The House met at 1:04 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Garry Begg: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, and here in the chamber, Committee of the Whole for Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll be in a short recess before we undertake discussions.

The House recessed at 1:06 p.m.

Committee of the Whole

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:09 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’d like to call the committee to order on Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025.

On clause 1.

[1:10 p.m.]

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 who 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 that there was some revisitation back in 2022, which is approximately three years ago. There have been significant changes since the last three years. We’re 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’ve 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’re 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 a hundred 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’m 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.

Also, 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? And 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 that 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. First one is the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Second one is the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Third one is the Tri-Cities Chamber. Fourth one is the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. 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.

But 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’re going deep with the people that have experience in it.

I think with the names that 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, and I just wanted to say a couple of things about that.

One is that I have responded to that letter. I’ve 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 that 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.

So 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. And 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 will talk about how it is going to be implemented before it is through regulation.

I intend on continuing to do that work. Also by 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 just want to say that from those 353 responses and what we’ve 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 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.

But in terms of this particular provision, it is based on giving somebody a positive right to review, right? 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.

So 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.”

[1:50 p.m.]

[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’ll 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’d 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. But 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, 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 that there are…. I have sympathy for businesses that experience that, and 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 that it’s intrinsically defective, meaning that even if it’s agreed upon in the contract, it has no legal effect, right? Inoperable is different in the sense that there is still some remaining legal effect based on that word.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m just 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: Yeah. 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, so 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, there may not be a specialized arbitrator to look at specialized subject matter. So 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. And 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.

But 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…. Like, 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.

So 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, right? It’s like, 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 just 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 just 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:

Subsection (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;

Subsection (b), in the case of the timeshare contract, the later of one year after the date the consumer receives a copy of the contract; and

Subsection (ii), the expiry of any longer prescribed period;

Subsection (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. Like, 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. 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 and 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? And 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 that 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. So, 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.

[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

(c) the supplier fails to comply with section 18.3.

(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;

(c) in the case of a distance sales contract, 7 days after the date the consumer receives a copy of the contract.

(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 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.

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

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

We’ll 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, NAYS — 47. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

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

On the main motion.

Clause 5 approved on division.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

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.”

[3:10 p.m.]

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

In this clause, as 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 in the letter noted, the products are beneficial, like for public safety reasons and things like that, for home security systems. But 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’re 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. So 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 just 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 that 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. Yeah, 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.

So, 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 states: “Division 4 of part 2 applies to contracts entered before, on or after coming into force of that division.”

So my question here to the Attorney General: so 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…. And 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.

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:

[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.]

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. And 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 just 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.

[4:00-4:05 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, NAYS — 48. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[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’d 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’ll 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,” but 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 any 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 SXIMEȽEȽ 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’ve 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 but 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.

And 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. And you’ve got some professional help at the table with you that was involved with IAF.

I’d 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 or…. 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?

For instance, 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 Systems of National Account 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’d 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, 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. The B.C. Ag Days and the 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. And 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’ll 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, and 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: so 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, is 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. But that’s something that 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.