M206 — FIREFIGHTER PROTECTION ACT
A. Olsen presented a bill intituled Firefighter Protection Act.
A. Olsen: I move that a bill in intituled the Firefighter Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
Last week we met with members of the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association. They advanced several points of advocacy for the provincial government. One of those is addressed in this bill.
Polyfluoroalkyls, or PFAS, are compounds that are in firefighter personal protective gear and fire suppression foams. The advances in protective gear offer front-line firefighters short-term protection. However, the compounds that provide extra protection have been shown to have long-term negative health consequences.
We’ve been willing to support firefighters once they have cancer, but let’s take action to prevent cancer in the first place. The Vancouver fire department has already begun implementing PFAS-free uniforms. Now I call on the province to show leadership by setting provincial standards and a timeline for fire services to limit firefighters’ exposure to PFAS in their uniforms and foams.
We need to ensure that we do not create a two-tiered system where large, urban fire services with resources are able to protect their first responders, while smaller, rural, mostly volunteer services are not. The lives of all our firefighters must be a priority over cost.
This bill sets a timeline for the discontinued use of PFAS in firefighters’ uniforms and fire suppression foams and standards for wash and storage protocols and facilities. It creates equity for firefighters, no matter where they serve, so we can look to them and their family members and say that we’re doing all we can to protect them and their loved ones.
Let’s pass this bill and give our fire departments the fiscal tools they need to ensure that their facilities and gear protect their professional and volunteer members.
When the call goes out, our firefighters across the province answer. They put their well-being in danger to respond. Now it’s our turn.
The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
A. Olsen: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading in the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M206, Firefighters Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
NOWRUZ
K. Kirkpatrick: As spring approaches, Nowruz, the Persian new year, brings with it the promise of renewal and warmth. This celebration, rich in history and tradition, is not just a marker of the new season. It’s an expression of hope, unity and regeneration of life.
For 13 days, Nowruz brings us colourful celebrations that remind us of nature’s and our own new beginnings. It’s a time when our North Shore community and countless other communities across B.C. gather to welcome the seasonal shift and the start of the new year with the sun.
Our local celebrations are a testament to the diversity and cultural richness of our region. From the fire-jumping festivals that symbolize purification and renewal, to storytelling and craft sessions that connect us to ancient tales and traditions, Nowruz on the North Shore is a mosaic of activities that invites participation from all.
This year, we have the unique privilege of hosting an array of events, from the traditional haft sin displays in our libraries to engaging educational programs that delve into the history and cultural significance of Nowruz. I’d like to highlight just two of those events.
On Sunday, March 24, you can visit MONOVA, our museum and archives of the North Shore, with drop-in activities and storytelling and craft sessions with Roshana School. Then, on March 28, the Polygon Gallery will have handmade treasures from local Persian vendors. You’ll be able to savour complimentary Nowruz delights. You can take a Farsi language exhibition tour, watch a performance and enjoy refreshments throughout the evening.
Let’s commit to fostering a culture of understanding and respect to celebrating our differences and to building a future together that honours the traditions and contributions of all.
Happy Nowruz to you and your loved ones. May this new year bring you all health, happiness and prosperity to our community and beyond.
JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
K. Paddon: Monsieur le Président, chaque année la Colombie-Britannique célèbre le 20 mars comme la Journée de la francophonie.
Mr. Speaker, each year B.C. celebrates March 20 as la Journée de la francophonie.
La Colombie-Britannique occupe une place particulière dans le cœur de nombreux résidents francophones. Pour beaucoup d’entre nous, c’est notre province, notre maison, et ce depuis des générations.
British Columbia holds a special place in the hearts of many French-speaking residents. To many of us, it’s our province, our home, and it has been for generations.
En plus de compter plusieurs milliers de francophones, la Colombie-Britannique accueille de nombreuses personnes d’expression française du Canada et de l’étranger venues visiter, étudier ou travailler ici et qui, ensemble, contribuent à la richesse sociale, culturelle, linguistique et économique de la province.
In addition to being home to thousands of French-speaking residents, British Columbia welcomes many French-speaking Canadians, international visitors, students, and workers, all of whom contribute to the social, cultural, linguistic and economic richness of the province.
Plus tard aujourd’hui, lors de l’heure du dîner, nous prendrons le temps de célébrer notre francophonie et, en particulier, nous célébrerons nos jeunes francophones.
Later today, during the lunch hour, we will take time to celebrate our francophonie, and in particular, we will celebrate our francophone youth.
Les jeunes représentent plus que notre avenir, plus que l’innovation, le progrès et l’espoir. Les jeunes sont au centre de nos familles. Ils sont aussi au centre des nombreuses discussions et priorités que nous poursuivons dans cette Assemblée.
Youth represent more than our future, more than innovation, more than progress and hope. They are at the centre of our families. They are also at the centre of the many discussions and priorities we pursue in this House.
Aujourd’hui, alors que le drapeau francophone de la Colombie-Britannique affiche fièrement ses symboles sur le mât à l’extérieur de cet édifice, je vous invite à refléter sur la contribution de la francophonie à notre belle province.
Today, as the francophone flag of British Columbia proudly displays its symbols on the flag pole outside of this building, I invite you to reflect on the contribution of the francophonie to our beautiful province.
Bonne Journée de la francophonie à toutes et à tous!
[French text provided by K. Paddon.]
CITIZENS ON PATROL VOLUNTEER
CRIME PREVENTION
INITIATIVE
D. Davies: Fort St. John, like most communities in B.C., has seen a recent upturn in break-ins, thefts and vandalism. One woman in Fort St. John, whose husband owns a plumbing business that had been broken into on a nearly weekly basis, decided it was time to stop complaining and do something. Jackie Miranda got in touch with the local RCMP, and, with their advice and guidance, began the Citizens on Patrol Fort St. John last summer.
Citizens on Patrol works in collaboration with the RCMP, acting as their extended eyes and ears. The group already has 65 volunteers. The volunteers go through an in-depth background police check. They use their own vehicles, armed with nothing more than high-vis vests and flashlights, as they drive around in pairs for about two hours. They keep their eyes and ears peeled for any suspicious activity using a special app that conveys information to the RCMP.
In fact, the Fort St. John RCMP has reported a decline in crime since the start of Citizens on Patrol, and there have been a number of notable happenings. It’s suspected that a theft was deterred late one night when a large paving job was in progress. The patrol came across a flat-deck truck that was backed up to a skid-steer that belonged to the paving crew. When the patrol showed up with their headlights, the guys jumped into their pickup and raced off.
Another time, while patrolling an industrial area in the middle of the night, a suspicious person was noticed at three different locations throughout the evening. The RCMP were called, and it turned out that this was a person of note who had multiple warrants out for his arrest.
Citizens on Patrol is helping to improve Fort St. John, and it’s people like Jackie and the other great volunteers who spend their time and energy that make our communities a better place to live. By harnessing the collective efforts of dedicated volunteers, it not only enhances our public safety in our communities but also strengthens the bonds of community solidarity.
In an era marked by uncertainty and division, this program stands as a testament for the enduring spirit of cooperation and resilience that defines the residents of Fort St. John. My deepest gratitude goes out to all our local Citizens on Patrol in Fort St. John and throughout our communities across British Columbia.
RAMADAN
J. Sims: This week marks the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan is a sacred and transformative month for Muslims, offering an opportunity for spiritual growth, self-discipline and sacrifice. It is time for reflection on the values of kindness, compassion and generosity. It’s a time for introspection to bring out the best in all of us.
People from all walks of life come together to pray, share meals and strengthen the bonds of community, friendship and understanding.
Every Ramadan I look forward to visiting masjids and families, joining in prayers and breaking of the fast, cherishing the opportunities to reflect on the values we share, the values that resonate deeply across the rich tapestry of our cultures in our province. Last year the first-ever Iftar was held right here in the Legislature. I look forward to once again celebrating with the community.
This year Ramadan comes at a painful time for many Muslims in my community and beyond because of the war in the Middle East. This holy month is a reminder of the importance of empathy, compassion and gratitude. We have seen a disturbing rise in Islamophobia. We condemn this hate. I know all of us do. Let us all commit to rooting out hate and ensuring everyone feels safe and supported.
This holy month is a reminder for all of us to reflect on how we can build bridges. It is a reminder to be thankful for how fortunate we are to live in this beautiful province, where we celebrate different faiths, communities and the enduring spirit of harmony. Let us all, each and every one of us, commit to choosing love and peace.
To everyone in the Muslim community in Surrey and beyond, Ramadan Mubarak.
REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY IN
ELECTIONS
A. Olsen: I rise today to address a critical issue facing our democratic processes: the urgent need to regulate the use of artificial intelligence, AI and large language models in elections. In an area where technology wields immense power over public discourse, it’s imperative that we take proactive measures to safeguard the integrity and fairness of our electoral system.
AI and large language models possess the capability to generate vast amounts of content, disseminating information at unprecedented speed and scale. While this technology holds promise for innovation and communication, its unregulated use in elections poses significant risks to the very foundation of our democracy.
One of the foremost concerns is the potential for AI-generated content to spread misinformation and disinformation, manipulating public opinion and undermining the trust in our electoral processes. With the ability to mimic human speech and fabricate information, AI algorithms can deceive voters and distort the truth, subverting democratic principles of informed decision-making.
Moreover, the uncontrolled use of AI in elections exacerbates inequalities in political competition, granting undue advantage to those with access to advanced technology. Wealthy or powerful entities can exploit AI algorithms to amplify their voices and drown out dissent, further entrenching existing power imbalances in our society.
To address these pressing challenges, we must enact comprehensive regulations to govern the use of AI in electoral campaigns. Such regulations should include stringent requirements for transparency and accountability, ensuring that AI-generated content is clearly identified and its sources are disclosed to the public.
Additionally, mechanisms for oversight and enforcement are essential to prevent the misuse of AI and uphold the principles of fairness and equality in our electoral processes. As we approach the upcoming general election, it is incumbent upon us to prioritize the regulation of AI in elections and protect the integrity of our democratic systems.
This content was 100 percent generated by ChatGPT.
SENIORS IN COQUITLAM–BURKE MOUNTAIN
AND WORK OF KEN
KUHN
F. Donnelly: Elders, seniors and grandparents play a critical role in our communities, providing care, knowledge and wisdom. They deserve respect and support. The number of seniors in B.C. is expected to rise significantly. Almost 22 percent of British Columbians will be over 65 by 2035.
In Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, Ken Kuhn has been actively helping seniors as the Tri-Cities Seniors Action Society’s coordinator, which advocates for age-friendly community policies by working with city councils, health authorities, pharmacists and local seniors organizations. They host well-attended forums like the elder abuse and wellness forum and health care, housing and transportation forums, with interesting speakers, where non-profits and local businesses connect with seniors.
Ken sits on seniors advisory committees like the Organizing Against Racism and Hate network, Tri-Cities Healthier Communities Partnership and raising the profile project.
Ken knows the value of socialization. He arranges regular coffee chats. He knows a free cup of coffee and mingling with familiar or new faces can often be the highlight of a senior’s day. Ken produces a monthly newsletter with links to valuable services for seniors and a useful list of community events and government contacts.
Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a large, multicultural community of seniors, reflected in the society’s membership and activities. Over a third of the tri-cities population is over 50. Ken is leading the way, helping seniors stay healthy, active and connected with friends, families and neighbours. He is wisely preparing us for the wave of seniors to come.
In Ken’s email signature is the famous quote by Margaret Mead. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
There’s no doubt that Ken Kuhn is one of those thoughtful, committed citizens. On behalf of the citizens he serves in our community, I’d like to recognize and thank Ken Kuhn for his exceptional service to seniors.
Oral Questions
CARBON TAX INCREASE
K. Falcon: British Columbians are already paying the highest gas prices and the highest gas taxes in North America.
The NDP have more than doubled the carbon tax. On April 1, the Premier plans to hike it by 23 percent, a cruel April Fools’ joke on the public. While the B.C. United opposition has repeatedly called for slashing the tax, this NDP Premier wants to hike the carbon tax yet again.
My question to the Premier. With British Columbians struggling to eat, heat and house themselves, will this Premier spike the hike and cancel the planned 23 percent carbon tax hike on April 1?
Hon. G. Heyman: We know that British Columbians are struggling with inflation and with the high cost of living. That’s why we’re taking many measures, across many opportunities, to support British Columbia families.
British Columbia families are also deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change on their kids, on their grandkids, on the economy, on communities that face wildfires and floods, and they want to be assured that we’re taking strong climate action. They want to do their part. That’s why we’ve structured the carbon tax in a way that returns money to low- and middle-income British Columbians, which, of course, would not happen if we ceased the carbon tax.
What we do with the increases in the carbon tax is give 100 percent of it back to British Columbians in the climate action tax credit.
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Well, the fact is you can’t tax your way to affordability like this NDP government keeps trying to do.
By every measure, life is more expensive under this Premier and the NDP, including grocery costs that are up 30 percent, visits to the food bank up 60 percent since they have been in power. Never before, in the history of this province, have so many people had to resort to using food banks.
Again, to the Premier and this government, will they spike the tax hike and cancel the NDP’s 23 percent carbon tax increase on April 1? Yes or no?
Hon. G. Heyman: What the Leader of the Opposition forgets, apparently, is…. At one point, he said his proudest moment in government was introducing the carbon tax.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: Maybe what he really meant when he said that….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: Maybe what the Leader of the Official Opposition really meant by his proudest moment was when he used the carbon tax to give a $450 million tax cut to big business and the richest British Columbians.
We’ve doubled the portion of the carbon tax going back to British Columbians in the climate action tax credit for low- and middle-income British Columbians. That’s what we are doing for British Columbians, along with cutting ICBC rates, along with taking tolls of bridges, along with eliminating MSP premiums — all of which have been opposed by the opposition.
P. Milobar: Let’s remember that when the government changed, the first thing they did was remove revenue neutrality from the carbon tax and lifted the freeze at $30 a tonne, which will now be $80 a tonne, a $50 increase, which is more than a doubling of the carbon tax, actually.
Let’s be clear that a single mom in British Columbia pays far more in carbon taxes than they get back. In fact, an average B.C. family pays nearly $1,200 more in carbon taxes net than they do next door in Alberta. On April 1, the cost of filling up at a gas station will rise again by 23 percent under this Premier.
Will the NDP Premier spike the carbon tax hike on April 1 and give British Columbians the relief they need?
Hon. G. Heyman: Let me help the member opposite with a quote from his leader on September 23, 2023.
It goes like this: “When we introduced North America’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax back in 2008, if my memory serves me correctly, I was very proud to be part of the government that did that, because what we said was we were going to put a carbon tax on emissions because that’s the market way to deal with something….”
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. G. Heyman: If you want people to change behaviour, you put a cost to it and you ask them to consider shifting their behaviour. The difference between this government and their government is that we take the carbon tax money…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member. Member.
Hon. G. Heyman: …and we give it back to British Columbians at twice the rate that they did.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m sure British Columbians will notice that the members opposite think it’s a laughing matter to give money back to British Columbians instead of to corporations.
The Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
P. Milobar: Well, the difference is that B.C. United will actually give real tax relief to British Columbians. We’ll eliminate the provincial fuel tax, and we’ll spike the Premier’s planned carbon tax.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
P. Milobar: This Premier’s double standards know no bounds. The minister talks about breaks for large industrial emitters — $450 million. He seems to forget he was the minister that signed off on an agreement with LNG Canada to give them a $600 million PST holiday. Does the Minister of Environment not remember signing that deal with LNG?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Let’s hear the question, please.
Members, shhh. Members.
P. Milobar: Let’s look at how this Premier deals with large industrial emitters. While they are insisting that British Columbians in their average households pay $80 a tonne for carbon tax, this Premier is actually giving large industrial operations a break from paying any carbon tax. B.C. United thinks maybe regular British Columbians should get a bit of a break, just like the large industrial emitters this Environment Minister seems to want to give a break to.
If you heat your home with natural gas, the Premier is going to jack up your bill by 23 percent, as well, on April 1. It’s time, when life has never been more expensive, that this Premier spike the tax hike on April 1 and give British Columbians the same type of break they’re willing to give large industrial emitters in this province.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m proud, as everyone in our government is proud, that we introduced a new output-based pricing system for large industrial emitters that sends an adequate price signal while maintaining competitiveness. The result of that is it’s been praised by industry and it’s been praised by climate activists.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Members, it’s good to enjoy the question period. It’s wonderful. But we still have to go through it.
Okay, let’s hear the answer.
Hon. G. Heyman: We continue to take measures to support British Columbians every day, whether it is the B.C. family benefit, whether it is reducing and holding steady B.C. Hydro rates, whether it is reducing ICBC rates, whether it’s supporting people to make the shift to electric heat pumps to have homes that are more comfortable and cost less in energy and whether it is giving 100 percent of the increase in the carbon tax back to low- and middle-income British Columbians.
It’s unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite are willing to mortgage their kids’ and their grandkids’ future…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Hon. G. Heyman: …in the face of climate change instead of giving families in British Columbia support in so many ways.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: We have lowered taxes….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.
We have lots of questions more, Members. Just take it easy.
Minister will conclude.
Hon. G. Heyman: Let’s just leave it at this, Mr. Speaker. A family with two kids, earning $100,000, pays over a third less in provincial taxes than they did when those members were on this side of the House.
POWER SUPPLY PRIORITIES
AND IMPACT OF
DROUGHT
A. Olsen: Hydropower is central to meeting our CleanBC targets, but the electricity source is threatened by drought. Last year dams were at historic lows due to sustained periods of drought, and B.C. was importing 20 percent of our electricity.
From what we’ve heard, the delay of flooding Site C wasn’t because of bear dens, but it was because of drought. There isn’t enough water. Relying on hydro to meet our net-zero emissions objectives is risky in a fast-changing climate. Conserving energy for British Columbians should be this government’s top priority, not powering LNG facilities.
To the Minister of Energy, why is she prioritizing limited electricity for a nascent fracked gas industry in a climate emergency?
Hon. J. Osborne: Of course, we’ve just heard a series of questions around the fact that our communities and people are facing climate challenges unlike at any time before. People are concerned. They want to take action, and they want to do the right thing.
Drought has impacted B.C. Hydro’s reservoirs, but over the past 15 years, B.C. Hydro has been a net importer half of the time and a net exporter of energy the other half of the time. It’s incredibly important that we build the resilience of this system. We’re so fortunate to have a backbone of a resilient hydroelectric system that we will be diversifying by adding in renewables, with a call for power this spring to see more energy added…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. J. Osborne: …to the grid to help people make the switch — the switch to electric vehicles, the switch to electric heat pumps — electrifying industry, bringing down our emissions.
We’re going to stay focused on that work with B.C. Hydro, seeing the Utilities Commission just approve their 20-year integrated resource plan and knowing that we’re planning for the future, planning for climate change, building up a resilient system to support people.
WATER USE FOR NATURAL GAS FRACKING
A. Olsen: Drought also impacts fracking in the northeast. The B.C. Energy Regulator has warned that the Premier’s fracking buddies…. There’s going to be a limited water supply this summer.
Frackers use billions of litres of water each year — 5.2 billion in 2021, to be exact. If they’re not hijacking it from creeks and streams, they’re paying pennies for it. While the Premier publicly hallucinates about a net-zero LNG industry, that’s just the greenhouse gas emissions and not the only environmental issue. More LNG means more fracking and tens of billions of more litres of fresh water.
We are truly a company town, diverting limited water to increase corporate profits while the Climate Readiness Minister pleads with British Columbians to take shorter showers and the Parliamentary Secretary for Watersheds is desperately trying to save dying salmon.
Friends, we have a water crisis in this government’s grip with phantasmagoria.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
A. Olsen: My question is to the Energy Minister. When are she and her colleagues, concerned about a liveable planet, going to stand up to this madness?
Hon. J. Osborne: Well, once again, the member raises some very serious issues around drought and the steps that our government is taking to help prepare for what could be a very difficult summer. The B.C. Energy Regulator has already issued notice to gas operations in the northeast to reduce or, in some cases, eliminate their water use. Industry takes this very seriously, and they’re taking the action that’s necessary.
My colleague, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, of course, is leading the work on planning for the future, undertaking water licensing decisions and making decisions together with First Nations communities and industry so that we can accommodate the changes we’re seeing.
We’re going to continue to do this. We’re going to continue to put people first, supporting them with affordable hydro rates, supporting them with affordability altogether in their lives and making good decisions, because we know that people want to take action on climate. They want to see responsible industry. That’s what’s taking place here. We’re going to stay focused on it.
CARBON TAX
B. Banman: You know, April 1 is just around the corner. I would warn the people at home: “Do not be fooled. Do not make the joke on you.”
We have the Leader of the Opposition, and it’s his proudest moment to bring in the carbon tax. Then we have a party over here that is proud to raise it. There’s only one party in this House that’s willing to axe and spike the tax. That’s the Conservative Party of British Columbia.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Members. Members.
Just a second. Let’s hear the question, please.
B. Banman: This past week we’ve seen a movement of Premiers across this country uniting together to fight for Canadians who can no longer afford this punishing carbon tax. Seven Premiers have now signed letters calling on Justin Trudeau to axe and spike the tax.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Members, shhh.
B. Banman: B.C. is a holdout on this great Canadian story, and there is a pattern of stubbornness by this Premier here in B.C. We’re the only province that refuses to hire back nurses and doctors that we desperately need. This B.C. NDP Premier wants to continue to burden everyday, hard-working British Columbians with this punishing, cruel carbon tax.
My question to the B.C. Premier: will you finally do right by hard-working British Columbians and make life more affordable by spiking and hacking and axing this carbon tax?
Hon. G. Heyman: At least the Fourth Party is consistent. Their leader doesn’t believe that climate change is a crisis, or perhaps that it may not be caused by human and industrial activity. We believe differently, and we’re backed up by virtually 98 percent of scientists around the world. Unfortunately, the official opposition, in the race to win back votes from the Conservatives, is abandoning any pretence of taking action on climate change.
Our Premier has been absolutely clear. British Columbia is going to stay on track with our CleanBC plan, which includes the carbon tax and which includes substantial rebates to British Columbians, including 100 percent of the increase going back as part of the climate action tax credit, along with a host of other supports we have offered British Columbians for the last seven years.
B. Banman: The only thing this government is on track with is driving hard-working British Columbians into the poorhouse.
This carbon tax was introduced by the leader of B.C. United, although they will probably go on and try to deny that on Chinese social media. Now Mr. Premier…. Now Premier Eby’s socialist NDP is making it worse by increasing it.
British Columbians are hurting. They’re having a tough time putting food on the table. This NDP-Liberal carbon tax doesn’t make just fuel more expensive. It makes everything more expensive. It adds to the cost of gas, groceries, heating, food, rent and even furniture.
That’s why the Conservative Party of B.C. is calling on this NDP Premier to read the room and do right by hard-working British Columbians by axing the tax and spiking the hike.
The Speaker: Question?
B. Banman: To the Minister of Poverty Reduction, how many British Columbians have to be taxed into abject poverty before this government ends the B.C. carbon tax once and for all?
Hon. G. Heyman: We understand that British Columbians are hurting, and we understood that British Columbians needed support from day one in 2017. That’s why we took tolls off the bridges. That’s why we cut ICBC rates. That’s why we eliminated the Medical Services Plan premium, the largest middle-class tax cut in British Columbia history.
That’s why we’ve reduced taxes by more than a third for families making $100,000 a year. That’s why we give the B.C. family benefit. That’s why we give a climate action tax credit. That’s why we have a whole host of measures that support British Columbians in their day-to-day lives every single day, and we are not going to stop doing that.
RETINAL DISEASES TREATMENT PROGRAM
M. de Jong: Horrific emergency room wait times. Delays in cancer care that are, quite frankly, costing people their lives. Ambulances that take hours upon hours to get to seriously injured people. More and more families left without a family physician.
Every time the Health Minister is confronted by the deplorable and worsening state of B.C.’s health care system, he does two things. First of all, he denies there’s a problem, and secondly, he points to mythical budget cuts to health care under the previous government.
For the record….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Let’s hear the question, Members.
Thank you, Members.
M. de Jong: Between 2001 and 2017, the health care budget doubled from $10 billion to $20 billion. It went up every single year. Quite frankly, I’m getting tired of the Health Minister manufacturing phony facts to explain away the deplorable state of health care that has been created under his watch and his government’s watch.
The only actual budget cut this minister needs to explain is the one that he and his ministry signed off on to cut funding to B.C.’s retinal specialists by 32 percent, and as a result, 25,000 British Columbians are in jeopardy of being impacted by this cut.
Will the minister confirm that it was his ministry that signed off on a unilaterally imposed 32 percent cut to the retinal specialists in British Columbia and that, as a result, they are withdrawing from a program which will mean that British Columbian patients, 25,000 of them, will be obliged to pay for that service if they want to get it?
Hon. A. Dix: I would say, first of all, that in terms of nursing, we added 6,500 nurses in B.C. last year. I just want to….
These are numbers from the college. The first year the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Health, the year started with 42,122 registered nurses in B.C. It ended with 40,712. Then it went down to 40,149. The only Health Minister in history to cut registered nurses in British Columbia.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Hon. A. Dix: Now the ophthalmological division of the Doctors of B.C. has made proposals to change tariffs. This is not a cut in the resources being assigned — not one dollar. The member will know that retinal surgeons, and this is the issue the Doctors of B.C. have been raising for some time, on average, bill to MSP $2.8 million a year — per. That’s the average amount. The ophthalmological division has made a proposal to bring changes. It’s our intention to continue….
These services are free to British Columbians. They’ll continue to be free to British Columbians. Of course, we’re working with specialists and with ophthalmologists in B.C. to ensure that B.C. continues to have these services provided for people.
That’s not going to change. It’s not going to change before April 1; it’s not going to change after April 1. We’re determined to do this. I think the actions of the Doctors of B.C. are reasonable actions. We’re working with them, and with all doctors in B.C., to make sure that people keep getting access to services — and they will.
The Speaker: Abbotsford West, supplemental.
M. de Jong: The minister wants to avoid one inconvenient fact and is wrong on a second fact. He wants to ignore the fact that the 32 percent cut to the retinal specialists could not and would not have been made…. That proposal to the tariff commission could not and would not have been made without the acquiescence of him and his ministry. That’s the first thing.
The second thing he wants to try to pretend in the House today is that it will be business as usual after March 31. His ministry sent a letter to those retinal specialists, asking how many of them would continue in the program, to allow for business to continue as usual. Not one of them has agreed to do that, in the face of that 32 percent cut.
As a result, there is nothing this minister can do to control the behaviour of those doctors once they have withdrawn from the program. That is scheduled to happen in two weeks. When that happens, patients will be obliged to write cheques — which is not something they’ve had to do for many, many years — in order to receive treatment that will prevent them from going blind.
The minister has it within his control to address this issue, to reverse a 32 percent cut that was instituted under his watch. Will he do that?
Hon. A. Dix: We are acting in the interests of B.C. patients — that’s what this is about — as, by the way, are B.C. doctors, in addressing these issues. Of course we’re working with all the parties to ensure that British Columbians are not affected. That’s the role of the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health.
I would say this. In this case, as the member will know, this is not a 32 percent cut. There’s not a single thing being cut from this budget. This is a discussion of tariffs. The member will know that $2.8 million is the median income on MSP. In other words, the average income is the equivalent of six oncologists for each one.
There is a discussion, a legitimate discussion, around payment, which is going on in B.C. We’re taking action, working with the whole community of people who are ophthalmologists in B.C., to ensure that British Columbians continue to get the free service they deserve — and they will.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM
AND RESPONSE TO
ISSUES
S. Bond: For over a week, this Premier has been missing in action when it comes to investigating antisemitism in his own government, caucus and party. Even his own head of anti-racism has a history of antisemitism.
Now there are painful stories of antisemitism in the health care system: “A faculty member at my hospital asked me to prove that the October 7 massacre actually happened. They harassed and intimidated me. They made me feel fearful and anxious to come to work at the hospital.”
When it came to anti-Indigenous racism in the health care system, an independent investigation was called quickly and correctly, but the Premier is now missing in action.
How can Jewish people feel safe in our health care system while the Premier refuses to call an independent investigation into antisemitism in his own caucus, party and government?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct. We have been canvassing this issue this week. We have answered the questions the members have asked. Everybody in this House is committed to addressing antisemitism, hate of any form, in our province.
We know there’s fear in the community; we understand that. The Premier met with leaders from the Jewish community last week. He’s meeting with leaders of the Jewish community this week. Since October 7, we have taken steps to ensure that the community has more supports, but we know there’s more work to do. That’s why the Premier is going to continue to meet with leaders in the coming days.
I think it’s upon all of us to ensure that everyone, no matter who they love, no matter where they come from, no matter their religion, feels safe and welcome to British Columbia. That’s something we’ve been committed to since we formed government. It’s something we’re committed to do every single day and going forward.
The Speaker: Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, in fact, what the minister said is incorrect. The Premier has not agreed to do everything he needs to do to deal with antisemitism, because he isn’t even willing to deal with it in his own caucus.
The Premier is unwilling to fight antisemitism in the public service, apparently, whose stories we have heard. He’s apparently unwilling to fight antisemitism in our K-to-12 and post-secondary education system. Now we have horrible stories of what’s happening in health care, and the Premier is unwilling to fight antisemitism in the health care system.
The most shocking thing of all is that the Premier is unwilling to fight antisemitism with his own handpicked assistant deputy minister for anti-racism. It is unbelievable that someone who blamed Jews for losing her dream job…. That is unbelievable that she should be in the public service, much less having an anti-racism role and providing advice to this government and this Premier.
British Columbians want this Premier to do the right thing. That starts with looking in the mirror, dealing with the issues we have heard about in this House, day after day.
Perhaps the minister can tell us this. Why is the Premier stubbornly refusing to call an independent investigation into something as horrifying as the stories we hear, day after day? Will he do the right thing and call an independent investigation today?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Since October 7, we have been taking considerable steps to ensure that people can feel safe in communities.
On October 30, we launched mandatory Holocaust education in our schools. The Premier, in this building, made a Premier’s statement about the rise of antisemitism.
On November 15, we provided additional security funding for communities to make sure that they feel safe in the place that they worship.
On February 16 this year, the B.C. prosecution service updated their hate crime policy so we can prosecute cases that come forward where they’re perpetrating hate in our communities.
We take all forms of hate very seriously. I’ll reiterate this. It doesn’t matter who you love. It doesn’t matter what you believe, where you come from or what your religion is. Everyone should feel safe in British Columbia. That’s something we’ve been committed to since we formed government, and it’s something we’re committed to, going forward.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 10, Commercial Transport Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Forests.
In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 10 — COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:12 a.m.
The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 10, the Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 2024.
On clause 1.
T. Halford: I want to thank the minister and his staff for going through this with us at committee stage on Bill 10 here. We both made remarks yesterday in this House on second reading regarding Bill 10.
The minister did talk about consultation that was done, so can the minister outline who was consulted besides the B.C. Trucking Association? Can he provide that to the House today?
Hon. R. Fleming: Some of the organizations that were involved in the consultation that led up to the drafting of the legislation before the House this afternoon include the West Coast Trucking Association, the B.C. Trucking Association, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, chief judges of the B.C. Courts and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that list.
The minister also talked about UNDRIP yesterday in his comments. He talked about consultation of First Nations. Can the minister name the First Nations that were consulted for Bill 10?
Hon. R. Fleming: As required, an assessment of this legislation as it relates to alignment with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people was conducted. It was found that the bill does not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in the UN declaration. That determination was made working with the Indigenous legal relations division of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
T. Halford: I believe in the remarks yesterday made by the minister he said First Nations were consulted. So I asked what nations, specifically, were consulted. Did that answer mean none, or can he name the nations that were consulted?
Hon. R. Fleming: I was mistaken in my remarks yesterday. What I had intended to say was that the analysis was done in terms of conformity with UNDRIP requirements for governments. That was done internally, not externally with First Nations.
T. Halford: With respect to the minister, that seems like a pretty big mistake to make, that he does not know that nations were either consulted or not consulted when he’s making second reading remarks.
I live in White Rock, South Surrey at SEMYOME Nation. They have part of Highway 99. We talk about Tsawwassen First Nation. We talk about the overpass strike on Highway 17. And the implications…. The minister stood in this house and said First Nations were consulted. So again, is he incorrect in making that statement?
Hon. R. Fleming: No, I just corrected the error. The error was made in good faith because of the amount of Indigenous consultation our government does as a matter of course on all sorts of program development, delivery, granting programs, major infrastructure projects.
But on this bill, and I acknowledge the mistake, the analysis was done that there was no distinct Indigenous perspective or clause in the UNDRIP legislation that was unique to those communities and that the legislation is in the interest of all British Columbians, both non-Indigenous and Indigenous peoples alike.
T. Halford: Just to make sure I’m clear on this, the ministry and the minister got direction from the Attorney-General’s office, based on UNDRIP, that First Nations consultation was not necessary on Bill 10.
Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, that’s correct. That happens with a lot of statutes that are debated in this Legislature. But the requirement that is new, post-UNDRIP, is that analysis must be done.
T. Halford: Straight up to the minister, how did he not know that when he was making his remarks in the House? He says that First Nations consultation has been complete, and it’s non-existent.
How does a mistake like that happen?
Hon. R. Fleming: The mistake was that the analysis was required to be done about consultation. I was mistaken that consultation had followed from that.
T. Halford: What I took from the minister’s remarks yesterday, in good faith…. We’ve seen 35 overpass strikes happen under this minister’s watch since he’s been Minister of Transportation. It’s a pretty staggering number. I think the minister would agree with that.
We think one is a staggering number. We think 35 is substantial, into the millions and millions of dollars of damage that this has caused. Thankfully, we haven’t seen a fatality from it.
The minister did talk about the need to do all this consultation. It was one of the reasons why we haven’t seen this legislation brought forward until two days ago.
When we left this House yesterday, I actually thought that First Nations consultation was one of the reasons why there’s been such a delay. We haven’t had 35 overpass strikes in the last month. We’ve had them since 2021.
To the minister: from December of 2021 to today, we’ve had 35 overpass strikes, and 48 hours ago, this minister introduced this legislation. From that time, in December of 2021, to today, where we’ve had 35 overpass strikes, what has been the delay in getting this legislation to the House?
Hon. R. Fleming: There are a couple of things I would say in response to that, and actions that have been taken since December 2021, working with industry on overpass collisions that we were seeing in the province and looking at other jurisdictions as well.
We have looked to, for example, add to our advance warning systems that we have on Highway 1 and Highway 62 and have combined our research on their effectiveness with other jurisdictions that also have these on their highways. We worked primarily through CVSE, the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement agency, and the trucking industry about stepped-up enforcement: what that would look like, where it should be, and how it would be received by industry in terms of widespread adoption and compliance. That was a big part of our work over the last 24 months.
We also brought in regulations similar to Ontario to reduce the number of excessive speed collisions, where excessive speed seemed to be a determining factor. Speed limiters coming into effect were introduced. There was consultation on that, as well, with industry, of course.
Electronic logging devices, as well, looking at some of the potential causes of overpass collisions that may have related to driver error based on driver fatigue. That requirement to bring in a system of logging a truck driver’s hours and having that data collected and analyzed was also a new change that we made.
I would say the most significant one that was announced in 2023, though, was the progressive enforcement regime that was brought into place, that linked to safety investigations on an incident where there was a collision with infrastructure and giving government, the CVSE, the power to suspend an entire carrier’s fleet and move beyond just the vehicle involved in the collision, if that was warranted by the facts of the investigation or if that was warranted as a precaution during the investigation until the investigation’s conclusion. Those were new powers that were brought into effect.
It also has led to the elimination of certificates that allow some carriers to do business that were found to be the most egregious.
Now, I will say this. We have looked at other jurisdictions where there are overpass collisions. None of them are debating legislation like Bill 10. Probably none of them want to, and neither do we.
Having tried a number of things to bring greater compliance — to train drivers, there were additional training resources put in there; to create economic penalties and deterrents through a different enforcement model, a stronger enforcement model — we are still left with the belief that if we ever have another collision of an overpass involving reckless driver behaviour and the facts established in that lend themselves to prosecution, we now have a new avenue, which is to go to court with very steep fines and even the possibility of imprisonment.
I would say that was one thing we wanted to be clear with industry about. If we are going to introduce potential jail time for somebody who has committed a new offence that is defined in this legislation, you want to make sure that those tens of thousands of commercial truck drivers, instead of feeling targeted, are feeling supported. You could get a fairly shocking conclusion out of that, that the professional driving workforce in B.C. is in a state of crisis. It is not.
What we are trying to deal with in a very laser-focused, pinpointed way here is focusing on a very small number. We have data. That’s why we started collecting data in 2021. A very small number of drivers have exhibited reckless, dangerous behaviour, and some of them have been involved in repeated incidents.
The 99.99 percent of truck drivers are not being criminalized by this bill. Only those that are involved in egregious accidents that could cause bodily harm or death and are then supported by a police investigation that lends to Crown counsel recommending charges — those are the only ones that we will ever seek prosecution of.
It remains to be seen in future whether a case like this will be in the public interest, whether there will be somebody who fits the profile of who we would like to get out of the industry, to not have behind the wheel of a large commercial vehicle that poses a safety risk to other highway users.
We will see. Time will tell, but it is a valuable deterrent message nonetheless. The reason we consulted organizations like the West Coast Trucking Association and the B.C. Trucking Association was to make sure that it fit the test and that it was supported by industry.
I’m pleased to say it was enthusiastically supported by industry, because they don’t want any reputational damage to the work that they do, the safe distribution of goods that they conduct on our road networks each and every day in massive volumes in every community around B.C. They want, and every profession has them, those who are doing a poor job, who are not adhering to the standards that they are professionally bound to uphold each and every minute that they’re on the road, out of the industry as well.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.
When we’re talking about the amendments that we are debating today, is that strictly just to overpass strikes? Is this something that can be utilized in other areas of infractions? What would those infractions be, or are we just talking about infrastructure strikes at this point?
Hon. R. Fleming: Bill 10 will apply to all offences that are in the Commercial Transport Act that are outlined in that legislation and regulation related to the CTA. This can be contraventions of permits based on dimensions, weight, height and those sorts of things — operating without permit. It doesn’t necessarily have to involve a collision.
It could be, for example, damage sustained with a vehicle that’s significantly over the weight permitted or allowed that would maybe damage a bridge structure. We can think of lots of hypothetical examples that are not out of the realm. I’ll let the member imagine some other things. But that, I think, is the most direct answer to his question — that all offences outlined in the CTA will be subject to these amendments contained in Bill 10.
I would also just offer a comment at this point that there are other criminal contraventions that are outlined for a penalty and possible prosecution in the Motor Vehicle Act and, of course, in the Criminal Code generally.
T. Halford: We’ve seen before, when the minister, I think well intentioned, rolled out some penalties specifically to companies. We saw that there were significant loopholes that obviously frustrated the minister, the Premier and, I think, the general public. That was basically dealing with other jurisdictions. Primarily, in that case, it was Alberta.
Has the minister consulted other jurisdictions in terms of how we recruit fines if they’re coming from another province, another state? If that infrastructure was struck, whether it was a trucking company or a truck driver from Washington State or Alberta, has the minister made sure that we’ve tightened those loopholes up to make sure that British Columbians are able to get or ensure that those that need to be held accountable will be held accountable, which is the intention of this legislation?
Hon. R. Fleming: I would say this to the member. The reason we have begun a national discussion and B.C. has put this on the agenda with our counterparts across the country and with the federal government is in the hope that we will shift away from a decentralized safety certificate model that Canada has, which other countries do not have, that has considerable disadvantages around enforcement for out-of-province carriers committing violations in British Columbia.
Right now we have the ability to share information through the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement division with, in the Alberta example, Alberta Transportation. That sometimes leads to that agency taking some limited forms of action in Alberta. But they have to walk a very legal fine line in that regard.
That’s why having federal powers in Canada would be a game-changer for those, and it is a small number of companies, that are operating solely because they were enforced upon in another province and moving their location to another province, and then working back in the province with which they were either suspended or prohibited from doing business.
Nevertheless, we think that’s a loophole that is important to close. There certainly are other models that, more effectively, have a compliance regime. The United States is one obvious example, where the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is responsible for commercial trucking that’s interstate in all parts of the country. There would be a European Union system, too, that would be worth acknowledging.
Having said that, we are looking forward to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators renewing interest, because there was a period of time about a decade or more ago that this decentralization-of-enforcement problem was looked at with some enthusiasm, and it waned.
We think it’s time, more than ever, given the volumes of interprovincial trucking activity happening, to come up, finally, with perhaps a role for Transport Canada, similar to their lead responsibilities on the aviation industry or for railway safety, to also have similar powers as it relates to interprovincial commercial trucking.
The last point I would make, because I think it touches on the member’s question, is around collection of, let’s say, roadside fines for unsafe driving behaviour by a commercial trucker with a different plate on their vehicle inside British Columbia. That falls to ICBC’s collection division. They, obviously, vigorously look to collect those fines no matter what the person’s address is or where they live in Canada.
T. Halford: Let’s just give an example. Let’s just say a commercial truck plated from Washington state strikes an overpass. This act gives the ministry the power to levy…. Let’s just take the maximum $100,000 fine. The trucker goes back to Washington state. The company resides in Washington state. How will the minister or the ministry recoup that $100,000 fine?
Hon. R. Fleming: The content of Bill 10, these amendments, outlines a new avenue to impose fines and/or imprisonment terms. These are new powers but ones that are included for other types of offences. It’s a court-imposed fine, so there would have to be a court process, a successful prosecution.
But the short answer to the member’s question is yes, we can prosecute a U.S. driver if we went through Crown counsel and there was a recommendation to lay charges for somebody living outside our borders. It would involve things like appearance notices and those sorts of things.
I think the member can probably think of examples where Canadians abroad have committed serious accidents that have harmed or killed citizens abroad, and they are, obviously, criminally charged in those circumstances as well. So it would be similar to that.
Again, we haven’t used this legislation, and I’m answering hypothetical scenarios, but I think that’s exactly how it would work.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister. The minister talked about the consultation that he’s done externally. But we’re talking about…. We talked about ICBC and just referenced, obviously, the Attorney General’s office. The Solicitor General, I imagine, was referenced when we’re talking about 18 months’ imprisonment.
Can the minister just highlight the consultation that’s been done with each respective ministry in regards to Bill 10?
Hon. R. Fleming: I wonder if I might just ask the member to repeat the last part of the question there. We had trouble hearing it for some reason.
T. Halford: Happy to do that.
We’ve mentioned ICBC. This legislation discusses the potential for 18 months’ imprisonment. So I’m imagining that the Solicitor General’s office, the Attorney General’s office were consulted on this. Were they consulted in the drafting of this legislation?
Hon. R. Fleming: Our ministry worked with the Attorney General Ministry on the drafting of the legislation. We worked with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Crown agencies secretariat and the Insurance Corp. of B.C. on the intent and purpose of Bill 10.
Clause 1 approved.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. N. Sharma moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:14 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. We are meaning today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.
On Vote 30: ministry operations, $413,993,000 (continued).
S. Furstenau: I’ll just pick up where I left off yesterday and the minister’s response about conservation financing. He said: “No nation involved…has directly asked for conservation financing, but many of the nations, I think, are aware of that option.”
I guess my question, back to the minister, is: is the government just waiting for nations to ask for conservation financing? Why is the government not recognizing its overarching responsibility here of protecting what little is left of old growth and actually coming to the table with conservation financing?
As another piece of that, I’m curious about the future for conservation financing. There was nothing specifically in Budget 2024.
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the member for the question. Let me try to respond in this way. The occasion or the series of discussions or the negotiation, however one chooses to characterize it, that was begun by the old-growth strategic review report is a process that is ongoing. It’s essentially a planning process.
The technical advisory committee recommendations were the beginning of it, but as I said yesterday, many First Nations disagreed with the conclusions of the TAP process — had their own recommendations, their own proposals as to what areas might be set aside initially as deferrals and potentially, in the future, as conservation areas.
It is an ongoing process, and it’s a fairly detailed one, so it continues in many cases. At the end of the process, beyond deferrals, there may be decisions made about whether or not the areas that are decided upon and agreed to might become, in some cases, conservation areas. It’s at that point that the conservation financing mechanisms may be drawn into that. Most of the nations are not at that stage.
I think we referred yesterday, and I know the member has commented on this publicly, to the Clayoquot process. I think everyone would be aware that the Clayoquot process was a very protracted process. It is now out for public consultation and involves some proposals for conservancies and for a community forest by a group of First Nations on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
The conservation financing option comes at the end of the process, not at the beginning. I think there’s general awareness of that. But in most cases, the process hasn’t settled on that part or that stage in the process just yet. The conservation financing mechanism — essentially, it’s conservation philanthropy — was announced by the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship in the spring. There was an initial gift or donation — the fund will be administered by the B.C. Parks Foundation — that was matched by the province. There is a very ambitious plan.
The Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I’m sure, would be grateful to have the opportunity to talk about it. There’s an intention to, and there’s certainly a private philanthropic interest in, expand the amount of dollars in that fund.
That’s one mechanism. There are other organizations which are active in that space. There’s one that is the organization that’s supporting the proposed conservation areas in the Clayoquot case. But there is a range of…. Certainly, the genesis of some of the conservation financing took place in the Great Bear Rainforest, and that has continued as well.
I would say that conservation philanthropy or conservation financing is known as an alternative and is being acted upon when the time comes to make those kinds of permanent decisions.
S. Furstenau: I just have one more question on this, and I’m going to move on to a couple of other things.
I guess my question for the minister is, again: given the increasing rarity of intact old-growth ecosystems, and British Columbia’s particular global role — given climate change, given the capacity for these forests to protect biodiversity and the capacity for these forests to act as very effective carbon sinks — what role does the minister think government has in protecting these last stands of old growth, and what responsibility does the government have?
Separate this from the other conversations. But as a government of a region that has rare and precious old growth…. We compare ourselves to the Amazon. There’s a lot of concern and global outrage about the destruction of the Amazon. What’s the government’s job when it comes to these ecosystems?
Hon. B. Ralston: I would just start by saying that the old-growth strategic review’s 14 recommendations, all of which have been adopted by government and are being acted upon by government, are unprecedented in the country and are a major and profound commitment to the values that the member seeks to protect.
There are approximately 11.1 million hectares of old growth in the province, and of that, about 80 percent is off limits. So 9.178 million hectares are either protected, temporarily deferred or uneconomic to harvest because they’re simply inaccessible. That’s not all old growth. I acknowledge that. But that is a substantial change in the policy of the government.
The member appears to object to the idea that First Nations might make decisions which are contrary to some of the values that she holds. We are signatories…. The legislation has passed, the Declaration Act, which the member supported in the House. So we are bound by those laws as well. In implementing our old-growth strategic review deferral policy, we are obliged to follow the principles set out in the Declaration Act, and that’s what we’re doing.
There is some friction, there is some discussion, and there are decisions that are made that not everyone agrees with. Generally, the record on this policy is one that the government — I think rightly, all members of the government — and, I think, many members of the public support and are very proud of.
S. Furstenau: I would appreciate not having words put into my mouth that I didn’t say. I think it’s very important to adhere to that.
When the TAP recommendations came out…. I’m curious. How many First Nations agreed with those recommendations, and how many wanted more areas protected?
Hon. B. Ralston: I’ll begin by saying that the response of many First Nations to the TAP, the technical advisory recommendations, was that they wanted to select different areas. It’s not a question of taking those areas and then adding to them. They wanted to select different areas entirely. I have a little bit of a list here of the responses.
One group was fully supportive of all the technical advisory committee recommendations. That’s 22 nations. The second group, not supportive of any TAP recommendations, 19. Interest in addressing through current planning processes, 133. The next group had no old growth, 19. And of the final two groups: one needed more time, three; and no response, six.
S. Furstenau: It’s nice to have some straightforward data there. And that, I think, will be my last question.
On October 5, 2023, a CBC story printed some data about old-growth logging. They said in 2019 there were 39,400 hectares logged; in 2020, 39,400 hectares; in 2021, 44,400, an increase in 5,000 hectares between 2020 and 2021. I’m wondering. It’s quite challenging to find data, and the data is hard to navigate.
Will the minister take it on to address issues with making data about logging practices and old growth, in particular, more easily accessible, easier to track and more transparent for the public?
Hon. B. Ralston: Recommendation No. 6 of the overall strategic review — which, along with all the other recommendations, has been adopted — calls for more public transparency in many of these matters.
There is an active plan to release more data very shortly. It will include logging rates and information about the ecological integrity of the areas that have been deferred. That would be some view of the watershed and whether the watershed is intact, for example. That data, I’m told, will be released very shortly.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11:18 a.m.
The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
On Vote 24: ministry operations, $188,053,000 (continued).
R. Merrifield: In response to the minister’s 25-minute address yesterday, I decided to prepare a 25-minute address of my own, followed by a song and dance that will hopefully be the feature of the Christmas reel for No Context BC Gov. The minister is just not impressed.
As we gather on a serious note for these estimates, Budget 24 is a very different context, even, than last year or the year previous. It’s really crucial to acknowledge the challenging economic situation that we find ourselves in. We’ve got the economists that are telling us that our economy is going to slow to about 0.8 of GDP this year, and spiralling costs are putting a strain on households and businesses alike.
The economic slowdown is truly a reality that I don’t think we can ignore. Our discussions throughout this time that we have together are really going to be laser-focused on: are we spending the dollars in the right way toward the right things that are going to have the biggest yield?
I’d like to extend my gratitude just to the staff and to each of you who play such an important role in protecting our environment and stewarding.
Thank you all for being here today. Truly, your hard work sets the stage for us to make informed decisions that are going to have the legacy and lasting impact that the minister referenced yesterday.
As we delve into the estimates, it’s imperative to remember that our responsibility goes beyond balancing books, and we haven’t even done that yet. We’re here to ensure that our spending reflects our commitment to fostering a vibrant economy, generating meaningful employment opportunities and safeguarding our environment for future generations.
We also need to make sure that, in each case, the dollars are spent where they should be. So the process ahead of us is not just about numbers; it’s about setting priorities that resonate with the immediate needs of our communities and the long-term strategic investment in sectors that will drive us towards sustainable growth and resilience in the face of economic challenges.
With that, I will continue on to my first question. The minister yesterday, in his speech, talked about the emissions reduction and how it was lowered 4.9 percent from 2019 levels. I would actually call that a disappointing result. The reason is that the minister neglected to say that Canada’s emissions were actually lower by 7.4 percent of pre-pandemic 2019 levels. So B.C.’s, actually, was much less of a lowering than was Canada’s.
Could the minister please help us to understand why B.C. is actually outpacing Canada in emissions growth rather than reduction?
Hon. G. Heyman: In answer to the member, for the question, B.C.’s electricity grid has always been cleaner than other provinces since 2007. We’re at about 98 percent renewable electricity and have been for a while. So our province did not have the same large emission reduction opportunities that other provinces had, as they phased out coal electricity, for example, in Ontario.
In addition, we also had a higher population growth rate than the rest of Canada between 2007 and 2020-21. It was 22 percent versus 17 percent. If our population growth rate had been the same as the Canadian national average, i.e. 17 percent instead of 22, while keeping per-capita emissions the same, then our gross emissions in 2021 would have been 5 percent lower.
We also had lower reductions in emissions than some other provinces since 2007 because our economy has grown more quickly, 36 percent versus a 23 percent Canadian average. Quebec and B.C. had the same change in emissions intensity, but B.C. had larger overall growth in gross domestic product. This translates to higher emissions per capita in Quebec.
If B.C.’s economy had grown at the same rate as the Canadian national average, which I’m sure the member opposite would not want to have been the fact — we’re proud of the fact that our economy grew — while keeping the same emissions intensity, then our gross emissions in 2021 would have been 9 percent lower.
R. Merrifield: Is the minister suggesting that our economy will need to shrink in order to meet our emission’s targets?
Hon. G. Heyman: No.
R. Merrifield: Awesome.
I disagree somewhat with the minister’s response. He’s using population statistics dating back to 2007 and saying that it’s because our economy grew that we actually have less of a decrease than the rest of Canada.
I would like to just point out that our emissions targets are still the same as the rest of Canada, in that we have to lower by the same percentage. Is that not the minister’s understanding?
Hon. G. Heyman: It’s important to clarify that Canada has a target, and B.C. has a target. The common feature is that we’re both committed to emissions reduction in line with the Paris agreement, but the target isn’t exactly the same, because Canada has to be responsible for emission reductions across the whole country. We are responsible for emission reductions in British Columbia.
Let me be absolutely clear. Our emissions reduction target is an absolute megatonne emission reduction target, megatonne percentage target, not a per-capita emissions intensity target.
I raised the point earlier because the member opposite, in my view, incorrectly claimed that we weren’t reducing our emissions as quickly as the rest of Canada, and I pointed out two very significant reasons for that. That’s not to say that we don’t think we’re on track to meet our target.
We have the most comprehensive multi-faceted emission reduction plan in Canada and, likely, North America. I think both Quebec and California have very robust plans, as well, but ours is certainly a match for them.
As our recent climate change accountability report demonstrated, we adjust the modelling every year, because the baseline changes with figures from Canada. We have different experience in different pathways, but we’re still on track, as of the end of 2023, for 96 percent of our target, and of course, we’re constantly adjusting our actions as part of an iterative process to work toward that 100 percent.
R. Merrifield: One of the unfortunate things about working with the emissions data is that we’re always two years behind. We’ve got 2021’s data that we’re actually discussing.
To have Canada’s emissions go down by 66 percent more than what B.C.’s did, I would argue, is a show that…. What B.C. is doing at this time, while the minister may be convinced it’s a robust plan, certainly did not resemble that when it came to comparing it to the rest of Canada. At the time that these emissions were documented, back in 2021, we had already spent, by my calculation, about just under $1 billion on the CleanBC initiatives.
Does the minister see that this very small reduction of 4.9 percent is a show that the investments are working?
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, first of all, I disagree with the member opposite that we are less successful than Canada as a whole. I gave the reasons for the gap between the percentage emission reduction between Canada and British Columbia already. It has to do with the easier emission reductions that can be achieved through fuel switching for electricity.
The fact that we’ve made such progress despite the fact that our electricity system was already virtually completely clean, I think is a great credit to the CleanBC measures that have been implemented — absolutely. I think the money that we’ve spent on CleanBC initiatives is paying off. It’s bearing fruit, and similar and continued investments will continue to do that.
We have seen emission reductions. We have laid the groundwork for many of the pathways to emission reductions that exist within CleanBC. They’re starting to take hold. We expect the pace of the emission reductions to go up on a curve. Think of it as a curve similar to, but to a much better social purpose than, the usual hockey-stick curve that’s used to describe the rapid onset of climate change.
What is happening with the investments that we’ve made is that they’re taking root. They’re beginning to have impact. They are achieving greater effect as technologies mature, as technologies advance, as technologies are taken up by industry and the general public, and as market readiness and market share increase.
R. Merrifield: Well, with all due respect, we have only seen reductions due to COVID. For the minister and me, this is the third go at these estimates, and in every single estimate, our emissions have lowered less than the rest of Canada’s. So forgive me if I’m not believing that the work that’s going into CleanBC…. The money that is being spent is not having the same effect as is resulting in the rest of Canada.
The minister’s own 2023 Climate Change Accountability Report actually acknowledges, on page 4, “The near-term emissions outlook suggests that with all Roadmap policies fully implemented, emissions can remain below 2007 and 2018 levels and” — here’s the kicker — “after an increase following a continued return to pre-COVID levels of economic activity and routines in 2022….”
We are expecting to see an increase, in 2022, to our emissions. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, we will expect to see, when the 2022 numbers come in, that economies generally have grown more. That generally results in an increase in emissions. It remains to be seen if the measures of CleanBC equal that increase in emissions or exceed them. On a couple of metrics, at least, our actions in CleanBC — the percentage of new vehicle sales being zero emission, and the methane reduction in the oil and gas sector — are well ahead of our targets.
I will say what the numbers tell us to date. During the main pandemic years of 2019 and 2020, B.C.’s emissions decreased less than Canada’s. They went down 6 percent versus 9 percent for Canada, while GDP also decreased less. It only went down 3 percent versus 5 percent, so there’s a correlation there.
When the main impacts of the pandemic on the economy began to ease and change, 2020 to 2021, B.C.’s emissions increased 1 percent, which was half of Canada’s increase of 2 percent, even though our economy grew faster than Canada’s in the same period, 7 percent versus 5 percent. All of this is to say that I think we’re performing well. I think we’re on track. I think the figures we have to date show that, and I expect that figures in future years will demonstrate that as well.
R. Merrifield: I think the minister may be mistaken. I actually have Canada’s total GHG emissions increasing by 1.8 percent compared to 2020, and B.C.’s increasing by 2 percent during the same period.
I also think the minister misspoke earlier, in that we reduced…. The minister had indicated that the economy doesn’t need to shrink in order to have emissions reduced, yet the minister has just used three different examples — whether it’s Canada to B.C., B.C. in COVID, or Canada in COVID — to indicate that it’s only when the economy shrank that we actually saw emissions lowered.
Could the minister once again confirm that the economy does not need to shrink in order to see our emissions lowered?
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I did not have the wrong numbers. The member is simply wrong.
The member’s premise is what is often called a tautology. The fact that, at one point in time, an increase in economic activity leads to a spike in emissions or, at another time, a decrease in economic activity leads to a reduction does not lead to the conclusion that, in order to reduce emissions, we have to curtail economic activity. In fact, we do not intend to curtail economic activity.
What we intend to do is reduce absolute emissions and emission intensity in industry. That is what we do with our CleanBC industry fund, co-investing with large industry to implement technologies that reduce emissions at source and in process. That’s what we’re going to continue to do. Build a strong, low-carbon economy, and meet our targets.
R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister. I will look up those numbers once again.
The minister is saying that we don’t use a particular instance to, then, extrapolate all the way throughout history. I also would just draw the minister’s attention to the fact that we’re not talking about one incident. We’re talking about three years of data, three years of history. So it certainly does have a trend that is remarkable.
I also want to just draw attention to the minister’s per-capita numbers. That’s oftentimes how the minister reflects that we’re lowering our emissions and that we’re actually lowering our emissions per capita.
Our emissions per capita, from 2009 to 2021, actually resulted in the smallest amount, on a per-capita reduction, of any of the provinces. If you pull that just to the time frame of the minister’s CleanBC, that’s, actually, even a smaller number. And that’s just Stats Canada information.
If I look at per-capita…. I just thought…. What are some bad countries? What are their per-capita numbers? Countries I would never want to compare us to.
Well, China’s per-capita number is — if I just go with 2021; those are the only emissions I have — eight, which is a ton of C02. That’s a number I would not want to repeat. I’m looking at India. Again, I’m thinking big emitters, big pollution. We’ve got India at 1.9. Then I’m thinking…. Well, surely B.C. is better. No. B.C. is 11. It’s actually 11.7.
Could the minister please tell me that his comparison, on a per-capita basis, to both China and India is something that is worthwhile looking at when it comes to emissions?
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, the member is incorrect in saying that I’ve focused on per-capita emissions.
What I have said in the House, on numerous occasions, in response to questions, is that we have reduced our emissions since we took office in 2017, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn’t until 2019 that the various elements of CleanBC began to be implemented.
We’ve reduced emissions on both a per-capita basis and an absolute basis. The only one that matters, of course, is the absolute basis. That is the way the target is expressed in the Climate Change Accountability Act. Those are the targets to which we’re committed, and those are the actions that we’re taking.
There, frankly, is not a lot of utility in comparing Chinese and Indian emissions to British Columbia because we have very different economies. We’re an advanced industrial economy.
We are taking active measures, as part of CleanBC, to reduce carbon intensity and carbon emissions in our advanced industrial economy in British Columbia. I would hope that the member is not suggesting that the way to meet our climate targets is to focus on per-capita carbon emissions and de-industrialize British Columbia.
With that, Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.