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 the Whole for Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COST
RECOVERY ACT

(continued)

N. Letnick: I will continue from where we left off prior to the lunch break. Just to reiterate, I looked at the bill, Bill 12. I’ve read through the bill. Some of the key sections appear in the first three pages, under definitions, with the purpose of the bill being “direct and distinct action by government against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.”

The question is: what is a health-related wrong? That’s also defined in the bill. This means: “(a) a breach by a person of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed to persons in B.C., or (b) a tort that is committed in B.C. by a person and that causes or contributes to disease, injury or illness.”

Then you must ask: “Well, how do we define disease, injury or illness?” Well, that takes you to another definition, which is where a lot of the crux lies: “disease, injury or illness includes the following: physical or mental injury or illness,” which takes in account almost everything; “problematic product use; addiction; general deterioration of health;” and the last one: “the risk of disease, injury or illness.” Disease, injury or illness includes the risk of disease, injury or illness, just to make sure we haven’t missed anything.

That is the essence of the bill. If you try to figure out what exactly the government is trying to target in this omnibus bill that encompasses almost everything under the sun, I think one place to look is the media.

[1:10 p.m.]

Especially since they haven’t been getting up and speaking to the bill, for some reason, sometimes the government is short on details at second reading and waits for the committee stage, but they tend to answer questions to the media.

So in the media, this a March 28 quote: “The intention is to safeguard the physical and mental health and well-being of British Columbians.” And they say this is laudable and an objective we should support.

I just want to get the right media quotes and give them the appropriate citations. Katie DeRosa, on March 14, wrote an article: “New law would allow B.C. to sue social media companies, vape producers over ‘health-related wrongs.’” So that’s a little tighter than what the bill actually says: sue social media companies, vape producers over health-related wrongs.

She identifies the story of Carson Cleland, a 12-year-old Prince George boy who died by suicide in October, ten hours after being contacted by a predator through Snapchat and asked to send explicit photographs. This is clearly a case where a bill like this should be in place to make sure that we safeguard our children.

The problem comes later in the details. And that is that this bill is not only aimed at minors. There’s nothing in the bill, as far as I can see, that defines who actually is being targeted here for protection. In other words, it’s for everyone, not just for minors, but for all.

So if you take it to the extreme, if you look at what’s allowed in the bill — which is any disease, injury or illness or risk of disease, injury or illness or addiction or general deterioration of health — people not only who produce the products but also who distribute the products would be subject to this bill.

Now, I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I like my Tim Hortons. You know, give me some doughnuts, right? But we all know doughnuts can lead to obesity, and obesity is a risk to health. So who’s going to decide if I, as an adult, choose to go out and live a lifestyle that might be dangerous to my own health? Does that mean that the government can now go after Tim Hortons for producing and distributing products that could be harmful to the health of British Columbians?

That’s a serious question that we have to canvass in, unfortunately, committee stage. I wish we could actually do it here at second reading and get some clarification from the government members to tell me: “No, you’re all wrong. You’re barking up the wrong tree. This is specific for these kinds of issues.” That would be nice, but so far I haven’t seen that.

We go on to look at different parts of the media canvassing. The Katie DeRosa article on March 14 again says that the Attorney General, and I’m quoting from the article, “sidestepped a question about whether the government is opening the door for lawsuits against oil and gas companies or firms that sell alcohol or sugary foods.”

There’s the Tim Horton’s example right there. “She said the legislation is deliberately broad” — she being the Attorney General — “so it can apply to any companies that produce products designed to create addiction or that have caused a ‘population-level harm,’ particularly in children and youth.”

Again, I agree with the targeting of children and youth — that this legislation should target children and youth and protect them. But population-level harm. I think some people can make the case that the population has been harmed over many, many years of promoting all kinds of things, whether it’s the sugary drinks, the alcohol.

It could be our self-image, both male and female. You know, what kinds of harms do we see? People doing harm to themselves trying to achieve the perfect body? We could bust our heart, lifting weights that are way too heavy for us. For me, that doesn’t take much. I can bust a valve in no time, trying to lift a weight.

[1:15 p.m.]

I certainly can’t lift some of my colleagues over my head. That’d be next to impossible. But I know they can do that to me, because they’re trained to do that.

But it begs the question: where are the boundaries? Where is the fence post on this legislation? There isn’t any. It really leaves it up to government — and who in government? — to decide that some group in society has been targeted inappropriately by businesses.

Are we going to go after the Mac stores because they’re distributing products that could potentially be harmful at a societal level? This is really, really disturbing. It’s no wonder that a lot in the business community have written letters into the government. When I say written letters….

I was here yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and you were in the chair. One of my colleagues decided to read a letter that somebody else had read. I don’t know whether I’m allowed to read the letter or not. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, you can clarify that for me.

Am I allowed, according to the rules of engagement…. I’ve sat in your chair, and I know them a little bit. I want you to definitely tell me that I’m not allowed to read that letter and where it says in the book that I can’t read the letter.

Deputy Speaker: You can reference the letter for sure. It’s just, reading the whole letter verbatim…. It’s Standing Order 43, around tedious repetition of the same letter. If you’d like to look at Standing Order 43.

But please continue. You don’t need to read the whole letter in its entirety, as it’s been read into the record multiple times now.

N. Letnick: I really hate to use up my valuable time on this, but I’m going to anyway. Standing Order 43 says what, specifically? Because I don’t recall anything in Standing Order 43 that says: “Thou shalt not read a letter.” I understand that repetition….

Deputy Speaker: It’s not the time for debate with the Speaker. Feel free to read what you need from that letter. I’m just asking, as a guidance, to not read the whole thing verbatim, as it is important to leave time for other colleagues who want to speak as well.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson rises on a point of order.

Point of Order

P. Milobar: The reason my colleague has raised this issue is yesterday the Chair appeared to be reading from the Standing Orders, specifically referencing letters. We cannot find in Standing Order 43 any specific reference to letters, as the Chair pointed out yesterday, saying very specifically, “In fact, it actually refers to letters” — I believe that’s what the Chair said — and then appearing to read from the book, saying “letters.”

When we read the book, we haven’t been able to find that. I think that’s why we’re seeking clarification so that we don’t see a further erosion of members’ rights to read a letter that they are trying to stitch into their own debate in their own way based on how they’re interpreting the letter into their own debate.

Deputy Speaker: I would draw your attention to page 163, chapter 7, 7.3.5. It’s about the application of rules on relevance and repetition. Standing Order 43. It’s in the blue book that we’ve all been provided, and I’d invite the member to peruse that.

Please proceed, Member.

Debate Continued

N. Letnick: Thank you for the point of order and the discussion. It’s good to clarify these things.

Continuing with the media, an article written by Emma Crawford and Michael Williams posted on March 14 at 7:47, says: “The introduction of the Public Health, Accountability and Cost Recovery Act would allow the province to sue social media companies, vape producers or even those selling highly caffeinated energy drinks that target kids.”

Well, that’s in part correct. It could sue a number of people, including media companies, vape producers or those selling highly caffeinated energy drinks that target kids, but also that target adults. There’s nothing anywhere that says this is limited to children.

This is broad legislation that has widespread application in so many ways. Again, it’s no wonder people are asking government to stop and consult and tighten up the legislation. And again, I certainly hope that it does so.

[1:20 p.m.]

In an article on March 15 at 8 a.m. by Rob Shaw, who everyone knows, Rob said that Emily Laidlaw, the Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law at the University of Calgary, who specializes in online harms and platform regulation, says: “How wide are they looking at for social media services?” she asked. “Are they going to include Amazon on this? Because Amazon products that have been sold on it have been used to take lives…. So I have a wait-and-see approach to see how they tackle these particular issues.”

Again, a realistic question by this expert who specializes in online harms and platform regulation, who says: “Are they going to go after Amazon for distributing the product?” As we all know, Amazon distributes almost everything in the world. So it would be very interesting indeed.

Those are some of the media reports which try to, I guess, tighten the scope of the legislation. I guess they were talking to the minister, in some cases, and tried to tighten the scope of the legislation. But it really reinforces the fact that the legislation is so wide open and applies to so many people on so many fronts that, really, it attracts detractors.

I think it’s unnecessary as far as attracting detractors. If the government would have only consulted with the people that they’re trying to represent here, to perhaps work with…. The business community is one. Others that are distributing products, social media companies, Mac’s and Tim Hortons and Amazon and all those people….

If they only consulted with the businesses ahead of time, the government might have been able to see that the legislation being proposed was just too broad, too large a net, and therefore might not actually be as effective. It certainly won’t get the social buy-in that everyone in this House, I think, wants to give it, which is that we need to do something more to protect our children from these harms and predators out there.

This legislation, the way it’s designed and written, without details and being so large in scope…. I’m concerned that it’s not going to get public support, by the letters that we’ve been reading into the record.

I’ve got another one here today, and I’m loathe to read it into the record because I don’t want to take anybody else’s chance from reading it into the record. So maybe I’ll just quote from the letter a little bit and give an opportunity to my colleagues so they can do the same. I wouldn’t want the Speaker to shut them down.

This bill is reminiscent of previous legislation — I understand that — such as the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Yet it introduces so broadly the mechanisms for recovering health-related costs compared to those acts….

I don’t know why the government didn’t decide to specifically target individuals or corporations that we all have causes to concern with, rather than opening the door to some people with an agenda who want to go after all kinds of issues, issues I’ve mentioned today already. Men and women worried about their body image and doing things to themselves and, in some cases, ending up in suicide. This legislation is just too broad.

I’m particularly interested in clause 9, a novel introduction that grants a minister unprecedented power to issue certificates establishing the cost of health care benefits. This power encompasses costs already incurred and those “likely to be provided.” Likely to be provided. It begs the question: who defines what is likely? On what basis? This clause hands over a blank cheque of authority, potentially overreach into realms of speculative justice, with little oversight.

Moreover, the expansion of definitions within the bill, such as “benefit recipient” or “product” or “promote,” signals a significant widening of the scope of this legislation, as I’ve already mentioned. While the intention to recover costs from a broader range of wrongdoers is clear, we must carefully consider the unintended consequences.

We’ve seen this year in and year out. It’s not only this government. It’s previous governments and governments before previous governments. Introduce legislation without proper consultation. Bingo — you have unintended consequences.

[1:25 p.m.]

The reason why they’re unintended is because no one asked. If you don’t go out there and ask, you won’t get all the knowledge you need to make sure that you bring in a piece of legislation that is tight, so that it actually does what you want it to do — not you, Mr. Speaker, in particular, but what we want it to do. It actually works and gets social buy-in. We need that social buy-in if we’re going to have legislation that transcends governments.

I’ve been here for 15 years. This is the end of my fourth term. I’ve seen legislation that has been introduced by one group which is then rewritten or completely reversed by another group. I would say that for the most part that’s because the legislation itself isn’t thinking of a generation from now. It’s got to be thinking past the current four-year cycle; it has to be thinking long term.

If we want to have legislation that lasts after a government is gone and a new government is put in place — it even could be by the same party; it doesn’t matter — then the legislation has to be well-thought-out, it has to be well communicated, and it has to be well consulted on.

If we can get all those things done — the consultation, the thinking, the debate, the specificity of the legislation — then there’s a good chance that the legislation will see the light of day in a future government and that it won’t be completely rehauled or trashed, as we’ve seen over the last number of governments. Things come and go, and this legislation is so important to get right, so important to protect our children from predators and from people who just decide to look the other way — as we’ve seen, in many cases, in social media companies….

It’s so important to get it right. We want to make sure that we get it right now, so that the next government, whoever is sitting in those chairs, will say: “Yes, that was a good piece of legislation. That was well done, well enacted and well delivered. It will pass the test of time, and it will help and save our children from harm and from what’s going on out there, in many cases.”

I don’t have children anymore. I have adults who used to be my children, and I have grandchildren. The oldest one is eight years old. She’s just starting to use her phone, and it’s being monitored carefully by her dad and her mom. They’re doing their thing. I’m there to support them as much as I can, but I’m just a grandfather. I’m really concerned that once it’s no longer just within the family that she’s communicating with, but she starts communicating with the outside world…. What will that do to her?

My grandson is four years old. He’s going to be following right in her footsteps. They both love to have their pictures taken, and mea culpa, I’m out there taking their picture all the time. So I’m not helping much, but you know, it brings warmth to my heart. They both love to have their pictures taken. That’s not going to change much as they get older, because I know that everyone in this room — everyone in this room — loves to have their pictures taken.

They’re politicians, right? “No picture? It never happened.” Those are the famous words: “If there’s no picture, it never happened.” Everyone in this room loves to have their pictures taken, but for some people, it really drives them to do harm to themselves. Psychologically and physically, we have to protect our children.

I really want this bill to be right, and right now, based on the input that we’ve received, it’s just not there. So I’m asking government again: “Take a pause. It’s okay. It’s okay to step back. All governments do it. It’s okay to take a step back.” You’re not admitting defeat. All you’re doing is saying: “Yeah, maybe we didn’t get it right the first time. Let’s get it right, together. Let’s pass this unanimously, together.” Take a pause.

I can name you a bunch of times when I was in government, even when I was the Minister of Agriculture for four years, where I had to back up and take a pause. I remember a member — from Sunshine Coast, I think — who was here yelling and screaming at me on this side. Right around here, he was standing, yelling and screaming at me. I was the minister on the other side. Over time we decided: “Okay, let’s just take a pause on this, consult more and work more.” At the end of the day we got something better out of it.

I’m really hopeful that the government will decide to do the same thing here and that it’ll look at the letters — a letter I won’t read into the record because I don’t want to cause another point of order. The other letter, I won’t read, the new one that we got, because it looks like my colleagues want to read it into the record. I won’t quote all of that letter either, but there are other letters that are coming forward.

[1:30 p.m.]

They’re well-written letters, they’re well-intentioned letters, and they’re not from the opposition. They’re from people out there that are working very hard to drive our economy on a day-by-day basis, and they’re concerned. They’re concerned that this legislation, being as ominous as it is, is going to attract all kinds of higher costs for doing business, especially insurance costs, because who knows if they are going to get sued. They are going to have to be insured on that.

Perhaps they won’t even set up businesses here. A lot of people when they say, “How is business doing? We see the numbers,” I tell them: “You know what? You might get a front-page story if a business leaves town because they can’t afford to do it anymore with all the….”

I don’t want to get partisan, but with all the taxes and everything that are happening over the last few years. Someone with a closed-up shop, they say: “We’re not competitive anymore. It doesn’t work.” That might make page 3 of the paper, or whatever, but what doesn’t usually make the paper are the ones that were thinking of expanding to B.C. and decide not to expand here, right? They decide to go to Alberta or Washington state or somewhere else.

You don’t see a big, front-page story saying: “Oh, XYZ business decides to take their 5,000 jobs somewhere else.”

But all that hurts. It hurts all of us in here because we cannot afford to pay for health care, education, public safety, affordability measures, housing, and also balance the budget. We can’t afford to do all that unless we have that kind of growth, the kind of growth that creates good-paying jobs where people pay their taxes, businesses pay their taxes, and through that we are able to pay for those wonderful services.

As we dissect the intentions of Bill 12, we also question the broader implications for our province’s approach to public health. The legislation suggests a reactive stance, seeking reparations after the fact, rather than proactively preventing public health crises in the first place. I would say that more prevention is necessary for us to be successful.

We have received a letter. We have 23 business associations, including the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, CFIB and others. These associations argue that the bill lacked consultation, as I mentioned, and will have significant negative legal and economic consequences, and they’re asking for a pause.

At this point in my notes, I said, “Read the letter,” but I won’t do that. I will look at the next letter, which hasn’t been read into the record, and this is from the Business Council of British Columbia.

The Business Council of British Columbia brings up a few points. One, the bill is excessively broad and unspecified in range: duly noted already. Two, risk versus proven impact. They are concerned that we are looking to legislate based on risk versus a proven impact to public safety. There is a low burden of proof, three. There is a departure from common law, four. And five, absolutely certain, they say this will increase the cost of doing business, which really means it will cost jobs.

With that, and with the 15 seconds I have left, I just want to reiterate that there are better ways to do this. The Minister of Health and I and the head of the Third Party showed that some two years ago. We consulted extensively. I wish the government would follow that format and do so again.

R. Russell: I have sat and listened to quite a bit of this debate, and I feel like I need to rise to make a few comments.

I heard the member opposite refer to this as “super odd,” parts of this. I want to call his attention…. Given that the implication there is that this is somehow unprecedented, I do want to call his attention to the Health Care Costs Recovery Act of 2008, as well as the similar legislation that has been passed in this House in the past around opioids and tobacco, as precedent for a number of the elements within this act.

I certainly am rising to speak in favour of this. I think for much of what we have already heard…. I appreciate your efforts, Mr. Speaker, to limit the tedium and repetition here, so I will not repeat that. We see the value of what this can deliver for us. We have seen it in the past, and I think that this holds promise to help protect, particularly, our children, as the member opposite identified. I will also very briefly clarify, because there seemed to be some confusion about what the legislation actually includes.

[1:35 p.m.]

For those people that are listening to this, certainly from my time reading through this legislation, it is fairly clearly defined as requiring that a defendant be proven.

I will read from section 4(1). This says that if the government, or the government of Canada, as the case may be, proves, on a balance of probabilities, that, in respect of a product, they did something illegal — that’s not a direct quote but is, essentially, what that second bullet refers to — and that their product causes harm….

This is the standard of proof that government still has to reach, as far as I interpret this piece of legislation. The notion of being able to say to a company: “If you have been proven to have done something illegal and that thing that you have done causes harm….” The burden of that cost should not be on government and, therefore, on taxpayers and should be reasonably shared by the company that was engaged in the harm.

I rise to hopefully clarify that a little bit and lend my support to Bill 12.

D. Ashton: Thank you to my peers for the applause at me arriving. Just being facetious.

Mr. Chair, I’m here today to discuss Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. I, again, would just like to thank you very much for the opportunity.

An interesting piece of legislation. Thumbing through it and then coming up the stairs a few minutes ago to get into here, I had an interesting thought. I will jump ahead and then come back.

Clause 9 says, in generic terms…. It is a novel introduction that grants the minister unprecedented power to issue certificates establishing the cost of health care benefits. This power, which encompasses cost, is already included and “will likely be provided.” It raises a few questions.

I couldn’t help but think about the dispersal of narcotics, at this point in time, by the government in a clean supply and wonder…. Could the government be held responsible for that, at some point in time, by a concerned parent whose child was allowed the use or decided upon themselves the use of a narcotic that was being distributed to possibly help others underneath the pretext that has been discussed in the House here? Could the government be held accountable?

Now, I look across the way to some very good friends on that side of the House, a couple of lawyers and a PhD. They are probably a lot smarter than me. But I do pose the question. The question is…. Choices have consequences. As we’ve heard from numerous speakers here, the government is choosing to go ahead full throttle on this bill, even though there is lots of discussion coming from outside by business entities and other individuals that are concerned about the direction of this and asking for a pause just to sit back.

Let’s take a look at this a little bit closer. Let’s take a little bit more input. Let’s take the input from the people that we all represent here, those incredible citizens that give us the opportunity, from our various areas that we represent in the province, to come and sit in the people’s House, the people’s House of the legislation, the people’s House, a place where laws and good governance should be taken under the fullest consideration of all those that we represent.

I’m just a little apprehensive, as my peers on this side of the House are, about addressing this in such an expeditious way.

I would like to thank my peer from the South Oka­na­gan–Similkameen and the West Kootenay — Boundary-Simil­kameen I think is the title — for stepping up and saying that he didn’t have any issues with it. He would like to see it go ahead.

Again, choices have consequences. I really think that there is an opportunity here to just back-pedal a little tiny bit. Take it under heed. There are new letters as of April 2 that have come, addressed to the hon. Attorney General, with some of the business council’s concerns.

[1:40 p.m.]

We all know that it’s a different world out there at this point in time. We’ve been through some phenomenal years, well in excess of the normal seven-year business cycles. We are approaching 14 years at this point in time, and things are changing.

We’ve heard the concerns from the Business Council. Others have heard the concerns directly that the economy is teetering. I am not, maybe, the smartest person in the world to say that it’s on one side of the bell curve or the other, but it’s definitely near the top, whether it’s on the uphill side or whether it’s sliding across the top and on the downhill side.

As we go forward, things are going to get a lot tougher. Governments, in their way, in their wisdom, have incurred to the individuals and to businesses and to families extra costs, extra costs of recovery that the government has deemed that they would like to see coming back to government so there can be a redistribution of that money and wealth that is collected. But those costs have to be taken into consideration, because at this point in time, the world, as I’ve said before, is changing. It’s not changing, I don’t think, in the right direction for what governments are thinking — that they can continually go back to taxpayers and ask for more and more.

When that day comes where we can definitely say that we are heading in one direction or the other, I think there’s going to be a lot of surprise for everybody in this Legislature. We are going to have to, at some point in time, buckle down and really realize that legislation like this, maybe with the best of intent, maybe with the best of direction from those that have written the bill, thought about the bill, maybe not explored the bill enough in the general populace….

When you start adding more and more costs onto small businesses, onto the citizens that we so proudly represent here in the Legislature, there is going to be some pushback. That pushback can be to individuals like ourselves that have the honour of sitting here in the Legislature, or it will be a pushback to the people in the general populace where a business just says: “Time out. Enough is enough. I can’t, at this point in time, incur any more.” As what citizens may do. They just may say: “Hold on a second here.” It’s going to be time for a change.

Going through the bill phase by phase or point by point, there are some issues that it really does bring forward. Clause 1, “Definitions,” pulls most from the Opioid Damages Recovery Act and the Tobacco Damages Act. What’s new, according to what I’ve seen, is that there is a benefit to citizens, including a deceased person.

One of the other things is that there is — my understanding again — the retroactivity that may possibly be part and parcel of this bill. When we start talking about wrongful death and everything else, and you start pointing fingers, how is that going to be decided?

Then we take a look at disease, injury or illness, as my peer on this side of the House said, which includes the risk of disease, injury or illness. This is a slippery slope when you think about it. I think my peer did give an example of a skier that had skied out of bounds. Somebody incurred the costs of rescuing that individual, hopefully alive, and bringing him back to safety. But how are those costs going to be apportioned?

I spent an awful lot of time in my younger years in the bush, doing a lot of mountaineering that I miss dearly, but age has caught up to me and doesn’t allow me to do the climbing or the mountaineering that I was so accustomed to when I was a lot younger.

I think about some of those risks that I probably took that I shouldn’t have. And touch wood, I was able to come home myself and never had to call on somebody to come and rescue. There are a few times I would have liked to call on a few people to say: “What the heck am I doing here? I have no business being here. Maybe if you think about me, you know, good thoughts, I’ll hopefully be home in a day or two.”

I bring up Europe and having spent some time over there working. I know in Switzerland, when people go outside of areas for their own personal satisfaction and they go climbing, they actually have insurance that you can buy.

[1:45 p.m.]

I don’t even know if this can be even considered in British Columbia. I hope it would, with our search and rescue costs going through the roof as more and more people are exploring the beautiful country that we all call home, specifically here in British Columbia, and what it has to offer. Maybe that’s something else we should be taking a look at while we’re thinking about legislation.

This is the opportunity to provide insurance opportunities, so search and rescue, which I know isn’t attached to Bill 12…. But the examples of people that are unnecessarily challenging themselves and really putting other people at risk to help save the individual that thought it would be good to go skiing out of bounds or go climb a mountain without the experience…. Just one of the things I really think that we have to take a look at.

When the government brings up a product that includes goods and services and a by-product, I’m going: “Well, a by-product? A by-product of what?” Is a by-product of a narcotic Narcan? Is a by-product of a narcotic, of an overdose, the hospitalization?

Again, I come back to my thoughts coming up the stairs. Should the government be thinking about those kinds of things when they’re actually bringing this in and giving the opportunity — I’m assuming, with a smart lawyer and a lot smarter than I am — to say what’s good for the government has to be good for the individuals? Maybe they should be thinking this through.

Promote is now, my understanding also, not just for a product like an opioid product or tobacco product. Again, I think my peer had talked about some of the issues from a major distributor of retail products, Amazon, today. Does that entity have to take responsibility for XYZ company that’s selling a widget or a tidbit that may or may not affect somebody’s life in the present or in the future? I think it’s really interesting that that hasn’t really been discussed from what I have seen so far in the bill.

Clause 2 says that the provincial government can recover the cost of health care benefits for particular individual benefit recipients or, on an aggregate basis, for a population of benefits. And again, this comes back to the tobacco recovery act and the opioid act. However, it’s much more broad-based.

I would like the definition of that capture net that the government is trying to include in that, and I’m not the only one — the Business Council, as what has been said in this House earlier about…. People are asking: how wide is this catchment? How wide is a retailer? How wide is a person that provides a specific service — a guide taking somebody into the bush, a ski hill providing somebody a lift up the mountain, an individual that loves gymnastics or our kids going to gymnastics school?

How wide is this catchment area going to be? I think there’s a little bit more definition that has to be brought into this.

The Canadian government, and again I look at clause 3, can recover the cost of health care benefits for a particular individual or recipient. So if that’s in place, is B.C. just trying to emulate it with a broader catchment? I would ask, again, that the minister and staff, those that are writing the bills and the legal beagles in the government, really start thinking this through a little bit more.

Coming back. The intention, my understanding, is to recover the costs from a wider range of wrongdoers. We must consider the unintended consequences. I said it a few minutes ago that choices have consequences. And there is personal risk that a person should assume when they’re doing things outside of it.

I know that the government can’t be one-glove-doesn’t-fit-all. But to come back after something where an accident…. Maybe jumping over to ICBC with no-fault insurance right now. Is there a no-fault opportunity in here for people, themselves, to say: “Hold on a second. I’m doing what somebody’s doing, recreating on the weekend, doing something I like. However, I get hurt, and there are costs incurred”? How is that going to be recovered? Is that recovered from the individual, or is that recovered from the club?

[1:50 p.m.]

Again, I mentioned my kids went through soccer, hockey, ski racing, gymnastics, ballet. Are those entities going to be held accountable for an accident at some point in time?

I would not like to think that the government is taking a heavy-handed approach to this. But not having the discussion, not having the opportunity of perusal and not having the government listen to those, now, that are really coming forward to this and saying: “Whoa, time out for a second. Let’s take another look at this. Explain this to me a little bit more. How is this going to affect how we…?”

I’m speaking about those in the private business area: “How are we going to be affected if we continue to do our business the way that we’ve always done it? Is this is something else that insurance companies that that we have…?” Where you have liability insurance in your act of a business, is it going to be covered?

I think of home right now. I have wonderful neighbours that have three kids. My kids are grown up, and I was fortunate to get a very good quality trampoline that I didn’t think would last as long as this one has. But the kids are utilizing the trampoline. So if those kids go bouncing off it, and all of a sudden my insurance company says: “Well, wait a second, Mr. Ashton, here it is. Yes, you have liability, but that property that you own is now sitting on your neighbour’s property….” Who’s going to be paying for that?

I think the devil’s going to be in the details. I really don’t think that there are enough details in this. I really think the government should just put a pause on this, take a sober second look at this, listen to what people are saying out in the general public, listen to what not only the government lawyers have said but those maybe on the opposite side, people on this side of the House, and maybe some of their own peers that are saying that, on this bill, maybe we should just tune this in a little bit.

It won’t be the first time that this has happened. Governments have pulled it back. We heard a few minutes ago from my peer from the central Okanagan that a former Minister of Agriculture — the opposition at the time, which is the current government — was vehement that something should be pulled back, and the minister, along with the government, listened. It’s not that that doesn’t happen. So maybe there is an opportunity to go forward on this with some additional input on it.

Consultation. I’m just not sure how far that went. I think consultation is something that we just don’t do enough of in government. Whether we’re in municipal government, whether we’re in regional government, whether we’re provincial government and/or federal government, I really think that there is a bigger need for consultation and a much broader need for consultation when something that is being brought forward as a regulation or as a law, that has had that opportunity of input from all walks of life….

And be listened to. As I said, choices have consequences. If a government wants to push something through to their means and their time schedule, boy, it might just come back and bite them. It might come back and bite them a little bit more than what they’ve actually thought about.

Accountability is another issue. As we go through life, there is accountability. There’s not only accountability for those that are committing an action that may bring themselves or others into harm, but there is an accountability, again, for the government. It has to really be accountable to those that so fortunately have put us in the position to make laws for their protection, for their future and for the future of this incredible province, so that we can carry on and hopefully one day come back to being the number one province in Canada.

[1:55 p.m.]

We really have to be careful that accountability is taking place in all walks, and I’m not so sure the government can say they are going to be 100 percent accountable in their actions of seeking input on this bill. I really think there is an opportunity for some comprehensive input and also some opportunities to take a look at different strategies on what may or may not be in this bill and, if it isn’t in the bill, what the opportunities are to bring additional input forward, which will make it better for all. We all want to ensure that the citizens of this province are looked after with health and safety and well-being.

The last thing, I really think, is an ideological one. The ideologies of a government, a current government, shouldn’t put additional pressures, shouldn’t put constraints or restrictions or shouldn’t put additional lack of opportunity on those that may have something more to add.

I know that the government tries to get as much through…. This is a busy term for us, with the bills that are coming forward. But I really, really think that there is an opportunity that…. Let’s take the ideological stuff out of this, and let’s do something that is best for everybody that we represent.

The opportunity is here. The opportunity right now is to do a time-out, a pause, to work with each and every one of us in here, to work with the individuals that have come forward in the letters and the phone calls that we’ve been receiving. We say: “Get in touch. Get in touch with the ministry. Get in touch with the government of the day, and let them know your concerns.” If we’re hearing about them, I know that others are hearing about them.

I think that as we go forward in these times of a little bit of turbulence, we really have to take into consideration those that we are going to be affecting.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience today. Thank you, as you leave. I appreciate it.

Madam Speaker, nice to see you.

As we go forward, we really better be prepared to take a look at the ill effects that something like this — i.e., this particular Bill 12 — may bring forward to the people that we represent. As I said, coming from business…. Our family was involved in retail through literally the bottom 40 percent of British Columbia over many years, and I can tell you from being the individual that has to sign the front of the paycheque, not endorse the back of it, things like this are a concern. They’re a definite concern as costs are continually rising for all British Columbians.

Whether you’re an employee or an employer, whether you’re a senior, whether you’re somebody on a fixed income or whether you’re on a government subsidy to try and make your life a lot better, we have to be sure that as we, and I say “we” because I’m part of the Legislature, bring these bills forward and as we ask people to consider them, we need to be able to listen to what they’re saying to ensure that the input is proper and that the technical and the legal terms are there and that they’re bulletproof.

I think our previous lawyers always said: “If they have the blue corner on them, that’s where you know that it’s good. It has passed my perusal, and it has passed the opportunities.” That blue corner and the company seal attached to it can make all the difference in the world.

I would just ask that those in government, those that are making the rules and the regulations at this point in time, those that are probably a lot smarter than me but that also have two ears like what I have, that they are hearing what we’re hearing about Bill 12. I would just ask, and I ask them each and directly, that they consider what they’re not only hearing in the Legislature these days about Bill 12 but what they’re hearing from the public and businesses and authorities, maybe not even based in this province.

[2:00 p.m.]

There is a concern being brought forward, and I would ask the government of the day to listen to those concerns, to think about it, to come back to, as I said earlier, choices have consequences.

As they go forward, I would ask them to remember one thing that was brought up to my two sisters and myself. My dad always said that the best pillow in life is a clean conscience. I would really hope that the government and each and every one of us in here sleep well after this bill is passed, without the worry, knowing that it didn’t have unintentional consequences.

Thank you very much for the opportunity today. Again, please, to the government, sober second thought can make all the difference in the world quite often.

E. Sturko: I rise today, of course, to address Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act of 2024, which is a piece of legislation that, on the surface, promises to safeguard public health and ensure wrongdoers bear the cost of their actions.

This bill is reminiscent of previous legislation, such as the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Yet it’s introducing broader mechanisms for recovering health care costs, specifically targeting individuals and corporations and, frankly, any entity that causes or contributes to public health issues.

I just want to talk for a minute, related to this bill, about hypocrisy. We had some very interesting debate here in this chamber this morning, for example, about the safety of nurses and patients in hospitals in British Columbia who themselves are being exposed to risky substances and potentially dangerous situations.

I ask myself, when I look at Bill 12 and go through this legislation: where is the clause that brings accountability to this government? Where in Bill 12…? Where is it that…? When we’re talking about recovering the costs for health care damages…. It’s pretty wild in here. The definition is any “injury or illness” that is caused by a product or by a service.

I think to myself about things that this current government is doing now, like using medications off-label and using them for non-evidence-based treatment. The safe supply program. Bonnie Henry’s February 1 report actually notes that that is not evidence-based. There’s insufficient data collection on that to suggest that it’s evidence-based.

Getting back to Bill 12, I think to myself, when it comes to the risk of injury or illness, which could include, for example, addiction, developing an addiction…. Maybe you received diverted safe supply. Where is it in Bill 12? Where is the accountability for the government? They’re very quick to want to gather money from, it looks like, practically anyone in British Columbia that sells you a service or a product that could even risk your health.

That’s the crazy part about this legislation. I mean, on the surface…. I don’t want to make people think I’m not supportive of legislation that potentially can protect children, that can help ensure…. It actually might even add a measure of safety to our society by making sure that people who are delivering services and products in British Columbia actually feel like: “We better make sure that these products and services are safe. Otherwise, we could face consequences in British Columbia.” But the government is not keen at all to turn the finger and point at themselves when it comes to things they do.

[2:05 p.m.]

It has been brought to our attention through letters that were sent to this government from concerned businesses that people are actually quite concerned, with this Bill 12, that there may be unintended consequences. This government is the king of unintended consequences; let me tell you.

We look at so many things here in British Columbia. The unintended consequences that we face as a result of decriminalization. The unintended consequences of a catch-and-release justice system. The unintended consequences of having a health authority send out a directive that talks about allowing people to use drugs — hard drugs, like crystal meth — in their hospital rooms. Where in Bill 12 is the public health accountability for this government?

We hear from businesses. They are very concerned. I’m going to read into the record in my own words, and put my own take and interpretation on, a letter that was written to Premier Eby and the Attorney General.

The section that I want to make note of says that some of their concerns…. This is, by the way, signed by numerous signatories who hold both individual interests and large industrywide interests and provide products to British Columbians. If people would see this list, I’m sure they would see that a lot of these are familiar. Many British Columbians, right now, are probably receiving one or more services or products from any of these companies that are concerned about this legislation.

Their concerns include: “If enacted, the law appears to apply to any product, good, service or by-product, product and/or service, which we understand can create liability for almost any business operating in or connected to B.C.” That’s a lot. It’s not just that the actual illness or injury. It’s actually also the risk of injury. It is also quite mind-blowing.

Similarly, this bill appears to apply not only to a product or service that may cause or contribute to injury or disease or illness, but also to a product that can contribute even to the risk of the disease, injury or illness, without clear criteria for determining these risks or costs. When I think about my own habits or behaviours as a consumer…. I would actually be kind of embarrassed at times to let people see my shopping cart: all the McCain Delissio pizzas, the nuggets, ketchup. All the things probably have some health risk.

Lunch meat, actually. People may not remember this, but only a couple years ago…. Lunch meat carries a risk of cancer. Bacon. Any kind of product that has smoke used to cure it has a risk of cancer. Who is going to pay later in life if I develop cancer? How will you know it was the bacon? How will it be determined? These are unanswered questions in Bill 12. This is so wide-ranging with such a wide scope that it literally could be anything. Soaps.

How is this going to even be enforceable? What are the limits? What are the limits in Bill 12 that help protect businesses, and what assurances? I think to myself, when I see this: who would open a business in B.C., knowing that if you sell a product that might carry some health risks…?

A doughnut shop, like my colleague from the Interior noted — those carry the risks of obesity, heart disease. There’s diabetes. Does this mean that we’re going to have to have businesses take out insurance so that in the chance that someone who comes to their establishment and buys one of their products, doughnuts, and develops cancer down the road, or diabetes…?

[2:10 p.m.]

Is it every doughnut shop that they went to that gets sued by the government, or do they have to keep the receipt? How do we prove it was that one?

This legislation…. I get it. I honestly think that it wasn’t a mean-spirited thing that brought this here to this House. I think that, in fact, quite the opposite. I think it was quite a caring idea, particularly when we’re talking about things like harms of social media, and knowing, to be very serious, actually, that people have even lost their lives because of online bullying and harassment, negative content.

When it comes to social media, there are also some other deeply concerning aspects. I think that a lot of us became really, really acutely aware of this during the pandemic, and it’s confirmation bias. It’s a harm. If you’ll just give me some latitude, I’ll explain that it can be a harm associated with the spread of misinformation, which we know can cause harm. It can cause things like, for example, vaccine hesitancy, right? Because people may see, for example, some doctor spreading misinformation about becoming magnetized by taking a vaccine. That’s wrong. It’s been disproven.

It’s things like confirmation bias…. How it works is that let’s say you were concerned about something, a product. Maybe you’re concerned that white bread is going to hurt you. So you might, one time, look up a chat group about white bread.

The way that social media platforms are made, they have algorithms built into them that start to bring you more stories about white bread. It says: “Hey, Elenore loves stories about white bread, so I’m going to start boosting all these white breads all of a sudden.” If the person is looking up something that is incorrect, for example, it’s going to bring up more and more often the information that is incorrect. It’s going to confirm the biases that they may have developed.

Bringing it back to Bill 12, my question would be: does this type of legislation and the public health accountability and cost recovery…? Are we looking at those types of harms as well? For example, with misinformation about our medical system, with treatments, with illness prevention, because I think that’s an important question to ask.

Potentially, and this is a positive, maybe, that we can talk about in debate, looking clause by clause at this legislation. Maybe it is an opportunity to look at how we fight things like misinformation about health care and go after people that spread misinformation.

Misinformation is actually, especially through social media and the Internet, one of the biggest challenges that Canadians, and I would argue people around the world, are facing today, you know?

I have to get back to my concern over really the breadth of the scope of what this legislation seeks to address. I think that it’s just far too sweeping. It just encompasses way too much. I think that — while not mean-spirited and while with good intentions, of course — it’s not well planned out. I think the risk of unintended consequences is significant.

Like I said, we have actually seen a cooling off of our economy here. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that businesses feel like they can be successful in B.C. When you see things, particularly the very evident lack of consultation, it’s very evident.

Businesses have come forward to say: “Hey, you actually haven’t talked to us, and we’re worried about the implications that this type of legislation would have on us.”

I think that taking the time to actually fully explore this type of legislation, how Bill 12, at the heart of it, will actually impact the viability of businesses in British Columbia….

[2:15 p.m.]

For people that, for example, have a Subway franchise, I mentioned earlier, there is a risk of cancer associated to lunch meat. What does Subway serve in a hot delicious bun that is delicious? They serve lunch meat.

What kind of implications does this type of legislation have on, say, a franchise like Subway? Will they be sued in the future for people who develop cancers? Is it the one franchise that the person visited? Is it the entire company? Is it the corporation outside of British Columbia? And does this bill actually have the jurisdiction to address those issues, if we’re dealing with multinationals?

Unfortunately, from what I can see in Bill 12, it’s not made clear. I think that when we look at other legislation that’s come through this House, there has been a significant lack of consultation. And then the consultation that this government has done on certain very large land-based acts, I would say, they do them in secret. They have to be found out only through the media when they dig. This was an opportunity on Bill 12 for the government to be open about it.

I think because it’s not mean-spirited, because, honestly, I think this is done with good intentions, there wasn’t any reason not to talk to businesses, especially since, in this economy, the investment environment is tough. We want to make sure that people feel comfortable to invest their companies, their businesses, their services, their service providers here in our province.

When there are these unanswered questions for businesses, especially those who may have headquarters outside of British Columbia — larger corporations, bigger factories, manufacturers — and they have to ask themselves: “Wow, is B.C. worth doing business in? Because not only will I have the highest housing prices and rents in North America for my employees, not only will they have a hard time with the cost of living and pay the highest gas prices in North America, but also, am I going to be sued in the future for even the risk that someone might develop an illness based on the service or product that I’m providing?”

I’m sure that when people listen to this stuff and hear me talking about Subway and all that, they…. It’s not a joke. These are legitimate concerns. I think the real joke, honestly, is how vague this legislation is. Bill 12 doesn’t lay it out, and that’s the problem. I guess that’s the point I’m trying to make even with these maybe far-fetched examples about the Subway and the bread and the lunch meat.

The reality is this legislation is so poorly defined, so sweeping, so broad, so all-encompassing, that these are the realities and the uncertainties. And when you create uncertainty for businesses, you reduce their appetite to invest in British Columbia.

That’s just one of the potential unintended consequences that could befall us as a result of, first of all, the absolute lack of consultation. And because of an attempt to…. I guess overreach is really the word I’m looking for — overreach without a clearly defined pathway of how this legislation would apply to individual businesses.

I want to think about some of the unintended consequences that British Columbians are facing and think about very recently being in mental health and addictions estimates. I’ll get to how it relates to Bill 12. I actually spoke to the fact that there are drug exposures happening in hospitals — brought it up even during MHA estimates. I received information that in the Vancouver Island Health Authority, security officers were given respirators because of the likelihood that they would encounter toxic drug smoke in the course of their duties.

[2:20 p.m.]

When I asked those series of questions, I also asked the government: are you setting aside any money for the liability that this government will face as a result of injuries, illnesses or deaths caused by this government’s policies and the services that it’s providing, or the lack of services that it’s providing? The answer, by the way, was a non-answer. I suspect they aren’t putting any money aside.

What I would say on Bill 12 is: how could the government anticipate how many people will become sick, ill or injured as a result of their negligence? I think it would be really hard to make a guess. So how in the heck are businesses who relate to Bill 12 with their services going to be able to estimate this?

When you have a look at this legislation, how on earth can businesses function? How can they possibly estimate how much money they need to set aside or what type of insurance they need to buy? How much to deal with the possible outcomes from Bill 12?

Deputy Speaker: Member, I wonder if we could have a temporary adjournment so that the committee can report out, and then we’ll go back.

E. Sturko: Absolutely. I’d like to move adjournment of the debate and reserve my spot, and we’ll pick it up soon.

E. Sturko moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Dean: I call Bill 11 to the Committee of the Whole, Section A.

In chambers, second reading of Bill 12.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COST
RECOVERY ACT

(continued)

E. Sturko: To continue on where I left off, it is about businesses and certainty that a business needs. There is no doubt that particularly for those who employ a lot of people, who have a large cost associated with them, and recognizing, as well, that there’s a huge cost associated to doing business in in British Columbia — the cost of taxes in certain jurisdictions, the cost of even acquiring a property….

Now, on top of this, in Bill 12, you may be facing a huge liability if someone develops or even associates you to the risk of developing a serious illness, injury or death as a result of your service or your product.

How is it…? What is the government going to do as it relates to Bill 12? How are we going to help businesses to actually navigate this? How will we make sure that we remain an attractive province for people to bring their businesses?

Are we going to also create a situation where it limits products available to people in the community? If people who own businesses, grocery stores, become afraid that the Superstore might get sued for selling me my Lay’s, because you can’t just eat one, then are they going to stop selling it?

Then for myself as a consumer, and for all the consumers out there, is it going to limit our choice? Is it going to start limiting our choice? Is this a backhanded way of actually trying to get rid of products and services that many of us have come to enjoy, by scaring off businesses so that they won’t sell potato chips or pop, heavy cream, whipped cream, pie, whatever? I just think that it’s too sweeping.

[2:25 p.m.]

Maybe people think I’m being ridiculous. But I think that allowing for this much of an undefined territory in something that has such a huge implication and potential unintended consequences on business and on individuals, small businesses….

I talked a lot about corporations, but the reality is that many businesses — like a bakery, for example, that might sell cakes — could be owned by a mom and pop. Someone gets diabetes, and what? Are they going to be sued for $1 million? Honestly, it’s concerning.

I understand that this is a well-intentioned piece of legislation, and there are things that I think are important. We do need to make sure that, particularly, youth are protected from online harms. I think that we need to be able to do everything that we can to make sure that people in British Columbia can be as safe as possible. The government hasn’t always demonstrated that they feel that way, but we certainly do.

Again, my concern really lies in where things are left far too undefined — far too many questions unanswered for the business community. They’re actually questions that I don’t think, unfortunately, will be able to be addressed as we continue with this debate of Bill 12.

I’m not even sure…. Like many other pieces of legislation that have come through here, where it’s…. “Don’t worry. It will come out in the regulations.” “Well, do you have any?” “No.” Then, a week later, pages and pages of regulations suddenly appear.

Is this what we’re going to be facing with Bill 12? The reason that they’re not being brought forward is because they’re actually outrageous, and the government doesn’t want us to know?

I really appreciate the time here today. I think that if people have the opportunity to understand what’s being created by this type of legislation, and the fact that it is incredibly far-reaching, incredibly overreaching, incredibly undefined…. I think they should come forward.

Let your MLA know about your concerns. If you’re a business owner in British Columbia right now that sells a product that could potentially be interpreted as being a risk to someone’s health — whether it’s a food product or a service — I think that you should let your MLA know. Let them know how you feel.

I want to thank the House for giving me this opportunity. I look forward to having a fulsome debate of this bill. I thank all the business owners who came forward. I just hope that we get a lot more answers than we have questions when it comes to Bill 12.

A. Singh: I’ll be very brief. The sky is not falling. This is classic consumer protection legislation that our old friend Ralph Nader would be very, very proud of. Our system implicitly has checks and balances, judicial checks and balances, that deal with the causation and presumption that there is in this bill. What the bill does is give the David the tools against the big, monolithic Goliaths — the corporations.

It’s easy to mitigate the damages. We already have something very similar in tobacco. It’s easy to mitigate the damages. If you know that your product is inherently harmful, put a sign on it. Put a warning on it.

Really, the crux of the bill is that if you make a product, you shouldn’t be able to evade the foreseeable consequences of an inherently dangerous product. That’s all it is — very simple. Again, it’s really, really basic consumer protection legislation. The sky is not falling. Your individual Subway is not going to get sued because you ate a mortadella sandwich or whatever. That’s all. I’m in support of this bill.

E. Ross: Speaking to Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. If the sky is not falling, as government says, and this is just a simple bill to protect citizens of British Columbia, then why is the business community so concerned about it? Why did we get this pretty specific letter from the business community to say that the language has got to be tightened up?

[2:30 p.m.]

As opposition, we’re not disputing the fact that we have to have protections for consumers and users of products and services. We’re not disputing that. We’re just saying — or, at least, I am going to say — that too much unchecked power with government can be abused and used for political purposes. I’ve got a right to say that.

Has anybody ever read, or experienced anything under, the Indian Act? This is why I’m not in favour of legislation that is too far-reaching and is too one-sided in terms of giving government too much power.

I get what government is trying to achieve here, in Bill 12. I get it, especially since they have an example, previously, such as the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which introduced similar mechanisms for recovering health-related costs. I’ve heard that that’s what Bill 12 aims to achieve, but in reading some of the explanations on why this bill was brought in so quickly, I have some very conflicting issues with it.

In an interview, the Premier talked about, basically, two different things. The Premier talked about online threats and then, at the same time, started talking about the big, faceless companies. That included social media–type giants, vape manufacturers and energy-drink makers that have to be held accountable in British Columbia for the harm caused to people. If anybody understands anything about the Internet, they should really come in here and explain to us how to regulate the Internet over the harms that are being described here. I feel that they’re two different things.

It’s very hard to legislate and regulate the Internet. The Premier went on to talk about algorithms that targeted kids. Try to go find a definition of “algorithm,” and try to figure out how that fits into a bill that is aimed to protect consumers and kids.

The Premier cited the terrifying story of Carson Cleland, and that was a horrible story. It’s a story that we’ve heard in different instances, where an online predator targeted this poor 12-year-old, and that led to suicide. I don’t see how that gets covered in this bill, because the bill talks about big companies promoting specific products that actually endanger or potentially endanger the health of citizens of British Columbia. If you want to achieve everything that the Premier talked about, I think we need two separate bills.

By the way, it’s not just predators online that are a danger; it’s real-life predators. I’m pretty sure we already have legislation for those predators in real life. We’ve already got laws against that, but trying to research how to protect kids, mainly online, through legislation, is pretty tough. There are computer experts out there that know how to hide tracks very well.

We’ve even got something called the dark web, where all the worst that society has to offer live. I don’t see how those two different issues get covered in Bill 12.

I think you need a more detailed, technical bill to cover off the Internet issue that the Premier talked about, especially when you’re talking about the different platforms. The Premier, in referencing Bill 12, talked about Snapchat, which I tried. I don’t understand it. How do you regulate the different platforms that are out there?

[2:35 p.m.]

There are tons of platforms. There’s Facebook; there’s X, which used to be Twitter; Snapchat. There are the different communication apps out there that a lot of us use. It’s extremely hard to regulate that example, but it does have to be regulated at some point.

As a previous member mentioned, we need somebody smarter than us, or smarter than me, to come in and talk about how we regulate the Internet to protect kids and vulnerable members of our community. I understood how easy it was for predators to access kids, so for any of my kids, whether it be my nieces, my nephews or my own kids, it was mandatory that they allowed me to get into their Facebook and Messenger, check their messages and make sure that there was nobody in there that was actually messaging them.

It’s tough for a kid, but when you explain to them that there are some bad people out there that are looking to access you and they might be living halfway across the world…. Yeah. But there are a lot of ways for that to be hidden. You can delete them. You can put them in hidden files. As a parent today, trying to figure out the Internet…. I’m a Gen X’er, so I’m living on kind of the edge of technology. It’s really hard for what they characterize as boomers to understand the real dangers of the Internet.

If you really want to address what happened to this poor 12-year-old in Prince George who committed suicide, you need a separate bill. I would love to debate a bill that digs into the dangers that are present online in all forms. That could take us a week of debate. It’s an issue that has to be addressed.

I know there has been some action at different levels to try to address that, and it hasn’t been addressed fully, just because of this example in Prince George, but I’m not sure Bill 12 actually speaks to that. Bill 12, in a general sense, is talking about the dangers that are posed to citizens by a good or service that’s provided to citizens. If it does cause some damage, Bill 12 will be the mechanism to recover health costs.

We agree with that, but this is too broad and general in scope. That’s what the business community is saying. They don’t know how to prepare for this. A company that is just trying to provide a service is not fully aware if they will be brought to court through this legislation because somehow they provided a product that contributed to the demise of some person’s health or safety.

The Vancouver Board of Trade. ABLE-BC. The liquor industry. Oh, there’s one. I’m an alcoholic, 25 years recovering. Under this bill, who’s responsible for me being an alcoholic if I relapse? The B.C. government supplies booze; they provide alcohol. Is the cost recovery going to go back to the government for them providing this alcohol? The British Columbia Hotel Association. The Rural Liquor Store Advisory Society. These are all organizations that say that this legislation is too broad and too vague.

The Retail Council of Canada. I think that’s going to affect every one of us. I just got put, again, on another diet. For my own good, I’m not allowed to eat bread and sugar. It has been the worst two weeks of my life, but that’s my choice.

[2:40 p.m.]

When I break my diet, which I do on a daily basis, will that cost recovery go to the grocery store or the source of the flour or the sugar? This is why everybody is just saying you need to tighten the language up a bit. We get the intent.

The B.C. Craft Brewers. The Canadian Craft Distillery Alliance. These guys need bigger logos. The British Columbia Craft Distillers Guild. The New Wave Wine Society. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

I mean, to a certain extent, we’ve already got organizations that address the safety of some of the products being delivered in Canada, to begin with. We’ve got the Canadian Standards Association. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has concerns. The B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. That’s a big one — chemistry.

And you think about this. The bill is so broad and general, it doesn’t even exclude government. So the B.C. government sues big pharma for the opioid crisis. And probably, with a cost recovery in terms of that court case, turns around and buys Dilaudid from big pharma and distributes it freely. Well, we’ve all seen the stories now on that drug being diverted away from the intended client. And now the question is: how much of this has been diverted to kids?

Is this bill saying that whoever actually makes that distribution of diversion…? Are they responsible for this? Because if that’s the case, that’s the B.C. government. Or is this saying that you’ve got to trace it back to whoever actually produced the Dilaudid in the first place? The kids call it dilly. They still call it dilly today. And now they’re coming up with more slang names to talk about the combination of all these drugs combined into one.

Who’s responsible? Under this bill, is it the government? I mean, the receipt will say B.C. government. When you look at that, which is probably something in itself I would love to see, where is the receipt in terms of the purchase of all this Dilaudid? What are the amounts that the B.C. government has purchased from big pharma? Where’s the receipt?

I think that proves, in a court of law at least, who would be responsible for cost recovery amounts when Bill 12 gets approved. It’s a question you’ve got to ask, because the bill itself is so broad and general.

I don’t know what the cost recovery is for my eating sugar and bread. It’s probably doctor’s visits, prescriptions…. I don’t even know what that amount is.

The letter itself…. From what I understand, there are more letters coming from the business community that has already been through so much. They’ve got so much downloaded cost on them from governments. I mean, we’ve seen all the retail shops closing down and restaurants closing down. Then we got COVID that they had to get through. A lot of those companies did not survive COVID. And now they’ve got the uncertainty on whether or not they could survive a bill where they feel they just can’t take the risk.

[2:45 p.m.]

We already know that bars and restaurants have to be responsible in terms of serving alcohol. They can be liable if they know for a fact that some person has drunk too much and maybe caused something, in terms of safety, or maybe an accident. We understand that.

I think what the business community and the opposition are asking is that government be more specific in terms of what they’re talking about, who they’re going after. You can’t put in legislation, to quote the Premier, “big, faceless companies,” including social media giants, vape manufacturers and energy drink–makers.

If we could put this bill…. All this bill is…. If all it is, is to bring attention to a much bigger issue that the public should be aware of, then communicate it. Consult. Consult with people. Consult with the business community. Then you can find the language to go into a bill that everybody understands. Otherwise, we’re going to see a loss of services. Nobody is going to want to take the risk.

There’s no certainty when a law comes from Victoria — or Ottawa, for that matter — where nobody understands the rules. The business community does not like risk. They like certainty. This language is just not specific enough to provide certainty.

The business community itself has a number of signatories to it. They sent this letter to every single MLA in this Legislature. Part of what they’re talking about is a lack of consultation. Nobody can deny that they didn’t know what the business community’s concerns are. They’ve even had several articles written by the B.C. legal community talking about how general and vague this bill is, including analysis from McCarthy Tétrault, Berlis and others.

They’re talking about how swiftly they responded to this bill. I’ve got to agree. They did reply swiftly. All they’re asking for is a more detailed consultation to figure out exactly what this is. The business community wants to help write the bill to achieve what the government is trying to achieve. That’s all they’re asking.

The official opposition and the business community are asking the government to take a pause, not just to rethink it but to go talk to the business community. The business community is basically the lifeblood of our communities, especially in a small community like Terrace and Kitimat and rural communities. One business shuts down, we feel it. Two or three shut down, we’re in trouble.

Once the business community starts to leave town, professional services start to leave town. Doctors and nurses start to leave town. We know this. In Kitimat, that’s what happened to us in the ’80s and the ’90s. It was an industrial town. Two industries left town. Everybody else left. We went from a population of 15,000 to 7,000. A lot of those people that left were professionals.

When you chase out the business community, a lot of professional services leave as well. This is a bad time for professionals to leave a community like Kitimat. We’ve already had a number of doctors and nurses leave in the last few years. We can’t afford to lose any more.

Everybody knows that in today’s day and age, you’re not just hiring a doctor or a nurse. You’re not just trying to retain a doctor or a nurse. You’re trying to retain their family. You’re trying to retain their spouse and their kids.

It’s not just the salary that matters in terms of attracting or retaining a professional. There’s a whole suite of issues that have to be addressed. A lot of that are goods and services. That’s why Victoria and Vancouver are so much more attractive than rural areas, apart from other different issues that I hope to address in the Health estimates later on.

[2:50 p.m.]

The letter that the business community has written to the government, basically begging them to reconsider this, says that they agree with the safeguards, and they want the appropriate guardrails in place, but they also want to warn the government that there are unintended consequences if we continue with the vague wording. That’s all we’re asking.

I do go back to the point, though, that this does give government a tremendous amount of power. That power is not being balanced with what our communities depend on, the goods and services. If the company gets up and leaves town, without those goods and services, it’s the people that suffer, not government.

So I agree with my colleagues here, at least on this side of the House. We’ve had member after member standing up and asking the government to reconsider Bill 12. We also agree with the business community, with the letter that was sent on March 28, 2024, to get government to actually step back a bit, pause and rethink this and consult the community and, dare I say, consult the community at large.

By the time I get back home to Skeena, I’m going to have to try explain this and try to explain the effect it’s going to have in our community, from a community that’s trying to basically rebuild — Kitimat not so much, but Terrace, yes. We can’t afford to see any more businesses leave Skeena. We can’t do that.

I join my colleagues in saying that the government really needs to rethink this and take the time to write a bill that’s specific to achieve what they’re trying to address. If not, our communities will suffer, and our constituents will suffer.

D. Davies: I appreciate the opportunity here to add my comments on Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024. As we’ve heard from a number of my colleagues already, I think we all really appreciate looking out and caring for the consumer and making sure that health is of a priority.

We’ve seen already, over the years, that there are numerous regulations and checks and balances that are in place. But I think this just speaks again to the theme that we’ve seen over, I mean, a number of bills, since I’ve been in this place for the last seven or so years, where there just seems to be a power grab by this government, an overreach. We’ve seen it on a number of pieces of legislation over that time, giving unprecedented power to government.

We’ve had these debates before. We’ve had organizations come forward and say: “What is the problem that we’re trying to fix here?” And I guess that is also a question that we have around this piece of legislation. What is the issue? Who is asking for this piece of legislation? Obviously, these are going to be questions that we will ask when we move into committee, and I’m sure that there will be robust discussion once we do move into committee.

Again, who was asking for this? And why have we not had the robust consultation that this government seems so proud to often pat themselves on the back and say: “We do it all the time.”

[2:55 p.m.]

If that was the case, as my colleagues have pointed out numerous times, we wouldn’t have had a letter from 24 or so different associations from around the province saying: “Hey, you guys didn’t talk to us. You guys haven’t considered the impacts that these are going to have on us.” I will talk a little bit more about this letter a little later on.

I think this is what really worries us. My colleague from Skeena mentioned it earlier. It is a slow — well, I shouldn’t say slow because it’s been a pretty rapid deterioration of stability in this province around creating a favourable business environment here in British Columbia.

Whether we see that through the plethora of taxes that this government has implemented on businesses, red-tape and regulation, to now seeing this Bill 12 coming forward as another gut punch to businesses across the province, or potential gut punch.

I guess this is why I join on the bandwagon of calling the government to pause this piece of legislation because it is too vague. There are too many wide open questions that this piece of legislation leaves behind. Again, this isn’t just us saying it. We’re talking 24 of the largest organizations and associations across the province have chimed in to say: “Whoa, you need to reflect on this and look at the potential unintended consequences that this bill could cause.”

This isn’t just us here in opposition as part of the B.C. United saying that this isn’t good. This is from across the province. In fact, I had a conversation this morning with one of my local restaurant owners. He owns a fast food restaurant.

My friend from Skeena kind of took my speaking points. I’ve been on my fair share of diets, and I like french fries. Now, I’m sure I share that with many other people in this House today. But we know that french fries are not good for you. Deep fried food is not good for you. Fast food is generally not good for you.

This vague piece of legislation draws to question: well, who’s responsible then? Are the Burger Kings and McDonald’s and A&Ws — I’m sorry I missed a whole bunch of other fast food restaurants out there — now going to be held accountable for all the health impacts that we have around eating out? It’s not just fast food. It’s eating out in general.

That is where we have concerns with this bill. It is so vague that it leaves to wonder how overreaching does this government plan to continue to be in trying to recover health costs. Is this going to be the next funding line to keep our health care system going, which sadly is not the way to be doing it. It’s to be looking at what we’re doing now. We’ve been certainly canvassing that a lot in question period lately and other talking points about the poor state of our health care system.

It’s not to do, necessarily, with holding entities and restaurants and others accountable. It’s holding this government accountable for looking after public health, spending the unbelievable amount of dollars that are already assigned to public health.

I wonder if this is another way that the government is able to just grab money wherever but we can get it because, God knows, that revenues are down. We’ve seen a slow whittling away at our resource sector, which brings a ton of revenue to the province of British Columbia.

I think the government’s heard loud and clear that there’s no more room to tax people. So what’s next? Let’s just start hitting businesses and companies and organizations with potential health issues, and that’ll help fund our health care. I’m hoping that I’m wrong, but certainly this legislation leaves me to wonder.

[3:00 p.m.]

I want to bring forward a comment that was made a few speakers ago from the member for Richmond-Queensborough. He said two things in his very short — I think about 1½ minutes — remarks. “That is just standard consumer protection,” or something like that was one of his comments. But this is not just standard consumer protection. I can tell you that.

The other line that the member mentioned: “It’s easy to mitigate a product if it is known to cause harm….” Well, again, there’s probably nothing that we purchase or do or engage with that doesn’t have a certain level of risk that can’t be mitigated. Are we going to be holding school districts accountable because they provide playgrounds where sometimes a kid might fall off the swing and break an arm?

Again, it leaves open — this piece of vague legislation — all the different angles that this government, even within itself, could find these liabilities and open up to…. First of all, the government is pretty much the judge, jury and executioner, lifting out all the other mechanisms that are there, if someone does have damages, to go through the legal system that is already in place.

This gives sweeping powers to the government, which, again, is something that we’ve seen in the past. We look at whether our vehicles…. We know that vehicles can cause harm. I’ve already talked about fast food. We look at sports, different sports organizations. Are we going to stop taking our kids to hockey because someone can get injured?

We know that there are these injuries out there. We know that some things — not some things; many things — are inherent that have health issues or potential health issues that come along with them. This is something that…

We need to make sure that this legislation is very clear. All these organizations that have been mentioned have come out and said: “We’re not comfortable continuing down the path of this.” It’s loud and clear. I don’t think that this is standard consumer protection, and it’s not easy to mitigate.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

So these are things that we need to be taking into account. In fact, if I were to talk about something that, certainly, has health conditions, it’s this government that has caused a lot of harm with their reckless decrim policies that they have in place. What is the cost of that to British Columbia’s health care system?

Again, we need to be not just throwing together legislation like we’ve seen with Bill 12, which is full of holes, that gives anything but clarity. It just provides a lot of uncertainty.

I don’t want to say that the member for Skeena stole all of my notes, because he certainly didn’t. But I come from a smaller city. I represent a number of small communities in Peace River North. We’ve seen, already, businesses that have left this jurisdiction, left British Columbia, and have taken their businesses an hour and a half away into Alberta.

Of course, we live up in the far northeast. Little towns, Beaverlodge, are starting to really grow. We’ve actually seen businesses move to Beaverlodge. We’ve seen businesses move to Grande Prairie. A lot of that comes back to what has already been talked about, this creation of risk for people to want to do business in British Columbia. This does no more than add a ton of risk for anybody who’s wanting to do business here in B.C.

[3:05 p.m.]

One of the other pieces…. We talk about vague language. There’s a number of lines. This power which encompasses costs already concerned and “likely to be provided” gives huge alarms. There are two things in there. There are a couple of things in there. One is that it already talks about…. First of all, who defines what “likely” is? I’ve already talked for the last ten minutes now on the likely cause that french fries might lead to weight gain, diabetes or other conditions. Or playing on a playground. Or playing hockey. We know that there are likely some concerns around that.

The other part is costs that have already been incurred. These are now retro, looking back on how far back the government can go. Again, this is not in the legislation. But how far back can the government look on damages on such individuals or what? Can they go back five years? Can they go back ten years, or is it unlimited before they levy whatever kind of penalty that they might be looking at pursuing?

There are a number of alarms and, certainly, around that language that I just read…. Who’s defining “likely to cause damage,” and how far, in retrospect, can you go in looking back at this?

It also looks at challenges around people’s responsibility. I think my friend from Penticton had talked about this as well. It goes back to, again, what my colleague from Skeena and myself said earlier — the level of responsibility that individuals also need to be holding, participating in certain activities, eating certain foods or what have you.

Where and why is the government’s role feeling the need where they have to overstep what I would assume are normal things that people do within society? Why does the government feel the need that they are now having to overstep into this and be the power, or give the government themselves this power, to feel the need that they can somehow recover the costs that these activities are causing on the health care system?

I just don’t see how….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I don’t want to interrupt you, but we have a report that needs to be made here in the House, and then we will come back to you. So I wonder if you could reserve your place and move adjournment of this debate.

D. Davies: Yeah, thanks, hon. Speaker. I do reserve my right to resume my comments later, and I’ll adjourn this debate.

D. Davies moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 11, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Coulter: I call, in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, Committee of the Whole on Bill 13.

Here in the chambers, continued second reading of Bill 12.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COST
RECOVERY ACT

(continued)

D. Davies: Just carrying on again on Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024. Just again talking about the concern that not only we here in the opposition have with this piece of legislation and the overreaching impacts that it has, as well as the expected unintended consequences. I do share that concern with a number of organizations.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know that every member in this Legislature has received this letter. This letter is equivalent to, in essence, 20, 24 letters being received from organizations that have significant roles to play within our province in representing their memberships — the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, with the incredible membership that they represent; the British Columbia Hotel Association, representing the hotels across the province of British Columbia; the liquor distribution; distillers alliance; the Retail Council of Canada.

We’ve even got the New Wave Wine Society, which I believe is out of Prince George, with Pat Bell. COFI, the Canadian forests. The wines of British Columbia. We’ve got the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, Business Council of British Columbia, the Restaurants Canada, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Beverage Association. I mean, the list goes on, and I’ve only touched on a few of these.

These are organizations that have real concerns — not only themselves but the membership that they represent, a membership that does in fact have organizations and companies and members in every single one of our communities across British Columbia — that are sounding the alarm that this piece of legislation is far too vague.

In fact, they even say here: “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.” That’s about as clear as you can get with concern with associations that I probably couldn’t put a number on, but that would probably represent half of businesses, or more, across British Columbia.

I think it’s important that, technically, they use the word “draft” this bill. The government could pause this bill quite easily — the government which I would, probably myself and everyone else, have been calling on to take this back, do proper consultation.

It’s not that people again don’t worry about the physical and mental health of British Columbians, because I think we all do. But this piece of legislation is actually going to be doing more harm, on a broader scale, to British Columbia than I think that they will as far as improving it.

B.C. United — we’ve come out with a number of policies. Whether or not we’re talking about this or business or looking after British Columbians’ health, we really want to focus on preventing health issues before they occur. I think there’s a level of education that we need to be doing to talk to people.

We’ve seen this with tobacco. This bill actually is connected or relatable to the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Recovery Act. But we need to be looking at how we prevent harms before they happen — education. This is something that we’ve talked about on many cases.

This legislation just seems to be very reactive, very knee-jerk reactive. Again, I wonder what is really the problem that the government is trying to fix here. Is it because there’s a shortfall of money that this is one way? There’s another set of pockets, I guess, that the government can reach into and help fund health care.

[3:15 p.m.]

I mean, I’m only speculating, but there’s certainly not enough direction to make me think otherwise within this piece of legislation.

We’ve all been calling for the government to review this, calling for the government to look at pausing this piece of legislation and considering the consequences that this could have. I certainly share those concerns. I share the concerns from my colleagues in the opposition. I share my concerns with all of the different businesses.

Certainly, there are more concerns yet to come — this bill has just recently been tabled — as now we are starting to talk about it here in second reading, and the media does their job. I think when people start looking into this legislation, we’re going to start seeing a number of people, a number of organizations and entities across British Columbia, start to also come forward to government and start sounding the alarms that this isn’t probably going to be achieving what the government hopes. In fact, it will probably just amount to more risk for businesses, creating that environment that is not friendly to businesses and the resource sector.

I didn’t even talk about the resource sector. We could talk about the health implications around mining, oil and gas, forestry. It is endless, what this piece of legislation could touch on. But again, because it is so vague, we can only speculate. I think we’ve seen that with a lot of our comments here today, because that’s all we can do.

Certainly, in second reading, it is our role to start talking about these issues, start talking about…. Well, this legislation leaves us to speculate. Obviously, these organizations…. It leaves us to speculate and see the concerns that could be down the road or the unintended consequences down the road.

We will obviously get to some of these questions during committee stage, and I am looking forward to that. I’m sure that we will have more organizations reach out to government. I believe that letter was sent out to everybody. I am certainly looking forward to hearing the questions and the responses from the minister during committee stage.

Finally, again, I just want to ask the minister, ask the government, to reconsider this piece of legislation, reconsider the impacts that it could have down the road and listen to all of these different organizations that have come forward.

With that, again, it’s been an honour and a privilege to give my remarks here. With that, I’ll take my place.

T. Wat: Today, I rise to address Bill 12. It is really my great honour and privilege to stand proudly in this chamber to debate on any piece of legislation, especially as an immigrant woman in politics. I don’t take this lightly at all, because I do understand that the role of elected officials is to bring forward the voices and concern not only of just my riding’s constituents but all British Columbians, including individuals, stakeholders and all sectors.

I feel a little bit very emotional today to rise to address Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024, a piece of legislation that on the surface promises to safeguard public health and ensure wrongdoers bear the cost of these actions.

[3:20 p.m.]

To have a deeper dive into this bill, we can’t help but feel that this is just another example of NDP government secrecy, with lack of consultation, lack of transparency and lack of democracy — and also, of course, lack of engagement.

I immigrated to this beautiful province in 1989 with my late husband and my daughter, who is now an adult working far away from British Columbia because she cannot find opportunities to take on a really rewarding senior position in British Columbia during the last seven years since the NDP government came into power.

More than ten years ago, in 2013, I decided to run for politics, to give up my very rewarding career as the CEO of a multicultural broadcasting station. Why do I have to give up my job and take on this political mission? As an immigrant woman in politics, I want to raise awareness of all immigrants, especially women, especially the visible minority, because I’m a visible minority woman, to let them know that by immigrating to this country, to this province, we really come here for the democracy, for the fact that we can have a say in the government.

I want to encourage them that more of us should get involved in politics, should cast votes come any election, irrespective of municipal election, provincial election and federal election. Go further than that. They should try to get involved in politics, like what I have done in the past more than ten years.

My political journey has been filled by a deep desire to empower fellow immigrants to engage in the political process and have their voices heard. I firmly and truly believe that democracy thrives when every individual, regardless of their background, their religion, their colour of skin or their culture, has the opportunity to participate in the legislative process and express their opinions freely, like what we are doing now exactly.

I have to say that I’m quite shocked and surprised that in spite of the fact that 23 business associations, on March 28, emailed a letter to all the 87 MLAs in this Legislature, if I’m correct, only three NDP government MLAs, in addition to the Attorney General, spoke on this bill. Have they really truly read it? The letter is not that long. It’s only a few pages.

Even though we are all busy with our House duties, with our other legislative responsibility, I’m sure all my colleagues should find time to read through the letter, to understand the concern of these 23 business associations coming from so many different sectors: the retail sector, the energy sector, the manufacturing sector, the technology sector and the health sector.

If my colleagues in the government truly believe the concerns raised by so many members, thousands of members, of these 23 business associations are not cause for concern — as my colleague from Richmond, the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough said, “This is standard consumer protection; the sky is not falling” — then why not stand up and educate all those business people so that they can have peace of mind? Why not have a consultation, a broader consultation, engagement with thousands of members of all those business associations to sit down and talk to them? That I truly cannot understand.

[3:25 p.m.]

The lack of transparency exhibited by this NDP government not only undermines public trust but also hampers the ability of immigrants, such as many of my friends in the community and my constituents, and also other marginalized groups to fully, fully participate in our Western democracy that we are so proud of as a country, as a province. That’s why so many immigrants decided to choose Canada as their home country — I’m one of those — because when we were back home in Asia, we heard so many good, positive, great things about Canada, about our beautiful province.

Without access to information and meaningful engagement opportunities, many individuals are left on the sidelines. Their voices, just like thousands of members of these 23 business associations, have been silenced by a government that claims to represent them.

Furthermore, the NDP’s disregard for democratic law sets a dangerous precedent and erodes the very foundation of our political system. Immigrants, like myself — I’m one of those, but I’m not seeking refuge; I’m just seeking for a better life — who often come to Canada seeking refuge from authoritarian regimes and oppressive governments are understandably dismayed by the lack of transparency and accountability displayed by the elected officials.

It is incumbent upon us, each of the 87, including myself, elected officials in this chamber to lead by example. Please, please uphold the principles of democracy that are central to our country, to our province, to our community and to our society. We must work tirelessly to promote transparency, to promote accountability and to promote inclusivity in government, ensuring that all voices are heard and all perspectives are considered in the legislative process.

Only then, together, united, we can build a more democratic and equitable future for all residents of British Columbia, where every individual has the opportunity to contribute to shaping the policies that impact their lives.

Coming back to this bill, Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024, is really reminiscent of previous legislation, such as the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. But it introduces broad mechanisms for recovering health-related costs. Specifically, it targets individual corporations and any entity that causes or contributes to public health issues.

[3:30 p.m.]

I have been reading through the letter from the 23 business associations on March 28. Then, this Tuesday, one of the 23 business associations, the Business Council of British Columbia, again sent an individual, stand-alone letter to us.

I’m not going to talk about the legal implications, because I’m not a legal expert, but I’m really struck by what they talk about: how this bill can deter investment into our business sector and further erode our economy. That is what is so concerning.

Already, after this NDP government came into power in 2017, in the last seven to eight years, life has become so unaffordable. Rent has become so high. We have the highest rental in Canada and the most unaffordable city in the whole country, not to mention the deteriorating health care, so that one in five British Columbians doesn’t have a family doctor, and so on and so forth.

I’m not going to spend time, Mr. Speaker, to talk about this. I’m sure every one of our 87 elected officials hear, loud and clear from their constituents, how challenging life is. That’s why I’m concerned at how this bill will further erode our economy.

Just recently, there was a news report. Actually, I don’t have to read this news report. I myself have heard all the time — in phone calls, meetings and emails, especially — from constituents in my riding of Richmond North Centre, because the downtown is right in my riding, where we have many small businesses, grocery stores, small restaurants, high-end restaurants.

There’s a supermarket right in my riding. They have been talking to both the Chinese-language media and the English-language media, saying that they have been losing hundreds of dollars every week because they’ve had to deal with the frequent shoplifting. The thing is, it just happens every day, every single hour that their supermarket is open for business, and they cannot get the police to come and really get down to the root of it.

According to statistics in Richmond, the data shows that Richmond recorded 149 shoplifting incidents in February, up 28 percent from January, and up 50 percent from the year prior.

Deputy Speaker: Is the member able to connect that to the bill? Thank you.

T. Wat: Yes, that’s what I’m connecting, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for reminding me.

This bill caused concern from 23 business associations, which stated it clearly. Let me quote it to you, so that Mr. Speaker knows I have to talk about the small businesses suffering in Richmond, and they will further suffer with the introduction of this bill.

This is from the Business Council of B.C. on April 2. If Mr. Speaker allows me, I want to read out the whole paragraph:

“To be clear, it is not the intention of the act to safeguard the health of British Columbians we dispute. It is the broad way the bill is written which has the potential to significantly undermine investor confidence in the province.

“In the last week, we have directly heard concerns about Bill 12 from companies in five different sectors: retail, energy, manufacturing, technology and health. They are all alarmed by the broad scope and extensive new powers embedded in the proposed legislation, raising the spectre of lawsuits around a diverse range of products from energy drinks and fast food to social media and natural gas.”

[3:35 p.m.]

When they conclude the letter, BCBC says:

“In addition to writing to raise concerns, we are offering to work together to help you” — meaning the Attorney General — “better understand why businesses across so many sectors are worried and to explore options to achieve your desired outcomes without risking a further decline in investment in the province.” In brackets, it says: “Industrial investment has declined for the fifth consecutive year in 2023 and totals just under $700 million.”

Then the letter, which was signed by the 23 business association CEOs, addressed to the Premier and Attorney General and dated March 28, also talks about the economic aspects. That’s why I have to refer to Richmond North Centre, which I represent. I have a duty to convey the voices, concerns and worries of my constituents to this House.

In that letter, if Mr. Speaker allows me to quote the paragraph once again…. It’s a different one, but it’s along the same lines.

“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 consumers and businesses.”

I remember that from 2013 to 2017, I was honoured to be the Minister of International Trade. I was proud that our then government had attracted a lot of investment from other provinces and from the Asia-Pacific, to come and invest in our province. That’s why, from 2013 all the way to 2017…. The 16 years were the most prosperous period for British Columbia.

When the NDP government took power in 2017, the first couple of years were still okay. The Liberal government, now the B.C. United, of course, had left a good financial situation for this NDP government to squander. The first few years were okay, until they spent all the money. This government doesn’t know how to attract investment. It doesn’t know how to provide a favourable business environment for small business, medium business and big business to thrive. That’s why we are facing all these problems.

That’s why, coming back to this bill, 23 business associations, coming from different sectors, raised their concerns. They are not asking to not go ahead with something that the government said they want to achieve. They are only asking for a pause, for a much broader consultation and engagement. I have to talk about consultation. I got a lot of calls from my constituents. If Mr. Speaker allows me just to justify why this bill needs consultation, I’ll cite this example. Even though Mr. Speaker might think it is not related to this bill, I think it is.

[3:40 p.m.]

My constituents were so upset when the proposed safe injection site motion was brought forward in the Richmond city council. One week before that, Vancouver Coastal Health, which is part of the Ministry of Health, sent a letter to endorse them and support the motion to be brought forward.

It was only after more than 20,000 constituents and, also, Richmond residents petitioned to voice their opposition to the proposed safe consumption site and hundreds of people turned up at the two-day public hearing that this NDP government said that we won’t go ahead.

How come they never had a public consultation with Richmond residents about their idea of having a safe consumption site? Why do we have to waste so much energy?

Deputy Speaker: I think we’ve gone a little far off track, Member. If we’re able to bring it back to Bill 12. Thank you.

T. Wat: Yeah. I’m using this one to justify that this bill, once again, demonstrates that this NDP government has never learned. Time and time again, they introduce a bill without having proper consultation with the stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, we have to bring this up. I hear all the time…. I’m sure I’ll be hearing from my constituents and British Columbians when I go to other cities that they are not happy with this NDP government. They never listen. They just go ahead and rush the bill forward. They don’t even allow sufficient time for opposition MLAs to express their views. They just impose closure and pass the bill. They know they have the big majority. They don’t have to listen. This is not what democracy is about.

I have trouble trying to encourage my constituents — many of them are immigrants — and to ask them to get involved in the political process. They say: “What for?” They say: “MLA, why do you keep asking us to get involved in the political process when we don’t see any proper democratic process unfolding during the last seven years?” I don’t know how to explain to them.

If Mr. Speaker can tell me how to explain to them, I’m more than pleased to listen. I have big trouble. That’s why I have to bring this up.

I have to tell my constituents. I’m doing my elected official responsibility, bringing their fear, their concern, their voice, their disappointment to this chamber, hoping that my other 86 — I’m the 87th — elected officials can wake up and listen.

Please, listen to your constituents. Do your responsibility as an elected official.

I’m sure every one of us has given up our own profession to take up this challenging political mission. I won’t say it’s a career. I always say it’s my mission.

Each one of us has a story to tell. Why should we sacrifice so much of our family time and spend our time doing the session in Victoria, doing the long session in our constituency, travelling around? We want this province to be inclusive, to be prosperous, to be a fully democratic province so that all immigrants….

I guess most of us are immigrants; only the First Nations were here from day one. When our ancestors first came here…. I’m sure most of us really respect and admire our democracy.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s really interesting to note that the governing party is called the New Democratic Party. I wonder whether this is a new form of democracy. It is just passing the bill in the Legislature. Raise your hand. Stand up. Say aye or nay. Is that what democracy is about?

I’m learning every day. I have had a tough time during the last seven years. I’m questioning myself. Is it worthwhile sacrificing my family time and being an elected official if I cannot make changes? I cannot get the governing elected officials to listen. I feel I’m useless.

This weekend I’m going back to my constituency. I’m sure I told them to watch my debate. I’m sure they will ask me once again. “MLA, after your passionate 30-minute remarks, would you think that there will be a change? Would you think that this government will truly listen to all those who stood up and gave their argument?”

Will they truly listen to the thousands of members of the 23 business associations and the calls for a pause, engage in a wide-ranging consultation with these 23 business associations, listen to their concern and come up with a much better and more welcome piece of legislation?

If the government could listen not only to us but to the thousands of business association members and the small and medium-sized businesses, I think this government would win a lot of support. But if they don’t…. We will have to see.

I guess I’m getting quite emotional. I have listened to my colleagues. They all spoke more eloquently than me.

They make their case so loud and clear. Unfortunately, they are powerful. We must move heaven for many on the government side to come up and defend the bill. It’s not only to defend but to explain to this side — and, more importantly, to the thousands of members of the 23 business associations so that they have peace of mind, so that they don’t have so much concern.

The survival and the lives of the thousands of family members, of the thousands of members of the 23 business associations are at stake, and the sky is slowly falling down.

S. Bond: Thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks in the Legislature today.

I was just reflecting on the fact…. I wanted to just take a moment to thank the chamber staff. For one thing, they spend hours in this building listening to every single speaker. They run and grab podiums and cough candies and millions of other things to take care of us. I just wanted to express my gratitude for the work that they do every day to make this place operate.

We want you to know how much we appreciate you. So thank you for that.

Imagine the devastation of losing your child as a result of online sextortion. That’s exactly what happened to 12-year-old Carson Cleland of Prince George. He died because of horrific predatory behaviour.

[3:50 p.m.]

This kind of heartbreaking tragedy impacts all of us. We are very thankful that Carson’s courageous parents, Ryan and Nicola, shared their story. They did that to ensure that other families don’t face this absolutely unimaginable situation.

I also want to say I appreciate the fact that the Premier of British Columbia reached out to that family. I’m sure that meant a great deal to them. I can understand how that kind of contact and that kind of circumstance drove the creation of this piece of legislation. That’s really what is behind this bill, Bill 12.

When we think about Carson’s story, we don’t have to think very hard when we recognize that those circumstances — when we think about young people and children and online platforms — happen far too often. We know that in this Legislature, for many years, we’ve told and listened to the stories of young people who’ve been exploited, ultimately lost their lives. That matters to all of us.

I understand the Premier’s and Attorney General’s passion about saying: “We have to do something about that.” I would wager that not one person in this Legislature disagrees with that. But what government members and, hopefully, cabinet ministers are hearing over the course of the last few days isn’t about not wanting to move forward and deal with issues as serious as online harassment and, to use the Premier’s own words, those big, faceless corporations.

In fact, there have been references made to the fact that this bill might apply to things like vaping. Again, there is probably broad support for the discussion about what we need to do to make sure we are protecting children and young people from things like sextortion, online platforms, vaping.

I want to just recognize my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for his relentless efforts to deal with the issue of vaping in British Columbia. He has daughters. He understood the importance of taking steps to deal with how we manage that in British Columbia, where it should happen and all of those things.

It’s not a partisan issue to have a debate on a piece of legislation that looks at how we are going to manage the things that potentially harm young people, children and adults in British Columbia. That’s an important discussion. When I think of the tragedies that have occurred across the province and around the world, of course we need to have those discussions.

I want to make sure that I recognize it’s Kamloops–​South Thompson — he will remind me of that — in terms of the vaping issue.

What has happened with this piece of legislation…. One of the things I know that…. It’s interesting. People love to watch the drama of question period, perhaps, and wonder: what on earth is going on in the Legislature this afternoon? This is the meat and potatoes of what people who are elected to public office do.

Bills are tabled, and it is the job of the opposition members to get up and critique that legislation, not because they don’t understand or even see the need for legislative action. The question is: does the bill do what it was intended to do? In this case, the bill does a lot more, in our view, than it was intended to do. Our job is to say: “Let’s take a look at that piece of legislation and figure out….”

First of all, this bill is based, we’ve heard repeatedly, on previous bills that have been introduced in the Legislature. In fact, those bills dealt with the issues of tobacco and opioids. If we look at the first bill that was introduced here when it comes to the issue of tobacco, when it was first tested, it was found to be unconstitutional. That’s why we do the work we do in this place, to try to figure out how you create laws that actually comply with the constitution of our country.

That happened in the 1990s. There was a bill related to managing tobacco products and looking at how we recover costs there. In the ’90s, it was deemed to be unconstitutional. After work, feedback and changes, in 2000, that bill was deemed to be valid. So work was done. It wasn’t perfect the first time around.

[3:55 p.m.]

A similar law was introduced in 2018, and that was to deal with opioids. But if we stop and think about what the reaction to this bill has been…. If it’s about making sure that children are not impacted by predatory, horrific behaviour online, we would be hearing overwhelming support.

We have heard the word “laudable” when it comes to this legislation, and then there’s a “but.” That’s what we need to talk about. Other words to describe this legislation include “vague,” “overreach,” “sweeping,” “creating novel liability risks across a broad range of industries.” Those are significant concerns when it comes to creating law in British Columbia.

Laws aren’t something you can just decide you’re going to go back to your office and change. It means you have to come back into this Legislature and either choose to amend…. Heaven knows, we see all kinds of miscellaneous statutes amendment bills, because sometimes there’s a comma missing or the word is wrong. Other times, there are significant changes made to a piece of law.

We are talking about a very serious process, and part of that is saying: “Is this bill doing what it was intended to do? Is it doing enough? Or is it doing too much?” Let’s look at some of the concerns that have been expressed about the bill. As I noted earlier, this…. We’ve heard the Attorney General, and having been an Attorney General, I do understand the process and the steps that it takes to bring law to this House.

What this bill does is go further than either of the previous bills when it comes to tobacco and opioids. I want to make it perfectly clear so that the Twitter barrage doesn’t start that we don’t support protecting children and youth from vaping and online predatory behaviour. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is about the other consequences that are possible as a result of this bill.

Let’s talk about what the bill actually says and what it does that goes further than the two previous bills. It is much more broad, and it is much more sweeping than the two previous bills. That may be good; it may not be. What’s the rush? We’re in the Legislature, and we’ve heard all kinds of concerns from people saying, once again: “Not enough consultation.” “It has gone too far.” “When do we get to have our voices heard?” What is the rush?

Obviously, we want to protect children, youth and adults, but we also want to get it right. Let’s look at the issue of subject matter. In this bill, there is no subject matter limitation. That means that the principles contained in this law can apply to any product or service — not just online platforms or vaping, which are fairly obvious, but any product or service.

If you are in the hospitality industry today, you’re probably asking yourself: “Do I have a product or service that has the potential to impact health in British Columbia under the broad definitions in this bill?” Well, you probably do, which is why there has been such a significant reaction from small businesses across British Columbia.

Let’s remember, when the Premier characterized this legislation, he said: “We’re going to go after big, faceless corporations.” Well, this bill goes after a lot more than big, faceless corporations. It actually, because there is no limit to subject matter, could go after any service or any product — hardly big, faceless corporations alone.

We should also look at the issue of a broadened scope of injury. Let’s think about this. The definition has been expanded in terms of the scope of injury that is defined in the bill. Bill 12 specifically includes “problematic product use.” Think about that for a moment. How do you define that? And what is the product?

[4:00 p.m.]

Remember, we got here because of social media online platform issues. Now we’re talking about problematic product use. This is the one that is extremely concerning. It is also “risk of disease, injury or illness.” It’s not even the actual disease, the injury or the illness. If there is a risk, these provisions, this law would take effect.

It also includes a broadened scope of recoverable costs. In other words, it can include a whole bunch of things. For example, the cost of emergency services, the costs incurred by educational authorities. A school could make a claim. The point being that it has expanded the scope of recoverable costs. Again, very broad, very sweeping legislation.

Here’s another expansion. This is really interesting, because it doesn’t only have a forward-looking effect; it has a retroactive effect. In fact, the limitation period in this piece of legislation is 15 years.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Tobacco and opioid legislation has a two-year limitation period. We are looking…. You can actually claim 15 years retroactively. Think about the impacts of that and how on earth you determine how that is going to work in our province.

This also should be a concern. There is a simplified burden of proof, and this is a departure from rules of evidence. It’s that substantive. The bill allows a certificate from a cabinet minister. So the Minister of Health or the Minister of Social Development can create a certificate regarding the nature and the cost of health care benefits, and that would be considered conclusive proof.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I could hardly ever imagine that a certificate from a cabinet minister about costs related to health care benefits would be considered conclusive proof. That’s what this bill says. As I said earlier, that is a departure from ordinary rules of evidence. So we are looking at a bill that dramatically changes the level of evidence that is provided.

A cabinet minister can create a certificate. So I guess they do some homework with their staff and pump out the certificate. The next thing you know that is conclusive proof of what the benefit costs would be. Well, I certainly know…. I was a cabinet minister for many years, and I’ll tell you that is a very significant shift from what would be required to demonstrate conclusive evidence.

Another aspect of Bill 12 that should bring concern is that defendants cannot argue that the government’s claim has been subject to prior adjudication or settlement. So they can’t argue that government has already faced prior adjudication and settlement. That is not allowed under this bill.

All of those are major changes that affect how this law will be applied in British Columbia.

As I said earlier, the government press release is pretty hard to argue with. The statements are: “We’re going to go after wrongdoers to recover the costs of public health harms. We’re going to have tools to recover costs associated with the promotion, marketing, distribution of products that are harmful to adults and children.”

The target, as I said, appears to be social media companies, for harms their algorithms cause people, especially children, kids. But the legislation isn’t limited to social media. It potentially applies to any good or service, if it can contribute to injury, illness, deterioration of health, problematic use and — this one — increased risk.

[4:05 p.m.]

Well, I can only imagine how we are going to adjudicate a claim based on increased risk of harm. There’s probably increased risk with a lot of things that people do in their everyday life and their behaviours.

Think about this for a moment. We understand what generated a bill like this. There’s very likely no disagreement about how important it is to deal with those issues. But think about the sectors that could be impacted by this bill: technology, biotech companies, chemists, the food industry. Here’s one. How about the hospitality sector, beverages?

Interesting side note here. The government has created an exemption when it comes to beverages, because guess which liquor stores are at risk under this legislation. Private ones, because the government exempted government-run liquor stores. Try explaining that to anyone — how, if there is risk related to a product or service simply because it’s in a government liquor store, it doesn’t qualify; but if it’s a private one, well, that certainly sets off the trigger. That makes zero sense.

Interjection.

S. Bond: As my colleague points out, they actually purchase it from the government, yet this government has exempted government liquor stores, government services. So let’s target the private liquor stores but protect government-run services. How does that make any sense at all? And they wonder why there has been a reaction to the bill.

Think about the other sectors. Health, pharmaceutical companies, manufacturing, resource industries — all of them have a potential product or service that could trigger this law. Is that what the government intended? If it did, in our view, my view, that is one giant overreach.

Here’s the really distressing part: why is the government so unwilling to talk to people about their plans? Nope. Instead, a massive bill arrives in the Legislature that has the potential to change how evidence is required. Cabinet ministers can sign off a certificate. Private liquor stores are exempt. The list goes on — 15 years, in terms of retroactive. They forgot to, or didn’t, talk to the people whom it would impact.

It’s been repeated because it’s important to repeat it. The business community has a right to be heard. This impacts them substantively. I have rarely, in my time in this place, seen coalitions that include 23 business associations that include the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, BCBC, CFIB, various restaurant and tourism associations and others that raise serious concerns about the bill’s overreach. Why? Because it could expose them to legal risk.

The associations argue the bill has lacked consultation and it has significant negative legal and economic consequences. So what are they asking for? They didn’t say: “Okay, that’s it. We don’t support it. Take it out of the Legislature.” No, they made a reasonable request to government. What they said was to pause, listen and maybe take into consideration the concerns that these businesses have.

When we think about the bill, we also need to think about the reach, the consequences and the impacts. I would love to hear members on the government bench get up and talk about the concerns that the business community have expressed to them, because I can assure you these letters didn’t just go to opposition MLAs. In fact, they went to the Premier, the Attorney General, you name it. The cc page is practically longer than the letter. Oh, look: all of the MLAs in this Legislature have received it.

[4:10 p.m.]

I want to be sure that, again, the context for the letter is read into the record. I would like to quote, obviously, from the letter signed by the 23 organizations. “The intention to safeguard the physical and mental health and well-being of British Columbians is laudable and an objective we support.”

So before government MLAs start to cast negative aspersions on the business community, they’ve made it clear they support the intention that the bill represents. What they don’t support is that parameters must be clear. And language that’s been used, as I said earlier, about this bill — vague, sweeping, overreach.

They’re asking for clarity and “appropriately delineated so as not to inadvertently expose a wider spectrum of businesses to legal risk.” Think about that. They’re not saying: “Don’t do it.” What they’re saying is, “Think of the consequences” — and actually giving the government the benefit of the doubt that they are potentially unintended consequences.

That makes it even more incumbent on this government to actually stop being stubborn and listen. These businesses have a right to be heard. The concerns, they say, arise from ramifications of the bill’s expansive interpretation. And, believe me, B.C.’s legal community has not been hesitant about pointing out all of the issues related to this bill, some of which I’ve cited today in my concern.

Here’s the ask. “Given the uncertainty and broad scope, we urge the government to take the time to work with interested parties to ensure that appropriate guardrails are in place and that there are no unintended consequences.” How on earth is that a controversial ask?

It makes it clear that the organizations across this province, across dozens and dozens of sectors, have simply said: “You didn’t talk to us. We support the original intention of the bill, but it is unclear. And we’re asking you to take the time to get it right and to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.”

The letter goes on to say that “the potential consequences of the bill 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, is significant.”

Why is that significant? Well, the letter goes on to articulate the struggles that businesses are already facing in British Columbia. This is just another layer. The letter points out that there is economic uncertainty. There is low growth. There is 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 for by” — guess who — “the consumers.” Once again, back to the pockets of taxpayers and consumers in British Columbia.

The concerns are real. They are legitimate, and they are not at all unreasonable when it comes to the ask that has been made of this government.

In communication from the Business Council of British Columbia, for example, they actually outline, step by step, the key areas of concern. They, like other organizations, have made it very clear that it is not “the intention of the act to safeguard the health of British Columbians we dispute” — clearly on the record.

I think that characterizes exactly how we feel as well. We understand the intent. We share the government’s concern about what we do to better protect young people, children and adults in this province.

[4:15 p.m.]

But we have heard over and over again — on this side of the House at least, and I’m certain the members opposite are hearing it — of five different sectors that are concerned specifically: retail, energy, manufacturing, technology and health. What are they concerned about? The broad scope and the expansive — their word, not mine — new powers embedded in the proposed legislation.

What will that lead to? I can assure you this will happen. Lawsuits around a diverse range of products. Think about it. From energy drinks — what about fast food? — to social media and natural gas. That is what this bill has the potential to do in this province.

When we think about how important it is to have a discussion about things like how we deal with the horrific things that happen to many young people online, or whether it’s vaping, or whether it’s, as the Premier described it, those big, faceless corporations, that’s not who we’re hearing from in British Columbia. We’re hearing from businesses — small businesses, medium-sized businesses — who are concerned about how this impacts them.

Here’s the thing. When you think about this letter and the tone of it, it is not an in-your-face, we-think-the-government-messed-up kind of letter. It is collaborative, it is responsible, and it is well articulated. Here’s the second-to-last paragraph in the letter from the Business Council of British Columbia: “In addition to writing to raise concerns, we are offering to work together to help you better understand why businesses across so many sectors are worried and to explore options to achieve your desired outcomes without risking further decline in investment in the province.”

They have a side note, by the way, which says: “Industrial investment has declined for the fifth consecutive year in 2023 and totals just under $700 million. We welcome the opportunity to assist you by bringing together a cross-section of our membership and look forward to more detailed conversation and collaboration.”

Well, we can only do our part, which is to stand in the Legislature, speaker after speaker, to make the point to this government that no one is suggesting that there are not important aspects of this bill, but we also need to point out that it is broad. It is vague. It has the potential to impact businesses in British Columbia in a way that they have not even had a chance to describe to this government.

It’s time for the government to stop stubbornly refusing to consult, to collaborate and work together with these organizations who will be impacted by this piece of legislation. So today we urge the government to do the right thing. To take a pause. To do the consultation that would be appropriate. To listen and be willing to ensure this law is not a significant expansion of power and an overreach. That simply is not fair, and it is not what I believe was intended in the first place.

C. Oakes: I rise today to address Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. I want to thank my colleague from Prince George–Valemount for talking about Carson Cleland. I want to spend a few moments, if I may, out of respect for the family, the friends, the community that have been tragically impacted by Carson Cleland.

[4:20 p.m.]

October 12 was an incredibly tragic day for the family, both Ryan and Nicola. It speaks to where I think that this bill…. I know that this bill came out of good intentions. I know that there are families across this province that are dealing with the horrible consequences that so many of our kids are dealing with around the increased impacts of sextortion. So I wanted to take a few minutes to put the words of Ryan and Nicola forward in this Legislature, because I think it’s critically important, before I go into elements of the bill.

Carson’s mom wanted to share a few comments out of this incredible, horrible impact of losing her young son to online sextortion. She said that we need to be more active with our kids. Even if you are active, please talk to your kids about predators and all the things that are happening online. As much as younger kids hate parents going on their phones, maybe they have to.

We are calling on all parents and caregivers to be honest with young people about the damages of online activity, especially if they engage in chats with people that they don’t know in real life.

I did not know this fact, that teenage boys between the ages of 14 and 17 are most impacted by these crimes. Experts say that boys are more likely to start communicating with someone on social media, especially if they think it’s with someone within their own age group who is sexually interested in them. I didn’t know that.

I, like I’m sure many members in this Legislature, have been meeting with far more parents that have been bringing in their concerns and their experiences with young people in their lives. For so many of us, I had to ask: “What is Snapchat, and how does that work?” There is such an evolution in social media and the impacts that it’s having on our young people. It’s hard for us of a certain generation to even understand how some of those media forms work.

I wanted to read into this record, too, that if you are a parent or a loved one — or look, even if you are a young person that actually scrolled accidentally and have found this channel by some reason — we want to send a very clear message that if you are a victim of sextortion, it’s important that first, you stop communicating immediately with the person. Do not give in to their demands. Deactivate the accounts that you are using to communicate with that person. Most importantly, please reach out for help and support. Call your local police. Other contacts include NeedHelpNow.ca and CyberTip.ca for support.

It is my hope, as it is for all members in this Legislature, that the tragedy of Carson Cleland doesn’t happen to any other family.

[4:25 p.m.]

I understand the intent of Bill 12. I understand why it was brought forward, and I understand the importance of the bill. The concern that we have heard is that the scope of the bill does not necessarily meet the intent that the Premier and the government set forward when they were discussing the intent of what this bill was supposed to address.

Of course, the safeguarding of the physical and mental health and well-being of British Columbians and our young people is so critically important. We fear…. The parameters of Bill 12 must be clearly and appropriately defined so as not to inadvertently expose a wide spectrum of businesses to legal risk. The current draft of this bill does not achieve this.

What we’re asking for is a pause. We are asking, for this critical bill, that we take the time to make sure that there are not unintended consequences and that we do the necessary work to go out and consult.

We’ve heard that if enacted…. This law appears to apply to any product, good, service or by-product, product and/or service, which we understand can create liability for almost any business operating in or connected to B.C. I want to take a few moments just to talk about what that potentially could mean in the riding of Cariboo North, soon to be the riding of Prince George–North Cariboo.

We are incredibly proud of all of the small and medium-sized businesses that operate, support, create the jobs, ensure that the economy of the Cariboo, the Interior, Prince George, the North provides for this province. That mom-and-pop store that has been operating, in many cases, for generations and that gives back to our soccer teams, our hockey teams, our arts festivals is so critically important.

I start with comments, in response to this bill, specifically from the chambers of commerce in our region. What they’ve raised is that because of the broad scope of how this legislation is being presented…. We now, potentially, with the passing of this legislation, have a law that could hold any business responsible for any product, good or service that can cause or may contribute to disease, injury or illness or any product or service that potentially could even create a risk of disease, injury or illness without clear criteria for determining these risks or costs.

I’ve had the opportunity to hear many of my colleagues come forward and speak to this particular bill and reflect on the incredible businesses that we have in our communities. I particularly enjoyed some of the comments about some of the snack food. It’s the end of Thursday, and I know people are tired. The thought of getting snacks was something that people were talking about earlier.

The point that I think some of the speakers before me were talking about is…. We all know that there are products, in our choices of what we like to eat, that have the potential to contribute to disease or illness. Where do we hold that liability? I think when we ask for parameters of what that looks like…. It’s a fair choice. It’s a fair reflection.

[4:30 p.m.]

Many of the small businesses are just asking those questions and are asking to be consulted, to take the time to work with the interested parties to ensure that there are appropriate guardrails in place and that, again, there are no unintended consequences.

One of the other organizations that is in my community that has raised concerns about this bill is the Council of Forest Industries. Look, I have a community and a region that is dependent on our forest economy, whether you’re looking at an MDF plant, a plywood plant, the pulp sector, value-added bioenergy, sawmilling.

So many of the products that contribute to building the homes that all of us need in British Columbia and play a critical role in building the future…. They have some significant concerns about a bill that now provides a minister, or ministers, the ability to put a certificate of a cost on a business, if it appears that there’s a product or service that may cause or may contribute to disease, injury or illness. But any product or service that contributes even to the risk of disease, injury or illness…. There’s a 15-year span on that.

The Council of Forest Industries has raised concerns about this bill, and they would like to have that conversation with the government to understand what the intent of including some of the liability piece that is talked about in this bill.

One of the other business associations that has come forward is the B.C. craft breweries. We have an incredible craft brewery in our community, Barkerville Brewing. A fantastic small business in our region. Rightfully, the association’s raised concerns. They’ve raised concerns about what the liability means for their association.

ABLE-BC has raised concerns from the liquor industry about what this bill means for them and the ability for a cabinet minister to say: “Hey, I think today that we should go after this particular group of businesses to recover the health costs related to any injury that may happen, even if it’s 15 years down the road.”

We heard from the Business Council of British Columbia about the impacts. I’m going to spend a few minutes specifically talking about a few things that I’ve had the opportunity to review with the B.C. Business Council about the significant concerns that continue to be raised about the erosion of the standard of living of British Columbians.

Now often when we talk about the economy and we talk about productivity, sometimes that language is hard to understand how that impacts us as individuals. We’ve seen a significant decline in productivity in the province and in this country, and it is an emergency. It’s an emergency that we have to address when we look at the per capita GDP and where that number is particularly growing and how that’s going to impact not just our generation but future generations and contributes to the fact that our young people’s standard of living is eroding.

Part of the piece of that decline in productivity is the fact that we have not seen the type of investment that is required, the innovation, the research coming into British Columbia, and there are a number of reasons for that. But part of that is about uncertainty. So when we bring forward legislation, and we bring forward policies and regulations that contribute to a sense of uncertainty in this province and impact investment decisions, we should all be incredibly alarmed.

[4:35 p.m.]

All of us in this Legislature should want to ensure that the legislation that we bring forward doesn’t have the type of unintended consequences that will impact not just our generation but future generations. We deliver a message or send signals, or this government sends signals out broadly, not just to Canada but to a larger global audience, that we’re not open for business.

Concerns that we will set up an environment where we have that cumulative level of taxation, that we have regulation that changes all of the time, that what might be a regulation that is in place today can simply be changed by a minister tomorrow…. That it can have significant consequences on that particular business, is very, very concerning. Because, at the end of the day, what happens if we drive all of these businesses out of our province? What happens if we hollow out our communities right across this province?

What if people decide that it’s not worth the risk anymore of coming in and operating a business in British Columbia? Where do we get the services and the products that people depend on? Look, government can’t provide everything, nor should they.

We need to make sure that free enterprise…. We need to make sure that we have an environment that creates a healthy investment climate where innovation and research are showcased and where people can benefit from understanding that we have a taxation, a regulation and a policy environment that says: “I am willing to invest in that innovative product or that research to make sure that we’re global leaders.”

Isn’t that something that we should all be aspiring to, to ensure that we have the types of globally competitive businesses here, in the province of British Columbia, that ensure that we have the revenues that we all need to pay for health care and education and all those services that we depend on?

What happens if we drive all of the business and revenue out of this province? Who is going to pay for the health care? Who is going to pay for our education system? We’ve got to do a better job. It is an emergency that we have in this province. That is impacting not just our standard of living but the standard of living for our kids.

We’re not saying that the choice that the government made to bring this bill forward…. It is a laudable one. We should be looking at ways to keep our kids safe. But the broad scope that this bill has brought forward has significant consequences.

Then there’s just basic hypocrisy. We’re going to hold private liquor stores for the potential harms that happen. But our government-run liquor stores — you’re fine; you’re not included in this.

The harm that is happening because of policies that this government has made — they’re not responsible for any of the health care costs or damages that are being done in the community. The government is off the hook, but anyone in the private sector…. I think it’s deeply alarming and troubling.

As we delve deeper into this bill during the committee stage, our focus will be ensuring that the provisions in this bill effectively address public health concerns without imposing undue burdens on entities that operate within the bounds of the law.

[4:40 p.m.]

I know I’ve heard from many businesses, and they feel that they’ve done everything right. For so many of them…. I talked to a business just this past weekend, the third generation in our community. At what point, under the current taxation policies and regulations that are happening in this province, do they just shut their doors? They just don’t feel welcome in this province anymore. I think that’s troubling.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been doing some really solid work on reaching out to businesses and members across this province. I’m just articulating the challenges and the risks of policies and regulation, and then, in this particular case, Bill 12, of legislation that has the potential to have far-reaching consequences outside the scope of what the bill was originally set out to do.

What we’re saying is: take a moment, government, to reach out to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Reach out to Restaurants Canada. Boy, have we heard from the restaurant sector about the challenges that they are currently experiencing.

To the members, the constituents in my riding…. What happens when we lose more restaurants in our communities? How does that impact your choices? How does that impact our jobs? How does that impact our economy? You should, as we are today, raise the alarm bells when these associations step up and say: “We have some significant concerns about this legislation, and we’re just asking to be consulted so that we understand and we can deliver our concerns to government.” I think it’s important that we do that.

Some of the other organizations that drive the economy of British Columbia are the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. We should be proud of the manufacturers. The agrimanufacturing industry plays a critical role when we talk about food security. All of these things are very important, and they’ve raised alarm bells about this bill and the unintended consequences.

How about the B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association, who’ve also raised that? When food security starts being threatened by legislation in this bill, because we just don’t have a clear understanding of the consequences of this bill, we should be paying attention. When the B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association says, “Look, we need some more time, and we need to be consulted to understand the impact of Bill 12 and what this means for our association,” we should be paying attention.

When the chemistry industry raises concerns to this government, we should be taking action and we should be paying attention.

Finally, maybe just to spend a few moments on talking about our incredible, incredible tourism association and tourism industries across this province…. Look, I know that this is the time of year that we are encouraging everyone to make sure you plan a staycation. Make sure you look at opportunities to get out and enjoy everything that British Columbia has to offer. Particularly, save some of your hard-earned dollars to give back and enjoy some of the extraordinary, incredible tourism assets and businesses that we have in this province.

Look, they’ve raised alarm bells on this bill. The tourism industry is saying: “We just think that we want to be consulted. We want to have that conversation with government. We understand at a high level why the government brought this forward.”

The legislation has some significant flaws that I think need….

[4:45 p.m.]

What they’re asking is to pause. Take a moment to have reflection on the unintended consequences that this bill could have on all of these different businesses, small businesses, groups, and organizations across this province. Because at what point, and I said this before….

Once we have bills that send the message across the globe that British Columbia is no longer a welcoming environment to invest or do business in, we’re all going to have serious consequences in the fact that we will no longer have the revenue that we need to ensure that we can provide the quality services in health care and education and all of the social supports which I know how important it is in each of these communities.

In closing, we are asking the government to take a sober pause to reflect on the unintended consequences of how they have written this Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024, to take the necessary time to go out and consult and to meet in communities.

I would be happy to help the government set up meetings in my riding. I’m sure every member in this House would welcome the opportunity to have the government come in to our communities and sit down and consult with people in our communities and to listen to their experiences and to listen to their concerns.

At the end of the day, we are all elected by constituents in our community and, quite frankly, government needs to do a far better job of listening to the impacts of their regulation, their policies and their taxes and the impacts they are having on everyone.

I. Paton: Getting late in the day, late in the week. But I’m happy to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.

As my colleague from Cariboo North succinctly stated at her very end, this is a pause that we need to take, that government needs to take. I’m going to start off with that, not end with that. We all need to take a sober pause on this bill and take a look at the many businesses and services that can be affected by cost recovery.

When you talk about cost recovery, you think: what do we mean by cost recovery? Are there enough rules and regulations and permits and red tape and bureaucracy with businesses in our province now that they have to start worrying about the possibility of them being labelled for cost recovery for something that they have produced or something that they may have sold?

Today I rise to address Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024, a piece of legislation that, on the surface, promises to safeguard public health and ensure wrongdoers bear the cost of their actions. This bill is reminiscent of previous legislation, such as the Tobacco Damages in Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages in Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Yet it introduces broader mechanisms for recovering health-related costs. Specifically, it targets individuals or corporations and any entity that causes or contributes to public health issues.

I am particularly interested in clause 9, a novel introduction that grants a minister unprecedented power to issue certificates establishing the cost of health care benefits. It’s just another example of a government of secrecy with lack of consultation and engagement.

[4:50 p.m.]

There needs to be a pause on Bill 12 to enable consultation with these business associations about the far-reaching consequences of this bill. The concerns around the overly broad scope of Bill 12, which is not well defined, need to be addressed.

The NDP government should be taking a more targeted approach to deal with the harms of social media platforms. My colleagues have spoken here earlier this afternoon on situations that we feel are a very important part of public health accountability. Those are the apps or the social media dangers that young people can get into, and we’ve had examples that have come forward.

I have an example of my own, of a young person that was playing for the Delta Hockey Academy. Without getting into a full name, the young man’s name was Robin. This was a big news item. It made Global TV news.

What a sad situation of companies or agencies or people that set up social media apps where young people get involved with exchanging photos, sextortion. This young man by the name of Robin that was playing for our Delta Hockey Academy took his own life because of the consequences of sextortion and somebody extorting, the fact that the images would be shared, and this caused this young man so much grief.

These are examples of how public health accountability is important and can be used, and we feel it should be used for opioids, for apps such as this that cause a great deal of harm to young people that get involved in things they should not be getting involved in. Tobacco is another example. We can live with that, and we can agree with things like that.

Bill 12 is far broader than B.C.’s health care cost recovery legislation for cigarettes and opioids, which focused on specific industries. The permitted recovery under Bill 12 goes beyond just health care costs and includes other government expenditures, including education and prevention relating to the disease, injury or illness.

It begs the question: who defines what is likely, and on what basis? This clause hands over a blank cheque of authority, potentially overreaching into realms of speculative justice, and little oversight, granting power to a minister to hand out these charges.

While the intention to recover costs from a broader range of wrongdoers is clear, we must carefully consider the potential for unintended consequences that could arise from such broad definitions. As we prepare to delve deeper into this bill during the committee stage, our focus will be on ensuring that its provisions effectively address public health concerns without imposing undue burdens on entities that operate within the bounds of the law.

And while I’m at it, it will allow government to sue wrongdoers, regardless of if there are individuals or corporations or other entities who either cause or contribute to the disease, illness or injury or the risk — even the risk — of disease, illness or injury.

This plays such a huge role and will become quite a fear, I would think, for many businesses and corporations, and even — and I’m going to talk about this later — the agriculture industry is going to be quite worried about this bill.

This bill is intended to hold wrongdoers accountable for their harmful conduct, including the promotion, marketing and distribution of harmful products. This will shift the financial burden of public health harms from the province to the wrongdoer.

I just want to talk now about the fact that the business association of British Columbia sent forward some information and concerns that they have with Bill 12. I’ll quote.

“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,” which I have spoken to so far.

[4:55 p.m.]

“The current draft does not achieve this and has been advanced without sufficient engagement….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 that there are no unintended consequences….

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

“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/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.”

I want to speak briefly about businesses in my riding of Delta South. I think of Annacis Island, a huge industrial park area in Delta. Tilbury Industrial Park. There are so many businesses and processing companies there, processing products such as vegetables at B.C. Fresh vegetable processing. We have businesses in Tilbury Industrial Park and Annacis Island processing milk and dairy products. We have businesses that are dealing with meat products from our beef cattle industry in British Columbia.

So many companies are at risk. I think about manufacturing. I think about agriculture. I think about people in the bakery business. It may sound crazy, but we have to consider very odd circumstances. We have to consider our B.C. cattle industry. Cattle get sick, just like humans do. Cattle get treated with antibiotics, just like humans do. We don’t want to see cattle suffer, so the veterinarian comes. We treat them with penicillin or antibiotics. We cannot have any of those animals slaughtered or used for meat until that has been removed from their system.

If there was a situation where there was some meat that was perhaps tainted somehow, got into a local farmers market, does that mean that, suddenly, government comes after the poor farmer that had this incident? Something went sideways, and suddenly, he’s being charged with the issue of some meat that wasn’t good? Same with the dairy industry. Same with vegetables.

I’m thinking about a vegetable farmer in a big way in my riding that grew a lot of potatoes. Obviously, we use sprays and pesticides and different things. What would happen if someone purchased a vegetable of some type and got sick? Could the farmer be actually held accountable and charged by government for the product that he grew on his farm and sold at a farmers market or sold in a grocery store and someone claimed that they got sick from? Does that come back to the farmer that produced those products?

As we dissect the intentions of Bill 12, we also question the broader implications for our province’s approach to public health. This legislation suggests a reactive stance seeking reparations after the fact rather than proactively preventing public health crises. Is this truly what the government can offer to British Columbians? This includes reviewing the inefficiencies that have grown within the health care system under the government’s watch and are currently only getting worse.

Like I said before, I’d be very concerned if I was a business owner or a manufacturer in the province of B.C.

[5:00 p.m.]

Then we talk about even the discussion of craft breweries or private liquor stores that can be held accountable, but not licensed government liquor stores. I mean, where does that come in? How does this make any sense?

If you’re making craft beer…. We have two wonderful craft breweries, Four Winds and Barnside, in my riding of Delta South. If something goes wrong, if there’s a hiccup in the brewing process, and somehow a beer doesn’t get recalled in time because of some irregularity and someone gets ill from that, are our craft breweries going to be worried about the fact…? Like: “My goodness, should we continue to make beer, if we’re at risk of being brought up on charges, because something went wrong with our brewery, our brewmaster, and someone drank some beer and got sick from it?”

Lack of consultation. I think of the letters and emails I’m going to get because of Bill 12 from the B.C. Agriculture Council, from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, from the B.C. tree fruit growers. We process and manufacture and package cherries and apples and pears. There’s always something that can go sideways with any sort of processing of food products that people eat.

Will they be worried for their industry with processing of tree fruits? Will people be worried about the processing of bees and honey, which they sell at farmers markets? Will people be worried about the processing of dairy products if something went sideways with a dairy product at Island Farms or Dairyland or one of the other manufacturers we have in the province.

So many things that different businesses are going to be concerned about. The wine industry. We all know that it’s an art to make wine, but sometimes things can go sideways. I can’t imagine the letters and emails I’m going to get next week from all these different associations that are going to be concerned that they could be held accountable for agricultural products that they produce and sell to people either in grocery stores or at farmers markets.

The associations are asking for a pause to the bill. Clearly, the consultation leading up to this legislation has been lacklustre. Legislation that fails to consider all outcomes only hurts British Columbians more.

To quote the aforementioned letter: “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.”

We need accountability from this government before we even seek accountability elsewhere. In contrast to the current government’s approach, a B.C. United government would implement comprehensive strategies to not only recover costs but also prevent public health harms before they occur.

In light of the level of concern raised by the signatory of letters, the official opposition calls for a pause until there is clarity from this government to ensure the legislation truly serves the best interests of all British Columbians, while ensuring addressing the health care crisis as the primary focus.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I look to my manufacturing companies, my agriculture sector, craft breweries, tree fruits. There are a lot of businesses in this province that are going to sit back in the next few days and take a look at this Bill 12 legislation and be very concerned about their future as a business owner in British Columbia.

R. Merrifield: I really do appreciate having the time to stand and speak to this bill, because truly, it is extraor­dinary.

The farther I dug and the more that my phone lit up with the concern that is coming from outside of these walls, the more concerned I became.

[5:05 p.m.]

The powers that are found in this bill are exceptionally far-reaching. The definitions are far too vague, and the implications, as I had stated earlier, are sending shockwaves through every corner of our province, every industry, every business owner, every lab and innovator, and truly through every part of our economy.

On the face of it, Bill 12, the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act of 2024…. It looks pretty solid. I mean, it’s all about making sure that public health is protected, and the folks who cause trouble are the ones footing the bill. And sure, we can talk through, as my colleagues have before me, the reminiscence of previous acts that we’ve seen, the ones that have targeted tobacco and opioid companies.

But this legislation proposes measures that while at first glance seem designed to protect the health of our citizens by ensuring that those responsible for health crises are held financially accountable but actually hold far more power than just that. When I looked at what the bill was touted as and what the NDP have said it’s trying to do, it is coming under the auspices of protecting children. Who doesn’t want to protect children?

I had the pleasure of introducing my firstborn this morning in the House, and honestly, I would do anything to protect my kids. Anything. We know the stories from Carson Cleland, from Amanda Todd, and how their tragedies have so greatly affected us all. I have thought through my own children and their traumas with social media and the explosion of social media, online bullying and the impact it has had on my own family.

Of course we want to stop online bullying. We know the horrific effects and the devastating results. Who wouldn’t want to make that better? Moreover, what this bill aims to achieve is that vindication that we want, making social media companies pay for the harms that come to our children.

Yes, I can agree with the press release that came out with this bill, the laudable intent to protect our children. It echoes our shared commitment to safeguarding the well-being of our children and the broader public against health hazards.

We have seen this at work with the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Those two underscore our ongoing efforts in this domain.

But Bill 12? It’s a whole new level. It has an expanded framework for cost recovery from entities implicated in public health issues, but it goes a whole different direction. It’s not specific to tobacco damages or health care costs. It’s not specific to opioid damages and health care costs. It’s not specific to online damages and health care costs.

This is a significant step in the legislative lineage, because as we peel back the layers of this bill, there are amazing concerns that are being literally shouted from outside of these walls right now. And largely because the breadth of its reach has no bounds, literally, and the implications of its enforcement could have devastating effects, not only for our business community, but for our citizens, who rely on the business community to provide goods and services.

The discretionary nature of…. Let’s talk about clause 9, which empowers a minister to unilaterally determine the financial impact of health care costs, but also accounting for both incurred and anticipated costs. How could you every decide that?

[5:10 p.m.]

The NDP have some amazing lawyers on their side. They would know common law. They would understand civil law and what the burden of proof for damages would be. This completely circumvents that.

The discretionary nature of this cause, coupled then with vague qualifiers like “likely to be provided,” introduces a very unsettling degree of uncertainty and the potential for gross overreach, entrusting a single office with the power to make these far-reaching financial judgments with minimal oversight. Further complicating matters is the broadening of key definitions within the bill, terms like “benefit recipient” or “product” or “promote.” This expansion significantly widens the scope of who and what can be implicated, raising questions about the potential for unintended consequences that could ensnare entities operating legally and ethically within our province.

There are no subject matter bounds to this legislation. So is this bill about a restaurant serving rich and fatty foods? Is it about a fashion retailer selling clothing? Is it about a cruise line coming to Victoria or Vancouver, taking up our ports? Is this about private liquor stores or wineries selling alcohol? I couldn’t say the B.C. provincial liquor stores, because those are exempt.

In terms of alcohol, who is actually responsible? My colleague, previously, from Delta South was talking about our farming community. Are the farmers responsible because they grow the wheat and the barley that make up our beer? Is it the brewery that takes that wheat and barley and turns it into our beer? Is it the liquor store owner who sold that beer? Is it the restaurateur who bought that beer and then resold it to their patrons? I’m not sure, and nor is this bill, because the bill doesn’t actually define who is responsible.

We could talk about the pharmaceutical industry, but who would be responsible there? The government doesn’t, I guess, have to be responsible for the safe supply that it doles out, but if someone became addicted because of safe supply, I don’t know. Who would be responsible? Do we just sue the opioid company again? No. We wouldn’t have to, under this bill. A ministerial certificate could literally determine the fate of a company, could circumvent the entirety of the legal process.

How about a private university that’s working on innovation? Are they responsible? Perhaps one of their innovative products that was launched caused harm — a technology company, not the social media companies that we’re trying to actually hold responsible.

How about a technology company that has recipes? Recipes for baking. Now, there’s a culprit that we need to destroy.

Obviously, Speaker, I am joking.

Interjection.

R. Merrifield: A tainted doughnut, perhaps. Thank you. A tainted doughnut or maybe just one with extra sugar and fat. Maybe a high-protein one that leads me into a ketogenic state that absolutely obliterates my system. I don’t even know what a ketogenic state would do. Cream filling that’s gone awry.

This bill also doesn’t just cover goods; it covers services. A personal trainer could be held responsible for, I don’t know, telling someone to do an exercise that causes physical harm.

[5:15 p.m.]

Or how about massive resource sector industry players that we desperately need? Who determines if the mining sector is good or bad for us? I don’t know. We need the electrification. We need those rare earth minerals. We need copper for wiring. Are they bad? Or are they not bad because it’s mining? Who determines it? Well, right now it’s a minister.

This far-reaching nature is truly evidenced in the numerous signatories in the letters that are asking, begging, pleading for this bill to be stopped, rethought and put forward in a different manner, with clearer definitions and within a defined reach.

This isn’t just a business concern. Experts like lawyers at major firms, including McCarthy Tétrault, Fasken, Lawson Lundell, BLG and Blake, Cassels are warning that the bill, as drafted, could have far-reaching effects. They have published, online, their concerns.

“A right for the B.C. and federal government to recover the cost of ‘health care benefits’ for ‘health-related wrongs’ in respect of any good or service” — any. “Joint and several liability of directors or officers.” This goes retroactive with “…no limitation periods if action is commenced within 15 years.” So action could be commenced within that 15-year time horizon, and you could have to wait another ten years for it to all play out.

Who in their right mind would invest in a company with an indefinite liability? This will have “significant procedural advantages to the government in proving its claim… The bill permits a minister of the government to issue a certificate that is ‘conclusive proof of the cost of health care benefits’ that have been provided and will likely be provided.”

Furthermore, this bill actually allows the B.C. government to seek to bring a class action claiming costs from companies on behalf of all provincial, federal and territorial governments in Canada.

The bill’s current trajectory has not only elicited a legal opinion. It’s evidenced by a letter from 23 business associations, another letter from a business association that represents all of the businesses across B.C.

These 23 businesses…. We’re talking about Greater Vancouver Board of Trade; Retail Council of Canada; B.C. Craft Brewers; ABLE-BC; British Columbia Hotel Association; Canadian craft distillers; rural liquor stores; the New Wave Wine Society; COFI; Restaurants Canada; CFIB; BCRFA; the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers; the British Columbia Business Council; Tourism Industry Association of B.C.; Canadian Beverage Association; Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada; Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; B.C. Chamber of Commerce; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association; chemistry industry of Canada.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Their concerns are echoing what we’re hearing from the legal opinions. It’s too broad. It can apply anywhere. That it applies not only to a product or service that may cause or contribute to disease, injury or illness but also that has a risk of disease. Who determines that? That it could have a certificate only from a minister.

The B.C. Business Council letter talks about that excessively broad and unspecified range, the potential risk versus proven impact, a low burden of proof, departure from common law and sounds the alarm bell of warning that…

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

R. Merrifield: …the cost of doing business will rise, and we will see less businesses.

[5:20 p.m.]

Noting the hour, I reserve my place. I will move that we adjourn debate.

R. Merrifield moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — LAND TITLE AND PROPERTY
LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 13, Land Title and Property Law Amendment Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock on Monday, April 8.

The House adjourned at 5:21 p.m.