Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 402
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, B.C.’s Toxic Drug
Crisis: Implementation of Harm Reduction | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2024
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. Rankin: Today I am honoured to have several guests joining us in the gallery to witness the introduction of historic legislation.
Joining us from the First Nations Leadership Council are Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the BCAFN and Ray Harris and Hugh Braker of the First Nations Summit.
I’d also like to introduce to the House Chief Rudy Paquette and Couns. Donovan Cameron, Colleen Totusek, Justin Gauthier and Juritha Owens. Also in the gallery is their adviser, Roger Harris, who was, of course, the former MLA for Skeena.
The Saulteau First Nations have long been a leader on the registration of title, in particular, and on the decolonization of provincial laws and policies in general. Chief Rudy Paquette and council have been instrumental for years in having the forthcoming legislation introduced.
I thank them for their leadership and for reminding us of the duty and role to address colonial practices and stem them where they occur.
I’d also like to acknowledge Chief Corrina Leween from the Cheslatta Carrier First Nation, who’s joining us virtually.
Finally, I’d like to welcome lawyers Jack Woodward, KC; Mary Woodward; James Hickling; Garth Thoroughgood; Michael Shepard; and members of our ministry team Carolyn Kamper, Dale Morgan and Kevin Ziegler.
Thanks to all of you for your leadership on this important legislation and for your ongoing guidance and partnership.
A. Singh: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, April 1, would have been my father, Jagdish Singh’s, 83rd birthday. Unfortunately, he passed away, as you know — you were at the funeral — last summer.
I wanted to take this opportunity as my last happy birthday to my father and to remember him.
Hon. H. Bains: I’d like to introduce to this House, and everyone who is watching, 24-year-old Jujhar Singh Mann, who, at this young age, opened up a bake shop in Surrey-Newton.
Having a bake shop and starting your own business…. I think you hear those stories all over the place, but this is unique. This is different. His passion started at a very young age, he tells me. But due to the stigma in the community about certain career paths, it took a lot of challenges for him to decide what he wanted to do until he went to university, and then he completed his degree in marketing.
He is now breaking societal norms within our community and inspiring younger generations to follow their passion. He’s not only the founder of his own bake shop, but with his creative ability, talents and love for baking, he has participated in multiple shows on Food Network and recently was featured on season 3 of the popular Netflix show called Is It Cake? A spoiler: he made it to the final.
I just want to say that with the support of his family, this young man is creating a new path. I think he’s being a great role model for the younger generation.
Now you have another good reason to come and visit Surrey-Newton. At the same time, come say hello to Jujhar Singh. I can tell you the cardamom gulab jamun cake is delicious. Just go and try it.
Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to introduce legislation about spoiler alerts and how much time you have to give people to cover their ears. Is It Cake? is a big hit at our house, and that was uncalled for, Minister of Labour.
Joining us in the House today are two members of the admin team from the Premier’s office. All of the members here know we couldn’t do our jobs without our administrative support. I’m so grateful for their work every day.
Jenelyn Hontiveros and Hayley Hyndman are here from my office. I hope they enjoy question period, and I’m glad they’re able to join us today.
T. Shypitka: I’d just like to do a quick shout-out and a happy birthday to my beautiful wife, Carrie Shypitka, who is having a happy birthday here today, April 2.
I love you, H.B.
For Hansard, that is initials H and B. Don’t ask me why; that’s a long story.
Anyway, would the House please join me in welcoming Carrie.
Happy birthday.
H. Yao: I just want to take this opportunity to wish Molly Poon a happy 90th birthday. She will be celebrating her 90th birthday on June 9, 2024.
I will ask the House to wish her happy birthday.
Many years of health, happiness and love to come.
J. Sims: I rise today to wish a very special person in my life a happy birthday. He has been part of my life for 53 years. We got married in 1971. He celebrated his birthday this past weekend, and for a whole four months, he’s going to be much older than I am. He’s going to be two years older than I am, but only for four months, and then it will be back to one again.
Really, we often talk about our partners being our support, our foundation. I can say that since I met him at the age of 18, he has been my strength. He has been the foundation. There have been some shaky times, but in 53 years, we expect those shaky times. Really, I can say that I would not be the person I am today without having him as my life partner.
Hon. B. Bailey: There have been two important birthdays in my family since we were last here. My daughter Esme and my daughter-in-law Aamrah have both turned 28.
This year is looking up for both of them. Esme has just been accepted to her master’s degree at University of Toronto. Aamrah just got hired by Microsoft as a computer scientist.
Congratulations to them both.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — LAND TITLE AND PROPERTY
LAW AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
Hon. M. Rankin presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024.
Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 13, the Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024, for first reading.
It extends to all B.C. First Nations the ability to hold land in the name of a First Nation. The bill will amend the Property Law Act to make clear that First Nations may hold and dispose of land and will amend the Land Title Act to address administrative requirements of the land title office.
Mr. Speaker, 2024 marks exactly 150 years since the B.C. Property Act was enacted. It explicitly restricted First Nation individuals from the ability to acquire land. English common law requires a legal entity to have express legislative authority to hold land. Since then, most First Nation governments could not hold lands in the name of their First Nation.
Our provincial policies and laws are often based on past colonial ideas and practices, which were inherently racist and harmful. That’s why we are working to ensure provincial laws are aligned with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
These amendments will make small but important changes to reflect our government’s commitment to reconciliation and to ensure no one faces discriminatory barriers to the ownership of land, something that should have happened a long time ago.
It is my great honour to rise in the House today and move this motion.
The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 13, Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024, 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 14 — TENANCY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
Hon. R. Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act. This bill delivers our government’s commitment to eliminate rent increases when people have children, to improve the security of tenants and to allow landlords to resolve disputes faster.
This bill, if passed, will protect growing families by restricting rent increases if a tenant adds a child under the age of 19 to their household.
To address bad-faith evictions, this bill will ban evictions for personal use in purpose-built rental buildings with five or more units and include a clear prohibition on issuing invalid eviction notices intended to harass or bully tenants into moving out.
While most landlords and tenants play by the rules, we know that too many people in B.C. are still facing unfair evictions under false pretenses. To further deter bad-faith evictions, this bill will also require landlords to use a web portal to generate a notice to evict a tenant for personal use.
This change will help educate landlords on required conditions for personal use evictions while providing a standardized process for serving notice. It will also allow the residential tenancy branch to properly track personal use evictions and will aid in the eviction dispute if they arise. Landlords need certainty that issues with problematic tenants can be resolved quickly.
We have made good progress at the residential tenancy branch by cutting wait times for all tenancy hearings by more than 50 percent over last year. We’ve also fast-tracked hearings for unpaid rent and utilities, but we’ve heard from landlords that they need more support in dealing with some problematic tenants. This bill will help address that issue by adding authority to prescribe additional grounds for ending a problematic tenancy.
With this bill, our government is taking a thoughtful and measured approach to bad-faith evictions and improving the security for tenants while maintaining a fair overall balance between the rights and interests of landlords and tenants.
The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 14, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, 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)
CANCER AWARENESS
AND DAFFODIL
MONTH
S. Bond: One of the things I love most about spring is the arrival of spring flowers, especially daffodils. We can find them not just in our gardens or around the legislative grounds but as the symbol of the Canadian Cancer Society Daffodil Campaign.
The Canadian Cancer Society raises funds to support and help people with cancer live longer, fuller lives. The spring campaign centres around the daffodil, one of the first flowers to bloom in spring. For those living with cancer, the daffodil represents strength, resiliency, courage and hope.
Every three minutes someone in Canada hears the words, “You have cancer,” and their life changes forever. But there is hope. Your donation this Daffodil Month will fund world-leading research and compassionate support that could change the future for someone you love.
How can we help make a difference? Well, there are a number of ways, including making a personal donation, a monthly donation, hosting a fundraiser or leaving a legacy with a planned gift in your will.
As we know, there are members in this chamber who have faced their own battle with cancer. And all of us have much-loved family members, friends and even work colleagues who are in the fight of their lives.
Nearly half of all Canadians will face the devastating diagnosis of cancer in their lifetime. That is why every spring, for more than six decades, the Canadian Cancer Society has used the daffodil to encourage all of us to do our part.
In the words of the Canadian Cancer Society: “Now is the time to help hope bloom for people facing cancer with your donation today.” Your daffodil donation will help save and improve lives and ensure that no one has to face a cancer diagnosis alone.
As we wear our daffodil pins this month, let us always remember that they are a symbol of our collective strength, representing renewal, inspiration and hope.
URBAN REFORESTATION PROJECT AND
CONTRIBUTIONS OF
CHINESE CANADIANS
H. Yao: Continuing from my previous statement on March 6, on Saturday, March 23, in partnership with the city of Richmond and the Richmond Garden City Conservation Society, my office had the support of over 120 volunteers who came together to plant the fourth Miyawaki forest in Richmond, B.C. While working, I had some discussions I wish to share in this chamber.
The volunteers present were very diverse, and based on conversations, the majority were comfortable with Mandarin more than English. Some mentioned how they were frustrated by the discrimination against Chinese Canadians, who are often portrayed as individuals who came to this country merely to benefit from services, beauty and abundance and who do not contribute, sacrifice or care for our community.
My experience proves quite the contrary. As the MLA, I have witnessed how often Chinese Canadians have taken on a leadership role in fundraising for many important causes, such as health care, environmental sustainability and cultural exchange.
When it comes to volunteering, as evidenced by the recent Miyawaki forest planting and invasive species removal, Chinese Canadians come out in strong numbers to serve causes that beautify, better and benefit our neighbourhoods. In my community hub, seniors volunteer their time to help other seniors improve their English and self-care.
Chinese Canadians’ contributions serve as a great reminder of how multiculturalism truly empowers our province to become a better place for all. Multiculturalism also helps Richmond benefit from other groups such as Ukrainian, Filipino, South Asian, English, German, Scot and Irish. They each bring their own unique, culturally rich perspective to beautifying and bettering Richmond in meaningful, significant and constructive manners.
However, when individuals use cultural differences and language barriers to spread misinformation and disinformation, it ultimately fosters conditions where racism and discrimination thrive. That is why it is crucial to combat disinformation and misinformation while nurturing social connectedness, truth and open dialogues so that multiculturalism can truly thrive and continue to enrich our community.
SIKH HERITAGE MONTH
E. Sturko: I rise today in recognition of Sikh Heritage Month.
Today as we celebrate Sikh Heritage Month, we’re not just commemorating Sikh history and contributions; we’re embracing the vibrant diversity seen throughout British Columbia. This April we recognize the profound influence of the Sikh community on our province’s cultural and societal fabric.
This past weekend at the Sikh Heritage B.C. kickoff event, I was moved by the stories of resilience and perseverance and a deep commitment to community values. For well over a century, Sikhs have enriched British Columbia, contributing significantly to our economic growth and prosperity.
As we celebrate this month, I’d like to encourage all members of this House to explore Sikh traditions and teachings and advocate for equality, social justice and selfless service. This month also gives us a chance to reflect on the diverse roles Sikh Canadians play across various sectors, politics, business, education and the arts.
I’d also like to recognize and express my gratitude for their significant community service. At a time when many British Columbians are struggling with the cost of everyday life, their generosity has benefited countless families in every corner of our province.
Throughout this month, let us commit to learning more about Sikh history and culture. By engaging more deeply and supporting the values of diversity and inclusivity, we do more than honour the Sikh community. We strengthen the bonds that unite us as British Columbians.
As legislators, it’s crucial that we help all British Columbians have a voice in this space. The more we learn, the more we can better represent them and their community’s needs.
NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIPS IN
HOUSING
SECTOR
M. Dykeman: As the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-profits, I have the privilege to meet and work with so many fantastic non-profits who work hard to deliver important services in our communities. These organizations oversee countless vital services that change lives in our province on a daily basis.
Today I want to highlight their work on housing. Non-profit providers are invaluable partners to our government in delivering safe and affordable housing in our province.
The challenges we face in this housing crisis are urgent and complex, and we need to take a forward-thinking approach to solving them. That means leaning on the skill and expertise of the non-profits, who know their communities best. Whether it’s through the community housing fund, HousingHub, BC Builds or otherwise, I am so grateful for our amazing non-profit partners who step up with a vision and commitment to bring affordable housing to fruition as part of our government strategy to build thousands of affordable, sustainable homes for people across the province.
I had the opportunity to be part of an opening of one such project last week in the township of Langley. Thanks to our partnership with the Christian Life Assembly Housing Society, families, seniors and individuals in the Langley region will soon be moving into 98 affordable rental homes at Jennie Gaglardi Place. This project is a much-welcomed addition to the township of Langley, ensuring people with low and moderate incomes aren’t forced to move away from the community that they love. We are so fortunate to have such fantastic partners in our province.
Thank you to all of the non-profits throughout British Columbia for their work each and every day to deliver safe and affordable housing options to people in British Columbia. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to work with you to protect and expand non-profit, non-market and co-op housing in British Columbia.
Would the House please join me in thanking the non-profits for the important work that they do to provide housing for British Columbians.
KIDNEY HEALTH AWARENESS
J. Sturdy: As many of us will know, March was Kidney Health Month, a month dedicated to raising awareness about kidney health in our communities. In March, Kidney Foundation volunteers met with many MLAs to share their important kidney health information and provide resources for their constituency offices.
I had the opportunity to catch up with two of my constituents and longtime friends, Alexis and Rob MacKay-Dunn, whose world was turned upside down with Ali’s surprise diagnosis of kidney disease in August 2018. An otherwise active and completely healthy newlywed, Ali had been quietly living with kidney disease for an indeterminate amount of time, only to find out about her illness during a routine pregnancy screening.
As I learned, when the kidneys are working well, it’s easy to take them for granted. Your kidneys are vital organs that are essential for survival. When your kidneys fail, the options are limited and challenging for individuals and families. They’re faced with highly disruptive dialysis or a life-saving transplant because there is no cure.
Kidney disease is much more prevalent than you may think. One in ten British Columbians is living with kidney disease, and surprisingly, 45 percent of those patients are under 45.
As I learned, screening and early detection are critical to protecting the health of your kidneys. Many people don’t even know they’re living with kidney disease until it’s too late. In fact, you can be like Alexis and lose up to 80 percent of your kidney function and not even know it because there are no visible symptoms. Fortunately, the Kidney Foundation has numerous programs to help improve the quality of life and meet the diverse needs of those living with kidney disease and their families, including the newly launched Kidney Wellness Hub.
Please join me, the Kidney Foundation, Alexis and Rob in urging all British Columbians to learn more about your kidneys, including asking your doctor for a routine screening at your next checkup.
Learn more at kidney.ca.
RENTERS TAX CREDIT
S. Chandra Herbert: I remember it very clearly. I was in a meeting a couple of weeks ago in my constituency in the West End, and a senior loudly shouted: “What? I can get $400?” I said: “Yes, you can.” He said: “No. You’ve got to be kidding me.” I said: “Yes, you can. Do you file your taxes?” Yes, he did.
“How much do you make?” He said: “I don’t know, under $600,000.” I laughed, and I said: “Under 600,000?” He said: “Just kidding. You politicians make all sorts of money. I make maybe $40,000 in a good year” — he still works a bit — “more likely around $30,000.” I said: “Well, you qualify.”
He said: “What do you mean I qualify?” I said: “For the renters tax credit.” He said: “I’ve never heard of that.” I said: “Well, do you file your own taxes?” He said: “Yeah, I do. I never saw a credit for that.” I said: “Well, you’ve got to look at the B.C. tax credit. You’ve got to look at form BC479, fill it out, put down your rent amounts, put down your income, and you should be fine.”
Since that time, I’ve talked to lots of folks in my community, and they don’t know about the renters tax credit. Politicians often want credit for what they do, but I don’t think we’ve done a good job of selling the renters tax credit so folks understand that they actually get that money. They don’t have to do anything aside from filing their taxes and putting in the renters tax credit information there.
Now, if they make under $80,000, it’s not the same $400, but they will be making money as well. Eighty percent of renters qualify for that tax credit.
Banning renovictions, the fixed-term tenancy, the geographic area increase clause, holding rent to inflation or below, instead of what could have been a 7 percent rent increase this year, adding on the renters tax credit are good-news things for renters.
I want every renter to know that they qualify if they are making under $80,000 a year net for their family. They will get that tax credit. They deserve it. Renters deserve that support. I’m glad they’re getting it.
Oral Questions
CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING
S. Bond: While other Premiers, including Manitoba’s NDP Premier Wab Kinew, fought against the carbon tax hike, this Premier and his government doubled down.
Yesterday the NDP hiked the carbon tax in British Columbia by 23 percent in a cruel April Fools’ joke, making the cost of gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. In much of B.C. today, gas prices are well over $2 a litre, the highest gas price and gas taxes in North America. No wonder thousands of families are choosing to leave British Columbia.
With families unable to afford basic necessities, why does the Premier insist on punishing people with even higher costs for gas and groceries?
Hon. D. Eby: We know a lot of British Columbians are struggling with affordability right now, which is why everything from our budget this year…. But really, from the first days of our government we’ve taken action to support them with costs, including the costs of driving.
We were the government that took the opposition’s tolls off the bridges. We are the government that reduced ICBC rates by 20 percent and provided ICBC rebates to people when we fixed the mess that they left behind. We are the government that brought in subsidized child care, daycare, so that families can afford to actually go to work. And we’re going to continue to do that important work.
The member surprises me because she was a very vocal advocate for the carbon tax. I think that all British Columbians see the forest fires, the drought, the impacts on farmers, on our province right now, and they want a government that will continue to take action on climate change. That’s why, although there is a federally mandated carbon tax increase, we’re refunding the full amount back, plus more, to British Columbians to support them with affordability.
The member herself said to News 1130: “I think people do want to see environmental leadership in the province, and obviously the carbon tax is one of the things where British Columbia led.” That was the member herself that said that. We could do that for member after member on the other side of the House about the carbon tax.
The Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, nice try, to the Premier of British Columbia.
Let’s be clear about this. The carbon tax we introduced was revenue-neutral, with every cent being returned to British Columbians, something that isn’t happening under this Premier’s watch.
What the Premier has managed to do, actually, when you think about it, is unite Premiers of every single political stripe across the country in opposing the increase. Whether they’re NDP, Conservative or Liberal, guess what. They all are fighting the carbon tax. Not this Premier.
What has this government done? They have forced over 200,000 British Columbians to use a food bank every single month. Over the next three years, $9 billion will be collected by this Premier from British Columbians, and only a third of that will be returned to them.
Families are struggling in this province. The Premier knows it. He is out of touch. By increasing the costly carbon tax, he will continue to do that by over 30 cents up until 2030. Thirty cents a litre by 2030.
As families in British Columbia continue to struggle, why is the Premier forcing them to pay higher prices for gas, for groceries and home heating?
Hon. D. Eby: Our government definitely recognizes that British Columbians are struggling right now. That’s why our focus from day one has been about reducing costs for British Columbians. In fact, just this week British Columbians opening their hydro bills will see a $100 credit supporting them with the cost of electricity.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Eby: The opposition scoffs because they never did that. They didn’t support British Columbians with the costs that they faced. Our government has done that since day one.
Now, I realize that the members across the way have completely changed their position on this issue, under pressure from the Conservative Party.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members. Members.
Hon. D. Eby: Okay. Well, here. December 2022, the Leader of the Opposition: “I want us to be the leader on climate that we were when Gordon Campbell and our government brought in North America’s first…carbon tax.” September 2023, the Leader of the Opposition, “If you want people to change behaviour, you put a cost to it, and you ask them to consider shifting their behaviour,” talking about the carbon tax.
Now, the member suggests that this was a revenue-neutral plan. We all know what they did with the money. They gave a massive tax cut to corporations.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Shhh, Members.
Hon. D. Eby: They didn’t send it back to British Columbians like we are. They gave a $450 million annual tax cut to big corporations in the province.
R. Merrifield: This government seems convinced to take tax dollars and give rebate pennies.
What this Premier, in all of his answers so far, fails to realize is that every single dollar on tax, on groceries, on heating is a direct hit to those that are barely hanging on — people like Pamela, a 64-year-old woman grappling with health issues and currently living in a travel trailer outside of Kelowna. She says: “We pay, pay, pay, but we get no rebates. The middle class are going to be financially driven to food banks or mortgage default.”
Why does the Premier continue to pile on pain and ignore people like Pamela?
Hon. G. Heyman: Everything this government has done since 2017 has been for people.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Shhh, Members.
The minister will continue.
Hon. G. Heyman: Whether it’s cutting child care costs by two-thirds, whether it’s reducing ICBC rates by hundreds of dollars, whether it’s reversing and holding steady B.C. Hydro rates as opposed to the plan those on the other side had when they were in government, which was to drive them up through the roof.…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: We’ve paid attention to the needs of people. This budget pays attention to the needs of people. Every penny in yesterday’s carbon tax increase is going back to people, low- and middle-income people, through the climate action tax credit.
The Speaker: Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.
R. Merrifield: Well, it’s interesting that the minister talks about child care when we have 10,600 less spaces today than we did in 2019. Or ICBC and lessening rates. Well, we actually have jacked-up rates of 40 percent that then they gave back a pittance to and lowered by 25. This NDP government…. Only this NDP government could attempt to justify…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
R. Merrifield: …a 23 percent tax increase that no one wants, no one can afford and is deepening the cost-of-living crisis in what is already Canada’s most expensive province to live in.
A retired teacher wrote to me to say: “I don’t know anyone who has received a carbon tax credit. I’m actually being hit with a tax that I cannot in any way minimize. I’m essentially screwed.” The carbon tax will gouge $9 billion from British Columbians over the next three years with only a fraction returned through rebates.
When will the Premier stop his relentless assault on affordability that is making the NDP’s cost-of-living crisis worse?
Hon. G. Heyman: The only relentless assault from those on this side of the House is on unaffordability, unaffordability that we take on every single day.
In this year’s budget, we’re putting up to $500 back in people’s pockets through the new B.C. family benefit bonus. So 25 percent more families will benefit. We’re taking every penny of the carbon tax increase and putting it to low- and middle-income people…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
The minister will continue.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
If we do want to talk about unaffordability, if we do want to talk about a tax on British Columbians, let’s look at the record of the Leader of the Opposition. Tax cuts for the top 2 percent of British Columbians, Tax hikes for the top 2 percent of British Columbians…. And $450 million in tax cuts to big business and calling it revenue neutrality.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Members will come to order.
Members, please.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, tax cuts for the top 2 percent, tax cuts for big business, ICBC rates hiked 11 percent for British Columbians, Medical Services Plan premiums by 10 percent and hydro rates that were going through the roof so they could raid B.C. Hydro and call it a balanced budget.
We’ve changed that. We are going to continue to change that. They don’t like it, I get it.
CARBON OFFSETS AND GOVERNMENT
POLICIES ON FOSSIL FUEL
INDUSTRY
S. Furstenau: I cannot think of a group that could be happier about this debate in here over whether we put a price on carbon pollution than the oil and gas industry, which last year, in Canada alone, took $70 billion in profits from the people of Canada — $70 billion in profits. Why in the world are we not talking about that?
Political conversations around the carbon tax and rebate have distracted us from the big picture. If we want to meet our climate goals, B.C.’s biggest polluters need to pay their fair share. Research shows that industrial carbon pricing reduces emissions more than consumer pricing, but questions remain around the details of B.C.’s new output-based pricing system, which allows B.C.’s biggest polluters to use offsets and credits for a portion of their emissions. However, research has found that carbon offsets are often unreliable and overcount emissions reductions.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. How will this government guarantee that their carbon offsets are effective and that regulations for industry ensure big polluters pay their fair share?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question because it points out important measures that this government has taken to ensure that when offsets are allowed, as with the new Forest Carbon Offset Protocol 2, we ensure that they meet the highest international standards. That means they must be additional. That means they must not be double-counted. And that means that they will stand up to international standards.
Those are the standards that we will apply to offsets used under the output-based pricing system. We have ensured that we set an output-based pricing system that retains an important price signal for industry while ensuring that industry survives to implement the emission reductions and employ British Columbians.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: The price signal that this government has given to the oil and gas industry is that they will continue to give them tax cuts and subsidies. Tax cuts and subsidies for the biggest polluters mean less funding for initiatives that lower emissions and address the cost of living.
At least $5.34 billion in provincial subsidies are planned for LNG Canada. Meanwhile, this year’s budget only includes $1.3 billion in new spending for climate-related initiatives. Experts predict a highly uncertain future for profitability of B.C.’s LNG industry, but this government continues to subsidize and expand the industry.
Charging polluters their fair share would mean more money for transit, renewables and people in B.C., all of which would create jobs, improve air quality and promote long-term affordability by reducing reliance on polluting fossil fuels.
This government falls short on climate spending and continues to subsidize large polluters, two steps both in the wrong direction.
Again to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, can he explain why this government continues to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, an industry that brought in $70 billion in profits, just in Canada in 2022?
Hon. G. Heyman: As I assume the Leader of the Third Party knows, we have committed to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. We started with the largest single fossil fuel subsidy, the deep-well royalty credit. We’re continuing to ensure that we invest in renewables, that we encourage outside investment in alternate forms of clean energy.
We are making the transition. We are working on it.
We have a clean energy and major projects office. We have a suite of policies, including one that, apparently, the member missed an announcement of last Thursday that will ensure that we hit our climate targets for the oil and gas sector and support the transition to clean, renewable energy for British Columbians and also those to whom we can export both technologies and product.
CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING
B. Banman: As we all know, yesterday was April Fools’ Day, and this NDP Premier played a joke on all British Columbians, because on April 1, he raised the carbon tax again.
Last fall B.C. Conservatives spoke about the fact that this NDP carbon tax is taking two chickens out of every pot every time British Columbians fill up their tank. Now we have two chickens who refuse to axe the tax and spike the hike — this NDP Premier and his boss in Ottawa, Justin Trudeau.
There is a movement across this country and the province. People are hanging by a thread. They can’t afford gas. They can’t afford heating. They can’t afford groceries for their families. They’re demanding that this carbon tax be eliminated and, to their credit, almost every single other Premier in Canada has joined them in calling for the carbon tax to be eliminated.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
B. Banman: But here in B.C., this unelected Premier is the holdout.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Let’s hear…. Members.
B. Banman: My question to the Premier: why does he insist on being the only provincial leader that wants to increase the cost for citizens, rather than making life affordable for everyday, hard-working British Columbians by axing the tax and spiking this hike?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Did you hear the question?
Minister.
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, if we’re going to talk about hard-working British Columbians who are struggling to survive, perhaps the members of the Conservative Party, who sit on the other side of the House, might want to think back to all the different measures this government introduced — on housing, on MSP, on child care, on family benefits — that they opposed. Every single time there was an opportunity to make life more affordable for British Columbians, they said no.
But they found a new mantra. They think three simple words will convince British Columbians that they are on their side.
We know that British Columbians see the B.C. family benefit. They see a two-thirds reduction in child care costs. They remember we took the toll off bridges. They know that climate change affects them, not only in terms of their lives and their children’s future but in the pocketbook, when wildfires, droughts and floods threaten their communities, and then they have to pay insurance rates.
The only game of chicken going on here is between the Conservatives and the official opposition to see who can retreat from climate action fastest.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
B. Banman: We know the carbon tax just doesn’t artificially inflate the price of fuel. It raises the cost of absolutely everything, from the farmer who picks the food, to the trucker who transports the food, to the grocery stores that sell the food. There is a carbon tax inflating the cost of everything in this province.
It’s common sense, which is something that does not seem to exist in the Premier’s office. Taxing people into poverty won’t change the weather.
Let me speak plainly.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
B. Banman: My question is to the Premier. The carbon tax scam is over. The people are waking up, and they want their money back. Will you listen to the people of this province, or will they have to throw you and your baloney party out of office before you actually get the message?
Hon. G. Heyman: As the member should know, although I am sure the member will not say it publicly, every cent of yesterday’s carbon tax increase is going back to low- and middle-income British Columbians through the climate action tax credit.
As the member should also know, our government is determined to support farmers and ranchers right now. Right now farmers are eligible for PST exemptions for heat, for natural gas, for fuel oil, for tractors, for combines, for incubators and more.
To the member opposite, who should know this, B.C. farmers can also claim a point-of-sale carbon tax and motor fuel tax exemption on coloured gasoline and coloured fuel.
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND REGULATION OF
ILLICIT DRUG USE
T. Stone: The NDP’s reckless decriminalization of hard drugs has unleashed chaos and a public safety crisis.
Once safe public spaces like Tim Hortons, public transit and even hospitals are now hot spots for open drug use. This chaos is the direct result of the NDP’s total neglect when they plunged ahead with their decriminalization experiment. Yet all we hear is feigned outrage from the guy responsible, the Public Safety Minister, declaring it “absolutely outrageous,” “absolutely frustrating” and “just disgusting.”
What’s missing from the NDP and from this minister is action to fix this crisis.
The question to the Premier is this. Since it’s this NDP Premier that created this mess, when will he scrap his dangerous and failed experiment to decriminalize hard drugs here in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.
The member will know that using drugs in a Tim Hortons is not legal. It’s illegal. It’s unacceptable and has absolutely nothing to do with decriminalization. It has everything to do with people deciding that that’s what they want to do. And guess what. They can be arrested. They can be hauled out of there, as they should be.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
That’s why we’ve got our safer communities action plan. That’s why we’ve given additional resources to police to be able to combat and fight drug trafficking in this province. That’s what we’re going to continue to do because we know that keeping streets and communities safe is a public priority.
It’s why we’ve made significant investments in policing, hiring more than 256 RCMP officers in small, rural communities across this province, so that we’ve also got more officers in terms of specialty teams. It’s why we’ve given police additional resources in terms of mental health resources, to be able to deal with mental health cases.
Let’s be clear. If someone uses drugs in a Tim Hortons, they’re going to be arrested, and they’re going to be hauled out. They should be charged, and that’s what we’re going to make sure happens.
The Speaker: House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: There is exactly what I said. There’s the feigned outrage that we hear over and over again from this minister.
The reality is this: these are not isolated incidents anymore. These are now the new normal for public spaces and for businesses as a direct result of the reckless policy choices of this NDP government.
It’s this NDP Premier who made the deliberate policy choice to send British Columbians careening down the path of decriminalized drugs like heroin, cocaine and fentanyl. Daily, we see open drug use in restaurants, like Tim Hortons, brazen shootings in Vancouver and more deadly stabbings, like the one in Victoria on the recent weekend.
Instead of expressing feigned outrage, why won’t this NDP Premier do the right thing and end his failed and reckless decriminalization of hard drugs in British Columbia today?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The only feigned outrage is the new normal from the other side of the House, which every day wants to reject the fact that it supported decriminalization, because every day that side of the House sees those two members of the B.C. Conservative Party eating their lunch, their dinner and their supper, poll after poll after poll. We are going to….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh. Minister has the floor.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member. Member for Abbotsford South. It’s not funny.
Please continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
All of us in this House are concerned about criminal activity, whether it’s by drug dealers, those who prey on the unfortunate. That’s why we’ve worked with communities. That’s why we’re seeking an injunction so that we can regulate where drug use takes place. Because we can regulate tobacco use; we can regulate cannabis use; we can regulate alcohol. We also believe that we should be able to regulate where people use illicit substances.
And guess what. Tim Hortons is not one of them. A business is not one of them, and we will do everything we can to ensure that our communities are kept safe.
INCENTIVE PAYMENTS BY
PHARMACIES TO
CLIENTS
T. Halford: Just as the NDP’s reckless decriminalization is creating chaos, investigative journalists have uncovered a shocking kickback scheme by predatory pharmacies. These pharmacies have been exposed for paying cash incentives to vulnerable patients with substance use disorders, often without correctly dispensing the drugs.
This illegal kickback not only fuels more addiction and diversion, it is yet another blatant example of the NDP government’s failure in oversight and failure in enforcement.
How long will this Premier allow these egregious abuses to continue under his watch, which are endangering lives and exploiting the vulnerable for profit?
Hon. A. Dix: The position of the government is clear. This isn’t allowed. It shouldn’t be allowed, and the appropriate authorities are taking action. We don’t announce investigations. We announce the results of investigations.
I can assure everybody that if anyone thinks that this is acceptable or should be allowed, they are incorrect. Action will be taken, and action is being taken.
CLEANBC GO ELECTRIC PROGRAM
OPERATIONS AND GRANT
APPROVALS
P. Milobar: Well, it’s one kickback scheme to another with this government. Let’s look at what’s happened with the 23 percent increase in carbon tax and how this government is spending those carbon tax funds.
Hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars, through carbon tax, is going into the CleanBC go electric program. A subset of that program, the ARC program, is now under fire for a kickback scheme.
The NDP-appointed consultants, overseeing the grant approvals, are demanding a 20 percent success fee from applicants for advisory services. These are the same people that actually decide who actually gets the money. Companies that reject the unethical demands are finding that their applications are rejected, with strong encouragement to reapply through the adjudicators for the success fee attached.
Will the Premier commit to an independent investigation to root out the kickbacks and corruption in his cost B.C. grant programs?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and for raising the programs that our government is using to support the switch from fossil fuels to B.C.’s clean electricity.
This is something that British Columbians have said over and over that they want to do. They’re showing us that by their actions. They’re making the switch to electric heat pumps to heat their homes — more comfortable heating, lower pollution.
They are making the switch in their vehicles. But we know it’s not just light-duty vehicles where we need to see these changes. It’s in medium- and heavy-duty spaces, and we’re seeing the transition in trucking, for example, looking at the excellent hydrogen technologies that are being developed here in British Columbia so that we can make these changes.
A very important part of this technology development, of course, is supporting companies, innovators, here in British Columbia in the work that they’re doing to bring these technologies alive — to be able to prove them, to pilot them, to scale them up and to commercialize them. It’s this work that we do together that’s going to see the transition from fossil fuels into clean electricity. It’s a transition our government is fully behind, and we won’t stop.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
The Speaker: Members, I have the honour of presenting the report from the Auditor General of British Columbia, B.C.’s Toxic Drug Crisis: Implementation of Harm Reduction Programs.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading on Bill 11, Vancouver Charter Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.
In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 11 — VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
Hon. A. Kang: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
I’m pleased to rise today in the House to speak to this important legislation. I’m honoured, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to be tabling this bill in the House.
Bill 11, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2024, includes the important goals of recognizing First Nations alongside other levels of government that qualify for exemption from two of the city of Vancouver’s development cost charges for social housing projects. To achieve this goal, Bill 11 proposes amendments to the Vancouver Charter. The proposed legislation responds to a specific request made by the city of Vancouver and supports provincial priorities alongside and related to reconciliation and affordable housing supply.
Authorized under the Vancouver Charter, a development cost levy is a charge that the city can impose on a property developer to fund specific city infrastructure, including parks, child care facilities, replacement housing and engineering infrastructure such as water and roads. Currently, the city is authorized to exempt social housing projects from this levy where the land is owned by the federal or provincial government, the city of Vancouver or a non-profit organization.
It is important to clarify that development cost charges do not apply on reserve lands within the city of Vancouver. This proposal relates specifically to privately held lands owned by First Nations.
This legislation also provides a parallel amendment to the Vancouver Charter’s new amenity cost charge, the ACC provision. ACCs were introduced by Bill 46 in fall 2023. The proposed amendments would exempt First Nations from ACCs for social housing projects.
Exempting First Nations from the development cost charges for social housing projects in Vancouver, alongside other levels of government, is a change that supports reconciliation. First Nations have potential to be a significant supplier of housing. Accelerating housing supply is a shared priority and would support the implementation of B.C.’s Homes for People plan, specifically the pillar of delivering better and more affordable homes.
Our government is listening to the needs and requests of local communities. This amendment supports reconciliation efforts by ensuring that First Nations in B.C. are recognized as governments in the legislation alongside other levels of government, exempt from the development cost levy and the amenity cost charges for social housing projects built in Vancouver. The proposed amendment in Bill 11 is supported by the city of Vancouver.
With that, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you and all the members of this House. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the continued debate today on second reading of this bill.
D. Ashton: To the minister: nice to see you, as always.
It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak to Bill 11. My understanding is this bill amends the Vancouver Charter to extend exemptions from development cost levies and amenity cost charges to First Nations and First Nations corporations for social housing projects on their lands. It aligns them, First Nations, with existing exemptions that other government entities and non-profit organizations have.
We all realize that if you want to make housing more affordable, you need to make it less expensive, especially in these days that we’re all facing. Unfortunately, after seven years of adding additional red tape and government bureaucracy, we desperately need to add to our housing supply, and not only in Vancouver. We need to do it throughout the entire province. But today we are speaking about the Vancouver Charter and Vancouver area.
We support increasing housing supply and are glad to see some of the admissions by the government that taxes and DC charges are a barrier to housing. However, this admission begs the question of why we are not looking at additional taxation cutting across the board of the entire province to make a difference.
Also, the additional taxes and fees that have come in with the current government, including additional charges of carbon tax, are making everything more expensive these days through all of British Columbia. However, we welcome this change, and we are ready to speed the process along so that it can become law.
Before I sit down, as a child growing up in a family that was involved in retail…. I remember building my first house. In 1983, I started it. I was paying 22½, if I remember correctly, interest on a construction loan. Unfortunately, I ended up having to sell the home because interest kept on marching along.
I was raised, as I said, to really respect inflationary means, regulation means and also taxation means. I think that’s something that we all…. I mean the entirety of this House. We have to take a look. We all want to put roofs over people and give them the opportunity of home ownership.
That is their largest investment in their life. Even if they’re renting, it’s still an investment for them to be able to stick money away on the side for their future. I just hope that we all can collectively work towards ensuring that people have that opportunity.
Madam Chair, thank you very much, and to the minister, I look for the opportunity during the committee stage on the bill.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Municipal Affairs, if you’d like to close debate.
Hon. A. Kang: I thank the member for Penticton for his remarks. I look forward to continued discussion and debate on Bill 11.
With that, I move second reading.
Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 11, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2024.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Kang: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 11, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading of Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.
BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COST
RECOVERY ACT
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act provides a generally applicable, litigation-based mechanism for government to recover health care costs and public health–related expenditures from wrongdoers.
This new act follows the model of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act by creating a statutory tort and providing government with the direct action to recover the costs of health care benefits from wrongdoers who have committed health-related wrongs. The two existing acts have been vigorously tested in courts, and government has either successfully defended them or refined them to ensure their validity and success.
This new, generally applicable and wide-ranging act will build on the success of those acts to ensure wrongdoers can be held to account. The financial burden of many wrongdoers has too often been paid for by the province. With this new act, the government will be able to hold wrongdoers accountable and ensure that the financial burden is placed on the wrongdoer and not the province.
This act should encourage those who would prioritize profit over the health and well-being of people living in British Columbia to reconsider this approach. Unlike the tobacco and opioid acts, which focus on specific wrongdoings related to tobacco and opioid products, respectively, this new act is generally applicable and wide-ranging to any wrongdoer that causes or contributes to disease, injury or illness or the risk of disease, injury or illness.
A health-related wrong is defined broadly as a breach of a duty or obligation owed to people living in British Columbia or a tort. This broad definition helps ensure that wrongdoers — all wrongdoers, regardless of if they are individuals, corporations or other entities — can be held fully accountable for their conduct. In addition, it is flexible and will adopt duties and obligations that are imposed in the future and torts that have yet to be created by the courts.
With this act, government will be able to make claims in cases where there is a risk of disease, injury or illness and not just in cases where harms materialize. This is important, as government can incur significant costs when addressing the risks before they turn into disease, injury or illness. Government will be able to claim for those costs that have already been incurred and for those health care benefits that are reasonably expected to be incurred in the future.
It is for this reason that the recoverable costs are broadly defined to capture all of government expenditures that are incurred when responding to a disease, injury or illness caused by a wrongdoer. These costs can include health care costs like doctor appointments and hospital treatments but can also include the costs of proactive and preventative measures that are used to address the risk of disease, injury or illness. This can include things like educational campaigns, medical monitoring and cessation programs.
Kids and young people are often the most vulnerable. Therefore, it is important that the costs incurred by schools when they respond to wrongdoings caused by disease, injury or illness are also included.
The Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act contains many procedural features from the tobacco and opioid acts that allow government to prove claims for costs of health care benefits accurately and enable litigation to proceed efficiently while preserving fairness. Claims can be brought on an aggregate basis to recover government costs at a population level, not just in relation to individuals.
Under this new act, statistical and research-based information can also be used as evidence to prove liability, causation and the amount owed by the wrongdoer. It also provides for important presumptions of causation of disease, injury or illness that will facilitate findings of liability in complex situations where a defendant has committed a wrong that creates a risk of disease, injury or illness. This shifts the burden to defendants to prove that they did not cause disease, illness or injury to people in British Columbia.
This new act further provides for a multi-Crown class action, as was innovated in the opioid legislation, where the government of British Columbia can lead a lawsuit on behalf of the federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada.
B.C. has been a leader in tobacco and opioid litigation and intends to continue to lead the way in protecting the health of those living in British Columbia with this new act.
M. Lee: Madam Speaker, I will be the designated speaker on this bill for the official opposition, the B.C. United caucus. Given the Attorney General’s pace under which her second reading speech was provided, I think it’s important that we take the time in this chamber to understand the broad scope of this bill, Bill 12.
I know that when this bill was first presented by the Premier and the Attorney General, it was framed in a way to deal with some of the social harms that we see from social media. That certainly is a concern that we all share in this House, whether it is the online exploitation of young children or teenagers, through sextortion….
Of course we know the very unfortunate and tragic outcome result for the Prince George boy, Carson Cleland. There have certainly been others that have been subject to online bullying and other challenges under social media that we know these platforms need correct and appropriate constraints around, by governments.
This is the reason why, as I understand it, the federal government has introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. There’s been a lot of dialogue that I see, considerations around that bill. But certainly as we look at the importance of some of the efforts under that bill to regulate the Internet space, particularly when it comes to the impact on young people and children….
This bill, Bill 12, is not that. This bill is very broad and is not specific in the ways that we’ve seen under the previous bills by successive governments in this province — one to deal with cigarette smoking, the other to do with opioids. In both cases, there were specific industries, private actors, being regulated and addressed.
We have the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act which was dealt with in 2018, the second act. I did have the occasion, as the Attorney General critic back then, to work through that bill with the Premier as he was then the Attorney General. But I know that in the context of this bill, Bill 12, which is being presented here, there have been concerns raised.
There has been a letter provided by two dozen business organizations, including the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the Retail Council of Canada, ABLE-BC, B.C. craft brewers, British Columbia Hotel Association, rural liquor store advisory society, New Wave Wine Society, B.C. Craft Distillers Guild, COFI itself, Restaurants Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the B.C. Business Council itself, the Food Health Consumer Products of Canada, Tourism Association of B.C., the Canadian Beverage Association and the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association.
These are a number…. Well, there are also the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, of course; the chemistry industry association of B.C.; the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. I believe I’ve cited most of the organizations whose names are attached to this letter that was written to the Premier and the Attorney General, dated March 28.
This is a letter that came out just a few days ago, prior to this debate. If I’d had the opportunity, as I stood up in question period today at the end, before it ended…. I will ask the government to do what I was going to ask in question period today, in view of the concerns and the considerations expressed by these business organizations that their concerns need to be heard. They haven’t been heard by government. In fact, they haven’t been consulted. They haven’t been engaged.
This is a repeated pattern time and time again by this Premier and this NDP government: lack of consultation and lack of engagement. This is the reason why government purports to consult with British Columbians, puts out slide decks on engagegov.bc.ca and doesn’t tell anyone. It doesn’t actually consult. It doesn’t tell people, British Columbians, “You’re being consulted with,” and expects to be able to ram through legislation at the end of session, just like Bill 12 is being done today.
This has to stop. This is the reason why we’re causing so much division by this government, in this province, over issues like the Land Act amendments, which this government pulled back. This government said it was consulting British Columbians, but it didn’t tell people that. Concerns were raised, then government replaced that slide deck with another slide deck, but it didn’t tell British Columbians, again, that it had replaced a new slide deck. This is the kind of government we deal with.
We’ve said, time and time again in this House, that it has been known to be and is regarded as the most secretive government in the country. Here we have, on Bill 12, another example, signed by over two dozen of the business associations, on behalf of their collective memberships in this province. They have not been consulted about the far-ranging impacts of this bill.
The reasons for those concerns, as the Attorney General just spoke to, in part…. For example, in her second reading speech, which I listened to as closely as I could, given the pace, I did hear the word “flexible.” Certainly, I will have the opportunity at committee stage, with other members of the B.C. United opposition caucus, to talk about the future duties, the future obligations, on companies that are the target of this bill in the future.
That means — under this “broad” and “flexible,” in the words of the Attorney General — the flexibility basically gives any obligation to be imposed on private actors, companies in our province, new obligations and new duties that will fall under this bill. These are obligations and duties that are not even defined yet.
We know, from what has been tabled in Bill 12, that the bill applies to any product, good, service or by-product, which means that this bill would create liability for almost any business operating in or connected to our province.
We’re not talking just about the social media platforms, the online harms that we’ve seen for our children and others, including to their mental health, in our province. In fact, if they were talking about that, I think the bill falls short in that too, because it’s so general in nature that it doesn’t get to the specific harms in a way that it ought to, in the way that the federal legislation gets to, Bill C-63.
On one hand, the government presents a bill, and this is the way it was reported in the media. This is how the media thought it was being presented: it would allow the government to sue for health-related costs over damages by companies like social media giants and energy drink manufacturers whose products could cause harm.
I certainly know those of us who had the opportunity to study law, such as myself and the Attorney General and the Premier and the member for Abbotsford West and the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, and there are others, I’m sure, in this House that I’ve missed — of course, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation himself, as a former law professor at the University of Victoria law school, where I went to school — will have fond memories of torts class. We will, obviously, get into that detail at committee stage on Bill 12.
There is a whole set of obligations, duties and liabilities that is there at common law, when we’re talking about, for example, this reference to energy drink manufacturers whose products could cause harm. If that’s the target of this legislation, then I think this government should say so. We should be specific.
We should understand the focus of this bill, as has been previously said, including under former governments in this province, when we’re talking about cigarettes and opioids themselves. These are the two examples, as the Attorney General referred to in her second reading speech, as we understand it, of course. This third piece of legislation, Bill 12, which is being introduced, is built upon the approaches that are set out in those two acts, but there are big differences.
The first one I’m pointing out is the fact that it is not targeted. It’s not specific. It’s not specific to specific industries. It is broad and general in nature. How product is defined sweeps in any product, good or service or by-product. This is the reason why the associations representing businesses in our province are asking the question: “Do you think government ought to talk to the people who are going to be most impacted by this?”
Again, I appreciate the intention of the bill. I think we have to define the intention. We have to define the impact. We have to define the consequences of the bill. This is the reason why these associations have stepped forward, put it in writing and asked the Premier and the Attorney General to pause consideration of this bill.
I urge this government to consider this letter. I expect that by now the Premier and the Attorney General are aware of this letter. If they aren’t, they can certainly let myself know or our House Leader or others with the official opposition. We’re happy to provide a copy of this letter to you, as we have a copy of this letter. I would expect that it’s being widely distributed as well.
If I check that, I will see that it is. It’s been copied and sent to every single MLA in this Legislative Assembly, all 87 of us. So all of us in this chamber — and I see my colleague here nodding his head — have received a copy of this letter.
You are fully aware, and I would hope that you’ll hear from the local chapters, including with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, in your constituencies about the concerns about this bill.
I will say that I mention, as well, in terms of Bill 12, that it also relates to a business operating in or connected to British Columbia. This is where we will get into, as well, the concerns around the extraterritorial nature of this bill, jurisdictionally. It’s the reason why you would expect our federal government to be addressing the concern the Premier and the Attorney General have relating to online social media platforms. That’s what Bill C-63 does in a more specific, detailed way and one that the federal House of Commons is reviewing — over 83 pages of legislation.
This bill is a very broad, ill-defined bill itself, which doesn’t get nearly to the same level of specificity, not just in terms of online platforms but just the nature of the wording itself. This is where we get into businesses that are connected to B.C., businesses that conduct commerce and business with British Columbia.
As this government presents this Bill 12, in the face of all the affordability challenges we see in this province — the rising costs; the increase in immigration, at least in other parts of the country — there are a lot of concerns about the future economic platform of our province. This is just another measure, in addition to the 32 new and increased taxes this government has brought forward in the last 7½ years, that makes this province, potentially, less competitive.
This is the reason why we need to understand this bill. Not just British Columbia businesses will have additional costs, whether it’s compliance or liability risks associated with this bill, but potentially, of course, it leads to a lack and a withdrawal of investment in B.C.-based companies and also the desire of how companies want to conduct business in this province.
It presents a very unlevel playing field in our country. This is the reason why we need to be clear about the harms that we’re trying to address.
If we’re trying to address harmful content, considering and protecting the physical and mental health of children and young people and others, to hold online platforms accountable and restrict any form of harmful content in social media, we need a federal bill to do that. That’s the reason why the federal government has put that forward. I can see why business associations do recognize the importance of dealing with the online environment, but they question, as I do, the broad and undefined scope of this bill.
Another example is that the bill itself doesn’t just apply to the product or the service that may cause or may contribute to the disease, injury or illness, but it also applies to any product or service that contributes to even the risk of disease, injury or illness, without any clear criteria for determining these risks or costs.
This is what I mean about the dangers of a bill that hasn’t been thoroughly consulted and engaged upon with many stakeholders, including business stakeholders, and has terms in it that are not defined. When you sweep in risks, this grossly enlarges the scope of this bill. When you’re doing that, and you’re not defining risk or setting out clear factors to determine what those risks are, you’re setting up a framework for business, any company or private actor that might be affected by this bill, to be operating in an uncertain regulatory environment.
We’ve seen, under this government, the continued expansion of government overreach. We’ve seen that with the engineers. We’ve seen that with health care professionals. And I know it’s still coming with legal professionals. This is the regulatory environment that this government has been building for the last seven years.
I’ve talked in this House repeatedly about the concerns around independence, certainly as it comes to the legal profession, and I assume I’ll have that opportunity again when the government presents legislation on it. But when we’re talking about regulations here to deal with the harms that are not well-defined in this bill, and it does it in a way that is not defined, you have to question what the approach of this government is, because it’s creating a regulatory environment that is going to make it very problematic for businesses to operate when it’s not well-defined.
How can a board properly assess their risk exposure? And I say that because the bill does provide for joint and several liability for the directors of a company, under clause 13 of the bill. I appreciate that there’s a similar provision under the opioid legislation.
This is where the bills need to be considered in context. When you have an undefined provision that deals with risk, with no determining factors or clear criteria, and you’re asking directors of companies to take on joint and several liability for the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by the health-related wrong…. These are the words in the bill itself.
“Caused or contributed to by the health-related wrong….” Well, causation is one thing. Contribution, clearly, is another. Having been a lawyer for 20 years advising directors and officers in one area of the law that I practice, in a big focus for my practice on corporate governance, I think you’d have to have serious questions about what company boards and directors are signing up for under this bill.
Now, I appreciate that there’s a due diligence defence of some sort that’s spelled out in subclause 13(3). But it’s hard and challenging to match up the risk when it’s not well-defined. It’s one thing to talk about the linkage of a specific type of product. Again, we’ve talked about the general nature of how it’s defined here. The causation…. If there’s harm caused by that product…. It’s another thing to talk about risk or contribution.
This is where this bill, as we break it apart and start to understand it more…. I can see why business associations, with the benefit of some of the law firms in our province and our country who have been looking at this bill, raise alarm bells, raise serious concerns. These are just two that were referred to in this letter.
The bill also expands the type and scope of costs that the government could gain recovery for. The Attorney General referred to that in her well-paced second reading speech as well. When the Attorney General refers to, for example, education or preventative programs or services, that’s my recollection of her remarks.
So we’re not talking about just the actual cost to government, however that’s defined, from the cost to government for the health-related wrong. We’re talking about other expenditures, broadly defined, broadly referred to, made directly or through one or more agents — other intermediate bodies or education authorities — for programs, services, benefits or similar matters. The word “similar matters” is not a program. It’s not a service. It’s not a benefit. It’s something else.
This government is pursuing every single cost available to itself relating to an ill-defined set of products with risks that are not defined, and now we’re talking about a broad series of types of costs and expenditures that can be recoverable by government that are associated — similar matters associated. Well, now we’re talking about association. We’re not even talking about contribution or causation.
Again, on many levels, if I continue down one of the tracks, we’ve got causation. We’ve got contribution. Now we have association. Well, what’s association? A company is conducting business, producing products in this province. Is that association? Well, of course, the answer is no, because association is with the disease, the injury or illness. So it’s not just about association with the province. It’s some sort of association with disease, injury or illness.
We can get into this in terms of what a similar matter associated with disease would be in the health-related context, I suppose, if we’re talking again where the government perhaps should be. If they’re talking about online harms, we can talk about that. We could have debate in this chamber about what similar matters associated with disease related to online platforms are affecting the mental health or physical health of children.
That’s a debate we could probably be having at committee level, although I will say that I just imported some general terms from this bill, which are still challenging. But of course, we don’t have that opportunity because this bill does not limit the application to just the online environment or extreme energy drinks, if that’s another example.
I’m challenged here, because I’m trying to give examples to the House about the kinds of concerns this bill presents. With that, these are the kinds of concerns that industry and business have. Of course, if we’re now talking about all these other types of expenditures — which are not just programs, services or benefits, but they’re similar matters — business and other persons to whom this bill applies need to have a clear understanding about what the range of costs are that person affected by this bill would be exposed to or be responsible for.
Again, as a director of a private company that is trying to address and assess the way their business is currently being conducted in this province of British Columbia, with the range of products it produces, or services, and the types of impacts it might have…. It needs to have a clear understanding of exactly what kind of other expenditures, exposures, risks it’s taking on.
And again, the reason why this Bill 12 needs to be paused right now is because it has not had this level of scrutiny and review and engagement and consultation with the business community so that they can properly understand what I am demonstrating and trying to convey to the other members of this chamber: the unintended consequences and ill-defined consequences of this bill.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Seeing Mr. Speaker, would you like me to note the hour?
Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment of the debate.
M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
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. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT
AND CLIMATE READINESS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Parmar in the chair.
The committee met at 11:05 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.
On Vote 21: ministry operations, $79,047,000 (continued).
C. Oakes: Over the last few weeks, I spent time out in rural remote wilderness parts of the Cariboo riding, meeting with constituents and stakeholders as we prepare for this upcoming season, which, by all prediction, is going to be a challenging one.
In our rural communities, our volunteer fire departments play a critical role in the safety of our communities, specifically the more rural remote wilderness access you go.
I have two questions on that. The first is…. There are two sets of volunteer fire departments that we have in the Cariboo. We have those that are connected through the Cariboo regional district, and then we have departments that are called unincorporated volunteer fire departments, which sometimes are called fire brigades.
Two critical issues as we prepare for this upcoming season are, first, access to water, which is a critical issue. The second piece is access to roads.
On the first one, when I met with the Miocene volunteer fire department, they actually exist right on Dewar Lake yet cannot get any access to water on Dewar Lake. So they’ve requested for me to bring to the minister to say we have to have a broader approach, whether that’s through the access management strategy teams, that are happening on the ground right now, to connect both the volunteer fire departments to access to water in order to address any of the challenges that they have.
The first one was Dewar Lake and the Miocene volunteer fire department. The second one is that Wildwood volunteer fire department needs access to Minton Lake in order to access water. I probably could say that most of our volunteer fire departments are looking at that right now. But maybe we’ll stick with the Miocene fire department and access to Dewar Lake, and then I’ll ask the later question, because it’s about access.
Hon. B. Ma: I want to start by thanking the member from Cariboo for the work that she is doing in meeting with her constituents ahead of what is — she’s right — likely to be a challenging wildfire and drought season.
Her question, I think, is an important one. I appreciate that she has brought up the Miocene volunteer fire department’s access to water on Dewar Lake. She has brought up the Wildwood volunteer fire department’s access to Minton Lake.
Volunteer fire departments and fire departments in general actually fall under Public Safety and Solicitor General. I’m not aware of the details of how they access water for fighting the structural fires.
What I can say, however, is that even during a drought situation, there are no water restrictions for the B.C. Wildfire Service to access water from lakes, and so forth. However, last year, we did hear from some communities who were worried about the B.C. Wildfire Service drawing water from certain water systems, and the B.C. Wildfire Service worked with those communities to ensure that the ecological sensitivities of various water systems were taken into account.
That’s about the extent that I can offer in terms of water access. I do recommend that the member canvass her question with Public Safety and Solicitor General in regards to how these volunteer fire departments access water.
C. Oakes: I appreciate that. What I’m trying to flag as we prepare for this wildfire season is that there is a disconnect, and I’m trying to articulate what happens on the ground in communities. I’m just trying to get ahead of an issue and provide some solutions based on the type of work that is happening through the EMBC teams and through the access management teams that are operating under FLNRORD. I’m just flagging that for the minister as an opportunity.
The secondary opportunity that I think is critical is…. My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin’s riding is 42,000 square kilometres, give or take. Mine is 38,000 square kilometres, so two Vancouver Islands. It’s a significantly large region that we represent here in the Cariboo and represent here in the Legislature on behalf of our constituents.
One of the critical challenges as, again, we prepare for this wildfire season is road access. The way it works in our regions is forest service roads play a critical element in us being able to access water sources — for example, Minton Lake.
We need to have access to that lake if we are going to…. Whether it’s the B.C. Wildfire Service, whether it’s a volunteer fire department, we need to get access into these areas to access the water sources we will need if there is an emergency.
The secondary piece, and I heard this through the B.C. Wildfire Service — we met with our teams as well — is that road access into these remote rural areas is critically important. Currently, there is a significant push to deactivate roads throughout the entire Cariboo. So as you deactivate roads, you pull bridges, you pull culverts, and you no longer have access points to fight fires in these areas if you have a lightning strike or a lightning storm.
That is a critical issue. I raised it over the last two weeks with different stakeholder groups and ministry staff that I met with, and I asked that connection piece of a volunteer fire department, a water source and the B.C. Wildfire Service access into areas where, potentially, we could have wildfires.
I asked that question: how do you get access into that as I see roads starting to become deactivated? The ministry shared with me that the budget for the four service roads for both the Cariboos — we’re talking 80,000 square kilometres — is $25,000 for our entire region. So $25,000 to manage the side roads that we need in order to get access to any of the…. If there is a lightning strike that happens out in Nazko, if there is a lightning strike that happens out in the Chilcotin, if there’s a lightning strike that happens out in Horsefly or Likely and those areas, the chances are we’re using a forest service road to get access into that point, whether it’s the B.C. Wildfire Service or other respond teams to support that.
You have $25,000, which, quite frankly, probably pays for one culvert, maybe, in the entire Cariboo. That’s what our budget is. I asked: why we are deactivating these roads? Why can’t the volunteer fire departments actually get access into these areas for water? What has been identified is this budget challenge of $25,000. I actually thought it was an accident, that they dropped a couple of zeros off of the budget. I would have thought $25 million, when you start looking at culverts and bridges and roads and you see what the Auditor General came forward with on the Forest Service Road report a couple of years ago.
To the minister: what work can EMBC do to work with other ministries to ensure that we actually have access into our remote rural areas, understanding the vital importance of these forest service roads?
Hon. B. Ma: I heard from the member for Cariboo North, the feedback that she is providing to us today.
In my response to the first question around volunteer fire departments, she had noted that it’s less about asking the question of me, given that there are many other ministries involved. And her question is more flagging the issue so that we can be aware of it, as a ministry, and be able to prepare for this situation during an actual emergency.
I do thank the member for raising this with me and for flagging it for us. She does know that forest service roads are managed through the Ministry of Forests, and water access is managed through WLRS. What she’s trying to communicate, I believe — perhaps the member can correct me if I’m wrong — is that communities are concerned about what happens during an emergency situation where you have a wildfire, and crews are unable to access water sources by road.
I can share with the member that during the wildfire season, during an actual emergency, EMCR can work with communities, local governments and regional districts to problem-solve the specific problems that they’re trying to deal with. For instance, if there is no road access to a water source but water is required to put out a fire, we would likely work with the B.C. Wildfire Service to secure aviation equipment in order to access the water. We could bucket it directly out of the water source.
There are options. That being said, I do hear the member on what she’s trying to communicate as an ongoing and larger concern. We’re happy to flag this with our colleagues and see what kind of work we can do with them to prepare for possible scenarios during the emergency season that’s coming this summer.
L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister, for those, I guess, redirects. I just would follow up to suggest….
The member for Cariboo North and I did have a meeting with B.C. Wildfire just last week. It is a massive concern.
I think the minister and I have had a conversation about this in the past — that sort of cross-pollination from this ministry to others. It’s not just a concern of getting water. It’s actually a concern of getting up what could be as many as 17 roads deactivated in Cariboo-Chilcotin and Cariboo North in the coming year. It’s not just a matter of getting to the water. It’s sometimes a matter of getting to the actual fire itself. It makes it very difficult.
I would agree that we’re going to have a challenging year, for certain. We’ve already had a wildfire last week in Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is at a bizarre time of the year, where we have a wildfire on the landscape and our lakes are frozen. There’s no bucketing happening there. It’s definitely a challenging time, for certain.
I want to turn our attention to a couple of numbers that we were talking about before the break. There’s $234 million, if I’m correct, that has been talked about with special projects throughout the province. It’s my recollection that about $174 million of that has already been spent.
I want to get a little bit more clarity with respect to projects that are ongoing in the province. It would seem that there’s only really about $60 million of those announcements.
I see the minister shaking her head no. So I would look to clarity for that.
Hon. B. Ma: I appreciate the question from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. The $234 million of new funding — it is new funding — is funding specifically around flood risks and water scarcity hazards. I should clarify that. It doesn’t include funding and investments in other hazards, such as wildfire, earthquakes or so forth.
Of the $234 million, all of it was new spending at the time of the announcement. However, we were able to put some of this spending into the 2023-2024 fiscal year. What landed in the 2024-2025 fiscal year was the $50 million for the water metering pilot and the $10 million for the St. Mary Lake on Salt Spring Island project.
A lot of it has to do with just the timing of the funding agreements. The funding agreements have to be signed by the end of the fiscal year in order to fit into the previous fiscal year. We were able to accomplish that for the $77 million to upgrade the Barrowtown pump station in Abbotsford, the $83 million to increase funding for the agricultural water infrastructure program, as well as the $14 million to help replace the 50-year-old Cowichan Lake weir.
Now the funding isn’t necessarily spent, but it has been provided to the communities to deliver on their programs. We were able to get that in under the wire to have it counted towards the 2023-24 fiscal year. In addition to that, the three-year fiscal plan also includes new investments into wildfire preparedness, such as $56 million for aviation preparedness and $60 million for the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. to focus on wildfire risk reduction and fuel management.
There was $38 million to support stable, year-round resourcing, including fire crew leaders, front-line staff, and $21 million capital funding for a new Prince George equipment depot. Of course, if we’re looking at the scope of investments in emergency preparedness and mitigation projects, we can’t forget the community emergency preparedness fund, which was topped up in the previous fiscal year as well, but there is still funding in it to be disbursed.
Chair, maybe I’ll take this moment, as well, to answer a question that I had taken on notice from the last day of estimates, which would have been over two weeks ago.
The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin had asked how many activations of cooling centres and warming centres there were in 2023. I’m able to provide some numbers now. In 2023, we had issued 45 task numbers to support cooling centres — with each task number going to a community to activate the cooling centre — and 57 task numbers to support warming centres. Overall, those are the numbers.
L. Doerkson: We’ll probably come back, if there’s time later today, to cooling and warming centres, but I do appreciate the answer from the minister.
Just getting back to the announcement of the $234 million, I think I understand now. There was a race, obviously, to have those funds invested in projects throughout the province.
It’s my recollection that $174 million has been committed to those projects. I guess, maybe, with respect to specifics…. It would also be my recollection that there’s about $60 million that is now left. Part of those funds are committed to the water metering program, which we’ll get to — that’s for 21 communities — and also to increasing the dam height on St. Mary Lake on Salt Spring Island.
Am I misunderstanding? Is there $60 million left of those funds for the coming year of ’24-25?
Hon. B. Ma: It sounds like the member might be interpreting the $234 million as a bucket of funds. It is not. It is the aggregate sum total of the investments being made in several specific projects.
The $60 million that the member is referring to, of that, $50 million will go to the municipal water metering pilot through Municipal Affairs, and $10 million of that will go to the St. Mary Lake project through Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.
L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.
With respect to the Salt Spring Island project…. I guess I just want to understand both of these projects a little bit more. How was the Salt Spring project chosen?
Hon. B. Ma: The consequence of being a coordinating ministry often means that we’re working with many other ministries. A lot of the details to the member’s question will, unfortunately, reside in many other ministries. So I apologize for the redirect.
As EMCR, we do work with other ministries and across government to try to identify priority opportunities for investment that align with identified needs, addressing hazards and also readiness for investment.
St. Mary Lake on Salt Spring Island…. That project was one of those projects. The funds are flowing through Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, ultimately. So the member may actually find that he’s able to secure a more detailed response from Water, Land and Resource Stewardship on that project specifically.
L. Doerkson: To be clear, then, that decision rests solely with WLRS and not with this ministry. Is that correct?
Hon. B. Ma: I would say, in terms of funding decisions…. I mean, no one ministry, at least… There are significant processes for securing funding by any ministry. So when the member says, “Which one ministry was the decision-maker,” I mean, we do have cabinet processes and many layers of approvals that various initiatives have to go through in order to be accepted by government as a whole.
In the case of this project, this was one of several projects that EMCR played a coordinating and supporting role in. However, a lot of the detailed analysis and the work that is done in terms of…. For instance, Water, Land and Resource Stewardship has the river forecast centre. They have their water analytical teams there. EMCR does work with them and relies on them for a lot of the information that they provide us.
We work as a team. I guess that’s what I’m trying to say.
L. Doerkson: I appreciate the answer. I think the frustration is trying to understand why and where these funds have come from, right?
There are many challenges in the province right now, and we’ll talk about some of those this afternoon. The minister is very aware of the situation at Terra Ridge in Williams Lake. I would just absolutely love for some funding to make its way to that community as well. There are other communities that certainly could use some financial help, which, again, as I said, we’ll talk about a little bit later. It’s difficult to understand why a project like this might be picked over some of the other communities.
Now, I’ll certainly…. I’ll have an opportunity to ask the Minister of WLRS questions on this topic tomorrow.
I’ll move along to the next question, which is the water metering project. I wonder if the minister could give me a little bit of clarity as to what this project is about, what the goals are and which 21 communities.
Now, I don’t need the 21 communities read out here. Potentially, I could get that just sent to me by email. I would be interested in understanding a little bit more clearly why those communities have been chosen for this and how they’ve been picked.
Hon. B. Ma: At the risk of frustrating the hon. member more, this is actually a program being delivered through Municipal Affairs. Their estimates are still to come, though, so there are opportunities to canvass this program with them directly.
L. Doerkson: I appreciate that. It just seems peculiar to me that there are tens of millions of dollars that are funnelling through this ministry, but it’s other ministries that are actually managing the projects.
Can the minister give me any indication of what the goals of the program are? Again, I’ll ask one more time how the 21 communities were picked.
It seems to me that this ministry obviously has got a very significant investment in this project. Surely EMCR is not just simply the bank for these projects. If other ministries are running this, why wouldn’t the funding…?
If this minister doesn’t have any power as far as decision-making on these projects, why is the money funnelling through this ministry? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Hon. B. Ma: I believe the member is referring to the budget documents. The budget documents represent government’s investments and commitments to climate readiness — preparation, mitigation — as a whole, not necessarily all of the funding that is flowing through EMCR.
Of the $234 million…. Again, EMCR does work with other ministries to package our investments to make sure that the investments that are happening across government make sense, that we’re not doubling up on our investments, that we’re working together on it and that we’re complementing each other’s work.
Of the $234 million, the only funding that has flowed through EMCR is the $77 million to upgrade the Barrowtown pump station in Abbotsford.
The $83 million for the agricultural water infrastructure program flows through the Ministry of Agriculture.
The $50 million that purchases installation of water metering in select communities flows through Municipal Affairs. It does not flow through EMCR.
The $14 million for the Cowichan Lake weir, the $10 million for St. Mary Lake — the funding for those projects flows through Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.
Of course, I think British Columbians would expect all ministries of government to be working together, to talk, to collaborate and, when it comes to climate emergencies, that we’re all pulling together, so we do play a coordinating role and work with our partners.
However, emergencies and different hazards within Emergency Management are led by different ministries, and that’s why the funding flows through multiple different ministries here.
L. Doerkson: Okay. Well, thanks, Minister, for that clarity. I guess, then, my next question, with respect to any of this funding and with respect to how these projects are picked, is: what is the role that EMCR plays with respect to any of these projects in the province?
I mean, obviously, all of them have to do with either emergency management or they all have some sort of portion of climate readiness to them.
I just wonder if the minister could give me clarity as to what EMCR’s role is in all of this.
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.
The minister can move the vote.
Hon. B. Ma: I move that committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 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); K. Greene in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
On Vote 24: ministry operations, $188,053,000 (continued).
R. Merrifield: We’ll start off today by talking about last year’s estimates.
Last year I drew to the minister’s attention that the budget noted a disproportionate effect of carbon tax: “Single-income, female-led households have a higher carbon tax burden than single-income, male-led households. Research suggests that B.C.’s carbon tax has no significant difference in direct carbon tax paid by rural versus urban households. However, rural communities may have higher indirect carbon tax burdens — for example, through higher shipping costs resulting in a higher cost price of goods; and colder regions of the province may have higher carbon tax costs for home heating.” That was located on page 72.
Skyrocketing increases are definitely in play this year as well and are burdening people, but the payments that come back from the carbon tax rebate are severely disproportionate. Government is going to be collecting $2.565 billion in carbon tax revenue this year and just over $1 billion in fuel tax.
What is the climate action tax credit total that will be given back to British Columbians?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’ve got two potential numbers, and I want to ensure that I give the right one. Can I take that question and respond after lunch?
R. Merrifield: Sure.
Could the minister also elaborate on what the remaining amount will be spent on?
Hon. G. Heyman: The remaining amounts of the carbon tax, or the remaining amounts of the increase?
R. Merrifield: The remaining amounts of the carbon tax.
Hon. G. Heyman: The balance of the carbon tax revenue, following the climate action tax credit, goes to a range of programs like active transportation grants, public bus electrification, the CleanBC industry fund, rebates for low- and middle-income families for switching to electric heat pumps, electric vehicles or e-bikes, public charging infrastructure, the local government climate action program and the CleanBC communities fund.
If the member would like a breakdown of exactly how that money is disbursed by the Ministry of Finance, I suggest that question go to the Ministry of Finance.
R. Merrifield: Is the minister indicating that those moneys actually are distributed through general revenues and not through programs within the Ministry of Environment?
Hon. G. Heyman: CleanBC is a governmentwide program.
The climate action secretariat, which develops policy and strategies, resides in the ministry.
The Ministry of Environment administers the CleanBC industry fund as well as the local government climate action program, but a range of programs are administered through other ministries such as, in some cases, Agriculture and Food; Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation; Transportation and Infrastructure; and Citizens’ Services.
That is why I’ve referred that question for detail to the Ministry of Finance.
R. Merrifield: Does the ministry track these in aggregate amounts? Are all of these — the list that the minister has given me — added up and packaged, in a way, underneath the CleanBC umbrella, then?
Hon. G. Heyman: By law, in the Climate Change Accountability Act, we’re required to report annually on both revenues and expenditures on climate initiatives, and in the 2023 Climate Change Accountability Report, revenues are found on page 15, and both operating and capital expenditures are found on page 16.
R. Merrifield: I’ll respond to that answer in my next question. Is the higher net carbon and fuel combined tax…? I say “net” because that includes the rebates that are also suggested in the budget. Is the higher net carbon tax and fuel tax one of the reasons that B.C.’s inflation rate is higher than the rest of the country and continues to outpace it for the last 13 out of 15 months?
Hon. G. Heyman: Inflation in British Columbia was 3 percent in January of 2024, largely driven by a 6.8 percent increase in shelter prices and a 4.4 percent increase in food prices. So I would say the answer to the member’s question is no.
R. Merrifield: But, to the minister’s response, we know that food prices are driven by carbon and fuel taxes — fuel taxes being one of the most expensive in B.C. and, actually, the most expensive in all of North America, with the highest provincial and fuel taxes. Also, looking at the government’s own spreadsheet calculations, we actually…. Anyone over $30,000 pays more net fuel and carbon tax than in any other province, save only Newfoundland and P.E.I.
My question again is: does the minister not see a correlation between the higher food inflation as well as the net carbon and fuel taxes being higher in our province than every other?
Hon. G. Heyman: There was a recent study by Tombe and Winter from the University of Calgary that shows that for most goods and services, B.C.’s carbon tax adds less than 0.33 percent of the cost of most goods, and that is prior to accounting for the climate action tax credit.
R. Merrifield: I’m not familiar with that particular study, but I would love it if you enlighten me.
Is that before or after April 1’s increase?
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the carbon tax went up on April 1. Today is April 2. So I think, as the study is a 2023 study…. Again, I’d reiterate that the 0.33 percent increase to the cost of most goods from the carbon tax is pre the applying of the climate action tax credit, which would lower the impact on low-and middle-income people.
As I have said earlier today in the House, there are a number of exemptions for the agriculture industry from a whole host of B.C. taxes, including the carbon tax and the fuel tax.
R. Merrifield: But 0.33 is still a significant amount when it’s 2.8 percent of inflation. So 0.33 going up by another 15 percent, which is what the carbon tax actually increased by over the course of April 1, is actually another part of…. It’s over 10 percent of the total inflation that B.C. is experiencing.
With all due respect to the minister, that actually is a significant amount of inflation that’s being created by one singular tax.
Additionally, I know that the minister, in question period today, was indicating there are a whole bunch of rebates for the agriculture sector. Would that include the trucking sector, everything that ships our food to and from each of the different destinations that it’s going to?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll answer the second part of the question first. It does not apply to trucking. It applies to farm vehicles and farm use — the carbon tax, that is.
I would say that on the first part of the question, the member’s math is significantly flawed. Inflation in British Columbia was 3 percent in January 2024. If the carbon tax is responsible for 0.33 percent, or one-third of 1 percent, of the increase in costs of most goods in British Columbia, then the carbon tax is responsible for one-ninth.
R. Merrifield: I don’t want to argue mathematics, but I did look up the actual study that was referenced, and it is a holistic number. It’s not 0.33 percent of the 3 percent; it’s actually 0.33 allocated of that 3 percent, not in addition to it. So with all due respect, it is actually 10 percent of the total, which is the calculation.
Its not applying to any of the trucking is also very disconcerting because, obviously, trucking is a huge source of emissions and also a huge source of carbon tax. Truckers are hugely hit by carbon tax and fuel tax increases.
So it would stand to reason that, as British Columbians, we’re actually getting far less than other provinces in all of the different categories of income. I’m looking at the $60,000, a single person plus one dependent. I mean, Alberta gets back $842 more per person; Saskatchewan, $728; Manitoba, $401; Ontario, $457; Quebec, $136. In all of those cases, they’re getting back more than what we are here in B.C., on a net value.
If I go to the $90,000, that number even gets worse. We’re talking almost double the amount, in certain categories. For up to $120,000, well, now it’s into oblivion. We’re at $1,200 more that you’d get if you lived in Alberta than when you live in B.C. It’s no wonder that people are actually fleeing to where the cost of affordability is greater.
The carbon tax revenues in 2024 and 2025 now even climb higher to $3.034 billion and then $3.383 billion, respectively. The government states online that new revenues generated from increasing the carbon tax will be used to, among other things, “provide carbon tax relief and protect affordability.” What options are being considered to ensure that the climate action tax credit is equitable?
Hon. G. Heyman: With respect to trucking, it’s important to note that transportation, as the member has pointed out, is one of the largest sources of emissions, about 40 percent in British Columbia. And the fact that we put a carbon tax on fuel used by transport trucking, both medium and heavy-duty, has driven the sector to pay more attention to emission reduction measures that they can implement. They are actively planning. They meet with us regularly.
CleanBC policies encourage the shift to lower-carbon medium and heavy-duty trucking. That will be a significant part of the clean transportation action plan. And it’s important not just for climate; it’s important to improve air quality and, therefore, the health of children, adults and seniors exposed to particulate matter that is currently significantly caused by medium and heavy-duty transportation.
The member pointed to rebates received by people in Alberta and tried to compare them to rebates received by people in B.C. The problem with that straight-up comparison that only looks at rebates is it’s also true that Albertans pay far more in carbon tax because they haven’t had one as long as we have.
Albertans, per capita, release significantly more or are responsible for significantly more per-capita GHG pollution, greenhouse gas pollution, than British Columbians. Therefore, when they pay more tax, they also get a higher rebate. That’s part of the answer.
We are moving toward, between now and 2030, over 80 percent of British Columbians being eligible for the climate action tax credit. It is scaled to income, and therefore it is equitable.
R. Merrifield: The minister attempting to say that because B.C. has done a better job for longer so we actually get less back on our own carbon tax that we have designed and that we get to actually create seems very, very nonsensical. Why would we not want to reward those that are doing a great job for doing a great job in a way that actually advantages them over other provinces?
I mean, I won’t get into the actual dollars and cents of each of the different rebates, but I would take some exception to how the minister had actually framed that last part.
Based on the carbon-pricing increases and the expected revenues this year, as well, emissions are slated to go up. We’ve got on page 4 of the Climate Change Accountability Report, “After an increase following a continued return to pre-COVID 2019 levels of economic activity and routines in 2022,” there’s an expected increase in emissions.
My question to the minister is: what is the understanding of how those increases will be handled with the carbon tax? Will carbon tax continue to increase as well, even though emissions are continuing to go up?
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, there was nothing nonsensical about the response I get. One of the rewards is if you pollute less, emit less GHGs, you pay less carbon tax. That is the whole point of the carbon tax. In addition to that, we give a climate action tax credit to provide further relief and incentive to British Columbians, particularly low- and middle-income British Columbians.
What the climate change accountability report states is that we expect the economy, which is a good thing, to return to pre-COVID levels. That may result in a slight uptick in emissions, but overall we’ve seen emissions go down 5 percent since 2018, which is significant. That is the year we introduced CleanBC, even though implementation of CleanBC didn’t really happen until 2019.
It is effective. The carbon tax is effective. Numerous studies have shown that the carbon tax was effective in reducing emissions since Gordon Campbell brought it in as part of the Liberal government in 2008.
When you look at the population growth and the growth of the economy in British Columbia…. While we do want to reduce emissions in absolute terms, and we have been reducing emissions in absolute terms, the policies and programs, including the carbon tax, of CleanBC are taking root. They’re having effect. They’ll continue to be important in meeting our climate targets.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.