Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading of Bill 12, Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. After that completes, I call Committee of Supply for Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the Douglas Fir Committee Room.

In Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

[1:35 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COST
RECOVERY ACT

(continued)

M. Lee: I’m just going to resume my remarks on Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. I am the designated speaker for the B.C. United official opposition caucus. I had the opportunity to comment on the concerns relating to the large overreach by this government under Bill 12.

I know that the Attorney General, in her second reading speech, commented on the fact, in her words, that the two existing acts that this bill, Bill 12, is somewhat modelled after are the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act of 2000 and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act of 2018. They were, in her words: “vigorously tested in courts, and the government has either successfully defended them or refined them to en­sure their validity and success.” That’s the way the Attorney General put it.

This actually gets to one of my concerns relating to this bill, and that is the overreach, the questionability of some of the provisions, the way they are loosely and broadly defined, and the fact that, no doubt, in the words of the Attorney General, it may well be that Bill 12 will be vigorously tested in the courts. But that was a case where those previous pieces of legislation were found to be not constitutional in terms of certain provisions.

That certainly was the case with the first bill, the To­bacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. There was a resetting by government to have to reintroduce legislation that would meet the laws of our land. As we know, the Premier, when he was Attorney General and even under his leadership of this government, time and time again, has found himself and this government to be at defeat. Case after case where this government has aggressively stepped outside the bounds of our constitution, our rule of law, and been found to be unconstitutional with other pieces of legislation, including around ICBC reform.

We’ve seen that. We’ve seen the efforts that the Premier has done to undermine the rule of law and the independence of our judiciary by changing the rules of court, by changing the rules of evidence, by compressing costs, and by eliminating the ability of injured British Columbians to challenge ICBC, as the chief litigant in our province, to get the care they need.

As you know, I’m not here to debate ICBC reform today. I will continue with Bill 12 to say this: it only demonstrates a continued pattern by this government and this Premier to aggressively push the envelope, as we say, in terms of our laws of our lands.

In this instance, there have been concerns raised, not just by the business associations that I mentioned before the break but also by legal councils and law firms who are specialized in product liability, class action suits and the like. I’d like to continue to provide remarks on the concerns around that.

I did refer to the fact that the Attorney General had referred to, in her Bill 12 second reading speech, this bill as flexible, and I do have the direct quote here that it will “adopt duties and obligations that are imposed in the future and torts that have yet to be created by the courts.”

[1:40 p.m.]

This bill is both retroactive — for reasons that I’ll get into, in terms of limitations of liability and the like, as I go through some of the other provisions of Bill 12 — and forward-looking.

The challenge with this is that as this government tables this bill in this House, companies and businesses that operate here in our province will have a real challenge assessing the regulatory impact of this bill on the way they conduct their business, both in terms of products and services they provided in the past and products and services they plan to provide in the future.

Now, I will say I do recognize, once again, the intention of this bill, the challenges that we’ve seen around young people and what they’ve faced online. We know that there have been a number of very regrettable and tragic deaths of young people as a result of what they’ve faced online.

I mentioned, before the break, Carson Cleland. We are also very well aware, regrettably, as members of this House, of the tragedy of Amanda Todd. We know the challenges that we saw internationally, as well, in terms of convicting that Dutch national, Aydin Coban, for all the harms and the harassment and the luring that he did of Amanda Todd.

I understand that there’s a concern about the platforms that enable that kind of criminal activity that needs to be stopped. But I say that that should be the focus of this bill. That’s certainly one of the focuses of Bill C-63, the federal legislation.

I know that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the Leader of the Official Opposition for the B.C. United caucus, certainly has spoken out about the harms to women, to young people, to children through online platforms. He’s been very vocal about his concerns, that we all share as members of the official opposition, about those harms online. Certainly, I know that we are supportive of efforts that deal with those platforms, the harms that they can cause.

But I look forward to the committee stage on this bill to get into how this government sees this bill as enabling the government of this province to address the online harms that we continue to see on big platform social media companies. I think we share that concern.

The challenge, though, with the bill is the broad, sweeping nature that has been referred to as unprecedented, while well beyond the approach that was taken in terms of the previous health recovery bills or laws with respect to cigarettes and opioids.

When I talk about the retroactive nature, the 15-year limitation of liability and some other provisions I’ll talk more about in detail, and then we talk about the future, in terms of this statement made by the Attorney General in her second reading speech, the challenge is that in the face of the regulatory environment that businesses in British Columbia are faced with, the rising costs, rising taxes, all the impacts that this government has brought on our province…. Those costs, of course, we all pay for as consumers.

[1:45 p.m.]

Those costs, the additional regulatory burdens, the risks, all of that that needs to be dealt with and addressed by companies and directors of those companies’ management teams, to deal with a new regulatory framework under Bill 12, is only going to add additional cost burden to the end consumer, to British Columbians at large, be­cause it’s not well defined.

We’re talking about causes of action, in effect, for duties and obligations that will be imposed in the future, torts that have yet to be created by the courts. Companies who produce products and services don’t do it just every week. They have a plan. They have a business plan. They make investments in capital, in their plants, in their employees, in the technology that they’re acquiring. They’re making multi-year commitments to their businesses, whether to open up a new store, which could be a beer and wine store, a cannabis store that’s regulated, gaming operations.

These are some of the so-called harms, I believe — my general sense when I look at the media coverage again as to how this government has presented this bill. We will get into some of those social harms.

As I have been asking throughout the course of my remarks here, how are directors supposed to assess the impact of this regulatory framework on their business plan when we’re talking about future causes of action for torts that have yet to be created by the courts? That’s the kind of risk exposure that companies are taking on here under this bill because of the broad, sweeping nature of the bill itself.

I spoke to some of the challenges around the bill itself, and I wanted to go back to some of those and comment further, because I do think it’s important. We are calling on the government to hear the concerns of these 24-plus business organizations that have called on this government and all members of this Legislative Assembly to pause consideration of Bill 12 so that there can be proper consultation, engagement, understanding and certainty addressed by Bill 12. To date, as they’ve clearly stated, there has been none of that collaboration and opportunity for consultation.

This is the reason why they sent that letter on March 28 to all of us. I hope the Premier and the Attorney General are listening to this call. I’m sure that other members of the official opposition will be echoing that call through the balance of the debate on Bill 12.

I would say that…. I mentioned earlier, when we talked about some of the challenges with the bill itself, that we see considerations as we look at the actual provisions of the act itself. There is a provision here, when we’re assessing what a health care benefit is, under clause 9 of the bill. This is one of the provisions I wanted to note off the top.

This government puts itself in the position of certifying, in the course of recovery of a pursuit, of recovery of health care costs…. They put themselves in the position to provide a certificate, under clause 9 of this bill. Clause 9 of this bill suggests that there can be a certificate provided, issued by a minister of government, of the provincial government or the federal government, for the purpose of the various actions under clause 2 and clause 3 of this bill, which set out the costs of the health care benefits that have been provided.

Here’s the kicker: “…and will likely be provided for a benefit recipient or population of benefit recipients who have suffered damage caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.” That is supposed to be conclusive proof.

[1:50 p.m.]

This government has this overreaching, overarching structure, regulatory framework that I’ve been describing, and then says: “But we’ll tell you. We’ll tell you the damage that you’ve caused, the costs that you need to provide back to us.” That cost is determined not just because a benefit recipient has received that health care benefit — or a population. So we’re talking now of a population of health care benefit recipients, not defined.

A question. We have terms like “population of benefit recipients.” What is that supposed to mean? Is that more than one? Presumably, it is. It’s not just the recipient, a benefit recipient. It’s a population of benefit recipients. Well, what constitutes a population?

I know here in the context of this bill, it also talks about…. I’ll pull it out, because I’ll get back into it for a different reason. It talks about how the bill will take into account the market share. I mean, we’re talking about, presumably, the health care benefits that have been provided to a population of benefit recipients who suffered damage caused by or contributed to by the health-related wrong. It’s that greater population that has been affected. It’s also somewhat determined, I believe, by market share.

This is the government deciding all these things without any opportunity for review, a counter submission. This is conclusive proof. It means that whatever government says is what the business needs to pay up, not only for what has been caused, which I talked about earlier — the dangers of the questionability about using terms beyond “cause.” We’re talking now about “contributes.” It has been contributed to by a health-related wrong.

Well, what’s a contribution? That is a very indirect term. That needs to be tested in the context of this bill. What exactly does that mean? “Contributed” could be that we’re in the area, we’re in the general field or we’re promoting a product that some other supplier has caused damage with. Does that first supplier who didn’t cause damage with their product because it was a secondary supplier that caused damage with their product…? Is that a contribution? It may well be.

The kicker is not just those benefits that have been pro­vided but “will likely be provided.” What does that mean? Does that mean in the course of time? We’re now talking about a certificate that says, “On this date,” the government of B.C. says to this company, “you need to pay back this amount of costs of health care benefits,” for the reasons I just generally referred to. “And by the way, our assessment is not just for those costs today but the costs tomorrow and the day after that and the month after that and the year after that.”

When does it stop? Well, it’s “will likely be provided,” so presumably over the course of the lifetime of the recipient for whom a product has damaged his or her health. It is completely open-ended.

I’ll tell you what. I was going to say this later, but I’ll connect the dots here for the members, at least on the government side. “Joint and several liability of directors and officers.” I mentioned earlier that this is a very high bar, a very high requirement that’s being pushed on directors and officers of companies when they can be held “…jointly and severally responsible…for the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by the health-related wrong.” Those are exact same words that track this certificate.

[1:55 p.m.]

So government delivers a certificate. The company can’t pay up. You, as a director, have got to pay up. And you know what? There is no limit on how much that director…. We’re talking jointly or severally liable. All the directors or the individual directors? If the company has financial difficulty for maybe this reason or other reasons, reputational or otherwise, who pays up? It’s that individual director. And there’s no limit on clause 13 — no limit at all.

This is the expectation of this NDP government. These are the kinds of challenges when you get into the details of a bill that’s being presented and the way it’s being presented. And this, no doubt, is the reason why. I’m just giving yet another example of the reasons why business associations around this province are saying: “Let’s take a pause here, government, please. Let’s reflect and understand the full nature of what you’re asking us to take on — the impact of businesses.”

From the B.C. Business Council to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade — these are just some of the organizations that have spoken out to sign up with this letter and express these concerns.

I must say, we’ve seen, time and time again, a government that’s completely out of touch, that is not listening to British Columbians when they’re saying: “We need to be consulted. We need to understand. In your rush to push forward legislation in the dying days of this Legislative Assembly, you need to think about all of the implications, the unintended consequences.”

My concern, as I just walked you through, the certificate provision and the joint and several liability provision, clause 9 and clause 13 of this bill, that it puts undue pressure and responsibility…. I say that recognizing, of course, that directors and officers have specific responsibilities to ensure that the companies that the director and officers are for are conducting themselves in an appropriate, responsible manner. Of course.

In the face of an ill-defined bill, one that has a lot of questions around it, this puts a lot of financial pressure and risk exposure on a director. It’s hard enough having companies — directors and officers who want to conduct business and build their futures for their employees, the workers of this province — commit to this year and 2024 and 2025 and the years that follow.

In the face of what we have seen…. I saw reports. Alberta, of course, is increasing net immigration, in­cluding from British Columbia. Businesses, employees, directors, officers, management teams — they’re moving. They have options, just even over our border with Alberta, no doubt with a lower tax structure, a more beneficial, efficient cost structure for government, for businesses. This is the competitive landscape that British Columbia faces, and in the face of this, this government comes forward with this bill. It’s yet another burden on businesses when it’s not well formed.

I’m just going to take the opportunity to read one quote from the letter from the business associations into the record, because at this particular juncture of my remarks, it does frame what I’ve said to date and, perhaps, the balance of what I’m about to say. This is from the letter from the 24 business associations across the province dated March 28, 2024.

[2:00 p.m.]

“The potential consequences of these points” — the points that I’ve been referring to as well — “could be significant. An expanded scope of liability, along with the related expanded legal and insurance costs due to the broad nature of the bill, are significant concerns for B.C. businesses. These costs come amidst economic uncertainty, low growth and a rapidly rising population. B.C.’s economy is slowing, as demonstrated by a year-over-year decrease in retail sales per January 2024 data. Inevitably, these costs, associated with increased liability and uncertainty, are paid by consumers and businesses.”

That quote on page 2 of the letter I invite every member of this House to read, alongside all the other concerns expressed in this letter, and reflect on it. It encapsulates the concern about Bill 12. This is why there’s the calling for a pause on the advancement of the bill in order for the work to be done with stakeholders, including these business associations and their membership groups and other stakeholders, to refine the intent, the purpose and the language of the proposed law. That is what I just referred to as the specific request by these business associations that that pause be done on that basis.

One of the main concerns that we’ve talked about, we’ve included around the certificate itself. That is an example of the further overreach by government in this bill. Perhaps it was a shorthand way to close up some gaps of concern, but in doing so in such a broad-brush way, it puts businesses and their companies at a significant disadvantage to address the regulatory requirements under this bill.

I mentioned earlier that the level of detail in this bill is lacking, that the Online Harms Act, Bill C-63 federally, by comparison — with bilingual translation, of course — is 90 pages and smaller font, double columns as usual. This bill, in bigger font, bigger format, is what? I don’t have page numbers, but it’s ten pages or 12 pages? It’s the kind of legislative framework that this government has put forward which lacks in the right level of detail so that businesses can assess how to manage that risk going forward.

I will also add that under clause 8 of this bill, here is another shift. It refers to the fact that statistical information and information derived from epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies can be utilized as evidence for the purposes of establishing causation and liability. This is a significant departure from what we’ve seen under class proceedings legislation in British Columbia and in other provinces, where statistical information may only be used for determining issues relating to the amount of the distribution of the aggregate monetary award.

This Bill 12, under clause 8, is going one step further in this broad-brushed approach when we’re talking about how a government establishes causation.

[2:05 p.m.]

I will say it doesn’t say “contribution” or “association.” That’s a challenge. Again, I question the use of the words “contribution” and “association” throughout this bill. The focus in this particular clause, though, is just causation. Presumably, at least, the drafters recognize, under direction of this government, that at least we’re talking about causation, not contribution or association.

But this is broad. It is sweeping in nature because it is a real shift in terms of how statistical information is typically used. It’s used, usually, in class proceedings under related legislation just to the amount to determine the aggregate monetary award. This is a significant departure from that, and it does cause some concern as to how it’s being utilized.

I will also say that unlike where we see the determination of health care benefits, it’s being done on an aggregate basis. That is similar, I will acknowledge, to what is there under the tobacco and opioid legislation. It’s not necessary for the government to identify an individual benefit recipient or even prove the cause of the disease. So this, again, is a very generalized approach that is being taken here to the kinds of potential harms that are being covered and for which costs are being recovered under this bill.

I will note that we look at the limitation and liability section, and that, again, is a 15-year period. Also, any action that’s been commenced by the government for damages similar to the cost of health care benefits is revived if the action was previously dismissed in relation to limitations legislation.

This is a fairly broad and open provision in terms of the applicability of this bill. It is sweeping in nature in terms of both the limitation period and the ability to reopen previous actions that were in place or commenced by government if that action was dismissed prior to this legislation coming into place. This is another example of the reach-back of this bill and the kind of considerations as to the overall broad nature of the bill itself.

I will say that as we look at the considerations around the types of actions that are being looked at, the harms, there’s a significant focus on what the Premier talks about, the big, faceless companies, the companies that include social media giants, vape manufacturers and energy drink makers. It is a space, no doubt, that for reasons that I’ve talked about earlier, about the online harms, has caused a lot of concern among parents like myself, families, for children and youth.

But of course, there are other ways to address these challenges, and that is to bring appropriate restrictions on the use of these products. The online harms bill, Bill C-63, is an example of that federally.

[2:10 p.m.]

Vape products, I know, my colleague the House Leader for the official opposition, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, has been raising for years.

Under this government’s watch, we’ve seen the rapid prevalence of vape products, including in our school yards, school washrooms and schools. Young people and children are, no doubt, being pressured in many different ways, socially and otherwise. We need to have the appropriate safeguards around those products.

One could say the same for highly caffeinated energy drinks and ensuring we have the right level of labelling requirements, education and awareness for young people about the dangers and the pitfalls of the contents of these heavily caffeinated and the other contents in these energy drinks.

We know that we need to be clear. We need to hear directly from government about the types of other considerations and the specific nature of the products and services that this government is attempting to regulate and hold responsible and accountable and, in the manner of doing what they’re doing, that it does not unduly restrain and limit the ability of businesses to operate in our province because of the regulatory burden, the regulatory risk, the exposure to risk under this bill.

Now, I appreciate that the level of discussion that we’re getting into is not getting into this level of consideration. The letter we received from the business associations does not get into this level.

I’ve highlighted in my remarks to date the specific concerns that these business associations have been able to identify to date. In my remarks, I have gone on to get into another level of detail, I believe, which does give examples of other considerations and concerns about Bill 12, but it’s not exhaustive.

I appreciate that at committee stage, I’ll hopefully have the opportunity, depending on the schedule as to when this is addressed, to review in more detail the specific provisions and identify the concerns and hear the responses from government, if they haven’t already heard and listened to these business associations and paused consideration of this bill so proper consultation and understanding and clarity can be brought before the government continues with its legislative process here.

I wanted to make some other general comments about the nature of this bill, when we look at the potential challenges with the bill itself. This includes addressing the kinds of products and services with such an open-ended definition.

It does include reference to, potentially, the kinds of businesses that this government has struggled to regulate, including cannabis. We’ve seen the challenge with the legalization of cannabis in our country, under the current federal government, and the ways that this government, in the province of B.C., has implemented the regulatory framework around that.

For all of those cannabis business owners and operators who invest money and other investments in their businesses: look out. Not only is the government failing to properly regulate that environment and the challenges that we see from that but now the government is going to hold you accountable for the potential risks associated with and the likely costs in the future.

[2:15 p.m.]

What does that mean? In an environment where government has freely implemented the legalization of cannabis and participated in the decriminalization of drugs in our province, as the first province in our country to do so, without the guardrails that the official opposition has been calling for that were understood to be the case — that hasn’t been the case under this government.

The government now is going to turn around and say to all legalized cannabis operators: what is the impact of that product? What is the risk to our young people in the context of ingesting and participating in a variety of cannabis products, edibles or otherwise, in a regulated marketplace supposedly licensed, enforced, including on First Nations land? What does that look like? All of those businesses are potentially liable, and the directors and officers personally liable for the related costs of the risks to that individual ingestor of cannabis and the life that he or she has, going forward.

Where is the level of responsibility? Now, I understand that we are holding companies accountable for products that have bad, ill effects, but what about that? We have a government that continues to participate in decriminalization of drugs in the way that it is, and now it turns around and says: “We’re going to hold you accountable.”

The drug culture that is being created in this province is a concern. We hear the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of our province stand up and say that shouldn’t be happening in a Tim Hortons. Well, it is happening in a Tim Hortons. It’s happening in this province, in the culture that this government is creating. So with respect to this government, it needs to take a step back, as I’ve often asked the Premier to do.

In the rush to jump on the latest issues of the day, it provides what looks to me a bit like a band-aid solution or an attempt at one, which sweeps in so many other prod­ucts and services.

We have a gaming industry in this province under the B.C. Lottery Corp. We have gaming grants that support many community organizations. We have a direct share of the revenues of those gaming revenues to First Nations in our province. This was the so-called first attempt by this government to address the overall fiscal framework of First Nations in our province.

Those individuals who commonly go to gaming facilities…. What are the harms? What are the costs? Prevention, education, the understanding of the mental health challenges. For those who get addicted to that sort of activity, the challenges on their families and, of course, if there’s some financial loss, the challenges that happen from there. And the interrelated assists that people look to when they’re in a challenging life situation, through drugs or alcohol or otherwise — this is what we’re talking about, I believe.

The services that a gambling, gaming, organization or business that’s regulated, the impacts, the risks associated with that activity — are we holding them accountable? I believe we are, because this is the way this legislation is drafted, without the specific targeting that we had under the cigarette and opioid legislation in the past, as challenged as that was, including in the courts. We have an open-ended, general piece of legislation that has hit the floor of this legislative chamber without the proper consultation and engagement with the very businesses that are going to be affected.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is the reason why I’m asking this government to stand down this bill, to pause on this bill, to provide for the opportunity for what these stakeholders are asking for.

In a good way, we need to have an understanding. If we take another example, technology, we know that under the former governments, there’s been an embrace through the B.C. Tech Summit, the Premier’s Advisory Council on Technology under former Premier Christy Clark and the B.C. Liberal government, now B.C. United. We have seen many investments, commitments to the technology industry.

Today I heard from the Minister of Environment who referred to independent power production without actually using that term. He was trumpeting the fact that this government now embraces third-party energy production — I think that’s how he put it — otherwise known as independent power production under Gordon Campbell and the Leader of the Official Opposition, of the B.C. United.

I was there at B.C. Hydro at the tail end of those Gordon Campbell clean energy years and saw the nature of the investments in technology, new ways of producing energy in our province, new ways to have renewable power, including with First Nation partners throughout our province, ways that are powering and providing electricity for the vehicle I drive. This is, beyond Site C, the need for embracing innovation in our province that dates back decades.

Here we have a bill, Bill 12, that talks about products and services. Well, I would presume an electric vehicle is a product. I had the opportunity, back in 2017, 2018, with my prior electric vehicle, of driving up to Penticton, stopping in Hope and Merritt to charge up with the superchargers, including B.C. Hydro there. This was back in 2017 and 2018.

In the heat of the summer, on the way down the Co­quihalla, my wife was driving — no brakes going through those chutes. Here we have a product that has a default. So I appreciate that as we talk about British Columbia under the former government….

Started under the former government, the B.C. Liberal government, was the adoption of electric vehicles in this province. But this is a specific focus for good reason. There are other ways to lower our carbon footprint. That is one way — the greater adoption of electric vehicles, including in buses, trucks, supply chain, elsewhere, forklifts.

We’re now talking about global companies that are coming into the B.C. marketplace that are facing this bill. What are they facing? Directors of a global company are now personally responsible for the risks associated with their product.

The vehicle I drive today sent me a message a couple days ago that said: “We’re going to give you access to our self-driving program.” I said to my wife: “I don’t think we’re going to try this out.” My son says: “No, we’ve got to try this out.” I said: “Well, okay.” Haven’t done that yet. But the point is that the world is rapidly changing.

Would a company like that send a message to its end-use customer and say, “You try this new program,” recognizing the liability and the risk exposure it has under this bill? Does this quash, limit, restrain innovation, adoption of technology in our province? Maybe.

[2:25 p.m.]

I give two small personal examples of the kinds of risks and exposure that we’re talking about. I’ll give another one. I know the members of the Third Party, specifically the member for Saanich North and the Islands, have raised before, some time ago, including in his videos, the need to recognize the advance of artificial intelligence globally.

We are known in Canada and in this province to be a leader in artificial intelligence. The kinds of social harms that even Bill C-63 is talking about are today’s harms, for sure — the ones the Premier and the Attorney General have referred to as well. There are a lot of challenges in the future about the responsible use of artificial intelligence. I know that, as well, specifically, and it’s a specific interest of mine.

Also, we look at leading companies in our province that are leading even in the adoption of artificial intelligence for the purpose of municipalities, like Kelowna. I know that Kelowna recently was featured by Microsoft in the United States for its leadership in adopting innovation. In this case, they use it to get through the housing permit process faster.

They are not just using artificial intelligence and data management for that purpose. They’re using it across the board in terms of how it services the residents of Kelowna. This is just an example of the complex nature of product and service development that we have, including in this province.

The last thing I would want to see happen, apart from all the existing businesses and associations that have written this letter on March 28 but also for those innovation companies that I’ve just given a few examples of, is that it does not constrain the development of their products and services unintentionally.

Now, again, I get the dark side of the considerations around artificial intelligence. Many members in this House, I’m sure, appreciate that, but I’m also talking about the positive impact that AI can make. I think when you’re talking about technology innovation companies, they’re taking some risk. I don’t mean from a regulatory, personal harm point of view, but they’re risking everything — capital, their livelihoods — on technology advancement that may or may not see the light of day or may not be commercially profitable.

With a broad, sweeping bill like this, without a well-defined legislative framework, it has the potential, at least in the time that I’ve spent looking at the bill, to constrain that level of innovation and advancement in our province.

I’ve given the examples on the other side about cannabis and gaming. I think that there are other harms that potentially the government is looking at. It would be good to know from government, specifically, what those harms are, because to date we’ve only heard about the online platforms, the energy drinks and one other one that I did already refer to earlier. Apart from those three categories, that’s all we’ve heard.

I think it’s important that we have a good understanding from government as to the uses of this bill. But even as we have that, the challenge is that the bill is so broadly worded, it doesn’t say, for example — I don’t believe, unless I missed it — that the categories of products and services that this bill will address will be specified by regulation. It doesn’t say that.

Even if it did, of course, government can change that any time. It does not give a lot of certainty to businesses and economic development in our province. This is the overarching concern relating to this bill, the concern around how, with the overreach, it will have that impact.

If I go back to some of the other provisions of this bill, we have….

[2:30 p.m.]

This is another way of approaching the challenge around the way the bill is presented. The definition of “disease, injury or illness” includes the following: physical or mental injury or illness, problematic product use — I’ll come back to that — addiction, general deterioration of health. The one I’m trying to get to is the one at the bottom: the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Even if we just treat the definition as a stand-alone and focus on those words without seeing how the term “disease, injury or illness” is being utilized in the bill, which I have referred to earlier and I can again, if there’s time, the risk of disease…. Disease, injury or illness means the risk of disease, injury or illness, so what is that risk?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I’m referring to what risk is as defined in the definition of “disease, injury, illness” in Bill 12. I’m focusing on those words because it’s another example of the general and broad nature of this bill. It doesn’t have a clear definition of risk. Clearly, risk is not defined in this bill — the limitations or constraints or criteria around what determines a risk. As a result, the risk of disease, injury or illness….

Just think about risk of disease. Risk of disease includes any underlying causes, presumably, that a person who ingests cannabis or any other substance which is supplied by government….

We have this situation, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, in this province, where the government continues to put a lot of focus on the public supply of addictive drugs. We’re now talking about government providing that product. I know that the government does that, in part of its thinking around service, to help those who are addicted to drugs get off drugs. Obviously, as you know, we have a big focus on recovery, which this government doesn’t seem to have.

Putting that aside, what is the long-term effect of ingesting those drugs? Is that not a risk of disease or illness? If I step back from that, we also see there is a category of disease, injury and illness, including general deterioration of health and, of course, addiction itself…. In any one of these three categories that I’m referring to….

I think there’s a challenge here, when we’re talking about the product being drugs. It’s a challenge to this government, as well, I would suggest, particularly when we are looking at addiction.

Addiction to drugs, as a product in itself, is a disease, injury and illness that’s governed and caught within this act. How that plays out takes some discussion. I am noting, for the Attorney General, that this is an area that I would want to pursue in the context of committee stage. It will work through the bill, with examples like this, as to what the impact of that is.

I will also note, for the purpose of the second reading speech, that disease, injury or illness includes problematic product use. I had that same reaction as my colleague here. It sort of just jumped out at me. When we’re saying…. That means there are other uses of the product that are not problematic. So those uses of the product that are not problematic are not caught and are not included in disease, injury or illness. I’m not even sure why a disease, injury or illness includes product use. You’d think….

[2:35 p.m.]

Again, I appreciate that I’m just looking at the definition in isolation. In context, in the way this term is being utilized, it may explain away my concern, but I doubt it. Not when we’re talking about what I would expect — an end state.

You’re talking about a disease. You know what that looks like. A person’s got a disease. A person’s got an in­jury. A person’s got an illness. You know what those things look like.

How is product use a disease, injury or illness? You’re using a product. Well, no. Wait a second. You’re using it not in a good way. We say it’s problematic that you’re using it. Therefore, you now have a disease. You now have an injury, or you now have an illness. Why? It’s because this piece of legislation, Bill 12, deems it so. So it must be true.

Then, under clause 9, government says: “The cost we had to incur to help deal with your problematic use…. We say it’s this, and it will likely be this in the future. Therefore, company, you’ve got to pay us back. Therefore, you, director, are responsible because the company can’t do it.”

These are the convoluted possibilities that are there under this act the way it’s formed. It’s no wonder these business associations, the 24 or so of them, are asking for a pause. When they see terms like this…. They didn’t even put this in their letter. I appreciate that they’ve isolated and expressed specific concerns.

Here we are now talking about problematic product use. Those, to me, in combination with risk, and then we are talking about general deterioration, are three examples out of five. There are only five categories here. Three of them are, arguably, overly broad and not well defined under Bill 12.

This is the core definition of the bill. This is the harm, presumably, that the government is trying to address, to hold private companies and actors responsible for the harm that they cause.

The reason why we’re getting the recovery of health care benefits is due to the challenges that we see for a “health-related wrong.” That is, as defined under this bill, “(a) a breach by a person of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed to persons in British Columbia, or (b) a tort that is committed in British Columbia by a person and that causes or contributes to disease, injury or illness.”

This is where the term, under the core…. This whole bill is about health-related wrongs and the recovery of the benefits that have been paid out by government in relationship to that health-related wrong. So where we have these terms — “risk of disease,” “general deterioration of health” and “problematic product use” — is under health-related wrong. It needs to be a tort. It either needs to cause or contribute….

Here we have a tort that contributes to a problematic product use. I don’t see how that even makes sense, when you read those words. When I read this clause, “health-related wrong….” Under clause 1, “a tort that is committed in British Columbia by a person and that causes or contributes to disease, injury or illness….” That means it’s a tort, and it contributes to a problematic product use.

We’re talking about the regulation of the products themselves. The government is saying: “You, business, are re­sponsible. You’re producing a product. There has been a tort committed, and you contributed to a problematic product use.” This may be a very specific example, but it is an example of why this bill needs to be paused as to how it is framed and what we’re talking about here.

[2:40 p.m.]

I think it suggests that a product could be used properly and, therefore, not caught within the bill itself. If it’s not properly used…. It could be something that’s produced in a good way. There’s nothing wrong with the product itself, but it’s the way it’s used.

I suppose what government is going to say is that there’s a responsibility by the producer of the product to ensure that the product itself is not used problematically. Well, that’s a whole level of new responsibility that we’re putting on companies in terms of how people use their products.

We were talking about a scooter, how that could be improperly used — safety measures. We have a government that needs to ensure that the rules of the road, safety measures, either at the workplace, on our streets, in our communities…. This is a government that needs to do its job, not always look to shift that responsibility to someone else.

I understand the need to hold bad actors accountable and responsible. That’s why we have courts. That’s why we have laws. We have legislation, product safety or otherwise. But that’s what this government should be focused on.

Again, I understand the intention of this government in terms of some of what they’ve expressed publicly when they presented this bill. Certainly, our Leader of the Official Opposition recognizes that as well. But because of the broad, sweeping nature of this bill, for the examples that I’ve given today, it needs to be stood down. It needs to have the benefit of additional consultation, or any consultation on this bill. It doesn’t appear from this letter that there has been any.

This is something that, although the Premier did make some mention…. I believe back in January, there was some mention of his intent. I think that intention was focused on online harms. I could be wrong about that. But even on the day that this bill was announced and tabled, on March 14, two weeks before the letter came in from these business associations, it still focused on online harms and social media giants.

Even the example the Premier made about holding companies responsible referred to two examples. He referred to four different categories of big, faceless corporations. We have a Premier of our province that continually, always…. This is what we see here repeatedly. The understanding of what companies and corporations do….

Well, I will tell you what they do. They employ people. They create jobs. They give all of us jobs. In fact, they give us jobs here. They contribute to the tax base. My father, when he had a drugstore on the east side of Vancouver, created jobs. When he went on to have a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, he created jobs. Those created products.

These are the kinds of things that when we’re talking about big, faceless corporations…. Well, big, faceless corporations in B.C., because we know, as the saying goes…. I know this government likes to parrot it. We recognize the significant percentage, over 94 percent, that are small businesses, in terms of how we define that in this province.

They’re not faceless, but we have a Premier that continues to downplay and denigrate businesses in our province of any sort, whether they’re carbon-based, resource-based or technology-based. I don’t get it. The big, faceless corporations that he talks about…. This is the Premier of our province. Social media giants, tobacco and drug companies and other big, faceless corporations….

Well, as I say to the Premier and to the Attorney General, we know, as I’ve been referring to…. We do have the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Is it the intention of this government that they’re introducing legislation that fills in the gaps of the legislation to regulate tobacco companies? If they are, isn’t it more appropriate to introduce amendments to the original piece of legislation that they had to originally, under a previous NDP government, pull back, because it was viewed to be not constitutional, and then pull forward again? If there’s something that’s missing here, they should do that.

Drug companies. Well, drug companies I’ve talked to in part, but we know we had the opioid legislation as well. That’s in place. Again, same point. If there’s something that is missing in that piece of legislation, this government should bring forward amendments to that piece of legislation.

That leaves us with social media giants. I’ve submitted, through the course of my remarks, that there is a lack of specificity in this bill if it’s the intention of this government to deal with online social media platforms. It ought to do so in a more targeted, specific way, like the tobacco and opioid bills that this government and former NDP governments have put in place before.

My current example of that approach, as I’ve mentioned, is Bill C-63 federally. That bill, the Online Harms Act, which has been in second reading in the House of Commons in Ottawa, includes cost charges; regulations to im­pose charges on social media operators for the purpose of recovering the costs of the new regulatory mechanisms and administrative penalties which relate to the moderation of the content — this can include nonconsensual intimate content, content that victimizes children, content that ferments hate or incites violence; and having additional regulators put in place: a digital safety commission, a digital safety ombudsman and a digital safety office of Canada.

These are examples of the kinds of measures that even if this provincial government saw the need…. Recognizing, of course, that this law is still moving forward in Ottawa, recognizing that that is the case…. But even looking at…. If there are some provincial gaps in jurisdiction that this government needs to address, address those gaps specifically. Tell us what they are and deal with them.

I recognize, certainly, that Bill C-63 also deals with hate speech and incitement of public violence online. This is additional strengthening of relevant Criminal Code provisions that I’ve spoken to the Attorney General, and written to her, about in terms of what’s happening on our streets. I know the importance of also getting that right.

This bill, by the way, does not deal with that at all. I don’t know that I heard this from the government here either. I didn’t hear this, so I’m not suggesting it. But it’s certainly not the companion piece to that piece of legislation. It doesn’t even deal with hateful incitement speech, incitement of violence, content related to that. We’re talking about products and services.

So I think there are gaps, potentially, certainly when we talk about different types of harms online. That doesn’t come into a product or service, and it’s not something that causes an injury, disease or the other category that I referred to, illness.

It does come back to focus. It comes back to focus and priorities by this government. I understand, and I mentioned earlier, that under the legislation, we are talking about terms relating to present value that bring it forward.

I am looking for…. There is a concept here. One ex­ample of what I was referring to earlier is under clause 5: “Recovery of cost of health care benefits — risk.” That’s the title.

[2:50 p.m.]

Clause 5(4) says: “In assessing the proportion of a de­fendant’s contribution to disease, injury or illness” — there’s that term again — “the court may take into account anything it considers relevant, including a defendant’s market share in a product.”

Clearly, the focus and the way that this bill reads…. It’s no wonder that these business associations are alarmed, because it reads to specifically specify concepts like this. We’re talking about how businesses operate, the kind of market share they have of a particular product in the marketplace. Well, that certainly attributes the kind of liability exposure that one has. But who determines that?

Who determines the defendant’s market share? Who determines that when we’re talking about a company that’s operating outside British Columbia, inside British Columbia, and causing the harm that we’re talking about — the nameless companies that the Premier is so focused on?

I think it suggests that there’s a recognition of the kind of impact, the determination around the kind of product liability impact that a company ought to be exposed to. That is the reason why I do find it very concerning that even though the province, the government, seems to recognize that part of it, it doesn’t recognize the importance of limiting and putting a cap on overall damages when it comes to joint and several liability for directors and officers. That is despite the fact that there is a due diligence defence available to itself.

I would say that that due diligence defence is fairly challenged because it assumes that a board of directors and management team will be able to properly assess the kind of damages, the kind of risks that Bill 12 is referring to, the kind of risk exposure to be able to put mitigative actions and plans to address that risk. So it does assume that even in terms of the exercise of this reasonable due diligence defence, a corporation and its board of directors and officers will be able to assess for themselves the kind of risk exposure that Bill 12 has spelled out.

This is the reason why, when I look at Bill 12 and the level of definition being what it is — broad, open-ended, loosely defined, not defined, no specificity…. These are all the challenges with this bill. I’m suggesting this not as legal advice; I’m only suggesting this on the floor of the House here. It’s little comfort for those directors and officers when it comes to their due diligence defence under this provision. Again, I say that in the context of a second reading speech.

I know that the government needs to take a pause and consider, hopefully, the comments that I’m making here today, that they’ll reflect on points that were made today and concerns and considerations which are an expansion on the principal concerns that are raised by the business associations in their letter and other legal inputs.

I think that in the absence of a targeted approach, the government is elevating the level of risk for companies to either consider alternatives as to whether to invest in B.C. businesses, to continue to have products produced by a B.C. subsidiary…. That, by the way, does raise another question.

[2:55 p.m.]

When we’re talking about an international global entity, corporate entity — again, like the Premier likes to refer to, a nameless corporation…. They do have names, by the way, I’d like to inform the Premier. They do all have names. Putting that aside…. They’re not Billy and Bobby, for sure. But they are persons under the B.C. corporations act, and the Premier well knows that.

The point is…. When we have a company that has a subsidiary producing products in British Columbia, do we run the risk of that company not wanting to produce its products in British Columbia any longer, relocating its plant somewhere else, like Alberta, producing the product there because they’re not exposed to that same level of undefined risk that we see in Bill 12? Here’s another scenario that I’m urging the province to consider.

I’ve got to say again that with the level of reference that we continue to see under this Premier and this government to businesses in British Columbia…. We’ve seen this repeatedly in changes to the labour code and labour legislation, of course. I have a colleague here, the member for Shuswap, who has raised this repeatedly to the government.

We see this in the mining sector. Again, the member for Kootenay East has been here, the member for Peace River North. We’ve seen so many of these challenges in the forestry sector and the mining sector.

There’s a lack of understanding, which is endemic in this government, that we see in this legislation. I think that business associations in our province are recognizing this. Maybe they’ve recognized this in the past, of course. Maybe they’ve communicated that directly in their one-on-one conversations with ministers of the Crown here.

For them to all sign a letter and submit it, en masse, as they’ve done, on March 28, should give this government some pause. It should. It’s not just the official opposition, B.C. United, that is talking here about some scenarios and some speculation about what this would mean.

These are real concerns that the government should be addressing. They should be addressing this before this legislation comes to the floor. Now that it’s on the floor and we’re in the middle of second reading…. It needs to take a pause now to talk to these industry associations and business associations around the province, to engage with them, to get their input, to consult with them so that government can understand the risks associated with the bill that they’ve presented.

Again, they have identified, in clear detail, the concerns that they have with this bill. In summary, they include the broad definition of “product”: goods, services or by-products. That is sweeping in the sense of what is covered by this bill. It covers not just a product or service that may cause or causes a disease, injury, illness. It’s also a product or service that contributes to a risk of a disease, injury or illness without defining clear criteria for determining those risks or costs.

I have talked to, as well, the other expenditures, the scope of this bill. It also includes costs and expenditures that relate to programs and services that might be educational in nature or preventative. The Attorney General referred to that as well. So it goes beyond the specific costs that might be applicable.

I would say again. This is a change in approach. I’ve said before. It’s not the targeted approach that was there under the cigarette and opioid legislation.

It’s not specific costs, types of costs. It introduces risk. It introduces broader categories of costs. It also has this certificate, where the minister of this government can just table a certificate that determines conclusively, without any proof of actual risk or harm, that these are the expenditures. The linkage is not necessarily there, but there’s a certificate, a bill, that government can just provide to the company.

[3:00 p.m.]

I went on to say…. I have concerns around the joint and several liability without any caps. It is putting that on directors and officers. That will cause some pause, for sure.

We certainly, with the B.C. United caucus, with the official opposition, with our leader, want to see a province that continues to grow.

One way, through affordability, is to ensure we have a larger, bigger economy. We’re not going to get there with additional moves like this, which constrain the growth of our economy, constrain the growth of business, constrain the possible investment in these businesses, likely encourage the relocation of operations out of this jurisdiction, out of our province. None of these things do we want to see.

We speak here because we have serious concerns about this bill. I hope that members of government, the Premier and the Attorney General will step back from this bill — as they did with the Land Act amendments, as they have done, even, with recognition of the unique needs of children with autism and on the spectrum, and recognizing the challenges of those hubs.

Government has shown before that it recognizes when it has made a misstep. I hope the government here will recognize, in the face of the concerns that are being raised, the concerns that I’ve been speaking to in the course of my remarks here, that they need to step back from this bill, take a pause, do the consultation with stakeholders and with the business associations. so that we can better define and clarify the intention, the purpose, the language, the restrictions, the terms of the bill itself.

As it stands today, this bill is far too broad, too ill-defined and bears too much risk to small businesses in British Columbia. This is the concern that I have. I know that as I sit down, at the end of my remarks here, at least the members of the official opposition B.C. United caucus will continue to elaborate on these concerns as we go forward.

With that, thank you.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.

I have been listening intently to the member for Vancouver-Langara, and I think he raises a number of very important and significant issues around this legislation. The intent of the legislation — the idea of government being able to hold accountable the companies that cause harm to people — is a good intent. As the previous mem­ber spoke about, we’ve seen this in the legislation focused and targeted on cigarette companies or on opioid-producing companies, but the challenge of this legislation is not small.

We have two immediate concerns.

The first one is that this legislation seems to be coming in place as a reactive response to harms. People in B.C., particularly young people, as was highlighted in the introduction of this legislation, are suffering as a result of a variety of forces in their lives — social media, vaping companies, for example — but the action in this legislation only comes after those harms have happened.

I think that what I would much prefer to see from government is to look at those harms and how they’re happening and where they’re happening, and then act in a way within the purview of government to be able to reduce and diminish and, hopefully, make those harms go away. I’ll get into that in a little bit.

Secondly, and the member for Vancouver-Langara spoke to this: there’s the breadth of this proposed legislation — the questions that this raises, given the amount of uncertainty that this legislative package and this regime would create, and the lack of consultations or the lack of examples of this kind of legislation in other jurisdictions.

[3:05 p.m.]

The former speaker talked about legislative process, and we raise this a lot. I always try to think of analogies, but I think legislation should not be a jack-in-the-box, my favourite analogy and worst toy of all time. Legislation shouldn’t be: “Surprise! Here it is.” It should really be a long, consultative, deliberative process.

I’m always eager to learn from our chief of staff, who comes to us from New Zealand, about legislative process in New Zealand and how shocked she was about how rapidly legislation is passed here in B.C. There, a piece of legislation would be tabled, and there would be no intention of passing that bill for at least a year so that there’s time to understand it. There’s time for consultation; there’s time for input from stakeholders; there’s time for input from the public. There’s time for government to make amendments and for opposition parties to make amendments; there’s time to get that legislation right before it’s passed.

Yet the trend we have in B.C. with our legislation is not only the jack-in-the-box surprise but also that we don’t even go through the basic legislative processes with far too many pieces of legislation that have made their way through this House: health regulation and forestry regulation changes, legislation around freedom of information, housing legislation. Very significant pieces of legislation are often frameworks with lots of regulations to be filled in later, behind closed doors and orders-in-council. So that’s not public.

Not only are they significant, but we don’t even have the opportunity to finish the process in here that we were all elected to do: to be legislators and to be able to ask questions and get, ideally, very clear and very straightforward answers about the content and the intent of the legislation. So I think we have a legislative process deficit here in B.C., and unfortunately, it’s getting worse.

Ideally it would be good for companies to be held accountable for harm — again, we’ve seen this in the long, long battle to hold cigarette companies accountable for the harm that they caused — particularly when it comes to the health, the general health, the public health of the people of B.C.

As we understand this legislation, it proposes to apply to social media companies, which have been shown to produce and use algorithms that have negative health and social impacts on their users, especially on youth. These health impacts have been shown to include addiction, eating disorders, depression, anxiety, a flurry of other detrimental mental illnesses and mental health challenges.

We’re hopeful to see government acknowledge and recognize that these harms are happening to young people, but what we would prefer to see would be an investment in the areas of government that are responsible for how young people are existing in the world today.

I’ll start with schools. When I was teaching, cell phones were becoming more and more ubiquitous and more and more of a problem in my classrooms. At the time, there were no sorts of general rules or expectations around cell phone use. As a teacher, it always had to be a form of negotiation and conversation with my students.

[3:10 p.m.]

Generally at that time, there was a willingness on the part of students to say, “Yeah, I’ll put my phone away for the day,” or “I’ll put it in my locker until we have break time.” I could see that when the cell phones were out, the students’ attention was definitely not with me anymore. It was in the phone.

That problem has only deepened and gotten much more entrenched. We’ve seen calls from politicians and some steps from government recognizing the problem of cell phone use in school. But I would argue it hasn’t gone nearly far enough. If we wanted to create the conditions for children to have less harm from social media and from cell phone use, government’s realm is really in the education system.

The way in which we could start to take seriously and start to address this is.

One, you need a blanket expectation across your education system that personal cell phones don’t belong in classrooms. That’s not to say that there aren’t technology and tools in classrooms, because of course, we need young people to learn to use the technology that is so ubiquitous in our lives and is becoming more so, but there needs to be an equality built into that. Rather than some kids come with the brand-new MacBook, and some kids have the 20-year-old laptop that their older siblings or aunt and uncle used, we need schools that provide equal access to the tools that young people need to be learning to use. One: no personal cell phones in schools.

Two, equal access to the devices and the tools and the tools that young people need to be learning from. But that that learning is managed in the classroom and the use of those technological tools is focused on learning, not on scrolling through social media while your history teacher gives you a lesson on World War II. Although if your history teacher is really entertaining, you will pay attention to that lesson, most of the time. But it’s pretty hard to compete with TikTok, let me tell you.

In the acknowledgment that we have from government, that young people are suffering harms from social media and from overuse of these technologies, what I would much prefer to see than a piece of legislation that seems pretty challenging to see if it’s going to work or not and that only applies after harms have happened…. I would much rather see a government focused on mitigating and preventing those harms now.

In addition to clear and enforceable and equitable policies around the use of technology in classrooms and in schools across B.C., we need to see a pretty significant increase in access to mental health supports in schools, school psychologists. Every time I talk to — and I remember this, again, from teaching, but I know it’s gotten much worse — school counsellors and school psychologists, it is often that they’re spread so thinly, sometimes across more than one school, and that the access that any student has, is very limited. It might be 20 minutes every third week. And we know that kids in crisis, especially in mental health crisis, need access to support and mental health supports immediately.

Create schools where (1) kids aren’t crowded into class­rooms or stacked up in portables; (2) they have teachers and education assistants who are themselves not overwhelmed and overwrought and doing more than they should and having too many students and not enough resources; and then (3) have built into our schools, which is the best place to reach kids with mental health supports, really accessible school psychologists, counsellors and many avenues to health and wellness.

[3:15 p.m.]

The other part about our schools is that…. I was just reading a caption about a book that’s been written by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt called The Anxious Generation. He says: “The mass migration of childhood into the virtual world has disrupted the social and neurological development of children.”

It’s not just that the kids aren’t paying attention to their very interesting history lesson in class; it’s that they are spending so much time in this virtual world that the developmental stages that we go through as humans, small humans and then older humans, really do rely on play and social interaction and being outdoors and jumping around and all the sorts of things that probably most of us remember from our childhood and maybe dreaded sometimes but recognize now that it was fun to run around and take risks.

We need to take the evidence that we have on neurological development, on social development. We need to take the guidance that we’re getting from more and more experts on child psychology and child mental health who are all saying the same things: our kids’ mental health is harmed by too much time in the virtual world, too much time on cell phones, too much time on social media.

What a government can do, has the capacity and the resources to do, is actually to ensure that we’re creating the conditions in schools where kids are spending eight hours of their day, five days of the week or, for lucky kids on Salt Spring, four days of the week…. We’re creating those conditions where we are ensuring that kids are getting the experiences and the access to the non-virtual world that they need to have to be well.

Having a piece of legislation that says, “Someday in the future, at some point, the government might bring a lawsuit against the companies that at some point in the past caused harm to children,” is not the proactive response we need to take in what is another one of these unfolding slow-motion emergencies that we have in our society.

I really think that where we falter is when we ignore preventative measures, when we ignore the conditions that we can create to make people have the opportunity to be well. Public health is such a great example of this. Public health is meant to keep people healthy through all manner of methods like education, access to healthy food, immunization programs, access to programs for little kids, med­ium-sized kids, big-sized kids. All of these are a form of public health.

Mental health care for a lot of families…. Because the kids can’t access it in school, there is often a price barrier, a cost barrier that is insurmountable for a lot of families. Even if they can address the cost barrier of accessing a psychologist for their child, the time that it takes to get an appointment is often way beyond what is necessary to address the crisis that a child might be in.

[3:20 p.m.]

I also want to just talk about an elephant in the room when it comes to talking about companies that are causing harm, that are causing risk of disease, injury or illness. The elephant in the room for public health impacts is certainly hard to ignore when we look ahead to the summer. We are surely going to have another smoke-filled summer that is going to cause incredible public health impacts — impacts to our lung health, our brain health, impacts to our mental health.

Year over year, we’re seeing the impacts of the fossil fuel industry and its continued burning of fossil fuel and mining of fuels to be burned. There are enormous public health impacts from the fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuel pollution is directly linked to 34,000 premature deaths in Canada each year; 34,000 people die earlier than they should because of fossil fuel pollution, and over eight million people globally. I would argue there isn’t an industry creating greater harm when it comes to public health right now in the world.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment pushed for a fossil fuel ad ban for two years and worked with NDP Member of Parliament Charlie Angus to shape Bill C-372 to address fossil fuel advertising.

Again, here’s something that governments can do proactively. Angus’s private member’s bill is modelled after strategies aimed at preventing the tobacco industry from promoting cigarettes, since we know smoking is harmful to human health. Smoking, when it’s the air we breathe, is also very harmful to human health.

This kind of bill is one way to deal with false ads. As we had from the cigarette industry for a long time: “Doctors say that this is the best cigarette to smoke.” It’s a way to deal with false advertising that threatens climate progress by warping the understanding of potential solutions at a time when people need to be making decisions around whether to support fossil gas development projects or whether to use more fossil fuels.

There’s an environmental group in B.C. that is suing the B.C. natural gas utility FortisBC, accusing it of green­washing its product through marketing that makes the company seem more environmentally friendly than it is. The federal Competition Bureau is investigating after Greenpeace accused Canada’s six biggest oil sands producers of false advertising for a similar marketing campaign that suggested the fossil fuel sector was reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping Canada achieve its climate targets.

I think it’s time for us in B.C. to take this public health issue far more seriously. I’m sure all of you have seen, and some members of this House are actually featured in, the “BC LNG will reduce global emissions” ad campaign that is ubiquitous on social media, on buses, on billboards, airports. It’s a campaign that they seem to…. I’ll take it that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but they certainly seem to like what B.C. Green ads look like, because they have copied them almost exactly.

This is an example of where government could be taking proactive steps to try to prevent harm, as opposed to waiting for harm to happen, waiting for health impacts to happen, and then saying: “Well, we will find a way to sue these companies for the harm they’ve caused at some point down the road, and then we will recoup the cost to our health care system from the health harm that they have caused.” For the people who are ill or injured or for the people who have lost loved ones because of these health harms, I think that’s cold comfort.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think almost everybody would agree that we would all much prefer to see the harms prevented, rather than to see government tell us: “Don’t worry. At some point in the future, we can sue and recoup financial losses from these companies.”

I think the member for Vancouver-Langara also talked about this at length, and I started here. But concerns about the consultation process, about the implementation of this bill…. From what I understand, this legislation is broad, and the proof-of-harm requirement is quite low. For businesses, as we know, that rely on certainty, the breadth of this legislation and the speed with which government appears to intend to pass it can create real uncertainty and therefore real economic risk for B.C.

Some of the proposals in this legislation haven’t been tried anywhere — for example, making Facebook liable for what individuals have done with the platform, something that has been discussed for years in international forums without any resolution. Linking the harm to a specific platform, as opposed to an individual who posts on that platform, also appears to be unprecedented.

The lack of consultation and engagement, again, worries me. It appears that there was very little consultation done before this legislation was tabled. Like the terrible jack-in-the-box, people were surprised to see this legislation arrive, and groups are expressing their very real concerns with this.

I would end by saying that what I would much rather see from government is an investment in the health and well-being of people, especially youth, right now. There are so many tools available to government to actually create significantly substantially healthier places for our kids to spend their days. I think about this a lot, that kind of message a child internalizes when they go to a school that doesn’t have enough resources, that doesn’t have enough education assistants, where the teachers are burning out, so they might be having a series of teachers on call come in.

What kind of message does a child internalize about how they’re valued in our province and in our society when what they see around them every day when they go to school is not enough? There’s not enough of anything to go around.

I think if we wanted to really tackle the growing problem of child and youth mental health concerns that are in this province, we start by saying: what can we do to create conditions that actually create mental health and wellness, that create physical health and wellness, that create a sense of connection, that tell a child a story that not only do you belong, but you are valued, cared for, and we put resources into your well-being?

We want to make sure that every child in this province has everything they need to thrive every day that they go to school, that this is a guaranteed place of abundance for children, and it’s a guaranteed place of abundance without the ubiquitous virtual world always there. It’s a place of abundance where kids are playing outdoors, are interacting with each other, and kids are freed of that time that their phones take away from them.

[3:30 p.m.]

They’re freed of that constant input, that constant stimulation that comes with these phones always grabbing our attention, always grabbing and directing our emotions. I think that we should take this moment and this time we’re in very seriously.

We have the evidence now. We have the experts telling us what’s needed to be done. We have the choice, always, about how we spend resources, how we invest, what we invest in.

If we recognize, with legislation like this, that there are real harms happening to children right now as a result of the way that companies are operating, let’s do something right now to decrease those harms and to make sure that kids are spending their day in a place and in an environment that is improving their health and well-being as opposed to contributing to the harms that they’re experiencing.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Welcome to the chair. Sorry for your timing. You almost avoided my time at the lectern.

I am very much pleased to join this debate and very keen on listening to comments from my colleagues across the way. I’ll leave those, perhaps, a bit towards the end because I may have to express some disappointment in the notion that there’s either one or another solution to the challenge facing young people today — that there’s only preventative or there are only the actions taken in Bill 12, which we’ll talk about here today. I would argue there are in fact both, because we can be expansive in our approach to complex challenges. I’m sure my colleague from the Green Party will hear and read the transcript diligently later.

The Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act is a very specific piece of legislation. I noticed some concerns from people across the way that B.C. is leading the way on this, that there aren’t examples across Canada of governments that are taking this approach to holding people accountable for the products they produce and the effect that it has, particularly on young people, which is rightly consuming part of our conversation.

Rather than be afraid of being in a leadership position, I would encourage the opposition to embrace the opportunity to lead the rest of Canada, which this government has done on two other occasions, to some success. In holding the manufacturers of opioids, some of the most addictive drugs ever invented….

Purdue pharmaceuticals, in particular, had to pay out $150 million to the people of B.C. because of known harms that their drugs were introducing into our communities — deadly harms, as Madam Speaker would know, in some of the smallest communities and our largest cities. We had to change the law in B.C. to allow the government to take Purdue to court, as we have also done with big tobacco.

These are two good examples, I think, when looking at this bill, because now we’re talking about other parts of industries, like the vaping industry or those that run social media platforms, who, we have now seen increasing evidence, are aware of the harm that their products cause yet don’t feel any particular compunction or intention of mitigating or reducing those harms. Be it a social media giant with a highly addictive algorithmic platform that drives, particularly, young and more susceptible people onto the platform again and again and can have enormously terrible consequences on their lives and the lives of their families….

We can step into that particular dark path if we want. I thought of an instructive quote I read from Edward Tufte, that there are only two industries that refer to their customers…. I’m going to return back to this. I think this quote lends itself better a little bit later.

I’d allow, for the examples that are used here today…. One is the vaping industry. I don’t know if Madam Speaker or colleagues are aware, but I have young kids, and the prevalence of vaping in our schools, particularly high schools and even younger, is incredibly high.

[3:35 p.m.]

For those of us of a different generation, there was the smoking pit out back of the high school where kids would go and smoke cigarettes, and other things. That’s what was done. It was a known thing. There was the smell. It was eventually pushed off of high school campuses. You weren’t allowed to do it. The smoking rate of tobacco has actually gone down in many of the young generations — a great success of decades of work.

Higher taxation was one of the issues that was able to drive young people away from smoking. And education — the known harms, the commercials, the ads and the instruction to young people to say: “This is what the harm is causing.”

Vaping moved in insidiously behind this with cherry-flavoured and bubble gum–flavoured and root beer–flavoured vapes that were clearly targeted specifically at younger people, because that’s what you design those flavours for. They don’t emit a lot of smoke, or any smoke at all. They’re very hard to trace and a constant challenge for our education system and parents to be able to catch. Yet it has enormous harm on the health effects, particularly of young lungs and brains. This is something that this bill would allow us to pursue damages for.

Highly caffeinated energy drinks. Most parents would not go out and buy their kid four-shot espressos at age ten, yet energy drinks can contain as much or more caffeine than four shots of espresso. You see kids walking through stores, and I’ve actually watched parents, consuming them, because they have bright and colourful and fun labels about how you too will have more energy and be a peppy kid. Meanwhile, caffeine at younger ages has enormous health implications and addictive qualities to it that drive kids back to the product over and over again.

Social media companies, by the very nature of the platforms, are designed to be addictive. That’s the whole purpose and orientation of the algorithms that are behind the success of those products. For young and old, we are drawn back again and again, because it satisfies, neurol­ogically, something that we all crave: affirmation, attention and communication with others.

That chemical addiction, which is what it is…. Neurological and chemical addiction can be built up over time. The challenge with this is, of course, that we are now seeing the consequences of this experiment, essentially, that we’ve been running, particularly on young people, since social media went mobile.

When the first iPhone was introduced and the ability to get on social media — initially Facebook, Twitter and then everything that’s followed from it, TikTok and Instagram — became mobile, what also happened at the same time? Suicidality rates went through the roof. Young people’s addiction went through the roof. Body image dropped. Self-esteem rates across our country and province dropped.

There’s nothing else that changed within our world at the same time to be able to point to and say that this is why young people started feeling less good about themselves, about their body image, about their prospects in life and about their future other than these two things combined: highly addictive programming and the ability to have it in your hand and your pocket at all times, calling and pinging and eliciting what is a chemical interaction.

There’s a ton of research on this that’s important for us to look at. I will address what the Third Party Leader was saying, just in terms of: “We should focus entirely on prevention.” I would say we need to focus on both, because there is a history within corporate Canada and corporate North America, at various points, of industry not wanting to be accountable for the results of their business. It’s been a lamentable history, and sometimes it gets corrected, but often it only gets corrected when sued or when laws change.

Lead in gasoline we knew was neurologically damaging to children. We knew it for a long time. The oil industry for decades resisted, because there was a cheaper quality to the gasoline if you had lead in it, which was first put in to stop the knocking effect of early engines. That’s why it was there. Nobody at the time, in the ’30s and ’40s, realized that there were health effects to lead, but when we learned it, it took us another 25 years to ban lead in gasoline.

One has to imagine that in these halls and these legislatures, they probably debated it at the time. What should we do about this? There were some engineers that said this is essential, and they probably dragged a few doctors and nurses of varying quality in to say maybe lead is not so harmful. But it became so overwhelming and so conclusive that eventually it was irresistible, and industry said: “We have to find an alternative to putting in lead.”

[3:40 p.m.]

Tobacco. For an even longer period of time, we knew it was harmful, not just to those that were smoking but secondhand smoke. For those of us of a certain generation, we can remember parents smoking in cars, cars filled with kids, on road trips for hours and hours at a time.

Going into the teachers’ lounge…. I remember going into the teachers’ lounge as a kid. I had to go find a teacher to bring a message, which was a terrifying experience for a seven- or eight-year-old. I can remember only being able to really see the knees of all the teachers that were in there because the smoke was so thick. That’s what teachers did in the teachers’ lounge, and that was normalized. That was considered okay.

I remember the smoking sections and non-smoking sections in planes. I remember my first plane trip. I was ten years old, and we sat in the row right behind the smoking sections. Even as a ten-year-old, I thought: “This is pretty stupid.” But this was normalized in society.

We didn’t embrace and fully comprehend, and we said: “There are rights of smokers.” Only after the evidence became overwhelming, year after year after year, that the consequences were real, not, again, just on those who get addicted to cigarettes, which…. Of course, the companies had been putting chemicals in their cigarettes to make them more addictive. Does this sound familiar to some of the companies that we’re talking about here today?

Eventually legislators, like this place, took their responsibility here and in Ottawa and in Washington and in London and around the world and said: “Look, we’re going to put some laws in place to keep cigarettes away from kids particularly, and we’re not going to allow people to be exposed to secondhand smoke at their work or within a few metres of a school door.”

Seatbelts. This is amazing when you go back through the accounting of this — that there was actually decades of testimony from car companies saying: “Not only, if you enforce seatbelts into cars, would you drive automakers out of business; it would actually be more harmful to people in an accident if they were seatbelted in.” You can’t make it up because it was just said time and time again.

That’s where my primary concern comes with the worries expressed by the official opposition. This was said, and I listened very closely to the speech: that if there is an impact on business, then we should be more than cautious. We should actually withdraw our effort. I listened very closely. Time and time again, concerns about: would this have a chilling effect?

The bill is based on provable public harm. If one is not causing provable public harm, what does one have to worry about? The opposition is fierce in their tough-on-crime position: that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have to worry about legislation that increases prison sentences. So, too, in this question. Around the business community, it’s to say: “Welcome into the conversation.”

When we talk about social media companies, almost all of them based in the West Coast of the United States and California, there is an obligation and a contract, when operating a business in any society, that if you are going to be responsible for your product, you shouldn’t be concerned if your product isn’t causing provable public harm. It shouldn’t be a worry. We’ve known this.

To my friend from the opposition, the Third Party, that if there are consequences to the way one conducts business…. If a business knows and a board of directors know that, if they are found in violation and causing public harm and they knew about it, they could be held liable, it will change the behaviour of that business.

A natural deterrence is what we would call it in law. We use it all the time. This Legislature in the past, and, I’m sure, in the future, will use the notion of deterrence and responsibility and accountability as a basis for how we write laws.

It’s one thing for politicians to get up and say: “These social media giants are terrible. They’re really harming our kids. We’re watching more suicides. We’re watching a lowering of how children feel about themselves, about their futures, about their bodies, about their relationships. But gosh, what can we possibly do about it?” We’re saying: “Well, one of the things to correct the behaviour, to make Facebook and TikTok and Instagram more accountable for the products that they put out into British Columbia, is to know that there is a legal threat of being held accountable.”

That is not an unreasonable standard: to a vaping company that is seeking to sell their products, if they are able to be shown to be providing or causing provable public harm, that there will be consequence not to some low-level manager or someone distributing the product in the field but to the board of directors and the executives who made those decisions.

[3:45 p.m.]

We know that there is public interest here. When we announced in mid-January to empower school boards to keep cell phones out of the hands of kids during instructional time in class, with some caveats out for health concerns or if the tool, the device, is being used for particular learning and research in the moment…. But the rest of the time, why don’t you just be in school?

I have a lot of friends who teach. I have a lot of friends who have kids in classes. The addictive nature of the cell phone is harming our kids’ ability to learn and be good students. So we enabled that.

To my friend from the Green Party’s point about doing more preventative work — absolutely. This is a preventa­tive tool to empower our teachers, to empower our school boards to say: “When we’re in class, and we’re learning, how about we learn?” I challenge anyone here listening to try to learn something complicated — a piece of history, some math, whatever it happens to be — while also looking through Instagram and TikTok at the same time. All of the evidence tells us distracted learning is not learning at all.

We know this in our lives. There’s a shared responsibility in this. It can’t, of course, just be the province. There’s a responsibility on us as parents, as grandparents, as coaches to be able to talk to kids about what this very powerful tool is and its potential negative effects. The responsibility of government is to make sure that with those that are operating with a business licence for the opportunity to access B.C. residents, B.C. voters, B.C. taxpayers, there’s some accountability for their products. We know that an effort to change that behaviour comes with that accountability.

It is often said that we’ve come to overregulate the real world of children and that we are under-observing the digital world, the virtual world. I think this is true for a lot of parents and guardians, if we admit it. We had all that spectre in the ’80s and ’90s, a deep concern for children playing outside. Could they be affected and abducted? It’s a natural concern for any parent. But how much do we know about what our kids are looking at online right now?

How much do we truly understand the power of the tools that are being presented to them — how provable and addictive these tools are? I think parents need a little bit of help. I really do. This is a challenge. I’m not suggesting this is an easy challenge, but when we are knowingly providing provable….

We’ve had whistleblowers at all of the companies that I just mentioned knowing that they were addictive tools, knowing that they brought down the self-esteem, particu­larly of young women, around body image. They knew this. They know this, and they continue to do it.

For those in the neo-liberal party or whatever it’s called today, that industry is going to correct itself on this…. I would say they’ve had enough time. Clearly, they’ve had enough time. I don’t think another congressional testimony dragging them up and trying to embarrass them is going to do it. I think there has to be the threat of actual consequence to what it is that they do, how it is that they conduct themselves, as we would other businesses and as we do rightly.

I live in the North, where mining is a serious and growing interest, where it had some very successful years. One of the changes we wanted to make — we made it with the support of industry — was the notion of bonding projects, the notion of holding public trust over something consequential like a large mining project. Because we had had the history where, if a project were to go wrong, the legacy cost of that project could be far more in terms of environmental cleanup and costs to the community — drinking water or whatnot — than ever the project made in revenues to the government.

A natural consequence of doing business was to say: “You’re going to open up a large mine. We should set aside a certain amount of money at the front and bond it and know that the remedial actions required in a mine 50 or 60 years after it opens are taken care of.” And that is good. That makes sense.

There was some resistance within some of the mining sector about that notion. Is that adding costs? It seemed to me, and seems to many now, that those types of natural impediments to doing things badly and encouraging good behaviour with respect to care and maintenance are a good thing.

We’ve known…. There have been tragic cases — and I don’t bring them up specifically, naming the names — of young children who have been exploited online to enormous harm, to the point of suicide, destroying their lives, the lives of their families, because they were approached online in a way….

[3:50 p.m.]

By the way, if we ever created that scenario in the real world, we’d say with such horror: what parent would ever allow their child to be approached by a 50-, 60-year-old man and solicited and then eventually targeted and extorted? We would say: “What horrors.” But when a kid opens an app, and the app is driving an algorithm, and the algo­rithm is far more sophisticated than most people working in the company, never mind most legislators, know how it works…. Is there some responsibility that we share to allow the government to hold that company to account if there’s a provable public harm?

I think this should be entertained. I really do. I really believe that the option this government gave itself when it came to opioids and a company…. It had to be proven that it knowingly entered into our world and pushed a drug — in this case, opioids that were highly addictive — that doctors submitted themselves to, and people became disastrously addicted to this drug. There was consequence to that commercial behaviour.

I don’t know who argues against that. I don’t know who says: “Sorry, we don’t want to put a chill on the market. That company should be allowed to conduct itself that way.” But until we changed the law, the ability to go and seek harms from Purdue pharmaceuticals…. We were un­able to. We as a legislature, we as a government were unable to until we gave ourselves that power. These are important conversations in balancing out the rights of pri­vate enterprise to exist, create value, create work and jobs. These are all very important things. With those opportunities come responsibilities, and that seems right to me.

I live in a small town. Most of our main street businesses understand that their reputation matters a great deal. If they conduct themselves in a bad way, if they treat their employees badly, if they don’t contribute back to the community, their business would suffer. There’s a natural consequence to behaviour. But when you get to global firms, international firms like we’re talking about with the Facebooks, the Googles, the Metas, etc., we understand that they might not feel those same consequences. They might not make the same equation that we’re asking them here to make today.

To my friend from the Third Party, who talked about how we need to do more to help kids: well, of course, and absolutely. Children face all kinds of challenges. Grow­ing up in this modern age is different than it was in other ages. I don’t necessarily envy them. There are amazing opportunities and technologies and connection points. There’s also some significant challenge, a dislocation from the world.

So we’ve put more money into sports and schools and arts. We put money into food school programs, for the first time ever, because we know that that’s important. We’ve put more money into conservation than in this province’s history, because we know being outside and having a beautiful place to enjoy is going to be critical to mental health. And we put money into mental health and addictions, particularly for kids, because we know that’s important. We put more money into schools and access to libraries, and those things are all to the benefit.

If they were enough, they would be enough. But we also need to understand the pressures that young people are facing. We need to hold the companies accountable who are helping create some of those negative pressures. I think that’s a reasonable position for a government to take. I think we’ve proven time and again, in the two cases that I cited, first taking big tobacco to court — we’re in the midst of that negotiation right now, in the settlement — and also taking the company that produced opioids that caused so much harm and sought damages to the public health system. If anyone wants to get up and say it wasn’t enough, I’d probably agree that the damages that Purdue…. And the suit that they sought…. Other provinces joined behind in both cases, and I suspect other provinces will join behind in this one as well.

Those worried about capital flight…. First of all, most of these social media companies and vaping companies that we’re talking about do not base their operations and enterprises here in B.C. Secondly, if you’re not causing provable public harm, you’ve nothing to worry about, which seems reasonable. We know on the opioid case and on tobacco, B.C. took the lead, and other provinces followed. They were provinces of all sorts of political persuasions. This is not a partisan issue. This is whether government should have this tool or not.

I’m a bit, I admit, surprised. I, at very least, thought the opposition would see the laudable desire within what the government is trying to do, would understand that we are all unified in the desire to protect kids and give them the best chance in the world and that we see the psychological impacts of some of the things that we’re talking about, particularly on social media but some of the health impacts with respect to vaping and highly caffeinated drinks, and that there would be an understanding that if we hold these companies accountable…. Even the threat of holding them accountable could perhaps change that behaviour, because it has changed the behaviour in other industries.

[3:55 p.m.]

Companies were going to be sued, and were sued successfully, for putting lead in gasoline. They took it out over time. We saw that when tobacco companies were facing billions and billions of dollars of lawsuits because of individual harm but, most importantly, to collective harm of secondhand smoke and other things, they eventually made the move. When automobile companies were facing massive lawsuits with respect to not putting seatbelts in their cars, the same thing happened again.

I understand the resistance, and I wish…. I’ve been at this for years, so you can sense some of my frustration that I approached the largest companies that we’re talking about here in a previous life as a legislator in their home offices in the States, ten, 12 years ago now, and said….

There’s great benefit with the social media tools, enormous benefit in terms of sharing and connecting and all sorts of things that don’t need to be reiterated here. But they are incredibly powerful and, if handled badly and if handled without responsibility, can do great harm. The algorithms that are used are incredibly sophisticated, are incredibly powerful, and the tools, by design, particularly on the social media side but similar to the caffeinated products and similar to the vaping products, are addictive.

The addiction, particularly pointed at young people, and the harm that that causes is something that we all should challenge ourselves as legislators to say: “What are we going to do about it?” Are we just going to say: “Well, young people are going to feel worse and worse and worse about themselves, and the suicide rate for young people will be higher and higher, year after year. Obesity rates will go up, self-esteem rates will go down, and we’re just going to not occupy ourselves because we’re worried about the investment climate that may or may not come from us holding companies accountable for provable public harms”?

Lawyers are going to argue about this, and the scope of this will be proven out in court. If overly broad, the courts will pull us back. But the challenge and the focus of our ability to hold companies accountable….

I’m waiting for someone in the opposition to say that’s a bad idea. That would be more honest, actually, if they just said: “We don’t want to hold these guys accountable. We think there should be unfettered capitalism, even if it causes harm to young people who have not yet developed their prefrontal cortex, the ability to reason and make decisions based on risk and reward.” That doesn’t develop, particularly in young men, until they’re 25. That’s okay if they get targeted. That’s okay if we expose them to highly addictive products, knowingly causing them harm so that somebody somewhere else gets to make a profit.

It seems to me a staggering lack of responsibility as not just legislators but as leaders in our community, as parents and grandparents. We have an opportunity to do something, do something good and just ask for a modicum of corporate responsibility, which is to say: “With the way you conduct yourself, the products that you design, you should understand what their effects are.” And ask….

I challenge anyone here to ask any of the companies that we’re talking about for any of the childhood studies they’ve done on the effects of their products. Ask Meta; ask Alphabet; ask the makers of the vape products. “Show us the studies, the clinical studies that you’ve done on what the effects are of social media, vaping or highly caffeinated drinks on young people in particular, who you are targeting.” They can’t give them to you. They don’t do them because they don’t want to know the answers.

We have a responsibility, and I think it’s a good one. I think this is a challenging one. There’s some subtlety, and I’m happy to hear the critiques. But as a principle, I don’t understand why basic corporate accountability is not a good thing and why protecting young people, particularly from products that are designed to be highly addic­tive and have proven themselves to be harmful to the spirit, health and psychology of young people growing up in the world today — why we shouldn’t do everything we can to protect them and have things in front of them that don’t cause them harm, that don’t make them feel worse about themselves to the point where they kill themselves.

This is the most serious and grave of questions. The rea­son that legislation like this is increasingly being supported by parents and advocacy groups is because they need support and help. We can ask parents, and parents have a huge responsibility in this conversation. Schools have a huge responsibility in this, and we as a legislator have re­sponsibilities in this as well. I hope that we can have a fulsome and good debate about this, make the legislation as good as possible and maintain some basic ideals and principles.

[4:00 p.m.]

One of them is…. To be able to conduct a business within the confines of British Columbia means that there are responsibilities that we all share. One of them is not to do harm to another, to not knowingly do provable, public harm, which is what we’re talking about here today.

Thanks very much, Madam Speaker, for the time.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure and an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 12.

I can’t help but…. After reading the bill and looking at some of the points that have been raised, and there have been some points raised by the business community that I know the member opposite just tried to speak to, I think that one of the things that we…. We’re relating other costs to the provincial government and the taxpayers of British Columbia to other things that have many more, I guess, issues that relate to addiction and other things that we’ve known for a long time.

It took us a long time to get rules in place to limit tobacco use and other things that are addictive. There’s a long list in the Tobacco Act, which is a piece of legislation here.

I think what’s more important is what’s not said in this legislation, and consistent with some of the other legislation that we’ve seen brought to this House has been what the legislation doesn’t say. It’s not really clear. What are we trying to effect?

The minister that came in spoke to the issue that is generalized, but it’s not specifically in the legislation. As legislators, we are left with the responsibility of trying to interpret that. What does this actually mean? What type of consultation has been done to narrow this down to know better what we’re trying to limit, what we’re trying to control?

Not trying to necessarily suggest that it’s a specific area. I know we talked briefly about cell phone use in schools. There are all sorts of things. I can’t think of how many possibilities there are when it comes to things that could be unhealthy, could damage, could cause health impacts and stuff like that that exist. So it’s a very broad, sweeping piece of legislation that doesn’t really help the public, doesn’t help the business community, and it doesn’t help me, as somebody who’s a legislator, understand exactly what it is that we’re trying to control here.

I think that when it comes to the business community that we have heard from…. I’m sure the members opposite have heard on that, because I know that this letter that I have a copy of here, written a few days ago, clearly lays out that the community in a broad sense is very worried and concerned about the impacts of the uncertainty and what does this actually mean. I think that that’s part of it.

Why not have an adequate consultation period? Why not look at maybe pausing and making certain that this piece of legislation is properly understood by the business community?

I can think of many examples. I think about…. It may be a twisted way of looking at it. We’re busy as a government saying that we’re going to make safe supply a priority. What about the consequences, the health consequences for people that aren’t really supposed to be getting those? But they end up in their hands, and they are getting addictive, what are deemed to be safe, drugs for people that are maybe dependent or addicted. What are we doing with that? Does that mean that the government, now the taxpayers, have to take on this increased new liability just because of the fact, I mean, that we have this legislation?

When it’s such a broad approach to things, I think that you do need to consider how this is going to impact and improve British Columbia.

[4:05 p.m.]

Probably most people in this House have never really had a situation…. I had a situation where we had a product liability case against one of the world’s largest corporations. Believe it or not, simply put, we had a liability issue. The company, when they recognized that there was a problem, stepped up and made the repair to some machinery that we owned. It had consistent failures of front axles.

The bottom line is…. Otherwise, when you kind of take the approach that anything that you do could be wrong, you end up in a situation where…. Well, why would I do it in British Columbia? This is a place where there is complete uncertainty. I’m sure the legal profession would be quite happy to try to be defending or helping corporations.

Think about some of the things that get discovered here every day. Think about during COVID and the people that did that work. I forget the terminology. I think it was the RNA technology that led to an advancement and acceleration of the vaccine.

I’m just thinking. If I was hesitant, if I was a researcher working or somebody that was in the science, technology, engineering and math sector, am I going to have a future in British Columbia? All the companies that maybe could be investing here are going to be ill at ease because of the fact that there’s this lack of certainty in British Columbia.

I couldn’t help but think about during COVID, when all of the production of all of the vaccines and all of that was coming out of Quebec or Ontario. I’m thinking: “Here we are, 5,000 miles away. Why shouldn’t we be doing this in British Columbia?”

The life sciences sector is alive and well in British Columbia. We talk about it all the time. But are they going to feel comfortable, confident? Is the investment community going to backstop them here in British Columbia? Are they going to look at this as being a piece of legislation that creates that uncertainty?

I mean, there’s no way. The fact that some 30 businesses and organizations — not just businesses; this is way bigger than that. The Vancouver Board of Trade, craft brewers, the number of people, COFI, Restaurants Canada, CFIB — I’m just saying that these people are raising legitimate concerns. I think the situation needs to be considered or reconsidered and paused, as I said in the opening remarks.

When I talk about legislation that’s broad and ill-defined…. There are sections in here that talk about “benefit recipient,” no definition, “product,” “promote.” It signals a widening of the scope of this legislation.

I know this…. There are certain things that are intended by this legislation. Again, it’s not laid out clearly, and it’s not clear to the public. Certainly, I think that we need to provide that certainty to British Columbians.

I know a lot of that is going to come up during committee stage. I think that probably there’ll be many people on our side of the House, maybe even on the government side, that want clarity on this. I think that we should be trying to write legislation that gives a clear, precise direction and roadmap for British Columbia, whether you happen to be somebody that’s living here…. I frankly don’t see where….

I think there are things on the Internet we all depend on every day. I mean, there are perpetrators and people that are doing that, and I do think that we do have to work on that. I don’t think that should be ignored, but I don’t think this piece of legislation gets us there. It certainly doesn’t provide the clarity, and I don’t know who’s going to do that without the proper consultation.

I think this legislation suggests a reactive stance, seeking reparations after the fact rather than being proactive in preventing public health crises. Is this truly what the government can offer British Columbians?

I think that it’s important. Bill 12, while seemingly robust, skirts around the edges of the deeper issues at hand. It attempts to place a bandage over a wound without addressing the underlying cause and issues.

I think about this letter. This is, I’m sure, after only having a very short period of time to look at it…. These 23 business community members cite in their bill….

[4:10 p.m.]

They write: “We are writing today to emphasize that the parameters of Bill 12 must be clear and appropriately delineated so as to not inadvertently expose a wider spectrum of businesses to legal risks. The current draft does not achieve this and has been advanced without sufficient engagement.”

Well, I’m not aware and I don’t think that these 23 companies have been advised that there’s any engagement whatsoever that has taken place. I’d say that that’s a failing issue. When you’re introducing such sweeping legislation, it needs to have parameters. It needs to have guardrails, not only for the companies that maybe do support this, but with certain commentary or parameters or whatever that limit where it is that businesses, regardless of what their background is, would be exposed.

“Our concerns arise from the potential ramifications of the bill’s expansive interpretation, as summarized in several articles from B.C.’s legal community, including analyses from McCarthy Tétrault, Aird Berlis and others. Our members have reacted swiftly to the proposed law as well, raising significant concerns as we scramble to understand the legal implications of such a broadly scoped bill. Given the uncertainty and the broad scope, we urge” — the business community — “the government to take time to work with interested parties to ensure appropriate guardrails are in place and that there are no unintended consequences.”

That is the least we should do. With new legislation that is not clearly defined, we should be questioning whether we’ve got it right and make certain that if it is not right, we amend it or pause and make certain that it comes back with some more information.

“Some of the concerns include: if enacted, the law ap­pears to apply to any product, good, service or by-product, which we understand can create liability for almost any business operating in or connected to B.C.” Well, that’s a pretty sweeping statement.

“Similarly, the bill appears to apply not only to a product or service that may cause or may con­tribute to disease, injury or illness but also to any product or service that contributes to even the risk of disease, injury or illness without clear criteria for determining these risks or costs…. Potential consequences of these points could be significant. An expanded scope of liability, along with the related expanded legal and insurance costs….”

I hear “insurance costs,” and I’m thinking: how do the insurers deal with something like this? We talk about insurance, trying to get wildfire insurance, let’s say, in the Okanagan or Fraser-Nicola, where the insurance companies are wondering how they assess the risks. We’ve already given them a tough task like that, but the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the insurance industry is somebody that should be definitely consulted in this particular matter, because at the end of the day, when it comes to the liability, they have to assess this.

I know that trying to figure these things out…. I don’t know if my office would be a concern, but I know I just was notified that I have to increase my liability to $5 million, which I don’t think much of, having a manufacturing plant where $5 million has been the norm for 35 years. But I can certainly see the insurance industry wondering how it is that we are going to assess the liability of such a broadly worded and less-defined piece of legislation that impacts all manufacturing, all goods and services. There are no specifics.

These uncertain “costs come amidst economic uncertainty,” which we heard this morning from the accountants of British Columbia, the CPAs. The fact is that we have seen declines, etc. How are we going to be able to attract and get that certainty of being able to insure businesses or being able to get the investment capital, as I mentioned?

As opposed to maybe “a targeted approach, this legislation is written in the broadest possible fashion.” So their suggestion — again, I’m still quoting from the 23 businesses that wrote in — is to “pause the advancement of this bill and instead work with stakeholders to refine the intent, purpose and language of the proposed law.” I don’t think that we’re saying anything different there.

[4:15 p.m.]

We have to be concerned when we do hear about economic slowdowns and stuff like that. We know taxes are going up. We know the deficit is up. We know the spending is up. How are we going to do that if we don’t have economic certainty?

I don’t have the answer to that. I think we have to create certainty. We have to make certain we create the right conditions, and we need to make certain…. I’m not saying for a moment that I would ignore any type of public health issues or whatever caused by something. If there’s something that you can point to that tells me and our caucus, I’m sure that we would be very supportive of Bill 12.

However, I still think that’s the problem with this. The lack of definition is part of the problem that just makes this more about uncertainty than certainty. Clearly, the conclusion that I think we’re starting to get to is that the consultation for this particular bill, Bill 12, has been lacklustre.

The aforementioned letter: “These costs come amidst economic uncertainty, low growth and rapidly rising population.” With B.C.’s economy slowing, as demonstrated by a year-over-year decrease in sales, in January 2024 data, invariably these costs, associated with increased liability and uncertainty, have to be paid by consumers and businesses.

You know, to contrast this, I think that if we had an opportunity and formed government…. I know the government seems to think there’s a small chance of that. I think that there is going to be a very good chance, with clear policies about economic certainty and what we’re trying to do. We would provide more clarity in terms of what legislation we’d bring forward to deal with the problem that we are perceived to be dealing with in this particular case. This includes fostering an environment that prioritizes health, safety and well-being of British Columbians above all, especially over ideology.

The business community’s united stance against this legislation gives strong reason for reconsideration.

I think about the things that we try to prevent. I know that there’s a recent piece of legislation that went through. I commended the minister, but it could be a little overreaching — maybe not — with the truck strikes on the overpasses and stuff like that, and the fines that are now going from, I think, $500 to $100,000. It’s a pretty big jump. It’s the 18 months in prison that…. I’m not quite certain how we are going to pin those down, unless they happen to be really offensive and they are really criminals in terms of what they are doing.

I do think that there is a balance between these boundaries, between the economic cost as well as the potential criminal risk that’s involved in legislation like that.

One of the examples that I couldn’t help but think about here was the slippery slope. If a skier, which happens on a regular basis…. We hear about, especially, North Shore Rescue; they’re always having to run out and find skiers that have skied out of bounds. Well, what happens if they get injured? The cost of the helicopters, the safety, the people that put their lives at risk to do that…. Is that all of a sudden going to become something that’s going to be a risk? Which I think is legitimate, and I think that the government can do that right now.

But is it going to become the norm that if you happen to ski at a particular area, now there’s going to be an increase in the liability because now the resort is part of the problem? Even though they had it all fenced and their ski patrol are out there telling you not to do this, yet there are always the few that just have to have that thrill of excitement.

I don’t like to think that that’s the way that we want to do things in terms of our business community, but we want to make certain that there are boundaries and the fact that people can be held responsible, as in the case of the skier that’s outside of those bounds. They’re legitimately liable for some of those costs.

That’s a simple example of where people can find ways that they’re not necessarily…. There are limitations to how businesses can work within those boundaries that we’re discussing and talking about.

[4:20 p.m.]

Given the fact that this legislation doesn’t answer the questions that my community has, including the business community, I think we’re going to look at more increase in details when we move into committee.

We’re asking for the government to pause on this legislation until there is clarity to ensure this legislation truly serves the best interest of all British Columbians while ad­dressing the health care crisis, which is the primary focus of this particular legislation.

G. Kyllo: It certainly gives me a great deal of pride to rise in this House to speak to Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. As has been shared by some of my colleagues, the sheer lack of consultation is a common theme of this government.

I’m not sure who is actually asking for this piece of legislation. But as evidenced by the significant number of business organizations that have called out on this government to pause…. I think in their words…. Largely, they are supportive of government’s stated objectives. However, there’s such a lack of detail. There’s been zero consultation undertaken around the province to have a look at the unintended consequences.

That’s a very important part of government’s work, to make sure that whatever their stated objectives and goals are of a piece of legislation, that it’s well understood, that there’s proper, broad consultation around the province with all of the different organizations and business groups that may be potentially impacted, to have the consultation to better understand what the unintended consequences may or may not be.

We have a government that has continually degraded the competitiveness of B.C. businesses operating here in this province. We have a corporate tax rate that’s a full 50 percent higher than our neighbouring province of Alberta. Everything from employer health tax to paid sick leave — businesses are struggling.

It’s evidenced by the job growth numbers, with the disastrous numbers for the private sector, accountable largely to the legislation and policies of this current government. We’ve seen a ballooning public sector, about 140,000 new public sector jobs created in the last 6½ years in the province of B.C., costing taxpayers $17.4 billion, yet the private sector has largely flatlined. So there’s an imbalance that’s been created.

This, yet again, will just be one more detriment to businesses looking at operating in B.C. Look, B.C. has a thriving manufacturing sector, thriving life sciences. We need to be able to ensure that those businesses have a clear understanding of what the risks and rewards are of doing business in the province of B.C. With this particular piece of legislation, in its broadest form, there’s no clarity. There’s no certainty to businesses, as some of my colleagues have actually brought forward during the debate here today.

If we could just think for a moment. What about a medical services company that potentially builds medical implants? The best intentions — a company that actually manufactures implants to help with the life of British Columbians. Yet there may be unintended consequences that may not be understood or known for many, many years, as we’ve seen in the past with medical implants.

Although there are the best intentions and meeting all government regulatory requirements, we find out decades down the road that there are unintended consequences. Well, if you’re a cutting-edge company that’s actually looking to create those products in British Columbia, are you now going to potentially be subject to additional litigation and costs and the far reach of government to not only go after those companies directly, to self-determine what those costs may or may not be, and to even go after directors of the corporations?

The concern that I’m sure the life services sector will have is that many of those companies, which are actually doing great work creating very valuable, family-supporting jobs here in British Columbia, may look to move out of this jurisdiction.

[4:25 p.m.]

B.C. will lose. We’ll also lose that opportunity for many of those companies to make those significant investments in B.C. But we don’t know. That is the challenge, because there has been no consultation with any of these industry groups that may be impacted.

That is an incredible concern and a common theme and a pattern with this government. Run forward with legislation in its most broadest form. Just tell the general public and tell the members of the opposition: “Don’t worry, folks. It’s all good. We’ll get this all figured out in regulation.”

The challenge is that the regulations are undertaken and developed outside of the scrutiny of this House. This is the opportunity in the people’s House for members of the official opposition, who have a very critical role, to be able to ask pointed questions of government. What are the unintended consequences of legislation? Have you undertaken the broad consultation with other industry groups that may be impacted?

But what we see from this government, time and time again, is the lack of any substance of detail in the legislation, which limits the opportunity for debate, limits the opportunity for government to learn and puts full faith in government to try to get it right through regulation. That is what the concern is.

The overall intentions of the bill, I think, are laudable. Absolutely. Nobody wants to see our kids subject to bullying and harassment. But that is not what this bill specifically addresses. As has been shared by my colleagues, it’s the broad form.

Some of the concerns brought forward from business organizations — Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, ABLE-BC, the B.C. Hotel Association, the Rural Liquor Store Advisory Society, B.C. Craft Brewers, the Retail Council of Canada, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, COFI, Restaurants Canada…. The list goes on of individual organizations and companies representing literally hundreds of thousands of workers in this province who have had zero consultation. Nothing.

That is a concern. We are asking for government to put a pause on this legislation to do the hard and necessary work that they are obligated to undertake on behalf of all British Columbians — to have those consultations, to understand what the unintended consequences are and to make sure that when the legislation is brought forward, the government has the ability to answer those questions to make sure that we don’t end up with a piece of legislation that has to be only repealed or amended down the road.

What is the urgency? Well, we don’t know. Government certainly hasn’t shared that. Our official opposition critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, spoke at great length of some of the other parallel legislation that is currently being proposed by the federal government. This piece of legislation may actually pose challenges to the federal legislation that is yet to be enacted.

Government is moving forward hastily, without the adequate consultation. Again, back to the piece. Their consultation hasn’t been undertaken. Government doesn’t know what the negative impacts may be. The fact that the legislation as proposed also has the ability to go back retroactively….

I think the member for Vancouver-Langara referenced scooters. Well, I can remember as a young kid, electric scooters were banned. They were deemed to be dangerous and unsafe, yet this current government has moved forward with legislative changes to actually allow the use of scooters.

[4:30 p.m.]

Government, on one hand, allows for scooters to be sold and to be utilized throughout the province of B.C. Yet if we see an increase in incidents of injury, those same companies that government has granted the ability and the authority to actually sell in this province somehow will be potentially on the hook for all the costs associated with medical bills associated with any individuals that may be impacted.

Do we want to have a jurisdiction where companies just decide that: “You know what? You might have legislation that actually allows for the sale of this product, but it’s too risky. The liability is too great. We’re going to be boycotted”? British Columbians could likely see products available in other provinces across Canada, but not available in B.C., only because of this type of legislation that puts too much legal uncertainty on those businesses.

You have to wonder what, really, government’s intentions are with the broad form of this legislation. Well, it’s hard not to think about no-fault, ICBC. So if there’s a collision or a crash, apparently nobody’s at fault anymore. But under this type of legislation, if there’s an issue with, maybe, an automotive defect, not only are those companies potentially on the hook for a lawsuit with the actual individual that might have been impacted by that defect. But under this current ICBC no-fault scheme, government could turn around and go after those companies for all of the medical costs that they’re covering through ICBC.

Is that potentially one of the ideas and goals of this government — to find a way of clawing back from other individuals that may be somehow held responsible for vehicle collisions and for personal injury in this province?

It’s for those types of reasons why, again, we’re asking for government to take a pause to do the necessary work to undertake that broad consultation. Ensure the unintended consequences can be addressed in a thoughtful manner that achieves the outcomes, the stated objectives of this government, but isn’t so far-reaching that it negatively impacts the ability of B.C. to attract capital investment and for a private sector to actually prosper in this province.

There are a couple sections of the bill that are incredibly concerning, and this is on clause 1. It states about the benefit recipient including a deceased person. Given later, this bill, this act…. It’s retroactive and would address wrongful death legislation requests.

This piece…. When we have a look at how far back…. What is retroactive? Are we looking at going back a year, two years, five years, ten years? Does that affect decisions of government?

We have a government that has made a decision to move forward with decriminalization of hard drugs. At 18 years of age…. It’s illegal in this province for an 18-year-old to consume wine or beer. But this government has deemed it okay for somebody at 18 years of age to be able to use hard drugs — cocaine, fentanyl or heroin. The legislation allows for an 18-year-old in the province of B.C. to utilize hard, highly addictive drugs but at the same time has a law and regulations that don’t allow for that 18-year-old to drink beer or wine.

Is government potentially going to be subject to what they are looking at other companies to be responsible for?

Safe supply. Our former chief medical officer Perry Ken­dall is part of a corporation that is now providing hydromorphone, highly addictive Dilaudid, in an effort to try and reduce the utilization of harmful or tainted drugs.

[4:35 p.m.]

There has been lots of debate about the value of that. But in doing so, the government is also increasing recreational drug use. Diversion has been reported out widely now by the RCMP. Diversion does happen. We are seeing kids that otherwise, five years ago, stayed away from drugs. Drugs will kill you. There is a bad stigma with respect to hard drugs.

I have got a niece and nephew living in Langley. They’d indicate to uncle Greg that four or five years ago, you didn’t see hard drugs at parties. People were scared, but not now. They’re called dillies — government supplied. It’s safe supply. You can try it without worrying about getting killed.

We are seeing government action, on one hand, trying to protect those most vulnerable that are dying from overdose. At the same time, the message that’s being received by our youth in this province is actually increasing the utilization of recreational drug use.

When we have a look at government wanting to be able to find culpability for corporations and to go back after them for decisions, I’m just wondering if government is looking for this legislation to also apply to decisions that they are making and what those broader impacts may or may not be.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak. Again, I think the government’s stated objective…. I certainly have no quarrel with it. But this legislation, as proposed, is very far-reaching, and we are asking that the government take a pause. Do the proper consultation, as is expected of governments, to ensure that everybody is fully aware of what their true intentions are, lay it out clearly in the legislation, and bring it back for debate in the next legislative calendar.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to my colleague just to the right of me. That’s the conundrum, sometimes, when us folks on this side, or any side that sit next to each other…. We will share our thoughts. I totally concur with the member for Shuswap on the concerns of Bill 12, Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.

On the outside, as the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship said, the bill has the ability to do some good things. There’s no question about it. Nobody’s arguing about safeguarding the physical and mental health and well-being of British Columbians. Nobody would ever argue that.

I will have some examples in my debate here on what I mean. But I want to make it crystal clear that nobody on this side of the House would ever put in harm’s way our most vulnerable, including our children, our seniors — everyone in our communities. They are our most precious resource. Nobody wants to see harm come to any of those folks.

Measures need to be put in place that look after the well-being. As we go through time here, lots of things are changing. The minister also mentioned things like social media platforms, technologies. They are advancing. Of course, with that come problems. We need to be on top of it at all times.

What this side of the House has been arguing…. It’s too bad there are not more on the other side that will rebut our concerns. But our concern is this bill is very broad in scope, very overreaching in some ways, without those clear definitions that are in place that make it clear not only what its intentions are, but also clear to those industries that will be directly involved in how this plays out and how it rolls out.

More importantly, I think Bill 12 is just another continuation of a pattern we see of habits of this NDP government. We’ve seen it time and time again. That is a lack of consultation, lack of engagement, reaching out, picking up a phone, asking industry or people that are directly involved: what could possibly go wrong with a bill this broad in nature?

[4:40 p.m.]

Well, there have been many. The minister referred to the folks on this side of the House — that we are delivering the wrong message. But that’s not the case at all. We’re carrying the message, perhaps. Industry has definitely voiced up on this, and I’ll get into that a little bit later, on who they are, what they are and what they represent.

But this isn’t coming from opposition. This is coming from industry that is primarily the business community, our tourism sector, science and medical sector, that have been hit time and time again with layers and layers of barriers that cost them from being profitable. I’ll use the P word: profit. I know some folks in this House refer to profit as a bad thing, but quite honestly, it’s the only thing that motivates companies to take a risk.

None of these businesses are guaranteed anything. I would dare argue that for every successful business, there are probably 20 or 30 that never quite made it. So when we talk about some of these companies that do make some profit, it doesn’t come overnight. Quite honestly, some of these companies and some of these shareholders or some of the executives have been through the game a few times — maybe not so successful. And finally, they hit something right. So profit isn’t a bad thing, but this bill could impact that.

All we’re saying on this side of the House is to reach out — reach out to these businesses, reach out to these industries, walk through the intentions of what this bill represents and find out. And come back to the House and say: “Hey, listen. Guess what. We’ve reached out to all these businesses and all these communities and all these industries, and there are a few things. We will adjust this bill, in reflection, so it does bring better clarity.”

That would be the responsible approach. We have seen time and time again the lack of consultation. I look at things like the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, where the government arbitrarily ratcheted up new ZEVs to 90 percent by 2030, when it was 30 percent previous to that.

Did they ask industry? Did they ask the car manufacturers? I know I did. I went out, and I reached out to Honda and Hyundai and Ford, and they all said: “There is no possible way we can make these targets by 2030.” The Canadian standard is 60 percent. That was a challenge. And 90 percent is a little out of reach. But there was no consultation.

We look at the Land Amendment Act. Thankfully, government has pulled back on that, because there was zero consultation with that. Some of the biggest land users in the province…. We’re talking about the Mining Associa­tion of British Columbia, the Association of Mineral Exploration, the Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, Tourism B.C., my local tourism group and bear-viewing companies. None of these people even got a phone call — nothing, zero. So, thankfully, the government did pull back on that one.

Wildlife management is another real classic. We saw it with grizzly management. Zero consultation with rod and gun clubs and those people, those conservationists, that are on the ground. Whitetail in region 4. This is something else that’s governed by regulation and something that’s reflected in Bill 12. It talks about a process to bring a bill here forward to the floor of the Legislature with zero consultation.

Caribou management. That was a real classic one. Just outside my area, in the West Kootenays, we have an area called the Darkwoods, and it’s about 80,000 hectares large. The industry has been shut down — no consultation — for caribou habitat, which sounds great, except the only thing is that there are no caribou there. The government moved those out years ago. I think there were three cows left, and they were moved to the Revelstoke area. But no consultation, once again.

[4:45 p.m.]

Health care. Bill 35 — consolidation of colleges. I don’t know how many college professionals or health care professionals I talked to. Occupational therapists — they were never consulted in on that. They had no clue.

Autism funding — another classic that government had to come reeling back on. Jade mining moratoriums in the North — who was consulted on that? No one. And there’s a whole list I could go through. But it’s a pattern we’re seeing.

We’re seeing it here in Bill 12. This bill has definitions that need to be defined. We heard the member for — sorry, I can’t remember — Vancouver-Langara. How could I forget him? I owe him something for that. But we heard him talk for two hours about the definitions in the bill.

I’m just going to some of them here, such as: “‘health-related wrong’ means…a tort that is committed in British Columbia by a person and that causes or contributes to disease, injury or illness.” All right.

Then you go to the “disease, injury or illness” definition, and it defines it as, sub (b), “problematic product use” — I’m not sure what that means; “the risk of disease, injury or illness.” The risk of disease, injury or illness. Where are the parameters on that? You can understand why industry is a little concerned with this.

With the unclarity and uncertainty surrounding this bill, of course, it always comes down to unintended consequences. We’ve seen this time and time again, not only with this bill — well, what we perceive it to be with this bill, what industry is fearful of this bill — but also the other ones I’ve talked about.

When there’s no consultation and no clearly defined terms, and broadly scoped as this bill is, it brings a certain level of anxiety. Fear, I guess, would be another word — uncertainty. What would those cost measures and liability be? Without these clear objectives and consultation, as I said, this is a bad thing for industry. I’ll read into the record some of those concerns in a second.

Now, the minister…. I guess another thing we’re trying to say here are the specifics to this bill. There are no real, clear specifics. The Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship said: “How could anybody argue about online media giants, the harm that it presents itself?” I agree 100 percent. I’ve got children. I’m not supposed to use props, but this thing is dangerous. I mean, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. There are a lot of apps. And you know, for me….

Ontario actually did a good change in their laws. They were specific — online gambling and the fact that they banned advertisement of sports heroes and celebrities. I think that’s important. I’ve got a 15-year-old son, and thankfully he’s been educated enough not to fall for some of the temptations that are out there on social media platforms and actually on advertisements every night on your Vancouver hockey game, where you’ve got some of these professionals.

I will use some of them, guys like Wayne Gretzky and Connor McDavid. They’re talking about making the bet and making it happen, and that’s pretty influential to kids. I was really tempted — and I still may, unless government wants to pick it up — to duplicate something that Ontario’s done. I’d be in full support of that, because it’s a real thing, and it’s a real addiction. Once you get into that, it’s just as quick as a click, and that kid’s lunch money has now grown into something a lot larger than that, which he can’t get out of.

[4:50 p.m.]

Sextortion. A sad story. My son is a hockey player. Last year a 14-year-old colleague of his — they weren’t on the same team, but they played against one another — died because of sextortion. He released some explicit pictures of himself on whatever platform it was, a dating service or whatever it was, and it didn’t end well. Let’s just put it that way.

I think anyone on this side of the House, anyone in this province, would be totally supportive of making sure that these predators and these companies that develop some of these programs are put away and pay for those kinds of things. I don’t think there’s any amount of money that could ever pay for something like that. So we’re all in support of the general intentions of this bill.

The minister also talked about vaping, how it’s marketed with all the flavours — cherry, root beer, bubble gum. The minister noted that. Well, if I’m not mistaken, I’m almost positive that there was a private member’s bill brought up not once but probably four or five times addressing that exact issue and the banning of those certain flavours. Because those aren’t there for a 62-year-old guy like me. Well, about to be 62 — I’m not there yet. A 61-year-old guy like me.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: I’m doing what I can.

Anyway, that’s not made for guys like me. It’s made for children to get into it, get that addiction going, and those companies can profit from that. We’re totally in line with that.

Tobacco cost recovery, the minister talked about, I think there’s already an act in place that identifies those cost recoveries from big tobacco companies.

What I’m getting at are the specifics. Bill 12 needs to be specific to the exact examples the minister highlighted. It may be as simple as just amending an act, tobacco act or Costs Recovery Act, I think it’s called, putting in place private member’s bills, bringing them forward. Be specific about what we’re trying to accomplish here. When you lump this all in in a broad way, it doesn’t give any certainty, no clarity, and people wonder, whether they should be in or they should be out.

For some apps, maybe their best intentions could be beneficial, but used in certain ways, they could be actually detrimental. Even if a software developer comes up with some sort of a research app, perhaps, that could be with the best intentions of getting the best research, it could go askew if misused and could be detrimental to the user. What amount of certainty would a software developer have in British Columbia? We know how great B.C. is in our tech development. What certainty would they have that they wouldn’t be held liable?

In the definitions of Bill 12, liability could skirt to a lot of folks other than the company itself. It could skirt to the shareholders of the company, the board of the company. We don’t know.

That’s why we want a pause put on this bill. We want a pause. Put it out to the industry, let them discuss, and come back with good dialogue, so that perhaps you can do some tweaking to the bill. I’m sure — well, I’m not sure; I’m positive — that every member on this side would be completely supportive if it had the support of industry and if those unintended consequences were looked after.

Responsibilities. I think the minister talked about responsibilities of companies. The member for Shuswap and I were talking back and forth, and he is a lot more articulate than I am. We talked about some of the measures that this government has put in place.

[4:55 p.m.]

How would government be held liable for some of their actions? I’m sure none. I’m sure there’d be indemnity from any kind of lawsuit, but look at some of the bills they’ve put forward. They put forward the cannabis bill and legalized marijuana in the province. Would government be held liable for that or responsible for that in government cannabis stores?

Decriminalization of opioids was another thing that the member for Shuswap mentioned. There are some pretty harmful drugs right now. And my daughter…. I’ve been on the record about this many, many times, about “safe” and “clean,” the words that we use and the unintended consequences of that. I don’t want to get into any other details on how that has impacted my family.

The truth is that words matter. If that’s the case with this bill, and actions matter, then where would government be on assuming that liability? I would hope that it would be a fair, level playing field for everyone.

Once again, the minister said that he was concerned the members on this side were delivering the wrong message, but it’s simply not the truth.

I’ve only got 11 minutes here, but I think it’s important to read into the record the concerns from industry. I will start it off. This is a letter that went to the Premier and the Attorney General.

“On behalf of the signatory business associations and our collective membership, we are writing to express our shared concerns about the breadth of the recent Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.

“The intention to safeguard the physical and mental health and well-being of British Columbians is laudable and an objective we support. We are writing today to emphasize that the parameters in Bill 12 must be clear and appropriately delineated so as not to inadvertently expose a wider spectrum of businesses to legal risk. The current draft does not achieve this and has been advanced without sufficient engagement.

“Our concerns arise from the potential ramifications of the bill’s expansive interpretation, as summarized in several articles from B.C.’s legal community, including analyses from McCarthy Tétrault, Aird and Berlis, and others. Our members have reacted swiftly to the proposed law as well, raising significant concerns as we scramble to understand the legal implications of such a broadly scoped bill.

“Given the uncertainty and broad scope, we urge the government to take the time to work with interested parties to ensure appropriate guardrails are in place and there are no unintended consequences. Some of the current concerns include:

“If enacted, the law appears to apply to any product, good, service or by-product, which, we understand, can create liability for almost any business operating in or connected to B.C.

“Similarly, the bill appears to apply not only to a product or service that may cause or may contribute to disease, injury or illness but also to any product or service that contributes to even the risk of disease, injury or illness, without clear criteria for determining these risks or costs.

“Further, Bill 12 expands the type and scope for costs the government to ‘other expenditures by the government, made directly or through one or more agents, other intermediate bodies or education authorities, for programs, services, benefits or similar matters associated with disease, injury or illness,’ creating significant risks to all sectors of the economy.

“The use of a certificate from a minister of the federal or provincial government as proof of expenditures without conclusive proof of actual risk or harm is alarming and without precedent.

“The potential consequences of these points could be significant. An expanded scope of liability, along with the related expanded legal and insurance costs due to the broad nature of the bill, are significant concerns for B.C. businesses. These costs come amidst economic uncertainty, low growth and a rapidly rising population. B.C.’s economy is slowing, as demonstrated by a year-over-year decrease in retail sales, per January 2024 data. Inevitably, these costs, associated with increased liability and uncertainty, are paid by the consumers and businesses.

[5:00 p.m.]

“Specifically, the government’s communications and media reports have focused on ‘social media companies’ and ‘algorithms’ as reasons why this legislation is being introduced. While the signatories to this letter may have different views individually, a thorough discussion and consultation on the rules governing online behaviour and commerce to ensure our laws are up to date for our digital age would seem appropriate. Presumably, this would also entail consultation to ensure the desired outcomes would be achieved in any new initiative.

“As opposed to a targeted approach, this legislation is written in the broadest possible fashion. The result is that there is a real risk that this legislation could cause some to consider alternatives to investing in B.C., raise costs or, at worst, relocate existing B.C.-based operations. In our view, it is critical that there be thorough discussion and airing of views on the broad scope of this law prior to its passage.

“As such, we request the government pause the advancement of the bill and instead work with stakeholders to refine the intent, purpose and language of the proposed law.

“In conclusion, it is important to once again stress that we support the government’s stated objectives, which include protecting British Columbians. We look forward to collaborating and finding a path forward.”

I couldn’t say it any better. Our colleagues are saying the exact same thing. We need to have proper consultation and engagement with industries.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Some of these signatories are quite significant: Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, Retail Council of Canada, B.C. Alliance of Beverage Licensees. That’s ABLE. That was an association I would have been associated when I had the bars and nightclubs. B.C. Craft Brewers, Canadian Craft Distillery Alliance, rural liquor store advisory society, Restaurants Canada, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, wines of British Columbia, Tourism Industry Association of B.C., Canadian Beverage Association.

There are a lot more here than I’m reading out; that’s for sure. One of them that was the very last signatory I never really heard of before, and that’s the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. I looked, and they were concerned about this bill. Who is, exactly, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada? Well, it’s only a $53 billion agency, or association — $53 billion. I’ll say that one again.

The signatories with the Chemistry Industry Associa­tion of Canada are signatories to responsible care. That inspires members to take action that improves the sustainability of their operations and reduces harm throughout the entire life cycle of their product. So this association essentially is exactly doing what the bill would intend to do. At the same time, it’s giving them a lot of doubt whether this bill is for them or not. This Chemistry Industry Association of Canada is the fourth-largest manufacturing sector in Canada, and they’re the second-largest exporter among all Canadian manufacturing industries.

I would argue that if a company or an association of members like the Chemistry Industry Association of Can­ada is timid about this bill that’s being presented, I think every member in this House should take note, as every other signatory to this letter.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the backbone of our economy…. Small business makes it up. We’ve heard that many times before. So why wouldn’t the backbone of our economy be consulted and engaged in a bill that could have unintended consequences to its members?

The request is a very simple one. Let’s get back to the drawing table and do this in a good way. We hear government talk about made-in-B.C. types of bills and legislation. Let’s make this made-in-B.C., and let’s talk to the people that make up our businesses here in British Columbia and listen to their warning.

[5:05 p.m.]

It’s pretty clear. The letter is pretty clear. The Premier has got it in his hand. He has looked at it. Apparently, it doesn’t resonate. The Attorney General has got it in her file as well. Apparently, it doesn’t resonate with her either, because the purpose right now is to get this bill through and have it pass without the consultation that’s required. I think that’s just plain wrong.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleagues and call it a day.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 12.

I was going to read the letter that my colleague has just read, word for word, into the record. He has saved a bit of time there for me.

I thought it was an important jumping-off point. Although my colleague touched on some of the signator­ies, I’ll read into the record all of the signatories to that letter, because it is a very diverse group within our province.

For people at home that think Bill 12 is just the concern of people that sell liquor or manufacture liquor or, perhaps, cannabis operations or things of that nature…. I think when they start to hear the breadth of concern from across all industries in the province that signed off on this letter, asking the province to put the brakes on this bill and actually consult and get things right…. There are wide-ranging ramifications.

We have the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. We have ABLE-BC. We have the B.C. Hotel Association. We have the Rural Liquor Store Advisory Society. We have the Retail Council of Canada. We have the B.C. Craft Brewers Association. We have the Canadian Craft Distillery Alliance. We have the British Columbia Craft Distillers Guild. We have the New Wave Wine Society. We have COFI, which is forestry, as a signatory to this. We have the wines of British Columbia.

We have the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. At a time when we’ve never seen pricing for groceries as high as it is, they are concerned about the ramifications of this bill. The Business Council of B.C. The Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada. Restaurants Canada. The CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The B.C. restaurant and food association. The tourism industry of British Columbia. Tourism is concerned about the wide-ranging ramifications of Bill 12. The CBA, the Canadian Beverage Association. The CME, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association.

The AHAM, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Home appliance manufacturers are concerned about this bill. We actually have a thriving gas fireplace manufacturing industry in British Columbia. It is one of the larger centres for that in North America, actually, which most people do not realize. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce. The B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association.

Now that’s a pretty wide spectrum of industry and potential risk that people are exhibiting about Bill 12. All with different points of view. All with different ways that they can see that this opens up legal challenges to them for things that are not laid out very clearly in Bill 12.

When the government tries talking about social media companies in relation to Bill 12, fine. Why is Bill 12 not just dealing with social media companies? Why is Bill 12 totally wide open to interpretation on such a wide variety, literally from forestry to manufacturing to other industries to tourism in British Columbia? It’s because the government got the bill wrong.

[5:10 p.m.]

The government, under UNDRIP, is also supposed to consult with Indigenous communities on legislation that could impact them. When you look at the wide range of industries that are expressing concerns, many of which are land-based, one would have to conclude that there’s a lot of Indigenous operators of forestry companies and resource companies and other opportunities out there that would be directly impacted by Bill 12, but no consultation there either. The government sure likes to pick and choose when it wants to wrap itself with UNDRIP and the fundamental principles of it. When it seems to be convenient for government, they do. When it’s not convenient, they don’t, as we see with Bill 12.

Now, why is this a worry? In British Columbia, we just saw tax dollars going to help the wine industry, rightfully so and understandably so. On the one hand, the government is trying to give financial support to the wine in­dustry. On the other hand, with Bill 12, they’re sending a very clear message to all wineries in British Columbia that they could be next for legal action from the province.

It doesn’t define that they will or will not be. In fact, when you read the legislation, it’s more likely they would be included in legal action from the province, if the prov­ince just suddenly decided one day to do that.

You think of the impact on tourism. You think of the impact on employment. You think of the impact of all that investment that has gone into the wine industry in British Columbia over the last 30 or 40 years, trying to develop an industry that rivals any of the wine destination areas, especially in North America.

I can remember when I drove my daughter down to university in California. My wife and I were driving back, and we decided to stop in Napa on the way back, when we were towing our trailer. We had never been. We stayed for a night. A nice enough valley. It was pretty interesting to see that many wineries there. Napa is pretty world-famous.

Now, we were coming back, and it happened to be our wedding anniversary that same weekend. We were coming back. It would have been around a Tuesday or so that we were in Napa. On the Friday or Saturday, we decided we should go down to the Okanagan once we got back to Kamloops and meet up with some friends and have lunch down at one of the wineries.

You realize, with that quick of a turnaround time, the difference between the Okanagan Valley, sitting on a patio overlooking Lake Okanagan and the wineries…. Just how stunning our wine area is, even in comparison to Napa, which is a much tighter valley with wineries on both sides and a narrow single-lane road going in each direction. Just how stunning our offering is to the world.

The wine industry in Kamloops has grown now. The wine industry further south, into the Okanagan, has grown. We’re seeing the fruit winery up in Prince George, which is a signatory to this as well, flourish. All of that is potentially at risk with Bill 12.

I know, to the viewers at home, it might seem like we’re trying to fearmonger, as opposition, and shine a light on things that aren’t real. Well, the wines of British Columbia association…. Their president, Miles Prodan, signed this letter because it is a very real threat to them.

Then you look at all the craft brewers we have in this province. How proud areas of this province, like in the Port Moody area and others, have developed a subculture, within their own towns and areas, of brewery districts. All that small-scale brewing that happens, the kind of community it creates, with people being able to gather in a lifestyle choice. All a threat to this.

It’s not just the brewers. Remember, it’s the brewpubs as well. Many of them branched out into distilling. Other small-scale distillers have just started doing it on their own.

[5:15 p.m.]

We have two distillers. We previously had none in Kamloops. We now have two independent, actual full-fledged distillers, with a third on the way, and another brewpub that actually started distilling as well. All small-batch craft distilling. All at risk with Bill 12.

That’s the problem. With no guardrails on Bill 12, as to the limits the government is trying to take this legislation, no one actually knows where it can go. It’s interesting that in the letter, “guardrails” was used. Has the government looked in the mirror?

If we want to talk about a lack of guardrails, we have to look no further than decriminalization and the lack of guardrails this government has with that program. They were supposed to be in place. They’re not in place. Does that mean the government is actually liable now?

They didn’t actually follow through on the guardrails they were supposed to have in place under Bill 12. Does that mean that the government turning a blind eye to the diversion of dillies and other so-called safe supply, under their program, being diverted to high schools and high school students having access to that…? Does that make the government liable under Bill 12?

Who would actually pay? Would a minister responsible be personally liable, or would they hide behind the taxpayers’ dollars to pay out any settlement? Unlike the individual business owners that would now be responsible on their own.

That’s the problem when there’s a lack of accountability from the government and a rush to appear to be doing something with a piece of legislation that apparently no one was actually calling for. You look at all the other areas out there where people have been calling for help and change from this government, which have been ignored over the last eight years. Out of the blue, the government decides Bill 12 is their priority in the backdrop of all the other chaos we see going with their failed programs out there. Failed programs that are actually harming people.

Does the increase in street disorder and petty crimes and violent assaults and vandalism and theft count as harm, under Bill 12, to a neighbourhood or an individual? Does that make the government liable under Bill 12? Do you think we could actually get a forthright answer from the government when we get to committee stage on Bill 12? Not likely.

Those are very real concerns. Unfortunately, the government is willing to shrug off the very real concerns from all of these associations and private business owners. They have nothing to worry about. It’s not a problem. Nothing to see here, folks. They also feel they don’t have to actually provide an answer on how this will impact their own operations.

Ministers of the Crown actually have a fiduciary duty to protect the Crown. Does Bill 12 expose the Crown to lawsuits? If people are buying cannabis products that get shown to be an impact to their life, to their family’s life, to their health, to their financial health, from a government pot shop…. Does that now expose the government to liability on a piece of legislation that they knowingly brought forward to expose the taxpayers to that type of liability?

What about government liquor stores? Where does that fall into this? Is it strictly the manufacturer that’s on the hook, or is it the retailer knowingly selling?

[5:20 p.m.]

Now they say that anything in moderation is somewhat okay. Does that mean they will now need to put restrictions on how much any one customer can purchase at a time, or otherwise that clerk is knowingly selling somebody too much alcohol, which would actually be a harm to their health if they drank it all in one session when they go back to their own private residence?

I know it can sound far-fetched, but the problem is that when you’re dealing with laws and when you’re dealing with the legalities of the wording, this is where things can land when laws start to get challenged and when people start to demand compensation under certain laws.

When you have a bill like Bill 12 that is scheduled…. Commencement: “This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.” Well, isn’t that interesting? At least in other pieces of legislation that they leave all to regulation, those clauses are highlighted as waiting to come into effect during OICs, orders-in-council.

In this, anything left to interpretation, anything the government, the Attorney General, refuses to answer with any detail at committee stage, will be left for interpretation by the courts in a legal action. Any potential changes to regulation to any of this, or anything that’s left hanging out there within Bill 12 that’s still waiting for final regulation, although the bill will be law once this gets royal assent, too bad.

So again, why the rush? Why the rush by the government to bring forward a bill no one has been asking for and clamouring for? A wide range of business associations have spoken up and said: “Put this on hold so we can understand what the actual ramifications of this bill are.”

There’s no clear line of sight into what type of Indigenous consultation was done whatsoever by this government and how this bill might actually impact their business interests around this province. None whatsoever.

With the backdrop of chaos on our streets that has all increased because of government policy over the last year and a half as it relates to decrim…. Yet there’s no recognition from this government that they have played a part in that.

Instead, they want to bring forward Bill 12 to potentially turn the screws on a small-scale distiller that has sunk every penny of their life savings — probably mortgaged or double-mortgaged their home — on a hope and a prayer that their idea will catch on and they can build something for themselves and their family. Now they get thrown in legal limbo by this government, because they don’t know what the fallout might be and how far it spreads.

You have tourism operators that don’t know what the impact will be if this impacts the winery industry. You have retail operators that aren’t sure what this will mean to them at a retail level on a wide range of products that they sell that if misused will dramatically impact your health in a negative way.

What safeguards is the government proposing to make sure things aren’t bought in such a volume that it impacts your health in a negative way?

It might shock the Speaker to find out that I’ve had the odd person in my life tell me I could stand to lose a pound or two. Is this meant to protect me from myself? That is the problem with Bill 12. No one knows what the government’s reach is going to be.

[5:25 p.m.]

At a time when businesses are struggling to stay solvent, at a time when they see nothing but cost pressures ever mounting on their operations and they’re pretty much hitting the ceiling on what they can charge their customers, the government thought that was a good time, on the backdrop of 32 new or increased taxes that add $22 billion to the overall tax bill in British Columbia, a great portion of which is picked up by small businesses in our province, a backdrop of the government flooding our streets with so-called safe supply that they’re winding up in our high schools….

The government’s priorities seem to be to bring forward an ambiguous bill like Bill 12 that will provide no certainty or clarity to those businesses, take no responsibility or acknowledgment of their failed policies that they have that are actually causing great community harm and public health harm.

That’s the problem. There’s harm that gets created. There are people that are being helped, absolutely. But Bill 12 doesn’t say: “As long as you’re helping some people, you’re absolved if you hurt others.” And that sounds an awful lot like what’s happening under decriminalization right now. You have some being helped, and you have many, many more that are being harmed.

A high school student that didn’t have a dependency issue, that starts taking so-called safe supply because they are told it’s government-issued and it’s safe and it’s pharmaceutical-grade — still sends them down a path of addictions, especially when it’s diluted. And it’s, as they call it, dillies, which are incredibly addictive. Ironically enough, they are made by the same manufacturer, it’s my understanding, that the government sued about the opioid crisis. How messed up is that? The government sues a pharmaceutical company on the opioid crisis, and then turns around and contracts for one of their other products that’s an opioid derivative for the so-called safe supply program that gets diverted into our high schools and university campuses.

Maybe that’s what the business associations are saying with their opposition to Bill 12. Maybe they’re saying: “The government should get their own house in order first, before they keep trying to expand and do what they do best: point the finger at everyone else for creating the problem and take no responsibility for themselves as government to actually solve a problem.”

It’s always someone else’s fault with this government. There’s always someone else to blame. There’s always somewhere else to point a finger. Nothing they have done has been wrong in eight years, according to this government. Doesn’t matter what facts you present. It doesn’t matter what data you show them. It doesn’t matter what shows up on newscasts on a nightly basis. It doesn’t matter what police reports say. Those must have been wrong. It’s someone else’s fault, according to the Premier, not him and his cabinet.

Well, if that was the case, health care wouldn’t be in a shambles. Housing wouldn’t be in a shambles. We wouldn’t have the most expensive housing in British Columbia…. We wouldn’t have crime and street disorder like we’re seeing. We wouldn’t have record levels of opioid deaths, let alone non-fatal overdoses. We wouldn’t have record levels of stress and trauma on our first responders that keep go­ing to these calls.

We wouldn’t have a child welfare system that is in disarray, despite the government trying to pretend it’s not and trying to turn a blind eye to it, while more and more kids are faced with challenges — horrific, horrific situations. It was like dragging the Premier’s feet to try to get some sort of change and accountability within that ministry.

[5:30 p.m.]

That’s the type of lack of accountability that makes the business community sign a letter like they did about Bill 12. News for the Premier: leadership isn’t pointing the finger at everyone else in the province when you wanted to be the Premier. No one forced the Premier to take on the job. In fact, he forced everyone else out from trying to do the job instead of him. It’s time for actual leadership and actual results instead of bills like Bill 12 which are designed to point fingers and blame others and not provide any actual detail to what this government plans to do.

We hear it time and again, announcement after an­nouncement, legislation after legislation. No detail. De­tails to come. They referenced the flipping tax in the flipping budget as going to be in the budget implementation bill. That was back on February 22. Guess what gets announced tomorrow?

We finally get to see the legislation on the flipping tax. The government couldn’t even have that ready to go. But somehow a bill, in Bill 12, that no one asked for…. They managed to have that hit the floor of the Legislature before something they’ve talked about since February 22. Talk about all talk and no action and no result.

When you have groups as diverse as beverages, as forestry, as chemical engineering, as manufacturers and exporters, as retail, just standard retail, as tourism…. Why would the hotel industry be so worried about Bill 12? It’s because of the unintended consequences that are going to be triggered under Bill 12.

I grew up in a family with a family-run, family-owned hotel. Margins aren’t what people think they are, despite what a lot of the rates are. There’s a lot of worry when you start to see government lining up to try to figure out who they want to make the next scapegoat for the next problem that they’ve not been able to deliver on and solve the problem for.

I’ve lost track. If you want to talk about how many problems they pointed the fingers at, I’ve actually lost track of how many different people they have blamed for the housing crisis. It started with offshore investors. Then there was a whole bunch of rhetoric fueling anti-Asian sentiments out in the province, which only grew under COVID and this government’s watch.

Let’s see. They had money laundering as the culprit until the Cullen commission shot that down. Then what did they come back to? I think, then, again, we were back to speculators. Then we were back to offshore money.

Municipalities have played a part, apparently, all through this, but we’re not entirely sure with the government where they ever point the finger at. Then the federal government was at fault. Now the federal government is a good guy in this again. Next week they’ll probably be the bad guy again.

That’s, literally, what this government has treated housing like. It’s what they’ve treated the opioid addiction crisis like. It’s what they’re treating Bill 12 like. They’re sending a very clear signal to the business community, which is why the business community sent the letter they did, that it’s open season on them. Any one of them could be the next scapegoat when the province feels like they need to try to change the channel on something. Given that it’s, what, Tuesday today, that could happen by Thursday, the way this government keeps stepping in it.

It’s simply not good enough. It’s a very simple request: put this on hold to have proper consultation with the business community and, actually, with Indigenous communities as well.

[5:35 p.m.]

No one was asking for this. You have to ask yourself: what problem are they trying to solve, or what problem are they trying to appear to be solving with a desperate attempt to try to look like they’re a government taking action? All the action they are taking is sending a shiver through the business community that any one of them could be the next scapegoat by this government. That’s not a way to govern, and that’s certainly not leadership.

I thank you for the time on Bill 12.

M. Bernier: When I see members from the government side…. I was just waiting to see if they wanted to speak. I was willing to give up the floor and that opportunity for some of the ministers or members to speak to Bill 12, but in absence of that, I will take my spot and do just that.

We’ve heard a lot today from the opposition side of the House raising legitimate concerns, starting with our critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, who, rightfully so, spoke as the designated speaker, at length, with a lot, I would say, of a cautionary tale with some very legitimate points and concerns around Bill 12 and why we are suggesting to this government that they pause, as my colleague from Kamloops just talked about.

I’ll get into my commentary on this, but as we’ve been saying, too, this is not us just saying that this needs to be paused. These are groups, organizations all around the province of British Columbia. The common theme that we are hearing — not just in this piece of legislation, in Bill 12, but for so many pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward without bringing the holistic approach in that piece of legislation, whether it’s the definitions or the interpretation or the lack thereof within the clauses — is the unintended consequences.

Time and time again when pieces of legislation have hit this floor, there has been.... Maybe outcry is too strong of a word in some of the situations, but definitely concern raised by community groups, by the official opposition, that because of the lack of information presented in a bill, the lack of consultation that was done prior to the legislation hitting the floor of this House, it will create unintended consequences. We’ve heard that time and time again.

Over the last couple of months…. I will almost — I guess I will be — sounding like I’m giving government credit here, because there have been times where they’ve realized their mistakes, where they’ve had to come out and say: “We’re not putting through all the regulation right now, as we thought, on that piece of legislation. We’re pulling back.” Or: “We’re going to be changing or not im­posing the full piece of legislation because we’re recognizing some of the unintended consequences that people in the public or the official opposition have raised.”

I know the government will never stand up and say that the official opposition was right, even though in many of the cases of the commentary that we brought forward, we were, when we were bringing it forward on behalf of people in the province of British Columbia who were also raising those concerns. But here we are again in the Legislature debating a piece of legislation that many groups in the province of British Columbia are flagging — that because of the lack of consultation once again, it could have unintended consequences.

Now, I know the Attorney General will have a lot of opportunity when we get to committee stage…. Our critic, the member for Vancouver-Langara, will be bringing forward, as he has already highlighted through his commentary, a multitude of questions, concerns that are being raised, ensuring that we give the minister the opportunity to, maybe in some cases, correct some of the information that’s out there, or also give more guidance to this House based on the direction of this government, what they’re trying to accomplish.

[5:40 p.m.]

As the member before me and a few others have said too, we’re trying to understand what problem this government is trying to fix with this piece of legislation.

Now, when you look at Bill 12 and you’re talking about public health accountability and cost recovery, on the surface, the merits of that sound fine. There’s going to be no argument that we need to be looking at an accountability approach, as it has been addressed by a multitude of speakers already today. But it’s once again the lack of legal terminology and definition that’s put forward in this bill.

Without those specifics and the definitions, it leaves people to start trying to interpret all the gaps that are out there. And because there was no proper consultation, people have to start interpreting what the objective may or may not be. That, once again, falls flat on this government for not doing their due diligence in front of this piece of legislation being brought here to this House.

Now, the minister herself, the Attorney General, earlier in presenting this bill…. I was quite surprised. The commentary was very brief, did not give a lot of clarity, did not really address the concerns that people have been raising.

In all fairness, we’ve spoken after the minister, as the official opposition. But the general public and the organizations in the province spoke before us. They spoke before the minister by putting a letter forward highlighting some of the issues and concerns that they have with this legislation. The minister had an opportunity to address those, to give the clarity that would be required, but that didn’t happen. Unfortunately, even the minister’s own speaking points that she brought forward around this bill, in a lot of ways, not only did not help give clarity but created more uncertainty through some of that language.

I’m looking at some of this that the minister said, and I’m quoting from the Attorney General. This bill will allow government to sue wrongdoers, regardless of their individual or corporation entity, “who either cause or contribute to the disease, illness or injury or the risk of disease, illness or injury. Currently, the costs of some wrongdoers are covered by the province and not the wrongdoer.”

Now, the minister is speaking right out of the bill with some of these talking points but, again, doesn’t give clarity — the whole point of a lot of these organizations writing to not only the minister in advance of our commentary here today but also to the Premier, to every member on the government side of the House. Of course, we’re privy to that information, as we were all cc’d on that letter of concern on the scope of Bill 12 that was put forward on March 28 by these different organizations.

When I read that letter, it drew me to the legislation. What concerns may they be identifying through the pieces of legislation? I won’t read the entire letter. I know some parts of the letter have been read previously by members in the House. I think it’s also important to at least reiterate a few points that were brought forward and concerns that these business associations have put forward, because on the surface, it appears that government once again wants to start setting up not only government but organizations within our province for litigation, for more money being spent in the courts.

[5:45 p.m.]

Rather than being in front of the issue, this government is reactionary all the time. Rather than showing leadership and trying to solve some of the health issues, trying to solve some of the concerns that are being raised, “let’s just wait until there’s a problem and then react to it, and possibly in the courts.”

Looking at this letter again, from these groups…. I’ll quote from the letter here, the very first paragraph, which I think is important. “The intention to safeguard the physical and mental health and well-being of British Columbians is laudable and an objective we all support. We are writing today to emphasize that the parameters in Bill 12 must be clear and appropriately delineated so as not to inadvertently expose a wider spectrum of businesses to legal risk. The current draft does not achieve this and has been advanced without sufficient engagement.”

I’ll pause there for a second. This seems to be the on­going practice of this government. Rather than doing the work up front, it’s: “Let’s bring forward a piece of legislation without the proper engagement. Let’s throw it out and see if it sticks. We may or may not change it down the road, after we’ve forced it through with the majority government.” So much of it has been interpreted or left up to regulation after the legislation has passed here in the House.

This one’s a little different. Unless I’m missing it when I read through this piece of legislation, rather than having, to this government’s credit…. Almost every piece of legislation I’ve seen here leaves it up to regulation at a later date. For this one here, every piece of this legislation, every section — 18 sections that I see here — comes into force at royal assent. That is different than most of the pieces of legislation that I’ve seen from this government, where some comes in royal assent and a lot of it is left to determination and regulation at a later date, through order-in-council, through cabinet.

On the surface, when I saw that, I almost didn’t know what to think. Usually I am concerned when this government says: “We’re leaving it all up to a later date, through regulation, because we don’t have enough information, and we’re going to determine, through regulation, some of the processes, possibly through consultation at a later date.” That’s what we hear from this government.

This piece of legislation is contrary to that. This piece of legislation says and almost acknowledges: “We did not do the consultation. We know there’s concern out there.” There are letters that have been distributed to this government. They have it. I haven’t heard one of them acknowledge it yet, but they have this, these letters of concern. “But don’t worry. This time we’re not even going to wait and do regulation after consultation. We’re just going to ram it through in the next couple of days, and it’ll come into effect right away, through royal assent.”

I think you can see why not only these groups but the opposition is trying to raise a flag here. In this piece of legislation, government has not even given themselves a window to climb out of. They have not given themselves an opportunity to change something afterwards, because this entire piece of legislation is going to come into effect upon passage here in royal assent.

There’s no loophole. There’s no area where it says “regulation after consultation.” There again, when you look at that first paragraph that these organizations have put forward, they’ve highlighted very specifically that this current draft does not achieve the goals that government looks like they’re trying to accomplish here, and it has been advanced without sufficient engagement.

[5:50 p.m.]

This is not just a couple of small groups that people have never heard from before. Some of these organizations are major, well-respected organizations in the province of British Columbia. Some of them represent hundreds, if not thousands, of members, which in turn represent groups from every single corner of this province.

We’re looking at the Retail Council of Canada, the Vancouver Board of Trade. We’re looking at the Hotel Association of British Columbia; the B.C. Craft Brewers — one of my favourites, on a side note, I want to add; and COFI, I think it was acknowledged by one of my colleagues earlier. We’ve even got forestry industries that are attaching themselves to this letter.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Business Council of British Columbia, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association. I haven’t even listed half of them. These are major organizations that are trying to get the government’s attention, to say that this piece of legislation needs to be reconsidered.

Maybe internally, within this legislation in Bill 12, there are points in here that people can understand and support, but in the way it is defined, the way things are put forward by the Attorney General and this government — frankly, the Premier — in this piece of legislation, the absence of that detail raises flags and raises concerns. That’s all we’re trying to say.

We’re actually trying to help government here by saying that there is no flaw, no harm, and no reason to be concerned if you say: “Look, this letter has raised some valid points. We are willing to stand down this piece of legislation until we do the right thing, until we engage and consult with the groups that have flagged their concerns.”

I hate to say it this way. We will ask very pointed, distinct and articulate questions. Our member for Vancouver-Langara will put those forward. Regardless of the answers, it will not change the wording in the legislation — which, in essence, will still leave gaps and flaws.

I am hard-pressed to think that the minister is going to be able to articulate…. That’s not a flaw of the minister. The minister is quite a student, as a lawyer herself, and will be able to debate the terminology. But that will not change the actual wording in the legislation.

Now, Bill 12 is really mostly about health-related wrongs, when you go into the actual legislation. I’ll flag some points here that are raising some questions from me, questions from the opposition. Again, I can understand wholeheartedly the concerns or questions that some of the organizations that I read out are flagging. It’s because of the lack of definition and the terminology required in the legislation to give certainty around the intent.

When I look at, even under definitions, when it talks about health-related wrongs, that means, and I’m quoting out of the legislation: “‘health-related wrong’ means a breach by a person of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed to persons in British Columbia, or a tort that is committed in British Columbia by a person and that causes or contributes to disease, injury or illness.”

Now, the wording makes sense on the intent, but the broadness of that definition is what raises flags around un­intended consequences that need to be considered. When we look under that, when it talks about disease, injury or illness within a health-related wrong, I then jumped over into the same definition, under “Definitions,” for the definition of “disease, injury or illness” as defined within this piece of legislation,

[5:55 p.m.]

It says very specifically: “physical or mental injury or illness; problematic product use” — I’m curious to know what that means; “addiction” — addiction is its own issue; “general deterioration of health; or the risk of disease, injury or illness.”

Risk, though, isn’t defined. What does that really mean: the risk of something? We talk about unintended conse­quences, and we use that term quite a bit for obvious reasons. With the gaps within not only the definition but the pieces of legislation through these sections after definitions, it raises those concerns. I think about personal liability, personal concerns that individuals must have.

Let’s talk about “product use,” as it’s talking about here. When we get into some of the definitions around product use, where is the personal liability in here, the personal responsibility? I guess I should use it that way. Here’s a perfect example, based on the gaps that are in here.

I will ask this question of government. Actually, I’m not allowed to use props. I actually have them right here, though: my earbuds. When you buy earbuds and you put them in, there are very strict requirements that say they could cause hearing problems if you have it too loud. Fortunately, I’ve played in a rock band most of my life, so I already have a lot of hearing problems. I am trying to figure out, if this piece of legislation goes through, whom I can sue to cover my hearing aid requirements. I’m not sure if that will be the manufacturer of the drum kits.

In all seriousness, the gaps here are immense. If I put in these earbuds, I’m listening to some loud music and my hearing goes downhill because of that, the warnings were all there. The product warnings are there on almost everything. We’ve gotten into a society where we have to put on gasoline: “Don’t drink, because it might cause you harm.” We’ve gone so far down a rabbit hole of warnings, because companies have been pushed into a situation where we have to make sure they cover all bases. Okay, fine.

If I play that music too loud and I start losing my hearing, is it the company’s responsibility? The way this is worded…. That product has caused me a physical illness. Does that mean that the company is now responsible? Or will they be able to determine, because it’ll go to court now, that no, they’ve given every warning possible and it’s not their responsibility?

It might sound, on the surface, what I’m saying, absurd. But the way this legislation is worded, and the lack of consultation to actually define and put bookends to allow companies to feel confident on the intent, we have these gaps. That’s why we have these concerns. That’s why we have these organizations writing to government, saying: “Please pause this until we understand more holistically what your goals are, the intention of trying to help people from a health-related wrong — not actually open up the door for litigation, when the intent was not there from a company.”

I understand, when this was first put forward, there was a lot of talk around social media and other platforms that government, the Premier and the minister were speaking to, but that’s not defined as the major intent of this piece of legislation. It’s left so wide-open that we don’t know anymore where it could go.

[6:00 p.m.]

In fact, when I was reading through this piece of legislation…. I’m going to flip forward to…. I think it was under section 2(6). “If the government seeks in an action under subsection (1) to recover the costs of a health care benefit….” This is where again, Mr. Speaker, there are concerns, and we have to flesh these out.

“If the government seeks an action…it is not necessary to identify particular individual benefit recipients or to prove the cause of disease, injury or illness in any particular individual benefit recipient, or” the government does not need “to prove the cost of health care benefits for any particular individual benefit recipient.”

When you read that piece of the legislation, on top of the other lack of definitions, of course there are concerns that are flagged. It’s saying now that the government can seek legal costs, can seek damages of somebody: a company, an individual, or members of a board of directors, who are sometimes liable in these cases. But it says that government doesn’t have to prove much now.

Now, of course, the minister will stand up and say: “Well, in certain cases….” I’m sure the minister will try to define what that means, but should that not have been more descriptive in the legislation? One would think so. One would hope so.

In fact, if you look at the people that signed this letter, they expect that. That could have solved a lot of problems, in the forefront, if that work had been done up front by government and by the minister.

In section 9 of the bill, it talks about “setting out the health care benefits that have been provided and will likely be provided for a benefit recipient or population of benefit recipients who have suffered damage caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.” Well, the first thing that jumps out to me when I read that is: has the government just opened up the door for government now to be liable and sued?

We’re in the middle of an opioid crisis. We’re in the middle of a government’s failed decriminalization strategy and policy. We’ve seen down in the United States where they’re now backing away and changing their policies around decriminalization because they’ve acknowledged it’s a failed experiment. Not here. They want to continue full ahead without the guardrails to help people.

But right in the piece of legislation, the first thing that pops up when I read that is, well, that this government has opened the door now for government to be sued because they have utterly failed to have the guardrails around when they brought forward changes around decriminalization.

So by the wording of this legislation, this government has created a health-related wrong. By the wording in this piece of legislation, that health-related wrong holds them liable, not just as government, but as cabinet. Or is it a case of: “We’re going to hold everybody else responsible, but we’re not going to look in the mirror for the work that we’re doing ourselves as a government”?

Again, there’s a reason why these organizations we’ve been highlighting have been raising the flag. They’re not saying that they don’t agree with the intent of trying to make sure that people’s physical and mental health and well-being in British Columbia is taken care of. Of course they do. Of course we all do.

What we were all trying to flag is the approach this government’s taken with this piece of legislation. It’s flawed because they haven’t done the work up front. That’s why not only we, but these groups, are asking government…. I quote again: “We request the government to pause the advancement of this bill and actually, instead, work with stakeholders to refine the intent, purpose and language of the proposed law.”

So it’s what we’ve been saying here. Because of the way this piece of legislation.… Again, it’s not the intent, but the direction it’s gone without the, once again, guardrails put in, I’ll say. Without the specific determination of what the goals and intentions are of this government, it’s been left too broad.

All of these organizations…. I really hope the NDP government members take it to heart.

[6:05 p.m.]

Maybe go back to their caucus room and not only ques­tion their Premier and the minister, but take to heart what all of these organizations, representing tens of thousands of British Columbians, are saying. Pull it back. Do it right.

I’ll tell you that if they did that now, instead of organizations writing to government saying, “Please pause,” they probably would have had a lot of these organizations signing a press release, like government is always looking for, saying: “We applaud government for the direction they’re going.”

But government is not getting that right now, and that should be a caution to government. Now, we’ve seen, being an election year, that this government is pulling back on some of the things because they didn’t get it right. Fair enough. As we’ve seen with them, they say what they have to, to get a vote.

Here’s another opportunity. Government can do the right thing. The minister can do the right thing. We don’t even have to go through committee stage. Government can withdraw this bill now, do the consultation they didn’t do, and then we can all move forward and try to get it right the first time.

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: Oh, well, thank you — from the government benches. I was hopeful that we would see some government members up on this bill. Evidently not.

I’m rising to speak to Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024, a piece of legislation that I think most in this House would recognize, on the surface, is certainly something that has some value — has potential value, anyway — because we’ve seen this type of legislation in the past.

We’ve seen it through the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act — I think that was brought in, in the ’90s, and updated again in the 2000s — and then, more recently, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. So it’s similar in nature, but there are some significant differences in this case.

Those pieces of legislation tended to be constrained or targeted, focused on a particular objective and outcome, whereas what we’re seeing here in this piece of legislation is very broad and ill-defined, in fact, if defined at all. It grants, as well, unprecedented power in the way of the minister issuing certificates that really just allow for a statement that there have been costs associated with a perceived ill.

This bill, really, after being introduced a few days ago, was very much condemned — or an expression of concern from a huge range of businesses who really have expressed a concern about unintended consequences and the lack of definitions or broad definitions.

It’s a wide range of the business community. As we look at who some of these signatories are, we have to recognize that it really represents the vast majority of businesses in this province, who, as I said at the outset, really acknowledge that there’s a value here in terms of the intention.

[6:10 p.m.]

This is to safeguard the physical and mental health and well-being of British Columbians. It’s an objective that we would certainly all support. But the concern is that there are no definitions, that it’s too broad.

It can be interpreted in a variety of different ways and, ultimately, may well, being that, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier, it is being brought into effect on royal assent with a lack of definition and guardrails. So much of what we’re going to discover here will be discovered through legal action and the courts, which is something that government has spent quite a bit of time talking about in the last little while, specifically around the Land Act, in which the goal was to limit court actions and create resolutions outside of the court. But the way that this legislation is being introduced and the parameters around it will in fact encourage that.

What does this appear to do? Some of these concerns appear to apply to any product, good, service, by-product, product and/or service, which can create a liability for almost any business in this province or connected to this province.

What businesses are we are we talking about here? Well, the signatories of this letter include the board of trade of greater Vancouver; the hotel industry; the liquor industry writ large; the retail liquor store advisory society; the Retail Council of Canada; the Craft Brewers Guild; the distillers; the wine industry; the forest industry; Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses; the Business Council of British Columbia; Food, Health and Consumer Pro­ducts of Canada; the restaurant industry of Canada; the restaurant industry in British Columbia; the tourism industry; the beverage industry; home appliance manufacturers; chemistry industry; the chamber of commerce; even the greenhouse growers.

I mean, this represents virtually all but the public sector in this province, all expressing a similar type of concern, that this legislation expands the type and scope for cost of the government to all range of expenditures by government and a significant power, as I mentioned earlier, to the minister to issue a certificate as proof of expenditures without actually conclusive proof of actual risk. It is described in this letter as alarming and without precedent. So that’s certainly something that should cause government to pause and to reconsider and to think: “Okay. Are we on track here? Have we got the right focus?”

I notice the Premier’s Office had mentioned this was to be focused on social media enterprises and the potential impacts of algorithms and the processes that these social media companies use to generate traffic and to generate interest in users.

[6:15 p.m.]

It’s ironic that we don’t see that sector identified in this list of companies that is expressing concern, because the reach is so broad, because there’s such uncertainty here that it could literally affect every business in British Columbia.

As the signatories mentioned, as opposed to a targeted approach, this legislation is written in the broadest possible fashion. The result is that there is real risk that this legislation could cause some to consider alternatives to investing in British Columbia, raise costs or, at worst, relocate existing B.C.-based operations. We already have evidence of an exodus from this province, both from a resident point of view, moving to Alberta or Ontario, as well as businesses either moving or considering relocation or considering the investments that they want to make right now.

We heard mention of some ironies here. The wine sector is having enormous challenges right now around weather issues and the impacts of cold on the sector. Yet on one hand, while government is suggesting that they’re going to invest in the sector, at the same time, we’re creating uncertainties and, potentially, very significant liabilities for exactly that same sector.

The request from this group and these organizations is that the government pause and instead work with stakeholders to refine the intent, purpose and language of the proposed law, which seems like a very, very reasonable approach.

Who would you think would benefit from all this, given the vagueness of the legislation and the fact that it will likely be challenged and challenged again?

There has been some concern raised or some issues raised that the government may find itself a subject of challenge, especially around liquor and cannabis, being that these retail operations are very much a creature of the province. I would point out to my colleagues that it’s unlikely government will go after itself, although it’s interesting that this is applicable to both the federal and the provincial government. I guess it’s possible that either the federal government could go after the provincial government or vice versa.

The question was: who would benefit? Well, certainly, the legal industry is probably likely to benefit, but they also express some very significant concerns around the intention to facilitate civil suits seeking cost recovery on an unprecedented scale, which is a bit alarming when you think on the surface of it.

These are some of the implications of Bill 12. The proposed legislation permits British Columbia or the federal government to recover on an individual or aggregate basis a broad variety of costs related to injury, disease or illness, including those associated with benefits, services and programs.

In other words, if government determines that we need to educate — to not participate in something, to not consume something or use something — then those educational costs could flow back and, ultimately, be recovered from that sector.

[6:20 p.m.]

What is a product? Well, it’s broadly defined to inc­lude a good, a service or a by-product, which is pretty much everything.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It will allow government to commence an action against nearly any company doing business in British Columbia. If that doesn’t provide a chill to the business sector in this province, I don’t know what will. Again, it allows the government to commence an action against nearly any company doing business in this province.

What else does this legislation do? It requires the court to presume causation where the government is able to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that benefit recipients were exposed to a risk, just the risk, of disease, injury or illness as a consequence. So the court doesn’t even have an opportunity to determine whether or not there is causation. The court is required to presume causation.

This legislation also has…. The liability limitation is extended to 15 years. Even if you have made a settlement or if you already have an action that’s dismissed…. These dismissed actions are potentially revived. So no action is barred that is commenced by the province or the federal government within 15 years of the coming into force of the act on the day in which the claim is discovered.

There was a limited liability before. Now there’s almost an unlimited liability, 15 years at least, and there’s a double jeopardy type of consideration. If you’ve settled before, it’s not a defence. You are going to be subject to an action again.

As well, for the directors and officers of companies in this province…. They should be aware and concerned and alarmed at their own personal liability. There is, ultimately, on directors and officers, no cap on damages.

This is from one law firm. There are many other law firms that all have expressed similar concerns.

With that, I will note the hour, reserve my place and adjourn the debate.

J. Sturdy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Lore moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.