Hansard - Thursday, March 13, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 26

Steve Kooner: I would like to ask whether…. I’d like to learn. I’d like the Attorney General to walk us through the process that was followed in terms of consultation for review of this particular bill — with which stakeholders. If we could have information on what the process was that was followed in terms of consultation in regard to this bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before I begin, I’d like just to thank the team that’s with me today. We have Jess Gunnarson and Darin Thompson. I just want to appreciate their work and their guidance through today.

There have been years of work on the changes that you see before you in this bill, starting in 2019 with a significant and expansive public consultation that was about strengthening protections for consumers, creating borrowing rights, remedies, setting limits on total cost of borrowing, prohibiting fees and charges, restricting the use of borrowers’ personal information, protecting people from wage assignment, requiring businesses that provide high-cost credit products to be licensed by Consumer Protection B.C. and enabling Consumer Protection B.C. to enforce the act’s amendments and future regulations.

A provincewide online survey was held from May 29 to July 5, 2019, and that led to the release of a public report. The survey identified key findings, including challenges with certain contracts and billings.

There were meetings with stakeholders at that point with MLA Bob D’Eith. Throughout, many stakeholders…. I have a list here that I can provide to the member instead of reading it out.

In 2022, the ministry undertook public engagement to better understand the consumer marketplace here in B.C. It was focused on consumer experience in the area of purchasing and leasing products and services for businesses purchasing and leasing motor vehicles from dealers in B.C. and using various credit-related products and services. The public consultation received 353 responses.

The work that we’re doing here is also in line with other jurisdictions across Canada that have, prior to this bill, updated their consumer protection laws specifically due to the contracts and similar raises we’re doing here.

Steve Kooner: There were some consultations that were had in 2019 with particular organizations. Were those organizations revisited?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This policy has taken some time to develop, but there was further consultation in 2022.

We are in constant communications with Consumer Protection B.C. That is the public authority in the marketplace that’s there to regulate consumers, which is constantly giving feedback on what’s happening in the marketplace.

Steve Kooner: I hear there was some revisitation back in 2022, which is approximately three years ago. There have been significant changes since the last three years. We are dealing with US tariffs at this time that are of concern to a lot of businesses here in B.C.

Has there been any further consultation since 2022?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to acknowledge that what the member said is that there are changing times and that we are in unprecedented times. I know that the business community is certainly feeling it the most right now, along with people scared of losing their jobs.

I just wanted to talk a little bit about the design of this bill, because of concerns that we heard from the business community about how this might be implemented. It’s designed to actually be implemented by regulation. So that regulation will involve connecting with, as we do, the business community, along with other actors that are impacted by it and understanding how we can make sure that any impacts will be minimized in the context that we’re in right now in the trade war scenario.

It’s designed in a way to be protecting consumers but acknowledging that with impacts that might happen on business, there would be a way to make sure that before the implementation of coming into force by regulation, we can address any of those concerns.

[1:20 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up to that information. If issues will be addressed by regulation, will there be further consultation in regards to those regulations before they get formulated?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. In fact, we have already been connecting with certain business leaders, and we plan on doing that, about how we implement, acknowledging that the time period has shifted. Although, in this time period, consumers need protection too. So we think that we are moving in line with other provinces like Alberta and Ontario that have similar protections for consumers.

It also gives the time to have…. Given the space that we are in and the concerns that I think are very valid for people to raise about not adding things at a time when they’re stressed about change, we would 100 percent be reaching out and talking to the business community about how this gets implemented and when the regulations come into force.

Steve Kooner: I am sure a lot of businesses believe in consumer protection, as do we on this side of the House, but more information here is needed, in terms of how much consultation was actually done. Consultation that was from three years ago was a very long time ago, and things have really changed with the U.S. tariff situation.

I did receive a list from the Attorney General’s department, in terms of a consultation list. I’d like to go through that list and see if we could have those names of those organizations that were consulted. I’d like to have those confirmed in the House today.

What I received, in terms of a consultation list…. These are the names that I received. Written submissions were received from the Automotive Retailers Association, B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Consumer Council of Canada, Council of Senior Citizens Organizations, Direct Sellers Association, Public Guardian and Trustee, Public Interest Advocacy Centre of Canada and the Retail Council of Canada.

Some notes were provided that former MLA Mike Starchuk also met with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Direct Sellers Association and the Consumer Council of Canada as well as Small Business B.C.

Another note was provided that staff also met with the Small Business Roundtable and Vehicle Sales Authority working committees.

Was there any further consultation done other than these organizations? Also, can the Attorney General confirm that these were the consultations that were done?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We cast a really wide net in 2022, which was just a wide public engagement. Anybody could have responded, whether it was a business or a person in B.C. What we received from that was 353 responses. I don’t have the specific names of the businesses or the people that responded in those 353 responses, and I’m not sure we hold that information. But that was our broad-scale consultation.

In terms of specific organizations that the member confirmed, that’s correct about those. That was the compilation of consultation we used to rely upon for this bill.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to mention specific chambers of commerce, and I would like to know if they were consulted.

The first one is the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. The second one is the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. The third one is the Tri-Cities Chamber. The fourth one is the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. The fifth one is Restaurants Canada. There was a sixth one, but I see that consultation was had with them, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

For the other five that I mentioned, can the minister please provide information on whether these organizations were consulted with?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Along with the 353 responses received in the broader consultation, I just want to note for the member that the specific associations and organizations that were deeply consulted with — so that’s the Automotive Retailers Association and including the Consumer Council of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Direct Sellers Association and the Retail Council of Canada — were very specifically to get deep feedback from organizations like that, that would know on the front line what was needed and how contracts show up in their industries.

That was a very deliberate group of people to help inform our team, to inform on the business impacts and how it shows up for business.

[1:30 p.m.]

That’s a usual thing for consultation, where you make sure that you are going deep with the people that have experience in it.

I think with the names the member has listed in his question, he’s referring to a letter that we have all received from those specific organizations that he is mentioning. I just wanted to say a couple of things about that.

One is that I have responded to that letter. I have responded to say that I think that through this debate, we will be able to address the concerns raised in that letter. I intend on meeting with those groups to talk through it. Also, the important situation that we’re in right now and understanding how, like I mentioned, things get implemented through regulation and through discussions with these groups…. I plan on doing that going forward.

I think it is important to note that the organizations we reached out to and did a deeper consultation with — along with meetings that were done with Small Business B.C., a roundtable with Vehicle Sales Authority…. It was because when you’re designing a policy, you really want to know how it’s going to show up for people and businesses.

Steve Kooner: Respectfully, this debate does not constitute consultation. It’s not a consultation process.

Why I raise the concerns of those particular organizations is that in that particular letter, they make a statement at the outset. In this letter dated March 12, 2025 — the Attorney General mentioned that all Members of the Legislative Assembly should have received this letter — in the second paragraph it reads: “Our economy is facing significant external threats in a trade war, and businesses now more than ever, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, are struggling.”

Why I bring up those five organizations is that they serve a lot of the smaller businesses throughout B.C. that are the backbone of this province. A lot of times, small businesses do not have the same resources as larger enterprises to gather information of what needs to be done in terms of compliance.

These particular organizations — the Vancouver Board of Trade, Richmond Chamber of Commerce — are usually seen as a tool by small businesses to receive information on how to comply with certain new regulations that are coming into play, how to comply with new legislation.

It is alarming and concerning when these major chambers of commerce in our province are voicing concerns. They have also stated in this letter…. In the fourth paragraph, about in the middle, they bolded a line: “We ask for a pause on advancing the legislation to allow for engagement and collaboration towards better outcomes for consumers and the business environment.” This is what these chambers seem to be asking for, because they see there’s been a lack of consultation.

There seems to be good faith. Everybody seems to be in favour of more consumer protection, but the concern seems to be that there’s a lack of consultation. That may raise unfair issues in terms of…. When some of these businesses are going to try to comply with this legislation, they may not totally understand it, and there might be some compliance issues — not that it may be a purposeful non-compliance. It might be that they don’t have enough information. So that’s where the consultation actually comes in.

This is particularly very alarming. That’s why I’m highlighting it right now. These consultations should have been done with these chambers.

The Attorney General did mention that there were 353 responses to a public engagement that happened back in 2022. I would like to know whether there was any constructive feedback which suggested there needed to be some improvements made or that some of the provisions that were canvassed could maybe be replaced with others.

[1:35 p.m.]

Was there any type of discussion in those replies in regards to those 353 responses that the government received? Can the Attorney General tell us a little bit more about those 353 responses?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I thank the member for the question.

I think we are all concerned about what’s happening with this. I think we’re all concerned about how the trade war is going to show up for businesses. We should also be concerned about, and I’m sure all businesses are, how it shows up for consumers at this time.

We believe that we struck the right balance in this bill. The way we did that was to make sure that the consultation is ongoing and that we would talk about how it is going to be implemented before it is through regulation.

I intend on continuing to do that work also, and doing unprecedented things like the bill that I introduced this morning about helping businesses reduce interprovincial trade barriers so they can access more markets, in response to this.

I want to say that from those 353 responses and what we have seen in the changing of consumer protections through laws in Ontario and Alberta, there have been a lot of concerns raised by consumers, British Columbians, about how contracts show up now for them and the types of provisions that they are bound to without knowing. It’s not every business, and a lot of the small businesses that the member mentioned….

I just want to say that the time before regulation and before it comes into force through regulation was intentional to make sure that the businesses had time to understand the new requirements and to seek out guidance from Consumer Protection B.C., which is there to help people with compliance.

It’s not the good actors that we’re targeting. It’s the bad actors. It’s the ones that are frauding people. It’s the ones that are tying people to contracts that automatically renew in a way that causes them harm. It’s making sure that we’re responding better to consumers in a very complex marketplace, and it’s badly needed.

The 353 responses that we received touched on a wide range of really heartbreaking stories or stories of frustration, because they were locked into things they didn’t know about and paying fees that they didn’t want to and couldn’t get out of.

We’re standing behind the work to do that, to change the protections for consumers in this complicated marketplace. There’s a whole list of things that we’ve addressed in this bill that come up from the consultations, whether it’s online transactions, automatic renewals, gym contracts that don’t allow you to cancel even though you moved away — a whole series of things that showed up in the consultation and are showing up in people’s lives every day.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Steve Kooner: I had a chance to review clause 3 and the proposed section 14.2(1). I’m just going to read it, because I want to go through it.

[1:40 p.m.]

“A supplier must not include a consumer contract, a term or acknowledgment that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a consumer from posting on the Internet or otherwise communicating a review by the consumer of the goods or services that are subject of a contract or the consumer transaction.”

I just want to get elaboration from the Attorney General in regards to the word “review.”

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is one example of the complex marketplace that we find ourselves in that’s so much different than when the bill was…. Last time it was changed was, I think, 2014.

Reviews are very important right now to consumers. We all, before we purchase something, take a look at reviews online and see what…. Where should I put my money based on what the almost — it’s very democratic, actually — collective wisdom has put about the review of a certain product or good or service?

What we were seeing through consultation and some of the policy work that we did…. There were some actors that were putting, in these contracts, prohibitions on reviews. You can imagine that would be something that I think we all could agree in this House should not be allowed.

The way this provision is designed is that it applies to more than just online contracts. It applies to posting on the Internet, which I think is the biggest harm, or other forms of communication. You should be free, as a consumer, once you’ve purchased a good or service, to comment on how you felt about that service to anybody and without any restrictions. It was a clear one that we needed to change, and that’s why we constructed it in a broad way.

Steve Kooner: I also agree with having reviews because I personally, also, just like other people, watch reviews and look at certain businesses. When you don’t have references, that’s a way to kind of approach certain businesses that are new to you.

I understand that point, but I would like to know what distinguishes a genuine review from a malicious review. There may be concerns out there that if you’re prohibited from having any type of language in a clause or in a contract prohibiting people from doing any type of review, that could lead to certain situations such as people trying to defame you or trying to put out a malicious review which has nothing to do with your goods and services.

Can the Attorney General explain: does this catch all types of review, or is it somehow narrowed by this legislation as well?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member is identifying a problem in the marketplace, which is…. I think you have heard from businesses that sometimes there are inaccurate or fraudulent or defamatory reviews that are put on the space. I think there’s a bigger question there about the Internet and how we monitor and control that. We could have a deeper discussion about it in terms of what the legal tool is for that.

In terms of this particular provision, it is based on giving somebody a positive right to review. You have the ability — it can’t be taken away from you — to provide a review, which I think we can all agree is an important part of our marketplace right now.

There would be other laws that would be triggered or be able to be used when it comes to defamatory content — like those kinds of things that would tip into something that is illegal for other reasons. So there may be another legal regime there that would apply.

Steve Kooner: At this time, I do note that the section seems to be good, in terms of not having certain businesses prohibiting reviews, because reviews are a good thing. But I think the section could be a lot clearer. It could prevent bad actors and people that are not really looking to comment on the goods and services of a particular business but are more looking to defame or be malicious around a certain business owner….

I think there could be an amendment to the language here where you catch…. Allow all those people that need to do a genuine review to do it. But the language could kind of distinguish the genuine reviews versus malicious reviews.

I’m tabling an amendment to put forward today to clause 3. I move the motion to amend clause 3 in regards to the proposed section 14.2. In this proposed amendment, I ask if the word “genuine” can be inserted right before “review.”

[CLAUSE 3, in proposed section 14.2, by adding the following underlined text as shown:

Contract must not prohibit review – consumer

14.2 (1) A supplier must not include in a consumer contract a term or acknowledgment that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a consumer from posting on the internet, or otherwise communicating, a genuine review by the consumer of

(a) the goods or services that are the subject of the contract, or

(b) the consumer transaction.

(2) A term or acknowledgment described in subsection (1) in a consumer contract is void.

(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent the parties to a contract from agreeing, after a dispute respecting a low value claim arises, to submit the dispute the arbitration or another dispute resolution process.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

We’re going to take a short recess, and we will make copies to circulate to all the members in the House. So we will be back shortly.

The committee recessed from 1:50 p.m. to 1:54 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. Everybody’s got a copy of the amendment. I will call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 4 back to order.

I have determined that the amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: I would like to speak to this proposed amendment.

The Attorney General has acknowledged and we both have acknowledged that doing reviews is a good thing and allowing reviews is a good thing. People need to know what type of products they’re purchasing.

I believe there’s also some agreement to the fact that there may be some negative actors out there that may try to defame certain business owners or businesses and that defaming might not have anything to do with the goods and services supplied by that particular business.

[1:55 p.m.]

The Attorney General mentioned that there may be other tools for those people to try to get at those particular businesses, to use if somebody defames them. But an easier fix would probably be just to address it in this legislation by adding one word so everything’s here in a compact, concise way.

By that end, it would really not change the section much at all. It would just be one descriptive word. I believe that would strike a fair balance for the consumers and also protect against bad actors that may target certain businesses by just adding one word. It’ll make the section really easy to read and to understand and to comply with.

Those are my submissions on the amendment.

I would like to reserve my time to talk about clause 3 a little bit more after we finish talking about this particular amendment.

The Chair: Yeah, certainly. We’re on the amendment.

Thank you.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I can appreciate the spirit of the amendment that’s being proposed, but unfortunately, I don’t support it. I’m just going to talk, in detail, of why.

I think we both acknowledged a problem that might be happening to businesses out there where it’s not a genuine or it’s a fraudulent review, but there are problems with putting it in this piece of legislation and adding the word “genuine.” I’ll just talk through them.

We start by understanding that this is a contract-delivery mechanism, so it’s like setting standards for how businesses have to design their contracts with consumers. Right now it’s neutral on its face. It just says you can’t prohibit somebody from writing a review or telling a review on your service. By importing the word “genuine,” there are a couple of potential challenges with that.

First, if the government is stepping in on understanding what’s genuine or not, there may be Charter implications there about freedom of expression and what that means. The word “genuine,” I think, would be set up to be very contentious, in terms of how…. The onus could be shifted on the consumer to try to prove that their review was, in fact, genuine, and then the business pushing back. I think that would actually result in probably a lot of dispute resolution and problems with that.

The other level of that is that you would need some kind of neutral arbitrator to determine what is genuine and what is not.

[2:00 p.m.]

Every time we design pieces of legislation or we design things to be clear to consumers, it’s important for that clarity. It’s important for them. It’s actually a big thrust of this bill — to have better transparency, have better clarity, make contracts simpler.

I think the word “genuine,” in its vagueness of understanding what that is, would do, in fact, the opposite. It would potentially create further conflict and further dispute in these contracts that might be not helpful to the ultimate goal.

I do think there are…. I have sympathy for businesses that experience that. There are other legal regimes that are there but may need to be beefed up to help people with that, but I would say this is not the mechanism to do that.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers to the amendment, I’ll call the question on the amendment to clause 3 in proposed section 14.2 to add “genuine” in front of “review.”

Amendment negatived on division.

Steve Kooner: In clause 3, in the proposed section 14.3(2), and in comparison to the proposed section 14.4(2), there’s wording used in the first example such as: “contract is void.” In the second example, in the second proposed section, it says: “contract is inoperative.”

Can the Attorney General please elaborate on why there’s a distinction? In one, it is referred to as void, and then the other one is referred to as inoperative.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks to the member for pointing it out. It gives us an opportunity to explain the very intentional difference in language there.

The difference between void and inoperable…. If something’s void, the result is it’s intrinsically defective, meaning that even if it’s agreed upon in the contract, it has no legal effect. Inoperable is different in the sense that there is still some remaining legal effect based on that word.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m going to read out the example here. The “inoperative” terminology would allow a claimant who commences civil litigation or joins a class action to withstand a defendant’s application to stay the civil litigation or class proceeding, as long as a claim amount was at the regulation limit or below. In the event the claimant tried to litigate above that amount, the defendant would either simply agree to litigate, or the defendant would object and stay the litigation. In the stay application, the claimant would have no basis for objecting due to a deemed inoperability of a statute.

So we’re not overriding the dispute resolution or arbitration rules or provisions for businesses. That’s one of the reasons that inoperative is used instead of void.

Steve Kooner: Both these proposed sections, 14.3 and 14.4, talk about dispute resolution. I take that as a reference to arbitration.

Can the Attorney General please describe the intent behind getting rid of arbitration or dispute resolution from these contracts?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reasons for the provisions and the amendments that we’re proposing in this bill are really to protect the consumer, in the context of arbitration clauses that would drive up costs and make resolutions hard to achieve.

The provision voids any term in a consumer contract that requires a consumer to use private dispute resolution mechanisms or that prohibit a consumer from participating in class actions if it binds them to say, “You can only resolve your dispute in this way,” or if it bars them from being a member of a class action.

[2:10 p.m.]

It does allow a consumer to voluntarily enter into an arbitration agreement or other dispute resolution process, but the key change is that it’s after a dispute has started. If the parties, once a dispute has been triggered, decide that arbitration is the pathway that they want to pursue to resolve it, or the CRT, which is a real benefit of this bill…. Because the CRT is a very low-barrier part of our justice system where people can make claims for amounts under $5,000, that really helps to resolve disputes.

It makes it an offence for a supplier to include a term that requires a consumer to use private dispute resolution process mechanisms or prohibit a consumer from participating in class actions.

On the bad actor side of this, which most businesses are not, the way sometimes these clauses are used, say, is to tie the person up front in a contract to extremely costly dispute resolution processes that would necessarily be higher than the value of any claim, to frustrate any kind of remedy through that process. These provisions prevent that.

Steve Kooner: Consumers should not be frustrated from legal remedies, but there is a point to be made here in terms of comparing arbitration versus Civil Resolution Tribunal versus small claims court and Supreme Court. I would think that a one-day arbitration would be a much faster process than going to, say, small claims court or Supreme Court, where things don’t finish in one day. It could take several days. It could take several court days and then, eventually, a trial date.

The thing with the Civil Resolution Tribunal is there may not be a specialized arbitrator to look at specialized subject matter.

Those are some concerns that I have in regard to that, but I just wanted to point that out.

I want to move into my next point on this clause. I want to go to the proposed section 14.4(1). There’s a definition for “low value claim.” It refers to a prescribed amount at the end. So does that mean that prescribed amount will be determined by regulation at a later time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it will be.

Steve Kooner: Then, if it’s going to be determined at a later time by regulation, will there be consultation done in regards to that prescribed amount or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, we’re always in favour of talking to people. As I mentioned before, we’ll be doing that also in the implementation and putting into force of this bill.

Steve Kooner: Has there been any consultation done in regards to the prescribed amount currently or in the past?

Hon. Rick Glumac: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:15 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Rick Glumac: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce a class that is here from Scott Creek Middle School.

That’s you guys, right? All right.

Grades 6 to 8, I believe, visiting the precinct today with teacher David Devaney.

Welcome. I’m your MLA, if you didn’t know, in your area. It’s a new area of my riding. Welcome to Victoria. I hope you guys have a great visit. I hope to have the opportunity to see you once I’m out of here, but I’m on House duty right now.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is actually a design that’s meant to more be an amendment that ties it to our justice system and dispute resolution processes. I wouldn’t imagine any of the public consultation we did had anybody commenting on the specific part.

What it does is it ties it into the CRT limits. We expect that that would be the case, that it’s the venue for claims that are $5,000 and more.

Clause 3 approved on division.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Steve Kooner: I would like to look at proposed sections 18.2 as well as 18.4 in clause 5.

In 18.2, the provision states a contract must include the following information: supplier’s name, whether the supplier is registered, a date the contract is entered into, detailed description of goods and services, supplier’s delivery arrangements, goods and services not supplied, supply date. It goes on and on. It talks about itemized purchase price. It goes on and on. It talks about including the nature of other costs, including taxes. There seems to be a very long list here, and it just carries forward.

Towards the end of 18.2 at clause (t), it states “any other prescribed information” as well. Then on 18.4, the proposed section reads as: “A consumer may cancel a contract if the contract does not include the information required under section 18.2.”

In regards to this, I have a few questions. Let’s refer to some examples here. Say, for example, a supplier or a company forgets to mention their full name, forgets to write “Ltd.” after their name. Would that be in violation of section 18.4, and would that lead to cancellation of the contract?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The question from the member prompted a deep discussion about contract law — which was interesting, maybe not for most people here but for us.

Let me break it down in terms of the provisions and why they’re set up this way.

[2:25 p.m.]

Most of the things that you see in 18.2, as the member suggested, were already in the bill. This is one of the issues that we were fixing. The bill hasn’t been updated since 2014. So this, instead of it showing up in random places, is consolidated so both sellers and buyers know exactly what the mandatory terms are for a contract.

The example that the member raised was about a name being a person or a company, and that’s actually potentially pretty legally significant. I think that in that example, although it’s all hypothetical, you could argue that there were other contract law breaches already inherent in that example that would exist with or without these provisions.

Generally speaking, this is a consolidation of things that already existed.

Steve Kooner: In clause 5, the proposed subsection 18.2(h) talks about including taxes, but there are other acts…. For example, for the goods and services tax, there’s a taxation act in regards to that that says if you have a certain price, that tax should be applicable on those goods and services.

Why do we have a redundant clause in this legislation right here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If I could ask the member — I apologize — just to repeat the section that he was referring to so we can get him an answer.

Steve Kooner: We have several taxation acts, and depending on which tax you’re looking at…. If you’re looking at the GST, there’s a taxation authority, a taxation legislation for that. If you’re looking at the provincial sales tax, there’s probably a taxation authority for that. These taxation legislation pieces talk about how tax is applicable on certain services and certain sales.

So there are those pieces of legislation out there. The question is: why are we talking about inserting tax in a particular section in this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you for that clarification. This is not a new provision. It existed in legislation before, outside of this bill. The reason for it is transparency for the consumer.

Steve Kooner: In terms of the last subclause, which is (t), it says “any other prescribed information.” I understand that there is an original piece of legislation here, but I was also told that a lot of consultation happened going into this amendment act.

I would like to know what consultation was received and given in regards to subsection (t) and what the government is thinking is going to be included in that subsection.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Provisions like that are very common in legislation, and the reason that they’re put in place like that is part of the reason why….

I guess there’s an example here in this bill. This bill was not updated since 2014, and the marketplace has changed a lot. So that provision (t) would provide flexibility, which is often put for government to respond if something does change in the marketplace that would warrant….

[2:30 p.m.]

This is just about transparency. You have to have these specific terms in your contract if you’re contracting with consumers. That’s the reason for it.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to put it on the record that in the following proposed section 18.3, it comes up again in 18.3(1)(b): “Any other prescribed information.” Then it comes up again in proposed 18.3(2)(c): “Meet any prescribed requirements.” So that seems to be a common theme throughout this amendment bill.

I’d like to move to the next proposed section within this clause, which is 18.4. That deals with cancellation of a contract.

I’ll read that proposed section so we have it fresh in our minds:

“A consumer may cancel a contract if the contract does not include the information required under section 18.2, the information included in the contract is inconsistent with information disclosed to the consumer before the contract was entered into or the supplier fails to comply with section 18.3.”

Going on to subsection (2) here:

“The consumer may cancel a contract under subsection (1) by giving notice of the cancellation to the supplier not later than the following: (a) in the case of a direct sales contract or future performance contract one year after the date the consumer receives a copy of the contract; (b) in the case of the timeshare contract, the later of (i) one year after the date the consumer receives a copy of the contract; and (ii) the expiry of any longer prescribed period; (c) in the case of distance sales contract seven days after the date the consumer receives a contract of a copy.”

I just have some particular questions here. Can the Attorney General elaborate on why we have a one-year period for being able to cancel a contract? Why do we have such a long period of one year in these provisions here?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: That one-year time timeline has existed since the 2014 bill. It has always been the case.

We didn’t receive any complaints or feedback about that in any of our consultations, that the one-year timeline was a problem, either for businesses or consumers, so we maintained it.

Steve Kooner: I would like to state that one year could be particularly onerous. When somebody signs a contract and services are rendered, there might be some amounts owed for services that are just performed. Then one year later somebody may just decide to cancel the contract. You combine that with those items on the proposed section 18.2, which has a laundry list of items that you have to comply with, such as having a right date….

I know there have been situations when the new year comes by and…. I still find myself writing 2024 instead of 2025, just inadvertent errors such as that. It causes alarmful thinking — that something could be cancelled. With over a period of one year since you sign a contract with someone and you do your due diligence but you may have just made an inadvertent mistake. That is a bit concerning.

With that, I’d like to move another motion for amendment.

[CLAUSE 5, in proposed section 18.4, by adding the following underlined text as shown:

Contract cancellation

18.4 (1) A consumer may cancel a contract if

(a) the contract does not include the information required under section 18.2,

(b) the information included in the contract is inconsistent with the information disclosed to the consumer before the contract was entered into, or

(2) The consumer may cancel a contract under subsection (1) by giving notice of cancellation to the supplier not later than the following:

(a) in the case of a direct sales contract or future performance contract, one year after the date the consumer receives a copy of the contract;

(b) in the case of a time share contract, the later of

(i) one year after the date the consumer receives a copy of the contract, and

(ii) the expiry of any longer prescribed period;

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a contract may not be cancelled if

(a) more than 90 days has elapsed since the date the contract was entered into, and

(b) the supplier can demonstrate

(i) substantial compliance with sections 18.2 and 18.3, and

(ii) an omission, or inconsistent information disclosed to the consumer before the contract was entered into, did not materially affect the consumer’s decision to enter into the contract.]

I guess I can….

The Chair: Okay, we’re going to take a short recess and make some copies and distribute to the members and then we’ll reconvene.

The committee recessed from 2:38 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, copies are being distributed.

Did you want to speak to the motion, Richmond-Queensborough?

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: As I went through proposed sections 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4, there seems to be a common theme. There are a lot of details.

I know that explanations were provided to me: “Well, this legislation was created in 2004. Some of this stuff was there before, so we’re just leaving it.” But isn’t the whole purpose of today to make an amendment because we’re trying to make this act better? If we are trying to make this act better, if there are some mistakes from before, we shouldn’t just say that they were there before, so we’ll just leave them as is.

If we’re trying to make things better, and there can be more clarity to this bill, Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, we should be trying to make this bill clear.

I’ve raised concerns already that there are items…. I spoke about dates. What if inadvertently the wrong date was written? I understand. I understand contract law, and if you don’t put “Ltd.,” are you referring to an individual or referring to an actual company? But there are sometimes…. I’ve seen the names of companies spelt inaccurately on court pleadings. I’ve seen that, but the court actually still goes ahead.

Proposed section 18.2 states that the name has to be there; the date has to be there; if it’s plus taxes, the taxes, PST and GST, must be included, although other legislation may address that as well.

The explanation I have received is that, well, 20 years ago this legislation was written this way. But the whole reason why we’re standing here debating today is we’re trying to make that act better. Essentially, we need to try to make it better, if that is the purpose of today.

I’m proposing to make an amendment to clause 5. I believe everybody has a copy of this. I would assume 90 days would be a lot of time to review a contract, if it works for everybody.

[2:45 p.m.]

I think this proposed amendment strikes the right balance where it shows that…. It gives enough time to the consumer to go over the contract and see if the contract needs to be cancelled, and it also provides some protection to the supplier where they, in good faith, tried their absolute best to comply with this act. They may have made a mistake, an error, inadvertently, but that mistake wasn’t relied upon by the consumer. In that situation, this proposed amendment would actually protect both the consumer and the supplier and allow the contract to continue if this particular proposed section was complied with.

I honestly feel that there needs to be a proposed amendment just to address the situation. It’s not good enough saying that something was there 20 years ago. That’s the whole reason why we’re here today, to make this legislation better.

That’s the motion I’ve moved, and I hope the House can support me on that.

I reserve my time to continue with clause 5.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I won’t be supporting this amendment, and I’ll just give a little background as to why.

The one-year timeline harmonizes across jurisdictions, so that’s the first one.

I also think there is problematic legal language in here that could be read to interpret that provision to say that a contract may not be cancelled unless (a) and (b) are present. There could be any number of reasons why a consumer might cancel a contract that are not related to the section that says what should be in a contract or not. It could be used actually to limit the rights of a consumer to end a contract for other reasons. I think there’s wording in there that actually creates more problems.

The other reason would be that there are…. I think the harm that the member is bringing forward about trying to solve is this idea of a minor thing leading to a business or the other side of that contract being out of money or out of goods as a result. There are sections like section 28 in the actual act that give remedy to that in terms of returning goods that were under that contract to the business.

The Chair: I’m going to call the question on the amendment for clause 5 to the proposed section 18.4, the amendment moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

Okay. In my opinion, the nays have it, and it’s on division.

Bruce Banman: Point of order, Madam Chair. To the best of my knowledge and recollection and numbers, if you care to go review it, there were more in favour of the amendment than there were opposed.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I made my decision, and you have the opportunity to call division.

Bruce Banman: Then we call division.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Division has been called.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Everyone online, can you please turn your cameras on? Thank you.

We will be voting on the amendment, moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough, to Bill 4, section 5 under proposed section 18.4 to add section (3).

[3:05 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 38
Sturko	Kindy	Warbus
Banman	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Gasper	K. Neufeld
Day	Block	Bhangu
Paton	Boultbee	Chan
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Rattée	Davis	McInnis
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman		McCall
NAYS — 47
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Sunner
Toporowski	B. Anderson	Neill
Osborne	Brar	Davidson
Kahlon	Parmar	Gibson
Beare	Chandra Herbert	Wickens
Kang	Morissette	Sandhu
Krieger	Chant	Lajeunesse
Choi	Rotchford	Higginson
Routledge	Popham	Dix
Sharma	Farnworth	Eby
Bailey	Begg	Greene
Whiteside	Boyle	Ma
Yung	Malcolmson	Chow
Glumac	Arora	Shah
Phillip	Dhir	Lore
Valeriote		Botterell

Introductions by Members

The Chair: Okay, we’d like to recognize that we’ve got some students from Scott Creek Middle School — your MLA is the Hon. Rick Glumac there, the Minister of State for Trade — with teacher Dave Devaney. We’ve got 40 folks in grades 6 to 8 here.

Welcome to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

Clause 5 approved on division.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

[3:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: In regard to the previous clause 5, I was referring to the proposed sections 18.2 and 18.4, which referred to “prescribed information.”

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Similarly, in this section, I’d like to highlight clause 8, proposed subsection 20.1(1)(j), “a prescribed good or service.”

In this clause, it reads: “A supplier must not offer for sale by direct sales contract, or enter into a direct sales contract with a consumer for the supply of, any of the following: (a) a furnace; (b) a duct cleaning service; (c) an air conditioner; (d) an air cleaner or purifier; (e) a home security system; (f) a water heater; (g) a water treatment device, purifier or filter; (h) a water softener; (i) a window or energy audit; (j) a prescribed good or service.”

My understanding of this clause is that there have been certain bad actors in the past. That’s why the government is taking action.

What about if there are some good businesses that have been complying, and they want to do some direct services? Doesn’t this clause unfairly penalize them by keeping it open so they can be added on to this list? That’s my next question for the Attorney General.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an area where we really felt strongly that we needed to strengthen our consumer protection laws. It is actually in line with some other jurisdictions that have similar provisions. It’s to prevent vulnerable people from being taken advantage of by highly persuasive sales tactics that target them at the doorstep and force sales. It’s designed in a few ways to meet that challenge.

One is it’s only high-value items. The lists you see there are not only from the consultations and our discussion with where we were seeing it, through Consumer Protection B.C. and the ongoing times that this shows up, but it’s also for things that could be $1,000 or more, sold at your doorstep.

To the good actor side, what it doesn’t do is tell a business that you can’t go door to door to pitch your products. What it adds is an extra level of protection for a consumer against a high-pressure sales tactic.

If you are selling a good that is listed right now on this list, and you’re going door to door talking about it, you cannot form a direct-sale contract at the doorstep. There may be other ways to follow up with that person to finalize a sale, but it takes the pressure off in that immediate person-to-person transaction.

What we are seeing is that when a highly persuasive salesperson — a lot of them you could classify as bad actors — shows up at the door of vulnerable seniors or vulnerable people that are sometimes targeted, that dynamic of the high-pressure sales environment on that individual can force them into these contracts. They don’t need the good, they don’t have the money, and it puts them at a real disadvantage.

So we felt very strongly that this is the right balance of consumer protection against highly vulnerable people and still allowing businesses to be in contact with their consumers or potential consumers.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the same proposed section, earlier we heard from the Attorney General. She referenced a letter that we were mutually talking about. It was dated March 12. It was a letter that was from concerned businesses and chambers of commerce.

I’d like to just refer to the second-last page of that letter, if the Attorney General has it. I’m just going to read it. Paragraph 2 in this letter stated:

“Further, the prohibition on direct sale of specified household goods and services, including furnaces, air conditioners, home security systems and duct cleaning, raises concerns. To be clear, we strongly condemn predatory sales tactics in the strongest terms possible, and we support efforts to curb unscrupulous actors. However, an outright ban on direct sales for many industries and products seems extreme.

“Contrary to the government’s news release, many of the items listed in the legislation for the ban on direct sales are not high-value services. For example, security services, when added by existing customers, can cost as little as $10 per month. This service also has personal and public safety benefits.”

The Attorney General referred to “high-value items” sold at the doors and “bad actors.”

[3:20 p.m.]

These five chamber of commerce organizations that I referred to earlier — Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Tri-Cities Chamber, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, Restaurants Canada — as well as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have put forward this letter that has this paragraph in here. They don’t seem to agree with the government’s perspective.

What does the Attorney General have to say about that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason that those lists are on there was an analysis not only in the market but also with our team, that these are a list of known high-value products that people are vulnerable to sales of at their doorstep.

There are many ways that businesses can or should get products before people for sales. A lot of times, like the letter noted, the products are beneficial, like for public safety reasons and things like that, for home security systems. What I will note is that in that letter, it talks about $10 a month. It doesn’t talk about the value of the overall contract. In our analysis of sometimes how these contracts show up, it is maybe $10 a month, but it’s over a long period of time.

The decision about whether to include or not took the value of the overall contracts that are signed at the door. It was close to that or around the $1,000 threshold that was the value of the high-value items. It’s not to say that businesses can’t market their products even at the doorstep. It’s that that final closure of sale needs to give consumers the space of not entering that contract at the doorstep for these particular items.

Steve Kooner: The other question is in regards to consumer protection. Part of consumer protection is providing consumers with choice. So doesn’t this take away from providing more choices to consumers?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have right now in the gallery students from Scott Creek Middle School.

They are here with their teacher, Dave Devaney. There are 40 of these students. They are aged from grade 6 to grade 8. They are here to watch the debate and visit the Legislature.

On behalf of all my colleagues and my colleague the MLA from Port Moody, we want to welcome you to the Legislature today. Thank you for coming.

[3:25 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, it doesn’t limit the choice of what a consumer would have before them, even at their doorstep. What it very directly limits is trying to put a break between the direct sale contract and the door-to-door interaction to increase the protection for, especially, vulnerable consumers.

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

Steve Kooner: Okay, clause 11 in the proposed section 23(b)(5) talks about goods not being delivered within 30 days and the right to cancellation.

My question is: what if there’s a rogue consumer that prevents delivery of goods somehow? Will the contract still be cancelled if it wasn’t the fault of the supplier in terms of faulted delivery?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I will direct the member to section 53 of the act that I think is the protection of the instance that he’s proposing. It makes it so there are protections against a consumer frustrating delivery.

Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

Steve Kooner: Clause 16 refers to a proposed section 27, which speaks of refunds. It speaks of refunds of all money.

I’ll read the clause so everybody can hear it:

“If a direct sales contract, future performance contract or time-share contract is cancelled under this part, the supplier must refund to the consumer, without deduction except as provided for in this part or in the regulations, all money received in respect of the contract, whether received from the consumer or from any other person, within 15 days after the later of the following: the date of the notice of cancellation is given to the supplier” — next clause subsection — “if the consumer has received goods under the contract and the supplier has complied with section 28 (1.1), the date the goods are returned to the supplier under section 28 (1).”

My concern here is, and maybe the Attorney General can address this…. In some contractual relationships, services are provided.

[3:30 p.m.]

Say if the contract gets cancelled at a later day, and you’ve got to refund all the money. Who compensates the supplier for the services that were performed if all the money gets returned?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we need some clarification, if the member could, on the question. Maybe we’ll just wait for that. If he can give us more clarification on exactly the question, then we’ll try to answer it.

Steve Kooner: Well, the proposed provision says that the supplier must refund the consumer all money received in respect of a contract, whether received from the consumer or from any other person, within 15 days of the later of the date the notice of cancellation is given to the supplier or, if the consumer has received goods under the contract and the supplier has complied, the date the goods are returned to the supplier under the section.

Say it’s not subsection (b) but it’s subsection (a), notice was given of cancellation, and within 15 days of that, the contract gets cancelled, but in the meantime, some services were performed. Does the supplier forgo receiving remuneration for those services that were supplied before the cancellation notice was given? Does the supplier get anything for those services or are they out of luck?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks to the member for the clarification.

We’re starting in a context that there’s been a breach for some reason, so there’s some kind of cause that the consumer has to give notice of cancellation that’s made up in the Consumer Protection Act. In that circumstance, the 15 days of the latter with that notification period, if there was anything in between that was done, the act does not contemplate anything that would go to the person that was in breach of the contract.

Steve Kooner: So the Attorney General is stating that there might be some services that might forgo any sort of compensation in a brief period of time. Is that accurate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is possible that in the context of the consumer having some right to cancel a contract — so we’re in a situation of a breach of some consumer protection law or maybe something else, and that happens inside or outside of this act — that the right of breach of contract may leave the contractor of that other side that’s in breach out of some money.

Clauses 16 to 25 inclusive approved.

On clause 26.

Steve Kooner: I have a similar question to the last one that I referred to earlier in clause 16 in regards to refunds.

This particular proposed section is section 50. It speaks about refund by supplier on cancellation. I’ll read the section.

“If a distance sales contract is cancelled under this part, the supplier must refund to the consumer, without deduction, all money received in respect of the contract and in respect of any related consumer transaction, whether received from the consumer or from any other person, within 15 days after the later of the following: (a) the date the notice of cancellation is given to the supplier; (b) if the consumer has received goods under the contract and the supplier has complied with section 51 (1.1), the date the goods are returned to the supplier under section 51 (1).”

Would the (b) explanation for refunds be similar in this proposed section as the last one that we were speaking of?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, the same principle would apply under these provisions.

Clauses 26 to 38 inclusive approved.

On clause 39.

Steve Kooner: Clause 39 refers to proposed section 203.001. It states: “Division 4 of Part 2 applies to contracts entered before, on or after coming into force of that division.”

My question here to the Attorney General. This clause is proposing retroactivity. Is it proposing retroactivity, meaning that valid contracts that were entered into pursuant to the current state of law will be facing these new provisions under this particular section. Is that accurate to say?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s a nuanced qualification of the question. It’s not retroactive; it’s retrospective. What that means is it doesn’t reach back in time and say that the law was always this way. It says that the law is, as of now, this way, and any contracts that existed before…. If you have a contract that you’ve entered into before the act is enforced, but it contains….

That’s another important part. It’s the exploitive provisions. It’s qualified by division 4 of part 2 that in this context, a bad actor couldn’t claim that the old contract is just going to keep rolling over and be renewed and bind the consumer into that. So it gives the ability of the law to apply to those types of situations to protect the consumer.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, whether it’s retroactive or retrospective, you’re still trying to apply new law to older situations. That could be problematic with business entities that have designed contracts through lawyers, have gotten proper legal advice, drafted it pursuant to the law that existed, tried to comply with the statute that was there in time.

Now, without much consultation, they may not know exactly what is happening here and how this stuff is being applicable to them, when they always exercised their actions in good faith and tried to comply with law.

I would say this would be quite unfair for businesses that have complied with the law as it existed, and they made the efforts to, say, consult with lawyers, have the contracts drafted properly. Now having any sort of new law applied to their situations and their valid contracts would be very unfair.

At this point, I’m moving a motion for amendment to clause 39.

[CLAUSE 39, by deleting the text shown as struck:

Transitional – prohibited contract terms

203.001 Division 4 of Part 2 applies to contracts entered into before, on or after the coming into force of that Division.]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Member.

We’re going to take a brief recess to distribute this to our members, and we will return in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:48 p.m. to 3:51 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members, we’ll call the committee back to order to discuss the amendment brought before the House. It has been moved, of course, and it is in order.

I would encourage the member for Richmond-Queensborough to make a few comments.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: I’ll read the proposed amendment first, to clause 39. The proposed section 203.001 should read: “Division 4 of Part 2 applies to contracts entered into….” There should be no reference to “before.” It should say: “entered into on or after the coming into force of this Division.”

Why I state this is that if this amendment doesn’t happen, in the situation of having the word “before” there…. Whether you were saying it’s retrospective or retroactive, it essentially comes down to the same meaning. You’re trying to apply a new regulation, new law, to old contracts that are already existing and that were fully compliant with the law. That type of situation creates uncertainty in the province, in business relationships and in relationships with consumers.

That’s going to affect both consumers and suppliers. Just think how many contracts this could possibly affect. If you go with the wording that has been recommended by the government, how many contracts would be affected? I would say in the thousands. Thousands of contracts would be affected. It would create a lot of uncertainty if you were to try to go back and apply the bill as currently provided by the government.

We often hear about situations where certain people are not told about certain consequences of entering certain business transactions. Later on, maybe a year later or two years later, they see the consequences. They’re told that they interpreted something wrongly.

That type of situation is analogous to this situation, where you’re now trying to propose a new law and saying that it’s going to apply to old contracts. So there’s a new meaning to what you signed, and you didn’t get what you bargained for. That’s going to create a lot of uncertainty. It would be totally unfair, and it would create a lot of uncertainty, if we didn’t make our proposed amendment in this situation.

We should delete the word “before” and make sure that the provision as recommended by the government only applies to situations on or after the coming into force of this clause as recommended by the government.

Again, as part of my amendment, I’m moving that the word “before” be struck and deleted from clause 39, proposed section 203.001.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think herein lies a difference of opinion amongst us.

I want to go back to division 4 and what we’re actually protecting consumers from. One of them is contract terms that prevent them from putting reviews anywhere. The other one is contract terms that frustrate their ability to participate in a justice process of a class action proceeding. The other one is one that would bind them to very costly dispute resolution processes.

I’m surprised by the member — that he wouldn’t want British Columbians to have the avail of those protections when this law is put into force. But I guess we just take a different perspective on that.

I want to make it clear that it voids the specific terms of the contract, not the whole contract, and that’s an important distinction. I personally would like to see consumers in B.C. have that protection, and it’s the reason that we’re changing parts of this act to target exploitative provisions.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question before this House is the motion as proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough to Bill 4.

Division has been called.

[4:00 p.m. - 4:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this committee back to order. The question before the committee this afternoon is an amendment, as proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough, on clause 39.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 38
Sturko	Kindy	Warbus
Banman	Wat	Kooner
Halford	Hartwell	L. Neufeld
Van Popta	Dew	Gasper
K. Neufeld	Day	Block
Bhangu	Paton	Boultbee
Chan	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Rattée	Davis
McInnis	Bird	Luck
Stamer	Maahs	Tepper
Mok	Wilson	Clare
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Chapman		McCall
NAYS — 48
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Lore	Valeriote	Botterell

[4:10 p.m.]

The Chair: There’s still business to conduct here, Members. Could we please get everyone that is not staying for committee stage to head out of the chamber.

The business will continue, of course, on Bill 4.

Clauses 39 and 40 approved.

On clause 41.

Steve Kooner: I would like to make a motion for a new clause, just before clause 41.

So far, we’ve heard from the debate…. I’ve brought forward many points. I brought forward that there have been about five chambers of commerce organizations that have said that consultation has been lacking. I pointed out many, many sections in this bill where there may be potential issues in terms of consultation and in terms of interpretation.

So I’m making a motion to propose a new clause, clause 40.1.

[NEW CLAUSE 40.1, by adding the following underlined text as shown after clause 40:

Review

40.1 (1) The minister, within 3 years after the coming into force of sections 3, 5, 11, 13 and 14 of this Act, must conduct a comprehensive review of the impact of the operation of those provisions on consumers and suppliers, with a particular focus on small businesses.

(2) The minister must table a report on the review under subsection (1) in the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable.

(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the conduct of the review under subsection (1).]

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

We will take a very brief recess and will return in a few moments.

The committee recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

[L. Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will bring this committee back to order.

The amendment as proposed, or the new clause as proposed, by the member for Richmond-Queensborough is in order.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to first start by reading this proposed amendment. The motion was moved to propose an amendment to add a new clause just before the last clause. The new clause would be clause 40.1, and it’s in regards to having a review mechanism in this act.

Now, the reason why I’ve put this section forward, or this proposed section forward, is…. The biggest point is essentially that we just heard from a previous amendment that I brought forward that was struck, that was negated by the government…. That one was to prevent retroactivity or retrospective applicable new law to old contracts.

That was negatived by the government, but this mechanism would actually allow for a review into the future to actually make sure the purpose of this amendment act is actually being carried forward.

For example, the purpose is for consumer protection. We’d want to see that consumer protection is actually happening. We want to see that the sections within the amendment act are actually helping consumers, protecting consumers. At the same time, we want to make sure that businesses are not having a problem, in terms of compliance, and they’re able to comply to all these regulations within this legislation.

This provision allows for a mechanism for the minister to revisit the act, just to see if there are any issues, and to table report with feedback to the House. If there are issues, then that can be dealt with through regulation through the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I don’t see any harm for having a review section if the sole purpose of it is to make sure the amendment act will be acting as the purpose put forward by the government. I think it can only have benefits.

I’m moving this motion to have this amendment entered into this amendment act.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the spirit of what the member is proposing here. I do see some particular problems with the construction of the language saying “within three years,” and also only about particular sections.

The entirety of the act is reviewed pretty regularly, not only through the actions of consumer B.C. but also our team that’s out there talking to particular…. You will see in the course of this Legislature a mandate that there will be constant changes and reviews about the consumer protection, our laws in B.C.

I think it’s just unnecessary regulation. We are in the context of trying to streamline processes and streamline the work that we’re doing. I think the members and opposition members agree that that’s a necessary and important thing.

So what I see with this amendment is unnecessary regulation and process that does nothing to help consumers in the end.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question before this committee is the amendment as proposed to Bill 4, which is a new clause.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 41 approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: I’ll call on the minister to move the motion.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:23 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:24 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 4 — Business Practices and
Consumer Protection
Amendment Act, 2025

Lorne Doerkson: The committee on Bill 4 reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Now, Mr. Speaker.

[4:25 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Business Practices and
Consumer Protection
Amendment Act, 2025

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 4, intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, the Chair already had put the question to the House, and we have taken a vote on that, so it’s decided. Thank you.

Members, Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Can we just take a short recess, please, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker: The House will be recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I call the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture.

The Speaker: We’ll have a break for another few minutes before we start. Thank you.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:30 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Agriculture and Food

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section B, to order. We are meeting today to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $99,120,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thank you, yeah. I’ll just take a couple minutes here.

I’m really happy to be here. I’m happy to have been returned back to the ministry where my heart belongs.

We are here on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, to talk about, I think, one of the most important issues of the day that we have going on considering the tariffs that are being imposed on our country and the level of awareness that the public — the consumers, Canadians, British Columbians — have about food security.

I’d like to welcome the opposition critic. He and I have sparred on this for many years in a row, and I look forward to the great debate that we’re going to have. I’m also looking forward to welcoming new members who are going to be part of this conversation, talking about issues around agriculture and food that are coming from their own communities.

We have a budget this year that has increased over $50 million since we formed government, and we’re committed to strengthening B.C.’s food system and the people who grow and produce our food.

I have got a great team with me here today. I’m pleased to be supported by my ministry’s executive team, which includes my deputy minister, Michelle Koski; my assistant deputy ministers — Eric Kristianson, Paul Squires, Willow Minaker and Ranbir Parmar; and the chief executive officer of the Agricultural Land Commission, Kim Grout.

I feel very well supported. I have a very dedicated team who shows their passion to me every day around agriculture and food, and I’d like to thank them for their public service.

With that, I am ready to roll.

Ian Paton: Thank you for the opportunity, Minister, to once again participate in probably, I think, my eighth Agriculture estimates.

You know, Minister, I would like to start by thanking you for your enthusiasm towards agriculture that we have in British Columbia. I’ve heard many of your speeches, with enthusiastic talk about how things are doing well in British Columbia with our farming and ranching and agricultural community.

I beg to differ.

I travel, as you do, throughout the province, speaking to different groups. Just last Friday night I was up in the Black Creek–Courtenay area, chatting with over 100 farmers that came out.

One thing I really enjoy about my job as Agriculture shadow minister for the B.C. Conservative Party is the opportunities to travel the province and go to many, many small towns. Every summer I go to Fort St. John, Dawson Creek. I go to Williams Lake. I go to Cranbrook. I go to the Okanagan.

There are so many parts to agriculture that are so important in this province. We tend to think of agriculture on Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley, but there are so many facets to agriculture when you get up north and you talk about the massive grain industry we have with canola and wheat and grass seed and bison and beef cattle that are being raised in the North.

You think of the tremendous amount of agriculture in the Okanagan and the Similkameen area, with our tremendous wine growers that have faced so many hardships in the last couple years and the fruit growers that have faced so many hardships in the last few years. Even the people in the dairy industry that are facing extremely high costs of production to produce milk nowadays.

We look at the drought that we faced in British Columbia in the last few years, the extreme cold, the frost, the freezing that has wiped out our cherry population, wiped out our grape plants, etc. There are so many things in British Columbia regarding agriculture that we don’t always just think about.

We think about, even, bees. We think about the berries: blueberries, strawberries, raspberries. All the different things that are involved in agriculture.

[4:35 p.m.]

Today and for the next few days, I want to talk about several things that I think are not working for agriculture and for farmers and ranchers in British Columbia. Issues with the agricultural land reserve. Issues with the Agricultural Land Commission — the hold-ups, the permitting. The complaints I get constantly in my office from farmers and ranchers that are fed up with the way things are being run in this province with agriculture. As much as there’s good news coming from that side of the aisle, I find that there’s a lot of negativity towards how things are being run in this province.

I think we’ll start off basically talking about the budget itself. What I’m seeing in the budget for this fiscal year was $130 million budgeted for the Ministry of Agriculture, and for the upcoming fiscal session, it’s $143 million.

I would like, first of all, to ask where…. On page 22 of the budget booklet, we see a forecast of $229 million which, from what I can see, has not been added into the budget for the upcoming fiscal year for Agriculture.

I would like to ask what the figures actually are. Is it $143 million, or is it actually less than that because of the $229 million that was forecast to go into the budget?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. I know there has been some confusion over this budget this year, and I’m going to be able to clear that up for the member and this chamber.

Budget 2025 reflects an increase of $13 million to the ministry’s base budget, from $130 million in 2024-25 to $143 million in 2025-26. With regard to the claim that the budget has been reduced by $100 million, this is a misunderstanding of the ministry’s base budget.

The discrepancy refers to $99 million in additional claims, in the fiscal year of 2024-25, under production insurance special account, which resulted in a forecast total expenditure of $229 million, $99 million over the budgeted amount of $130 million. This is money that was paid out to farmers due to extreme weather–related events that significantly impacted grapes and tree fruits and also affected the yields of forage grain, berries and vegetables.

The increase in Budget 2025-26 includes additional funds for the production insurance special account, to pay the province’s share of increased premiums due to commodity prices, clients buying higher coverage and some rate increases reflecting loss experience.

Ian Paton: If we can look at the very minimal additions to the budget for the Ministry of Agriculture…. We look at science policy and inspection, with a meagre $990,000 addition; agricultural resources of a $3.7 million addition; Farm Industry Review Board, FIRB, plus $16,000.

Then, of course, we get to the Agricultural Land Commission, which, surprisingly or not, year after year does not get any sort of a decent increase to the funding. In fact, this year, the increase over last year was $55,000. I will speak to that in a little while, regarding the issues with our Agricultural Land Commission.

Minister, could you explain one more time what the total production insurance account is again, if that includes crop insurance for our B.C. farmers and if it also includes the funds for AgriStability.

Hon. Lana Popham: It just includes the crop insurance and not the AgriStability.

[4:40 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Unfortunately, British Columbia is in a sad situation as far as funding for our Ministry of Agriculture.

When you look at Alberta, with a population of 4.8 million people, they have a budget of $979 million for their Ministry of Agriculture.

In Saskatchewan, with 1.3 million people, they have a budget of $648 million for agriculture.

In Ontario, it was a $855 million budget for agriculture.

Manitoba has a budget of over $600 million for agriculture with only a population of 1.4 million.

British Columbia, with a population of 5.8 million people, has a budget of only $143 million.

To the minister: could you explain why British Columbia has the lowest budget per capita for agriculture of any province in Canada?

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe I would just like to remind the member that since 2017, we’ve increased the budget for Agriculture and Food by $50 million. That’s not insignificant, and I’m really proud of the work that we’ve done to get there.

I remember being in opposition for eight years and pleading with the government, the member’s former government, to increase the budget for Agriculture. I was so relieved when we became government, and we got it over $100 million. We’re now $50 million since 2017.

When we look at the baseline for the Ministry of Agriculture’s budget, there are things that are not reflected in the base budget. Those things I think the member knows very well — AgriStability, crop insurance. And there are things that we’ve done outside of the base budget just in the last two years that…. If they were to be added up, there would be a significant increase overall.

We’ve invested $100 million in water infrastructure, $80 million in enhanced replant, and then just a week and a half ago an announcement for $10 million for tree fruits. These sorts of investments are not insignificant.

Of course, it would be great to have more, but there’s been, I’d say, substantial support for agriculture over the last couple years.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

Well, while we’re on the topic of spending, as I get into budget estimates…. I guess after the break we’ll be talking about the Agricultural Land Commission and the land reserve. It’s a dismal result of what’s happening in our province with the removal of farmland, with non-farm use of truck parking, all the different things that are happening, with virtually no compliance, with only six compliance officers for the entire province.

We’ve gone over this year after year in budget estimates. Again this year virtually no increase to our Agricultural Land Commission to be able to do the job they need to do in this province.

How can you explain, again this year, virtually no increase to the funding for our Agricultural Land Commission to bring forward compliance officers to start fixing the issues in our province?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I appreciate the member’s question. Like him, I value the work that the Agricultural Land Commission does very much. And he’s right, the budget has not moved up very much for the Agricultural Land Commission over the last couple of years. I think that that’s an issue for them. They are trying the best with the budget that they have.

We are trying to support them from our ministry. There are things that we do, some staff sharing, some IT support to make things more efficient.

But I’m not going to argue with the member. I think that, yeah, they’re doing the best they can on a budget that does challenge them.

Ian Paton: I will move on to Investment Agricultural Foundation, IAF. You’ve got some professional help at the table with you that was involved with IAF.

I would like to know…. When it comes to money, there are millions…. It’s quite staggering, the millions of dollars in programs that have been handed over to IAF over the years, yet IAF seems to be this hidden sort of…. Nobody ever talks about IAF. What are they actually doing? Who’s in there? Is it like a big curtain like the Wizard of Oz with somebody in behind IAF running all these programs? And they’re huge.

I’m just wondering. How many programs are currently running with IAF with ministry dollars, and what is the total value of the dollars of the programs that IAF is running? If you could actually list off the actual programs that are being run and the total dollars that are invested with IAF.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: That’s a great question. Way back in the day, I sat on the Island board for Investment Agriculture. I know what the member is saying when he asks if there’s a curtain or it’s the Wizard of Oz, because I think years ago it really was considered the fund that nobody could access.

But I think there have been so many changes in the last, I don’t know, decade that have made it extremely accessible. It’s very transparent. There are annual reports, etc., published for public consumption. There are descriptions of board members who are…. I think there are 16, made up of primary producers and food processors. There are biographies.

Anything you wanted to know about Investment Agriculture is public, and they have delivered many of our flagship programs from the ministry. It was set up about 30 years ago for program delivery, and it has continued to be a very effective way as a partner for us to deliver those programs.

I can get the member a full list of programs that interact with us sent to him, and he can have that information after the break if he wants to continue on this line of questioning.

Ian Paton: With IAF, I would like to know, for instance…. When there are programs put in place, there’s a lot of money out there for different programs, and farmers would apply to be able to make use of these funds for these different programs. If there’s, say, $20 million in a program and not all of it is used up, where does that residual money go that’s left over and that never got used up out of that particular program?

I’ll give you an example. In April 2023, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food announced $20 million for a food processing fund. It has been released, with 12 companies receiving $8.4 million, with $2.7 million going to the B.C. Food and Beverage Association. Where did the rest of the money go? Examples such as that.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Great question. Just on the food processing fund that the member mentions, that was almost completely used up. As an example, there wouldn’t really be much left there. I think it was used in whole.

In some cases, some of the program money that’s put in place is not used. What’s left over will stay with Investment Agriculture. It’ll gain interest. Then we will have a discussion as to whether that program is reopened again, if there hasn’t been enough pickup or if perhaps there’s a different priority.

That’s a discussion that we would have with the board and the industry to figure out where that money will go. It doesn’t disappear, it’s fully accounted for, and it’s very transparent.

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I don’t know if you recall, Minister, one year ago, roughly, was supplementary budget estimates. Surprisingly or shockingly, $111 million was dropped into the Ministry of Agriculture.

No one seemed to know exactly how this money was going to get spent until, roughly 48 hours later, the Minister of Agriculture at the time suddenly stood up and said: “Okay, here’s how it’s going to work: $30 million is going to the new relationship fund, $20 million to food security, $20 million to flood mitigation, $20 million to food processing, $20 million to innovation and affordability and $1 million to a food hub in Richmond.”

Of the $111 million, can you give me any sort of progress report on this massive amount of money that one year ago was issued out for these seven different initiatives?

Hon. Lana Popham: Another great question. It was a great investment to see come into the ministry. Then the priorities were identified, and where money was dispersed, I think, was really helpful. That was announced two years ago, I believe.

Since then there has been an annual report. We also see quarterly reports coming out of Investment Ag, and it really drills down deep on where the money has been spent. You can see how many applicants, which programs there were and where they were in the province. There’s a lot of detail there.

I’m very happy to provide that to the member, and maybe he would be interested in reading it over his break.

Ian Paton: I do have a lot of respect for IAF over the years, with a good friend, Jack DeWit, that’s running the program right now.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’ll skip back to a question I was going to ask with the budget. I’ll quickly ask that. If we look at page 69 of the budget book under labour projections, it says that in British Columbia, we’ve lost 7,700 agricultural jobs.

Could you explain to us what these agricultural job losses are that have been, and are, forecasted for the future?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks again for the question.

Those numbers come from monthly and seasonally unadjusted data from the labour force survey. It’s not a reliable source for the agricultural sector for a number of reasons.

Through the labour force survey, though it’s the source used to track year-over-year monthly employment trends at the level of the broader economy, estimating annual data for an individual sector such as agriculture using seasonally unadjusted monthly data is particularly problematic, because it doesn’t adjust for seasonality, which occurs for all industries and is particularly prevalent in agriculture.

More reliable sources such as the census of population, the system of national accounts and the agriculture and agri-food labour statistics program show steady trends in agricultural labour.

Although we don’t have the data for 2024 from those other sources, because it takes a little bit of time to get more accurate numbers, I would be happy to send over the numbers from 2020 through…. Not till 2024, because they’re not available, but happy to go and share with the member the details on the employment numbers.

Ian Paton: To the minister: would you be agreeable to the thought that many of our agricultural jobs, having been lost recently, would be from the removal of our fish farms in British Columbia, which employed a lot of people? That is our biggest agricultural export in B.C., farmed salmon.

Would you also agree we’re losing a lot of jobs because of the demise of our tree fruit industry and our wine industry? Obviously, if there’s a demise of our tree fruit growers and wine that’s being produced, the labourers are probably leaving and going back to their homelands.

Hon. Lana Popham: The member is not wrong when he talks about some of the decline in jobs available. When it comes to aquaculture…. A federal decision that was made has definitely impacted the aquaculture industry, so I think that’s absolutely correct.

Then when it comes to the other things that the member mentioned, the wine industry and the fruit industry, these climate change impacts on the industry have absolutely impacted the seasonal labour numbers. As we know, the grape die-off was very severe.

[5:05 p.m.]

You wouldn’t need to be calling people back into those vineyards to tend those vines. There would be an absolute change in the type of labour that’s needed.

A lot of those fields and vineyards are being replanted. I actually went up to the Okanagan last year and toured through See Ya Later Ranch, where they had replanted a significant amount of vines. It’s a different labour pool.

But I think, overall, there’s been some stabilization. So you’ll see grape acreages. Even apple acreages have stabilized in some ways.

This year we didn’t go past colder than minus 20 up in the Okanagan. I know that the member and I both believe very much that there’s much more hope on the horizon for this season. The apple growers, with the influx of $10 million, have some hope for this coming harvest, and we need them to be there. The member will be just as excited as I am about the consumer enthusiasm around buying B.C., and I think we’re off to a good start.

I’ll be heading up to the Okanagan for the week next week to tour apple orchards and talk with vineyard owners and wineries. I’m going to be able to go up there, hopefully, to see a little bit of budbreak maybe coming through.

Ian Paton: Thank you. Well, that’s good to hear.

I’m going to move on to carbon tax. The NDP forecast to raise $4 billion in carbon tax. Where is B.C.’s agriculture sector in these numbers?

There is no relief for farmers or food producers. B.C. Conservatives have called for the removal of carbon tax for diesel, gas and propane for all sectors of agriculture and transport related to agriculture.

Additionally, there are calls to exempt activities essential to farm operations from carbon-pricing mechanisms, activities like crop drying, CO2 enrichment in greenhouses, heating poultry farms, heating mushroom buildings, grain dryers that dry our grain up north.

My question to the minister: have you lobbied the Minister of Finance and other ministries to have this carbon tax removed for our agricultural sector?

Hon. Lana Popham: I also have been out having conversations with farmers, and I would agree with the member that this is a topic that does come up. B.C. Ag Days and B.C. Cattlemen Days at the Legislature…. I think this is a topic that has been brought up as a topic of interest and discussion over the years.

We know that there are different areas of the sector that are impacted in different ways. We did respond to the calls from the greenhouse sector, for example, to try and eliminate some of that burden for them. A decision was made, actually, just as I was leaving, the last time I was Minister of Agriculture, so that they would receive an 80 percent discount on the carbon tax.

I think the member has heard the Premier say that when the federal government eliminates the consumer portion of the carbon tax, we will follow suit. But that’s one portion of it. I think that conversation needs to continue.

[5:10 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you, Minister.

Further to carbon tax, as you mentioned, we have a rebate system for our greenhouses — of which I’m touring Village Farms, by the way, tomorrow morning in Delta in my riding. Our biggest greenhouse producers are in Delta, let me tell you. Pretty impressive.

We have an 80 percent rebate for our greenhouse users of natural gas and carbon, of course. The greenhouse growers were happy with the change to the payment system, where they’re now getting their payments up front instead of a year later.

With that 80 percent going to our greenhouse industry — which is good, great, thank you — why can’t that be provided to the rest of the people that are taxed with carbon heavily, such as our poultry industry, heating barns; people in the mushroom industry, etc.; and as I just said, grain dryers?

Have you taken that forward to cabinet and said: “Look, can we give the same 80 percent reduction in carbon to those other usages that use carbon every day?”

Hon. Lana Popham: Again, a great conversation to be having with the member, and I myself hear about those concerns as well.

I think cost of production and the difficulties that agriculture has faced over the last number of years are things that keep them awake at night. I hear it from all parts of the sector. It has just been a really difficult time.

I do think that there’s a bit of hope on the horizon. I know the member has mentioned, in years gone by, the expenses, the cost of fuel and fertilizer being a top concern. So a tiny bit, maybe, of good news: the two largest inputs in agricultural production fell by 14 percent and 20.3 percent respectively, from 2022 to 2023.

That’s just one piece of it; there are a whole bunch of things. But I think that we are going after those issues, and I really appreciate the member bringing them to the forefront.

Ian Paton: I want to make sure I get one question in before we break. I’ll ask one more, and then I’ll get to my colleague down at the end.

One more question about carbon tax. The Prime Minister–elect has suggested that carbon tax will be eliminated for the consumer portion, and I believe the Premier of British Columbia has also suggested the consumer portion would be eliminated.

Would agriculture be considered as part of that consumer portion, or would agriculture in B.C. be considered an industrial polluter and still be charged the carbon tax?

Hon. Lana Popham: To be honest, I don’t have that answer right now. That’s something that’s being worked on. I would encourage the member to canvass the Minister of Finance on that issue.

[5:15 p.m.]

Ian Paton: I will turn the questioning over to, I think, one short question from the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: Currently funding for fencing through the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association is being directed to highway and road corridors but not rail corridors. As you may recall, the British Columbia NDP, when in opposition, introduced a bill titled Bill M202, the British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety Act, 2008. This was during the 2008 legislative session, in the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

This bill was intended to protect the safety and economic security of livestock owners in British Columbia whose grazing land runs adjacent to publicly owned rail corridors by placing several obligations on any railway operating on those corridors.

Can the minister indicate what work, if any, her ministry has taken regarding the outstanding issue with fencing along publicly owned railway lines like those of the BCRC? What dialogue has the government engaged in with CN Rail and the federal government on this issue?

Hon. Lana Popham: First off, I just want to say welcome to estimates as a new person in this chamber. It’s great to have the concerns from your community being represented here. I really appreciate it.

I make this offer to anybody that wants to talk about agriculture with me: my door is always open. If you have an issue that comes up, just come on in, and we can try and figure out a solution, or at least track down an answer of some sort.

That’s a complicated question that the member asked this evening. If it’s okay, I would like to be able to take that away over the break and then come back with the answer for the chamber. Also, I’d be able to get it down on paper for the member.

Ian Paton: To wrap up carbon taxing, carbon pricing is a concern, of course, for many in the agricultural sector due to its potential impact on operational costs and overall competitiveness in this province.

How is the ministry addressing these concerns? Are there specific measures in place to mitigate the financial burden on farmers and ranchers, thereby ensuring the affordability of food and competitiveness of B.C.’s agricultural products?

The question is: are there incentives that are provided by the provincial government for farmers to start converting to greener modes such as electric tractors, electric pumps, etc.?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. It’s a great one. I think it’s really timely as we’re heading into a future that’s going to require a reduction of fossil fuels.

We do have a lot of funding that’s been put forward to support farmers who want to try and green up their businesses — beneficial management practices; funding extreme weather preparedness, so putting into place some equipment to try and fend off some of the damage from the climate change events that happen; resilient agriculture landscape programming; agricultural water infrastructure program, of course, to address some of the issues of drought that we’ve been seeing; and then the tree fruit climate resiliency fund.

There are many categories, but to the member’s point, we don’t have a category for electric farm vehicles. That’s something I think is a good program to try and work on.

The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. Lana Popham: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask to leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:21 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:21 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and seeks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: I think it’s passed, right? You want to go home.

This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on March 31.

The House adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are now here meeting to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $186,048,000.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If I might, hon. Chair, I’m glad to be here.

I’m on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt, here at the people’s House, the Legislature, for the first of the estimates of this budget.

I’ve observed the estimates process from most seats, pretty much every seat in this room, and it’s a process that I enjoy, especially if we’re able to ask good questions. I’ll do my best to provide good answers so that we can move forward on the good work that this ministry does.

I’m joined with a great team: my deputy, Silas Brownsey. On finance, we’ve got Tracy Campbell; Nick Grant behind me, on tourism; Claire Avison on arts; Kim Lacharite on the sports side of things. Then a whole cast of characters, wonderful people working to support the ministry. As questions arise, they will sub in, sub out to make sure we have the best information available to the MLAs here.

And I appreciate the work you have to do.

The Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport…. I won’t go on too long, but I just want to say it’s humbling to take on this work as minister because I know the people who work in tourism, who work in arts, who work in sport, in heritage, get up every morning, sometimes very early in the morning, or work late at night for their love of their communities, the love of their business, their love of their province.

In a time of economic turmoil, of threats of tariffs and the rest, we know how valuable their work is for our communities and how valuable their work is to provide great jobs, to bring investment into this province, to give people hope, to make people laugh, to help people dream, to help people be more than they think they can be, whether that be on the sports field or in the arts or improving their business and what they do around heritage and the arts.

I’m excited for the questions and looking forward to the work together to improve these vital sectors for our province. With that, let’s get to the questions.

The Chair: I now recognize the Member for Kelowna-Mission. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to begin by extending my congratulations to the new minister on his appointment and on his elevation to cabinet.

I am obviously not the MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport. I’m subbing in because she’s sick. This is obviously not my critic role, so I guess it’s the minister’s lucky day. With that said, I do look forward to engaging in constructive discussions to advance the interests of British Columbians, and I know that upon her return to good health, my colleague is excited to do the same.

Our province is currently facing significant economic challenges, particularly with the recent imposition of tariffs by the United States on Canadian imports. Obviously, these measures threaten to reduce our real GDP by $43 billion by 2029 and could result in 45,000 fewer jobs. In light of these developments, around which we’re all concerned, it is imperative that we focus on growing sectors that can bolster our economy, and secure and grow private sector jobs without being directly affected by such trade barriers.

Tourism stands out as a vital industry in that regard. In 2023, tourism generated $22.1 billion in revenue, marking a 12.4 percent increase from the previous year. The sector contributed $9.7 billion to our provincial GDP, surpassing traditional resource industries such as mining, oil and gas, agriculture, fishing and forestry. Moreover, tourism employed over 125,700 individuals, reflecting a significant increase. Notably, 92 percent of tourism businesses are small enterprises that play a crucial role in supporting local economies across British Columbia.

[1:10 p.m.]

Given that tourism services are not subject to tariffs, this sector offers a resilient avenue for economic growth amid current trade tensions. By investing in and promoting tourism, we can mitigate some of the adverse effects of these tariffs, ensuring that our economy remains robust and that employment opportunities continue to flourish.

I urge the minister and the government to prioritize support for the tourism industry, recognizing its potential to offset the challenges posed by external economic pressures and to help with economic diversification in communities across British Columbia. Through strategic investments and collaborative efforts, we can harness the full potential of tourism to benefit all British Columbians.

The Chair: Do you have a question for the minister?

Gavin Dew: I have just lost my page, which I will soon relocate.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If the member wanted a moment to find his page, I could respond.

Gavin Dew: Yes, please. Thank you.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I was just going to say thank you to the member for his opening statement. It was like he was reading my speaking notes.

I’ve got a rather long preamble here, which my staff have helpfully provided, with many of the same statistics that the member read about how valuable tourism is to our economy, how important it is that we get the job right to grow jobs in the sector. Certainly, we are in agreement on that.

If you’d like, he can read some more of my opening remarks about how valuable the arts and culture sector is and sports, etc. I’m looking forward to the discussion.

Gavin Dew: Having relocated my page, I am thankful that we’ve agreed that we don’t need to recite all the statistics and we can get right into the questions.

The ministry’s budget has increased from $189 million to $192 million, a modest rise of approximately 1.6 percent. Considering inflationary pressures, the sector’s recovery needs post-pandemic and the need for diversification and private sector job creation, how does the ministry justify this limited increase relative to other ministries?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think there’s no question dollars are tight everywhere. We’ve got to make sure that the dollars we spend go farther.

I know folks in the tourism industry are very keen to work with us cooperatively to ensure even greater bang for our buck, whether or not that be through Destination B.C. marketing internationally, cooperative marketing with the sector. Really, in every way, we’re working across the whole ministry to make sure that the dollars generate more dollars, generate more jobs and generate greater community benefit.

There is a budget lift, as the member mentions, to bring us up to $191.478 million, a net increase of $2.521 million. That’s due to the shared recovery wage mandate and also to make sure that we can support the people that support the sector. That explains that budget increase.

Gavin Dew: In April 2024, government listed tourism revenue at $18.5 billion. We’ve generally agreed that tourism is an excellent opportunity to grow private sector jobs. Certainly, on our side of the House, we have often submitted that there’s been an inadequate focus on growth in the private sector by this government and an undue focus on continually growing the public sector.

I would ask again: does the lack of significant new investment in tourism reflect a lack of genuine focus on growing the private sector by this government?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think an important point to make here is that the work we’re doing for tourism is in cooperation with tourism communities. So while the budget that we’re discussing here is one part of that, there are also quite large budgets in communities all across this province funded through the MRDT to help them in their tourism marketing, to help them coordinate with our province.

We have seen considerable growth in tourism in terms of revenues, in terms of jobs, coming out of the COVID pandemic. We’re just about back to where we should have been when COVID hit.

I think that speaks to the ingenuity, the entrepreneurship and actually a real, strong focus within this ministry on supporting private sector job growth, in addition to making sure we’re growing revenues to help fund things like hospitals, education and the other things that we need to fund through our budget.

I certainly am excited at the opportunity to work with our partners all across this province to make sure we get alignment, get better coordination between the province.

Yeah, just to say that we’re keen to support the sector to grow. The member probably saw we’re on track for growth, and certainly I’ve been making it clear in every communication I have with our team, with the broader public out there.

We’re looking for those ideas to grow the sector, to grow tourism, to grow the jobs there. I had a great round table last week with industry leaders, looking at these issues, looking at what some of the challenges are, looking at what pathways are to solve those challenges.

I’m eternally optimistic. You’ll find that about me. I’m tight on money but generous in optimism. I think those are good combinations in this ministry, and, hopefully, we’ll continue to see a pathway to stronger growth and a greater return for the public.

Gavin Dew: At a high level, we recognize the importance of partnership and collaboration, but let’s dig into some more specific areas of concern.

The B.C. arts and culture budget is increasing from $41.417 million in 2024-25 to $41.646 million in 2025-26, a mere $299,000 increase, or 0.55 percent. This minuscule adjustment fails to keep pace with inflation, meaning arts organizations are receiving less funding in real dollar terms than before. Meanwhile, the B.C. Arts and Culture Endowment special account remains frozen at $4.23 million with no increase, not even an inflationary increase, despite rising costs.

I would take the minister back to 2017 when his government on the campaign trail promised to double the B.C. Arts Council budget to $48 million. That promise seven, almost eight, years later remains unfulfilled.

If the B.C. government could promise in 2017 to double arts funding to $48 million, why eight years later is the sector still being shortchanged with a token 0.55 percent increase while other ministries see much more substantial investments?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think it’s important that we recognize the history of this. I think I was sitting on the opposite side where the member sits today. I remember back to 2009-2010, when the B.C. Arts Council budget had been about $20 million and then it got cut by the then B.C. Liberal government — I believe the Conservative leader was sitting at the cabinet table at the time — to $10 million.

We are now over $40 million. When we started, 2016-2017, it was about $21 million. So we have doubled the budget.

You’ve also got to consider that we now have an arts and culture infrastructure fund, which is funding arts and culture infrastructure.

[1:20 p.m.]

We’ve given large support for our festival sector; for our heritage sectors huge support and infrastructure dollars for the Chinese Canadian Museum, for example, the Jewish Community Centre, for example. We’ve more than doubled in that sense.

I’d also say that we used to be last in Canada in terms of per-capita investment in the arts. We’re now No. 1 or No. 2 in all of Canada for investments in the arts. We’ve come a long way.

It’s not been easy. Arts and culture was not a priority of the former government. We had to claw back what we could, and now we’ve greatly increased the amounts of investment in the arts. In fact, I hear it in the sector all the time. Yes, times are challenging because of inflation, but thank goodness we’ve made the investments we have, because they’ve made a real difference in the sector.

Gavin Dew: This isn’t question period, so let’s save the under-the-last-government stuff and focus on the eight years in which this government has been in charge and what it has and has not done.

Since the question wasn’t answered, I’ll ask again: when will the minister fulfil his government’s 2017 promise to double the B.C. Arts Council budget?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I certainly appreciate the question, and I’m always passionate about finding ways to provide greater support to arts and culture. I think we’re nearly at the doubling amount of $42 million at this point. You look back to about $20 million, and that certainly does it.

I think the member has to…. In talking of the arts and culture sector, it’s not only the B.C. Arts Council that funds arts and culture. We also fund it through gaming grants. We fund it through a capital program. We funded a special recovery mandate after COVID.

When you look at the total amounts, we would definitely be No. 1 in Canada, when you put those all together. That’s not even considering things like the Royal B.C. Museum and other places. We’re certainly always keen to find more ways to support arts and culture, and we’ll continue to look for ways to grow the funds.

I should note that one of the funds the member mentioned is really funded through investments. So it’s not that we chose to freeze or anything like that; it’s about economic return. Some years it’s a little up; some years it’s a little down.

Gavin Dew: While I recognize that there is a broad range of different funding mechanisms, the 2017 election promise was very specific: to double the B.C. Arts Council budget to $48 million.

Could the minister please just simply provide a date by which this government intends to fulfil its 2017 election promise?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m sure I’d get into some trouble with the Finance Minister if I decided to set future budgets for the Minister of Finance. I think the member knows — he’s been around this place in various roles long enough to know — that future budgets are decided at future times, and I’m not able to comment on a budget that is not in front of us at this time.

We’re talking about the current year’s budget, and I’m proud of how much resources we’re giving to arts and culture at this point, especially given the huge economic challenges that pull on the provincial budget.

Gavin Dew: I believe there was a very specific past budget year, 2017-2018, when that promise was made. This is not future-looking. This is looking backward to a promise that was made in the 2017 election to the B.C. Arts Council for $48 million.

I’ll ask just one more time. Will the minister commit that the B.C. Arts Council will ever see that 2017 promise fulfilled? Will it be 2027, 2037? When will that promise be fulfilled, or are promises not fulfilled by this government on a consistent basis?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If you talk to the arts sector, they will tell you that having a government that has made us No. 1 in Canada — No. 2, if you look at Quebec — in terms of investments in the arts, over the whole of government, they’ll say they’re proud of that. They’ll say that this is a good thing to have in a government.

They’ll say that they’re glad they have a partner in government that listens to them, that works with them, that finds multiple ways to support arts and culture, whether it be through the B.C. Arts Council, gaming grants, infrastructure funds or the special funds that we’ve created, the destination events program and others.

[1:25 p.m.]

We know the value of arts and culture in our communities. That’s why we support it, that’s why I stood strongly in opposition in the past to cuts to arts and culture, and that’s why I’ll continue to look for ways to grow investments in arts and culture.

The member might not know, but prior to politics I worked in the arts. So I see the value; I’ve lived the value. I’ve understood how important it is to have a strong partner in the provincial government, in philanthropy, whether it be at a city level or at a corporate level. I’ll continue to work with the arts sector but, indeed, with the broader partners we have across the province to find more ways that we can support arts and culture in this province, because our government believes in it.

I’m glad the member is asking questions about arts and culture because, frankly, they don’t get a lot of attention in politics. Some argue we shouldn’t fund arts and culture at all. I’ve seen that point of view. I’ve heard that point of view from some. I certainly don’t subscribe to it, because I know it generates great jobs. It helps us dream, it helps us understand each other, see each other and learn our province’s history.

It helps grow jobs in other sectors as well. You think of a great event that brings people out to a community. That generates jobs in the hospitality and the service sectors as well. And it really fits within the work we’re doing around tourism growth too. We’re looking forward to broad support for arts and culture and continued support for strong investment in it.

The Chair: I encourage the member, although they may not be satisfied with the answer by the minister, to avoid repetition in their questions.

Gavin Dew: Very well. I will close this line of inquiry off by saying the argument I am hearing is that because the minister likes the arts and is from the arts, and because previous government bad, therefore keeping promises not important. That’s not a very strong argument in that regard.

Let’s move on to gaming grants, since the minister mentioned them. There has been a significant increase in gaming revenue in the province of British Columbia, yet there has not been a significant increase in gaming grants on an according basis. Could the minister briefly touch on why, and what those numbers look like?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ve been looking at the history of gaming grants. I remember we used to have quite strong support, back then, I think, around 2010. I’m sorry to mention the history. I lived it, so I think it’s important we understand. I’m not going to point fingers at who, what, where, but the government of the day decided to cut gaming grants in half.

There was an economic challenge in 2008-2009. I think folks will remember a collapse of the banking system, and the government of the day decided to cut gaming grants in half because they had a fiscal challenge, and they thought it was important to attempt, I guess, to cut off granting organizations, to put the money elsewhere.

Our government, despite the economic challenges we’re facing, has decided to stay strong with our gaming grant support, $140 million going out to over 5,000 not-for-profit organizations throughout all of B.C. These are important funds. They help sustain organizations and are valuable. That’s why we’ll continue to stand by them, continue to support them, despite the challenges and despite some efforts that have happened in the past to cut gaming grants to fund other programs. We’ll continue to support gaming grants because they’re valuable for our communities.

Gavin Dew: I see we are still going to do the past-governments rhetoric.

Is there a surplus in the gaming grants account, or have those dollars been fully allocated?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The gaming grants budget is fully allocated every year.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister confirm that? I have heard that the grants were undersubscribed.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No. I think, indeed, community organizations value these dollars just as we do, and the funds are fully allocated every year.

Gavin Dew: Could the minister please describe any changes in the formula driving the available funds for gaming grants vis-à-vis the revenues derived from gaming in the province of British Columbia, and whether any of those revenues are going to different places than they used to, or whether the relationship between gaming revenues and gaming grants remains stable relative to past fiscal years?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I understand the question. There has been no change in our funding formula and how we fund gaming grants within this ministry. I think that answers the question.

Gavin Dew: Let’s move on to a different subject, the tourism sector strategy.

The tourism sector strategy budget is seeing a minor increase, from $25.908 million to $26.113 million, an increase of just $205,000 or 0.79 percent. This marginal adjustment suggests the government is maintaining the status quo rather than making significant investments in tourism growth and diversification to confront the challenges of a buffeted economy and tariffs.

Given that B.C. needs to offset economic pressures through a strong tourism sector, why is the government failing to provide a significant boost to tourism funding?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think it’s important that we recognize the economic challenge that we’re dealing with right now. I appreciate the member’s advocacy on tourism, because I’m very much in agreement. We are always looking for ways to support our tourism sector.

One thing I think is important to recognize is that when you actually get out and talk to the hotels, you talk to the operators on the ground, the tour providers, and so on, to a person, they say Destination B.C. is doing very valuable work. The tourism industry feels well supported by the work that the ministry is doing.

There’s always room for improvement, no question. But what they say is they want us to support them to grow their businesses by sometimes getting out of the way, by sometimes reducing regulation, by sometimes finding ways to harmonize approaches. But rarely do they come saying: “Just give us more money.”

They say they want better results out of the money that they do spend. Obviously, we all do. But I think they are certainly looking to us to support their efforts, because they also invest a huge amount of money privately for tourism marketing.

They’re certainly on top of this, as is Destination B.C., around the shifting markets, the question of whether or not Americans are going to come to B.C. We certainly hope they do, and in even greater numbers than they have been. The sector has been growing year over year because our product is so good. The people that provide it are so good. The approach to welcome people and invite them to come see our incredible province is also working.

I’m certainly keen to hear ideas for improvements and always interested in hearing from the sector, the member or others, around areas they think we can see improvement. But on the budget side, we’re certainly working the best with the amounts we have, and we’re certainly working with the outside teams that have seen growth to their budgets through the strong growth of the tourism industry.

Gavin Dew: I hear talk of diversifying sources of tourism. I think we all hope that in an era past the current tariff threat, we will see a resurgence of tourism from all over, including from our neighbours to the south.

Is it safe to say, though, that through the Premier’s rhetoric, we have pretty much written off tourism from red states? Is there a plan to make up for that, and could the minister please outline that plan?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, we didn’t start this tariff fight. This is not a fight we want. This is a fight we want to end. We want the Americans to come to their senses and recognize that we’re good neighbours to each other, that we have a shared border, a shared family — in many ways, a shared journey.

So to every American who’s tuning in to this channel right now, and I’m sure there are lots: we want you here. You’re welcome. Beautiful B.C., super, natural British Columbia. We’d love your business. No matter what state you’re from, come to B.C. We’ll welcome you. We’re welcoming people. Yes, we might be a little bit upset about what your President is doing right now, but we want you here.

We’re going to continue to reach out to folks to say they’re welcome. In fact, I was just talking to some Americans before we came here, out front. They were admiring our Canadian flag. They were saying that they were sorry for what their President has done, but they were really proud of how welcoming we are as Canadians, and they want to invite their family to come see what they’ve discovered, that we’re a great place to visit and a great place to invest and a great place to come back to.

There was a cruise ship here the other day as well. Great cruise industry — Americans coming through as well. They likewise said they want to be here. They feel welcomed here, and that’s why they’ve come here. We’re going to continue to do that work.

Gavin Dew: Touching on the cruise industry for a second, one issue we’ve heard significant concerns around is the effect of drug-induced urban disorder in both Vancouver and Victoria on worsening the tourist experience for cruise tourists and discouraging cruise lines from continuing to invest in making stops in Vancouver and Victoria.

Can the minister outline, on a quantitative basis, any indicators as to what effect the NDP-induced drug disorder has had on cruise tourism to Vancouver and Victoria?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, we want everybody who comes to B.C. to have a good experience. Whether it be downtown, whether it be back country, we want them to feel safe. We want them to feel welcomed.

I know my colleague the Minister of Public Safety has been meeting with folks in the tourism industry, certainly looking at that issue and, I think, in terms of those responses, probably best to canvass it there.

If the member is asking for an indicator that these are having an impact on the cruise industry, I can say that in 2024 we had a record cruise year. We had more cruise ships coming through than any previous year. So if the member wanted an indicator, that would seem to indicate that people want to come to B.C., that they feel welcomed in B.C., that they want to take cruises from B.C. or through B.C.

I’m looking forward to another good cruise year, and I’m looking forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to improve the safety of our downtowns and to make sure cruise passengers and all tourists and visitors are welcome and feel good in our province.

Gavin Dew: Speaking of welcoming Americans to Canada, Taylor Swift was recently in Vancouver. In the day or days immediately prior to her performance, there was a very unfortunate and violent incident at a convenience store just blocks away from the venue. For major artists and for production companies booking major shows, that kind of incident and that kind of concern presents a very real disincentive to booking into cities.

Again, can the minister share any anecdotal or quantitative evidence around the impact of downtown disorder resulting in less major shows in places like Vancouver that are major tourism draws?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I can say that last year was a record year for events at B.C. Place, so in terms of bookers and people looking to come to use our venues, our convention centre, as well, downtown Vancouver — huge interest.

I’ve been hearing from people concerned that there isn’t enough space for them because it’s so well used, that there are so many conventions coming in that they’re wondering where they can go. Certainly, I’m referring them to other convention centres we have across the province and other places.

[1:40 p.m.]

People want to be in Vancouver. They want to be in B.C. They want to come enjoy what we all know to be true. It’s a great place to live. It’s a great place to call home, and they want to have part of that. I don’t blame them, because it is a great place.

Certainly, in terms of the Taylor Swift event, those were huge numbers for downtown Vancouver. A huge shout-out to the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association.

[Interruption.]

Sorry, was that Taylor Swift over there? No? Okay.

Anyways, you see the magic of Taylor Swift is still with us in the room. People want to dance. So I’ll shake it off, and we’ll get back at it.

It was a great event. My understanding is the producers of that event wanted to come to B.C. Place both because of the improvements that have been made and because Vancouver is such a welcoming place to host an event like that. That’s why she ended her tour in Vancouver, because of the hospitality we provide.

It was a great way to cap off a really, really successful year. So 2024 was a great year for events, and 2025 is shaping up to be a great year for events and conventions in Vancouver and across the province. I think of the Web Summit — thousands of people coming in, staying in our hotels.

Sorry, some people are having some technical difficulties over there. Turn them off, or leave the room.

It’s good news. I think we certainly see the benefit of those kinds of events in our province, and we’ll continue to try to attract them here and make sure that they feel welcome while they are here.

Gavin Dew: I think we are all Swifties now. Certainly, my six-year-old daughter insists on listening to Taylor Swift every morning in the car on the way to school.

Sensitive question: could the minister please provide a list of any members of executive council who received complimentary tickets to the Taylor Swift show?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: None that I’m aware of. I didn’t go, and I know, certainly, it would have been a lot of fun. But I wanted to make sure…. Certainly, PavCo has made an effort to make sure that their community benefit has been built into their mandate now. It’s a change that was made a couple of years ago to make sure that there is a broader look at community benefit.

The member might have heard about B.C. Pavilion Corp. giving tickets to charities, whether it be health charities which then auctioned them off to make money…. I can’t remember if it was the Ronald McDonald House. There was such a long list of groups that benefited from that work and more people that got to see that concert because of that.

It’s certainly something we’re looking at for events, going forward. How do we make sure there’s a stronger community benefit and that we’re seeing the best return for the public?

Gavin Dew: I assume, based on the confidence from the minister, that he’ll have no problem providing a list of all the organizations and individuals who received those tickets.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t have that information with me right now, but certainly, I can ask the B.C. Pavilion Corp. to provide a list of who got those charity packages to donate for the Taylor Swift show. Not a problem.

Gavin Dew: And when can we expect that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would expect next week. It’s Thursday. They’re not here right now typing up the list, but I’m sure they’ll be able to get that to the member.

Would the member like it or the critic like it or both?

Gavin Dew: Both would be good. Thank you very much.

I’ll move to another question, much as I would love to dwell on Taylor Swift and sing Taylor Swift. I can’t sing very well, and I don’t really want to be on No Context for that.

To the next question, the sports and creative sector budget is seeing only a 0.4 percent increase, from $27.117 million to $27.239 million, a change of just $122,000. Within this, the sports budget grows by just 0.44 percent while the creative sector receives a mere $18,000 increase, 0.49 percent.

Why is the government barely increasing their budgets by less than 0.5 percent, leaving them behind in real-dollar terms due to inflation? Is the minister okay with defunding the sports and creative sectors?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think, certainly, when it comes to sport, when it comes to the creative sector, we’re proud of our investments. I don’t think it’s defunding to provide over $50 million to the sports sector. It’s hardly defunding to provide over $130 million on the arts and creative sectors. It’s actually strong investments.

I think it’s interesting…. I know we’re into the estimates process now. Some of the arguments that I heard not that long ago in the Legislature around this budget were that we needed to cut the budget, that we were spending too much, and now that we’re in this room, we’re not spending enough.

I’m proud of what we’ve done. I’m proud of the effort the team makes to make sure the dollars go farther. There’s only so much money in the world, and it’s easy to just say: “Spend more; spend more.” We’re also saying that we need to spend wisely and that we need to make sure that the money goes as far as it can go, because in the end, it’s the public’s money.

I appreciate the advocacy to spend more, but I also think we need to make sure that it goes farther. That’s what we’re working on in this ministry.

Gavin Dew: Certainly, investing in sectors that can grow the economy and grow private sector jobs is something we want to see. I would politely correct the minister’s math in that when there is less money in real-dollar terms, that means you are defunding or reducing funding.

Can the minister again confirm…? When the math is that there is less money in real-dollar terms, because inflation means things cost more and you can buy less things, and the rate of increase is less than inflation, is the minister okay with defunding the sports and creative sectors?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m proud of investing in the arts. I’m proud of investing in sports. I’m proud of investing in the creative sector.

We will continue to look for ways to boost support, whether it’s through policy, how we spend our money or other ideas that the sectors may bring to us. They are valuable for our province. They grow jobs, but they also grow good lives and give people opportunities to excel, to dream, to become better people, to become better neighbours. That’s why we make the strong investments we do.

Gavin Dew: I’ll move to a different question, which revisits a prior question around gaming grants.

Can the minister please explain what the share of gaming revenue going to gaming grants is, relative to the share of gaming revenue going to the B.C. First Nations Gaming Revenue Sharing Ltd.?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I understand the question. I think the appropriate place for that question is likely the Ministry of Finance, as that special account the member mentions is not under this ministry.

Gavin Dew: Well, I expect that there may be more details available in Finance.

I did just want to confirm: is it the minister’s understanding that there has been a shift away from gaming grants and toward First Nations revenue sharing and to what extent, numerically?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m happy to answer questions around the gaming grants and the budget that we provide within our ministry. If the member wants to debate how money is shifted from one pocket to another within the Ministry of Finance, that’s, again, probably why the question should be directed to the Minister of Finance.

Gavin Dew: I’ll take that as the minister does not know.

Let’s talk about short-term rentals and their implications for tourism. This government introduced short-term rental regulations with the intent to increase housing availability, but in jurisdictions like, for example, Parksville, where 40 percent of tourist accommodations rely on short-term rentals, these rules have negatively impacted the tourism sector.

[1:50 p.m.]

Did the government consult with local businesses and tourism operators in such communities before implementing these regulations, and has it consulted since?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The short-term rental legislation — that’s housed in the Ministry of Housing. In terms of how the legislation was created, in terms of how the regulations work and why they made one choice or another, those certainly would be best asked of the Housing Ministry.

I can say that certainly, I understand there was consultation with a number of the municipalities, and in fact there have been some communities that were exempted from the short-term rental rules that have instead decided to opt in. They were not in there. Communities like Tofino and Osoyoos were exempted, but they’ve now opted in to build their community housing supply, even though they’re also large tourism communities.

Certainly, we’re always interested in hearing more advice and speaking to people, as I know the Housing Ministry is, around these rules. It was trying to balance out the issue of needing long-term housing supply. Certainly in Tofino and in Osoyoos, we heard from tourism operators who said they couldn’t find any housing for their staff. I think that’s why those municipalities opted in, but for more detailed questions, the Housing Ministry would be the place to go on that.

Gavin Dew: I’m not looking for housing policy answers; I am looking to understand the implications on tourism. I do represent a riding that has been materially impacted by the short-term rental rules that have been imposed on our tourism sector, so I will continue to ask questions about this subject.

What is the government’s plan to address the decline in available tourist accommodations due to short-term rental restrictions?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly happy to talk more about this with the member longer term to get a better understanding of what he’s referring to. The statistics I have show that hotel capacity in Kelowna, for example, and in the region, was around 57 percent — so that there was capacity for visitors.

I’ve also heard of a large interest in using short-term rentals through the way that they’re designed now. People certainly can continue to do short-term rentals in their homes, and I think we’re seeing real interest on that side too.

On the hotel side, which is certainly more around where we go, we’re always looking for more hotel investors and to build more hotel capacity. From what folks in the member’s region tell us, the capacity is there. It’s just getting people to use those hotel rooms which has been a bit of a challenge lately because of the fire seasons and the challenge of fire.

Maybe the member might have more specific to share.

Gavin Dew: It’s been my experience that this government’s one-size-fits-all solution to short-term rental policies is not working for jurisdictions like Kelowna. It has exacerbated a decline in tourism jobs and undermined our backbone wine sector. The city of Kelowna has made numerous good-faith efforts to work with the provincial government on balanced, made-in-Kelowna solutions.

Locally in Kelowna, everyone seems to understand that the current policies simply are not working. In particular, there are concerns with the province’s refusal to follow the city’s request to carve out purpose-built, short-term rental buildings in specific short-term rental zoning that were developed, built and sold on the basis of being short-term rental.

[1:55 p.m.]

In one example, the Aqua development…. That project was developed over the course of 14 years, with an understanding at every stage that it would be used for short-term rental. It was developed for short-term rental; it was built for short-term rental. There are locks on the bathroom drawers to store extra toilet paper for short-term rental. There are hotel-sized fridges for short-term rental. There is an amenity package designed for short-term rental. The units were sold on the basis of short-term rental.

The city asked the province to carve out such areas for short-term rental, because that’s what they were zoned and built for, yet the province has taken away the property rights of owners in those areas and left many of them — retail investors, mom-and-pop investors — underwater.

Will the minister commit to go and meet with the Minister of Housing and address these kinds of issues where good intentions have been met by unintended consequences and bad results that have left everyday people under water?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for his passion and for bringing his advocacy to the floor on this issue. Whether it not be an issue like this or issues that were raised last week in our ministry round table — with, I think it was, over 40 tourism leaders from across the province and then a conference of over 500 — we’ll always raise issues with other ministries that are challenging for tourism. I’m certainly happy to learn more from the member.

I am interested in that question. He said there was a problem of lack of capacity, but I’m trying to understand that versus the hotel rates, which are pretty low for the Okanagan. You know, 57 percent is not bad for a hotelier, but it has been a bit soft the last couple of summers.

That’s in part the wildfire impacts, the hangover of COVID, ongoing economic uncertainty, but I’m hoping that this summer — fingers crossed, knock on wood and all the rest — is a good summer for the tourism sector in the Okanagan. A lot of people want to come to B.C. now. They’ve cancelled their trips to the United States. They are booking. They are making calls.

I certainly have heard from hoteliers and tourism operators across the province who are getting new interest from people who had not considered coming to B.C. before but are now deciding. One of them said: “Well, you know, B.C. is Canada’s Hawaii.”

Okay. Well, it’s just B.C. to me and a great place to be, but please come on over. Hopefully, that helps grow the tourism industry in the Okanagan as well.

I look forward to further discussion with the member.

Gavin Dew: I’d note it’s not just my advocacy. Throughout the entire election campaign, every local NDP candidate called for a made-in-Kelowna solution for short-term rental. Some of them even claimed that they had met with the Premier, and he had agreed to discuss that further. He then went on a podcast in the middle of the election and pooh-poohed any such suggestions from his own candidates.

Just bear with me, because I’m a little bit confused here. Could you help me understand whether the position taken by multiple local NDP candidates in Kelowna, in writing and on record, was accurate, or was it inaccurate, Minister?

The Chair: I remind the member that Vote 44 is what is under debate. Please ensure your questions are relevant to the vote.

Gavin Dew: I can make it relevant, if you’d like. Absolutely.

As it relates to the future of short-term rental and its implications for tourism in my community of Kelowna, could the minister please explain whether the commitments made by NDP candidates running for election in the last election were an accurate reflection of the policy and thinking of this government or whether the policy and thinking was something different from what local candidates were committing to repeatedly in writing and on film?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the substance of the question is will I advocate for tourism communities. Will I raise voices that I hear where there are problems that have to be fixed?

I think, from the whole discussion up to this point, it has been clear that that’s my commitment. If there are real concerns, and if there are ways that we need to address them better, I’m certainly willing to work with colleagues to do that.

The principle of this is that we need to put housing first. That’s the top priority in this policy. On how it should be amended and how there should be a slight change to this or a slight change to that, these are the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport estimates. Housing estimates, for the detailed work of who they talked to, how they did it, why they didn’t do this — that’s one for bill debate.

I think there was extensive bill debate on this topic prior to the member joining the House. But I think estimates for Housing are still set to come. Certainly, that would be a place to take those questions further, as they are the ones who decide housing policy.

We’re always willing to provide advice on what might work or what might not work in terms of the tourism side, but further policy discussion around the short-term-rental registry, how it works or how it could work really should be taken to the Housing Ministry.

Gavin Dew: The minister made a point early on in this session of pointing to the integrated nature of the Tourism portfolio and how it connects with other ministries and other agencies and has just indicated that the ministry did in fact give advice on how short-term rental might or might not affect tourism.

Could the minister please expand on what advice was given around the potential economic impacts and tourism impacts of short-term rental in different jurisdictions in the province? Would he be so kind as to make available any written reports that were developed at that time?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the policy development was really run through the Ministry of Housing shop. I wasn’t there at the time, or on the Ministry of Tourism side at the time. I don’t have the backstory of what the member is asking about. I think I would encourage him to follow up that train of thought with the Ministry of Housing, if he wants to, on the analysis they did.

I know there was extensive questioning in the Legislature, and it will all be in the Hansard. I’m sure the member may have already read through it. I don’t know. I would encourage him to follow those ones, because I don’t have that information here at this table.

Gavin Dew: The minister did specify that his ministry provided advice to the Ministry of Housing with regard to short-term rental. Will the minister commit to provide any and all advice provided under his tenure or the previous minister’s tenure to the Ministry of Housing with regard to the economic impact?

[2:05 p.m.]

If there was no advice provided or no economic analysis undertaken, will the minister accordingly let us know that no such analysis was actually undertaken before this very economically significant policy was introduced?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The advice I provided on the short-term-rental registry, which was recently launched, was to make it easy, make it simple, make it so that somebody who wanted to rent out their home, or the basement of their home, could do it in an easy way. I certainly know that a number of people, whether it be in the Okanagan or other parts of the province, are doing that.

In our consultation on the short-term-rental registry, that was our message: make it easy to do, keep the prices low, give people a benefit, a bonus, if they sign up early. We want people to be on a level playing field, one platform, and that it’s easy to understand, that people know how to do it. That’s the advice that we provided to the Ministry of Housing.

Gavin Dew: The minister appears to be answering a different question than the one I asked, which is: what advice was provided on the imposition of fundamental short-term-rental policies, not the registry?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we need to be clear that there are still short-term rentals in the Okanagan, and there are still short-term rentals across the province. The question I would ask the member…. Try to understand. With hotel rates at 57 percent, the member seemed to suggest that tourism was struggling in the Okanagan because there wasn’t capacity.

In fact, the numbers continue to be good. They’re a little softer than they normally are, but I think the issue here is that we needed to make sure that there was housing for the public, that there was housing for tourism workers and that that was the top priority.

In terms of the analysis done around the legislation, I think, again, that’s an appropriate question for the Minister of Housing.

Gavin Dew: Sorry, but that’s not good enough. The minister has just huddled with his staff for three minutes and come back with absolutely no answer whatsoever.

The question that I asked, again, was whether or not any economic analysis was undertaken by this ministry prior to the implementation of short-term rental restrictions, yes or no? A simple question.

The Chair: The member may not enjoy the answer to the question, but our members are encouraged to avoid repetition.

Gavin Dew: If the minister will not answer that question, I will move to a different question.

If no economic analysis was undertaken before making decisions around the imposition or non-imposition of short-term-rental restrictions or of the speculation and vacancy tax in tourism-oriented communities, what was the basis for making decisions around which communities were or were not included?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, questions about the short-term-rental legislation really should be given to the Minister of Housing, as I’ve said I think on multiple occasions now, because they’re the ones that developed the legislation. They’re the ones that did the work. They’re the ones that crafted the changes to law. They’re the ones who talked to communities about it. They’re the ones who talked to tourism providers about it. They’re the ones who talked to short-term-rental owners about it.

I can’t say strongly enough: the legislation is under their ministry. If the member wants questions about how that legislation began, why they did what, who did what and where, that’s the place to go.

Gavin Dew: I’m utterly baffled by the idea that legislation with profound impacts on tourism would be undertaken with absolutely zero consultation or engagement by the Ministry of Tourism.

[2:10 p.m.]

Is that truly what the minister is telling us? That he, the Minister of Tourism and his ministry responsible for tourism had no hand whatsoever, no influence whatsoever, no reports whatsoever, no analysis whatsoever, no consultation whatsoever? That they were, in fact, completely frozen out of a conversation, with fundamental implications for tourism, in all different parts of this province?

Is that truly what the minister is saying?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The ministry was engaged, but we didn’t create the legislation. We didn’t do the background research and policy work, in that sense, for creating that law itself. What we did do is we made a case for a number of exemptions which appear in the legislation.

For example, I think it’s Predator Ridge in the Vernon area, exempt on that side. I think there were changes reflected in the legislation, but I wasn’t the minister when the legislation was crafted, so I can’t speak to all the back-and-forth the ministers may have had at the table at that time. I wasn’t there.

I can certainly say that we’ve heard from a number of tourism communities that wanted to be added in. They were concerned that they had been exempted. I can speak to that side, but I would say, on the legislation itself and why the ministry made certain choices after we had made our suggestions, you’d have to talk with the ministry itself.

Gavin Dew: The minister may not have been the minister, but he has the entire ministry staff sitting behind him. Surely he can ask them how the ministry was engaged, or was not engaged, in the process.

Could the minister please describe exactly how, not just in broad terms, the ministry was engaged in the analysis and consultation that went into shaping this policy? A very simple question.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In my understanding — I think the member probably could look it up — the Ministry of Housing’s argument, and very much the government’s response, has been: where the housing pressure is greatest, that’s where the decision around short-term rentals was made, where there is the lowest vacancy rate, where there is the highest pressure.

Certainly, we argued for exemptions around mountain resort areas, rural parts of the province, communities like Tofino, like Osoyoos, but in the end, they wanted to be part of this, so they signed on. So there were changes to make sure that folks could sign on.

In terms of how legislation is crafted, bill by bill, amendment by amendment, clause by clause, on this one, that was handled through the Ministry of Housing. But, certainly, we provided the advice we could, and they acted, as happens in government.

Gavin Dew: I will note that the minister seems to believe that the statute of limitations for him knowing things is the beginning of his being the minister, yet the statute of limitations for blaming others is ten or 15 years. I would encourage the minister in future to focus on the term of his own government or on the term of his own role in a ministerial capacity.

The minister touched on Predator Ridge and the importance of tourism there, on it being exempted from short-term rental. Could the minister please explain exactly why that was undertaken and whether there was any political dimension to exempting a swing riding?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that a number of resort communities have been exempted. I think Predator Ridge is one of them, Whistler and a couple of others. It’s really looking at housing that would not be able to be made long-term housing because of the location it is.

For further discussion on why exactly the ministry decided on one versus the other, that would be best set at the Ministry of Housing.

Gavin Dew: The reason I ask, of course, is that on numerous occasions, the basis for such exemptions has been stated as creating tourism jobs. In fact, creating strong tourism jobs at Predator Ridge was cited in a letter that circulated around Predator Ridge on October 7, 2024, in the middle of the most recent provincial election.

The letter said thank you to the minister for Vernon-Lumby for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and to Brad Pelletier and the mayor of Vernon for helping bring this unique situation to our attention. “I agree the resort nature of Predator Ridge means it should have an exemption to B.C.’s speculation and vacancy tax similar to Big White and other resort communities. I’m looking forward to working with you after the election to fix this and ensure we create strong tourism jobs at Predator Ridge while preserving homes in the city of Vernon.”

It’s signed by the Premier, and I’ll note that this was circulated, in the middle of the election, in Predator Ridge.

Can I get an update on what the state of play is there on exempting Predator Ridge from the speculation and vacancy tax to create tourism jobs, as the Premier indicated he wanted to do during the election?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Sorry. I’m just trying to understand. I think the member was talking about the speculation and vacancy tax. Is that correct?

Gavin Dew: Yes, I’m referring to a letter in which the Premier specifically states that he wants to exempt Predator Ridge from the speculation and vacancy tax in order to support tourism jobs, which is very much this minister’s portfolio. This letter was circulated, in the middle of the election, to residents in Predator Ridge.

I just wanted to understand whether there was a more detailed strategy, around supporting tourism jobs in Predator Ridge, that came with this. Was this merely another election promise? Perhaps the minister can dig into the robust policy analysis behind this announcement and convince me that it was anything other than an attempt to not lose that riding in the election.

The Chair: The member is reminded to wait for recognition from the Chair before continuing.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that Predator Ridge has been exempted in this budget, but in terms of the speculation and vacancy tax, that legislation is held by the Ministry of Finance. So for decisions around how that act is used or not used, it would be best put to the Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

Gavin Dew: My apologies.

Would the minister please explain whether any studies of any sort were undertaken that would support the Premier’s position with regard to Predator Ridge? If such studies were undertaken or such briefing notes were produced or any advice of any materiality was provided by tourism to the Premier to support this position, would the minister be so kind as to make that available, say, next week?

The Chair: Member, the question has been asked and answered. Next question.

Interjection.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Can you clarify for me how the question is different?

Gavin Dew: I’d be happy to clarify how this question is different. I’m asking specifically whether any material advice was provided to the Premier that would substantiate the claim he made in a letter that was circulated during the election in order to understand that it is based in policy and not in politics.

I think it’s a very different question than the question asked previously. I can see that the minister is conferring with his staff, and I assume that as he has previously been forthcoming in providing materials, he will be more than happy to provide these materials.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To my team’s knowledge, we don’t have a briefing note or material that was provided that the member refers to.

Gavin Dew: So just to confirm, no advice was produced or provided by the Ministry of Tourism that would substantiate the Premier’s claim that exempting Predator Ridge from the speculation and vacancy tax would support tourism jobs. Can you please just confirm that for me, Minister?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, no materials were provided from this ministry, but there may have been materials or information provided from other ministries. That’s not our legislation, so I would direct the question…. Hopefully, the member will take that up with the Ministry of Finance, if he wants to.

Gavin Dew: Let’s move to a new subject.

Many resort municipalities are struggling with labour shortages due to a lack of affordable housing. How does the government intend to address the worker housing crisis in tourism-reliant communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think there’s an example. Certainly, two tourism-dependent communities in many ways, Tofino and Osoyoos — they stepped up. They actually wanted to use the short-term-rental rules to provide better housing for their own staff, so they’ve moved to be included, even though they were exempted. They, with the Ministry of Housing, moved to take on the short-term rental rules as a way to provide better housing for their staff.

That’s one example.

Gavin Dew: What efforts is the government making to incentivize workforce housing solutions such as employer-driven housing development?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Another example would be through our master development agreements we make with mountain resorts. We actually require a certain number of beds per employee in the master development agreement, so it can’t all just be condos for sale. There actually has to be workforce housing built in to those agreements.

Gavin Dew: I’ll move to a new topic.

The B.C. NDP government committed to establishing a South Asian–Canadian heritage museum or cultural centre during the 2020 provincial election and reaffirmed this commitment in the 2020 and 2022 mandate letters for the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

In October 2023, the B.C. government launched a provincewide consultation to determine location, structure and scope. In December 2024, Surrey city council unanimously passed a motion to collaborate with the province.

Despite the government promises and public engagement process, B.C. Budget 2025 contains no earmarked funds for this project. Was this just an empty promise for political points, or should we expect to see a plan at some point?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d just say that the contributions of Canadians of South Asian heritages…. I’ll say heritages because South Asian communities in our province come from many parts of the globe. In my own family, certainly, that would be Fiji. I know, whether it be India, whether or not it be down in the Caribbean, there are many South Asian communities in our province who have sometimes similar, sometimes very diverse backgrounds — even within India itself, for example.

[2:25 p.m.]

We want to see those heritages valued. We want to see those stories told. We know that our province has had a history of — certainly, in some of our bad days, our worst days — real injustice to Canadians of South Asian heritages. Whether or not it be voting rights, the Komagata Maru incident, there are many incidents that we look back with shame.

There are also many incidents and stories of real victories, of real pride that we have and that we want shared. So our government’s gone out. We’ve talked to communities all across this province. We’re still in that process right now, an engagement process, to hear from British Columbians, to hear from communities about the heritages that exist or have existed in their communities.

I believe it’s Golden. I’ve been to their museum. The member opposite, the critic, might be able to tell me about it. Incredible small little museum with a room dedicated to the history of South Asians in that community — the lumber industry, the trains, the heritages within that community.

You look to communities all across the province. On the Island, the tiny community of Paldi and its history. You have Vancouver, the first South Asian temple over in Kitsilano. So there’s been real interest.

I thank the member for mentioning the city of Surrey. Certainly, we’ve had good engagement from folks living in Surrey, as well, on this question. We’ve had engagement from the city of Vancouver on this question too. Both mayors of those two communities are excited about it.

We’re just in the…. It’s called the what-we-heard report stage, where we’ve gone out…. There’s a community group going out engaging with a few more communities to ensure we’re adequately hearing from the public about what they want to see, what are their priorities in such a museum or a cultural centre.

Once we finish that process, we will be producing a report to go out to show what the public has said, what they’re interested in, and we’ll engage the community further at that stage about what next steps could look like.

I’m excited about the possibilities. I think these are stories that need to be told. These are heritages that need to be valued and supported. We haven’t done a particularly good job, in my view, in this province, of recognizing different communities and what they’ve brought to us. This is one opportunity to right that issue, just as we’ve done with the Chinese Canadian Museum as well.

The Chair: The Chair will call a recess. If we could reconvene at 2:40, as sharp as possible.

The committee recessed from 2:28 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We are currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Gavin Dew: I will return to my line of questioning, which is regarding the promised South Asian–Canadian heritage museum, which this government promised during the 2020 provincial election, reaffirmed their commitment in the 2020 and 2022 mandate letters, launched a provincewide consultation in October 2023. And in December 2024, Surrey council unanimously passed a motion to collaborate with the province on this matter.

Shortly before we recessed, the minister provided us with a long and lovely soliloquy on South Asian heritage in British Columbia which, while touching, did not conclude an answer to my question. It was: if the NDP truly believes in honouring South Asian heritage, why didn’t they commit even a single dollar in the budget to this promise, first made in 2020?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would say that actually, we’re in process right now on the topic of a Canadians of South Asian heritages museum. We’ve been doing work in consultation with the community. The reference the member made to the mayor of Surrey…. Well, the mayor of Surrey was advocating she wanted the museum in her community. I got a similar letter from the mayor of Vancouver.

That’s because we were in the process, and we are continuing in that process to engage with community members to ask them for their feedback about what it should look like.

There are different kinds of museums. There are different kinds of cultural centres — their functions, their use. Some argue it should be a travelling exhibition that goes from museum to museum; others very much that it has to be a cultural centre that’s only dedicated to one community of South Asian heritages. Others say it’s got to be all of them. Some say it should be in one city. Some say it should be in another.

We’re in the process of gathering those voices. There will be a report released in the months ahead to share those voices and work with the community on what the next steps are.

But I should be clear. This is a project that is from the community for the community. Government is there to support and to help create the dialogues and support with people to have those voices heard, but it’s also got to be coming from the community too. This is not driven by me. It’s driven by the community, and our job is to listen and to facilitate as best we’re able to take the next steps. There are lots of different views around what this should look like.

I look forward to sharing the what-we-heard report so that we can then hear from the community if we got it right and then on what next steps we should take together.

Gavin Dew: What I’m hearing is listening, engagement, report. And we have been in listening, engagement, report for going on five years from a 2020 provincial election commitment.

Surrey city council has already pledged their support for the museum, but the province remains silent or undecided or won’t give them any clear indication as to what they plan to do.

Would the minister confirm: why is the government ignoring one of the largest South Asian communities in Canada, or does Surrey only matter to the NDP during elections?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not sure how listening to the community, talking with the community, engaging with the community, developing plans with the community could be ever characterized as ignoring the community.

I know there’s an attempt to get political points here, to try and claim one thing — the sky is green, not blue; up is down; wrong is right. But the reality is we’re working with the community, and there are diverse views in the community about what this project should look like and how it should be delivered.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s important, if you want to get things right — especially when you’re talking about cultures and communities that have been excluded, that have been marginalized, that have been ignored…. You actually have to talk to them.

I know it’s easy to throw at the government, but if you actually talk to people who have been engaged in the process, it’s a respectful process of listening, of learning, of connections and dealing with, in some cases, challenging discussions within communities and within community groups about what should be or what shouldn’t be discussed at a museum.

Gavin Dew: The minister seems to be concerned that there are politics in the question. I noticed that the government launched a provincewide consultation in October of 2023, immediately before an election year. I’m sure there were no political considerations whatsoever in doing that.

For all the talk of engagement and of working with the community, my impression is that five years after this was first promised, the community might actually like to see the government deliver something.

Will the government commit to adding funding for this project in a budget update, or should we assume this promise is being walked back?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member heard the answer to the two previous questions on this, which is that we are committed to working with the Canadians of South Asian heritages to ensure that their heritage and their culture and all they bring to this province are valued and seen. I think that’s why we continue to do the work with the community, listen to their voices, listen to their advice.

The advice that I have been given is there are certain parts of this province where there have been strong South Asian–Canadian communities, where there have been or are lasting legacies that have not shown up in the consultation project thus far, where those voices have not made it through the table. So there’s more work the ministry is engaged on in ensuring that we get those voices.

I know people in rural B.C. want to be heard. And when you have a project where you’ve had a lot of advice and voices coming from very urban B.C., it’s important we also go out and make sure we hear from more rural communities that haven’t been engaged in this topic. That’s where we’re at now.

That’s the way that we should do this work. Yeah, we can talk about politics and this, that and the other thing, but you actually have to do the work, and that’s what we’re doing right now.

Gavin Dew: I’m confused, because I’m hearing that the work has been done. I’m hearing the work hasn’t been done. I’m hearing there has been engagement. I’m hearing we have to engage. It seems as if engagement lasts as long as the government is unwilling to actually fund things, during which time they’ll state they are doing engagement.

Just so that we can get off of this treadmill of never-ending engagement and never-ending nice speeches, can the minister provide a clear timeline, in years, for when they actually plan to fund and build this museum?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We want to take the time to get this right. This is not a project that can happen overnight. And I think we’ve seen examples in the past where people try to do things all of a sudden, and the community is excluded, or their voices aren’t heard.

I can think how there was a museum project a couple years back where they purported to tell the history of South Asians and insulted some members of that community. It was not our project. We weren’t involved in it. But you don’t want to do it that way. You want to actually talk to people.

People who historically have been excluded, marginalized and not allowed to be even in this place as legislators for a period of time deserve the time to be heard, to get it right. If they are telling me as minister, “We need time to talk to communities that we haven’t engaged yet,” I should listen. That’s what we’re doing right now.

[2:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Just a final question on this.

To confirm, this government committed to establishing a South Asian Canadian heritage museum or cultural centre during the 2020 provincial election, reaffirmed their commitment in mandate letters in 2020 and 2022, launched provincewide consultation in 2023. In 2024, Surrey city council unanimously passed a motion to collaborate.

There is no funding for this project in this year’s budget, and the minister is unwilling or unable to provide a timeline on when this project will get moving. Would the minister like to correct me on anything in that statement?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The next phase of this is the release of the what-we-heard report, once they have engaged properly with communities that were not engaged, at which point we will have further discussion about what next steps will have to be taken.

We’re still very much in the consultation phase of this project, and I look forward to hearing from British Columbians who have not as of yet engaged, in communities that are important to the history of South Asian Canadians’ heritages. That’s the way we should do this work.

Gavin Dew: So five years after making a promise to try to win an election, absolutely no material progress, no funding, no timeline. Got it.

Let’s talk about another museum. The provincial government proposed demolishing the existing Royal British Columbia Museum and replacing it with a new $789 million facility, citing the need for modernization, inclusivity and better seismic safety. However, as you know, the plan was met with significant public backlash, ultimately leading to the project’s cancellation. A separate project, the construction of a new collections and research building in Colwood for $204.8 million, has proceeded as planned.

Given the cancellation of the main museum redevelopment over public concerns due to costs, how did the government determine that proceeding with the $204.8 million collections and research building remained a priority?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I know there was some disagreement amongst many around what the future of that museum should be, and the government decided no, that the renovation that knocked down construction of a new tower…. Certainly, we heard from the public that that was not the priority for them at this stage.

One thing that I heard — I believe it was even from the opposition leader at the time — was support for ensuring that our provincial archives and our museum collection, which is really a heritage of all of us of this province, incredibly valuable heritage, be protected.

Much of the collection is currently in buildings that are not seismically safe, so we need to move them. Some of them are below sea level, which is a risk as well. That’s why we’re proceeding with the PARC campus, because that issue is still an issue.

That is a reality, and I would hope everybody would want to protect our provincial heritage, our provincial archives, our provincial collection, because this is priceless. You can’t replace this stuff. This is vital to knowing who we are and where we can go as a province. So that’s why we proceeded with the collections building.

[The bells were rung.]

I understand that’s a vote, so I think we’re going to have to adjourn here for a moment and go do that vote.

The Chair: The committee will be recessed until the conclusion of the division vote in the chamber.

The committee recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

I now invite the minister to continue his response.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I was wrapping up. Just to say that we must protect our provincial heritages, we must protect our collection and that the PARC campus is going to go a long way to protect it, because it will be seismically safe, properly HVAC’d, properly protected temperature-wise, and all the rest.

I got a chance to go see the site under construction. It’s impressive what they’re doing. It’s beautiful architecture with a very west coast feel to it. I think it’s going to also provide opportunities for teaching, for training, for learning.

It will give people an opportunity to see more of their collection, because this, in the end, is the public’s museum and the public collection of everything from things from tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago up to present day. It’s an exciting opportunity for the public and for the museum and archives.

If the member wants, I would encourage him to pick up the book on the heritage of the Royal B.C. Museum, the history of it — its fascinating history — from the tiny, little building over there, the east annex, to a very exciting museum today. Worth a read. Go B.C. book publishers.

Gavin Dew: As a supporter of our forestry sector, I look forward to purchasing a copy of the book.

Can the minister expand on what steps were taken to engage and consult with the public and relevant stakeholders regarding the decision to proceed with the new building, as well as speaking about any detailed cost-benefit analysis that was undertaken to justify the investment in the new collections and research building, especially in light of other pressing provincial capital needs?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We’re both required by law to protect the collection and to make sure that we’re giving the best stewardship of our common cultural heritages and histories and the items that relate to them. It’s also, I think, a moral imperative to protect that because that’s how we understand what the future looks like. We also have to understand what the past looks like.

We know there have been many facility reports into the condition of the facility, the condition of how the collection was being protected, or, rather, in some cases, has not been protected as well as it should be. These go back…. Certainly, if the member does take me up on that and purchases the book and reads it, these issues go back almost to when the Archives building was created in the 1960s.

I know the member doesn’t want to go back to history. Don’t worry. I don’t think it was his government in power then, in the 1960s; I think it was a government called the Social Credit Party. But there were issues with the building as soon as it was created. It’s about time we’re doing this work.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think I’ve heard the member or other members correctly say in the House that there is no wrong time to do the right thing. I think, in this case, we have to do that to protect the heritages of our province collectively.

Gavin Dew: Recognizing the importance of preserving our heritage — certainly, absolutely crucial.

I appreciate that the member is not attempting to hang decisions of the 1960s around the neck of the opposition today. I feel we have evolved over the course of today in terms of the timelines that we’re talking about.

With all of those good statements of value, what specific risks to the existing collections and archives does the new facility address? Were there more cost-effective alternatives considered to mitigate these risks? If any report was undertaken that evaluated the different options for addressing these risks, will the minister commit to making that public?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The business case actually for this project is available on the government website and worth a look, for sure.

Gavin Dew: As a substitute critic for this file, I will freely admit that I have not gone looking for that, having taken on this task as of late yesterday, so I appreciate that reference.

With that said, could the minister tell us what measures are in place to ensure that the construction of the new collections and research building remains within budget and delivers value to taxpayers?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Always a concern of mine as well. My understanding is, in this project, there’s actually a fixed price contract with the builder. So they will be coming in on the budget that we’ve announced publicly.

Gavin Dew: How will the new facility in Colwood integrate with the existing museum operations in Victoria? Specifically, what plans are in place to ensure seamless access to collections for both researchers and the public?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d certainly encourage the member or any member to go to the Royal B.C. Museum website. There is an actual kind of a 3D walk-through, a video that you can watch, which will show you what the new collections building is set to look like. I don’t know if anybody in the room has been down to the Archives building over here, but it could be better. I guess it might be the nice way to say it.

But in terms of actually being able to use the material, be able to see it, to get it out, there are access challenges for much of the collection, because they’re stored in places that are hard to get to. There are issues of climate control, bugs. There’s a whole bunch of things I’m learning that I didn’t know were there, that had to be in museums, that had to be considered.

I think the new facility is set to provide a place for greater access for researchers, greater access for the broader public. There will be more opportunities for folks at the Royal B.C. Museum to share the collection, to share the work they’re doing.

In fact, if you do either the digital walk-through or the actual walk-through, as I was able to, even able to walk in through the space…. There are going to be windows so you can look through to see as they are working on collection items, whether it be chipping away at the rocks to be able to reveal the trilobite or the elasmosaurus, the provincial dinosaur. Look it up if you don’t know. We passed that legislation a little while ago.

[3:20 p.m.]

I’m glad that politicians were not named as the provincial fossil. We were a close second, I think. Sorry, bad joke. I can’t avoid it on a Thursday afternoon.

It’s going to be a great facility, and it’s a huge improvement on what we’ve had to do and what researchers have had to do to engage with our collective heritages.

Gavin Dew: As a purveyor of dad jokes, I respect other people’s dad jokes and trilobite references. We’ll have a competition.

To specify my question in a little more detail, can the minister expand specifically on how the investment in the new collection and research building fits into a long-term integrated vision for the multiple facilities encompassing the Royal B.C. Museum?

Can he speak to…? With the original redevelopment plan cancelled, what are the current plans for the main Royal B.C. Museum site in Victoria? How does it all fit together, and how do we ensure seamlessness of connectivity so that we aren’t wasting resources being split so far apart?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think it’s important to understand the different functions of the facilities. The PARC campus is about research and being able to give the folks that work at the Royal B.C. Museum the space to be able to engage with the collections, to preserve the collections, but it’s also for the Archives to be able to have space for their collection.

Understand that in the province, for much of our history, the Archives were actually separate from the Royal B.C. Museum. They were not together; they were separate entities. In 2003, they were brought together under one umbrella again. They were together. They were apart. They were together. They’re now back together again, but they still function in a different way in terms of what their role is for the public.

The Archives is very much people wanting to look into their own histories of their families or where they live, how decisions are made around this place, other archival issues. The museum in downtown Victoria is very much about being a place for people to engage in that history through exhibitions, engage in histories and culture from around the world. It’s much more of a public-facing exhibition space in that sense, whereas the PARC campus is much more about preserving that heritage, doing the archival research, storing the collection.

I think right down here, downtown Victoria, where the Royal B.C. Museum is, across the street from where we are right now, that’s really, really important real estate. That’s a really important community centre.

I’d say the collection, in a way, has outgrown that space. Sure, we could add more warehouses, essentially, right downtown Victoria in some of the most expensive real estate in Victoria, or we could put it elsewhere. That’s where we decided to go — to bring that outside of downtown Victoria so we have a proper collection space for the whole collection, so we can do the Archives, so we can do the research. That’s that side.

Over here, I think the member had a question about: well, what’s next for the Royal B.C. Museum? It’s the people’s museum. Somewhat similar to an earlier question the member asked, we are very much now in the what-we-heard phase.

There was also a consultation period where the museum went out to the broad public, asked them what they wanted to see at the museum, asked what they think a new, reimagined Royal B.C. Museum should look like. The public certainly wants to understand how we can better engage the different cultural heritages in this province, the different regions in the province, I think, making sure that our story is told in an up-to-date way.

Some of the assumptions and the way the history has been told in that museum have been backwards, have been harmful to certain communities, have ignored certain communities, haven’t been what we would expect in a modern museum.

I think there have been a number of reports which are, certainly for the member or the critic, available on the Royal B.C. Museum website, which explain some of how we got here, some of the challenges that the museum has had with racism against Indigenous people, for example, with telling a story that’s not truthful and not in the voices of the people whose history it is. Examples of Indigenous masks from one culture being smashed together with regalia from another culture in a different part of the province as if it’s all the same.

[3:25 p.m.]

There’s real work that has to be done, and I’m proud of the board that we have in terms of what they are working on around repatriation, around ensuring that Indigenous British Columbians’ heritages are shared from their point of view.

If the member had the chance to see Our Living Languages, for example — an incredibly moving exhibition which went through the entire province in partnership with the First Peoples Cultural Council to hear about the different language diversity in this province.

You were able to hear the languages. You were able to hear the stories about language revitalization efforts, about working with Elders and working with youth to have those stories told and have those languages supported to be the living languages and the living histories that they are in communities.

There’s more to be done. The report will come out. I think the museum is working on that now, which will give a sense of where the public thinks our provincial museum needs to go. I’m looking forward to reading it and getting a better sense when it’s released.

Gavin Dew: I will turn to a few short questions around the B.C. fairs, festivals and events fund, following which I’ll ask some questions about the 2023 what-we-heard report.

Then once I’ve done that, I will hand over for a while to my colleague from Surrey North to ask some questions about sports, just to keep the minister and staff apprised as to where we’re going and try to direct traffic.

The B.C. fairs, festivals and events fund previously provided up to 20 percent of an event’s total budget, capped at $250,000 with a minimum event budget of $10,000. It was designed to help festivals recover from challenges such as rising costs, reduced sponsorship and severe weather events. The new destination events program has reduced the funding to 10 percent of an event’s budget with a lower maximum of $200,000 and a much higher minimum event budget of $150,000 to qualify.

Could the minister explain why the government decided to cut available funding in half from 20 percent of total event budget to only 10 percent?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question.

I think the destination events program is something that folks especially in the tourism world really look forward to. We announced it on Friday — great response so far. I think the reality is there are only so many funds to go around, and we want to make sure that we’re able to support good events, as many of them as we can, with their costs. Certainly, we heard from the sector that this is something that they wanted to see. I’ve heard from folks that they’re glad that we were able to bring this program back and that it will fund events.

Now, the point of it, in part, is to support great community cultural events and great community events that bring people together. It’s also got a part of it which is the tie-in with the tourism world in terms of: does your event bring people from outside of region to stay in hotels? So it’s not just a community festival event, but this program is a community festival that brings people to the region to support tourism as well. That’s the destination events program.

Now, to be clear, we also fund festivals and events through the B.C. Arts Council, through gaming grants as well. So it’s not the only place where we have support for festivals, and I look forward to continued discussion. I think we’ll see how this next round goes.

We’ll see what folks who work in the industry and who work to produce these events — how they interact with the destination events program. Of course, we’re always open to making adjustments down the road if there are changes that need to be made.

Gavin Dew: I am struggling to understand why this specific program was targeted for funding reduction or a change in formula and, in particular, for one that makes it harder for smaller rural events to access funding.

[3:30 p.m.]

On our side of the House, we have significant concerns about supporting economic resiliency and diversification in rural communities, and it seems as if these changes make it materially harder for such rural communities to access these funds.

Could the minister please explain the logic behind these changes, as well as any economic impact analysis undertaken to assess how reduced funding will affect tourism revenue, local businesses and job creation in rural communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I agree with the member that we need to look for ways to diversify our economy, to grow our economy, to support jobs in our economy, and that’s what this program does. The destination events program really, in its criteria, very clearly talks about economic benefit in regions and that it’s funding dedicated to programs that generate those economic returns in the region. That’s one of the key priorities and key criteria for how the program is designed.

Gavin Dew: I’m struggling to understand NDP math here. Will the minister explain that if cost increases and inflation are among the primary challenges festivals face, does the minister truly believe that cutting support by 50 percent helps festivals overcome these challenges?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Actually, the destination events program — this is the first time that we’re launching this program with this criteria because it’s important that we actually fund these groups.

Certainly, I heard from many groups. Their advice to me was that to do something like this makes a lot of sense because we want to make sure that many groups still have access to these resources.

Actually, I heard after we announced this that they were glad we did this. Their fear was…. Given the economic challenges and all the talk about how we had to cut spending, cut spending, which I’ve heard often from the opposition, they were worried that this kind of program would be cut.

I’m glad we have this program. It’s going to help many festivals in this province. I think our funding to festivals through the B.C. Arts Council and through gaming grants is going to continue to provide additional resources than this one program to support arts and culture in this province.

Gavin Dew: I remain baffled by the math here. Could the minister please educate me and help me understand how going from a program in the BCFFE, which provided up to 20 percent of an event’s total budget, to a new program in the DEP, which reduces the funding to 10 percent of an event budget, is not a cut.

I am thoroughly baffled, as I stand here, that the minister is proud to tell us about how he is increasing funding by decreasing funding. Could the minister please educate me on the math of how a cut is not a cut?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that the former program, even though there was a maximum that the member points to…. The fact is the most average funding was at the 10 percent level. In fact, that’s what I heard from event producers as well — that that was approximately what they got anyway. They were already getting that amount in many cases.

The reality is that this program is not the only program to support festivals and events in this province. I think the B.C. Arts Council is still in the process of working through their application and their submissions that have come in around their events and festivals program. I think gaming grants — likewise, those decisions haven’t been made yet.

Certainly for folks looking for support for their events, this is one of a number of programs that exist to support.

I’d also say that a number of destination marketing organizations, destination management organizations in this province…. I can think of one. I was having a conversation recently in Vancouver. They have a program set up, somewhat similar, that is supporting festivals and supporting events in Vancouver.

I know that exists in many parts of this province where they, like us, see the benefit of these large events, and they, like us, see the benefit of community cultural gatherings and events that bring people together to their hospitality sector, to the hotels, to the regions. I think it’s important that we continue to support these events, and I’m glad that we have this program here today.

Gavin Dew: I know that both myself and the minister are the fathers of young children and that we watch kids’ shows that teach kids to count. So I will make my question very, very simple.

Could the minister please confirm whether 10 percent is smaller than, bigger than or equal to 20 percent?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member understands the question. It’s a gotcha kind of thing.

I’d just say that, again, the event organizers I’ve spoken with were getting 10 percent through the previous program. They’re eligible to apply for 10 percent under this program. So 10 percent equals 10 percent, if we’re playing a math game.

Gavin Dew: I remain baffled by how a program that provided up to 20 percent of an event’s total budget being replaced by one that provides up to 10 percent of an event’s budget does not constitute a cut in the mind of the minister, but I will simply leave that alone.

I will ask, because this is what really matters: will the minister commit to reviewing and increasing festival funding for smaller and rural festivals in the next budget cycle, given that his new program makes it more difficult for both smaller and rural festivals to access funding?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, we’ll review this program. We’re in the process of reviewing the work we do.

This program, obviously, is out now for application. Then, of course, there’ll be the adjudication period and then the notification period for folks in how it works.

Of course, again, we also look at other programs like the B.C. Arts Council. They have got over $2 million dedicated for festivals, small festivals in particular, in many communities.

We are always looking for ways. I’m always looking for ways to better support our communities, and this is no different.

Gavin Dew: Recognizing that the government has very little representation in rural British Columbia and very little representation in small communities, I am hoping that the minister will take it upon himself to become a champion for funding for festivals in smaller and rural communities.

Will the minister go further than simply saying there will be a review and commit today to be a champion for increased festival funding for small and rural communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we’ve got, on the government side, some really effective representation raising the voice of rural communities. I look to my colleague from Castlegar, certainly a strong voice in the Kootenays there; my colleague in Nelson-Creston certainly raising the voices for rural communities there; on the Island; in the North.

In the end, the ministry works for all British Columbians, so I know that the member and his colleagues will also raise these issues with me.

[3:40 p.m.]

My pledge, of course, is always to work hard to increase benefits for British Columbians. If that’s in rural B.C….

I think of ArtsWells, an incredible festival up in, well, Wells, B.C. It’s right in the name. I think of Kaslo jazz festival. I think of other festivals that have done incredible work with very small budgets, sometimes no budget, next to no budget, because it’s just community efforts, and that’s from a small powwow to something much larger in communities up and down this province.

I look across, I see many folks representing many different regions in this province, and I look forward to good conversations in the years ahead to support your festivals, your arts and cultural events, as best as we’re able to — heritage as well. It’s all to the good.

I’m glad that there are voices that want to passionately support arts and culture. That’s not always been the case in government. I remember days when folks said that these were wastes of money. I’m glad that the member is not making that view and in fact is supporting festivals and events, because they’re good for our community and they’re good for our economy.

Gavin Dew: To be specific again, the change from the BCFFE program to the DEP program not only cuts the maximum amount from 20 percent to 10 percent but raises the minimum threshold budget to qualify. By making that change, the ministry has made it more difficult for smaller, rural events to access funding.

If the minister’s goal is to help all of British Columbia, that has not been achieved with this policy change. What this policy change has done is made it materially harder for smaller, rural festivals to access funding. This is not neutral. This is less than. This is worse for smaller and rural communities than the previous program.

I will ask again very clearly. Will the minister specifically commit to reviewing and increasing festival funding and the festival funding formula for smaller and rural festivals in the next budget cycle, yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member will know that I’m unable to make budget commitments for a year from now in terms of what the Finance Minister runs through the budget. I appreciate the advocacy, and I think it will be valuable.

That’s why we do reviews as well, so that depending on what we hear and what it looks like, we can assess our own budget and see what we can do within our own budgeted means, depending on where the needs land most and where the benefit is the most. So we consider that.

We’re looking…. As the member wanted us to do, as we want to do, we want to make sure that there’s the best return, that there is economic benefit, that it helps drive job growth in communities, that it helps bring tourism to communities. That’s the point of this program.

I am happy to have the conversation down the road again. Certainly, we’ll look for whatever opportunities we can to provide support for whether it be big city festivals or smaller festivals in smaller towns that bring real economic return to those towns as well.

Gavin Dew: I’m saddened to not hear a clear commitment that the minister will be a champion within his government for increased funding for rural festivals and festivals in small communities. I certainly hope that at such time as a commitment is made, it is kept a little better than the commitment to a South Asian heritage museum.

I’ll move on to the next topic, the 2023 what-we-heard report. I won’t recount all the various aspects in it, but I do have a few questions.

The report identified that tourism operators face excessive delays in bureaucratic red tape when applying for land use permits, particularly for ecotourism, adventure tourism and resort development. Can the minister provide a clear breakdown of the average processing time for tourism-related Crown land tenures in 2025 versus 2023?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member may not know, as he’s not the critic for this area, but land tenures are decided at the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. That’s where…. They set the permitting times. Those issues are handled there, so I can’t give that information to the member right now.

[3:45 p.m.]

What I can say is that certainly my commitment to the tourism industry has been to work to support their efforts to deal with tenure issues, deal with land issues. I’m certainly, in the months ahead, reaching out to work with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and Ministry of Environment around tenure issues.

I think our recreation economy, our adventure tourism economy really relies on the land, very clearly — and not just the land, but the water as well, and then the intertidal and river systems and lakes, and so on. So permitting timelines — we’re working to get them down across government.

Certainly, I’m working with tourism stakeholders and with other ministries to try and support quicker turnaround, because we want folks to have some better certainty on the land base and better results when they make the investments that they do so that they can have some confidence in terms of timelines and better results for their projects and the communities that they’re based in.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much to the minister for referencing the cross-ministerial collaboration in this regard. I’m hoping he can pick up on some of those areas.

Given that operators continue to report excessive wait times, what specific reforms has the ministry or other ministries implemented to streamline the approvals processes, and why are businesses still reporting very significant delays?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the question.

When I became the minister, one of the things I asked was: how do we do better for the land-based businesses, the water, the land? We want more investment. We want growth in this sector. Through collaboration with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and the Ministry of Environment, I think we’ll get there. We’re looking at all aspects of the permitting processes: legislation, timelines, who makes the decisions, where there are potential redundancies, where you could substitute something for something else.

Those conversations I’ve asked to stand up. Then certainly with the tariff issue coming to us and the huge impact on our economy from America, I’ve underlined that it’s important that we not just talk about it, but act on it. That work is underway now with good collaboration.

Much of the legislative tools — in fact, most of them — are outside of this ministry in terms of the actual legislation around some of the permitting. But we work as advocates for those within our ministry who sometimes need that boost, because I think that in tourism, we have so many small businesses that we need to work to make sure they’re united and that their voices are heard.

Bigger industries, for a long time, at least in terms of bigger corporations or bigger companies, have been very good at getting their voices heard. And I think we want to make sure that people understand the huge size, the huge value of tourism.

I often hear members talk about the four founding industries in the Legislature. They point up above us in the rotunda, at the paintings that were done in the 1930s, to say that agriculture and mining and so on, and they talk about forestry and fishing — those are the industries.

Tourism, from the beginning of this place that we call home, has been one of the biggest industries. We just never thought of it that way. It’s a resource — the relationships we have with people. The resource is our relationship with the land. The resource is the relationship with culture. It’s something that people from all over the world want to be part of, to have that relationship, to have that….

[3:50 p.m.]

It is a resource economy in that sense as well, a resource job, but we haven’t thought about it that way. We haven’t always thought about it as an export industry, when of course, at the crux of it, we’re exporting experiences. We’re exporting people’s best times of their lives when they come to visit our province. In many cases, of course, that export comes back again and becomes an import because they want to join our province; they want to move here; they want to bring their business here.

Sorry if I’ve strayed off a little bit, to the member. I’m passionate and enthusiastic about this work, and it excites me to no end to share that passion with others.

Gavin Dew: I think in his statement around the stained-glass windows in the Legislature, the minister may have mistaken MLAs for tour guides. Perhaps, given his party’s obsession with pointing to the past, I will observe that I’m not sure whether that stained glass was installed in 1893 or thereafter, but I can confirm that at no time did anyone on our side of the House install that stained glass. In fact, we support a modern, diversified economy.

Now, let’s turn to another subset of this issue. Indigenous tourism operators have expressed frustration over the complicated and unclear process of securing land tenures for tourism projects on traditional territories. Despite the government’s stated commitment to economic reconciliation, many Indigenous-owned tourism businesses struggle with permit approvals and lack direct access to decision-making on land use.

Minister, what concrete actions has the ministry, in collaboration with other ministries, taken to simplify and expedite land use approvals for Indigenous-led tourism initiatives?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would say that the member is onto something in the huge potential and huge growth we’re seeing in Indigenous tourism in this province. I think when I first got to know folks at Indigenous Tourism B.C., which was then Aboriginal Tourism B.C., there were maybe 50 market-ready businesses in the Indigenous tourism world. There are now over 500. It’s been an incredible growth path.

I raise my hands to Indigenous Tourism B.C. They’ve done such important work helping small, fledgling businesses — some that are very difficult to get to, in many rural parts of this province — to become market-ready, become ready to engage the world, become in a bigger way than they may have already been doing. They become connected, whether it’s the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; or, in some cases, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Environment, to get permits dealt with.

It’s similar to my answer earlier. We are looking at that issue very closely. I had many good discussions with Indigenous leaders at the First Nations Leadership Gathering and after, and I’m sure we’ll continue those conversations. The land is so valuable to those experiences, and you want a situation where people know that they have access and that it’s respected.

I think back to an experience maybe ten years ago where there was a wonderful tourism business that was just about to bring folks out on their trail ride and discovered that another ministry had approved the mass cutting of the forest that that trail went through. There was no way to access that trail anymore, because there hadn’t been that consultation. I think that’s something that back then should have been improved.

Obviously, those issues of tenure and tenure conflict are ones that we need to be continually working to resolve to get ahead of, so that’s not the situation, so that people know that what they’re booking is going to be what they’re getting, and so that those Indigenous tourism businesses and all tourism businesses can see a clear path to growth and a clear path from their government of supporting them in their efforts.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister please provide a list of Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in the last two years?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Permit approvals are not made through our ministry, so we don’t have those names and those numbers here. I would encourage the member to engage either with Indigenous Tourism B.C. or with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and raise those questions.

There are so many Indigenous tourism businesses engaged on the land base that have worked through issues. There are over 500 businesses now, as I said. Some of them are in cities, but many of them are very much out on the land, engaged on the land and engaged with permits and tenures.

I would encourage him to chase that one down with the ministry responsible for those permits. It’s not just Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, but it’s also Ministry of Environment and, in some cases, I believe, Ministry of Forests.

Gavin Dew: The minister has spoken often about the integrated nature of his ministry’s work with other ministries.

Rather than suggesting that the opposition chase down those names, can I suggest that the minister in fact go and work with his fellow ministers and procure a list of the Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in pursuit of their efforts toward tourism and provide it to us in the next two weeks?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: I now call recess, and we will reconvene following the division vote.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We are currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

I recognize the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly happy to follow up with the member on that. I wish I could be more definitive about timelines, and so on. As it’s not in our ministry, I don’t know how easily accessed that kind of information is.

Also, there are things like freedom of information, commercial confidences and legal issues for some of the providers. They may not want us to share that information or that they’ve even engaged in the permitting process because, of course, some of that…. Until they’re ready to go live, they may not want their business being revealed, for example.

[4:15 p.m.]

I don’t know how easily that’s gathered, so I can’t commit to a timeline, as it’s outside of our ministry. But certainly happy to follow up with the member post-this to see exactly what he’s looking for.

Gavin Dew: We are fortunate that, over the break, the ministers of both WLRS and Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation have come to join us in the committee room, so perhaps I will repeat my theme and ask a different question.

Indigenous tourism operators are frustrated by the complicated and unclear process of securing land tenures for tourism projects on traditional territories. Despite the government’s stated commitment to economic reconciliation, many Indigenous-owned tourism businesses are struggling with permit approvals and lack direct access to decision-making on land use.

What I asked the minister prior to the recess was what concrete actions his ministry and other ministries have taken to simplify and expedite land use approvals for Indigenous-led tourism initiatives. And he was just finishing telling us about how he was going to do his utmost to provide a list of Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in the last two years.

I will just nuance that question, because I don’t want to get no response back. If the minister and his colleagues are unable to provide a specific list, will they, at minimum, provide aggregate information that does not necessarily disclose information that cannot be disclosed about individual operators so we can have a clear understanding of the number and region of Indigenous tourism businesses that have successfully navigated the provincial land tenure process in the last two years?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question.

My understanding is the tenures on Crown land are posted online on a website about who has been approved for tenures. I don’t think it’s arranged by nation, necessarily. So to be able to pull that out to say this one specifically is necessarily an Indigenous tourism business or not and whether or not that’s on traditional territory….

Certainly we can look at the list. We can get that information to the member for where to access that list. But I can’t commit to a timeline that this will be ready with every business, every place they started in that two-year timeline. Some may have begun before. Some may have been engaged in actually getting renewals.

I just don’t have that level of detail today to be able to make that commitment.

Gavin Dew: I trust the minister will make best efforts to provide suitable information. I appreciate his directness and honesty in understanding what is and is not available. I think we all share the goal of seeing Indigenous-owned tourism businesses succeed, and we’re simply trying to gather information to understand the trend line in that regard and whether undue obstacles remain to enable folks to succeed.

I will return to some questions related to the 2023 future of tourism what-we-heard report. And I will touch specifically on transportation issues, which were highlighted as being significant and of course cut across multiple ministries. The what-we-heard report clearly identified the loss of intercity transit, following the exit of Greyhound, as a major barrier to tourism recovery, particularly for small communities.

Can the minister provide a detailed explanation of why, after two years, B.C. still lacks a provincial intercity bus service connecting major tourism destinations? Has the government allocated any funding or pursued private partnerships to address this gap, and if so, what funding and what partnerships?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Right in the question, in a way, the member answered the question himself. This really is transit transportation within the Ministry of Transportation. They are the ones that make investments in things like B.C. Bus North. Certainly, I would encourage follow-up on that side.

I would say what we look to is…. We look to support any investments and support just being a voice to say investments in travel and transportation and getting access to the regions is important. That’s also including things like supporting investments.

I was talking to folks who work in tourism up in the northwest of the province in Stewart, Hyder, Telegraph Creek — not Telegraph Cove, that’s on the Island, but Telegraph Creek — and those kinds of regions.

Their voice and those from Indigenous communities was about how important the government’s investments in that highway are going to be for unlocking the tourism potential in that region.

I understand where the member is going. Obviously, you have to be able to get somewhere if you want to encourage somebody to have a tourism experience. But in terms of the actual roads and the actual buses and those kinds of things, that’s held within the Ministry of Transportation.

Gavin Dew: I must say I find it frustrating that the definitions of collaboration, engagement and commitment seem to vary depending on the question. I would expect that the minister and the ministry would be aware of and collaborating with these kinds of efforts.

Since the minister raises the issue of road infrastructure, tourism operators in regions like the Kootenays, Cariboo and northern B.C. have consistently raised concerns about poorly maintained highways, seasonal closures and a lack of roadside infrastructure for travellers.

Can the minister provide a breakdown of funding allocated for highway upgrades specifically tied to tourism routes? If he cannot provide a breakdown or wishes to defer to the Minister of Transportation, can he please explain how his ministry is engaged in informing these decisions?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t, within our ministry, have a list of every road infrastructure upgrade in this province and why did we pave that lane, why didn’t we pave that lane, why did we choose that road versus that road. That, appropriately, is in the Ministry of Transportation.

I know it’s frustrating, as a critic, to ask questions and be directed elsewhere, but it’s also important to ask the right questions to the right ministry. In terms of the actual investments that have come through our ministry that relate to transportation, I’m certainly happy to provide a list. We’re not paving roads through this ministry, but there are ancillary things that affect transportation, things like bathrooms, that we have had some investments in in the past.

Really, road infrastructure, highways, transportation is appropriately in the Ministry of Transportation.

Gavin Dew: I find it frustrating that the minister opened by talking about how collaboratively his ministry worked with other ministries, yet every time there is a question about how his ministry works with other ministries, there is a non-answer.

Specific to this question, I will again ask: has the ministry conducted any impact assessments on how road conditions affect visitor travel patterns from a tourism promotion perspective?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No, we haven’t provided studies on the road infrastructure in this province.

Gavin Dew: Will the minister commit to do so?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Always happy to hear from folks in the tourism field who have arguments about one road or another, and so on, but if they want their roads upgraded, the appropriate place to go is the Ministry of Transportation.

[4:25 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: That sounds like a very piecemeal approach, where individuals are supposed to lobby the Ministry of Transportation, and there is no coherent strategy.

Will the minister rethink his answer and commit to advancing a coherent strategy, working with the Ministry of Transportation in order to conduct an impact assessment on how road conditions affect visitor travel patterns in jurisdictions such as the Kootenays, the Cariboo and northern B.C. in order to make sure that through collaboration across ministries, which he has repeatedly talked about his desire to do, we can improve the tourism infrastructure that drives tourism in rural British Columbia?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, we do work collaboratively with ministries across the government, but I don’t think that means that we are the ministry for every ministry.

It sounds like the member is arguing that I should be the minister for everything and be able to make decisions around everything because they all relate to tourism. Of course, everything has a connection to tourism, but the appropriate question has to go to the appropriate ministry.

Now, that being said, of course we’re going to continue to work to support historic and future tourism routes as ways to get places, but that’s mostly in the marketing. That’s what happens in our ministry. In terms of the assessment of the roadbed — is it appropriate; are there too many potholes; does it take too long to get from one place to the other; should that be faster — that’s appropriately the job of the Ministry of Transportation.

I think in my consultations with folks in the tourism industry, the issues that they raise with me are largely related to more issues like permitting of tenures. They raise issues of having enough staff. They raise issues of: do we have the right mix of marketing? Do we have the right collaboration with different destination marketing organizations?

They also say that when they have issues with roads, they go to the Ministry of Transportation because they understand that they’re the ones that build the roads. They’re the ones that maintain the roads. They’re the ones that set the rules on the road, so they’re the appropriate place to make decisions about the roads.

Gavin Dew: I believe the minister is misunderstanding my question. I’m not asking about road construction. I’m not asking about roadbeds. I’m not asking about gravel. What I’m asking about is specifically in the ambit of the Ministry of Tourism.

There is abundant research undertaken by tourism organizations around this province in order to evaluate the drivers and restrainers of tourism in their respective regions. They look at all kinds of different factors that attract people to undertake tourism. They try to address those factors. They try to strengthen their appeal.

We have heard consistent concerns from tourism operators in regions like the Kootenays, Cariboo and northern B.C. that poorly maintained highways, seasonal closures and a lack of roadside infrastructure for travellers is contributing to diminished tourism in their regions.

I’m not asking the minister to build roads. I’m not asking the minister to be the Minister of Transportation. What I’m asking the minister to do is to undertake impact assessments with tourists or with tourism promotion organizations around how road conditions are affecting visitor travel patterns so that that information, which I would assume remains specifically in the ambit of the Minister of Tourism, can be used to inform policy-making and decision-making around prospective road improvements that would duly be undertaken by the appropriate ministry.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member talks about assessments and things that different tourism organizations have done. In many cases, those assessments are funded through Destination B.C. They work with our regional tourism partners on the issues that they see as priorities in their regions. They will continue to do that, and that certainly is my expectation.

If a regional tourism organization says that that’s the top issue in their region, if the city raises it with a regional destination marketing organization, that then gets to Destination B.C. who makes decisions around these kinds of reports.

[4:30 p.m.]

The reason I was talking about roadbeds to the member is he was talking about impact assessment of roads and conditions. I assume that also impacts the roadbed and being able to drive safely on that, which is really the job of the Ministry of Transportation. That’s why I made that point.

In terms of people’s ability to get to places, what is needed to grow tourism in those regions — we hear that through our partners all the time. Again, I’ll make the offer. I don’t know if the member actually wants this information — I hope he does — around what investments we’ve made for things like roadside bathrooms, ensuring that you have the ability to get to a rest station. And the quality of it does matter. There have been investments on that side that have come through tourism funds with support of regional tourism organizations.

If the member wants, we can pull together that list. I’d just love an indication.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Gavin Dew: Minister, I would certainly appreciate that list. I would also just ask you specifically: will you direct Destination B.C. to undertake studies or provide funding to undertake studies with regard to assessing the impact of road conditions on rural tourism?

Will you provide specific, directed funding or direction to Destination B.C. to make this a priority? This is a concern that we’re hearing time and again from communities like the Kootenays, Cariboo and northern B.C.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We look to the regions for their advice — so rural B.C., many different regions; and there are different issues within those regions. There’s not one monolith, one issue in rural B.C. I think it’s important that we listen to those voices.

So the member has raised concerns that he’s hearing.

Can we make sure that phones are turned off please? Thank you.

Sorry, that’s the Chair’s job. I used to have your job. Sorry, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Could we please make sure that cell phones are muted during this period of time?

Minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you. A soundtrack is fun, but we don’t need one right now.

Yeah, it really is…. I don’t want to be combative about this in any way. I think this is a question where we look to the regions, and if that’s what they’re hearing, that’s how they develop their plans. So their destination development plans include studies, include research, include looking at travel patterns, include what they think will be the biggest return for their dollar. That’s where the research happens, and that’s where the requests happen.

We hear it. Certainly I’ll check in with our regional partners to see if that’s the top issue that they think needs to be the focus. In the end, it rests with them and with the businesses in those regions to develop those plans as opposed to a politician just saying: “This is the top issue. We’re not listening to you.” It actually has to come from them, and that’s where this work should come from.

Gavin Dew: I certainly agree with the minister that rural British Columbia is not monolithic, and I would submit that conducting an impact assessment on how road conditions affect visitor travel patterns would be a very good way to break down any monolithic notion of what is needed in different regions.

Let’s move from roads to another form of travel. Air travel remains the only viable option for many remote tourism destinations, yet regional flight prices in B.C. are among the highest in Canada. Has the ministry worked with regional airlines to expand affordable routes to tourism-reliant communities? Can the minister provide any data on provincial subsidies or incentive programs or partnerships that have been introduced to reduce travel costs for visitors to these regions?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Air travel is hugely important for tourism in this province, for people to be able to get around a province as vast as ours with as many mountain passes and remote areas.

We’re served by an incredible number of airports. I was having a conversation with Air Canada the other day about how many routes they have in B.C. alone. I know there are many other air carriers and floatplane carriers, as well, that have aquatic airports in addition.

At our round table we had last week, the president of the B.C. Aviation Council was there. Certainly, we’re going to follow up with more discussions with them to look at what opportunities they see, what are the barriers to increasing air travel or giving people more options, more choices.

I think what I’m hearing anecdotally is there is interest in increasing routes, in part because of the economic challenge we’re being faced with from our neighbours to the south. There’s more desire of British Columbians to get out and see the province, more desire of Canadians to get out and see different parts of B.C. too.

I know some of the carriers are looking at potentially adding routes. They’re looking at how they do that and where they do that that makes most sense business-wise. It is a private industry. It’s a private for-profit industry that makes business choices about where they see opportunity for growth.

I am certainly happy to continue talking with them about what they see as necessary on the regulatory side or elsewhere that would matter. Of course, some of that’s outside of the ministry, but we’re always looking for ways to support access as best as we’re able to, within our fields anyways.

Gavin Dew: In 2023, the ministry committed to improving transportation accessibility by expanding ride-hailing options across the province. However, as of 2025, many tourism-reliant communities outside of Metro Vancouver and Victoria still lack access to services like Uber and Lyft.

What steps, if any, has the ministry taken to facilitate the expansion of ride-hailing services into smaller communities? Have regulatory roadblocks been addressed, or does the government continue to limit private transportation alternatives?

If the minister’s answer is that it’s up to a different minister, then I would ask what he is doing or will do to advocate for ensuring that we’re able to bring these services to more communities in the near term.

The Chair: Before we continue, I’d ask again that individuals here please ensure that their phones are muted so that the proceedings can go ahead.

Recognizing the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s the ministry for arts and culture, so people want to play music. I’m sorry, hon. Chair. And they’ll dance later.

I think, in the question of ride-hail and how we get access and people getting around communities, I hear the member. I think they’re great options for people, where they exist. I understand taxi, as well, is hugely important, in terms of transportation and getting around in communities. Some take ride-hail. Some take taxi. Some take both.

Certainly I’m happy to have conversations with colleagues and continue conversations about where there are opportunities, where there are options.

[4:40 p.m.]

Yes, the member is right. It is outside of the ministry. As much as I might want to be the minister for everything, that’s not something my colleagues agree with, so we will continue on.

Gavin Dew: I will inform the Chair that in our caucus we have a fine for ringing phones during meetings. I would suggest the members opposite may wish to consider such an option in their caucus.

Interjections.

Gavin Dew: That was funny. It’s that type of day.

We’ve talked about commitments from five years ago that this government has not fulfilled. We just talked about a commitment from 2023 that this government has not fulfilled. Let’s talk about a commitment from 2024 and see whether this government will fulfil it.

In the 2024 NDP platform, there was a commitment to an arts, culture and sports infrastructure fund. Can the minister please let us know when that fund will be forthcoming?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No question. Infrastructure for arts and culture, and supporting an infrastructure fund, is a passion of mine. It’s something that I’ve advocated for a long time. I’m glad that we have a capital fund within the B.C. Arts Council now. It hasn’t been there forever, even though we should have had a capital fund for a long time, to maintain and upgrade facilities. The capital fund through the Arts Council I think is good news.

At B.C. Gaming, as well, we have a capital fund there, which has been providing resources — not just to arts and culture, to be clear.

That’s important; I hear the member. We have incredible cultural facilities across this province, and they need to be updated. They need to be upgraded.

I know some of them have received support through other ministries. Even though it’s supporting culture, we’re not calling it cultural funding in that sense. Whether it’s with their HVAC systems, their heat pumps, there has been support across government to support them to reduce carbon emissions, to support improvements for accessibility and those kinds of things.

I hear the member. We’re always looking for more resources. Certainly, if the member and his caucus want to commit to increasing resources for arts and culture funding and not to criticize us if we do, that’s always helpful to know — to get in support of arts and culture funding and not also argue, at the same time, that we should be cutting funding. That goes against arguing that we need more money. I know it’s not always easy to argue both sides of that question.

I think investing in arts and culture infrastructure and in capital funding is really important. We’ve had some major investments. The member will know about the Chinese Canadian Museum, for example — a strong investment to tell a story that had been ignored and had been hidden away. That’s one project with a huge impact, huge results.

Arts and culture infrastructure — we talked earlier about the PARC campus, maintaining our heritage, the cultural resources and the richness of the province. I mentioned the infrastructure funding that we got through the Arts Council and through gaming grants. I’m happy to take more questions on this one.

[4:45 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I will note that this will be my final question. I will be turning the microphone over momentarily to the MLA for Surrey North, who is our critic for parental rights and sports. If I don’t get the opportunity to question the minister again, I will say that I’ve enjoyed our time together, and I certainly have appreciated it.

That said, I would just point out that the question was very simple. What happened to the commitment in the 2024 NDP platform to an arts, culture and sports infrastructure fund? It does not appear to exist, much like the South Asian heritage museum that dates back to the 2020 election and that does not exist.

The minister seems to want to go off on a dialogue about the opposition supporting decisions. No, we’re simply asking this government to fulfil the campaign promises that it made to people in this last election.

Now, certainly in my community of Kelowna, there is substantial interest in building a new performance centre. In other municipalities, there’s substantial interest in building arts, culture and sports infrastructure. As I was sitting here, I’ve just received text messages from municipal leaders who are curious to get a better understanding as to how this all works.

If there are municipalities that want to seek funding that they had planned to pursue through the promised arts, culture and sports infrastructure fund, specifically outlined in the NDP’s 2024 platform, should they await a process, and if so, on what date should we expect that that process will be forthcoming? At what time should we expect that capital will be allocated, or should municipal leaders simply approach the minister directly with their specific asks for their specific projects?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question and for this dialogue back and forth. I know he is not the member for Richmond-Bridgeport, but I know he’s asked a whole lot of questions. I hope she’s able to observe and review this so that I don’t have to answer the same questions two weeks from now. I think we’ve had a good dialogue and a good discussion so far. I appreciate the collaborative effort or the approach of looking for solutions and looking for ways to improve.

On the arts and culture fund that the member mentions, I mentioned some of the funding we have for capital already. Some of the municipalities and some of the non-profit organizations certainly are looking to those as ways to do their projects.

I think the provincial budget has a very large capital plan. I think my mandate letter is over the term of government, in the work that I’ve been tasked to do. Not everything will be solved in budget 1. I think there’s always work to do to develop these programs. You also want to make sure that they’re going to work in a timely way.

Sometimes they are programs that in the past we had strong federal support on: the idea of a third, a third, a third. The city puts up a third; the feds a third; the province a third. In some cases, that has been the way it worked. In recent years, that has been less certain with our federal partners.

Certainly, we’re looking at how we develop a program that’s going to matter, that’s going to help people but that’s also within the fiscal room that the province possesses. That’s always something we have to consider as well. There are only so many dollars to be spent. We also know there are huge needs in many other sectors too. It’s not just arts and culture. People want a hospital, people want a school, and people want investments in those kinds of things as well.

Thank you to the member for the question. I look forward to further dialogue with his critic when she’s able to. I wish her the best on her health, and I look forward to new questions from a new member.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Budget 2025 outlines $109 million for stadium capital investments for the FIFA World Cup 2026. While this confirms the minimum amount this government will spend on FIFA for just seven games, what remains undisclosed is the total operating cost of hosting the event.

Can the minister provide a full breakdown of the projected total cost to taxpayers for hosting these seven games, including security, infrastructure and operational expenses?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would encourage the member to look to the ministry website. We’ve got the World Cup report as of April last year. There will be another fuller report coming out — I don’t have the timeline, but soon — with updated numbers.

I think it’s important to also note that the city of Vancouver has its own process. They’re the host city. We’re supporting them, but their costs and their decisions around expenditures are theirs alone.

Certainly, on our numbers, if the member wants the most up-to-date list of numbers, I should be able to provide that for him. The next public reporting date with all the locked-in numbers will be in May.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Okay, thank you. I figured out what I can find. I’ll wait for that.

Given that B.C. taxpayers are footing this bill, will the minister disclose exactly how much FIFA is contributing, if anything, to these upgrades?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for the question.

I think attracting the World Cup to B.C. is very important, especially right now. We want to diversify. We want to know that tourism can grow. We want people to also enjoy a great game — well, great games. It’s exciting folks in the tourism world to no end that we have this coming to us.

It’s hard to get in front of people’s eyeballs in this world today. There are so many distractions, so many things to think about. So to have a dedicated fan favourite event, the most popular sporting event in the world, coming to Vancouver…. The best estimates that we have are that post-game, that’ll generate over $1 billion in economic returns to the province. That’s through people coming to B.C., people understanding Vancouver, British Columbia, where it exists. It’s a huge opportunity for the province.

Investments in B.C. Place we are making. FIFA is not paying for the investments in B.C. Place. That’s part of the…. PavCo, B.C. Pavilion Corp., has an agreement with the World Cup, with FIFA, around costs, around expectations, around how we do the work, what they need to see in order for us to be a host. So there are high expectations.

But the work, I should make sure the member understands, is work we had to do anyways. It’s work that is necessary for a high-class, important, functioning stadium that generates returns to the public.

For example, folks might not know, but the washrooms and change room facilities for, whether or not it be a top artist like Taylor Swift, top athletes like the B.C. Lions…. If you go into the showers, they’re all gang-style showers. There’s no privacy. The tile work is from 1981. A few things have changed since then, and it’s important — if we’re inviting people to use our facilities, and last year was a record year for use of B.C. Place and for return to the public — that those facilities actually meet their expectations.

Another challenge in B.C. Place which is getting looked at and getting some action on is accessibility. We’re doubling the number of elevators in B.C. Place so that if you have a challenge with stairs, if you need to push a stroller, if you’re in a wheelchair, you get better access in and throughout that venue. Again, something that should have been done a long time ago.

[4:55 p.m.]

We’re able to use the World Cup to make those investments that were needed for the World Cup, but they were needed long ago.

I can think of another opportunity that the money that we’re putting into B.C. Place will allow us to do. There are some sites in that stadium that really look like dingy cloakrooms. They’re not nice spaces. They’re not useful for much of anything. But then you look to the windows, and the views are incredible. They were not used effectively in that space. Part of that was because of how they were accessed, how they were designed, how they were built.

We’re able to use some of the money we’re investing — the public’s money, I should say — to make those facilities usable so that we can use them for conventions, we can use them for meetings.

We can use them in a way so that the stadium is multipurpose, instead of what one of the issues is right now. If you’re going to have an event, you have access to everywhere in that stadium. That means that you then have to bring more security on, and the costs go up and the public benefit goes down.

By making many of these upgrades, we’re improving the ability for B.C. Place to function as a generator of revenue and a generator of public benefit in a way that it currently is unable to be.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Will the minister table the contract with FIFA to ensure that British Columbians know how much they are paying, or did the government sign a non-disclosure agreement with FIFA? What prevents full transparency of public spending?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The ministry does not have a contract with FIFA; the city of Vancouver does. If the member wants to get responses for how Vancouver has an agreement with FIFA as the host city, I would recommend that he follow up with the city of Vancouver.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: You talked about PavCo. The PavCo service report states that venue upgrades include critical renovations which are required to attract the world’s best sports, music and events.

Can the minister explain what the upgrades are to the stadium and how they are required to attract this event?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I just answered that question in talking about whether or not it be the showers, accessibility, access for some of the parts of the venue to be able to be used as conference spaces — to have more events there so you can do multiple events at once instead of just one at a time. I think the question was answered.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Can the minister explain how they can justify spending $109 million on upgrades to B.C. Place while so many election commitments are unfulfilled?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: People want to celebrate together. They want to support great sports events.

The World Cup is the biggest in the world. It’s got more interest from all over the world than any other sporting event.

I think, if you look at it, $1 billion in economic returns post-games, that’s pretty good to me. If you talk to anyone in the tourism field, they’re excited it’s coming. If you talk to sports fans, they’re excited it’s coming.

I understand that there are those who might not think we should support the World Cup, but many of the member’s colleagues have asked me for tickets. They’ve said they want to come to the World Cup, and they’re very excited about it because they think it’s a good investment to the province. If the member’s party doesn’t think this is a good thing, I’d certainly be interested, because many colleagues have told me they want to be there.

I don’t have tickets to give, so Members, don’t ask me for tickets to the World Cup for your use. But I appreciate, anyways, many members on that side’s enthusiasm for the World Cup coming to Vancouver.

[5:00 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Mr. Chair, if I may ask a clarification question for the Clerk and yourself about the timing that we wrap up in the House here, just out of respect for the ministerial staff and the minister so we can organize the questions I have in a fashion that works for everybody.

The Chair: We will be going until 5:15.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the minister’s answers so far to the questions.

I’m going to shift gears a little bit and talk about resort municipalities. Obviously, there are 14 resort municipalities in the province, five of which are in my riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke. We have some clarification just around some of these issues.

I totally understand and respect the minister’s perspective that he’s had feedback from Americans that want to come to British Columbia and spend their tourism dollars here in the province. Respectfully, that’s not the case everywhere. In East Kootenay, where we live — myself, I know, and the member for Kootenay East — we border a very Republican state in Montana.

I know we’ve shared this view. We’re getting lots of letters in our office, as people feel very excluded and not welcome here to spend their tourism dollars. What do those tourism dollars look like? According to Kootenay Rockies Tourism, in 2023, 57,000 U.S. visitors came to the Kootenays, and U.S. visitors spent about $100 million in the region.

Just to put that in perspective, if you’re going to do a Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep hunt in the Rocky Mountains, it’s about $30,000 a person. Obviously, American tourists not feeling welcomed, from Republican states, is a big problem for us in the East Kootenays.

My question, just as I get started here, to the minister is: how do they plan to make up for tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of lost revenue from American visitors?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, we didn’t start this fight. We don’t want this fight. We support strong American tourism to B.C. We want them here. I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to be clear. Americans are welcome in British Columbia — just not annexing British Columbia, just not annexing Canada.

We know most Americans don’t hold those views. The President seems to. We have to take that seriously, and we have to stand up for ourselves. I hope the member is not suggesting that we shouldn’t speak out against what’s happening, in the States, to us. I think we have to.

We also have to say: “You’re welcome to be here.” We’re marketing to Americans to say: “Come to this province; come to this country.” I think Destination Canada has identified, across Canada, that Canadians still very much want Americans here, that we’re still welcoming them. We’re not happy with what America is doing to our country, but we want them here.

I certainly would hope the member agrees that we have to stand up for our country but that we can still be welcoming neighbours. Just because we disagree with what the fellow in the White House is doing, what the President of America is doing, and his threats to our national sovereignty, it doesn’t mean that we’re against Americans.

Saying we oppose President Trump’s desire to annex our country doesn’t mean we oppose Americans coming to visit our country. It just means that we’re standing up for our country, that we’re standing up for our province.

We’re also welcoming neighbours, as we always want to be. We don’t want this fight. We don’t want this to go back and forth like it is. Unfortunately, that’s out of our control. It’s very much in the White House’s control.

[5:05 p.m.]

We will stand up for our people, but we’ll also welcome not just Americans but other British Columbians and other Canadians to come visit the region. I certainly know there’s strong interest right now in ski in the Kootenays coming from across Canada but indeed still from America. We’re going to continue.

Now, I know there are cross-border issues and that the nearest states are sometimes the biggest tourism backers for us, but there are a lot of visitors from different parts of America that come visit us too, not just red states or blue states but all of America. They are welcome; the door is open.

We’re here to welcome you.

I would certainly say to anybody out there that just because you see an American plate, it doesn’t mean you get to be mean and rude to that person. If there’s any thought out there that there should be these reprisals or something to individual Americans, stop it. It’s not welcome; it’s not helpful.

We want you to feel welcome in our province, but it’s our province. We want you to feel welcome in our country, but it’s our country.

I’ll be clear that they’re welcome here. We want them here. We love their joy in visiting our province and coming back again and again. What we don’t like are threats to our very existence as a country.

Scott McInnis: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that annexing Canada as the 51st state is just simply not going to happen on anybody’s watch here. That’s for sure.

But respectfully, when your government targets states and citizens who have supported the President, you’re not differentiating between the President and his actions and the individuals who voted him in. Like I said, we have a lot of Idaho and Montana tourists that visit our region and spend a lot of money there.

What is your plan to spend money in marketing and make up for the lost revenue from Republican visitors, again, who no longer feel welcome here?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If members didn’t get a chance to see the Premier’s remarks at the Invictus Games, that was about as clear as we can get. Americans are our friends. We want them here. They’re welcome here. If they voted one way or the other way, we want them here.

I think the issue that we have is really with some of the officeholders who are backing us. It’s not just the President saying we should do tariffs. There are many Republican leaders, governors, etc., making the same case. So yes, it’s elected leaders. They were voted in by somebody.

Now, we’re not going to go after that somebody. It’s the actions of those people, the elected leaders. We want those somebodies, who voted whatever way they did, to feel welcome here. I think the Premier was very clear at the Invictus Games, and many times since, that the Americans are our friends. That’s in Montana, in Idaho, in Washington, in Oregon, in California, all the way through.

We are continuing our marketing efforts to America, no question, as we also do elsewhere across the world and across Canada. That’s not going to stop.

I think the assumption the member is making is that tourism is going to go down in his region. Folks in the region, so far, to me have said that the bookings are continuing to keep on apace, that they’re continuing to see strong interest. I hope that doesn’t come to the assumption that tourism is going to go down because of this threat.

Many in the tourism industry have been telling me that they think tourism could increase because our dollar is low right now, quite low compared to the American dollar, and many Americans see incredible value in coming here. I think that will continue. We’re welcoming people. I hope we can continue to be those welcoming people, despite the threats we’re getting from our American neighbours.

The Chair: A reminder to members that questions are to be asked through the Chair.

Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[5:10 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Shifting gears a little bit, back to resort municipalities specifically, could the minister please update us here on how much tax revenue and net tourism revenue resort municipalities collected this past fiscal year?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t have the specific numbers the member mentions. Maybe it would help if he explains what he’s looking for and a bit of detail on what he’s hoping to get from that information.

There’s some information out there. Some of that’s held in Finance; some of that’s still being collated. But I don’t have that information to give him today.

Scott McInnis: What I’m getting at is…. I’m going to get to the resort municipality initiative funding, but I’d like to start with what sort of tax revenue the resort municipalities collectively are generating for the province.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t have it broken down by city in terms of all tax revenues that have come through to a resort municipality. If somebody buys a burger at the local restaurant, I don’t have that broken down to what PST came in and then the income tax for that specific person working in that facility.

I can’t get the member that level of detail, but I can say that we know the resort municipalities provide huge economic return to the province. They are incredibly valuable for both the jobs that are inherent in those communities, but also that we have them as places that draw people — they’re magnets, in a sense — from all over the world.

We’re working with mayors of resort municipalities to look at some of the challenges that they’re facing in terms of infrastructure, in terms of how they pay for themselves being tourism destinations and jurisdictions. I think I know the issues that some of them have. They look at water, they look at sewage, they look at some of the bills that they’re expected to pick up, which their residents are worried about dealing with because they are large costs.

They’re large costs which are for tourism, not for the residents, in that sense. Of course, residents are not always happy, but they understand the need to pay for things like water and sewage. I think where some of them draw the line is: “Well, we shouldn’t have to pay so that we can add more hotels or so that we can have more tourists come into our communities.” Tourism should pay for itself, in that sense, is the argument that I hear them making.

I’ve had great conversations so far with a number of the mayors around issues of resort municipalities and infrastructure in particular. We’re looking at that to try and develop a longer-term strategy so that growth will pay for that growth, in a sense, Without getting too into the weeds in the details…. Those conversations are still going and will be. I certainly support the work the mayors are doing, and I’m excited that we get to play a role in helping them address some of the issues they face so that we can grow tourism in those regions and beyond.

I think, at this stage….

I’m getting the nod that I’m supposed to wrap because the time has come. But I’m assuming the critic wants to come and ask some questions in two weeks’ time. We’ve done so well. I’d hoped to answer them all today, but I know the member will have more. I can count on that.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

Contents