Hansard - Monday, March 31, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No.

Hon. David Eby: We are joined by someone in the gallery here today who has contributed to British Columbia in many different roles. He’s a former union staffer; a political organizer, certainly; and also a public servant, a political staffer. Regardless of the role, Clay Suddaby has really gone above and beyond for the people of British Columbia.

That’s what drives him and his work. I’ve worked with him personally, and I think he’s a wonderful man. His gain in terms of retiring from the public service this week is our loss, without a question. I understand that he and his partner, Sam, are going to be touring around the east coast in a car, having a great time. I’m sure she’ll be glad to have him back.

Thank you, Sam, for sending us an angel.

Thank you, Clay, for all your work for the people of B.C., and I hope you enjoy a well-earned retirement.

Brennan Day: I would just like to introduce my wife of almost 15 years, the love of 25, and my seven-year-old son, Lachlan, to the gallery tonight.

I told him I would not embarrass him, so I will say, for the record, he’s very disappointed that we do not have a Lego store in the capital region.

Please let the House make them all feel very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: Members from Axon Canada are in the House today. They, on a daily basis, support our B.C. police officers across here.

I know firsthand how integral police innovation and modernization is, and I’m happy to introduce them to the Legislature, especially Dan Malo, who is the former assistant commissioner of the RCMP at E division, my old boss; Bruce Chapman, the former president of the Police Association in Ontario; Adam Hassan, one of the principal engineers of digital evidence management solution; David Volpato, a former Canadian police officer; and Joshua Johnson.

I hope the House will make them welcome.

Pete Davis: Today is a big day in my life. My oldest child turns 21. Man, that makes me feel old. But I’d just like to wish my daughter, Kaylee, a happy 21st birthday.

If you could join me in wishing her a happy birthday.

Hon. Anne Kang: I have two sets of introductions today.

In the gallery today, I’m proud to introduce the B.C. Federation of Students. The BCFS represents over 170,000 students from 15 university and college students unions across B.C. Sitting in the gallery, we have Jessie Niikoi, Cole Reinbold, Jill Adams and Michael Gauld, along with Joel Gilani, Emmanuel Adegboyega, Sameer Ismail, Cora-Lynn Bell, Izzy Easton, Kate Love, Sanchit Kwatra and Wendy Redhead.

As well, my second introduction is that I have my amazing CA who’s visiting today, Ryan Erwin. He is a lawyer, he is a musician, and he is a singer. He’s played in a lot of musicals locally.

Would the House please make my constituency adviser feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew: We are joined in the gallery today by Keerit Jutla. While president and CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration, Keerit’s efforts revitalized and renewed the voice of exploration in B.C.

Some of his most notable achievements include championing industry voices on the mineral claims consultation framework, guiding the association’s governmental engagements on proposed changes to the Mineral Tenure Act and supporting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Keerit was recognized with the Darpan Magazine award for corporate excellence, as well as King Charles III’s Coronation Medal.

Keerit recently moved back to the Island to start his family and has begun the role of provincial director for the ICBA, where he continues to be a strong advocate for the B.C. workers and businesses who are the backbone of our economy.

Please make Keerit very welcome today.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: My uncle, Paul Barber, is in the House today. He and my late aunt, Kim Malcolmson, are a political love story. The work that they did in the Manitoba NDP government, the work that Kim did in the pay equity commission in Ontario, the fact that Kim and Paul were both with me when I was sworn in as a Member of Parliament.

Kim didn’t get to see me in the work here, but I so appreciate that Paul is here to support my work.

I would love if the House could make Paul feel very welcome.

Lorne Doerkson: It’s indeed a pleasure to introduce five people from…. Well, part of them are from Cariboo-Chilcotin: Jessie, Dylan and Hayden Lens. They are here from Williams Lake visiting. Hayden is here to actually study for a career in social work at university. Jessie happens to be my hairstylist, so that’s a very important note.

I also want to introduce friends that they’ve brought from Saskatoon. That is Jessica Mansell and Daithi Nolan.

Would the House please welcome them all. They’re a great group. They’re going to tour the Legislature this afternoon.

It’s great seeing you here.

The Speaker: I’m glad you have some hair, Member.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In the Legislature today is my favourite constituent. He is a 56-year resident of Coquitlam. For the last 27 years, he has owned and operated his own small business, working really hard, getting up early mornings and delivering dairy products across the Lower Mainland. Recently he sold his business so that he could support his wife to come to this Legislature and do very important work.

My husband, Brian Wickens, is here.

He supports me in everything that I do. He is the love of my life, he is my best friend, and he is doing the very important work of watching over our two amazing teenagers while I am away more often than not.

Will the House please join me in thanking him.

A public apology for being cranky sometimes. I love you and thank you for being here.

Hon Chan: I would like to take a moment to introduce two very important people in my life. My parents, David and Susannah, are up there.

They have been longtime Richmond residents. They have always been my greatest supporters, shaping the person I am here today with their love, guidance and unwavering encouragement.

I also want to take this opportunity to wish my mother a belated happy birthday, as we celebrated last week together.

Please join me in welcoming them. A very warm welcome to the House.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Would the House please join me in wishing a happy birthday to my chief of staff, Nic Bragg.

We just enjoyed a wonderful lunch of samosas and pie, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for all his hard work.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I would like to introduce a constituent who is very important to our riding. He is the chief executive, the executive director, the president and chair of the Tri-Cities Trophy Husband Society who also has the most amazing sense of humour and helps me co-wrangle our passel of five children.

He is a teacher, he is a coach, he is the most prolific volunteer I have ever met, and he has the biggest heart: my husband, David.

George Anderson: I have the great fortune of introducing Ms. Rolanda Murray.

Ms. Murray represents what I would say is the best of what British Columbians intend to be, which is hard-working, giving back to their communities and just caring so much about our communities. The other great thing that I have to say about Ms. Rolanda Murray is the fact that she chose to work alongside me as my constituency adviser.

I have the great fortune of welcoming Ms. Murray here to this House today, and I hope that the entire House would make her feel welcome.

Paul Choi: I have a great privilege and am excited to welcome one of my CAs also, who supports at Burnaby Centre: Layla Lee, who’s here with her partner.

She is a magician. She is fantastic with many different designing and the marketing that we do, along with my other CAs who are here in the precinct, Vincent Lin and Rea Park.

They’re here to ensure that they can work together as a team and also learn about all the work that we MLAs do here so that they can better serve the community back home.

Please make them all feel welcome today.

Sunita Dhir: It is my pleasure to introduce our wonderful constituency staff today in the House. We have our wonderful senior constituency adviser Amy Li in the House, and Kathleen Serrano. She’s the temporary part-time constituency adviser in our office.

Both of them are so hardworking and compassionate. I feel very fortunate to have worked with them.

Vancouver-Langara is in good hands when I’m in Victoria, and they take very good care of our constituents.

[1:45 p.m.]

Speaker’s Statement

Rules and Guidelines for
Introductions by Members
and Members’ Statements

The Speaker: Members, before we begin this afternoon’s session, I have two reminders for the House.

First, pursuant to practice recommendation 2, introductions by members must be brief, precise and non-argumentative. To make the best use of our House time, I ask members to be mindful of this. Otherwise, sometimes we go way beyond five minutes. That’s not acceptable, so please keep them to 30 seconds.

Second, for a private member’s statement prior to oral question period, Standing Order 25B provides that they are limited to two minutes. The Chair has exercised a fair deal of leniency over the past few weeks but asks members to pay attention to the timers and to keep their statements to a maximum of two minutes.

Lastly, when members want to make two-minute statements, please provide your names to the Speaker’s office. Today I did not get the names, so we will be making some guesswork.

If I recognize you, if I remember your name, you will be allowed to make a statement. If we don’t, you may skip.

Member for Abbotsford South.

Members’ Statements

Credential Recognition Process
for Health Care Professionals

Bruce Banman: It’s nice to know you still recognize me, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to share a story that highlights the failure of our health and certification systems in British Columbia.

Dr. Oleksandr Martsiv, Alex, a Ukrainian physician with 17 years of experience, fled the war with his wife and seven children and came to British Columbia for safety and opportunity.

Instead of being able to put his medical skills to work in our overwhelmed health care system, he is working as a welder. The cost and complexity of our certification system left him with no other choice because he can’t afford the approximately $6,000 to write the exams.

This isn’t just Dr. Alex’s story. It’s the story of hundreds of qualified professionals being sidelined in British Columbia by excessive red tape. At a time when hospitals are understaffed, patients are waiting months, if not years, for care, we are turning away skilled doctors and nurses.

The licensing process across Canada is inconsistent, expensive and overly complicated. Provinces operate in silos and lack standardization certification systems, and it’s harming British Columbians every day.

I believe British Columbia only tests once a year for a medical doctor. It’s time to implement a standard interprovincial testing and credential recognition for doctors and other professionals.

Why are we making it harder, not easier, for willing experts to contribute to our province? Why pay sign-up bonuses instead of making it easier to write the actual exams?

It’s time we eliminate these bureaucratic roadblocks. Let’s create a path where doctors like Alex can get to work helping British Columbians save lives and build a future right here in British Columbia.

Food Security and Local Producers

Harwinder Sandhu: Food security and supporting local has never been more important, given the challenges we face. It is crucial to strengthen our local food systems, to support food producers and local businesses, as well as to ensure that fresh, healthy food remains within the reach for all.

Over the past two weeks, I have had the privilege of visiting growers and food producers across the Interior and the Kootenays. I’ve seen firsthand the challenges they face. But even in the face of adversity, their resilience, innovation and dedication of feeding our communities remain unwavering.

In the North Okanagan, I was honoured to help celebrate a $1 million investment through the critical food infrastructure fund to Land to Table Society.

This funding will empower North Okanagan Food Shed project, creating stronger regional food networks connecting farmers directly with consumers and reducing reliance on corporate supply chains. Thanks to the United Way and Valley First Credit Union for their incredible partnership to make this happen.

Another great news. Okanagan Spirits Craft Distillery recently brought home 11 gold medals, five silver medals and the prestigious title of world-class distillers at the 2025 World Spirit Awards in Germany. What a remarkable achievement and a shining example of how B.C. producers continue to stand out on the world stage.

At the heart of our communities are people like Donna Antonishak, whose leadership with Good Food Box of the North Okanagan ensures that families have access to fresh, affordable food. She just got the King Charles III medal.

Congratulations, Donna.

[1:50 p.m.]

When we invest in local food security, we stand with people who grow our food, and we’re not only nourishing our communities. We are also proving that B.C.’s food and beverages are not just good; they’re world class.

Canadian Ski Patrol

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to speak of the merits of an intrepid group of volunteers charged with the safety and first aid of skiers and snowboarders at cross-country and downhill ski facilities across our beautiful province, the Canadian Ski Patrol.

As one who wholly adopts the philosophy that it is far better to embrace winter than to suffer it, I have long been an enthusiastic cross-country and downhill skier. A few weeks ago I was skiing the trees off-piste at one of the local ski hills near Prince George with a friend and my elder daughter when I had a negative interaction with a stump.

Despite being injured and with the help of my companions, I made it out to the run, whereupon we contacted the ski patrol for assistance. The members of the ski patrol attended promptly, assessed my injury and transported me down the hill in a toboggan for treatment and release. At all times, the ski patrol was professional, effective and efficient.

There are approximately 450 members of the Canadian Ski Patrol in British Columbia, with some 4,500 members across Canada in 56 zones and nine divisions. The Canadian Ski Patrol provides first-aid services at approximately 135 Nordic and alpine ski areas in British Columbia. In B.C., the ski patrol treats some 2,000 to 2,200 injuries each season.

Most ski patrol members are volunteers and come from all walks of life. They are thoroughly trained in CPR, AED and WHMIS. Ski patrollers take an advanced first-aid course on snow and accident site management training, as well as safety education. They are trained and conduct training in avalanche and radio use. Patrollers are recertified annually.

Besides these important roles, CSP members have provided services at Canadian Olympic and Paralympic events, as well as provincial Winter Games and Canadian provincial championships in downhill, cross-country skiing and biathlon.

When you are enjoying winter sports, please follow the alpine responsibility code, ski with care, and remember to thank those folks in the red-and-white uniform jackets who are helping you to be safe when you are enjoying British Columbia’s winter wonderlands.

Downtown Eastside Support Services
and Community Work

Amshen / Joan Phillip: Today I would like to talk about the important work that’s going on in the Downtown Eastside, the Vancouver-Strathcona constituency.

Our government has risen to meet the moment, to lift people up out of poverty through investments in substance use treatment, employment supports, $10-a-day daycare spaces, adult literacy programs and, more importantly, affordable housing. As representatives, we have a duty to lift all people up, particularly those that are marginalized communities, to remove the barriers and meet people where they’re at.

I always say it’s not about the addictions; it’s about the pain and trauma that people have suffered. Heaven and earth couldn’t have moved me to stop until I was ready. The turning point for me was obtaining secure and dignified housing. And something wonderful happened. I stopped drinking, I got a job, I went to treatment, and I realized my own value. I went back to school.

This work is ongoing, and so much more needs to get done. The criticisms that we’re failing really miss the forest for the trees.

These problems are decades in the making, as a result of the residential school system and their experiences, and they won’t be solved overnight. People don’t want to live in the streets, in shelters or in precarious housing. These are people facing intersecting barriers but mainly untreated pain and trauma.

I’m proud of the work that we’ve done in this province, but we can’t tackle this alone. I grew up in the Downtown Eastside. I’ve seen the changes. We need everyone at the table, and I hope the members of this House will come together to help support dignified housing, mental health and social supports, and to work to improve their lives.

Huy ch q’u siem.

[1:55 p.m.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

As a reminder, the statement must be finished within two minutes.

Spirit of the North
Healthcare Foundation

Kiel Giddens: I rise today to thank an organization that is critical not only to people in Prince George but to all of us in northern British Columbia. Spirit of the North Healthcare Foundation works each and every day to enhance the quality of health care within the University Hospital of Northern B.C. service area.

This is not a small area. This includes critical funding for health care equipment and programs in the northern Interior, including Prince George, the northwest coast, the Peace region and everywhere in between.

Since 1991, the foundation has contributed over $40 million to the region for everything from regional mobile ultrasound machines, the simulation labs for the ongoing education of health care professionals, to full capital programs for hospital wards and retrofits in the North. They provide an avenue for donors to support their loved ones in the North with better health care.

Their signature events bring the community together, whether that’s the recent Evening in India gala or their incredible Festival of Trees that kicks off Christmas every year in Prince George.

And a shout-out to the Prince George Cougars, who are in the first round of the playoffs right now. Their recent mega-jackpot 50/50 raised an incredible $200,000 for cardiac care.

Donations large and small make a real impact, and I’ve had the opportunity to tour UHNBC to really witness the sheer magnitude of life-changing and life-saving equipment that has been added. For several years, the organization has been working to improve cardiac care.

Northern Health is the only health authority in the province that doesn’t have a catheterization lab and full cardiac care unit. As the campaign says, “Time is tissue,” and we are working towards a day when northerners won’t have to travel all the way to Kelowna or Vancouver just to access cardiac care.

This past December was bittersweet, as I resigned from the board of directors to be able to help Spirit of the North in a new way as the MLA for the region. I’ll miss the regular work, but the organization is in incredible hands.

I’d like to thank each and every one of the donors, the volunteers, the talented staff, the dedicated board and everyone who makes that team spirit for all the work you do for each and every one of us in the North to improve quality of life.

Affordable Housing Projects
in Greater Victoria

Nina Krieger: Everyone needs a safe, stable place to call home. We want all people — health care workers, teachers, newcomers and seniors, people who need extra supports — to be able to live, work and thrive in our communities.

Last week I had the great pleasure to be part of an exciting announcement about 530 homes opening across Greater Victoria for low- to middle-income people, thanks to investments by the province.

The backdrop for this announcement was the Lions in Esquimalt, operated by the Greater Victoria Housing Society. Among the new residents in this 137-unit building is an early childhood educator and a proud mom to a toddler, thrilled to be putting down roots in a safe and vibrant community; and a mother of a teenager with a disability, relieved that her son is now able to walk to school.

I recently toured the Crosstown project in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake, with lead partner Cool Aid Society. Crosstown includes 100 affordable units for individuals, families and people with disabilities. A further 54 units will be dedicated to supportive housing, with on-site programs and services to help people live healthy, independent lives. The project will also include 36 spaces and a beautiful purpose-built child care centre, as well as a new community health centre and pharmacy.

Crosstown’s innovative, integrated model provides an opportunity to experience the dignity that comes with home, health and connection.

I’d like to salute and thank all the project partners working with us in the region and across the province, tackling the challenges faced by many British Columbians with care and compassion. Together we are building strong, resilient communities for a better tomorrow.

[2:00 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Carbon Tax Policies

John Rustad: The Premier has done an amazing flip-flop on B.C.’s carbon tax. Last year when the Premier was asked by Pierre Poilievre to join seven other Premiers in axing this tax, this Premier responded by saying that he’s living in “a baloney factory.”

Now this Premier has capitulated on his strongly held personal beliefs due to political pressure from commonsense Conservatives. This is an amazing flip-flop, worthy of an Oscar, but B.C. still has a punishing industrial carbon tax.

Will the Premier commit today to adding a double backflip to his routine and axe the industrial carbon tax?

Hon. David Eby: We’re glad to be supporting British Columbians right now, when they need that support, in getting rid of the carbon tax.

I note that the member forgets his own record. This is a tax that was introduced and passed by the opposition members. They were called something different then, but it’s the same party. The opposition leader voted in favour of the carbon tax — not one time, not two times but seven times.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: But that was before he made his own realization that climate change is a hoax. He wants to let big polluters off the hook, because he doesn’t think climate change is real. “The CO2 theory does not hold water. The masses have bought into a lie,” he said.

He said: “It’s ‘false’ that humans burning fossil fuels is the cause of climate change.” To whom? The editorial board of the Globe and Mail is who he told that to. He once said that climate change “may turn out to be a hoax.” I guess he got to his conclusion.

We can’t trust him in terms of growing an economy that is low-carbon and ready for the future. That’s the difference between their side and our side.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, as the carbon tax has been taking $3 billion out of people’s pockets in this province, it’s great to see the full realization that it is hurting people’s affordability. Unfortunately, of course, people have had to live through eight years of this challenge from this government.

The reality is this. This Premier — we can go on for many, many quotes on his support of carbon taxes — has finally come to the realization that the Conservatives were right all along, in terms of it.

The reality is that our industry is struggling. People don’t want to invest in this province. People are being driven out of this province. Whether it’s our agricultural sector, whether it’s our trucking sector, whether it’s our forest sector, whether it is our oil and gas sector, they need to be able to be competitive. This carbon tax is a job-killer. The Premier finally has admitted that, in terms of how difficult it is and how challenging it is for people in British Columbia.

Take that last little step, that additional amount, and eliminate it.

Will the Premier commit today to actually support British Columbians in their efforts to be able to strengthen the economy in this province?

Hon. David Eby: I’m glad for the opportunity to respond again. It’s important to support industry and make sure that they have the support to reduce emissions, but you also have to provide that encouragement to them. Putting a carbon price on big polluters encourages them to adopt technologies to reduce emissions.

That’s why we have the cleanest products in the world produced right here in British Columbia. We’re proud of that. But it’s also helping our economy grow. I know the member is not troubled by facts, but British Columbia had the biggest GDP growth of any of the provinces in Canada last year. We gained 25,400 full-time jobs since December alone.

We do face another threat that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are in denial about. That is the threat from the President of the United States and his unjustified tariffs that threaten British Columbians. I look forward to the day when he and his colleagues all stand up in support of our provincial economy, in support of our Canadian economy, against Donald Trump and his unjustified tariffs.

There’s something that is not a hoax and that we can all stand in support of, and I count on that happening.

Interprovincial Trade
and Tax Policies

Peter Milobar: The Premier always forgets to add in the largest deficits in B.C. history under the NDP when he talks about these things.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, nationally there has been a committee of the trade ministers and the federal trade minister since 2017 — it lines up perfectly to when this government first took office — to deal with interprovincial trade barriers. We heard very little of it, especially out of British Columbia, in terms of any progress being made. So we are glad, on this side of the House, to hear that this government is finally willing to possibly take some meaningful action to remove interprovincial trade barriers.

The problem is that in this year’s budget, there is absolutely nothing to try to help manufacturing and other industries in B.C. that would then be trading across those interprovincial trade boundaries.

Does the Premier actually have a plan to make B.C. businesses competitive, with lower taxes, like jurisdictions like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario do, or are we intending on just watching all our manufacturing move over to those provinces as well?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, member opposite, for the opportunity to talk about how much our government has been at the table with business, whether it’s keeping the tax rate low for small businesses and making 90 percent of them exempt from the employer health tax credit or whether it’s our manufacturing jobs fund.

I was just out in the Okanagan, on the break, where we were able to announce new funding for food manufacturing. That’s value added on our food, helping with food security, tariff response and keeping manufacturing jobs growing here in the province.

Our government has been at the table to unlock manufacturing jobs through our manufacturing jobs fund and our integrated marketplace funding and other funding that has helped our sectors continue to grow.

But we know these tariffs will hurt our businesses. That’s why we’ve created the tariff response committee, where we’re meeting with businesses and engaging, and that’s why I was out on the ground meeting with businesses across the province, so we can continue to help them pivot in these challenging times.

The Speaker: Kamloops Centre, supplemental.

Peter Milobar: Well, that answer doesn’t actually match up to the government’s own actions in their own budget document and around interprovincial competitiveness with a tax structure.

We’re seeing investment leave British Columbia like never before, be it down into the States or be it across Canada. We’ve actually seen, and these are the government’s numbers, five consecutive quarters of interprovincial population moving out of B.C. to other provinces, primarily Alberta, because they can’t afford British Columbia anymore and they see more opportunities of our younger workforce to move to Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

The Premier’s budget book on page 132 very clearly shows that our general rate, our manufacturing rate, our payroll taxes, our fuel taxes — you name it — within the manufacturing realm are not competitive with the rest of Canada. When we remove interprovincial trade barriers, which is a good thing, you need to have a competitive tax structure as well to actually retain the manufacturing jobs. We’re already losing the workers quarter after quarter as it is.

Again, can the Premier point to anything in this budget that is directly designed to help with interprovincial trade barriers being removed on the competitive side of taxation for industry and manufacturing?

Hon. Diana Gibson: That is simply not true. Our government has been leading the country in economic growth and unlocking investment. Our government has been helping…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Diana Gibson: …through our manufacturing jobs fund and through an integrated marketplace and many initiatives to leverage investment, record levels from across the country and internationally. Our government is at the table on unlocking internal trade so that we can continue to support businesses to pivot.

We know these are going to be tough times for our manufacturing sector and for investors in B.C. That’s why our government has been championing reducing internal trade barriers across the country and been leading the item 30 table to reduce regulatory barriers and ensure mutual recognition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Internal trade barriers are one of the big challenges that we know businesses face, and we are at the table to ensure we’re unlocking economic development through ensuring businesses in B.C. can get their products on the shelf out in Ontario and Quebec. We’ve been doing that through the internal trade tables, and we will continue to champion this.

[2:10 p.m.]

Child Protection System
and Safety of Youth in Care

Rob Botterell: Endless reports and reviews continue to draw attention to the failings of B.C.’s so-called child welfare system. In late January, we saw another death of an Indigenous youth in government care.

Families and communities continue to be shaken by the tragedies that arise from a broken system. The latest reports from the Representative for Children and Youth, Don’t Look Away and No Time to Wait, highlight the urgent need for reform.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development: what tangible steps is your government taking to address the deep-rooted, systemic issue of the child welfare system in B.C.?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’d like to thank the member for the question.

The death of this youth is devastating. I am heartbroken to hear the news of this tragedy. I am sorry.

To their family, friends and community, their life mattered, it was important, and I will carry them in the work that I do every single day.

As a mom of two teenagers, I can’t think of anything more tragic or devastating. Our Child, Family and Community Service Act, which governs child protection services in this province, has strong privacy protections that I am beholden to. I cannot speak to any one specific case when there is information obtained through that act.

What I can speak to, in general, is the expectation of my ministry that any time there is a child death in this province, we review the circumstances surrounding that death, we make recommendations, and we work with our oversight bodies in this province, including the Representative for Children and Youth, the police and the Coroners Service.

There are a number of recommendations that have been made by the Representative for Children and Youth. I am working very closely, and my ministry is working very closely, on those recommendations. A number of them have been implemented and are underway.

I’m happy to work with the member opposite to provide more information on the specifics of this. There is nothing more important to me, as the minister, than the safety and well-being of all children in this province.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: Children frequently go missing from government care, and far too many of these disappearances end in fatality or critical injury. Tinkering around the edges is not an adequate response to the historic and ongoing injustices that youth in government care experience in this province, especially Indigenous youth.

We owe it to these children, their relatives and their communities to do better. Empty words are not enough for the insurmountable grief these families are feeling.

Again, to the Minister of Children and Family Development: will you implement not just some but all the recommendations from the RCY to strengthen oversight and accountability within the system?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I absolutely take every recommendation that’s made by the Representative for Children and Youth incredibly seriously. We are taking a whole-of-government approach to responding. That means there are a number of recommendations that we are responding to across government.

A deputy ministers project board has been struck to create a comprehensive child and youth well-being plan and outcomes framework. We have done a number of things to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in care, including hiring our very first Indigenous child welfare director. We have a number of partnerships that we are engaging in with Indigenous communities and Indigenous governing bodies.

My ministry’s budget increased by $321 million this year because we believe that we need to make investments to ensure that we’re doing better for children and youth in this province. I am committed to that every day.

So that everybody in this House knows, I come to this work, first and foremost, as a mom of two teenagers. I come to this House as someone who has delivered MCFD services themselves. I have received MCFD services for 15 years.

I take this role incredibly seriously, and I will work collaboratively with any of the members in this Legislature on better outcomes for children and youth, and on the safety and well-being of children and youth so that we can see more children and youth thrive in this province.

[2:15 p.m.]

Chief Executive Officer at
Provincial Health Services Authority

Sheldon Clare: Transparency and accountability have not been the hallmarks of this government, but there is nowhere that this government has underperformed worse than in health care.

Before the break, 20 opposition MLAs stood up and raised serious concerns about rural health care throughout the province, only to be met with platitudes and non-commitments.

We should all agree in this House that transparency is paramount. We learned this morning that the Premier has appointed Penny Ballem to be the new CEO of the Provincial Health Services Authority.

What outcomes does this government expect from the new PHSA CEO, and will the government table her contract so that British Columbians can know the full extent of her mandate, rather than hiding it in a numbered company?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

It was a commitment that we made during the campaign and that was reiterated again in my mandate letter given to me by the Premier that we would undertake a review of the health authorities, with a particular eye to the administrative spending and making sure that all health authorities are operating as efficiently and effectively as possible so that the maximum number of dollars and the best use of dollars are being applied right on the front lines.

That’s why today I announced that we are starting with a review of the Provincial Health Services Authority. I also announced a number of leadership changes that would take place, to make sure that we can do this quickly and effectively.

One of those, of course, is that Dr. Ballem will be coming in as the interim CEO at PHSA. We have announced that Dr. Byres, who was the previous leader, is coming on a secondment to the ministry to focus on the incredibly important issue of specific anti-Indigenous racism.

I have full confidence in these leaders and the work they are going to do. I look forward to seeing the results of the review. I’m expecting the first report out on the review in six weeks’ time.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Sheldon Clare: B.C. health care is crumbling beneath our feet, and the NDP’s answer is to kick the PHSA board to the curb and appoint a B.C. NDP insider to lead the organization as CEO.

This is the same CEO who had a hand mismanaging Ontario’s e-health system, costing their province $1 billion, according to the Ontario Auditor General.

To the Premier, with British Columbia’s health care in shambles, why is this government bringing in a failed consultant to run the PHSA?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I have absolutely no problem standing up and defending the work that Dr. Ballem has been doing in the health care sector for the past 35 years. For 35 years she has had a sequence of different roles in the private sector, in the non-profit sector and in the health care sector. She was the deputy minister when the Provincial Health Services Authority was established, for its first four years.

She is a recipient of the Order of British Columbia. She provides sound and sage advice to this government. I look forward to working with her and the review team, the board of PHSA and others, as we undertake a review that is incredibly important.

Let us not forget. This is about delivering better health care for British Columbians. This review will take place. The regional health authorities will have their reviews initiated soon enough. We’re going to do everything, everything that we can, to ensure effective and efficient health care delivery that works for people, works for health care providers and provides for better outcomes for everybody.

Gavin Dew: “This government is once again showing its willingness to override independent bodies and centralize power in the hands of a few ministers who think they know better than the people.” That was the Premier back in 2014, when he was on this side of the House.

It has been five months since the last election, and still this government has no agenda, no plan, and all the Premier can do is repeatedly try to seize power for himself. The Premier recently surrendered in his most recent attempt to consolidate power in his office, but only after every single stakeholder stood up and told him his power grab was beyond the pale.

[2:20 p.m.]

Why is this Premier so determined to centralize power in his own hands while sidelining the people of British Columbia, the Legislature and even his own caucus?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would think the member would know that that question is actually out of order. I believe he’s referring to a bill that’s before the House right now. We will have plenty of time to debate, and I look forward to that debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Next member.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Surrey didn’t vote for a dictator. Surrey didn’t vote for a tyrant to fight Donald Trump.

Why did the Premier try to become him?

The Speaker: Member, again, the Attorney General has noted that that bill is before the House, so it’s out of order.

Next member.

Government Spending Priorities
and Premier’s Office Funding

Reann Gasper: Families across B.C. are being crushed by the cost of living. Rents are through the roof. The grocery rebate was cancelled, and parents are worried about child care.

Yet while families struggle, this Premier is spending more than ever on the size and scope of his office. The Premier doubled the budget for his office since forming government, while less than 10 percent of children five and under have access to affordable child care spaces, and the wait-list is years long.

Why is this NDP government more focused on stuffing the Premier’s office with high-paid staff than delivering on their promises to B.C. families?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I thank the member so much for the question, because I know the member knows how important child care is to our government.

In fact, this past week I announced $62 million in new spaces funding all across this province. I also announced an additional 770 new spaces of $10-a-day child care, and there are thousands more spaces to come as we work towards our goal of 20,000 by spring next year.

We know child care is such an important service to families in every corner of this province. We’re going to continue to invest in new spaces to bring down the cost of child care and to support our early education workers.

Payments to Highway Project Workers
and Government Management of
Transportation Projects

Harman Bhangu: After months and months of pushing this government to do the right thing and end the Kootenay ferry strike, they finally listened to reason and appointed Vince Ready to mediate.

It’s taken over five months to get a resolution on this Kootenay ferry strike. But do you know what else has taken five months? Getting the workers on a section of a Highway 1 project paid on time. Hard-working truckers, subcontractors, gravel pits, dirt disposal sites all deserve to be paid on time.

I understand some of them have been paid after I had brought this to the attention of the Transportation Minister. I would like a specific date on when these workers will be paid, a specific date from this Premier and this Minister of Transportation. Nothing less is unacceptable.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

The member will know there has been a considerable amount of work done in terms of ensuring that those who should be paid are to be paid.

In fact, there was a lot of work done by my ministry in ensuring that the general contractor was working with the Teamsters Union and others, those who were contracted, to ensure that the proper timesheets and claims were being put forward so that they could be processed.

[2:25 p.m.]

There was a significant amount of work done by both the union and my ministry and the general contractor to ensure that one particular subcontractor was indeed making those payments.

Those payments have been made, and there are more that are on the way.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Harman Bhangu: These workers have been waiting since October to be paid. I understand that there was a deal made by the Teamsters 213 which amended the PLA and CBA agreements from 30-day prompt payment to 45-day prompt payment.

My question to the minister: do you know how these projects are being run, or do you just let the ministries and everyone else run rampant?

The Speaker: Through the chair, Member. Through the chair.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I know exactly how these projects are being run. They are being run in a way that ensures British Columbia companies are hiring British Columbia workers and are training the next generation of workers in this province.

That is why….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Keep talking.

The Speaker: Hold it. Hold it.

Member.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Member. You can yell, and you can pound on your table like a child in a highchair going, “Me want food,” but the reality is this. The reality is this. Those workers are being paid.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

No. It’s not acceptable.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Come to order.

Minister, be careful with your language please.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Those workers are being paid. The work is being done with the general contractor to ensure that’s taking place.

The member asked how this is being done, and I’ll tell you.

One, by dividing the contract on the Highway 1 extension to three phases so it can be done by British Columbia companies — British Columbia companies that are hiring British Columbians, that are training Aboriginal people, women, people who’ve never had the opportunity to get a red seal apprenticeship before.

That’s the kind of work that’s underway. That’s how we’re getting the job done. That’s how we’re changing the next generation of tradespeople in this province.

We will continue to do that, and we will continue to take the work to ensure that those workers are being paid, because they are already.

Actions of Premier

Trevor Halford: There is a saying: “Never let a crisis go by without taking advantage of it.” In British Columbia, we’ve had a lot of crises. And this Premier — he’s taken advantage of almost all of them.

Seventeen times this Premier has run through legislation invoking closure. Crisis in his own leadership campaign, he kicks out his opponent. Crisis of antisemitism in his caucus, and he kicks Selina Robinson out of cabinet. Crisis in housing, he brings in Bill 44, and he shuts out every municipality in this province.

My question is this. When will this Premier actually do the right thing, look in the mirror and realize that he needs to put people before his own political power grab?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The only crisis we have seen is in that opposition across the way.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Well, if the member is referencing Bill 7 as the source of the question for the hon. member sitting just to the right of him there, then it’s pretty clear that the question was out of order.

The Speaker: Member, you have a supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Yes, I do.

We’ve heard various challenges to Bill 7. The problem with that is not once either myself or my colleagues have referenced Bill 7. But it has clearly struck a nerve because every time we talk about a power grab out of the Premier’s office, we get: “Well, it’s out of order because you’re obviously talking about Bill 7.”

Finally, finally the Premier hasn’t gotten up, but a little bit of transparency out of this cabinet is starting to show light in this question period. So I haven’t referenced Bill 7, my colleagues haven’t, but obviously when we talk about a power grab out of this…

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: Because you’re referencing Bill 7.

Because they’re referencing Bill 7.

My question is not related to Bill 7. I’m sure we’ll get to that…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let’s hear the question, please.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: It’s their time now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Question.

[2:30 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: My question is this. I started by talking about crisis after crisis that this Premier has orchestrated in this province. Every time we have one, it seems that his major priority is a power grab.

My question to the Premier is a simple one. When will he put the people of British Columbia before his own political gain?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, because every time this province has faced a challenge, whether it has been the pandemic…. This government has put the people of this province front and centre every single time.

What was the opposition’s reaction?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: What was the opposition’s reaction, and still is? To want to vilify and fire one of the key public servants in this province, Dr. Bonnie Henry. They wanted to fire her, an individual who helped guide us through that crisis.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Surrey-Cloverdale. Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let’s conclude.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: And on the current crisis with the United States that we face, when we need a united province and a Team Canada province, that side of the House can’t even get it in order to vote to condemn Donald Trump.

We stand for British Columbia, we stand for Canada, and we always will.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General report Ministry of Forests: Calculating Carbon Projections, March 2025.

Mable Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mable Elmore: I just want to recognize and welcome a new constituency assistant who is working for me in my office.

I am just very privileged and honoured and ask everyone to give a very warm welcome for Kathleen Serrano.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 6, Supply Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. After that, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. After that, the Ministry of Infrastructure and, time permitting after that, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness Estimates.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 6 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2025

The Chair: All right, Members. Welcome. We will call this chamber back to order where we are moving on committee for Bill 6, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2025.

Shall clause 1 pass?

Peter Milobar: I think the minister probably wanted to open things up.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: If I could just take a moment to introduce my team, if I may.

The Chair: That would be great.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you very much, hon. Chair.

I’m joined today by Chris Skillings, who’s the executive director, fiscal planning and estimates, and Treasury Board staff; and Ryan Pare, director, estimates, Treasury Board staff.

On clause 1.

Peter Milobar: This clause 1 is the voted expenses appropriation, so all manners of expenses to keep government running, payments to people and things of that nature. It’s based on one-quarter of what is laid out in the main estimates.

Has this been adjusted at all, or will it be adjusted today for no payments being needed to be expended in the climate action tax credit out of the carbon tax?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We will not be tabling new estimates to reflect this change. The interim supply act is based on estimates as tabled on March 4, 2025.

Peter Milobar: Well, all budgetary items are an estimate by the government in terms of what they think they want to spend on programs until it gets ratified by this Legislature at the end of May. That’s why we’re in this process here right now. There’s always an assumption by government that they’re going to pass all tax measures and tax changes that they’ve laid out in the budget and in the Budget Measures Implementation Act as well, and that’s how you get to that dollar figure.

The government, with great fanfare today, insisted that the carbon tax legislation was urgent and needed to be dealt with today. One would assume that meant that they had done other, proper scrutiny if you are asking for such changes within the Legislature in terms of process — that more work would have been done in terms of costing.

Our understanding from government is that the low-income tax credit will be removed once Bill 8 becomes law, which would be a quarter of that. It would be at least a quarter of a million dollars, if not slightly higher. That also leaves another couple of billion dollars of carbon tax revenues, as well, unaccounted for.

Is the minister saying that that $2.8 billion, roughly, of carbon tax revenue that is not industrial carbon tax revenue will not be factored into the expenses appropriation?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The interim supply is authorizing spending and does not deal with revenue side. We do expect there, of course, will be a reflection of unspent amounts of the CATC, the climate action tax credit, because of the legislation that we’ve tabled today. That will be reflected when we present Q1.

Peter Milobar: I can appreciate this doesn’t deal with the revenue side of the equation. However, we know there was around $1 billion within the climate action tax credit that would be expended, so about $250 million in this vote on clause 1.

There’s another $1.8 billion of carbon tax revenue that is collected that — one would presume, with the government running a deficit — is also being spent that will cease to exist whenever Bill 8 gets passed and gets royal assent today or early tomorrow morning. Another quarter of that would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million.

So we’re talking about an aggregate of about $750 million that’s being asked for today that, by the government’s own admission, they don’t seem to need anymore for the first quarter of operations to meet the expenditures of government.

I guess the question is, then, is the minister saying that there will be no other cuts to programs that are funded by carbon taxation other than the low-carbon tax credits to low-income households, and the other programs of that $1.8 billion of programming that are funded by carbon taxation stay intact?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Really, the interim supply is about the initial spending into this fiscal year, and it’s based on estimates that were tabled on March 4. They have not been adjusted and are not going to be adjusted to reflect changes in carbon tax. That will be reflected in Q1.

There is a lot of work before us, without question, in regards to path to balance, but questions on path to balance are really outside the scope of this bill, Bill 6.

Peter Milobar: Well, the whole purpose of the supply bill and the whole reason that we say it’s an estimate of a quarter or an estimate of a third is to keep the doors of government open and to be able to fund the programs that the government is intending to fund until they find out if they have final approval by this Legislature on the final budget.

That’s why oppositions tend to agree with the supply bill, as well, because we want government to still operate. We want hospitals. We want expenditures to be met and bills to be paid, despite what we just heard about highway construction during question period and five months waiting for payments and things of that nature. That’s what the supply bill is supposed to make sure does not happen.

The question is really, fundamentally, around the government’s plan to spending and why this wasn’t adjusted then. The government knows that they plan to not spend $1 billion on low-income carbon action tax credits in this coming fiscal year, which would be $250 million in the first quarter.

The second part of that question was: does that mean, then, that they still intend to fully fund the $1.8 billion of other projects that are obviously using carbon tax revenue to fund? We’re running an $11 billion deficit and climbing, so there is no way that carbon tax revenue is not being used in its entirety for one expenditure or another of government. So there is another $1.8 billion of carbon tax that, as of today, will be eliminated by this government in terms of collection, but there’s an expense side to that $1.8 billion.

Why was this not adjusted downwards by a quarter of that $2.8 billion of expenditures? Is the minister saying that the government has not yet decided, despite the fact we’re supposed to have an emergency debate about carbon tax tonight, what exactly they’re going to do with the other $1.8 billion of expenditures tied to that revenue coming in from carbon tax?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Really, what I’d like to point out to the member opposite is that…. They seem to be implying that there’s a direct precision on particular specifics to ministries that are included in this. In fact, an interim supply bill is really a blanket authority that is across all accounts, and it’s not aligned to any specific program or line item.

It really is a very rough calculation: $82,146,902,000 divided by 25 percent is the way that the number is reached. This is not an exercise in precision; it is to ensure that we can continue the important work of government going forward.

The member seems to want to direct us towards questions in regards to the work that we’re doing and have been doing on our path to balance. That’s very important work that’s deeply underway in the Ministry of Finance, and we’ll be able to report out on it at Q1.

Peter Milobar: I thank the minister for her explanation on how we got to a quarter, and I fully understand that. But carbon tax is about 6 percent of the overall taxation revenue of the province. It’s around 5 or 6 percent of the number that the minister just indicated in terms of expenditures as well. It’s a significant portion of the overall expenditures of this government, because it’s what funds those expenditures.

I guess I’ll ask this question, then, in relation to carbon tax, the programs that it relates to and how it ties in with the supply act. Is the minister saying then…? There are no provisions in Bill 8 that I can see. It’s not mentioned in the budget. It’s not mentioned in the estimates for it to be removed and changed, the only chance we might have to actually ask questions about it as it relates to the supply act.

Is the minister saying that there will be supplemental estimates brought forward specific to carbon tax and the programs associated with carbon tax?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: All of the expenditures side will be going through estimates, through the various ministries and those expenditures will be authorized.

The work to continue our work on a path to balance is happening within the Ministry of Finance, and as I’ve mentioned, we’ll be reporting out on that work when we report out Q1.

Peter Milobar: The question was whether the carbon tax revenue and expenditures associated with carbon tax would be subject to supplemental budgetary estimates or not.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No, they will not.

Peter Milobar: Thank you.

You know, I’ll read from page 60 of the minister’s budget, “Clean Buildings Tax Credit Extended”:

“The deadline for qualifying expenditures for the clean buildings tax credit is extended by one year, to March 31, 2026. The temporary credit supports the government’s CleanBC plan by incentivizing energy efficiency upgrades that go above and beyond minimum requirements for existing buildings. Reducing a building’s energy use can reduce its environmental impact. Improved energy efficiency can provide additional benefits, such as increased affordability, through reduced heating and cooling costs and improved health and comfort.”

I guess the question to the minister is…. That appears to be funded by carbon tax. Is that program still part of the voted expenses and appropriation in clause 1, or has it been cancelled?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The decision made to move forward with the carbon tax cancellation was made after the budget. The interim supply bill is based on the budget as of March 4. As such, that question is outside the focus of the interim supply bill, which we’re discussing today.

Peter Milobar: Well, clause 1 is for $20,536,726,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service in the province for the fiscal year. Some $3 billion of those expenditures are our carbon tax, so about $750 million for one-quarter of these expenditures would be funded by carbon tax, which we were told by the government is urgent and must be dealt with today with an expedited process of legislation. We can sit here till four in the morning if we need be, but it has to be done today.

I’m simply asking if it’s that urgent and needs to be done, why don’t we see this number being reflected with an amendment by the government to remove $750 million, three-quarters of a billion dollars. A few hours ago the government was insisting it was urgent that that piece of legislation be dealt with, but they didn’t deal with this piece of legislation that they knew was coming today as well. It’s the same ministry, actually, dealing with both.

We know the low-carbon tax credit for low-income people is no more, based on comments by the minister today. We know that’s around $1 billion. But the minister seems unwilling to acknowledge that the other $1.8 billion of CleanBC and other initiatives like transit and passive active transportation, clean buildings tax credits…. A wide variety of other programs and credits that are paid for, in the first quarter, to continue on with clause 1, have either not been cancelled or won’t be cancelled. That’s another half a billion dollars.

Again, I’ll ask the question: why did the ministry not adjust? The only answer I can come up with…. Maybe they think it’s a rounding error at $250 million, when you’re talking $20½ billion, but when you start pushing three-quarters of a billion dollars, one would think that’s enough of a material change to acknowledge the urgency that we were told of this morning, and that the Speaker’s office was led to believe by the Government House Leader this morning, of how critically important it was to deal with Bill 8 today.

The same ministry introducing that bill might have said, “Maybe we should adjust clause 1 down by three-quarters of a billion dollars to demonstrate that urgency,” if they are truly planning on cutting those other programs.

Given that it hasn’t been adjusted, I will have to assume that it means: if you’re low income, you’re SOL when it comes to your tax credit continuing on, but if you want to create more bike lanes, you might be okay.

Can the minister confirm whether or not there have been plans to cut or to continue the other $1.8 billion worth of spending from carbon tax, which would translate to about half a billion dollars, in clause 1, or have there not been any final decisions made on that expenditure yet?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Again, the member seems to be wanting to debate a bill different than the one in front of us, which I may remind, is the interim supply bill. This is a bill that is focused on spending. It does not deal with revenue.

It is a bill that is using a general estimate of costs, in the first quarter, for the functioning of government. It is not a specific line-by-line bill that looks at expenditures by ministry. It is a general estimate of expenses, and it is not related to the question that the member continually is asking.

Peter Milobar: Well, respectfully, it is. I am asking about expenditures. I’m asking about $1.8 billion more of expenditures in the quarter, of that amount, which would be contained in clause 1.

This is a government that made a big deal about how they were getting the spending under control, and how they were finding efficiencies. They touted the $300 million they feel they found, in the backdrop of a record deficit in this budget, on a $90-billion-plus spending envelope.

[3:05 p.m.]

The $300 million was what was being bandied about by this government as the great accomplishment of cost savings, yet the minister doesn’t want to answer a question about $750 million tied to a $20 billion requisition for funds. Something seems a little off. It’s a very straightforward question.

We know that the expenditure of $1 billion for low-income households has been removed by this government. First there was no more grocery rebate of $1,000 for those low-income households; that’s not in this budget. Now we’re finding out that despite it being in this budget, it is being removed today out of this budget: the carbon tax credit for low-income households. That has been established, and the minister has acknowledged that publicly, multiple times.

I’m asking about the expenditure of the other $1.8 billion that comes as a result of collecting carbon taxes. And whether or not the programs, the projects and the tax credits, whatever type of expenditure that is attached to that $1.8 billion…. This government has made a masterwork out of talking about all the things that get paid for by carbon tax: charging stations, EV vehicle rebates — they have removed the EV used-vehicle rebate in this budget, at least, ahead of time — building tax credits, passive active transportation corridors, and transit improvements that get funded by it.

A wide variety of things get funded by carbon tax, by this government’s own admission over the years. I’m simply asking, if there’s $1.8 billion still of spending attached to the carbon tax collection — that’s what we have, that $1.8 billion number — have all of those programs been decided, like the fate for low-income households has already been decided by this government?

Or are those programs still at play, still getting funded, and there has been no decision made, on the government’s behalf, on what they’re going to do with that spending? Is that why those programs are not reflected in a reduction in clause 1?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Again, I don’t feel it’s appropriate to get into the types of questions that the member opposite is fielding in regard to Bill 6, the interim supply bill. The expenditures that are related to carbon tax and that are funded through that will be canvassed. There’s opportunity to canvass them during estimates for the particular ministries that they live in. That opportunity exists in a fulsome way.

The interim supply bill is about a general calculation that is used to ensure that government has funding to continue our important work while we debate the budget, as the budget goes through estimates. All the questions that the member opposite has asked today are appropriate for any of those. Today we’re talking about the interim supply bill, not Bill 8.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m not talking about Bill 8 either. I’m talking about the expenditure plan by this government over the next year, which was changed dramatically by the government today, with no other documentation other than to tell us it’s an urgent bill that we have to debate.

The minister said we’re not going to have any supplemental budget estimates attached to that specific item, even though it’s about 6 percent of the budget, which was introduced well after the budget was introduced.

The expenditures attached to the consolidated revenues are based — the minister is right — on the global spend of government, but all government programs, all government spending, goes into that global pot, on which we then create the quarter of the amount, at $20,536,700,000.

[3:10 p.m.]

It’s traditional for the opposition to ask how that gets calculated. In most common years, we accept the projections by government, based on the budget book that they present in the beginning of March, or mid-February, or end of April, whenever they choose to bring forward the budget. Everything is based on that book.

The government fundamentally changed that book today. It wasn’t the opposition. It was actually the Finance Minister that did that.

I would think that people in B.C. would like to have some solace that there was a game plan here when the government talks about removing 6 percent of their taxation revenue after a budget has already been developed — not because of tariffs, actually because of a political decision that they decided to make.

If the government had gone into any other program and said: “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to….” After bringing the budget book in, if they had said today we’re going to drop personal income tax from $17 billion, $17½ billion and we’re going to cut $3 billion out of that, I think people might have some questions as to what’s going to happen to the spending.

If they said we’re going to cut corporate income tax from $6.2 billion down to $3.2 billion, I think there might be a reasonable expectation of a few questions being asked as it relates to how it impacts the overall spending, because that spending ties into revenue in terms of our overall deficit. And although the minister doesn’t seem to be too concerned about an $11-billion-and-growing deficit, the opposition is.

That $11 billion deficit could balloon to almost $13 billion, depending on what the spending plans are of that other $1.8 billion of carbon taxation. That’s the revenue side. But that $1.8 billion of expense is what creates the deficit side.

Again, the minister, ahead of today, has acknowledged repeatedly that the climate action tax credit for low-income households is gone. It’s no more. So we know they don’t need an appropriation of a quarter of that amount, but fair enough, even though it’s about the same amount of money as the minister has touted for savings in the entire budget document for the year.

I’m now asking about the other $500 million that hasn’t been deducted out of this for expenditures. Again, is the minister saying that the other $1.8 billion of spending that is attached to carbon tax generation for things like electric vehicle charging stations, for things like active transportation, for things like transit, for things like the building program I referenced out of their own budget document…?

Is she saying that decisions have not been made about whether those programs will continue or not and that is why there has been no change to the amount of money requested within clause 1 and that, in fact, the only people that any decisions have been made about on their programs are low-income households in British Columbia?

[3:15 p.m. - 3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do look forward to a fulsome discussion with the member opposite during budget estimates on a number of the issues that he has raised, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to answer them in this context in regards to interim supply.

Also, at this time, there is no need to adjust interim supply. We are confident that it provides the appropriation authority that’s needed to support government until estimates and fiscal supply have passed.

Peter Milobar: I can appreciate that the minister — fortunate for her, not so fortunate for me — has never actually sat in opposition like myself. She went straight into government. Estimates are not as cut and dry as the minister may think.

When you’re in opposition, you go into estimates, and you go and ask. The minister will say, “Well, you should have asked Minister Y or Minister X,” and you say: “Well, their estimates have already finished.” And they say: “Well, it’s not our problem. You should have asked them when their estimates were up.”

There is a very nondescript list of things that the opposition tries to cobble together to understand what carbon tax does or doesn’t fund out there, and it’s always like pushing on a balloon. You’re never really sure what programs or not. I guess the ask, then….

If the minister is unwilling or unable to answer my questions as they relate to the expenditures of carbon tax for the first quarter of the year, which clause 1 deals with in terms of expenditures, would the minister, then, either commit to (a) fielding all related carbon tax programming questions through her budget estimates with myself — because we’re at the very end, so referring back to other ministers won’t work very well for us; or (b) providing us with a timely list of every single program so that we know which ministers we should be approaching during their budget estimates?

Estimates are underway right now. We have Agriculture later today, which undoubtedly has some carbon tax implications in it. We have Infrastructure coming, which undoubtedly has some types of infrastructure programs related to, as I say, active transportation and other things like that. Transit is up in the next day or two.

There’s a wide range of estimates that are happening very, very quickly, and the government has chosen to today completely change the playing field on this budget in terms of what may or may not be funded out of a very particular program.

I guess I’m either looking for an expediated list back of all those ministries that carbon tax remotely pays for programming within or the minister to commit that she would then field any and all carbon tax questions around any of those programs, given that she is the Minister of Finance and ultimately responsible for the overall treasury of the province of B.C.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: During the estimates process, ministers who are answering questions can defer any questions that they want to the Ministry of Finance, which, as the member rightly identified, goes last. That process is in place and, I’m sure, will be in use.

Peter Milobar: Well, I was trying to move this along by asking if we could get a list of the exact programs that the minister, as the Minister of Finance, agrees or views as being funded by carbon tax so that we can ask very targeted questions on something that has fundamentally changed quite significantly, in terms of both the revenue side and also the expenditure side, within the budget. As I say, it could be a $750 million difference to clause 1 on the supply bill.

[3:25 p.m.]

You know, as opposition, I guess, we’re willing to, perhaps, concede that by the end of the fiscal year, that might work itself out. But we have, to this point, the minister not being able or wanting to confirm what the plans are for that $750 million that’s baked into these voted expenses, other than the fact that we know one expense has been cut, which is that low-income households will receive less money than they previously did — in fact, 65 percent of households.

It’s $440 for a single person, $680 for a single-parent household and $618 for a multi-parent family. We’ll see that all cut away — 65 percent of households. I’m using government numbers, not my own. They were actually hoping to get it up to 80 percent of households over the next few years.

We know that that’s all been cut away, yet it still maintains in the expense appropriation, even though you don’t need that $250 million for the first quarter. The minister doesn’t want to acknowledge that other programs will continue on in spite of the fact that low-income people will see that cheque cut from them.

Again, could we then get a detailed list of how that is made up so that we can continue on in those budget estimates, or would the minister prefer that I…? I mean, apparently we have lots of time tonight anyway. I could dig into more detail on clause 1, if the minister would prefer, instead of using that time in budget estimates.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Again, this member is determined to be debating a bill or raising questions about a bill that is not here tabled. This is the interim supply act. It is based on the budget that was tabled on March 4, a calculation of what we expect to need to ensure that government continues delivering its key programs and services while we debate the budget.

It is not related to the question that the member is asking. It’s not related to a list of things in regards to the questions that the member is asking. That is related to Bill 8. Really, what we’re talking about is section 1, which is a proposal of $10.5 billion. This is a calculation based on a general estimate, not a specific thing, ministry by ministry or program by program. It’s designed to provide us operational funding while we appropriately debate and explore the budget.

This is not related to Bill 8, which is where the member opposite is spending their time, and I don’t believe that is an appropriate direction of the time we have today to be talking about the interim supply bill, Bill 6.

Peter Milobar: Is the minister then saying that when they take the aggregate of the expenditures and take a quarter of that, they’re not expecting that over the course of that first quarter, most programs will indeed have some level of funding and payment needed by the government to make programs and tax policy take effect — that in fact, almost all expenditures of some sort or another on one degree or another will happen over the first quarter?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, and again, just to remind the member that this is a blanket estimate in section 1 that is based on our estimates from the budget tabled on March 4 and allows us the time to debate the budget appropriately. That’s really what is provided in section 1.

Peter Milobar: So would issues in and around funding towards B.C. Transit or any funding agreements within TransLink, any of those types of initiatives that might be seen as somewhat of a more green bent, be funded in the first quarter and need these appropriations to make sure those transfers actually happen?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Again, the nature of the interim supply act is not one of specificity. This is a general allocation that allows government to continue its important work.

The types of questions that the member would like to get into with some specificity would be appropriately directed towards the estimates of that particular ministry, in this case the Ministry of Transportation.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m not asking for specifics. I’m not even asking for the specific dollar figure. I was simply asking about programs. One would assume the Minister of Finance has oversight of the overall budget.

It’s really around what goes into the general dollar figure, the $80 billion plus, the $84 billion or $82 billion, $83 billion that creates the $20 billion clause 1 that we’re talking about. That is one-quarter of expenditures meant to have things function in government for the first quarter of the year while we finish off the main budget estimates and get into that line-by-line, program-by-program specific piece.

Obviously, and I referenced it at the beginning…. The minister has agreed in the past that it would include things like keeping hospitals open and schools open. I’m not asking for how many hospitals or how many nursing hours are part of this quarter of expenditures. I’m not asking for how many transit hours are part of it.

What I’m asking for is if any level of transit funding for, say, B.C. Transit or TransLink would be anticipated to be part of this one-quarter of expenditures for the first year, or for clause 1, within that year, or is the anticipation that all of that type of funding has somehow magically escaped needing reimbursement for the first quarter of the year by government? In fact, transit and passive active transportation–type programs and stuff — none of them would actually start being considered by government or funded by government until the end of the first quarter.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I feel like this is the tenth time I’ve said this, but as the member surely must be aware, this is blanket legislation based on the entire year’s expenditures and calculated that one-quarter of them will be pulled through and provided so that there is timely payment available for the programs and services that British Columbians need. It is not specific. It is a very general calculation to ensure that government keeps operating.

While we can do the specific work of passing our budget and participating in estimates and having debates on budget and having each of the ministries appropriately do their estimates, where in-depth questions and deep exploration of the type of question the member is interested in getting into can occur, this is much different than that.

This is an interim supply bill that provides a very generalized bucket of spending based on the budget for the entire year and divided by a quarter. It’s a very rough methodology. It’s not specific, but it is the tool that we have that provides us the ability to keep things moving forward while we do the important work of passing our budget. That’s really what this Bill 6 is about.

Peter Milobar: So did the overall budget for health care factor into the one-quarter of the $20 billion that’s requested in clause 1?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As has already been canvassed, this is a very simple definition of funding, a simple calculation — the entire appropriations, the whole budget as tabled on March 4, divided by one-quarter. So yes, everything that’s in the budget — March 4 it was tabled; the entire year’s worth — divided by one-quarter.

It’s very simple. There’s no seasonality to it. There’s no specificity by ministry. It’s a simple tool that allows us to keep the mechanism of government moving forward while we do get into the specificity of the budget through estimates and through the estimates of individual ministries. There’s lots of opportunity to get into those details. The member well knows this.

Peter Milobar: Well, there are differences even within the bill. When we finally get to clause 2, it’s one-third. It’s 33 percent of a different portion. This is 25 percent of a portion of the budget and expenditures, so there is a difference.

I appreciate what the minister is saying. It’s kind of a cookie-cutter formula, and I’m not.… The amazing thing is these aren’t actually gotcha questions. It’s a pretty straightforward question: is the overall budget for the Ministry of Health cut into four, basically, and that quarter is part of the $20,536,726,000?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, the Ministry of Health, as in all components of the March 4 budget, is part of the calculation of the full budget amount divided into 25 percent, which makes up the number that we’re seeing in section 1.

Peter Milobar: So we know that on Health. We know it would continue on then for all other manner with it.

Again, the government today fundamentally changed the March 4 budget, in terms of, we know, revenue side. But based on the minister’s statements about cutting benefits for low-income households at the same time, we know that side, on the expenditure side, has already been changed fundamentally by $1 billion for the year.

It might not seem like much, maybe, to the government when it’s dealing with almost a $100 billion or $90 billion budget. But I think to the person at home, the 65 percent of residents that are no longer going to see their $440 to $680 worth of low-carbon tax credits, they may feel differently about that $1 billion.

Given that it doesn’t appear we actually need the $20,536,726,000 for the first quarter, we actually need $19,786,726,000, I would like to move an amendment to clause 1.

[Bill 6 Clause 1 be amended by striking “$20 536 726 000” and substituting “$19 786 726 000”.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

We will take a brief recess so that we can distribute the amendment to all of the members of the Legislature. This committee will stand in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order.

A motion has been introduced, from the member for Kamloops Centre, reading that Bill 6, clause 1, be amended by striking $20,536,726,000 and substituting that number with $19,786,726,000.

The motion is in order, and I would welcome the member for Kamloops Centre to speak to the motion.

On the amendment.

Peter Milobar: As I said, it’s second reading. The opposition has no desire to shut down the doors of government tomorrow morning. We support and understand the need for interim supply bills. However, as the minister has indicated, that’s based on a rough calculation of one-quarter of what gets presented in the budget document on March 4. This year it happened to be March 4.

I tried, at length, to get the minister to acknowledge things that she has actually acknowledged publicly, at least in relation to the low-income tax credit for climate and carbon tax. That is being removed. The minister has talked about that openly. That would be one-third of what I’ve removed, with my amendment, out of the interim supply. Again, it should not affect anything to do with operation of government whatsoever.

The question mark is around that remaining $500,000…. Or the $500 million that’s on there. That’s how big a number it is. I started thinking in thousands.

I would point out, before the minister and the staff point it out, that it’s not an exact science. They’re absolutely right, just like the $20 billion is not exact. It’s just a quick, rough calculation of one-quarter. It doesn’t mean that all of it gets spent in the one quarter or not, but it’s meant to signify.

We know that $500 million is not one-quarter of $1.8 billion of the remaining carbon tax money, but it’s meant to be a rough number. It’s not to the point that it would hamstring government in any way, over that quarter, in terms of their legal obligations, of expenditures that they need to do on a contractual basis.

[3:50 p.m.]

The minister, who was unable or unwilling, on multiple occasions, to talk about the expenditure of that $1.8 billion…. I was trying to ask, in very general terms….

I asked about transit and TransLink funding being a part of the overall $20 billion. The minister was evasive about that but had no problem in, eventually, finally acknowledging that health care spending is a part of the $20 billion and that, in fact, all government programming is.

That would include things like programs around transit, programs around TransLink. It would include things like active transportation and other types around there. It would include the clean building tax credit being extended on page 60 of that budget on March 4 that now apparently is in jeopardy, but the minister won’t confirm whether that is continuing on or not.

The minister says that clause 1 is based on the budget on March 4, yet when I asked direct questions, reading passages from that budget book on March 4, I got a no answer. So all we can assume as opposition is that in fact all those other clean initiatives have been cut. The government has decided not to talk about it at this point, only about cutting supports for low-income households, for whatever reason that is, instead of talking about all the ways they’re going to address those cuts.

The actions of this government today in terms of the urgency, in terms of the overrides that they asked, through the Speaker’s office, for this Legislature to tolerate, were all based on urgency. Yet very straightforward questions tied into the dollars attached to that urgency today were met with: “Ask me in the second week of May when we have our budget estimates together.”

The government can’t have it both ways. All this amendment does is it keeps the doors of government open. It keeps the critical services flowing, but it acknowledges that today the government, by their own choice, fundamentally and significantly altered the budget document of March 4, the budget document that generated the dollar figures in clause 1.

By that expenditure within clause 1 now not needing that extra $750 million, all this amendment is saying is we’ve recognized that we’ve done the simple calculation to update it to better reflect in real time as we’re dealing with the legislation, based on the changes the government has made since March 4, that the expenditures of the government better reflect what the new priorities of this government are.

Since the government was unwilling to do that, we took it upon ourselves as the official opposition to make sure the numbers better reflect an accuracy of the government’s intentions on spending.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers to the amended clause, to the amendment that has been introduced by the member for Kamloops Centre, the question before this House is the amendment of clause 1, Bill 6.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We will report to the Speaker that this House has passed Bill 6.

The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:56 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2025

Lorne Doerkson: The committee on Bill 6 reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read next time?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Now, hon. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2025

The Speaker: Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I call second reading of Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax
Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we will call on the Minister of Finance to open debate on Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that Bill 8 be read a second time now.

Last fall our government committed to ending British Columbia’s carbon tax if the federal government ended its national carbon pricing requirements. With the elimination of the federal carbon tax beginning on April 1, it’s time for us to follow through on this commitment.

This bill amends the Carbon Tax Act to cancel all scheduled rate increases and set the carbon tax rate to zero dollars per tonne of emissions as of April 1, 2025. This will effectively end the consumer carbon tax in British Columbia.

Government recognizes the need to balance our goals of protecting the climate and protecting affordability. With this change, people and businesses who previously paid the consumer carbon tax on fuels and combustibles will no longer be subject to a carbon price. The province will continue to encourage large industry to reduce carbon emissions through the output-based pricing system, which is not changing under this bill.

Because the purpose of the climate action tax credit is to help offset the impact of carbon taxes paid by individuals and families, the bill also amends the Income Tax Act to establish that no climate action tax credit payments will be issued for the benefit year beginning July 2025. This will effectively end the climate action tax credit, going forward. People will get the final payments in April.

[4:00 p.m.]

This bill also includes several amendments to the Carbon Tax Act that will make the transitional period more efficient. A new refund mechanism for natural gas retailers under the Carbon Tax Act will take effect on April 1, 2025. If natural gas retailers are unable to adjust their systems in time to accommodate the elimination of the carbon tax, they will be required to directly refund or credit their customers for any amount of carbon tax collected in error.

By empowering retailers to reimburse their customers directly, over one million natural gas customers in British Columbia can be reassured that they will not have to apply for a refund from government.

The bill also includes technical amendments to address issues such as when businesses are erroneously charged security for carbon tax and update requirements for fuel sellers to be registered under the act.

The bill also includes retroactive regulation-making powers to allow government to make technical and administrative amendments to the carbon tax regulation, effective April 1, 2025, and to allow government to address unanticipated refund scenarios via regulation. The bill also adds transitional regulation-making authorities under the Carbon Tax Act that will allow government to fix any errors, omissions or ambiguities in this bill via regulation.

Finally, the bill makes consequential amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act to ensure appointments, permits and certificates under the act are not affected by changes made to the Carbon Tax Act and to ensure government can retroactively amend international fuel tax agreement refund rates to reflect the removal of the carbon tax.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s interesting, the minister’s brief introduction to Bill 8 there, for something you would think the government has been working on and committed to since the fall and wanted to ensure was in place by April 1. Given that it’s March 31 and we’ve been directed to have an emergency debate that will go probably well into April 1 on this bill….

Again, the minister, in our previous debate around the supply bill, and now with this…. I’ll reference the budget for March 4, page 66: “Budget 2023 implemented annual carbon tax increases of $15 a tonne until the carbon tax reaches $170 a tonne in 2030, as per federal carbon pricing requirements. Government remains committed to removing the consumer carbon tax should the federal government remove the requirement for carbon pricing across Canada, also known as the federal backstop.”

Now, the interesting thing about that is it then goes on to talk about the climate action tax credit for low-income households, which we now know has been removed by this minister and Premier. But they were very non-committal about whether or not they’re adjusting any spending as it relates to anything else that has to do with carbon tax.

I say that because that was March 4’s budget. So this was already in the back of the government’s mind as they were putting the budget together. Yet when you read through the budget, everything in the budget anticipates carbon tax still going up by $15 a tonne over the next three years, and it projects to collect close to $10 billion in revenue. It has questionable, at best, accounting for where it’s going to spend all that money, ever since the government made it no longer revenue-neutral.

The government very clearly, on one hand, desired and had a plan in the March 4 budget for the carbon tax to be in place and to continue on. They have one sentence that talks about adjusting if the federal government removes it.

Now, I say that because, as I pointed out this morning, January 31 is when then running-for-leader but now Prime Minister Carney first talked about removing the consumer carbon tax. In fact, the only other contender that was viewed to be a contender in the federal leadership race, Chrystia Freeland, was also making similar overtures around the same timeline, well ahead of the March 4 budget.

Obviously, Pierre Poilievre has made the commitment to remove the carbon tax in its entirety. As I said in interviews last week, it appears the only two politicians in the country that did not think there were substantive changes coming to the carbon tax in British Columbia sometime this year were the Finance Minister and the Premier.

[4:05 p.m.]

There could have been legislation brought forward, before Bill 8, in the first month we’ve been sitting here. We’ve been sitting here since mid-February with next to nothing of legislation to work on.

What could have the government brought forward? Well they could have brought forward legislation that would have taken it from a legislative requirement on the adjustment of the carbon tax rates in British Columbia to be aligned with the federal legislation, which is how the federal government has been able to reduce it to zero dollars tomorrow, based on an order-in-council, based on a cabinet order that they sign off on.

Now, B.C. had the carbon tax before the federal government, so our system is different. Our system has, as we’re witnessing now, a legislative change that needs to happen. But that legislative change could have been brought forward, to enable the government to make it by regulation, a month ago. They could have brought that forward a month ago and literally could have just said that federal government goes to zero, and we empower the cabinet to sign an order to take it to zero.

That’s not what this government has done. In fact, in 2023, they ingrained a new schedule taking us all the way up to 2030, all the way up $15 a year by legislation, in the Carbon Tax Act, which Bill 8 is amending, to ensure that schedules 1 and 2 account for all the fuels and show how it gets it up to $170 a tonne. So that’s the pre-planning that this government has done when they wanted to charge the carbon tax. Zero pre-planning in anticipation of what, quite literally, everyone else in the country was waiting to happen.

Now, we can get into the differences between the consumer tax and the industrial tax and how there are differences federally within the laws on that, as well, but Bill 8 only deals with the consumer tax, because that’s all the federal government at this stage has said that they’re willing to deal with. But zero flexibility shown by this government moving forward, heading to an April 1 date….

Let’s remember, the federal parliament was prorogued until March 24. So one way or another, on March 24, we were going to be in an election where leaders had made commitments around carbon tax federally, or the legislature was going to be recalled. A confidence was going to happen, and people were trying to make that confidence vote around carbon tax as well. Everyone in the country knew it except for the minister and the Premier.

What we wind up with today is legislation jammed in, with no detail from the government as to what that impact will be. They alert the opposition late Saturday that this is happening, after the Premier had already been out in press events talking about it happening. They don’t give the opposition advance copy of the bill, so we could actually look into the technical aspects of this bill whatsoever. They ensure that they have quiet conversations with a party of two in the Green Party, but not the party of 41.

Then they wonder why, perhaps, the opposition is saying: “You know, you just seem to want to circumvent democracy, just a little bit, in this House.” Oh, but no; it’s urgent. “It has to pass today. It has to be in place by April 1.” Except for when you ask the question — what happens if debate continues past midnight tonight? — in that case, retroactivity kicks in, and it’s not a problem. What happens if we stretch it out till April 2? It’s not a problem. That’s the level of urgency this government for political reasons has, but not for technical reasons, in a bill.

The excuse they will give is: “Well, we don’t know. We don’t know if we would win a vote, and we don’t want our retailers to be in a position where they may feel exposed if it hasn’t passed for a couple of days and they’re not sure if they should or shouldn’t be charging the tax.” Apparently, even this government wants to admit that the retailers don’t trust them to keep their word when they tell them to stop charging the tax.

[4:10 p.m.]

I say that because, even without the support of the Green Party, this government should be able to win this vote. It would only be by one vote, but it would still be a win. It’s kind of like in the Stanley Cup. If you win by one goal in game 7 in overtime, it doesn’t really matter; you still get to hoist the cup.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: The rest is for ego, the minister says, and I can think of no bigger ego than the Premier’s on this piece.

The reality is that Bill 8 is not an urgent piece of legislation. We obviously have been calling for the repeal of carbon tax for quite some time, and in fact, it’s quite interesting to see the epiphany that the Premier has had over carbon tax.

Let’s see. “The good news is, in my opinion, and I’m staking my political career on it, British Columbians, because we’re on the front lines of these impacts, are also well positioned to understand why we need to do the work, why we need to show climate leadership” — the Premier to the North Shore News, February 14, 2024.

“You don’t have to ask me. Ask the guy who brought in removing it — would result in a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and for corporate taxes in the province.” Again, the Premier, April 16, 2024.

“British Columbia will continue to lead on this.” That was the Premier in November of 2023, in this chamber.

“Let me be clear: we will not back down. God forbid, if the rest of the country abandons the fight against climate, B.C. will stand strong.” That was with the NDP in November of 2023 by the Premier. He has got a convention coming up this November, I believe, and it will be interesting what he tells his delegates there, what type of applause he gets.

Let’s see. “A cornerstone of our climate strategy.” That was another gem in September 2024.

“All the other parties it seems to me, in an effort to win votes, are willing to sell their children’s future. I think it’s unacceptable. We won’t do it, and we will support strong climate action.” That was the Premier on November 20, 2023.

“That’s his position, to flip-flop all over. But for us, we’re going to continue supporting people and take action on climate. That’s what British Columbians expect.” That was the Premier in this chamber in October of ’23.

“The member is well aware of the fact that pricing carbon is the right way to deal with climate change. He has just lost the courage of his convictions.” Lost the courage of his convictions around carbon tax and climate change — who would have said that, I wonder. Oh, look at that: the Premier said it in this chamber. Well, it was Halloween of 2023, so who knows.

“He spent 15 years saying he was proud of the carbon tax, and today he’s not.” Once again, the Premier, same day. It was a prolific day for him, on Halloween.

“I understand that the member is under a lot of pressure from the Conservative Party, but standing up, after the summer we had, for British Columbia to be a leader on climate change is an important thing. His abandonment of that under pressure is exactly what’s going to happen if he gets on this side of the House,” said the Premier on Halloween of 2023. It sounds like he has kind of abandoned things, but what do I know?

“The province needs principled leadership. It’s hard to stand strong. But I encourage the member to visit with the member that used to sit here in 2012, because at least he knew what he stood for. I have no idea what that man stands for.” Premier yet again, again on Halloween. The province needs principled leadership. Hmm.

“I know that the other side of the House is desperate to justify their about-face on climate action. It’s embarrassing. Their leader said that bringing in carbon tax is one of the proudest things he ever did. Now they say: ‘No, no, we don’t think it’s a good idea anymore.’” The Premier once again.

“They will say anything to get elected. They are in a position of desperation, but I can’t let them make up their own facts,” said the Premier with a now one-seat majority in this chamber. Of course, he said that when he thought he was getting a supermajority. It’s interesting how tough he was talking when he thought he had a supermajority in the bag compared to what he is saying nowadays.

“Unfortunately” — I can’t use names — the Leader of the Official Opposition “has said that climate change is a lie. He is promising to completely rip up B.C.’s climate action plan, leaving British Columbians more vulnerable to extreme weather events like wildfires and floods that add to the costs we all pay and place huge pressures on the services we all count on.” That was the Premier in September of 2024.

[4:15 p.m.]

The interesting thing is that those programs are funded by carbon tax, the consumer carbon tax. And the minister, in the supply bill, refused to acknowledge whether or not those programs will now be cut because they have a $1.8 billion problem in revenue based on the carbon tax.

This one is always a classic. “British Columbia will stand strong on climate even if we’re the only province in Canada standing strong on climate, because in British Columbia, we don’t see another choice. Anyone who tells you that there’s another choice is lying to you as a politician.” That was the Premier to the North Shore News in February of 2024. Apparently he thinks there is another choice now.

“Last week we saw what was clearly a rushed announcement from the federal government. Still trying to figure out with the federal government where they’re headed on this issue.” That was in October of ’23. Well, we all knew where the government was heading as of January 31. We knew where they were headed on March 14. Here we are today with a rushed piece of legislation.

You know, there’s a long list of ministers who have come out and said interesting things opposed to the carbon tax.

“They brought out additional taxes on carbon, and they’ve made middle-class people pay and pay at a time when they are finding it more and more difficult to afford to live in our province.” That was the Minister of Energy back in 2011.

Our current Minister of Health had a lot to say in support of carbon tax.

“Obviously, the carbon tax is one of the best things British Columbia has led.” That was the current Housing Minister.

“There are climate policy experts who will say that this is widely seen as one of the most efficient, effective and progressive means of reducing emissions.” That’s the now Minister of Health.

“Carbon tax is something that has been shown by experts around the world as one of the most efficient and effective means of reducing emissions, so we’re going to continue this work here in British Columbia.” Again, the current Minister of Health.

Former Environment Minister: “Our Premier has been absolutely clear that British Columbia is going to stay the track with our CleanBC plan, which includes the carbon tax, which includes substantial rebates to British Columbians, including 100 percent of the increase going back as part of the climate action tax credit.”

Well, let’s look into what former Minister Heyman had to say about it. Let’s see. “Stay on track with our CleanBC plan.” Well, that’s funded by carbon tax, which Bill 8 would get rid of. “Substantial rebates to British Columbia with the climate action tax credit.” That’s already been confirmed by the minister as gone.

It sounds like this is an NDP government that is struggling to figure out where exactly they stand on this, but that’s okay. We obviously want to see the carbon tax removed, but we’d like to see some transparency on it.

We would like to understand what the government’s plans are, because the government, as of March 4, said they were working on a plan and had a plan if the federal rules changed. That’s what they said on page 66. Yet here we stand today, and they can’t articulate what that plan is, other than that they need the rates to go to zero. But they won’t tell us…. Does that mean we jump up to a $13 billion deficit? Does that mean that it’s only low-income people that will see their programs and their supports cut but other spending for CleanBC stays in place?

I think it’s important, because those quotes I just read out…. It shows just how wide this government keeps changing where they stand on things like this. It’s critically important, because this is a government that’s telling us that industry is going to continue to pay the carbon tax, yet they say they have a plan to aggressively expand industry, except the minister in charge of that was supposed to bring legislation to this House about the energy regulator, and we still haven’t seen that four months after he first talked about bringing that legislation to this House.

We’re not sure what to make of it, because the minister now was the minister in 2013 who one day was in favour of Kinder Morgan and the next day was standing in my riding in Kamloops and said they were no longer in favour of Kinder Morgan. So consistency of where you stand on resource development in B.C. and how you’re going to apply taxation actually matters.

[4:20 p.m.]

Capital doesn’t like risk. Capital wants to know what exactly is going to happen in a reasonable sense of stability. When they see a litany of quotes like this and actions that contradict each other, it doesn’t give that stability and comfort to the investment climate that we so desperately need.

Now, the climate action tax credit, again by this minister’s own numbers, was supposed to go to 65 percent of the households in British Columbia. So 100 percent of the households didn’t get the $1,000 grocery rebate promised by this government. Ironically, that would be about $1.8 billion, about the same amount as they won’t tell us what they’re going to do with, with the carbon tax revenue either. But 65 percent of households will no longer see their climate action tax credit come to them: $440 a single, $680 to a single parent, $613 for a multi-parent family.

The government’s target was supposed to be to try to get 80 percent of residents up to that, receiving those types of dollars back. The government will say, and the government has said repeatedly…. And I’ve asked multiple times. When they say the answer back, when they say they will look at getting rid of the consumer carbon tax, it’s that they’re going to ensure industrial emitters still pay.

Well I think it’s important that people at home understand what that actually means. Every time we tried canvassing that, especially in question period, and said, “Well, are you planning on putting $3 billion onto industry…?” Because right now they only pay about $200 million, and people in the rest of B.C. are surprised to find out that’s all industry pays. But it’s because there was a shift to a new output-based pricing system that syncs up to a lot of what the federal rules are.

I’ll simplify it. It essentially says that each industry gets an emission target standard, and if they hit that target standard that’s supposed to be considered global-leading for emission profile for their industry, they don’t pay carbon tax. It was only the consumers paying carbon tax in B.C. for a long time. Because previous to the output-based pricing system….

Even when carbon tax went to $50 from $30, when it was capped and revenue-neutral…. Then this government came in and removed it being revenue-neutral and started the hike to $50 before the feds even started talking about carbon tax. Industry was capped at $30. People at home were paying $50; industry was paying $30. That’s been brought up in this chamber all along.

I don’t actually fundamentally have an issue with that. I had an issue with how the government failed to ever want to actually acknowledge that. They would grudgingly acknowledge it whenever you questioned the minister.

I would follow the carbon tax ball bouncing around with CleanBC because the government did a great job creating this weird Byzantine system with CleanBC where the Minister of Environment on paper is responsible for CleanBC, but when you ask the minister about a program in CleanBC, the minister would say: “Well you need to go talk to the Minister of Energy and Mines if you want to talk about electric vehicle rebates.”

You say: “But isn’t that in CleanBC and part of the funding envelope with the carbon tax?”

“Well, yeah, but you have to go and talk to that minister about it.”

“But you’re the minister responsible for CleanBC.”

“Oh yeah, but I’m not responsible for the electric vehicle rebates.”

Okay. Then you’d ask that minister a direct question about carbon tax which is actually the funding source for CleanBC, and the answer would be: “You’ve got to go talk to the Finance Minister. That’s a taxation question.”

And on and on it went and still to this day goes with this government on this shell game that they play with carbon tax and trying to follow it around.

We saw that in the previous bill when I was asking a pretty straightforward question of the minister what the plans are for the $1.8 billion that’s unaccounted for of carbon tax revenue that will be lost in terms of whether it’s a spending cut or a deficit increase.

When you have a government that for years has played those types of games with carbon tax at the expense of homeowners…. When they come to this chamber and say: “Oh, it’s urgent. We’ve got to deal with this today, literally today. Because we messed up, and we didn’t bring any legislation forward for the first four weeks we were sitting here. We messed up, and we didn’t feel it was urgent enough to actually deal with it properly by recalling the House because it might interrupt some people’s holidays,” I guess, I think the public deserves better than that.

[4:25 p.m.]

Again, investment is critical to B.C. moving forward, and we need to make sure that our industrial emitters are modernizing. But the funny thing with modernizing is it’s pretty hard to buy inefficient equipment these days for a mill. Generally speaking, if you go out and you have to upgrade or renew a piece of equipment, a digester or whatever it may be, it’s a newer, greener-burning technology.

It’s just like for people at home. If you don’t and can’t afford a heat pump…. By the way, those subsidies are funded by carbon tax as well. We haven’t heard from the government what they’re doing on the heat pump rebates. If you can’t afford a $25,000 heat pump for your home, the reality is that that furnace you’re buying, that gas-burning furnace, is way more efficient than the one that you’re replacing. The one that you’re replacing….

Mine in my house was installed in 1975. I replaced it a few years ago finally. I finally had had enough. But to think that the new furnace I put in was not burning a heck of a lot more efficient, helping my profile, helping my emission profile, you’d be fooling yourself.

Same with vehicles. Cars are way more efficient now than they were. They continue that march.

Without having a broader understanding of what this government is actually intending to do when it comes to people’s personal emission profiles in terms of the lack of carbon tax and the lack of transparency from this government, it’s simply not good enough. And as I say, with industry, they were making great strides.

The interesting thing, though, with the output-based pricing system — former Minister Heyman confirmed this with me, because I went back and forth with him and hours and hours on end of it when I happened to be the Environment critic — industry can buy carbon offsets to make sure they’re underneath that profile, and they don’t have to be carbon offsets that are located in B.C., and there’s no minimum price that they have to pay.

It’s pretty easy for most industry to actually get under that, and the return on investment is pretty good. If you can go on the market, and you can google it…. At the time I googled it, they were selling carbon credits for, like, four and five bucks on the world market.

If you can avoid paying $50, $60, $70 in carbon tax, why wouldn’t you do that? What company wouldn’t do that? It doesn’t mean their profile actually changed on the ground in B.C.

Perhaps the NDP can pat themselves on the back and think they did something about emissions in B.C., but they actually didn’t.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Then we find out, well, how we’re going to drive down emissions is we’re going to electrify B.C. Except, oopsie, now we find out that all of that newer technology that could be developed in B.C. can’t, because there’s not enough electricity to actually develop the hydrogens and other technologies like that in B.C.

Government knew that, of course. They just didn’t tell the public while we were in an election, because, you know, you wouldn’t want to let the public know what’s going on as you head into an election if you’re the government. No siree.

The reality is this. This is a government that has been committed to the march to $170-a-tonne carbon tax. They have been unwilling to take a stand against the federal government on it. When the federal government changed the rules for home heating oil out in the Maritimes, this government refused to dare the federal government to put it on home heating in B.C. at the same time.

When we were running up to a federal election where every leader was saying that they would get rid of the consumer carbon tax, what did this government do? They didn’t remove it from B.C. in a budget on March 4 and dare the federal government to inject it in right before or during a federal election.

[4:30 p.m.]

No, they actually budgeted for increases for the next three years, and then they jam us up at the last minute to say: “You need to deal with this today because we need it done by midnight tonight.” Lack of pre-planning, lack of action by this government, and again, it’s not insignificant.

The budget of March 4 actually calculates that we would be collecting $49 billion worth of taxation. This is $3 billion of that. It’s not an insignificant hit to the overall tax revenues of the province that we’re talking about here today but no planning by this government as it relates to that.

I look forward — grudgingly look forward, because it’ll probably be very late tonight that we start committee stage on this bill — to hearing from the speakers of the opposition and their thoughts on why this has taken so long and why it needs to be so rushed.

I’ll certainly delve in with great detail on some of the clauses in the bill and the schedules, moving forward, to make sure there is a very broad understanding for the community out there, those that have insomnia tonight and want to be tuning in. This is a significant tax shift, a tax policy, and the public deserves to know exactly what the government’s plans are for these dollars.

We need to know exactly what they’re going to do with the programs that these dollars previously were funding. The minister has confirmed there will be no supplemental estimates, so I guess committee stage is where it’s going to be. Based on the evasion of questions in the last bill, I would expect it’s going to take a great many questions just to get very basic answers out of this government, as it typically does when they’re trying to not be open and transparent to the public.

Thank you for this time on Bill 8.

Rob Botterell: Madam Chair, I will be the designated speaker for the Green caucus.

Despite claims that scrapping the carbon tax will ease financial burdens, studies have repeatedly shown that its impact on affordability is negligible. Since 2019 the carbon price has contributed less than 0.5 percent to the increases in consumer prices.

Some members have repeatedly said that without the carbon tax, petroleum prices will fall. The carbon tax is responsible for around 8.5 percent of the price of a litre of petrol. In comparison, the refinery margin is over 20 percent. We know the variability that can happen in fuel prices across this province — we’ve all experienced it — and the proven ability of petroleum suppliers to not pass on cost savings to consumers.

I’ll admit to struggling, too, to consider the carbon tax as an impediment to many British Columbians when, in 2024, sport utility vehicles, pickups and minivans made up 85 percent of new vehicles sold in B.C. Regardless, even if British Columbians see a temporary drop at the gas pumps, any expectation that these savings will make a substantive difference to the cost-of-living crisis will prove illusory.

Yes, there may be brief relief for people who drive vehicles in particular, but in a matter of weeks or months, Canadians will face a much harsher reality when they discover that the cost of living remains high and, in some cases, even higher than before.

What’s more concerning is that by removing the carbon tax, we’re not just eliminating a price on carbon. We’re scrapping the climate action tax credit which provides up to $1,008 per year to a family of four. This isn’t just a theoretical tax change. This is about real families, real people who benefit from this support to help offset the rising cost of living.

Lower-income households, especially in urban areas with good transit, tend to drive less. It’s people who have higher incomes with multiple cars and commutes who will benefit most from this tax cut. And let’s be clear. The vast majority of households in this province receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes.

[4:35 p.m.]

When poverty reduction advocates warn that scrapping this tax will ultimately increase the cost of living for low-income British Columbians, they’re not just speculating; they’re ringing alarm bells.

The carbon tax credit has been around since 2008. Four times per year the lowest-income British Columbians receive more in a rebate than the carbon tax costs them.

In a time of rising costs and household precarity, when food bank usage is the highest it has ever been, when income and disability assistance remain static, why is this government removing one of the few constants upon which people can rely?

According to the province’s own figures, 557,000 people lived below the poverty line in 2024, including 150,000 children. Families making less than $57,288 were able to receive the full credit. For these households, the loss of this credit may be the straw that breaks their backs.

For single people without children, who make up the largest group of people in poverty, the carbon rebate is one of the only supports that they can access, yet we have heard from the government that they intend to end the rebate, with no replacement and with no plan for how to arrest the slide of large numbers of this province’s citizens below the poverty line.

With the U.S. implementing tariffs on Canada, the rebate is needed more than ever. We know that low-wage workers are probably going to feel the brunt of tariffs, and we know government must have supports in place to support them. What supports are in place? A one-time $110 ICBC rebate for those that have vehicles. That’s not enough of a plan to offset the hardship we’re about to face.

Last year the Premier warned that cutting the carbon tax would result in significant increases in income taxes for people and companies, because the government would need to recoup the lost revenues. This is perhaps a good time to remind the House that when the carbon tax was introduced in 2008, both personal and corporate income tax rates were cut as a result.

So we may lose the carbon tax — a measure that was progressive, incentivized environmental behaviours and provided revenue to the lowest-income British Columbians — to be replaced with a blanket rise in rates or with a great big gap in the budget. The bill currently before the House deals only with the removal of the carbon tax and doesn’t speak to the government plans to recoup this revenue. So I can speak only today to what we see before us.

The budget projects revenue of $3.046 billion from the carbon tax in 2025-26, increasing at an average of 11 percent per year. We understand that $2.8 billion of that $3 billion is from the consumer carbon tax, and the remaining $200 million is from industrial polluters.

Even with the elimination of the carbon rebate, there is still a hole of $1.5 billion in the provincial budget. Previously the deficit was projected at $10.9 billion. Can we now assume that it will be $12.5 billion, or can we expect cuts to core services that people rely on?

How will the organizations relying on the carbon tax, like TransLink and B.C. Transit, cope with these shortfalls? How will our CleanBC programs be impacted? We don’t have the answers yet. What we do know is that removing the carbon tax won’t come without significant consequences.

Now let’s talk about the larger picture. Politicians are abandoning the carbon tax because many Canadians are rightly concerned about the rising cost of living, particularly with the soaring prices of groceries and essential goods.

[4:40 p.m.]

The narrative that carbon taxes drive up prices has taken hold — even though, as we’ve seen, it simply isn’t true. This is a narrative common to the NDP and the Conservative opposition.

In fact, a new report from the Centre for Future Work reveals something startling. Oil companies, not carbon taxes, are the true culprits behind rising costs. The inflated prices of oil and gas have directly and indirectly cost each Canadian household an average of $12,000 over the past three years.

The Canadian petroleum industry profited handsomely from the spike in prices in 2022 and the resulting inflation. Industry operating profits grew by a cumulative total of — wait for it — $151 billion from 2022 through 2024. Much of that additional profit was retained by the companies or paid out in dividends to shareholders and in executive bonuses. Only a small portion was reinvested in Canada. Employment and wages in the industry remained below 2019 levels.

This report warns that without urgent action this will happen again, especially as geopolitical instability like Donald Trump’s erratic threats of tariffs, soon, I think, to become very real, creates the conditions for another speculative oil price surge.

The truth is…. This is the truth; this is the science-driven truth. Removing the carbon tax is not a solution to affordability. It’s a dangerous step backward. It leaves low-income Canadians, British Columbians, more vulnerable, puts crucial programs at risk, and it fails to address the true drivers of inflation: oil and gas sector profits and volatile oil prices.

If this government were serious about blunting the cost of living, they would implement policies that benefit consumers. Two examples, such as fully funding the switch to heat pumps and ensuring sufficient clean electricity. This also means rapid scaling up of investments in public transit and charging a windfall profits tax on fossil fuel companies and sufficient royalties on extractive industries.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: are we prepared to abandon policies that help to protect our environment, our families and our future? Are we ready to remove a tax that helps fund important programs, provides support for families and takes action on climate change, all for the sake of a temporary, illusory break at the pump?

My colleague will speak to the impact on the climate, on the future of our planet, from this bill. I won’t repeat the statements he’ll be making, but I know that I agree with him completely.

What we have here is a fatally flawed bill which abandons struggling families by eliminating the climate action tax credit. There’s no replacement in this bill. There’s no plan. This is just a pure removal of the tax.

It also abandons the fight against climate change. It’s our children and grandchildren that this bill abandons by offering no justifiable alternative in a time of accelerating climate change. Many years from now, all of the members in this House will be reminded of this moment when the carbon tax, an effective measure that deals with climate change, was removed without any plan on how to deal with the climate impact.

Finally, abandoning fiscal responsibility by running up another $1.5 billion in the deficit without any plan to replace this source of revenue.

[4:45 p.m.]

That’s not unique to the NDP government. That is the choice that the opposition Conservatives will likely make later today, as well, which is: “If we have to choose between being fiscally responsible and implementing a policy that makes no sense in the fight against climate change, then we’ll pick eliminating the tax. We will abandon our principles of fiscal responsibility, having just come to grips with a very large deficit for this year and the next couple of years. Let’s just write off the carbon tax, and let’s just run up the deficit some more. That is fiscally responsible. The NDP are proposing something that’s fiscally responsible.”

It’s quite likely the opposition Conservatives will abandon the rhetoric of the last month around how concerned they are about the deficit and say: “Oh, well, it’s a tax. Reduce the tax without any other plan.”

This bill is bad for the environment, bad for the future of our planet, bad for families and bad for the province’s fiscal situation. We do not support this bill, and we urge the government to withdraw it from the House.

For that reason, I make the following motion. I have an extra copy I can provide.

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 8) intituled Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025 be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefore the following: “Bill (No. 8) not be read a second time until after the Minister of Finance has laid before the House a plan to address the climate crisis, the consequential and increasing budget deficit, and the impact of the loss of financial support to British Columbians.”]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. We’re going to go into recess and make copies and distribute the motion for amendment to everyone.

Rob Botterell: Then, after that, I will speak to the motion.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll go into recess and make copies and circulate to everyone and will be back shortly.

The House recessed from 4:48 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right. We will call the committee back into session. Everybody has got a copy of the amendment.

Continue, please.

On the amendment.

Rob Botterell: I’m moving this amendment because the government has not proven that they have a responsible and balanced and evidence-based approach to dealing with climate policy.

This government has not….

Deputy Speaker: Member, one moment, just to confirm that the amendment is in order. Thank you.

Continue.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This government has not shared any information on how they plan to cut emissions, how they will save costs for families who will no longer receive the rebate or how progress on climate action will continue. There is no plan to deal with the loss of billions of dollars that are already accounted for in the budget.

For these reasons, I hope the House supports this motion and the government comes back with a solution that fully addresses the extent of this problem.

Peter Milobar: I can appreciate the frustration by the Green Party. It’s interesting. I mean, on March 13 the Green Party did sign a new…. I’ll call it renewing of the vows with the government. That was all of a month old, and then subsequently, the very next day, the Prime Minister said they were changing carbon tax rules, and the government had to follow suit. It does make you question, maybe, how open and transparent of a relationship they have, but it’s not for me to judge anyone else’s personal relationships.

That said, one would assume in a one-seat majority government that’s predicated on having stability with an agreement with another party, there’d be a little more continuity on something as significant as 6 percent of the taxation budget for the province of B.C. They don’t seem to be able to agree whether or not it’s a confidence vote or not.

The issue, I think, that we would take issue with is holding up a carbon tax cut until there is a plan to address the climate crisis in B.C. Given that this government has been in power for eight years and we’ve seen emissions rise over that eight-year period, one would suggest there will never be a consequential plan to address emissions in B.C. with this government at the reins.

We don’t, I think, as an opposition, want to see carbon tax being charged on people’s home heating or at the pumps longer than it needs to be. Tying it, certainly, to whether or not there will be an increase to the budget deficit and or the impact and loss of financial support to British Columbians and having an understanding of that I do agree with. I would hope that the government, in committee stage, will actually provide that transparency, as we tried in the supply bill to get some transparency around this as well.

We certainly can support that as a concept, and that should be an immediate thing by this government. One would hope, if they’ve been planning for this, like their budget document from March 4 says, for some time now, this eventuality, they would actually have a financial plan associated with what they are doing with carbon tax.

But we can’t support based on a plan that says “a meaningful plan to address the climate crisis,” because we’ve seen the abject failure that CleanBC has been to do that. To think that is the never-ever plan of getting rid of carbon tax, then, for this government…. They will never have a substantive plan in place that actually is effecting the change that I think the Green Party is actually looking for when it comes to emissions.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I will speak briefly, because I think the hon. members would want an opportunity to continue their interventions here, just to say that, obviously, we disagree with the amendment.

There will be, everybody knows…. I will have occasion to speak to this in the debate: the importance of the CleanBC plan for British Columbia, the impact of the low-carbon fuel standard, the impact of the government’s investments in electricity, the impact of the output-based pricing system.

The CleanBC plan is there. In fact, it’s the subject of statutory review that we’re moving forward. We’re about to enter into a couple of months of debate on the budget. Looking forward to it. Can’t wait, in fact, until my estimates come forward. Looking forward to that. That is going to be the best six hours of the session that I’ll have, I’m sure. I’m looking forward to that.

Equally, we continue with the policies that we’ve introduced, from the beginning in 2017, been introduced by current Minister of Finance, previous Ministers of Finance, to reduce inequality in our province and continue to make that effort.

Obviously, we disagree with the characterization of the amendment. We will be addressing that, and I’ll be happy to address the substantive issues raised by the member when I respond to the bill at second reading stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, we’ll call the vote on the amendment to second reading.

It’s division. Okay.

[5:00 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, an amendment was moved by the member for Saanich North and the Islands to Bill 8.

[5:10 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2
Valeriote		Botterell
NAYS — 89
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Lore	Sturko	Kindy
Milobar	Warbus	Rustad
Banman	Wat	Kooner
Halford	Hartwell	L. Neufeld
Van Popta	Dew	Gasper
K. Neufeld	Day	Block
Bhangu	Paton	Boultbee
Chan	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Rattée	Davis
McInnis	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman	McCall	Kealy
Armstrong		Brodie

On the main motion.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s an honour, of course, to rise and speak at second reading to Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

What this bill does, as the Minister of Finance has laid out and as the government has been clear about for some time, is lower the rate of the consumer carbon tax to zero, effective tomorrow. The goal is to act to match federal action, which of course will come into effect tomorrow. The federal government was able to do what it wanted to do through order in council in advance of calling the current federal election that we are in across the country now.

Well, we have to do this here in the Legislature through legislation. The climate action tax credit as well, developed to help offset the impacts of the consumer carbon tax on people and families, will also be cancelled. The final payments will go out in the next few days.

[5:15 p.m.]

People will know this: since it was brought into effect in 2008, the carbon tax has been one tool in climate policy in B.C. — one tool. Last year the Premier was clear. Before the election on September 12, 2024, he stated clearly that the consumer carbon tax would be gone at the first opportunity, if the federal government removed the national carbon tax requirement. Promise made, and today, promise kept. That opportunity to do so is today.

With cost-of-living pressures facing households and the recent removal of the federal carbon tax, it’s time for us to be doing everything we can to ensure that people aren’t making a choice between affordability and climate action. That’s what we’re doing by taking this step. Repealing the carbon tax is one way we can do just that at this time. There are other arguments, which we’ll get into in a moment, to do such things as well.

It’s an opportunity, I think, at this time, to act with seriousness and responsibility. I’m going to speak to that with respect to climate action and speak to that with respect to the carbon tax. We know, in this country, that the carbon tax has become a distraction from the actions that, I think, Canadians overwhelmingly want to take to address issues around climate change in our country, in our province, in our communities. We know its impact. We know the impact.

In my community, for example, in the June 2021 heat dome, in the apartment that I live in, in the Joyce-Collingwood neighbourhood, temperatures reached 36 degrees at two in the morning in my apartment. That had real consequences for people.

Climate change. We know the impacts, in terms of fires and floods in our communities. It’s profound, I think. It’s a profound and existential issue for us in every sense, from an economic sense to a social sense to a living sense, for everybody in our communities and on our planet. So when we take action in these areas, those actions have to, I think, reflect and build public support for what we need to do.

For over a decade and a half, this price on pollution was introduced by the government of Premier Campbell and has been part of that effort in B.C. to tackle climate change, to drive down carbon pollution, to steer consumers to cleaner alternatives. However, as we know, and as we’ve seen in the public debate, years of public debate on this question that have been raised in this legislature and elsewhere have changed the view on that.

While climate change remains an existential threat, the carbon tax has undermined policies that would, in fact, have an even greater effect in addressing issues of GHG emissions and issues of climate change. If the carbon tax is undermining support for all of the measures we can take, and I’m going to list off probably a dozen of them here, then it is not serving our collective interest, and we take another step.

That is what the Premier noted at this time, when there are so many challenges in affordability, and that is what we need to do now. We need to, I think, as much as we can, put aside political slogans and focus on what we need to do together, make our communities and circumstances for people struggling with issues of affordability more affordable and continue to take the actions we need to take to address climate change, to get away from political slogans.

Those political slogans seem empty when we see what some of the politicians exercising those political slogans now…. The difficulty they’re having in continuing a public discussion after it has been announced that the federal government would take away the national mandate for a carbon tax everywhere in Canada….

The result of all this, as we know and as we’ve all seen and which is self-evident, is that a very important tool has become a wedge in the debate, dividing us on issues when we need to be united in addressing climate change.

We need to focus on the work ahead, building clean energy, innovating with industry, protecting communities, helping our neighbours, investing in resilience. That’s where British Columbians want leadership. That’s where we are delivering with CleanBC and other plans in the community, and that’s where we have to continue to deliver.

[5:20 p.m.]

I think this moment in history is a particularly challenging and difficult moment. We have a combination of things in front of us over a short period of time, really the last five years, that are, in some ways, unprecedented in our history. We had a pandemic that cost, in the G7, $10,000 billion — $10,000 billion — but more important than that, affected the lives of every single person in the province.

We had inflation, global inflation, that has disrupted economies across the world on every continent, including grocery price increases that sometimes reached levels of 10 percent in our country, inflation levels which are disruptive surely for fundamentals around people having things to eat.

We’ve had all of the climate change impacts that we’ve seen: 14,000 homes burned down in Los Angeles. But we don’t need to go to Los Angeles to understand the impact of that. We can go to Lytton or to Fort Nelson or to Kelowna or to communities across our province that have seen this profound impact.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

With that — I was just getting going — I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Adrian Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, I am advised that Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[5: 25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner Continuation Act

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2025

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2025

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2025

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank his Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. Wendy Cocchia (Lieutenant Governor): Thank you very much, everyone, for all of your hard work.

For the 61 percent joining me in my first royal assent: thank you for joining me.

To the others: old hat, I know.

I really appreciate all of your sincere hard work and warm wishes for the future. In a few hours, I might see you soon, I understand. And thank you again.

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:35 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call continued debate on Bill 8.

The Speaker: Let’s wait for a few minutes.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll call the chamber back into session.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

On the main motion (continued).

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m happy to continue my remarks on Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025. As noted before the royal assent, through Bill 8 we’re moving with immediacy to eliminate consumer carbon tax for people, while we continue to do the essential work required to fully repeal the legislation.

Carbon tax legislation, as members know, is complex and intertwined with supply chain agreements and more. We’re undertaking the work necessary right now so that we can repeal the legislation in a responsible way altogether. As of tomorrow, the carbon tax will be zero. The consumer carbon tax will be zero and not in place in B.C. if the Legislature chooses to approve Bill 8, and I recommend that they do so. While all this work is being done on the carbon tax, on issues of affordability in B.C., on political issues….

Before the break, I was making the point that the debate on the carbon tax has, like some other debates, distorted the debate about climate action, which I believe the vast majority of people in British Columbia, in Canada and in the world support. I would say that the debate, over the last number of years, on the carbon tax has not been particularly edifying. It has been the subject of repeated and constant 30-second ads.

[5:40 p.m.]

It is no longer the helpful tool in promoting broad climate action that it may have once been. So we are taking action and of course eliminating it, effectively, today. But we have to do, of course, more than that to address issues around climate action. We have to take the steps necessary to ensure that we are meeting both our responsibilities to our children and to one another.

Before the break, I was reflecting on these times, which are extraordinary times. The pandemic, in a recent historic sense, in the sense of it taking place in my lifetime, was an unusual thing, and it, I think for the most part, brought us together.

There’s always a lot of talk about division, but 92 percent of people got vaccinated, and 8 percent didn’t. It wasn’t 50-50. There was a lot of coming together, including coming together of people of very different political views and beliefs. But as I said before the break, it also cost governments in the G7 $10,000 billion. It was a significant and disruptive event.

The existence of climate change…. As we have seen, 14,000 houses burned in Los Angeles, the impacts on Lytton and Fort Nelson, on Kelowna, the impact of floods, particularly in the Fraser Valley but elsewhere in our province…. One thinks of communities in the Nicola Valley.

Then we see other broad things, inflation across the globe, after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-
19 continues to be with us, but the end of the time of pandemic was followed by a period of global inflation that was significant. And now, of course, in Canada and in all the countries of the world, we’re seeing the U.S. government disrupting other countries. I don’t think in the modern history of Canada we’ve seen this approach ever taken.

A lot of countries in the world face this sort of thing all the time. We should acknowledge that this level of disruption is not unusual in our world. Countries challenging other countries’ right to exist, borders being challenged…. We have at this time — I’ve talked about all the other challenges — a war that occurred between Azerbaijan and Armenia around Nagorno-Karabakh, the war in Ukraine, the war in the Middle East, the wars around the world that are also affecting it.

For Canadians, we have, of course, been remarkable and full participants in wars around the world. But this period, this moment, when the largest military power in the world and our neighbour along the longest undefended border in the world is challenging our right to exist as a nation…. In other words, these are times of disruption.

There are some people that would argue in those times that we need to step back from necessary action, like climate action, that can build our economy and build our society and respond to climate change. Our government does not agree with this. We need to drive the debate forward.

There was a very significant speech recently by the president of Hydro-Québec, a very distinguished Canadian named Michael Sabia, and here’s what he said:

“Did anyone seriously think that the path to a low-carbon economy would be a straight line? That there wouldn’t be ups and downs? Of course not. We’re experiencing them. But we can’t let the noise distract us from the major trends, the real signals. We have to pick up the signal through the noise.

“Mr. Trump always says: ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ That’s the noise. The signal? Exxon and Chevron don’t anticipate significant growth in the oil sector. Follow the dollars. Chevron cut its cap ex by $2 billion while GE Vernova renewable will invest $9 billion by 2028.

“Another example of the noise: in December, the Bank of America left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. The signal? In December, a few weeks before, they invested $1 billion in biodiversity. And just this week, the noise: Trump wants to cut $20 billion in green energy funding. The signal? Xcel Energy, the second-largest renewable energy supplier in the United States, is doubling its green investments by 2025.

“Through the noise, the signals are clear. Markets, suppliers, businesses and people continue to move to a clean economy.”

[5:45 p.m.]

We are going to do just that here in British Columbia because this is one of our material advantages. When you are a leader in the production of electricity….

B.C. Hydro, which has been developed by the people of B.C., owned by the people of B.C. — isn’t that great? — provides the backbone of our electricity system, the lowest electricity rates in North America. That has been particularly true in recent years.

In the years between 2017 and 2025, B.C. Hydro rates have gone 15 percent below the rate of inflation. After the recent increases, it will be 12 percent below the rate of inflation. To put that in context, in the previous time, under the previous government, 54 percent above the rate of inflation. So we are very concerned about affordability.

The opportunity we have with a hydro system, with our renewable resources that we have in our province, to make the investment now, not to be distracted by the noise in the United States but to build the electricity system we need now to address issues of emissions in our province…. This is an opportunity that we cannot turn our back on and we won’t turn our back on.

That’s why we’ve put forward, as you know, ten projects the size of Site C in terms of production of energy. We’ve not just done that. We’ve said that we’ve got to build those projects. By legislation in this act and by other actions, we are making it easier to build those projects because we need the energy and we need the renewable energy and we need it to address these very questions.

You have to give people options in terms of clean energy in order for them to take up those options, and we are doing exactly that. It’s investing in the future, and we are going to do it again and we’re going to do it again and we’re going to do it again.

In addition to that…. You can see the real differences. I want to just note some of those differences, because the opposition has expressed its opposition to those projects.

You also need, when you’re building renewable energy, to build out transmission in our province. That’s why we’re building the North Coast transmission line. It will be the subject of legislation in this House later in the session, and I hope it will be supported in this House. If you’re going to link renewable energy to the main hydro grid so that people can use it, you need transmission lines.

We are building the North Coast transmission line to ensure that we can develop the critical minerals in the northwest and that other economic development, from high-tech and artificial intelligence to developments across our province, have more electricity and, of course, that the 500,000 people that were added in the last three years to our province have the electricity they need as well.

I think all of these things are to the economic good of the province, and we need to go forward now. It is not a straight line to what we need to do on climate change, but we need to take these actions now.

I want to add to that. That’s part of a clean electricity requirement that’s been in place since 2007. I support it. These policies are based on it, in fact. The opposition opposes it. It’s a difference. But that clean electricity requirement has prevented or terminated almost 20 megatonnes of annual emissions in this province.

The output-based pricing system. We are for it. It appears that the opposition is against it.

The low-carbon fuel standard, which is one of the most significant actions in climate action over a generation. We are in favour of it. In spite of the fact that it builds the economy of B.C., including projects like the Tidewater project, the opposition is against it.

Our efforts to promote zero-emission vehicles. When you are rich in electricity and have the capacity to produce more and are going to produce more and have projects to produce more, and the alternative is importing oil…. That’s good for our economy, that we are building the economy here in B.C. That’s why when British Columbia leads the country in the takeup of light-duty vehicle sales, zero-emission vehicles, in the last year, 22.55 percent, more than 185,000 zero-emission vehicles on B.C. roads, up from 5,000 when this government took office….

[5:50 p.m.]

There are 4,756 public charging stations installed, up 23 percent from 2022, and halfway to our target of 10,000 by 2030. There are 59 kilometres of new active transportation infrastructure involved, 10 percent more than in 2022.

We have to build. We have to build the clean economy of the future. We have to give people options. This cannot just be an issue of what people have to sacrifice. We have to engage together to give ourselves options to build the clean economy that will fuel wealth creation, because we need, and must have, more wealth in our province to share. But we will also address our fundamental responsibility and need for a clean economy, for environmental reasons.

This, of course, means transformations in buildings as well. In 2023-24, over 14,000 home retrofit rebates were issued, a 10 percent increase over the year before, and 10,055 heat pump rebates were issued, 67 percent more than in the previous year’s. Some 12 percent of households are now using heat pumps, up from 7 percent.

After the heat dome — which so profoundly affected my community, my friends, my neighbours — B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Health distributed 19,000 free air conditioners to medically vulnerable people and low-income people, to make them more resilient.

That’s part of the challenge, in a world where not everyone is taking the climate action that we are. In fact, our closest and neighbouring jurisdiction is getting rid of all of its climate actions, in the Trump administration right now.

The B.C. energy step code is transforming building code standards and how our communities reach net-zero energy-ready performance, limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new buildings.

In short, all of these are a demonstration of the action we need to take together. We have to take, and continue to take, action that builds our clean economy, which is a secret to our future prosperity and wealth: maintaining our levels of wealth, and increasing them, so that we can deliver, absolutely, the services that we need to deliver.

Of course, you will know that we took action to protect people from price gouging. In 2019, this Legislature passed the Fuel Price Transparency Act, requiring companies in the gasoline and fuel industry to report data on their increases in price to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Since its coming into effect, we’ve seen unexplained differences in gas prices decrease by an average of 62 percent. It shows that when we shine a light on companies — this includes on April 1 — they do change their behaviour.

Again and again, we’re going to see this. We’re going to see the continuing challenge, in our province, of the fact that people around the world want to live here. We’ve gone through, in these last few years…. Contrary to, I don’t know, unusual rhetoric, sometimes, from the other side, we’ve seen the highest increases in population growth in the history of British Columbia, and we’ve seen a lot of growth, over many years — the largest increases.

On MSP, in the 2024 year, that level of growth was 187,000 new people in one year. That followed 183,000 in the previous year, and 156,000 in the year previous to that — in other words, an unprecedented level of population growth. This does affect our success and our ability to deal with climate action at a time when the largest aspect of it…. The largest sources of emissions, as we know, in B.C. of GHG emissions are in transportation.

That having been said, together we’ve dramatically reduced per-capita emissions under the CleanBC plan. We’ve dramatically reduced emissions as a share of GDP, and we will continue to deliver programs that do just that, together. I think with the CleanBC plan, which is currently under review, together, we can continue to make progress, and we will. We will continue to be, and must become, it seems to me, the electricity powerhouse that we are.

We know, finally, that Bill 8 seeks to repeal the consumer portion of the carbon tax but that big polluters will continue to pay their fair share, under the output-based pricing system brought in by our government.

[5:55 p.m.]

The system will maintain a price on carbon for large emitters, send a signal to the market, maintain B.C.’s competitiveness, and offer one of the most cost-efficient ways to cut emissions. The system has been celebrated by both industry and climate advocates. It provides stability to industry by setting clear emission limits and provides predictability by having payments made one year after the emissions occur. We will consistently be reviewing this system to ensure that it works, keeps us competitive and continues to make its climate goals.

Finally, we’ve seen, and we see, in our province and our country, significant debates right now. For example, debate right now in the federal election continues to be a discussion about the consumer-facing carbon tax. Even though the federal government got rid of it and provinces are getting rid of it, it continues to be debated around the country. Issues around the carbon pricing on large emitters will be the same thing. They will be debated around the country. Of course, we encourage everybody to vote.

But here in B.C., no matter what the outcome of the federal election is, we will continue our commitment to address climate change in our province while working hard to ensure that people are able to deal with cost-of-living pressures and, at the same time, that they have affordable options to make sustainable choices.

When people have those options, when people have the opportunity to choose to reduce their own emissions, whether in their personal lives or in government, whether they’re working in business or whether they’re working in labour, they will do it. Because creative, made-in-B.C., clean energy approaches will create jobs here and create economic growth here, and they make people’s lives better.

We will continue to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and we want to ensure we respond to that with the most ambitious clean energy plan in Canada.

The threat of climate change is too great a challenge to allow any one policy to sidetrack us from tackling it head-on. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be done best if we don’t spend time and limited resources on initiatives that are not essential to meeting our goal and have the effect of distracting us, through wedge politics, from the important work we have to do. That’s what the consumer carbon tax has become.

Our commitment to fight climate change continues in that context. That is why, when I became Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, we announced the ten clean energy projects, the site of Site C. It’s why we followed that up on January 1 with the new methane regulations. We are achieving our goals of reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. We’ve reached 43 percent; the goal is 45 percent by 2026, 75 percent by 2030.

It’s why we’ve brought in changes — some of them will be legislative, others administrative — to reduce delays in clean energy projects, because we need to get these projects built. We need to do it for the climate, and we need to do it for the economy. Today is about removing what has become a divisive distraction that made people feel like they had to choose between affordability and the climate action. We need to take actions that promote both.

Bill 8 is an honest assessment of where we find ourselves in 2025, a time to sharpen our focus together and focus on the best ways, in today’s circumstances, to build a sustainable and affordable province. This bill does not do that in and of itself, but it contributes to that by moving us along from this debate to the debate that we need to have and, more importantly, the actions we need to take to address climate change, affordability for people, and economic development and growth in our province.

I urge that everyone vote in favour of Bill 8.

Elenore Sturko: Hon. Speaker, you will forgive me if I jump around in my notes here a little bit. With this bill being so rushed, it’s difficult to have an opportunity, really, to put it together the way that I’d want to.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I just finished listening to a speech by the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. He refers to his bill, really, and cutting the carbon tax as a wedge.

[6:00 p.m.]

From the things that the minister was saying — welcome to the chair, Mr. Speaker — it’s clear that this isn’t something that this government wants to do. They don’t want to cut a tax and make life more affordable for British Columbians. But we’ve really known this all along.

I am pleased to speak to Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act. I’m really grateful, actually, for the opportunity at this time to sort of speak to how families have struggled waiting for this action to finally take place. It’s long overdue. Whether it was the last sitting of the previous government or the continuation of the NDP government as we have it now, people have been crying out for help with the affordability crisis that we have in this province.

I campaigned on ending the carbon tax, so of course I’m relieved for families that are going to have some relief, but it still really isn’t going to be all of what we need here in British Columbia to help hard-working, everyday families who really can’t make ends meet despite, in many cases, working multiple jobs.

I think the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions is correct in saying that many British Columbians would like to be able to find solutions to wildfires, to the floods and droughts and to our changing environment as a result of warmer temperatures and a changing climate.

Even myself, I drive a small pickup truck, and I would love to be able to buy myself a brand new Ford Lightning. But it costs too much. In British Columbia, I can’t afford to do some of the things I’d like to do. Would I like to install a heat pump? Yeah. Would I like to put in electrification for a vehicle in my garage for a car? I would. But I can’t afford it because the cost of living, even for someone as fortunate as me, is too high in the province.

I had this feeling, listening to the minister, where it’s like they don’t really want to make this action. They don’t want to cut the tax. They’re doing it begrudgingly. They acknowledge that people want to be able to make these changes to help the environment, which I think is correct. But how in the heck are people supposed to be able to afford to make some of these costly changes that they want to when the government itself isn’t making some of the changes that would actually help with climate change?

The example that I’m going to give on that is actually…. Everybody knows I’m from Surrey, and I’m proud to be from Surrey, and I’m proud that we’re about to be the biggest community in British Columbia, fastest growing. I think we’re less than 50,000 people behind Vancouver at this point, yet we are miles behind where Vancouver is in terms of public transit.

Since the minister brought up the pandemic, ridership for transit was down during the pandemic, but Surrey was the fastest to recover its ridership. Not only did we recover our ridership for transit, but we surpassed what we previously were. In fact, we have the most overcapacity buses in the entire province.

For many of us that would like to switch to a greener alternative — for example, maybe I could park the Tacoma and take a bus somewhere — it’s not possible in every part of what is soon to be the biggest city in British Columbia.

I was thinking about some of the progression of how we got to this bill today, about having a point in time now where we’re going to get rid of the consumer carbon tax. I think back on when, in Manitoba, the NDP Premier sort of turned a corner and decided to fight against the carbon tax for people in that province.

He’s an NDP Premier. I’m actually a big fan of some of the work that he’s doing. He’s a very kind person, and he really went to bat for people in his province, asking the Prime Minister of Canada at the time to see if there was a way that they could have either a break from the carbon tax or he would take a holiday from the provincial fuel tax there, which they did. They found that it actually did have a significantly positive impact on reducing the cost of living for Manitobans.

[6:05 p.m.]

So on one hand, we have an NDP Premier in Manitoba who had been fighting since early last year to have the carbon tax repealed so that he could have more affordability.

When he had those conversations with then Prime Minister Trudeau, some of the things that he talked about were punching above his province’s weight when it came to addressing climate change. One of the ways that they did that was talking about switching over to zero-emission buses and looking at actual climate solutions that would make a real front-line impact for people who wanted to make changes.

It’s not going to cost them directly, a point of sale, in order for a person to be able to make that change. I think that’s what’s been lacking, that leadership here in British Columbia. We have a Premier who fought tooth and nail against giving this tax break to British Columbians.

I know I’m not the only one. I heard it on doorsteps. The costs for people, the point-of-sale costs — including, yes, gas — and for some people who are reliant upon that for a small business or just even to get their kids to school because there are no school buses….

In fact, they cut $3 million out of the school budget for busing in Surrey, even eliminating school buses for kids with disabilities. So parents need vehicles. Moms and dads and aunties and grandmas just trying to get a kid to school were being penalized by a Premier who was unwilling to fight for affordability by taking a break from….

If you couldn’t do the carbon tax because you’re saying it’s a…. We know it was a federal mandated action, but we could have had suspension of our fuel tax. There could have been other cost-saving measures that the Premier simply didn’t do. And we know why. It’s because the province is broke, largest deficit in the history of the province, largest provincial debt in the history of the province.

Looking at this bill today, I have a lot of anxiety, actually, and the anxiety is: how is this change going to be absorbed into the province’s budget?

My colleague the member for Kamloops Centre had some questions today, and even on the interim supply bill — not able to receive any answers whatsoever as to how this significant change for the province will have any impact and how it’s going to impact our budget going forward.

We want to be able to trust what the minister just said about helping make families balance their family budget, make life more affordable. But how do we trust someone to help you balance your family budget when they can’t balance the provincial budget?

This is what’s ludicrous to me. This is a conversation that has been going on about the carbon tax and about a growing momentum in Canada, not just British Columbia — this conversation — but our entire country having this discussion because of affordability, because of shifting priorities for Canadians and British Columbians who still want to be able to take action on what they see as an important issue but can’t afford bread.

You would think that any responsible government would start projecting what that could look like for their province if you didn’t have that revenue coming in from carbon tax. But it doesn’t seem like that was done here, just like when we went and had our talk about the budget, when that was presented.

I guess the crux of a lot of the things that they wanted to emphasize was about responsiveness to tariff threats by the American president — unjustified tariffs, I’ll add. No, I don’t support that. I’m against it. But what we need isn’t someone wrapping themselves in the flag. We need someone who is putting together a responsible budget for this province and who didn’t just wake up yesterday to the threat.

[6:10 p.m.]

The budget that they made was based on projections that they had done in the fall before the American election. That’s the case that we have now too. So they didn’t plan ahead for any potential impacts of the American election in Budget 2025, just as they didn’t plan ahead for what kind of financial implications there could be as a result of getting rid of the carbon tax.

I want to see…. To be clear, I support getting rid of the consumer carbon tax. I am also very concerned about what kind of impacts continuing with the carbon tax for industry will have on our economy, depending on what direction other provinces take. We want to make sure that our economy can grow and be competitive, especially at this time where, I think, for 2028, it’s projected that 170 British Columbians could potentially lose their jobs as a result of the threat of tariffs.

This entire thing about affordability is a crisis, yet this is not a government that acted like it was. During the campaign, I went door to door. I had people that told me that they had neighbours and friends who were choosing between buying groceries and buying their medicine. It’s shameful.

My colleague the MLA for Surrey–White Rock had an elderly woman with a severe wound coming to his office because she lives in her car. She has nowhere to live. She can’t afford it.

This isn’t a new story though. I feel like I almost gave a speech just like this in 2022 when I got elected. Then I gave it again in 2023 and in 2024. Now here we are, in 2025, and B.C. is still in an affordability crisis. Then we hear members from the other side begrudging to give British Columbians a break. But I get it.

You can make goofy faces, Minister, all you like, but the reality is that it’s shameful.

I have a lot of anxiety because we haven’t heard about how people who have become reliant upon their carbon rebates are going to be supported. When we have been in favour of repealing the carbon tax and moving in a different direction, that came with the caveat that we always were going to have a plan for how we would help people who were reliant upon these rebates, how we can support people who can’t afford to buy their medications, people living in cars.

It was only when the Premier saw how much the polling showed that British Columbians were in favour of axing the tax…. I know members on the other side said we should leave the slogans behind, but people know that’s what it was about. They wanted to axe the tax. It was only at that time, when the polling showed that if the Premier didn’t agree to do that, he would lose the election…. He almost did.

Now he’s stuck. He’s going to axe the tax, because of course, we know that at the federal level, they’ve decided to do that, because people are struggling. So the Premier was really…. In my opinion, we’ve seen a history of people on the other side putting political ideology ahead of the well-being of British Columbians.

Still we have British Columbians who are not keeping their head above water. They’re drowning in debt. They’re living paycheque to paycheque, and their line of credit keeps on growing. Or maybe they don’t even have a line of credit. Maybe they have no credit, and they’re just struggling, and they’re not buying groceries, and they’re on the verge of homelessness. We know that half of British Columbians still are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.

The government hasn’t explained at any point today about how they have planned for the removal of the carbon tax. It isn’t reflected at all in the 2025 budget, even though a person might have seen this coming. Any reasonable person, I think, would have looked at the totality of the circumstances, the shift in Canada, the shift in where people are putting their priorities….

[6:15 p.m.]

It’s great to want to have an EV. It’s great if you want to put solar panels on your house. It’s great if you want to shift to a heat pump. But when you’re not paying for your grocery bill and you can’t put your kids in dance anymore, those things become harder. When we make life more affordable for people, maybe then they do have an opportunity to engage in something new, but the government also has to provide those opportunities.

I agree with the member for Kamloops Centre, as well, when he talked about transparency, because we haven’t had that transparency. I hope that there’ll be some fulsome discussions that come up in the committee stage this evening, because we know that this is a government that is not great at transparency.

We have had recent experiences with this government where you pretty much require whistleblowers and leaked documents before you can actually get the truth. We need that transparency to come forward on what is their plan to cover the shortfall. How are they going to support those people?

Is this perhaps why they have hired Penny Ballem to now start looking at ways to cut health care? There’s less money. Talking about reviewing environmental programs, because they can’t pay for them. It’s like Mother Hubbard, though, who goes to the cupboard to get the dog the bone. There’s no bone. The cupboard’s empty, and it was empty before this tax cut.

I’m in support, but there needs to be a plan, and we haven’t seen any plans. There’s no plan. And it’s unfortunate that the government waited till the eleventh hour, because we have less opportunity to get that transparency for British Columbians, less of an opportunity for hearing about how these shortfalls will be overcome.

I was thinking, too, when I was listening to the minister that I wonder sometimes if people from the NDP ever wake up at night and say, “Thank God we didn’t cancel Site C,” because we need that electricity. We need more electricity. We don’t have enough electricity. We’re still reliant on the United States to receive power.

Yeah, there’s a lot of work to do, and it’s difficult when we know that we have a government that loves to make announcements and doesn’t often achieve the results that they promise. Hydrogen, for example — that was one. A lot of big announcements around that one. Just in the last week we saw that they’re not going to be able to follow through on their commitments there. Big announcements, even with industry, and failure.

I’m supporting to get rid of the carbon tax, of course. I campaigned on that. I want to do every measure to make life more affordable for my constituents, for all British Columbians, particularly people who are struggling. But the follow-through game by this government is not great, so I hope that we have a very fulsome discussion when it comes to committee stage in just a couple of hours from now.

I’m also really worried, in terms of transparency, about how…. I guess this speaks to my saying: “What’s the plan to make up the shortfall? Is this why you’re cutting health care?” You just have to listen to the Premier himself saying that removing the carbon tax would result in a double-digit increase for personal taxes and corporate taxes for the province. That was the Premier at a press conference on April 16, 2024.

What is the little, hidden gem that will come as a result of this? Heaven knows that the government loves to give taxpayers surprises. This will be a little bit of a surprise for us — hopefully, nothing too drastic and, hopefully, not something that’s actually going to have an opposite impact on what we all want to do.

[6:20 p.m.]

We want our economy to grow. We want to support British Columbians during this uncertain economic time. I’m hoping that it doesn’t result in double-digit tax increases for personal taxes and for corporate taxes, as the Premier said on April 16, 2024, because that would be detrimental to our efforts to support the province during the threat of tariffs and during the trade war with the United States.

In conclusion, I support the elimination of the carbon tax, but it is unfortunate that the government waited to the eleventh hour to bring forward the legislation. It’s unfortunate that they haven’t provided us with more details on how some of the challenges associated with doing this are going to be overcome.

I think that hearing members characterize this as being a wedge issue…. It’s only a wedge issue if you don’t believe that life should be more affordable for British Columbians. I do. I believe life should be more affordable. It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen the NDP make life more and more expensive for everybody over what’s been nearly a decade of their governance here in the province.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll take my seat. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill 8.

Sheldon Clare: I come from the North. I was born in the North. I have lived my whole life in the North. Where I come from, it’s winter half the year. We have this stuff called snow. We have this thing called ice.

We have roads that are long and in bad repair. We have people who enjoy recreational activities in the North. They travel vast distances to do so. Hundreds of kilometres in a week is not unusual.

I know in my own election campaign, I drove my truck, my Chevy Silverado, some 36,000 kilometres in a single year to do my campaigning over a riding that is larger than Vancouver Island and closer to the size of Belgium.

The reality that people encounter in the North is one that is not very favourable towards having a carbon tax. The people in the North see the carbon tax as a terrible expense that dramatically affects their way of life. It affects their ability to heat their homes. It affects their ability to heat water. It affects their ability to buy gasoline at a reasonable price, and other fuels that they need for various other activities.

The fact of the matter is that British Columbia is an extremely diverse place with a variety of needs. When I see the green grass outside of the precinct, and only a few days ago I was watching the snow come down on my driveway, it says to me that there is a huge disconnect between the south and the north in this province. That disconnect affects how people live.

The Carbon Tax Amendment Act represents tinkering with a larger act that really needs to be repealed. This act does not serve the interests of the people in my riding, in the rural areas and in the North.

One of the things I like to do is to go hunting, besides skiing. Everyone heard about me and my skiing faux pas a few weeks ago.

Hunting involves going out for weeks at a time, taking a few extra jerry cans of gasoline and being able to drive vast distances, set up a camp, look after yourself quite independently in that camp and be able to enjoy the recreation without recourse to things like cell phones or other distractions from the reality of human existence.

[6:25 p.m.]

The carbon tax has a direct and dramatic effect upon those kinds of activities which are near and dear to the people where I live. They are near and dear to my family. They are near and dear to my friends.

When I was campaigning in the last election, my team and I knocked on some 14,000 doors. We talked to some 6,000 people, and these people were very clear that one of the biggest things they wanted to see dealt with and done was the carbon tax. I heard it over and over again.

The reality is that one of the biggest things that is a detriment to the consumption of energy in this country, and around the world for that matter, and you might think it’s obvious when I tell you, is not driving vehicles. It’s not even heating your home. It’s heating water. Heating water consumes more energy than almost any other single human activity.

When you heat water, you do it for a variety of reasons. I’d wager that everyone in this House enjoyed some benefit from hot water today, whether it was a shower, a cup of hot coffee or tea or some other benefit from being able to just splash water on your face and start the day anew.

Heating water is the major consumption of energy. If everybody decided they weren’t going to take a shower one day, you’d save a tremendous amount of energy. These are the kinds of things that are considerations for people who don’t live in a warm clime, as we experience down here.

I find it almost amusing when I walk out of my apartment and see people bundled up in scarves and heavy coats, walking around, when there’s sun in the sky and flowers popping out of the lawns and green grass everywhere. This is not the reality for a lot of people who live in British Columbia. The idea that you could just tax away some of the resources around this time and think that that would solve some problem is, quite frankly, completely ludicrous.

The carbon tax is a huge problem, and it needs to be gotten rid of completely. Not merely tinkered with, not merely adjusted slightly but, in fact, dealt with completely.

The reality of this country, of this province is, in fact, that people depend on the ability to make use of fuel, natural gas, electricity and so on, all of which can be taxed. We don’t have the infrastructure to support a completely green environment that is going to be able to do what is needed to be able to provide the energy needs of British Columbians, particularly in northern climes, where it’s cold.

When we get a notice from B.C. Hydro that says, “We’re going to be shutting off the power between midnight and four o’clock in the morning on February 10, in these neighbourhoods,” people are very concerned, because that dramatically affects the ability of those people to heat their homes. It affects their ability to operate any emergency medical equipment and so on. When you have these shutdowns because of a lack of power and energy resources, it’s a big problem.

So I say: where is the energy going to come from? Where is the revenue going to come from? Where is this government prepared to take action to make sure that the needs of people are actually being met so that they can heat water, so they can provide heat for their homes? This carbon tax is not doing that.

In fact, the carbon tax itself would be completely unnecessary if successive governments, over time, had not engaged in deficit spending. Servicing our provincial debt is tremendously expensive, and it has been growing and growing such that moneys being used for such a project could most readily be used to be paying for the kinds of things people expect: more improvements to health care, more improvements to energy consumption, the ability to build infrastructure as needed.

I look at the roads and the condition of the roads in Prince George–North Cariboo and other areas around it, the other ridings that my colleagues know well. The road infrastructure is in a terrible state.

It costs money to drive on roads that are in bad condition. It consumes energy to drive on roads that are in bad condition.

[6:30 p.m.]

When you have to take a longer way because the road that you would otherwise be using is blocked off because of the failure of a bridge, the failure or some problem with the road or a car accident, this consumes additional energy. It adds extra costs to how people live and how they make do in their lives.

This is a winter province; it’s a winter country. The fantasies we enjoy when we see the green grass and the birds chirping on the southern tip of Vancouver Island are not the realities experienced by people in most of the province. Infrastructure needs to be in place to be able to provide these energy needs, and it’s not.

As we have more and more people coming to British Columbia because of the wonderful offerings of this province, we are increasing our demand on the power grid. We are increasing our demand on natural gas, LNG. We need these projects to make sure that people can live their lives and be productive contributors to our British Columbia economy.

These long distances, these damaged roads, these bridges that are crumbling away — all of these contribute to the high costs that we experience in northern and rural communities. When I see the idea that we would get rid of some of the budgetary items towards these things, it frightens me because I know that there are people who have great dependency upon good-quality highways, good-quality secondary roads and bridges, and so on. All of these things need to be paid for from tax dollars.

There is only one source of revenue, and that is the taxpayer. And if that taxpayer is being so heavily burdened by things like a carbon tax, then they start to become homeless because they can’t pay their bills.

Being forced to choose between paying your rent and buying food is not something anybody should have to do. Being forced to decide whether you’re going to heat your home or be able to get the health care you adequately need is not something that someone should have to do. A lot of it is because of how heavily taxed British Columbians and Canadians generally already are.

It’s not okay what has been allowed to happen in this province over successive governments, over decades. It’s not okay. The people are very concerned.

I think when you look at the electoral map and you see the division between where the map is red and where the map is blue…. I’m speaking in British Columbia colours and Canadian colours, not southern colours. I do know people get confused about those colours nowadays because they watch so much American television. Nonetheless, we do need to recognize why there is an issue. Of course, I wouldn’t want to leave out my friends in green, because they do have a spot on the map as well and also do represent significant concerns based on their constituents.

All of us have concerns about the carbon tax. Some think that it’s not high enough. Some would want to keep it. But over here, we need that act repealed.

Moving the expense of a carbon tax to industry and pretending that getting rid of a consumer-based carbon tax is going to be sufficient is simply misleading. It’s misleading because when you put a tax on industry at the top, industry will seek to recover the monies that they are expending, and it will travel down the line to the consumer at the bottom. That is how it works.

I come from a family that worked retail for many, many years. My dad was a hardware store owner. I call myself a hardware store conservative because we knew what it meant to make a payroll, pay the bills, make sure things were happening on time and that you were able to make sure that the people you had working for you were paid and could be productive consumers as well as participants in the economy in other ways.

When people can’t afford to turn on the heat in their house, when people can’t afford to buy food, when they’re making choices about clothing for their children or themselves, whether they’re going to be sleeping in a car or whether they’re going to be sleeping under a roof and whether that roof is repaired or having to leak…. When you’re making choices like this, we have a huge problem with taxation in this province and in this country. And we need to deal with this in a proactive way instead of the reactive way that we’ve been engaging in politics in this province.

[6:35 p.m.]

If we’re going to be proactive, we need to anticipate problems before they arise and deal with them in an appropriate and effective manner to ensure that British Columbians are getting the services they need and the services that they are in fact paying for.

When I think of a carbon tax, I don’t see a solution to the problems expressed about climate. The view on climate change appears to be that it’s all of a sudden going to be very hot everywhere, and I don’t see that where I live. I’m just not seeing it. I’m seeing cold weather. I’m seeing great skiing. I’m seeing a shift in, sometimes, weather patterns.

I’m telling you, I am seeing people being cold. I’m seeing people sleep in their cars. I’m seeing people who are homeless and wandering the streets because they cannot afford to have a home. And why is that? It is because the economy here is not supporting their ability to be active participants. They’re involved in the fentanyl crisis, health care. A lot of this activity is because people are not able to cope with the realities of the province as it is now.

When we have a debate about a carbon tax amendment act…. Well, it’s really not sufficient. This doesn’t eliminate that industrial carbon tax. That industrial carbon tax remains, and we will see that price passed on down the line. That is exactly what’s going to happen.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to hear the government suddenly on the bandwagon of doing this. They said they would do it if the feds did it, and that’s fine. But this is not really what’s happening here. We’re not eliminating the carbon tax; we’re tinkering with the carbon tax.

When you see the Premier, who had been advocating and telling us all that the carbon tax was the greatest, most wonderful thing, and several of his ministers as well…. I think it’s very strange that all of a sudden we’d be seeing this beating-the-drum bandwagon to change this when, really, this isn’t what it’s being marketed as.

It’s not enough to try to pretend that we’re doing something about climate change, and it’s not enough to pretend that a carbon tax is going to fix the climate. It’s not. It’s not going to do that. Can you mitigate things that are happening? Sure. But you’re not going to do it by taxing people into poverty. That is not what’s going to do this.

The more people have to pay on taxation, the less their money is able to circulate in the economy, the less that money is able to provide benefit to all British Columbians and the less that money is going to be available to do the works that government is supposed to be doing.

I’m including some of the things I have talked about already: providing better health care; providing good-quality roads and bridges; to make sure that farmers and ranchers have their needs met; to make sure that people don’t have to go without food; to make sure that we don’t need to have food programs in schools, that children actually can show up well fed and be able to participate in a learning environment; to ensure that our public education system is actually meeting the needs of students, of the families and so on.

All of these things are possible in a world where taxation policy is handled responsibly, and a carbon tax is not that path.

This carbon tax is a regressive tax. This is a tax that always goes down to the lowest common denominator and is paid by the people. I look at this, in many respects, as something like the lottery situation, where it’s a tax on the poor. You’re so desperate to get out of the circumstances you’re in that you end up trying to gamble your way out of this. It’s not okay, what has been allowed to happen in this province. Again, I would emphasize that this is over successive governments, not just the current one.

Pricing carbon is simply not the right way to deal with the changes to the climate. And I look at Premier Eby, who said in Hansard on October 31, 2023….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. Just a reminder not to use the names of any of the members.

Sheldon Clare: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw that comment.

The current Premier said in Hansard on October 31, ’23: “The member is well aware of the fact that pricing carbon is the right way to deal with climate change. He has just lost the courage of his convictions.”

[6:40 p.m.]

Really? I think that if pricing carbon was the right way to deal with climate change, then you would have an enthusiastic level of support for that in this House, and that is clearly not the case.

It is clearly the case that there is not that support for it in this province. I can certainly tell you that I heard it at those 14,000 doors that my team and I knocked on in Prince George–North Cariboo, when the people told us very clearly that this was the most egregious thing that they were experiencing, and it had to go.

If we’re going to have some leadership on big problems that fix British Columbia, the biggest thing we need to do is look at our taxation policy as a whole, see where we can make cuts that are going to actually allow people to have money in their pocket to circulate into the economy, to have benefit for everyone — taxation that is not going to put people in the poorhouse. People who are in the poorhouse don’t make money to be able to contribute to the economy. It’s a downward spiral, and if you take people out of the ability to make a good living, well, then, it’s bad.

Usually, what you see from the champagne socialists is a desire to level everyone down to the lowest common denominator. That’s not working, because the lowest common denominator, quite frankly, is stark, and it’s dark, and it’s dangerous. On the Conservative side of the House, we prefer to bring people up and provide more opportunity so that more people are able to afford a home, able to afford to send their children to school well fed and ready to learn.

I look at my own daughters, who are 18 — pardon me, 19 now — and 22. I worry for their future in an environment where they are not able to make a living sufficient to be able to afford a home in the province where they were born, where their father was born. And to see how that economy is destroying their futures….

Taxation policy needs to be looked at carefully, and this carbon tax situation is not going to solve the problem for my daughters or the children of others in this House. As we bring new people into our province, we need to make sure that they are welcome to the opportunities that others have enjoyed. If those opportunities are not available, well, that is a huge problem for all of us.

Again, power and energy are hugely related to what you do with taxation to save energy. As I said, heating water is a huge expense. But all of those things require an infrastructure of copper lines. That implies piping. It includes power stations and grids to be able to support the energy needs of a growing economy.

If we’re going to have that growing economy and those power needs, we better have a really serious look at what our sources for power are going to be. Hydroelectric is not going to cut it, not by itself. Gas, LNG, is a huge and necessary help. We cannot eliminate it, despite the best wishes of some.

There are other options that we may have to start considering. Some of them are ones that may not be very popular, but we’re going to have to be very serious at how we examine energy policy going forward because our province depends on it. We can simply not continue to do things the way we’re doing in British Columbia and expect that it’s going to work.

The carbon tax is, has been, and is always going to be a disaster. These amendments that tinker with this bill to partially reduce the carbon tax…. I don’t know. What is it going to be replaced with? What kind of a solution is going to be done behind closed doors to continue to tax people into poverty. We simply cannot allow that to continue.

If we are going to solve the problems of the present we really need to have a look at our past and see where we made the mistakes and make sure that our future is one that British Columbians can enjoy being successful.

Beautiful British Columbia is not going to be beautiful British Columbia if people have been taxed into poverty everywhere they go, and it’s all levelled down that way. It’s not good enough to be expecting that a carbon tax is going to be some panacea that will solve the problems for everyone. It is not going to do that.

Now some on the other side of the House will say that previous governments brought in the carbon tax and that it was so wonderful. Well, I can assure you I wasn’t a part of any previous government that brought in any carbon tax. I certainly wouldn’t have supported it if I had been. As a conservative, I look at taxation as something suspicious. I want to know why it’s necessary and what good it will do.

[6:45 p.m.]

I believe that when you are looking at legislation, you should look at the damage the legislation can cause, not the perceived good that it might provide — might provide. You have to look at the damage, and if you seriously take advantage of a good, solid look at that damage, you’re going to find yourself looking at a carbon tax and going: “Oh my goodness, what have we done? What have we done? Look at the damage.”

We’re seeing this damage permeating a wide range of the issues that British Columbians are faced with today — from health care and the addictions and fentanyl crisis, to infrastructure, to roads and bridges, and the need to deal with a rapidly growing population. We recently heard, from the Vancouver Port Authority, that one of the major things that gets moved through that port is fuel oil. Well, I don’t see that going away. I don’t see the production of plastics going away.

When I look at everything in this particular room and at anything I’d walked past when I came to the Legislature this morning, a lot of it was made from the use of petroleum and other fuels. If we’re going to have to deal with the reality of petroleum, well, we’d better make sure that it’s part of our plan, our budgeting and our general processes to make sure that British Columbians can enjoy a good, productive, successful life.

Right now in places like Prince George–North Cariboo, there are people who are making hard choices about what they’re going to do with the few pennies they have.

One of my volunteers in my campaign, when she came to volunteer, said: “I had to make a really serious choice — if I had enough money to drive here to help, because I didn’t have enough fuel for my gas tank, or if I was just going to stay home and try to save that money so I could go grocery shopping the next day.” That’s pretty serious.

It’s pretty serious when people are so close to the line on everything that’s happening around their lives that they cannot afford a carbon tax. They cannot afford excess taxation. We cannot keep going to the well that is the taxpayer and demanding that they continue to pay and pay. At some point, that system collapses. It’s not without reason that tax revolts were very common, in many parts of the world, for hundreds of years.

Canadians, British Columbians in particular, are extremely heavily taxed. We have multiple taxes at all kinds of levels. This is one that has caused us a great deal of grief, and it is one that I will be very happy to see gone.

In conclusion, I would ask the rest of the members in the House to look very seriously at the amendments that are before us and to see if they really are sufficient to deal adequately with this problem tax that has been so detrimental to so many people for so long. It’s a huge issue in my riding, I know it’s a huge issue in other ridings, and I would advocate getting rid of it completely and not merely tinkering with it with amendments, as we have before us.

I often hear people say: “Well, you know, if you cut the carbon tax, what’ll you replace it with?” I would say: “We’re not going to.” Take the money and spend it; circulate it in the economy.

Even John Maynard Keynes — arguably, a left-of-centre economist, British, who educated the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s — argued that when times were good, what you needed to do was to pay down the debt.

I have seen nothing, from successive governments, about getting the debt load down and, thus, reducing payments on the debt, reducing interest — reducing all of those costs that debt brings. Instead, what we see is successive deficit spending. Deficits add to debt. They need to go. A carbon tax to try to backstop and grab some extra money to deal with debt and deficit spending is simply not good enough.

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks and turn it over to my colleagues.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll start off by saying that today is a sad day for British Columbia. This government has made a critical mistake, easily surrendering an important tool in the ongoing fight against climate change, which is the consumer carbon tax.

[6:50 p.m.]

Back in 2008, B.C. was a world leader when we introduced this tax. We set an example for others to follow. Until recently the NDP government defended the importance of this tax as a key part of our climate strategy. Now, with the proposal to cancel the tax, a lot of questions remain, questions that haven’t been answered.

How will this government follow through on their promise to reduce emissions? I’m not just talking about a promise. I’m talking about a responsibility that we all have. How will they offer financial support to those most affected by the climate crisis?

It’s not just a failure of the current government; it’s a failure to the next generations. I’m in this seat because I did not want to bring up my children in a changing climate that threatens our entire existence. It’s a betrayal of our responsibility to leave behind a sustainable, livable planet. We are watching an abdication of duty to future British Columbians, and they will inherit the consequences of today’s shortsighted decisions.

In this moment of uncertainty, what we need is bold leadership. But I fear this flip-flopping on the carbon tax is just the beginning. If it’s a bellwether of what’s to come, we should all be very concerned.

The carbon tax, as we know, was implemented by the B.C. Liberal government, the predecessor to the opposition party. It was presented as a conservative cost-effective, fiscally responsible way of grappling with climate change and reducing emissions, letting the market adapt to price signals instead of an abundance of bureaucratic regulation involved with, for example, a cap-and-trade system.

I do want to address my colleagues on this side of the House who have seized on this issue for political gain. I cannot believe, in 2025, we are still debating the science of climate change. It’s mind-boggling to me. Rather than working together to find solutions for the people of British Columbia, some have used this opportunity to score political points. The future of our next generation is not a time for political differentiation. We need real solutions, not more partisan games.

I will say the true mark of a good policy like this one is one that both major parties have opposed at various times. As we know, the NDP opposed this in the 2009 election. Conservatives opposed it in 2024. Nobody likes taxes. It’s an easy way to make a name for yourself, but it is not responsible governance.

What’s apparent is that the next effective measure in the fight against climate change will be more market intervention, more impactful to regular British Columbians. We’ve lost too much time rearranging deck chairs while the climate emergency accelerates. As much as people will be relieved and thankful about a 17-cent reduction in the price of gas, this is not the time for populism. We have overlapping crises. We have growing geopolitical instability. It’s a time for bold leadership and strategic investment in our future.

Instead of a clear, coherent climate strategy, the province is making up climate policy on the fly. I might have considered supporting this if there were a replacement or a substitute that was equally effective. We’re trading good, effective policy for bad politics, and that’s a very dangerous road.

For 17 years, carbon pricing has been a key pillar of the province’s climate strategy, and research has shown that it has worked. I’m not going to tell you it has reduced emissions by any substantial amount, but it may have prevented a massive increase, an exponential increase in the amount of emissions. Studies indicate that the carbon tax has contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, estimates suggesting anywhere from 5 to 15 percent compared to what they would have been without the tax. That may not be a roaring success, but it is the right direction.

Carbon tax has also been linked to cleaner air. Reduction in air pollution, particularly in fine particulate matter, has led to significant health improvements. Reductions of 5 to 11 percent in air pollution do have health cost benefits.

What does this mean for the future of climate action in our province? How can we claim to be serious about climate change if we’re willing to walk away from one of the most effective tools we have?

I sympathize with families bearing the costs. However, we can’t talk about families bearing the cost without talking about the rebates that low- and middle-income families are getting. Between 65 and 80 percent of British Columbians and Canadians are getting more back than they put in.

[6:55 p.m.]

The carbon tax may never have been a panacea, but it did encourage low-carbon patterns of behaviour. It did incentivize us to live a lower-carbon life. And as much as I dislike paying taxes, like anybody else, they are the cost. In this case, they are the cost of a planet that can actually sustain us. And the rebates were the reward for responsible use of a finite resource.

In response to concerns about cancelling the consumer carbon tax, the Premier has said that the government will ensure big polluters pay their fair share. But when we look at the details, and certainly not in this bill, it’s hard not to notice the plan is vague and the promises are unclear.

Last year the government introduced a new carbon pricing system for large industrial emitters, known as the output-based pricing system, or OBPS. I will note that while consumers contributed $3 billion in carbon tax, these large industrial polluters contributed $200 million. That is an incredibly disappointing gap that British Columbians, yes, have been forced to absorb while corporations skate away essentially with very little tax.

I’ll call it the output-based pricing system, OBPS. It exempts, right off the bat, 65 percent of oil and gas emissions from carbon pricing. All the families in British Columbia have to pay starting from zero, but for industry, we’ll just write off the first 65 percent.

Then even that’s only after the first two years of operation. This is a huge gift to industry, exempting emissions during the first two years. In particular, in the start-up phase for an LNG plant, when they’re flaring massive amounts of methane and the emissions are through the roof, they are just exempted.

Of what’s left to pay in the carbon tax, up to half can instead be met through loopholes called compliance mechanisms. Companies can use bank credits from previous years, credits purchased from other companies and, most problematically, carbon offsets.

Carbon offset projects are a licence to pollute. Companies can spend much less than they would otherwise pay in carbon tax on cheaper projects that allegedly reduce emissions somewhere else on the planet, including forest conservation and agriculture projects. Some of these, no doubt, reflect worthy objectives, but it’s not clear that they actually reduce emissions as claimed.

Indeed, offset projects have proven to be a form of greenwashing. A decade ago B.C.’s Auditor General slammed the government for claiming offsets for projects that would have happened anyway through bona fide emissions reductions.

A more recent inquiry into global offset projects found that a large share of corporate offset projects were “likely junk.” These are not the kinds of solutions we need. This is not the type of climate policy our future and our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future hinges on.

B.C. still has the potential to be a climate leader. We’re blessed with natural resources, a rich environment and the innovative spirit needed to tackle this crisis head-on. But under the current government, we’ve missed every climate target, and our emissions continue to rise.

The latest climate accountability report for our province shows only very minor progress. With less than five years to cut emissions by 37 percent to meet our 2030 target, it’s clear that time is running out. Briefing notes released earlier this year for the Minister of Environment and Parks reveal a troubling truth. According to this government, achieving CleanBC goals is “no longer accurate or workable.”

This government has overseen a 44 percent increase in B.C.’s gas production between 2017 and 2023, and with more LNG projects set to come online next year, oil and gas production will rise even further. As with the cancelling of the carbon tax, this government has failed to explain how expanding LNG fits with our collective goal to reduce emissions.

Across Canada, we’re seeing dangerous trends. The leader of the Conservative Party has promised to axe the industrial carbon tax, and I’ll note the opposition has called for the same. It’s a slippery slope. The Alberta Premier is considering killing its industrial carbon tax, and the Saskatchewan Premier is already taking steps to reduce the industrial price to zero. Sounds familiar.

If these trends take hold, we could be looking at a future where polluters are let off the hook and climate action is set back by decades. We don’t have decades to spare.

Can British Columbians be confident this government won’t scrap the industrial carbon price altogether, just like they’re considering with the consumer carbon tax? Can we trust that politics won’t once again undermine good policy and solid climate action?

This is not the future we want for British Columbia. The climate crisis is real. The actions we take now will shape the world our children inherit. We can’t afford to go backward. We need to continue moving forward with policies that reduce emissions, clean our air and protect our health.

[7:00 p.m.]

While it may not have been in their top three issues, British Columbian voters are deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change, and they have every reason to be. The World Health Organization has declared climate change the greatest existential threat to global health, and here in British Columbia we’re already living with the consequences — severe wildfires, prolonged droughts, catastrophic flooding and escalating health issues. These are not abstract policy challenges. They’re not one-off events that have uncertain science behind them. They’re happening right now in our communities, affecting lives and livelihoods.

I’m concerned that we as a human species have a hard time grappling with this long-term, slow-moving problem, and it’s showing in this House. We talk about the costs and taxing people into poverty, but the cost of inaction is beyond compare with the cost of the carbon tax. In 2021 alone, extreme weather events in B.C. resulted in losses of up to $17 billion. The heat dome led to the loss of 619 lives. These are real people — our neighbours, our friends and our loved ones.

Faced with this mounting existential threat, British Columbians are not standing idly by. They’re taking action. Many people are investing in electric vehicles, making the switch to cleaner transportation. Households and businesses are installing solar panels, heat pumps and other energy-efficient technologies to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and lower their carbon footprints. Across the province, British Columbians are demonstrating their commitment to building a sustainable future.

British Columbians have been vocal in their demand for stronger climate policies. Grassroots movements, environmental organizations and youth activists have organized rallies, protests and campaigns to push this government to take more ambitious action on climate. These efforts are clear. They’re calling for stronger regulations, more effective policies and more commitment from the provincial government. They’re not calling for the scrapping of carbon pricing and rebates.

Nonetheless, average British Columbians aren’t responsible for the lion’s share of climate emissions. The oil and gas industry is responsible for more than one quarter of B.C. carbon emissions, and while we don’t like to talk about it, wildfires are creating emissions many times greater than our economic activities, and that will only compound as climate impacts accelerate.

All governments have been accused and criticized for being in bed with fossil fuel companies. Last year’s exposé about a former NDP staffer working for TC Energy brought this issue into the public realm. The staffer bragged about the company’s, “influence tactics” with senior B.C. civil servants, stating that the oil and gas company’s efforts dramatically influenced B.C.’s carbon tax rate adjustment in February 2023 and ultimately halved the operation costs of province’s carbon tax on its project. This is what happens when corporate interests outweigh the public good.

It’s critical that the B.C. government stop pandering to the oil and gas industry, the very industry that is causing climate change. It must act in the interests of all British Columbians, not just powerful corporate lobbyists. In the face of escalating climate destruction, what we need more than ever is strong government leadership, more stringent carbon pricing on the fossil fuel industry, a cap on oil and gas emissions and a moratorium on new fracking and LNG projects.

This is not all about saying no and no more. This is about electrifying our economy, and contrary to popular belief, we can make enough electricity to do this. We have to rapidly scale up renewable energy sources like geothermal, wind and solar. They will not only reduce our carbon footprint but also make us less dependent on the volatility of international markets.

Despite all the evidence in front of us, in the face of economic and geopolitical uncertainty, the government has chosen to capitulate to the demands of the fossil fuel industry. Recently, this government has chosen to fast-track extractive industries like LNG and scrap effective evidence-based policies that effectively address the climate crisis.

How are these actions any different from U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Drill, baby, drill”? It’s clear that the oil and gas industry is seizing this moment to call for the unraveling of all the progress we’ve made. Oil and gas CEOs recently called on the federal government to declare a Canadian energy crisis and use emergency powers to help speed the development of fossil fuel projects like pipelines in, quote, “the national interest.”

[7:05 p.m.]

Does this government see what’s at stake? Can they see they’re setting a dangerous precedent, one motivated by poor politics rather than sound policy? What else can British Columbians expect from a government willing to sacrifice long-term environmental health for short-term political gain?

The people of British Columbia deserve better than this. They deserve a government that’s willing to act boldly and decisively on climate change. They deserve leadership that will prioritize the health of our communities, the safety of our children and the future of our planet.

I will remind this House that this is not about saving our planet. Our planet will be just fine. This is about saving our societies, our civilizations, our species and our ability to live on this planet.

This government used to say all the right things about climate change and promised bold actions. Until recently, the Premier defended the carbon tax, firmly stating: “Here in B.C., we believe very firmly that part of the climate solution includes recognizing that carbon has a price.” It has been pointed out already that when the Conservative leader wrote a letter asking for support, he got a reply calling it “a baloney factory,” which I fully agree with.

Now the Premier’s words ring hollow. How much more flip-flopping will we see? It has become clear that this government is no longer focused on evidence-based policy but instead is chasing votes and, I will say, chasing the ideas of the opposition around this House. In doing so, they’re sacrificing long-term climate action for short-term — I’ll say it one more time — political gains.

Meanwhile, communities across B.C. continue to suffer the consequences. Wildfires, heat domes, floods, droughts are here right now wreaking havoc on our homes, our health and our lives. Yet 17 years after the installation of the carbon tax, we still lack a clear, effective plan to reduce emissions and prepare for the future. CleanBC, as we’ve pointed out today, is aspirational. It is not achieving the results that we need.

I urge this House to think carefully about the choices we’re being asked to make today. We need to scrap political convenience for the long-term benefits, including economic benefits, of a cleaner, healthier and more sustainable future.

As I said, my heart is pretty heavy about this today. Seventeen years of climate leadership will disappear, potentially in a few hours. I’m worried that more tragic days are in our future under this climate leadership.

There’s no way in good conscience that I can support this bill without a better option being put in front of this House.

Trevor Halford: I appreciate the opportunity to get up and speak to Bill 8 in second reading. It only seems a few hours ago that we were having first reading, but here we are on the last day of March and just hours away from April 1.

It bears the question about…. I understand the need for urgency, but I also…. You know, there’s a saying that if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. It kind of seems like we’re in that scenario right now.

We’ve been at this now for two months, and this is legislation that we actually could have been doing months ago, or at least 45 days ago, and had the opportunity. I know full well that my colleague from Kamloops is well prepared to canvass this at committee, and he’ll do so. But to have this all in one day when we knew that we were going to be in this scenario….

I think previous speakers both from the government and from the Third Party have spoken about this in terms of…. They call it scoring political points. I can actually understand that context coming from the Green caucus. I can, because I think that they’ve been honest in terms of their platform and their position on this all along. That hasn’t wavered.

In terms of comments that have been made from the government side, in terms of what they call scoring political points and opportunism, things like this, this was…. Let’s be clear. It was a previous opposition that campaigned against the carbon tax in 2009 when it came in. It was revenue neutral at that time.

This is a government that has made the decision not to make it revenue neutral. You put all that aside. We’ll get to the comments later and then a question about this.

[7:10 p.m.]

In 2024, the number one issue, and the issues have changed, was regarding affordability. It was the biggest issue that we were hearing about. It is still a massive issue that British Columbians are struggling with.

The amount of British Columbians that are only $200 away from not being able to pay their bills is enormous right now. We talk about…. Even in this House, we’ve canvassed about the long lines, the record lines, we’ve seen at the food banks. For the Minister of Energy to get up and say, well, political rhetoric and kind of like they’re forced to be in this position now, it’s almost they’re shamed by it. But the reasons that we’ve campaigned on this and we’ve talked about this are that the world has changed.

This government has changed the context of what the carbon tax was. It’s a tax shift. It’s a tax grab. Part of the rationale on what we’re talking about is to make life more affordable. Whether it’s 14 cents or 17 cents a litre, to some that’s determining whether or not they’re going to be able to fill up their minivan and get their kid to soccer or football or hockey practice or dance.

You think about what that’s going to mean for the trucker that has to fill up and drive all the way across British Columbia, whether it’s from Surrey to Prince George, Vancouver to Kitimat, all the way that we’re shipping, and those costs that are burdened onto them. That’s what we’ve been talking about.

It comes down to affordability. I know the context in climate change, and we’ve seen it. We saw it in the heat dome. Carbon tax didn’t solve the heat dome. What would have helped the heat dome was actually if seniors in my riding and other ridings had air conditioners. The government was late to roll that out. Those were recommendations that they failed on, and they’re still failing on that.

I think it’s really important that when we’re talking about the impacts of climate, we talk about the fact that pollution doesn’t know…. It doesn’t respect borders. I live right on the U.S. border, 0 Avenue. My backyard is literally going onto the United States. Now, if a car is sitting idle there, it’s not respecting…. It’s not going to stop at the border and say: “Well, we can’t cross into the United States.” It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t stop at the Alberta border. It doesn’t happen.

When we’re talking about things, I am a huge supporter of the LNG industry. You want to know why? It’s transformational. It’s also meant transformational wealth for people in this province, whether it’s Indigenous groups, whether it’s unions, whether it’s people getting their first jobs. But it’s also meant getting jurisdictions off of coal. I’m not ashamed by that.

Now, I get that things change. When I served in opposition, I was hoping to make that change last election and didn’t. It’s always funny to me how positions change. There’s a bit of a righteousness, and I get it. It’s part of the job description, and that’s fair. But when people get up in the House and talk about: “Well, the opposition….” I haven’t heard one project that we’re opposed to. I heard the Minister of Energy talk about us being opposed to projects. I don’t know of any projects that we’re currently opposed to.

I am personally opposed to the fact that we are just now giving environmental assessment certificates without any due diligence. I think that’s a little bit weird, specifically for one industry. I don’t necessarily agree with that while we’re cutting the Ministry of Environment’s budget. I think that that’s, fundamentally, a little bit miscalculated there.

Let’s dive into that comment that the Minister of Energy made, when he’s talking about that now he’s a champion of the private sector. Where was that championship in 2013 on Earth Day when he got up without talking to anybody and said he — and by extension the NDP opposition, then to be government four years later — was opposed to TMX?

[7:15 p.m.]

I would love for this minister to stand up in the House and say that he is still opposed to the expansion of TMX. It was a bad idea. Now, it was probably a bad idea at that point because it seemed to…. It didn’t go their way in 2013.

We talk about LNG. “It is a really bad idea. We don’t need LNG. We don’t.” Spoke out consistently against LNG, and we had numerous projects on the books. We ended up with LNG Canada, Coastal GasLink. That, by extension, was the single-largest investment in Canadian history, and we’ve heard that line over and over again. I think it’s a line we should be proud of.

The fact is that there is substantial opposition to that. I think that there’s a huge challenge there when people are trying to figure out where this government is going. Part of the problem is that they talk about political pressure and how this is catchphrases and everything. You know what it is? It’s about affordability.

There are different ways to do things: electrifying, LNG, getting off of coal. I watch train after train go by my house, full of bitumen. It’s crossing the border every single day, going to Cherry Point and Ferndale. Now, does anybody think that rail is the best way to transport that? I don’t. It’s not. But we had a Minister of Energy, now who said that he was against the expansion of Trans Mountain. How are you supposed to have that trust with industry?

When we talk about the carbon tax, again, things change. In 2009, this was an opposition that campaigned in that election against the carbon tax. They came up with the phrase “Axe the tax.” That’s copyrighted by the NDP. They should be getting royalties on that. Probably not. But that was theirs.

I get that things change. Things change. They decided to not make it revenue-neutral and make sure that that money was not going back to British Columbians. They changed that. They were government. That was their right to do. Disagree with it, but that was their right to do.

In the campaign, things changed. Very clear: we’re going to axe the carbon tax. All of it. Things change. The Premier at the time, looking at the polls in a little bit of panic, said: “Well, we’ve got to do something. If they change it, if the federal government changes it, then we’ll look at changing it. But we’ll change it. We probably will change it. Maybe we won’t change it.”

Here we are, about — I don’t know; I’m not good at math — 4½ hours from midnight when this should be taking effect, and there’s panic. We’re seeing that today. It’s not humorous because it’s coming down to an issue of right and wrong. It’s not a political question for me. It’s about affordability.

There are different ways that we can do things to fight climate change. There are. It comes down to social and independent responsibility. I fundamentally believe that. But taxation, this taxation, is not the way to go. It isn’t. We have to realize that the effect that all of this has is that…. We can talk about….

Again, I’ve heard comments on the government’s side about political opportunism and how unfortunate it is that this has become a political issue. You know what’s unfortunate? It’s a senior deciding whether or not they’re going to pay their rent or they’re going to heat their home. That’s unfortunate. That’s a challenge. I think it’s one that we’ve got to be serious about.

You know, we should be proud of what we have in this province, and we should be proud of the things that we’ve accomplished in this province. Now, what troubles me is that this government has now just seen the light, and there’s a rush for 16 projects. All good.

[7:20 p.m.]

We want to see those all done, and done in a responsible way. But it shouldn’t take a crisis to get to that point where there’s just mad panic, and we’re rushing like we are today. We should have been doing this.

This is a government that tabled a budget that had no mention of the carbon tax — nothing. Here we are, just weeks after that budget is tabled, and we’re having first, second, third reading with committee and hopeful passage sometime this evening. But it’s no surprise that we’re here, and maybe it’s a…. I don’t understand that part of it. And, you know, I think it’s….

In question period today, we had the Premier get up, and he rattled off quote after quote after quote, which is his right to do. But it’s a double-edged sword, right? Because when we have the Premier saying on April 16 of 2024: “You don’t have to ask me. You can ask Kevin Falcon, the guy that brought it in. Removing it will result in a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and for corporate taxes in the province….” That was the Premier of the province’s quote on April 16, almost a year ago.

So now when we talk about the issues and some of the clawbacks they’ve had, whether it’s regarding Bill 7 and things like that, here’s the issue with transparency now. It’s because you have a Premier that makes those comments. Now we’re in a situation where we are repealing part of this tax, not all of it. And he’s saying that it’s going to result in, in his words, “a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and corporate taxes in this province.” Those are the Premier’s words — April 16, 2024.

Now, is that why we actually needed Bill 7, to give the Premier the power so he could do that without doing that in front of the House for proper debate? Maybe. I don’t know. It was his comment, not mine.

He goes on to say: “British Columbia will continue to lead on this. Let me be clear: we will not back down. God forbid, if the rest of the country abandons the fight against climate, B.C. will stand strong.” That was the Premier of the province at the NDP convention on November 18, 2023.

Again, I disagree with the logic, but I understand where the Third Party is coming from this when it comes to some of the issues they’ve got with this government in the partnerships that they form, when the Premier of the province says: “It’s a cornerstone of our climate strategy.” Premier of the province, September 13, 2024.

This one’s good. It’s November 20, 2023, and I quote, again from the Premier: “All the other parties that seem to me, in an effort to win votes, are willing to sell their children’s future. I think it’s unacceptable. We won’t do it, and we’ll support strong climate action.” That’s the Premier of the province, November 20, 2023.

So what has changed? Our position has been clear for a while now — campaigned on it, spoke about it in this House, called for it, were mocked for it, told it was never going to happen, and here we are.

I’ve said before that it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing, but there’s a bit of a hypocrisy here that I think we’ve all got to take a moment and sit back and reflect on, especially when it comes to certain ministers getting up and speaking that we aren’t in favour of projects, that this side of the House has flip-flopped.

It’s like Cirque du Soleil over there because you had a government that at one time campaigned against the tax, then supported the tax, then changed the tax and is now axing the tax, something that they campaigned on in 2009. They’re a pretzel on this.

[7:25 p.m.]

I get that that’s why there’s a bit of remorse on that side when I hear the Minister of Energy making his remarks, saying, “Well, unfortunately we’re in this position…” and he’s talking about…. The quote he gave regarding his apartment being hot…. That’s horrible. What’s horrible in my riding is we lost over 20 seniors on that weekend because their apartments were basically turned into greenhouses. And this government absolutely failed.

If we want to talk about fighting for climate, if we want to talk about preparing ourselves…. There were absolutely zero notifications that went out. We lost over 615 people, many of which are seniors, people with disabilities. It was an utter failure from this government.

I’m not denying that it’s on climate change. What I’m saying is that if they’re going to come in this House and they’re going to talk about the fact that we’re going to have political sparring on taxation…. It wasn’t the carbon tax that caused that. It wasn’t the carbon tax that would have stopped that. But this government was so ill-prepared in terms of even a warning system for people or protecting our most vulnerable that we lost over 600 British Columbians. And that’s unforgivable.

At the end of the day, obviously, I support this. Would have supported it a year ago. Would have supported it two years ago. You think about what that could have done if we would have had the stomach to do that. In the last year, the money that that could have saved families, whether it’s filling up their car, whether it’s heating their home, whether it’s at the grocery store.

We’re very privileged to be in this House, but those are real-life situations that all of our constituents are facing every single day. To hear that it’s unfortunate that this has become a political issue…. It’s not. Sure, it’s a political issue, but for some people, it’s an issue whether or not they’re going to eat or whether or not they’re going to have heat. That’s the issue. I think we’ve got to take stock about that. It’s almost like this government has been shamed to come in here and make these changes.

I’ll be honest. Part of the challenge is if you’re going to be that bold in some of the responses that I’ve outlined here, some of the comments that have been made specifically by the Premier, like this one, on Halloween of 2023: “The member is well aware of the fact that pricing carbon is the right way to deal with climate change. He has just lost the courage of his convictions….”

It’s the Premier’s response. And the Premier, at some point, will come in tonight and vote for the passage of this legislation. I’m going to vote with him. But I’ll tell you, the difference between us and them: we’ve been consistent for at least the last two years on this. And they…. I still don’t know. That’s been part of the challenge.

So I understand when they come in here and they do that, that it’s a hard thing to do. But it’s the right thing to do, and it would have been right to do it a year ago. It would have been right to do it about a month ago, when we actually could have had this and done a proper committee, not go into the wee hours of the night, because this is a government that just can’t get organized to do things.

I think that that’s part of the challenge. They can talk about the politicalization of it, and I understand that. But we’re talking about some of the biggest challenges facing our province right now, whether it’s tariffs, affordability, housing. Of course, with affordability comes cost of living. I think that those are the challenges that we’re seeing today.

[7:30 p.m.]

With that, I look forward to committee stage, and I look forward to making sure we get through this in the right way.

Korky Neufeld: We received this bill at 11 a.m. this morning with only 13 hours of debate until midnight, April 1. I want to start by just giving a definition of critical thinking. It’s the ability to effectively analyze differing information and to form judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources.

The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, foreminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal bias, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about the issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information.

I’ve listened to members of this government make claims that I want to challenge with questions. Forest fires are a result of climate change. Let me ask a question. Could it be the mismanagement of our forests contributing to increased fires? Just a question. Fires impacting housing losses caused by climate change, another question. Could the increase of urbanization, moving houses into forest canopies, be contributing to loss of housing through fires? Good question.

See, many who oppose the extreme climate doomsayers believe that the change in climate is real but not the end of the world. Environmental problems can be solved through economic growth, technical advancements and resource utilization. The B.C. Conservative Party also believes that the change in climate is real and that man is impacting our climate.

Anthropogenic warming from CO2 is also real. It’s one of the hundreds of potential factors when considering our climate. However, British Columbians are not facing an existential threat from our changing climate. It isn’t a crisis. In fact, our changing climate is not the most pressing issue facing us in B.C. or, I would even say, around the world.

The Conservative Party of B.C. will not go down the rabbit hole of overtaxation, hype, scare tactics and false promises. Our climate approach will be about safeguarding B.C.’s future, fighting tooth and nail to make life affordable for everyday, hardworking British Columbians. Now more than ever British Columbians need leadership that is honest, leadership that’s transparent, leadership which shares their priorities.

We also need leadership which believes in the power of building science and technology to adapt and solve problems — man has always done that — rather than a climate doom cult. B.C. needs to adapt to our changing future to prosper. We must approach climate from a positive, constructive, optimistic mindset. We can’t afford to give up, give in or bow out of this challenge.

As we approach the April 1 deadline, British Columbians find themselves at a crucial moment in the province’s climate policy: the repeal of the long-standing consumer carbon tax. With less than, I would say, four or five hours to go before pricing at the pumps is expected to drop and households are set to see savings on their natural gas bills, the government is under immense pressure to pass this necessary legislation in time. But the question is: will they succeed?

The Premier and his team have made it clear that they intend to fully repeal the consumer-faced carbon tax by April 1 in the next 4½ hours. This move promises to cut gas prices by approximately 17 cents per litre and save residential natural gas users up to $30 per month. But here’s the catch: for all these savings to materialize, the Legislature must approve the repeal, and time is running out.

The B.C. government argues that this shift is part of the broader plan to tackle climate change, which will now focus on large, industrial emitters. They intend to offer incentives for industries to adopt lower-carbon technologies. However, this transition hasn’t been without its challenges. Critics from both the Greens and us, the official opposition, are voicing serious concerns complicating this bill’s passage.

[7:35 p.m.]

The Greens are hesitant to support the bill unless the government provides a clear and comprehensive replacement climate plan. They also argue that simply removing the carbon tax, without an alternative strategy, is not enough — after all, the tax was one of the main tools to combat climate change — and that without a proper substitute, the climate fight would lose momentum.

What’s more, the Greens are worried about the impact on low- and middle-income families. The B.C. climate action tax credit, which helps offset the cost of carbon tax, would also be eliminated under this repeal. They say this program is vital for many British Columbians, and the Greens want assurance that this vulnerable group will not bear the brunt of the economic consequences.

Meanwhile, we in the Conservative Party have a different take. We’re willing to support the bill, but only if the repeal of the carbon tax doesn’t shift the financial burden on industries. We have been clear in this message that tax should not be passed on to businesses to disguise the overall costs.

We’re also concerned about the potential harm this decision could cause to industry in light of economic pressures south of the border. It’s here that the debate becomes even more complicated.

University of B.C. political science expert Stewart Prest has highlighted that the lack of a unified stance among the parties could create significant hurdles in this Legislature. If both the Greens and the Conservatives decide to oppose the bill, the process could stall, leading to a messy, unpredictable outcome that could push the repeal past its April 1 deadline.

Several questions. Why did the NDP government wait so long to bring this bill forward? The new Prime Minister of Canada announced on March 14 that the federal government is removing the federal required carbon tax. That was 17 days ago. If this is so urgent, why did the Premier not call us back to the Legislature to adequately debate this bill? We had 17 days.

I know that for you, the NDP government, it’s a delicate balancing act. You do not want this uncomfortable, thorough debate. You do not wish to be held to account. So now you need to strike a deal that satisfies all sides in a very short period of time, less than five hours from now: midnight tonight, to be precise. You are faced with a dilemma of cutting taxes for consumers while also ensuring the province’s climate goals are met.

This is why this bill needs rigorous debate. Also, as Stewart Prest pointed out, our opposition, as the Conservatives, to both the carbon tax and alternatives could alienate a large portion of the population that accepts the reality of climate change and the need for action.

Let’s not forget that the carbon tax was introduced in 2008 by the B.C. Liberals, making it the first of its kind in Canada. While it was opposed by the NDP at that time, the party kept it in place when they came into power in 2017. Isn’t that interesting?

Today the Premier is focusing on the consumer-facing portion of the tax, signalling a shift that could redefine the province’s climate policy moving forward. But as we have seen, there are many moving pieces. As the Premier and his ministers prepare to speak to the press later today or tomorrow, British Columbians will be watching closely to see whether a deal can be struck and the legislation be passed in time — and how transparent they truly are.

At the heart of this debate, for the NDP, is a fundamental question: how do they balance the need to combat climate change with the economic realities of everyday people and businesses? As the clock ticks down to April 1, the province must answer the question, and it may not be as simple as cutting a tax and then walking away.

So we stand at a crucial juncture in the conversation about the future of our province, and the B.C. Conservatives stand firm on our support for this important step forward for financial relief for British Columbians. But it’s unfortunate that this legislation only came forward at the eleventh hour.

Well, let’s be clear. This is not the first time we’ve seen the NDP backpedal on their promises. This is not the first time they’ve claimed one position, only to shift gears under pressure. Let’s not forget that for years the NDP insisted on maintaining and even raising the carbon tax every single year. Since coming into power, the NDP has raised the carbon tax from $30 per tonne to $90 per tonne, with plans to increase to $170 per tonne.

[7:40 p.m.]

Let’s not sugar-coat it. The NDP’s track record on carbon tax has been one of consistent hikes, hurting working families and businesses across this province. In fact, it took persistent pressure from our side of the House, from the opposition led by the Conservative Party, to force the Premier’s hand. It’s only because of our opposition and the opposition of many British Columbians that the Premier finally, albeit reluctantly, is moving to bring forward this bill.

The Premier himself has made it clear on several occasions that he didn’t want to eliminate the carbon tax. He even went so far as to claim, and I quote: “Anyone who tells you that there’s another choice is lying to you as a politician.” This is a direct quote from the Premier in the North Shore News on February 14, 2024. His own words betray the true NDP stance on this issue. If it were up to them, the carbon tax would have continued to rise, year after year, without respite for British Columbians.

Now we stand here today with this bill before us to eliminate the carbon tax. And yes, we the opposition parties support the elimination, but we must recognize the circumstances surrounding this decision. This is not a policy that the NDP truly believes in. If they had their way, they would continue to raise the tax. They have now been forced to backtrack, but only because of mounting pressure.

It’s also important to note that the carbon tax currently generates $3 billion in revenue for the province and this provincial government. The question must be asked, and one that the Premier has failed to adequately address: how does this government intend to cover the cost of eliminating this tax?

Well, the Premier himself has admitted, and I quote: “Removing it would result in a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and for corporate taxes in the province.” How exactly will this government fill the void left by the elimination of the carbon tax?

The Premier’s own words indicate we are about to see a massive hike on the people of British Columbia through taxes. British Columbians demand transparency. Well, let’s forget that the NDP have already hiked 30 other taxes. If they proceed with this move, it will be the largest single tax hike in British Columbia’s history.

Where will the money come from to cover a $3 billion shortfall? What taxes will rise, and how high will they go? The Premier has already warned us of double-digit increases. British Columbians deserve transparency on this.

Furthermore, for years, the NDP have argued that cutting the carbon tax would not lead to a reduction in fuel prices, yet now they seem willing to make this political pivot. It’s inconsistency, to say the least, and one that British Columbians are right to question.

Well, let’s look at the NDP’s own words on this issue. In the North Shore News on February 14, 2024, the Premier made a statement that resonates, and I quote: “British Columbia will continue to lead on this.” He was, of course, referring to the government’s position on climate action, yet with this bill, the very same government is back-pedalling on that commitment.

To quote him again from the press conference on April 16, 2024. The Premier said: “You don’t have to ask me. You can ask Kevin Falcon, the guy who brought it in. Removing it would result in double-digit tax increases for personal taxes and for corporate taxes in this province.”

This is a stunning admission where the Premier recognizes that eliminating the carbon tax will result in an unavoidable rise in other taxes.

At the NDP convention on November 18, 2023, the Premier pledged: “We will not back down. God forbid the rest of the country abandons the fight against climate. B.C. will stand strong.” This was the NDP’s promise of principled leadership on climate change. But today, we are forced to confront the reality that the NDP have abandoned their previous stance under the weight of political pressure.

[7:45 p.m.]

Now the Premier and his government are desperate to justify their back-pedalling. They say that eliminating the carbon tax is necessary for British Columbians, but the truth is they’re walking a fine line between supporting families and raising taxes.

The NDP have continuously criticized us, the B.C. Conservatives, for our stance on carbon tax. They claim we’re abandoning climate action. But let me remind them. We believe in responsible, fair policies that balance environmental goals with economic sustainability. The NDP, on the other hand, have used climate action as a political tool, pushing policies that hurt the very people they claim to protect.

We must not forget that the NDP have spent years telling us that cutting the carbon tax would lead to disastrous consequences. They’ve painted a picture of a future where our climate action commitments would be undone, and British Columbia would fall behind. Yet here we are today, considering the elimination of the carbon tax.

This is the same Premier who said: “Anyone who tells you that there’s another choice is lying to you.” Hmm. Now he’s forced to admit that there is another way forward.

Let me be clear. While we support the elimination of the carbon tax, we remain deeply concerned about the hidden costs of this move. The Premier has already warned of the impact this decision will have on personal and corporate taxes, and it’s time for him to come clean on how these increases will be implemented. We cannot afford to allow this government to continue making knee-jerk decisions without full transparency.

In conclusion, the elimination of the carbon tax, while a welcome relief for British Columbians, comes with significant questions that must be answered. How will this government cover the $3 billion revenue shortfall? Which taxes will increase? And how will this decision impact the fiscal health of our province?

These are questions that deserve answers, but we have not been given enough time to get these answers. That’s why we need more time to adequately debate this bill, and it is our duty as responsible lawmakers to hold this government accountable.

David Williams: Only because of strong opposition led by the Conservatives all over this country did this government back down and bring forward this legislation. The Premier did not want to do this. He said as much as that on many occasions.

The Premier once stated: “You couldn’t cut the carbon tax. Anyone who tells you that there’s another choice is lying to you as a politician.” The Premier stated that to North Shore News as recently as February 14, 2024.

“The good news, in my opinion, and I’m staking my political career on it, is that it tells you there’s another choice. Good news. I’m staking my political career on it, British Columbians, because we’re in front of these lines, these impacts. We’re also well positioned to understand why we need to do the work and why we need to show climate leadership.” That was the Premier to the North Shore News on February 14, as well, 2024.

Many NDP MLAs also supported the carbon tax. “Obviously, the carbon tax is one of the best things when British Columbia has led,” the Minister of Housing said in Hansard on May 14, 2024.

“The carbon tax is something that has been shown by experts around the world as one of the most efficient and effective means of reducing emissions. So we’re going to continue this work here in British Columbia.” That was the Minister of Health, Hansard, October 31, 2023.

Yet today we’re introducing Bill 8 to eliminate the carbon tax. It’s expected to receive royal assent today, the same day that it’s introduced, and take effect tomorrow. Apparently, we’re doing the impossible.

Mr. Speaker, have we ever seen a better example of how quickly the Legislature and the government of the day can respond and act?

[7:50 p.m.]

This brings vivid proof that part 4 of Bill 7, granting sweeping non-democratic legislation to amend laws and regulations, was a definite overreach of power.

We do support the elimination of the carbon tax, but it is important to remember this is not a policy that the NDP believe in. If they had their way, they would have continued to keep hiking the carbon tax, making life more and more unaffordable in this province. This government is more focused on generating revenue through increased taxation on existing businesses than on growing jobs and the economy. They increased the rate from $30 a tonne to $90 a tonne with a future plan to increase it to $120 per tonne. Thankfully, that plan ends today.

Currently the carbon tax brings in $3 billion to the provincial coffers, and if this NDP government had their way, it would be generating more and more each year.

What has the carbon tax exactly accomplished? Worldwide carbon emissions have increased, but our citizens’ affordability challenges have increased as well. The tax affects agriculture production costs, transportation costs, food costs, heating costs and much, much more of everyday life.

The carbon tax became a failed policy as a result of becoming a cash cow, rather than a policy that actually addresses world climate change. We need to explore many options when it comes to fossil fuels and energy policy.

Eliminating coal and replacing it with LNG in other jurisdictions in the world would have more of an impact on world carbon emissions than disadvantaging our industries and families. Inexpensive energy has a direct correlation with GDP and, subsequently, standard of living. Wouldn’t that be a welcome change?

Hydro options. We should be looking at all hydro options. Carbon right now. Taxing people’s heating costs is astronomically crazy. Not using fossil fuels and taxing when you do use carbon fuels for generating energy is disadvantaging and putting people in the poorhouse.

Now let’s go to poor fiscal management. The provincial budget can barely afford to absorb the cost of eliminating this tax. The Premier himself said removing it would result in a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and corporate taxes in the province. The Premier said this at a press conference, April 16, 2024. I believe that’s a very short time ago.

“It’s a cornerstone of our climate strategy.” The Premier said that to the North Shore News September 13, 2024. These are all recent notices where he stated this. So I guess things changed significantly over the last few weeks.

We support the elimination of the carbon tax. It’s unfortunate this government waited till the eleventh hour to bring forward this legislation. It would have been nice to have eliminated it months ago, when families could have seen more money in their pockets, especially in light of the change of mind on the $1,000 election rebate promise. I’m sure a lot of those folks could have used that money at Christmastime, and I’m sure they could have used it for their heating costs over the winter. But better late than never, and it’s better that it’s happening today.

My question is, though, going forward: where is the money going to be made up from? This province already has a huge, huge deficit, and unfortunately, it’s not going down.

We need to create jobs. We need to create work. We need to create hope. And that can only be done by having a good business climate and policies that actually address that. This is a start, but this is only a start. We have to go much, much farther.

And in closing, I’ll leave it on one note, and this one is more for the Greens. Cancelling this carbon tax — how exactly is that going to affect the weather?

[7:55 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: We’re going to shorten this down a little bit to give opportunities to more of our members to have a chance to speak to this. I’m sure it’s been rehashed many times, and I just wanted to go over a few points, if I could.

Particularly when we talked about diesel fuel and also when we talked about the implications to the forest industry, which is my portfolio, many times this has been referred to as a reduction of a consumer carbon tax when, in fact, if there’s any transferrable over to business, we all know that that’s going to end up being paid for by the consumers, right? We know that.

Earlier in the day, our finance critic asked some very pointed questions to the Finance Minister on, particularly, this $1.8 billion that is no longer going to be coming into the budget 2025. What are we going to be doing with it? Is it going to be struck from the budget? We didn’t get an answer at all. Multiple opportunities, and they dodged the question. My question to the government would be: are they willing to take that $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion off this budget today?

The second thing that I’d like to bring up is: what is going to be the impact on some of the other programs? I mean, obviously, we’re not going to be able to have the opportunity for singles, some of our lower-income people to be able to receive those tax benefits that are coming from the carbon tax.

Originally, this carbon tax was supposed to be revenue-neutral way back when. Of course, we saw it morphed into what the NDP changed into a cash cow and just made it for opportunities to take more revenue out than what was actually going back into the economy.

We knew that, and that’s why we ran on that platform to axe the tax. But there’s also some good programs when we talk about opportunities with clean energy. We look at still trying to expand our EV and our other electric vehicle opportunities, including big trucks. There are significant rebate programs that are tied into the CleanBC program. We’ve asked questions on what the government is planning on doing with these programs, and we’ve heard nothing.

We’ve heard that there’s going to be a review, but we haven’t heard what the timeline is, what the opportunity is going to be for consultation. When are we going to be able to figure out when these changes are going to be coming into effect?

There seems to be a big push for April Fools’ Day, but honestly, it looks like they haven’t done any of their homework when it comes to putting this together. They haven’t put proper estimates together. They haven’t put proper budgeting programs together. They’re just basically saying: “Oh, we better do this real quick because somebody told us it’s got to be done by April 1.”

I’ve got some serious concerns on where this is going to lead with our business communities. I have a feeling that they’re just going to turn around and put this part of this loss that was originally identified as revenue and turn around and put it onto businesses’ backs, and then it’s going to be on the backs of our consumers.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

We went through all the different quotes that the Premier made over the past, that they had to keep the carbon tax. It was vital for our economy. Well, I think it’s more vital for our economy to be able to have certainty in what’s going on.

We have to make sure that we support all our businesses, but we also have to be mindful of the fact that we’re already looking at a $10.9 billion budget. Now who knows what that number is going to be. It could be $13 billion or $14 billion. To me and the rest of my colleagues, that is still totally unacceptable.

When I look through some of the things that have been said and they talk about the importance of balancing the budget because of the reduction of the carbon tax and the elimination of the carbon tax, they’re not balancing any budgets. We’ve got three years’ worth of estimates between 2025 and 2028, and they’re saying the budget deficit is only going to go down this much. Again, that’s totally unacceptable to everyone on this side of the House.

In closing, I’d like to say that we have some serious concerns about this bill. We want to make sure that it’s done properly and that it’s not rushed through this House.

Sharon Hartwell: As my colleague has said, in the essence of time, we’re all trying to keep our remarks a little bit shorter, although we did want the opportunity to be able to speak to the bill, I guess, and let you know what our thoughts were. So I’m going to try and summarize my pages as best I can.

[8:00 p.m.]

I rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025. This bill would reduce the rate of the carbon tax to zero, effective April 1, just a few hours from now.

Let me say right from the beginning: we support the elimination of the carbon tax. We’ve talked about this for a long time. It is the right thing to do for British Columbians. It’s something our party has fought for consistently.

Let’s be honest. The only reason we’re debating this bill today, the only reason this Premier is bringing this legislation forward at all, is because he had no other choice. The government, the same one that raised the carbon tax every single year they were in power, didn’t suddenly change their minds. They didn’t suddenly find compassion. They didn’t suddenly start caring about affordability. No, they were dragged here, kicking and screaming, by the political will of the people and the relentless pressure from the Conservative opposition.

They didn’t lead on this. They caved. At every stage they said the same thing: “This is necessary. This is responsible. This is the price of leadership.” Well, I guess we’ll find out.

This was “the government’s cornerstone climate policy,” to quote the Premier. Again, what changed? Did they realize British Columbians couldn’t afford it? Did they have a change of heart? No, what changed was the political calculus. The polling changed. The pressure mounted. People across this province stood up and said: “We have had enough.” Industry is struggling. Businesses are struggling. It was our side of the House, the Conservative opposition, that listened.

We brought forward the voices of ordinary British Columbians — the small business owner in Smithers who couldn’t afford to heat his shop, the single mother in Hazelton choosing between groceries and gas, the seniors in Atlin lowering their thermostat in the middle of winter. We’ve been saying this for years: the carbon tax punishes working families. It drives up costs for growth and development. It does nothing to reduce emissions.

Finally, after years of resistance, this government is admitting in action, if not in words, that we were right all along. But we should not let them rewrite history. We should not let them pretend this was their idea. Let me read back some of the Premier’s own words. I’m sure we’ve heard these several times today. This was in February. He told the North Shore News: “Anyone who tells you there’s another choice is lying to you as a politician.”

Well, I can stand here and tell you that I’m not a liar, so I’m happy to do that. That’s not from five years ago; that’s from February 14 last year. That’s how firmly this Premier stood behind the carbon tax. He staked his political career on it.

He said: “B.C. would stand strong even if the rest of the country backed down.” Well, I’m finding it interesting now, because the newly appointed elected Prime Minister has decided to do that, just a few short days ago. So now this government is following suit.

He told British Columbians that eliminating the carbon tax would be catastrophic. He said: “Removing it results in a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and for corporate taxes in the province.” Well, here we are. The carbon tax is being eliminated. Where’s that double-digit increase coming from? Are they going to hike the PST?

You don’t get to spend years defending the carbon tax as morally and fiscally necessary and then, when the political wind shifts, rush to scrap it in one day and expect applause. You don’t get to call us out for opposing it, then steal our policy, and act like you’ve always supported affordability. You certainly don’t get to tell people that eliminating the carbon tax is impossible one month, and then do it the next, without explaining how.

Why don’t they take it to a referendum? This is not leadership. It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple. Frankly, it’s part of a broader pattern we’ve seen from this government. If there’s one thing British Columbians have learned over the past several years, it’s that you cannot trust the NDP when it comes to affordability.

They say they care; they say they are taking action. People are working harder and falling farther behind. In the midst of all this, the NDP continued to hike the carbon tax, year after year, and they insisted it was good policy. This is not just political hypocrisy. It’s ideological betrayal of his own base, his own words and his own promises.

What about the NDP MLAs across the way? Where are all the passionate defenders of the carbon tax? Well, the course has changed, and now they sit here silently pretending like none of those speeches were ever made. British Columbians are smart. They see what’s happening. They know when they’re being played.

This isn’t climate policy. This isn’t affordability policy. It’s a stunt, plain and simple. Where’s the money? What has changed? This is a government desperately trying to plug a political hole they dug for themselves and expecting the rest of us to be grateful.

[8:05 p.m.]

Well, I am not grateful. I’m frustrated, I’m angry, and I’m deeply concerned for the people that I represent in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. The same government that has driven up costs in every sector of our economy is now trying to pretend they’re the champions of affordability.

They’ve taxed British Columbians to the brink, they’ve mismanaged the budget, they’ve burdened us under layers of red tape and regulation. Now when they’ve run out of ideas and out of options, they’re pretending to be something that they are not.

They are not the party of the working people anymore. They are the party of political opportunism, of wedge politics and identity politics. They had years to act, years to change course, years to help families get ahead. They chose not to, and that choice has consequences.

So yes, I will support this bill. I will vote to eliminate the carbon tax, but I’ll also fight to have it totally reversed. That’s the right thing to do, because British Columbians deserve relief, and we’ve been calling for this for a very, very long time.

We will not let this government rewrite history.

Kiel Giddens: I’m glad to get up today in part of this debate for Bill 8, the Carbon Tax Amendment Act.

All I can say is that it’s about time, because of how much stress this tax has caused British Columbians and of how much this has impacted families in this province. Yet the government stayed clinging to a failed policy that didn’t reduce emissions. Its own budget numbers and its own academic research have shown that it didn’t reduce emissions in the province as it intended.

It’s about time that the province finally axed the tax. It has raised the cost of pretty well everything in this province. When you go grocery shopping, the inputs you have from the farmers who produced your food — all of that cost has gone up for them. For the trucking industry bringing that food to the grocery store — all of that cost has gone up and gone into the price of food, making inflation go up for British Columbians.

It has increased the cost of our homes — the inputs into our building supplies, our contractors who are having to fuel their trucks to get to and from work to the jobsite. It has increased the cost of doing business.

For my own family business, we have an appliance and electronics repair shop in Kamloops called Giddens Services. My family celebrated 111 years this year of being in business. When one of our technicians is going to your house to fix your dishwasher, that fuel price is actually embedded in the cost of fixing your dishwasher or your washing machine. That’s increasing the cost of everything in this province.

This is a policy that has divided British Columbians, pitting rural British Columbians against urban ideas for how we move forward in a good way with the climate. This is a question of fairness.

In northern British Columbia, when it’s minus 25 out, we have no choice but to use natural gas to heat our homes and to keep us safe in the wintertime. Unfortunately, the government is pushing heat pumps, which don’t work effectively in northern British Columbia at minus 25. It’s not the same.

This has always been a matter of fairness. Don’t take my word for it. The NDP has known this all along. I know that the Minister of Energy spoke earlier in this debate. Let’s go back to something that he said in 2011 in this House.

I quote: “They brought in additional taxes on carbon, and they have made middle-class people pay and pay at a time when they’re finding it more and more difficult to afford to live in our province.” That’s from October of 2011. The NDP has known this and has failed, for nearly eight years, to axe the tax.

Finally, we are at this day when we can look at this. I’m happy that we finally get this bill before us. The federal government, of course, has been aligned for months on this. We’ve known since January that the federal Liberal leadership contenders that were in line to be Prime Minister all said that they were ready to remove the federal carbon price, yet the government did not.

Since then, obviously, the new Prime Minister made his announcement, and still we’ve waited till the eleventh hour to have this debate and have this conversation. Of course, the NDP are doing this begrudgingly.

[8:10 p.m.]

Just noting that the Minister of Housing is in the chamber right now, I want to point to something that he said about the carbon tax: “Obviously, the carbon tax is one of the best things British Columbia has ever led.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that we don’t refer to who’s present in the House or not.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll withdraw that, Madam Speaker.

I’ll repeat the quote, though: “Obviously, the carbon tax is one of the best things British Columbia has led.” That was the Minister of Housing in May of 2024. Yet as I mentioned, the carbon tax has only increased the cost of housing in this province. When those people who need to get to work, they’re forced to fuel up their F-150. That makes a big difference to the cost of the inputs of building our homes.

I’m going to speed this up, but I want to talk about what this carbon tax has meant to constituents in my riding. I’ve only been elected since October, but so many letters and people showing me their Fortis bills and the fuel prices and seeing that the carbon tax has impacted them personally.

I want to actually read one of these letters. I have so many to pick from, but this one in particular I’ll read today.

“Like many folks in your jurisdiction, we are begging for a reprieve on the carbon tax for home heating. In the North, we don’t have as many options for electric-based heating, given our climate and efficiency.

“My husband and I live in a step 3 code home, and our gas bill is well over $250 last billing cycle. With the carbon tax and the sales taxes that are added, it’s over $100 a month more than it was when we lived in a less-efficient home of the same size. It hasn’t even gotten really cold yet.

“Like so many British Columbians, we are suffering. I’m disabled, and my husband works full-time. We are barely getting by; $100 per month may not seem like much, but it’s a lot for us. I’m begging you and your party to introduce legislation to either eliminate completely or reduce the carbon tax on residential gas customers to 2 percent.

“Please stop the suffering and hardship of the vast majority of people living in the province.”

Today I’m happy that we can finally vote and get rid of this tax to help people like Sarah in Beaverley actually afford to live in this province again.

With that, I’m going to cut off my time. But this bill…. Of course, we could spend all day talking about the impacts of this tax.

Thank you for the opportunity. It’s time to axe the tax in British Columbia.

Jordan Kealy: There’s been a lot being covered, and I just want to say it’s about damn time this gets eliminated. Right now, in living in the North, we’re being persecuted for where we live. We don’t have a choice.

I have a farm. I’m not just going to pack up and leave so that I can live in the Lower Mainland and have a Smart car. I have commitments to be able to provide products to my local community, products that make it so that our products don’t get sent to the U.S. and elsewhere. I want to see the supports in place to our own industries and infrastructures. But right now we’ve seen the effects of the carbon tax.

The biggest threat that’s happened is not to the environment. We haven’t changed Mother Nature. We’re never going to change Mother Nature. The biggest threat that’s happened has been to small businesses and an industrial base and corporations overall. I think it’s time that we have to start considering what’s best for our population overall, what’s best for our own infrastructure and, like said several times over, what’s best for Team Canada.

Well, right now what’s best for Team Canada is that my farm is about to go out of business. This inflationary tool that was created that just strips the wealth from Canadians has made it so that everything that I have to buy for my farm is now more expensive.

With that, to top it off, the past two years when we have a drought, which the carbon tax doesn’t address, I end up getting a quarter of my hay and a third of my hay, leading to the point where I have to sell cows, cows that I’ve spent over a decade building that inventory. It’s not something that you just want to let go. These animals are precious.

[8:15 p.m.]

What has the carbon tax offered to help me when it comes to buying my hay? I couldn’t source the hay. I grow it myself. Instead, I pretty much have to sell off over half of my animals over the past two years.

What has the carbon tax done? It’s done nothing for my farm. All it’s done is make my cost of living even higher. That’s one of the reasons why I’m here, especially when it came to the new emergencies act that was introduced and the fires in the North that have burnt over three million hectares.

But oh, does anybody look at that pollution? Well, no, it gets forgotten because it’s in the North. There’s more pollution that was given off of those fires than in the past five years in the Lower Mainland. Instead, what did we get? No help for fighting fires, no help for the locals. Instead, it’s still burning. We just got through a winter, and it’s still burning. No help in sight.

Sorry, I get a little emotional on this when it comes to like…. It’s actually my life and the fact that my farm is no longer sustainable. I think it’s great that people are saying, “Buy B.C. products now,” and that we’re fully endorsing that. We should have been doing that ten years ago.

I’ve seen an effect that with the carbon tax that the only thing that it’s really made a difference for is to try and replenish the coffers of governments that can’t seem to handle their money. We’re just going to need another revenue source where it’s no longer there. I’m curious as to where they’re going to find that, because now they have jumped on the bandwagon that we need to support our resource industries.

Meanwhile, in the North, I just saw the sawmill in Fort St. John shut down that’s been operating since the ’60s. There’s no reason that should happen with the timber supply we have. The carbon tax affects the decisions of the large industries as to whether or not they can haul the logs the distance they need to be able to keep the mill running.

The Liberals created this as a way to persecute people in the North, like I’ve already said. They say that it’s supposed to be revenue-neutral, but it doesn’t have any guidelines or parameters.

Right now on my farm, I have actually had a larger effect — same with other farmers when they’re buying tractors that have a better tiered engine than meet emissions controls. I’m not doing that because I get a bonus on the carbon tax; I’m doing that because companies are already improving their standards of emissions. I believe we can better ourselves in the pollutions that we put out, but we still have to look at the relevance of how we live our lives.

I’ve talked about, in this House, when it came to the rural-urban divide…. Well, in the cities, you can have that Smart car. You can have that charger to plug into anywhere you go, pretty much. You can have a heat pump in your house. Well, I’m sorry. At minus 40, that heat pump isn’t working in my home anymore. I don’t have those options. But I get overlooked, same with a lot of other rural British Columbians.

The one thing that I can say is that it’s great to see this happen. I fully appreciate it getting brought to this House. I don’t appreciate the fact of how this is rushed. I believe British Columbians need to know the actual honest truth, that this act isn’t getting dissolved. There’s still the potential for this carbon tax to easily come back. This is done out of political strain and pressures. I think it’s great that it’s actually happening.

[8:20 p.m.]

The NDP, when they came into power, decided to turn around. Instead of it being revenue-neutral, they decided to make it so then when I look at my gas bill, I now see a tax on top of a tax. I pay $70 in actual natural gas, but my total bill is $460. When you look at the fees, the duties, the taxes, the delivery charges, our way of life isn’t improving.

I’ve stated previously that I think we need to get rid of tariffs completely as well. Of course, I got slammed the next day for not, apparently, being on Team Canada. But I love living in Canada, and I want to see the tariffs gone because that makes for a better quality of life for us. I want to see more taxes gone. I think this is a great start, and I’d like to challenge the NDP to look at this as a way…. Let’s keep this ball rolling. I want to see some more taxes gone too.

The next thing, especially in the north of my region, is that when you look at the effects of the industrial carbon tax as well and whether or not this budget shortfall is going to get lumped into other sectors, whether or not industry is going to pay this and it’s going to ripple-effect down into the consumers anyways or whether or not it’s going to get piled onto B.C. Hydro with rate increases which we’re already seeing forecasted…. I think we should eliminate those completely.

I would like to see this government focus on good governance and supporting the private sector and getting our resource sector going strong again, because I believe that’s where we actually have the potential for paying off deficits, which we highly need to focus on right now as well. It’s not sustainable going forward. It’s not sustainable for your children to have a future when we look at the debt load that’s currently in place.

I just want to say that…. I’ll keep it short, if there are other people who want to speak. I don’t know whether or not I can keep my farm running. There are just so many costs. Then you look….

I’m not denying climate change. There are cycles to Mother Nature that…. I can go back to my wife’s family. They have journals to the early 1900s, and they show changes and influxes as to how the weather goes. I know that’s one thing that we really can’t change, but I believe that we can put things in place that do make a big difference. Right now one of those is forestry management.

You look at down in the States right now, where we ended up going down and helping the U.S., our closest trading partner. I would love to see that relationship improve, but right now…. It was the same issue down there when it came to their forestry management as well. That’s one scenario that we need to look at that we have let fall behind dramatically.

Even when we look at the forests as a sector that has paid a heavy price…. I’ve had fires right close to my farm, ten minutes away, that I’ve had to try and help fight with other neighbours. This just happened in the past three years that we’ve seen these kinds of fires. And with the droughts, those droughts aren’t new. They’re a cycle that happens.

How we adapt and change is the biggest thing that we can do. I think we need to focus on the changes that actually make a difference, not necessarily looking at bringing in taxes that don’t actually change anything.

Claire Rattée: I want to be crystal-clear that this legislation is not the result of a government suddenly seeing the light. This is not about the NDP having a change of heart, it’s not about principle, and it’s certainly not about compassion.

This bill is about political survival. It’s about damage control, and it’s about a Premier and a government that ignored working people, rural communities and northern families for years until they had no choice but to back down.

Yes, we support the elimination of the carbon tax, but we do so knowing full well that this Premier never wanted to bring this bill forward, and he has said as much repeatedly and publicly. This was a government that hiked the tax every single year since coming to power. This was a Premier who stood at podiums and on convention stages calling anyone who opposed the carbon tax a liar — his words, not mine.

[8:25 p.m.]

British Columbians need to remember Bill 8 isn’t an act of leadership; it’s an admission of failure. And the NDP’s sudden flip-flop on this cornerstone of their climate policy should alarm every voter in this province, because if this is what it takes to get them to listen, what else are they ignoring?

The truth is this: the NDP didn’t want to do this. In fact, just a few short weeks ago the Premier said: “British Columbia will be strong on climate, even if we’re the only province in Canada standing strong on climate, because in British Columbia, we don’t see another choice. Anyone who tells you there’s another choice is lying to you as a politician.”

That was February 14. Not last year, not five years ago. Just last month.

British Columbians deserve honesty, they deserve consistency, and they deserve leadership that doesn’t shift with the political winds. The Premier didn’t just support the carbon tax. He defended it as the hill he was willing to politically die on. He said: “Removing it would result in a double-digit tax increase for personal taxes and for corporate taxes in the province.”

That was April 2024. He didn’t say it was difficult. He didn’t say it was complicated. He said it was impossible and that anyone who told you otherwise was lying.

But now here we are. The tax is being eliminated. If his own words are to be believed, British Columbians should brace for what he called the biggest tax hike in B.C. history. Because it’s not like the money magically disappears. The carbon tax brings in $3 billion a year, money that this government has already spent. The question is: who is going to pay for it? Where is that money coming from, what taxes are going up, and what programs are getting cut?

The NDP haven’t answered those questions, because they didn’t want to introduce this bill. They were forced to. The pressure from everyday people, families, small business owners, farmers and northern communities was too much to ignore. The federal government caved first, and when it became clear that British Columbians were no longer willing to accept this tax, the NDP finally blinked. But don’t be fooled. This was never their idea, and if they had it their way, they would have kept hiking the tax year after year, just as they have since forming government.

Let me remind the House that the Premier said just a few months ago: “Let me be clear. We will not back down. God forbid, if the rest of the country abandons the fight against climate, B.C. will stand strong.” Well apparently, God intervened, because here we are. This wasn’t just policy; it was their political identity.

What changed? What changed is who was in power and what was politically convenient. This is the hallmark of the NDP government. Say one thing, do another. Rail against a policy until it’s yours, then defend it with religious fervour. But when the political heat gets too high, you throw it overboard and pretend it was your idea all along. British Columbians see through it.

Let’s talk about what the carbon tax has meant for real people, for the hard-working families and communities in Skeena. This tax has made everything more expensive: fuel, groceries, transportation, home heating. It has disproportionately impacted rural and northern communities, places where you can’t just hop on the SkyTrain, where driving isn’t a luxury but a necessity.

It has compounded an already crushing affordability crisis. People in my riding are struggling to put food on the table. They’re choosing between heating their homes and filling prescriptions. They don’t need carbon lectures. They need relief. But the NDP government spent years gaslighting British Columbians. They told us the carbon tax didn’t raise prices. They said cutting it wouldn’t help. They even claimed it would just boost oil company profits.

We are a resource-based province. Forestry, mining, LNG, manufacturing: these are sectors that provide good, family-supporting jobs, and they’ve been punished under this government’s carbon tax regime. By leaving the industrial carbon tax in place, the NDP are still hobbling the very sectors that drive prosperity in regions like Skeena. It’s not enough to eliminate the consumer carbon tax. We need a full re-evaluation of how we balance environmental goals with economic reality, because right now the balance is badly off, and families are paying the price.

We believe that climate action should be effective, not punitive; that innovation, not taxation, should lead the way; and that affordability is not a side issue. It’s the central challenge facing this province.

We support emissions reduction, but we will never support policies that punish working people, hurt rural communities and do nothing to meaningfully impact global climate outcomes. We believe in empowering people, not micromanaging their lives. We believe in accountability, not empty slogans. And we will always put the needs of British Columbians first.

Bill 8 is a step in the right direction, but it’s a step this government was dragged into kicking and screaming. They didn’t want to eliminate the carbon tax. They fought to keep it. They mocked and vilified anyone who dared to question it.

And now, at the eleventh hour, they expect applause for doing what they swore they never would. We won’t give them that, but we will celebrate the fact that British Columbians have been heard, that the voices of northern, rural and working-class people were loud enough, strong enough and persistent enough to force a change.

[8:30 p.m.]

This isn’t the end of the conversation. It’s the beginning of a new chapter, one where we demand better — better leadership, better policy, better government. I promise that as long as I have the privilege of standing in this House, I will fight for that every single day.

Harman Bhangu: I want to talk about something that’s hitting families and businesses and communities hard, the carbon tax. The NDP loves to talk about their carbon tax as helping the environment, but let’s be real. Shifting the burden from consumers while keeping it on industries doesn’t fix the problem. In fact, it just shifts the costs around and, ultimately, consumers still end up paying the price.

We need to build homes. We need to build schools, hospitals, roads, critical infrastructure that keeps our communities running. But there’s a problem. The carbon tax makes that nearly impossible, especially being put on the industries that we rely on to build these projects. Every single step of the way, whether it’s materials, transportation or construction, gets more expensive when the carbon tax stays on industries. Those industries don’t just absorb the costs. They pass it down to the consumers. So even if the government claims they’re taking the burden off individuals, the reality is you’re still paying for it, just in a different way.

Let’s talk about what it looks like in practice. When an infrastructure project gets bid on today, it doesn’t break ground tomorrow. These projects take years to get going. If the carbon tax keeps increasing every single year, those projects are going to balloon out of control. By the time the shovels hit the ground, the costs have already skyrocketed. That means taxpayers pay more, delays stretch longer, and we never get ahead with the infrastructure a province desperately needs.

It’s not just construction. It’s the food that you buy, the goods you rely on, the businesses that drive our economy. When you go to the grocery store, your food doesn’t just appear out of thin air. Farmers grow it. They take the fuel to actually produce the products. The facilities then ship it to a distributor. Only then does it go to the stores, where we go drive ourselves or take a form of transportation to purchase it ourselves. Every step along this process there is an added cost of the carbon tax.

The NDP doesn’t seem to realize that small businesses are paying the price — trucking companies, suppliers, local shops. They’re all being squeezed. The cost of moving goods is rising, and for many small business owners, it’s becoming unsustainable. It’s not just cutting their profits. It’s cutting their jobs, closing doors, and in some cases, they’re going out of business altogether. This is the reality that hard-working British Columbians are facing.

We’re told that carbon tax is about protecting the environment. But how is making life unaffordable for families and businesses a solution? If we want real progress, we need policies that allow us to build, grow and thrive, not ones that punish us every step of the way.

On this side of the aisle, we understand this. We believe in responsible environmental policies that don’t cripple our economy. We believe in getting rid of the burdensome carbon tax on industries so that we can actually build the infrastructure that we need. We believe in supporting businesses instead of forcing them to raise prices or shut down.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a government that understands that affordability and sustainability go hand in hand.

Hon Chan: Today I rise to address an issue that has impacted every single British Columbian, the carbon tax. After years of placing an unfair burden on hard-working families, this government has finally acknowledged what we have been saying all along — that the carbon tax is unaffordable and is ineffective.

While we welcome the decision to remove it, we must also acknowledge that this is only half the battle. The government’s approach leaves a major issue unresolved, one that threatens the affordability of the everyday life of British Columbians.

[8:35 p.m.]

For years, British Columbians have been paying more at the pumps, more on their home heating and more on basic necessities, all because of the carbon tax. This tax was supposed to be revenue-neutral, but this NDP government changed it into a tax grab. In reality, this tax has made life more expensive for everyday people without delivering the environmental benefits it promised.

The removal of the carbon tax was supposed to ease the financial burden on British Columbians, but because costs remain embedded in our economy, families are still feeling the squeeze in their daily lives, despite the promise of relief.

The government’s decision to remove the carbon tax is not a comprehensive solution. It is a political manoeuvre to silence critics while failing to provide a real plan for affordability. They want to claim victory in reducing costs, but they waited until the eleventh hour to rush this through. The Premier has flip-flopped multiple times on carbon tax, and now suddenly he wants to be the champion.

This move shows just how unreliable this government is. Not only is this policy incomplete, but the way the government has handled it is completely incompetent. After 17 years of enforcing the carbon tax, they suddenly decide to cancel it within a single day, with no clear transition plan.

British Columbians and Canadians alike have known for at least a month that the carbon tax cancellation was on the table. So why wasn’t this government prepared?

They had another opportunity just last week to recall the Legislature for this urgent and important matter, yet they still didn’t do it. Either this government is incompetent, or they are playing political games to rush such a complex bill through. Or maybe it’s both.

And now, when members of the House should be able to debate the implication of this decision, they are shutting down discussion. This is not only undemocratic; it is the proof of the government’s incompetence.

This abrupt cancellation has also left behind a massive $1.8 billion hole in our provincial revenue. This raises serious questions. How does this government plan to replace this lost revenue? Will they cut essential services? Will they raise other taxes? Or simply, will they leave a financial gap that the future generations will have to pay for?

Without a clear answer, British Columbians are left wondering if this decision will ultimately lead to more economic instability. The purpose of removing the carbon tax was to ease the burden on British Columbians. However, because the government has failed to present a clear plan for economic stability, the cost of goods and services continues to be impacted, meaning the original goal of affordability has not been fully achieved.

We call on this government to stop playing political games and start delivering real solutions. British Columbians deserve better.

Gavin Dew: I join with my Conservative colleagues in supporting the elimination of the carbon tax.

Everyday British Columbians are already wrestling with persistent inflation, higher interest rates, stacked on top of unaffordable housing, stagnant real wages and declining per-capita GDP, joined now by the added threat of tariffs. It’s time to finally axe the tax.

However, I also want to add additional reflection on the path forward, building on an article I wrote a year ago. For years, the carbon tax standoff has led primarily to performative political posturing, pitting environment against affordability. Now we have an opportunity to rebalance Canada’s climate leadership with the needs of everyday people and families. To do that, we must move past false dichotomies, stop settling for faulty math and start putting forward commonsense solutions.

Climate leadership takes more than three words, but in the spirit of “Axe the tax,” let’s start with “Fix the math” and “Stop the fires.”

“What gets measured, gets managed” is a boardroom cliché for a reason. It’s true. Equally, what doesn’t get measured often doesn’t get managed. Teaching to the test skews incentives at the expense of both common sense and big-picture thinking. That’s what we do now when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, both in official policies and in our popular understanding.

Imagine you’re trying to get in shape by counting calories, which I should probably do. But when you run out of healthy food in the fridge and have junk food delivered, you don’t count that. You start walking to work, but you don’t count that. You smoke a pack a day, but you don’t count that.

[8:40 p.m.]

Now when B.C. Hydro imports a Site C or two worth of American energy to meet our power needs, we don’t count the fossil fuel emissions that come with those electrons.

When we build our economy by shipping our natural gas to places like China, which would otherwise pump more smoky coal carbon into the atmosphere, we don’t get credit for exported emissions reductions. Instead, China gets the credit, and we get the protests — despite article 6 of the Paris agreement on climate change, which calls for measuring internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.

But Canada’s pack-a-day smoking habit is forest fires. Wildfires threaten our communities, especially in places like my riding of Kelowna-Mission. They displace our people, they damage our lungs, and they cost us billions of dollars, while increasing global GHGs.

Most people would be shocked to discover that in 2023, Canada produced 23 percent of global wildfire carbon emissions, a 480-megatonne carbon bomb detonated into our shared global airshed. Wildfires emit greenhouse gases on par with entire industries, yet the Canadian federal government, the Liberal government, retroactively stopped counting those emissions toward our UN pledges in 2017. That improved our emissions on paper, but it didn’t change the reality in the atmosphere or for people in affected communities.

We have made ourselves willing prisoners of a half-finished, and therefore dangerously arbitrary, international GHG accounting system. While others brazenly manipulate the current system, it doesn’t measure Canada’s or British Columbia’s reality. It doesn’t serve our interconnected environmental and economic interests, and it doesn’t maximize our ability to help address global climate change in reality, not just on paper.

Who says we have to accept this increasingly incoherent reality? It’s time to stand up for Canada, stand up for British Columbia, fix the math, and rethink our approach with a comprehensive review and a commonsense approach to climate change.

Economists can and should examine the effectiveness of all the tools in the climate toolkit, but let’s be honest: by the time of its recent demise, the carbon tax had become more of a weaponized political wedge than a substantial policy debate. Carbon tax had become a sacred cow, used by progressives to claim the high moral ground and reap environmental votes.

That makes strategic sense, given a Research Co. finding that 77 percent of British Columbians are concerned about global climate change. The same poll a year ago found that 83 percent of British Columbians are concerned about household energy costs becoming too expensive.

For Conservatives and populists, the carbon tax had become a prism to focus the frustrations of beleaguered Canadians who were tired of being talked down to by big government while they struggled under the yoke of an affordability crisis.

Contrary to alarmist rhetoric and wedge politics, rethinking and axing the carbon tax does not necessarily mean abandoning our moral responsibility on the environment. In fact, it’s crucial environmentally, politically and pragmatically that we lay out an alternative path, and we will.

Let’s go back to wildfires. That same Research Co. poll found that 84 percent of British Columbians were concerned about forest fires, with 69 percent worried that fires will affect the community where they live. Why not make a full-court press to reduce wildfire emissions, given all the benefits to the economy, health care and addressing climate change?

For years, British Columbia has absurdly spent nine times as much on fighting fires as we do on preventing them. Fixing the math on GHG emissions, so that we count what counts, would help build the case for major public and private investments in new approaches to fire prevention and reduction, which is something that our Conservative Party has talked about often.

These efforts should put a particular focus on supporting climate resilience and adaptation for rural communities, which often feel overtaxed, underserved and unconsidered in the grand plans of governments. What gets measured gets managed, and public opinion has sent a signal, loud and clear, that has led to the overdue end of the carbon tax.

[8:45 p.m.]

Now it’s time to shift gears, apply common sense and build a new climate approach that is set up for success, not engineered for division. We have axed the tax; now it’s time to fix the math and stop the fires.

Brennan Day: I rise today to speak to Bill 8, the government’s sudden and dramatic pivot to scrap the consumer carbon tax.

After years of defending this tax, dismissing every affordability concern raised by families, farmers, industry, small businesses and even their own constituents, this government has now executed a full reversal. Make no mistake. This is not leadership; this is simply damage control.

This bill didn’t come forward because the government saw the light. It came forward because the heat got too intense. After months of public pressure and after watching families, farmers and small businesses buckle under rising costs, the government has finally been forced to admit what everyone in British Columbia already knew: the carbon tax was making life unaffordable, and it wasn’t actually reducing carbon in any meaningful way. In fact, we saw an increase.

I won’t stand here and pretend that eliminating the consumer carbon tax is unwelcome. Far from it. We’ve been advocating that for years. British Columbians need relief, and this is one piece of it. But while the headlines make this bill sound like a gift, there’s a lot the government isn’t saying.

My first question to you is: how will this government deal with the $1.8 billion hole this leaves in our budget? We’re already staring down an $11 billion deficit. Is this government about to push us even deeper into the red, breaking their own record, setting the next highest. Or will you quietly cut services that people depend on to make up the difference?

My next question is: what happens to low-income families? This government was quick to pull the $1,000 grocery rebate election promise just weeks ago, citing tariffs and austerity. Now they’re about to eliminate the carbon tax rebate without a clear replacement. These families aren’t getting a break. They’re getting stuck, again, paying for the price of this government’s poor planning.

Finally, where is the transition plan? Scrapping the tax is one thing that is welcomed by this party, but responsible governments explain what comes next. Will this government finally admit that the so-called revenue neutral carbon tax was never revenue neutral? Will they tell British Columbians which programs are going to be cut, which taxes are going to need to go up elsewhere, or if they are just planning to shove the deficit onto our children and our grandchildren?

Let’s be clear. This is not a carefully thought-out climate policy shift. This is a patented mission that the carbon tax, which the government long claimed was about reducing emissions while protecting affordability…. It has, in fact, done the opposite in both cases. Emissions have gone up, affordability has gone down, and now, at the eleventh hour, this government is panicking.

We all want meaningful action on climate change, but it should never come at the expense of the very people we serve, and it certainly shouldn’t be based on broken promises and false pretences. What British Columbians deserve is a real plan — a plan that tackles emissions without draining families’ wallets; a plan that boosts clean energy, supports industry innovation and keeps life affordable, especially for those already struggling and the ones this government trumps up as their base.

Instead, what we have is a government scrambling to clean up its own mess without answering the basic questions British Columbians are asking. Will this balloon the deficit? Will services be cut? Will families be left worse off once again by this government?

Let’s be honest. The carbon tax was never about the environment. It has always been about revenue and political expediency.

I will be voting for the repeal of this damaging tax, but I am absolutely ashamed that it took this government this long to get here and deeply concerned about where we’re heading for both the environment and the economy.

[8:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance to close debate.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I would take a couple of minutes, if I may, to wrap up some comments in regards to Bill 8 and the removal of carbon tax in British Columbia.

The reason that this is happening is that this tax has become so deeply divisive. It’s important that we focus on the incredibly challenging work we have ahead of us to address a very significant threat from the south, to ensure that we’re protecting programs and that we’re building our economy, not fighting each other over something like the carbon tax.

We are moving forward with eliminating the carbon tax, reducing it to zero. So what does that mean for people at home? It means that they should experience a 17-cent benefit at the pumps. Now, I’m saying this out loud because I want the producers and the retailers to note this. This is very important that it gets passed on to people. This is an affordability measure, and that is not an opportunity for price gouging.

Now, we’ve got some tools that we’ll employ to take a look at this. In 2019 we passed the Fuel Transparency Act. At that time, there had been a 13-cent unexplainable gap that was happening in British Columbia, so that act gave us the opportunity to look at it, and we’ve been able to address about 67 percent of that unexplained gap. We’ve already heard from the B.C. Utilities Commission that they’re going to be taking a look at this particular piece as well, so people should be experiencing a benefit at the pumps.

We’re also ensuring that we’re continuing to tax large emitters, and that’s very, very important as well.

We care deeply about addressing climate change on this side of the House. So (a) we know it’s true, and (b) we want to continue to address it, but we want to address it in a way that aligns affordability measures with working on climate action. That’s so important. There are many, many examples that I could give, but things like making transit free for kids under 12 — that’s a win-win. It’s affordable for families. It saves them on costs, but it also trains young people to be transit drivers.

There are many, many things, many actions we have taken and will continue to take on climate action that are not carbon tax. There are many, many things. I’ll give you a couple of quick examples. We’ve just approved nine clean energy projects, $6 billion in private sector investment and 2,000 jobs. We’re going to continue this work.

We’re also going to continue the work on affordability. We’ve taken many, many measures, and we’ll continue to ensure that affordability is front and centre for people, bringing down housing costs, rental costs. We know, last year, the posted rent came down by 5.7 percent. That is really, really important, and we’re going to continue that work as well.

I also want to mention…. Some questions have been raised about this being a panic. It’s very clear why we’re here today. Why on this day, March 31, are we bringing forward this bill? Well, the reality is the Premier made a commitment — I think it was September 12, some time ago — that should the federal government step back on the carbon legislation, we too would follow suit.

We broke for the two-week legislated break. That’s something that the Legislature decides upon. It’s not a government decision. There was a two-week break that began on March 13. On March 15, the federal government passed the legislation to eliminate the carbon tax. We needed to act as soon as we possibly could. Our first day back is today. This is why we’re bringing it forward now, to keep our commitment that as soon as we could act, we would act. And that’s what we’re doing to align with this.

There are many other things that I could say, but I just wanted to highlight those points, and I move that we call second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Members, the question is second reading of Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

Division is being called.

[8:55 p.m. - 9:05 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is the second reading of Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved the following division:

YEAS — 88
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Lore	Sturko	Kindy
Milobar	Warbus	Rustad
Banman	Wat	Kooner
Halford	Hartwell	L. Neufeld
Van Popta	Dew	Gasper
K. Neufeld	Day	Block
Bhangu	Paton	Boultbee
Chan	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Rattée	McInnis
Luck	Stamer	Maahs
Tepper	Mok	Wilson
Clare	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Chapman
McCall	Kealy	Armstrong
	Brodie
NAYS — 2
Valeriote		Botterell

[9:10 p.m.]

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of Supply of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee on Bill 8.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 9:15 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure
(continued)

The Chair: Good evening, everybody. We’ll call this chamber back to order.

On Vote 37 ministry operations, $55,332,000 (continued).

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I rise to respond to the member from White Rock’s last comments. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Peace Arch Hospital Foundation is a strong foundation, absolutely, and they are excellent fundraisers, able to reach into a wide network of very generous community members. I acknowledge that this incredible leadership has been incredibly important in driving forward improvements at the Peace Arch Hospital. Their contribution enables us, as a government, to redirect our contributions to other B.C. health care projects in Surrey, in Fraser Health and provincewide.

Provincewide we are currently investing, in this budget alone, in this fiscal plan alone, $13.7 billion into health care services, the single largest capital investment in health care capital ever attempted by the B.C. government, the single largest capital investment program in health care in B.C. history, bar none.

There is more to do. But if the member is suggesting that our government is not committed to health care in Surrey…. Literally billions of dollars of health care funding is committed to Surrey, and I acknowledge there is a lot more to do.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister for that answer, and I’ll just be…. I don’t want to take any more time from my colleague, but I will say this.

The minister does reference about how the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation does punch above its weight, but we’re talking about the province. It’s not a partnership. They are contributing less than 8 percent of capital funding to a very critical ICU component in South Surrey, which will not exist at the Cloverdale hospital.

The one thing I will take exception with, in what the minister just said, is that it allocates them to use funding other places. The Peace Arch Hospital Foundation can make the same argument because usually, they are not funding capital projects. They are funding equipment; they’re funding programs. But to say that this frees the ministry up for other things or for other budgetary items, I think, is a complete disservice to what the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation is actually fundraising for.

I can tell you that in my community, they are going to be very disheartened to know that the province is coming to the table with 7 to 8 percent of a project and the rest has been fundraised by the community, for something so vital as an intensive care unit. That’s not a partnership. That’s not even a real contribution.

I just hope that when this important work gets done and there is a ribbon-cutting ceremony, there’s a big reality check in what the community came to the table with, and that what the province basically showed up to the party with was not much. Those are my concluding comments on that.

Misty Van Popta: Nanaimo Regional Hospital is the primary health care facility serving Nanaimo and the rapidly growing population of central Vancouver Island.

[9:20 p.m.]

For more than a decade, community advocates, health care professionals and local government leaders have consistently raised alarms about the severe capacity constraints, aging infrastructure, overcrowding in emergency and critical care departments and insufficient operating room space. In response, the province announced its intention to build a new patient care tower at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, with initial business planning commencing in late 2023.

Despite ongoing public assurances, as of early 2025, the project remains stuck at the business planning stage, with no final budget, approved design or firm construction timeline. Recent announcements have indicated a vague six- to eight-year timeline from the current planning stage, meaning the new tower may not be operational until at least 2031 to 2033. And the recent budget did not include the election promise of an up-to-$2-billion new patient tower.

Can the minister clearly explain why the Nanaimo hospital tower business planning process has experienced such significant delays, given that the critical need for this project has been recognized for over a decade, and provide a firm date when the business case will be finalized and publicly released?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are working with the health authority on an enormous amount of work over at Nanaimo regional hospital, and pacing is important in order to deliver these projects.

[9:25 p.m.]

We completed the electrical energy centre redevelopment project in 2021. The new MRI machine was added and completed in 2023 and the steam boiler replacement project in the fall of 2024. We have the intensive care unit and high acuity unit redevelopment project that will be completed. Well, the intensive care unit was completed in 2023. The high acuity unit redevelopment project will be completed later on this year.

The cancer care centre is also in progress. The business plan was approved in 2024. That work is underway. The estimated completion for that project is 2028.

We do look forward to working with the health authority on our recent campaign commitment for a new hospital tower within our four-year mandate as well.

Misty Van Popta: The question was specifically to the business planning process and the delays that have been experienced there.

I would like to go back to that question about what the delays were in getting the business planning process started prior to 2023 and why they’re still not complete in 2025. I will retable that question.

[9:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Government has never received a business plan for a new tower at Nanaimo Regional Hospital. Perhaps the member is referring to the concept plan that was developed for Nanaimo Regional Hospital in 2023 for the cancer centre. That concept plan did include an option for a tower. Government was able to make the decision to proceed with the cancer centre piece of that concept plan, which is why the cancer care centre is now in progress.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, with that said, in regards to Langley Memorial, the minister was talking about the case for needing master plans before going to business case. Based on that statement, it sounds like we haven’t even started the business report or the business case for the tower. Is that correct?

Interjection.

Misty Van Popta: The Nanaimo tower — you haven’t even started the business planning process.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, there are a number of steps that need to happen before the project is secured funding. The commitment to build the new tower at Nanaimo Regional Hospital is new. It was made during the campaign election that concluded in October 2024. That is a commitment that government will move forward on the new tower on Nanaimo Regional Hospital during our mandate.

Misty Van Popta: How does the government justify current timelines, which could see a new tower not operational until potentially 2031 to 2033, with patient demand, overcrowding and health care worker stress at critical levels today?

Specifically, what immediate measures will the ministry commit to in order to alleviate severe capacity constraints at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital during this extended interim period?

[9:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member is correct that B.C. is seeing an enormous growth and need for health care services. Between June 2023 and June 2024, B.C. grew by a record-breaking 188,000 people in a single 12-month period. Over the last four years, we have seen the population grow, overall, by half a million people.

That rapid pace of growth, in a province that was previously just 5.2 million people, adds enormous demands for public services, including health care services. We’re seeing this pressure all over the province, including in Nanaimo, in Langley, certainly in Surrey, every corner of the province. I’ve identified a few major city centres, but we’re seeing those pressures in rural and remote communities as well.

That is why our government has been investing in health care capital, the single-largest investment in health care capital in B.C. history.

In addition to the population growth, we are also attempting to recover from a massive infrastructure deficit as well. Since 2017, we’ve started or completed construction on 30 hospital projects. You will not see in any other time in B.C. history that many hospital projects underway at a single time. In addition to 30 hospital projects and health care facilities, we have 11 long-term-care centres and four cancer centres. There’s a whole host of additional health care facilities as well, and there is more to do.

That is why the commitment was made to build a new hospital tower at Nanaimo Regional Hospital, being one of the sites that we recognize is facing extreme pressure, and it is also a reason why the new Ministry of Infrastructure was created.

It was recognized that the pace and the scale and the scope of investment was so great that a distributed project delivery model was no longer sufficient in helping us actually manage and coordinate the delivery of projects. It got to the point where so many projects overlapping one another was actually creating our own labour shortages in some cases and creating our own procurement struggles.

I go back to my previous answer that pacing is important, especially for these potentially multi-billion-dollar projects. This new hospital in Surrey alone is $2.88 billion. That’s one hospital project.

Given the scale of these kinds of investments and the sheer number of people required to build these projects, especially hospital projects, we have to recognize that hospital projects are not as simple as…. I mean, I’m not suggesting that building a highrise condo tower is simple, but it’s even more complex than that. They are specialized post-disaster facilities.

At the Surrey Memorial Hospital site right now, we’ve just got about 350 people on site daily. The run rate right now is about $1 million a day, and that project is expected to really ramp up. At its peak, we’ll see 1,500 people on site daily at the second Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Again, that is just one of the 30 hospitals that we have underway. When I say pacing is important, it’s probably an understatement. It is important. We do intend to move forward on a new tower at Nanaimo Regional Hospital within our mandate.

Misty Van Popta: I know we’ve talked in the past in regards to project delivery with the province, and I haven’t much agreed with how things have happened in the past. But I have admitted to you before that the creation of this department gives me hope that project delivery will be more cohesive and better delivered and faster with this new structure, which is why I had so many questions at the beginning with the different layers and understanding how that would work in this new ministry.

[9:40 p.m.]

We’re going to switch gears, given that you’ve kind of led into some other conversations, and talk about inflation and global supply chain issues. Significant increases in the cost of construction materials such as steel, concrete and electrical components have driven up project costs. Inflationary pressures related to post-pandemic global supply chain disruptions contributed to escalations significantly above initial forecasts.

Construction industry reports indicate inflation rates in construction materials have increased by as much as 15 to 20 percent annually over the last two to three years, far surpassing the standard escalation factors initially built into project business cases.

What specific construction cost escalation factors are factored into the original project budget for the Nanaimo cancer care centre? Can the minister please outline those assumptions and compare them to initial estimates?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, absolutely. I want to acknowledge, really acknowledge, what the member has said in terms of cost escalations and what we and projects across Canada and, indeed, all over the world are seeing as a result of a number of factors, many of which the member has rightly pointed out.

The member’s question is a good one. I ask that we take it on notice and provide a response at a later time, because the team that we have here did not…. We don’t have that level of specificity on that particular project right here, right now, and it would likely eat up too much of our limited time together for us to dig it up for the member. So I’m hoping the member would allow us to respond to her after estimates.

Misty Van Popta: What specific cost drivers, meaning material price spikes, design revisions, land acquisitions, etc., will account for procurement risks beyond inflation, and what oversight will be put in place to catch overruns before they are spiralled out of control?

[9:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There are many, as the member will know from her experience. Many cost drivers beyond inflation. I’m happy to identify a few, but it won’t be a complete list.

Access to labour is a major cost driver. Site conditions, depending on how well known they are before construction begins. Supply chain slowdowns will create significant impacts to cost. There are land value escalations. I know that everyone will know that B.C.’s land values are escalating quite quickly.

The tariff situation will likely be a major cost driver as well, the impacts and analysis of which we are only just starting to understand. I think that’s the case for every jurisdiction, given how incredibly inconsistent and unpredictable that situation has proven itself to be.

In order for us to get a handle on all these potential risks, a detailed risk quantification is done at the business case level, and contingencies are developed. Based on that detailed risk analysis, contingencies will be set. We engage professional quantity surveyors during that process as well.

During project delivery, our team has regular check-ins with our delivery partners. Every project has a cash flow updated quarterly. We have major project boards on every major project in the health care sector.

[9:50 p.m.]

Post-secondary institution projects also have project boards. School districts with major capital portfolios will have capital project offices. Ministry staff are members of all of these boards and these capital project offices. We also engage in value engineering during construction in order to adjust to any risks that come to fruition.

Misty Van Popta: Well, I heard two things that I like there, value engineering and…. I’ll actually cancel my next question in regards to the forecasting methodology, because you answered that already. I appreciate that.

We are going to switch gears. A few times one of the risks associated or identified have been labour shortages. I think we might have a solution to that in the sense of talking about this next topic, which is CBAs versus PLAs, community benefits agreements versus project labour agreements.

Community benefits agreements have become a standard requirement on major infrastructure projects under this government. Critics and construction delivery professionals argue they contribute a significant cost escalation and delayed timelines.

Questions to the minister. In this time of extreme budget pressures, what percentage of infrastructure cost escalations did the ministry attribute to CBA requirements? How much does the CBA policy add to the delivery of school, hospital, post-secondary and child care centres and any other infrastructure projects in this province?

[9:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For greater clarity, the Ministry of Infrastructure is currently responsible for delivering well over 1,000 projects, of which three are CBA projects. CBA is basically a collective agreement or a master PLA.

Of the three CBA projects that we have, these include the Cowichan Hospital, Vancouver Community College’s Centre for Clean Energy and Automotive Innovation and the BCIT Trades and Technology Centre.

On the Cowichan Hospital, there have been no cost escalations since the original approved budget.

On Vancouver Community College, there have been no cost escalations.

And on the B.C. Trades and Technology Centre, we continue to work with our partners on procurement. It is still in the procurement stage right now.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The CBAs actually have the benefit of minimizing our risks around labour supply. It actually guarantees access to skilled labour and supports local hires. It actually enables our projects to be staffed up by local skilled hires.

The set labour contracts provide high certainty of rates for workers, and there are no strike provisions within the contracts. We are actually able to minimize or even eliminate labour disputes. So from a labour shortage perspective or the labour supply perspective risk, the CBAs actually do quite a good job of enabling these projects to have access to the workers that they need.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I think when we were dividing up the portfolio and understanding that a lot of the road infrastructure projects were also CBAs…. I think that’s where there’s maybe the understanding that there were a little bit more infrastructure projects that fell under the CBA….

With that known then, can the minister please confirm that all projects that are in the planning stages now will be PLAs or will they be assigned as CBA projects?

[10:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Government uses a variety of labour models across the capital plan to deliver projects. The community benefits agreement, the CBA model, is one of these models. At this time, the Ministry of Infrastructure is not considering any of the other projects for CBA.

Misty Van Popta: To reconfirm for the record, none of the upcoming projects are scheduled to be a CBA? My understanding is that the Prince George hospital is, so I’d like to get that on the record, to confirm whether it is or not. I’ll just table that question for now and continue on.

Persistent provincewide labour shortages in the construction and skilled-trades sector significantly impact project timelines. CBAs requiring unionized labour limit contractor flexibility in workforce hiring and quickly scaling up construction crews. Restrictive CBA policy mandates a union hiring hall via B.C. Infrastructure benefits. This framework effectively excludes 85 percent of B.C.’s construction force or those not affiliated with a select union from working on projects and forces contractors to sign on to government terms.

This requirement has reportedly slowed the mobilization of labour, increased administrative burdens on contractors and limited the competitive bidding process, potentially resulting in less competitive pricing and higher costs.

For the record, I would like the minister to confirm how much of project estimates or costs can be or will be attributed directly to the labour provisions outlined in any future CBA agreements. I’ll table that one for now.

[10:05 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Prince George hospital is not a CBA project.

In terms of what we anticipate the labour cost component of future CBA projects to be, this is not something that I’m able to speculate on, projects that don’t currently exist.

I do want to add that the member noted that CBAs force workers to sign on to government terms. I should note that the CBA terms for the labour force are very favourable for local workers. They include strong pay, excellent safety standards, extremely worthwhile benefits, really, truly good, safe, reliable, family-supporting jobs.

On our CBA projects in the last quarter alone, 89 percent of all hires have been local hires. Labour cost is always a major component of any project, but the CBAs support these local hires. They’re supporting local families who are then spending their income in community at local businesses. It’s extremely beneficial to the economy.

[10:10 p.m.]

If the suggestion on these labour costs is that we should be cutting back on our project costs by paying workers less, I sincerely disagree. I think that B.C. workers deserve what they’re worth and that it is incredibly important, especially in a market when supply of these skilled tradesworkers is short, that we are giving them reason to work on our projects.

Misty Van Popta: My comment was more to the administrative burden on contractors and the limited competitive bidding process that CBAs pose, which is potentially resulting in less competitive pricing and higher costs.

As somebody who, up until six months ago, was in the construction field, I can tell you that whether somebody is a union construction worker or an open-market construction worker, they are all family-supporting wages because they are in such high demand. If anything, I’ve heard commentary that sometimes unionized work actually caps out competitive open-market skilled labour, so it could be spoken to either way.

Construction workers are highly valued in this province. They’re in demand. I haven’t been on a job site or talked to a contractor that hasn’t been able to hire enough, so it is the employees’ market, and they are paid quite well.

My commentary was more to, actually, possibly CBAs contributing to higher cost in project delivery because there are less competitive markets.

We’ll move on to schools at this point, school expansions. Doing a quick estimate, the ministry is overseeing about 40 school capital projects spanning seismic upgrades, replacements and new builds. I’ll just start with a bit of a general question and understanding.

Was the scope of any new schools…? I know that Smith in Langley, just as one example….

Can you talk about the scope of new school expansions, whether they’re jointly developed with your ministry and the Education Ministry, knowing that now it’s a new portfolio, understanding the process of how school designs and schools are built?

[10:15 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure currently has around 100 major capital school projects underway. The way we work with the Ministry of Education is together in partnership with the school district to scope new projects. The typical process is as follows.

The school district will do an annual capital plan. That annual capital plan will be submitted to the Ministry of Infrastructure. We will work with the Ministry of Education and Child Care on enrolment projections and enrolment pressures, identify priorities with that lens on. Then we will balance off a variety of different factors and considerations — whether the school needs a seismic upgrade or replacement, whether it needs to be new or an expansion or if a prefabricated addition might be beneficial. Then once a capital project is approved, we’ll work with the school district on developing the specifics.

All this being said, this is how the Ministry of Infrastructure is currently structured to work with the Ministry of Education and Child Care and school districts, and there is opportunity for us to streamline and provide a more standardized approach that is clear and understandable by all partners involved. This is one of the reasons why the Ministry of Infrastructure was created, and this is the work that we have in mind moving forward.

Misty Van Popta: With that said, could the minister please clarify that whether…? Knowing project delivery efficiencies and such, if a school board plan or a capital plan comes to the ministry, are you able to provide input to that into streamlining and providing more efficient project delivery, or does the school district drive the priorities?

[10:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It’s definitely getting a bit late. I feel like I might have forgotten part of the member’s question, but I will answer what I remember and allow the critic to ask again, if I don’t nail it.

School districts are responsible for setting priorities within their school districts, and the Ministry of Infrastructure sets priority on a provincewide level.

Misty Van Popta: Almost there. If a school district presents their priorities and the Ministry of Infrastructure finds efficiencies within that plan, could you provide recommendations to the school district, maybe, to reprioritize? Not necessarily to trump their…. I hate using that word.

Are you able to…? Who has jurisdiction over the exact priorities in which things are operated through a school district?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, the Ministry of Infrastructure definitely works with school districts on their capital plans. There is often a back-and-forth if we see opportunities or have recommendations that are not presented in the plan.

It is also possible for government to actually move projects forward that are not necessarily at the top of the list, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps due to population projections, we might recommend that a school needs to be bigger than what the school district is proposing.

The school district will present their five-year plan, but absolutely it’s a partnership. We do work together with them.

Misty Van Popta: The province has committed billions towards seismic retrofits of public schools, hospitals and other critical infrastructure through the seismic mitigation program and the health capital budgets. However, the cost curve for these upgrades has escalated sharply, with many school-retrofit projects now exceeding $30 million to $50 million each.

Can the minister provide a detailed cost curve or a per-square-foot benchmark for seismic upgrades to public schools, and provide commentary on when an upgrade, versus a new school build, would be required?

[10:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are not able to provide an average cost per square foot on the seismic projects, largely because each project is so unique and different.

It depends a lot on the type of school; the size of the school — elementary schools are much smaller than high schools; the type of construction of the school; the age of the building; whether there’s hazmat involved; what geotechnical upgrades are also required for the seismic project; whether the project is the entire school or maybe an annex of the school, because many schools are also built in different years and expanded in different years. It’s also worth noting that the seismic standards were upgraded in 2023 as well.

Many, many different factors make providing the detail that the critic is requesting infeasible for us to provide.

In terms of how the decision is made to upgrade a school compared to replacing it, every project is assessed during the business case stage. It considers options like structural upgrades, partial upgrade and replacement, or full replacement. The assessments are based on facility condition, age and risk rating. Enrolment projections are also taken into account.

The seismic mitigation program typically funds the lowest-cost option to get students into seismically safe seats more quickly. However, other needs, like additions to address that enrolment growth, are considered as part of the business case. We basically look at creating the most seismically safe seats in the most cost-effective manner.

When a retrofit is the lowest-cost option, the scope of work only includes areas impacted by structural strengthening. Seismic replacements are considered when the cost of retrofitting the existing school is similar to that of a new build. Those replacements will consider growth and projections for the next ten years.

Misty Van Popta: What percentage of high-risk public schools have completed upgrades, and how many remain on the list as of 2025?

[10:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There are currently 247 future priorities, with five projects in business case, ten proceeding to construction, eight under construction, 228 schools completed.

I recognize that the member asked for that in percentages. We’re happy to provide that as well, but those are the numbers.

I’d also like to propose perhaps a five-minute recess, if the Chair finds that suitable.

The Chair: Certainly. Yeah, we’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 10:31 p.m. to 10:37 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I would like to call the Committee of the Whole back to order.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was just speaking with my critic here. She was hoping that I would read out the numbers of schools and projects within the seismic program again.

There are currently 247 future priorities, with five projects in business case, ten proceeding to construction, eight under construction and 228 schools completed.

Misty Van Popta: What is the contingency or escalation margin being applied to seismic upgrades now, given the inflation that we’ve seen recently?

[10:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Every project is assessed individually through the business case process. A number of factors are considered, including design, construction risks, escalation risks. There’s the risk reserve and the risk matrix. The contingency amount will be assigned according to that risk quantification through the business case process. But on average, we’ll be looking probably around 10 to 15 percent.

Misty Van Popta: Can the minister table a list of delayed or unfunded projects across schools, post-secondary and health infrastructure? You can send that to me via email.

So announcements that were made for 2024, any projects that were announced, school projects or hospitals that haven’t made the budget — if we can get just a comprehensive list.

The Chair: Just a reminder: through the chair, Member.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, we can get her that list.

Misty Van Popta: Understanding that projects under $50 million don’t necessarily get highlighted in the budget, could the minister here today verify the three following schools: Cedar Elementary in Campbell River, Nicomekl Elementary and Lynn Fripps additions Langey?

If I can get clarifications here today, if they made the budget.

[10:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Nicomekl Elementary is in the capital plan. Lynn Fripps is in the capital plan. Cedar Elementary is not in the capital plan. We’ve prioritized Carihi in the same school district because it was lost to fire.

Misty Van Popta: I would like to turn the floor to my colleague the MLA for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Minister, Rutland Middle School is a 75-year-old school with 11 portables and wooden lockers, hosting 300 students. The Central Okanagan school district has been pushing for a replacement for going on 20 years.

Could we get an update on the state of play for Rutland Middle School and whether it has been prioritized in the capital plan?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Since 2017, our government has approved almost $302 million for the Central Okanagan school district. The $302 million includes a district contribution of $20 million. I have to acknowledge that. Together this has gone to purchase two sites, construct three new schools and five additions, to create 3,595 new student seats.

[10:50 p.m.]

The Rutland Middle School addition and upgrade does remain a priority. For many years, the district tried to replace the aging facility, and they’ve recently pivoted to request expanding the existing school by 275 seats, with an additional $15 million to $20 million to upgrade and renew the facilities. That’s the current status.

Gavin Dew: I’m aware of the pivot toward an expansion. Would the minister care to expand on whether she believes that it is safe to expand, given that the 75-year-old structure contains decades of obsolete construction practices as well as other remediation risks?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We would evaluate every proposed project, particularly, and certainly, an expansion project of an existing school. We would evaluate whether or not it was safe to remediate or if it needed to be replaced. These considerations would be assessed during business planning of a particular project.

Gavin Dew: There’s also a lack of adequate bathroom facilities for students in Rutland Middle School. There is one bathroom for boys and one for girls. There are stairs to access arts, band classrooms and the auditorium, making those spaces inaccessible to anyone in a wheelchair or with other physical mobility issues.

Does the minister believe that those are appropriate and acceptable conditions for students in Rutland?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Every student in this province deserves a safe school with adequate facilities that support their learning. Every family deserves to know that when they send their child into a school, their child is safe.

[10:55 p.m.]

It is the case that we have many aging facilities throughout the province. We have many schools that, unacceptably, are not seismically safe. It is for these reasons, and the goal of ensuring that every student is in a safe and positive learning environment, including the physical structure that they go to, that have driven our government to make the single largest investment into the school capital program in B.C. history.

Budget 2025 includes $4.6 billion over this fiscal period for school projects. It allows us to continue to renew our school capital infrastructure and help school districts deal with expansions.

Certainly, every student in Central Okanagan school district deserves that opportunity, as well, to attend school in a safe environment. This is why, in Central Okanagan school district alone, we have so far completed five schools: Canyon Falls Middle School, which was a new school; H.S. Grenda Middle School; Wilden elementary school; North Glenmore Elementary School; a university middle school.

We have two schools currently under construction — Dr. Knox secondary and George Pringle secondary, which is a really big school, a 1,200-seat new school expected to open in 2027.

There are three additional schools under design development: the Hudson Road elementary school, Webber Road elementary school, the Chief Tomat elementary school. Those are additions to those schools. The school district is currently undergoing business case development for a new school, the Burtch Road middle school or Glenmore middle school, and there is more to do.

I really appreciate that the member is identifying the great need that students at Rutland Middle School have of a safe environment. I believe that is why Central Okanagan school district has continued to maintain it as a priority project and will continue to work with them to deliver on all of their projects.

Gavin Dew: Those are lovely words in the abstract, but they don’t do much for the people of Rutland. The people in Rutland are very frustrated right now. They are bearing the brunt of this government’s dysfunctional policies.

They have six wet shelters. The only welfare office in Kelowna has been relocated into Rutland. They are dealing with street chaos. They are dealing with the consequences of homelessness and addiction and with this government’s failed policies on those matters, and at the same time, they have seen dramatic underinvestment.

I wonder, since the minister mentioned Canyon Falls Middle School, which is a beautiful facility, whether the minister will commit to advocating for and moving forward with a new Rutland Middle School that is of comparable quality to Canyon Falls Middle School.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, we will continue to work with Central Okanagan school district on all of their priorities.

Gavin Dew: That doesn’t answer the question whatsoever.

Will the minister specifically commit to working toward a new Rutland Middle School that is of a comparable quality to the new Canyon Falls Middle School, or is it the case that people in Rutland should instead expect less from this government, should expect to be deprioritized by this government, should expect to continue to have no clear timeline on when they will actually get a new school?

Will this minister actually commit to moving forward with a high-quality new school and provide a clear timeline that people in Rutland can reasonably expect to get a new Rutland Middle School? It is a 75-year-old school. It has wooden lockers. It has asbestos. It smells. It is dilapidated. It is in terrible condition, and it is a tremendous priority for people in Rutland.

What I’m hearing are some broad abstractions about investments in the school district overall. What I’m not hearing is any comfort whatsoever for people in Rutland who have seen Rutland Middle School prioritized, deprioritized, delayed.

[11:00 p.m.]

I have had stakeholders tell me, and I can’t verify this, that they have given up on pursuing a new middle school and moved toward the idea of trying to renovate the existing school building on its 75-year-old bones because there has been no movement on this.

Can the minister provide a firm and committed timeline for when people in Rutland can expect to see this project move forward?

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you, Chair. Welcome back. It feels like not that long ago when you were sitting right there, and now you’re back. Just looking at the big clock.

The delivery of capital school projects is a priority for our government. It has been since day one, since we formed government in 2017.

In Central Okanagan school district, we have completed five projects in partnership with them. The school district has six additional projects underway, and we will continue to work with the school district on their priorities, of which the Rutland Middle School addition and upgrade currently is one.

Gavin Dew: Rutland Middle School has been a priority for 20 years. This government last rejected it in 2019, stating that it didn’t meet their priorities for replacement. Another six years has passed since then. The school is 75 years old. People in Rutland have arrived, for this and other reasons, at the conclusion that this government doesn’t care about them at all.

[11:05 p.m.]

People in Kelowna are frustrated because this government talked a big game when it was trying to win seats in Kelowna during the most recent provincial election. Since then, there has been virtually no progress on any of the material priorities that were advanced during that time. Since then, we’ve gone through having NDP candidates make various pledges about policies, like a made-in-Kelowna solution to short-term rental. NDP candidates made that pledge, only to have it completely abandoned by this government.

I wonder what it would take for this government to actually care about Kelowna, care about Rutland and start investing in a community that needs investment and addressing the series of policy failures that have led Rutland to struggle, both in terms of small business and in terms of residents, under the weight of a cascading series of policy failures and utter disinterest by this government.

At some point, will this government actually turn its mind to making things better for people in Rutland, or should we continue to hear vague abstractions about investments in the region and non-answers about an actual, tangible, specific timeline for when a 75-year-old school with 11 portables and wooden lockers can expect to see some investment from this government?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member refers to vague concepts or words — I can’t remember quite the phrasing he used — on investments in the region.

For greater clarity, the investments in Central Okanagan school district, so the region, have enabled 750 new seats at a new school called Canyon Falls Middle School; 600 new seats at a new school called H.S. Grenda Middle School; a new site purchase, Wilden elementary school; a 120-seat prefabricated addition at North Glenmore Elementary School; and site purchase for a university middle school.

Under construction, there are 300 seats as an addition at Dr. Knox Middle School and a 1,200-seat new school at George Pringle Secondary School.

The school district is working on a 265-seat addition at Hudson Road Elementary School, a 195-seat prefabricated addition at Webber Road Elementary School, a 165-seat prefabricated addition at Chief Tomat Elementary School and is in business case development for a new school at Burtch Road middle school.

I don’t see these seats as vague investments or empty words. These are seats that will serve real children and real students who come from real families.

I recognize and appreciate the member’s passion for the families at Rutland Middle School. It is our job as government, our job as a ministry and my job as a minister to work with school districts on delivering their priorities according to a whole host of factors, all very difficult to prioritize against, and it is my job as a minister and our job as a government to prioritize investments across the entire province.

If the member has any feedback on which of the schools and school projects that I’ve read out for Central Okanagan school district and that he would have recommended take a lower priority or not be built in order to make room for future priorities, I will accept that. I’m happy to receive that feedback.

I accept that there may be differences of opinion in terms of prioritization, but every single one of these schools is going to serve real students, who also deserve safe seats in their schools, and families that deserve to know that their children are attending safe schools.

There is more to do, and that is why we will continue to work with Central Okanagan school district on all of their priorities, including the Rutland Middle School addition.

Gavin Dew: Final question on this. This is not an abstraction, talking about other investments. Clearly, the minister has detailed information in her briefing book.

[11:10 p.m.]

I would ask just one final time. When I go back to my riding, and to my neighbouring riding, where Rutland Middle School is located, and where I am asked regularly when we will see progress on Rutland Middle School….

Can the minister outline just one next step and one next timeline for when there will actually be tangible, material progress that I can expect to be able to report back to people in Rutland?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It is the case that Rutland Middle School is not in the current fiscal plan for 2025-26.

The next stage and the next step will be for Central Okanagan school district to submit their annual capital plan for the next five years, as they do every year, for consideration for the 2026-2027 fiscal year, for budget. That will be our next update.

Misty Van Popta: I’d like to turn the floor over to the member for Richmond Centre.

Hon Chan: I would like to know, to the ministry, about Richmond school district, SD 38. I have mentioned how Richmond Centre is missing two elementary schools. The school board has been asking and has submitted an annual capital plan for the five years for two elementary school, not just in my riding but also in my neighbouring riding in Richmond-Bridgeport.

Over 600 students are right now crammed into modular portables. I understand the ministry might have some expansion works in the nearby elementary schools already, but they are asking for two new elementary schools. I don’t see that in the budget yet. I just want to know if the ministry has any plans for a new elementary school in the Richmond Centre area.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I believe the member is referring to the school district’s priorities for a new school at city centre east and city centre west.

I did meet with the school board recently about their priorities. I confirm that city centre east and city centre west as projects are not in the current budget 2025. However, we understand the priority and the time-sensitive nature of some of their opportunities and are in active conversations with them about them.

Hon Chan: Yeah, I understand. But that’s not a good enough answer, because right now those 600 students only get about 40 minutes of gym time per week. I don’t think that’s very fair for students in B.C. to experience only 40 minutes of gym time in Richmond.

As you mentioned, it is time-sensitive. And since you mentioned that in Budget 2025, there’s no such plan…. I know that the school board has secured half of the funding for the two sites, which is quite rare. It is quite time-sensitive.

[11:15 p.m.]

When are we going to take this opportunity? Once this opportunity is gone, it’s gone. Minister Greene was here. I’m sure she would know that the Richmond Centre area has many developments going on, and it will be completed within the next few years. In ten years, there will be tons of families. New families will be in that area.

If those two sites are gone…. The school district mentioned that there might not be new sites that can be acquired. If 2025 is not in place, then maybe in 2026, even if the minister wants to do it, they might not be able to find the sites. So what’s the answer to them?

The Chair: Member, just to remind you that all questions need to come through the Chair, of course. Also, we do not use names in the chamber.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Richmond is absolutely a fast-growing community. The school district is facing enormous enrolment pressures. Every student in Richmond deserves, as does every student across the province, to be in a school environment in a school building that is able to support their needs.

This is why our government has committed over a quarter of a billion dollars in school capital investments since 2017 into the Richmond school district. It has led to 12 school projects being completed, with four more under construction and one more under design development.

We are in active conversations with the school district about the opportunity for site acquisition and recognize the time-sensitive nature of that opportunity. We’re exploring options with them.

Hon Chan: I’ll complete my last question. Do we actually have a timeline where we see those two schools? Maybe not in this year, but within the next two years or within this term? Can we have a more concrete timeline, because active conversation means technically nothing in new schools?

Do you have an actual timeline where we can see those two schools, even though it might not be this year, but maybe in the next two or three? At least we’d have an approximate time.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The time-sensitive opportunity before the Richmond school district is the opportunity of a site acquisition, which is very time-sensitive indeed. Their opportunity exists within a few months.

We are working actively with them on options for us to be able to support them on the site acquisition. However, it is not possible for me to presuppose government’s decision on this. This is why we’re talking with them about the variety of options that we might be able to work together on.

The City Centre East and City Centre West are not currently in Budget 2025. The provincial government budget is updated for the next three fiscal years every year, so the budget provides a snapshot of the expenditures over the next three years, and it is updated every year.

Every year school districts have the opportunity to submit their annual capital plans, which outline their priorities for the next five years. Every year those priority plans across all school districts are assessed provincewide. The next opportunity for an update on the delivery of the entire schools will be in Budget 2026.

However, there are sometimes opportunities for us to work with partners on some of these time-sensitive issues, and that is what we’re trying to explore with them.

[11:20 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I’d like to turn the floor over to the member for Richmond-Queensborough, please.

Steve Kooner: New Westminster has a high ratio of portables. The ratio of portables in New Westminster is even higher than Surrey, which is often publicized in the media. Portables eat up the operating costs in the New West school district.

My question to the minister is: is the provincial government going to fund more schools in New Westminster so that New Westminster can have less portables?

[11:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you to the member for his patience. We’re trying to sort through a very long list that is much easier to sort through when it’s in digital form. You can just kind of click this by school districts.

We currently have two school projects in New West underway, and one site acquisition. That will be the Simcoe elementary school, which is in the business case stage. There’s a site acquisition for the Fraser River zone middle school, also in business case stage. In design development, we have the Queen Elizabeth Elementary School addition.

[11:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: New Westminster is home to approximately 90,000 people. New Westminster only has one high school. My next question is….

There has been discussion about a second high school in New Westminster. People involved with the school system in New Westminster have told me there’s a future plan for a second high school, particularly in Queensborough.

My follow-up question is: is there a capital plan for a high school in Queensborough as part of an infrastructure project in the near future?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, we understand that in the school district’s five-year capital plan, they did identify recently a new middle school in Queensborough as a priority, and part of the proposal in their capital plan submission was that a wing of this middle school be a secondary school, so kind of a bit of a mixed school proposal. That is currently in New Westminster’s five-year capital plan.

Misty Van Popta: All right, moving on to post-secondary for a bit.

News and universities have been reporting for months that there have been sharp declines in international student enrolments. The federal government announced last year that it would be cutting international admissions for two years. Multiple universities have announced faculty layoffs as a result of decreased enrolment. UBC, Okanagan College and Camosun College all have newly funded student housing projects in this year’s budget.

A question to the minister. International students who would be needing housing are now not coming within the next two years. Other major educational and health care projects have been shelved for five, ten or 15 years. With so much uncertainty in the post-secondary education portfolio, how does this government justify green-lighting new housing projects at universities instead of pausing them in exchange for more urgent infrastructure needs now?

[11:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Domestic students also require housing, and the primary purpose of funding student housing at post-secondary institutions, particularly those projects that are funded by government, or the Ministry of Infrastructure, is to house domestic students.

The demand for student housing on campus far, far outstrips the available supply, largely due to a significant deficit in student housing. The previous government, prior to 2017, built very few government-supported, government-funded student housing spaces.

The other major purpose, or the additional major purpose — they really go hand in hand — of investing in student housing is that for every student housing space we build, it actually takes a student out of the general rental market. It is, by far, an extraordinarily cost-effective way for us to deliver housing overall. We are actually able to reduce pressure in the general housing market by providing student housing on campus in the format that we are.

Misty Van Popta: As a follow-up, could you explain a little bit of the rationale why it’s in the Infrastructure portfolio versus the Housing portfolio — student housing, specifically — if a significant portion of that mandate is to alleviate housing issues?

The Chair: All questions through the Chair, Member.

[11:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure was created to basically be the B.C. government’s project delivery wing on provincial vertical projects from which provincial services are delivered. All of the projects within our portfolio are buildings that will end up being provincially owned and provincially operated.

Student housing is delivered by post-secondary institutions, who are partners that exist within the GRE, within the government reporting entity. The capital teams within the Ministry of Infrastructure that work with post-secondary institutions were previously within the Ministry of Post-Secondary and Future Skills. They have now been assembled as part of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Misty Van Popta: I would like to turn the floor over to the member from Courtenay-Comox, please.

Brennan Day: I just have one question.

My understanding is the current cost for the units at North Island College are $350,000 per unit. When I questioned the CEO of that institution as to whether that was above or below, she said: “That’s the ministry average and the ministry guidelines.”

I’m wondering, to you, what those guidelines are; what they think is reasonable to build a closet to house students — I’ve lived in several; and what the ministry thinks is a reasonable number to build a small student unit, as $350,000 does seem a bit excessive.

[11:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Different projects…. The costs per unit will vary depending on the project and depending on the post-secondary institution as well.

Some post-secondary institutions, such as UBC, that have a lot of student housing already, also have on their campuses a lot of the fundamental infrastructure that supports student housing, and they’re able to expand with relative ease, leading to lower costs per unit.

At an institution like North Island College, my understanding is that this is the first student housing project that they’ve delivered. This meant that they required, as part of their project, the ability to deliver all of the fundamental infrastructure that is required to support student housing — things like security, dining halls, social spaces, Elder spaces.

[11:50 p.m.]

North Island College also required a lot more family housing. Although the usual idea or vision of a student at university is often late teens, early 20s or a single individual, in many colleges we also see a growing population of people with families who also require housing, who are struggling to find that housing in the general market and that benefit from some of these larger units that North Island College is building.

Brennan Day: I’ve asked a few questions in this House. That’s one where I actually really respect the answer. I hope that those costs can come down in future, as we can build upon that infrastructure investment.

Thank you very much.

This is changing pace a little bit, but it’s Comox Valley–related. Given that Comox Valley school district 71, like many districts across the province, is facing significant financial pressure, is the ministry or the school district actively reviewing the funding model, specifically the practice of forcing necessary renovation and maintenance projects to be funded through the operational budget instead of the capital budget?

This may not be a question for this ministry, but I do believe this is desperately requiring to be raised here in this House. If not for your ministry, then certainly conversations with this ministry and the Ministry of Education need to happen to ensure that we are not starving teachers and aides of that funding to do basic things like paint and floors.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure does provide capital funding for school maintenance, routine capital and so forth. All 60 school districts provide an annual capital plan submission requesting minor capital project approvals and funding from seven minor capital programs to support repair and maintenance projects at school facilities.

The total amount in Budget 2025 that goes towards this activity is $303.1 million.

[11:55 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Moving on to child care, the B.C. NDP campaign platform promised $500 million in capital project funding supports to expand child care spaces in B.C. and to add tens of thousands of new child care spaces. According to the ministry’s service plan, only a few projects are outlined for support to address B.C. child care’s space shortage. However, last week there were significant announcements made in that regard.

In 2018, this government promised universal child care by 2025. We’re a quarter of a way through the year. In light of last week’s announcement to close the gap and provide universal child care, how much more funding is still required?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure is involved in the delivery of child care spaces that are delivered as part of a provincially owned and operated building.

Part of the purpose of the Ministry of Infrastructure being created is that it allows for one ministry to have greater cohesive oversight over all of the capital infrastructure investments being made in B.C. government and GRE properties, allowing for the potential and enabling the opportunity to build buildings that may provide multiple purposes and increase the opportunity for partnership.

Hopefully, that made sense. Again, it’s midnight right now, and we’ve all been going since, like, eight or nine this morning.

The program that the member is referring to is a program that is being delivered out of the Ministry of Education and Child Care, and the question would be best canvassed in those estimates.

Misty Van Popta: When administering ChildCareBC new spaces fund, what internal budget model exists for assessing value for money when providing capital funding supports? Is it $50K per space, $100,000 per space? What kind of parameters are used?

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure does not administer the new spaces fund. That is a program that is delivered by the Ministry of Education and Child Care. The member’s question is best directed to those estimates.

Misty Van Popta: Fair enough.

When it comes to building child care spaces, is federal or municipal cost-sharing on the table with the ministry?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member’s question is related to a Ministry of Education and Child Care policy, on the grant funding, so that question is also best directed to the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

Misty Van Popta: Most government infrastructure projects are built with low-carbon design, LEED gold, net-zero and/or step code 4 requirements. There’s also been an increase in using CLT or mass timber in many projects. All of these measures are commendable but are also extremely expensive and often add 10 to 20 percent more in construction costs.

[12:00 a.m.]

At a time when the government has not been able to deliver on infrastructure commitments due to budget constraints, how can the province give itself the luxury of adding 10 to 20 percent costs for minimal environmental benefits? Why wouldn’t we build 10 to 20 percent more projects reasonably and responsibly?

[12:05 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The critic is questioning our use of climate action policy in our buildings. In thinking about the response that I would have to her question — aside from thinking a bit slower than normal, given the hour — I reflected on my recent experiences as Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

I had the duty and the responsibility of leading the province’s response in my two years as Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness to the ice storms in 2022, several days after I was appointed to that new ministry; the deadliest avalanche season in B.C. history, in 2023; followed by a record drought and wildfire season, during which I had the solemn duty of declaring a provincial state of emergency and overseeing supports for the evacuation of tens of thousands of people in a matter of days.

That was followed by freshet flooding that damaged municipalities in early 2024 and another devastating wildfire season in 2024. The last emergency I had the duty of presiding over provincial response to was the Chilcotin River landslide that had the potential of creating enormous erosion, catastrophic erosion downstream of the landslide.

Through all of this, I have witnessed British Columbians suffer from the impacts of climate change. I have witnessed the incredible strength and resilience of British Columbians and also the realities of the impact of that climate change. It is for these reasons and so many others that our government has chosen to commit to climate action.

One of the ways that we do so is in providing leadership in the way that we construct our projects, wherever possible. Our ability to provide that leadership is immense when it comes to the amount of capital infrastructure that we deliver. And they do result in an overall benefit to British Columbians, not only from the perspective of taking action on climate but also in terms of improved energy efficiency and resiliency of buildings.

[12:10 a.m.]

For instance, Cowichan District Hospital will be the first fully electric hospital in B.C. and will be built to LEED standards and will result in 30 percent greater energy efficiency; 60 percent more water efficiency than the current Cowichan District Hospital, which is incredibly important given the historic multi-year drought that we saw British Columbia go into in 2023-24; and a 75 percent reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions.

The member also asked about our use of mass timber. It should be noted that B.C.’s forestry sector is in need of our support overall. One of the ways that government supports the forestry sector, especially during a time when we know that the industry has to evolve and modernize so that it is able to reap greater benefits for the resources that B.C. has, is through value-added products like mass timber.

The member mentioned CLT. Certainly, cross-laminated timber is one of those products, but there are other engineered wood products that we’re able to benefit from and that help support an evolution of the forestry industry.

These are incredibly important goals and values that our government holds. We believe that government has a responsibility to be a leader and enable a viable market for those kinds of materials and allow the sector to grow their capacity in the delivery of those kinds of materials. The use of mass timber, engineered wood products, in our government’s projects has enabled that. So we do believe that it’s important.

Misty Van Popta: The question was not so much regarding the value of these environmental measures within construction. You take a construction project that was built in the ’50s versus now, even at step code 3 or otherwise, and the mass improvements on efficiencies are well known. But it was more of an analysis of benefit, if one item is trumping another.

Can I use that word? I’m sorry. It’s so late.

In my riding, I have a case file where an elderly lady is bouncing around from hallway to hallway because she can’t get into long-term care. When we’ve got budget constraints where my municipality and other municipalities are not getting the infrastructure pieces that they need, like health care, and I see items within the budget that add significant cost increases for marginal….

We’re not going to solve the world’s crisis of climate change ourselves here in British Columbia. So it becomes a question of: do we let British Columbians languish in hospital hallways because there are no beds for them because we’re not building hospitals fast enough, or could we scale things back minimally on the environmental provisions and requirements so that we can build things faster and at a lower cost?

I just want to understand, from the government and from the minister, if she is going to trump — oh, sorry again — or to prioritize the climate over the health care and the needs and the health care funding of British Columbians.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think that my previous answer explained our position on the importance of climate action as it relates to people. Changing climates have a direct impact on the health of people as well. A person only needs to speak with the family of a vulnerable person that lives in a region that is subject to wildfire smoke.

[12:15 a.m.]

A person only needs to speak with a community member in a community that has been impacted so severely by extreme drought that they rely on their municipality, working in concert with province, to deliver potable water to them.

We believe that every British Columbian deserves a facility that they can receive adequate health care in. Every British Columbian deserves access to clean drinking water and air to breathe. If we’re talking about choosing between health care services and climate action, they really are one and the same.

We lost hundreds and hundreds of individuals over a span of several days during an extreme heatwave. Their inability to withstand the environment around them directly related to climate change, resulting in a massive surge in health care needs that the health care system could not support.

I understand that British Columbia is just one jurisdiction of many in the world and that we alone will not be able to solve the challenge of climate change. But it has to start somewhere. If not B.C., then who will be a leader on this? This is incredibly important, I believe, and it is work that we will continue to do.

As I said in my previous response, it is not the case that our projects will simply run up the tab in order to achieve these goals. Of course, it has to be reasonable. The assessment of priorities for projects in the future will absolutely take into account the escalation of costs for a variety of different measures.

In fact, the Ministry of Infrastructure was created to find ways to deliver projects faster and more cost-effectively. Some of the specifications and requirements that have been built into projects in the past may change and may evolve in the future as well. That is something that we acknowledge, and it is something that is part of our work.

Misty Van Popta: With soaring land costs, smaller school sites could alleviate the investments needed for schools, yet some districts require up to ten acres. Can the ministry confirm if school districts or the ministry set the school site requirements?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The ministry does have guidelines. However, we are more than happy to work with school districts on creative solutions. For instance, we think about the urban school in Coal Harbour, a creative solution there.

We also know of many school districts who work with municipalities on shared-use agreements around land and play space. So while the ministry does set guidelines, we are happy to work with school districts to adjust to the realities that they face.

[12:20 a.m.]

Misty Van Popta: A gaming grant for the new Kitwanga ambulance fire station will expire if this year the project does not start. This facility has been promised for ten years.

Will the minister promise here today that the health and safety of northerners is paramount to this government, fund and fast track this project, especially as our mines start opening in that region, closing a huge vulnerability to workers in that region?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’re not sure which ministry to refer this question to, but this is not a program that is administered by the Ministry of Infrastructure, unless I have misunderstood the question.

Misty Van Popta: My understanding from the member who posed the question is that it’s an ambulance station that has fire hall capabilities as well, so it’s a combined unit. I would assume that ambulances fall under the province.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: My apologies. The reference to the gaming grant is what threw me off. I’m wondering if the member wouldn’t mind repeating her question.

Misty Van Popta: There was a gaming grant issued for this facility, and it expires this year. My understanding is, I believe, it’s been in the works for ten years.

They have received no funding for this ambulance station, but there’s also a gaming grant that goes with it. Will there be funding for this ambulance station this year? Can we expedite funding?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are struggling to understand the specific question. We’re hoping the member might be able to send the question to us in writing, and we will be able to respond to her directly.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you. I will pass it on to the member from Prince George.

I would like to turn the floor over to the member for Abbotsford South.

Interjection.

Misty Van Popta: Oh, West, sorry.

Korky Neufeld: First of all, thank you to the critic for the opportunity to ask a question or two, and to the Minister of Infrastructure, thank you so much for the opportunity.

Having been a school board trustee for 16 years…. Our district has spent millions and millions of dollars for early learning. That’s pre-K.

The question I have is…. The private providers and the spaces that the private providers offer to different school boards — that is, child care providers — have been closed because of policies and restrictions that the ministry has put on them. My question is: how many seats have been lost for child care providers, private child care providers, in our school districts across the province?

The Chair: Just a reminder for questions and answers through the Chair.

[12:25 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: What I heard asked was the question about a policy change that is forcing private operators to close child care facilities within schools.

It sounds to us like an operational question. It is likely a question that needs to be referred to the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

Korky Neufeld: Our school districts are at capacity. In fact, our district is at 103 capacity. Most school districts are at major overcapacity, so every seat for every child in every district for child care is very important.

It is an infrastructure issue. If we’re losing seats for children in our school districts, it’s up to the Infrastructure Minister to provide seats for parents to provide child care in our schools.

My question again to the Minister of Infrastructure is…. We’re losing seats for child care in our schools. How is the Minister of Infrastructure implementing changes so that those seats are not lost in our school districts?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It may help if I provide greater clarity as to the mandate and the role of the ministry.

The Ministry of Infrastructure, as it relates to the delivery of child care spaces, is that we will, going forward, because the ministry is quite new, be involved in child care capital projects that are attached or related to projects that are to deliver provincial buildings from which provincial services are delivered.

The Ministry of Infrastructure is involved in the capital delivery stage of a project. So if there is a new capital project, the Ministry of Infrastructure will shepherd it through to conclusion.

Once those spaces are created, though, the use of those spaces and the policies that dictate who may use those spaces is set by the Ministry of Education and Child Care. That is why I had referred previously that if the question is around a policy decision impacting the operation, no use of the structure, that would be a question best referred to the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

Korky Neufeld: How many new spaces of child care are being produced by the Minister of Infrastructure for the province of British Columbia and the school districts across our province?

[12:30 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The provincial government, with support from the federal government, has invested over $478.7 million in projects to create over 13,100 new child care spaces on public school grounds.

Misty Van Popta: The South Okanagan region, including the town of Osoyoos and surrounding municipalities, faces growing pressure on its water infrastructure due to aging systems, increased agricultural demand, population growth due to provincial housing requirements and climate change–driven drought risk. Engineering assessments estimate that over $200 million in capital investment is urgently required to modernize water treatment plants, increase storage capacity, upgrade distribution networks and implement drought resistance measures across the Okanagan Basin.

Question for the minister. Given the scale of required investment, will the province commit to providing direct financial support or matching funds to help smaller municipalities like Osoyoos and Oliver upgrade their critical water infrastructure?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure’s capital portfolio delivers capital investments and enables the delivery of provincial buildings from which provincial services are delivered. Our capital portfolio does not include municipal infrastructure.

The question that the member has raised would be most appropriately referred to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Misty Van Popta: Given that we are in the midst of a federal election, concerns have been raised about the vulnerability of federally supported projects in the event of a change of government in Ottawa.

Question for the minister. Which infrastructure projects are most at risk of losing federal funding, and what contingency plans are in place should federal priorities shift?

[12:35 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There are a few, maybe two, funds that we do cost-share with the federal government that would be impacted if the federal government withdrew funding from them. However, we do not have any capital building projects that are reliant on federal funding.

The Chair: Member for Langley–Walnut Grove.

Misty Van Popta: I’d like to turn the floor over to the member for Abbotsford South.

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: Oh, pardon me. I’ll move.

I thought I could do my first April Fools’ joke by being in the wrong chair, but apparently that didn’t work. Yes, that’s right. It is April Fools’, and I’d like to wish the minister a very happy April Fools’. Although, it’s not funny at this time in the morning, is it?

I do have a couple of questions, and I’d like to thank the minister for taking me down memory lane with her former ministry that she was in for.

This question I have actually has to do with a project that is, I believe, scheduled for 2027. It has to do with the long-term-care facility that’s planned for Abbotsford. I’m sure the minister knows this, but sadly, my family has experienced firsthand the overcrowding and the lining up of patients in hallways at the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre. I spoke about that in this House, as a matter of fact.

I believe that at any time, the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre is at about 120 percent capacity. To exacerbate that, to get into a long-term-care facility, many of those individuals in said hallway are actually waiting to get into a long-term-care facility.

Would the minister please explain, for that project that is scheduled, how many additional beds in long-term-care facilities will that provide, and what is the projected cost of that, and will it be on time and on budget, and has, actually, there been a shovel put in the ground as of yet?

[12:40 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you to the member for Abbotsford South. I did enjoy the time that we spent together as minister and critic on the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness file.

I will also observe that the critic that I was privileged to work with following the member for Abbotsford South, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, also joined the B.C. Conservatives, and so I’m wondering if it’s me. Both of my critics in that role have followed the same path.

Really a pleasure to field your question again tonight.

The question is about the long-term-care facility. The long-term-care facility in Abbotsford will be a newly constructed, 16,936 square metre, five-level long-term-care facility. It will replace the existing 109-bed Cottage-Worthington Pavilion with 200 single bedrooms, so that’s 91 net new beds.

It will also include a day program for older adults, up to 32 clients. It includes support services, a stand-alone child care facility with capacity for 49 children, and 112 service parking lots.

The project is currently pegged at $210.9 million, of which the Ministry of Health is funding $157.47 million. The remaining contributions are from the Fraser Health Authority as well as the Fraser Valley regional hospital district.

Now, in our time as minister in the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, I know that the member for Abbotsford South knows that I attempt to be as honest and candid as possible to direct questions. The member asked about whether or not this project will be delivered by 2027.

I will say that currently the project is in the design stage. Given where it is at and the unknowns that are likely to be sorted out through design stage, I believe personally that it will be a challenge to deliver by 2027.

Bruce Banman: Is the minister able…. I believe I am very intimately aware of the project that she refers to. Is this the same project that is scheduled or the partner would be with Maplewood Society, or is this a 100 percent stand-alone provincial government project which is going to replace the Worthington Pavilion? Is it on the same sites as the Worthington Pavilion?

My understanding, and I’m not sure whether the minister is aware of this or not, is that directly adjacent to the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre is the Maplewood Society. It has a lovely, large, spacious group of land there that the hospital is in dire need of for future expansion.

Can the minister please confirm whether this is, in fact, that joint project with that society?

[12:45 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: To correct the record earlier, in terms of funding sources, I may have said Ministry of Health and Infrastructure or something like that. The funding of $157.47 million is in the Ministry of Infrastructure’s budget. My apologies for that.

I believe that the answer to the member’s question is yes. The new long-term-care facility will be located on a property adjacent to the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre through an exchange with the Maplewood Care Society.

The Fraser Health Authority–owned Cottage lands, which was 3.4 acres, was exchanged for lands at 1919 Jackson Street, which was lot AB, 8.3 acres. There was also financial compensation for the agreed land value difference as well.

I believe, if that’s the question that the member is asking, the answer is yes.

Bruce Banman: Here’s the problem. This particular deal has been going on since I was a mayor. That’s like 15 years ago.

For it to now reach the design phase is incredibly troubling. This is part and parcel why we have people stacked up like cattle in our hospitals lined in hallways. What we’re doing is inhumane. It’s inhumane. So when the minister then says to me that this is still in the design phase, it brings two questions to mind.

One, why is this still in the design phase?

Two, seeing as the hospital is now going to gain lands adjacent to the hospital, and seeing as that the hospital is at always over capacity, what plan — I didn’t see one in the budget — is there to add to the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre to help eliminate this overcrowding problem that we have so that people do get humane treatment instead of what they’re currently subjected to not only in this hospital bit across this province?

In this particular case, what’s going to go in the ground, beside the hospital? Are there any plans that are being done for that? Is there anything in the foreseeable future or in this budget for that?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: This particular project, the Abbotsford long-term-care facility, saw their business plan approved in April 2023.

[12:50 a.m.]

A design consultant was procured that fall of 2023. There is also a construction management manager that was procured in spring of 2024. So design has been underway and will continue.

I want to acknowledge, though, what the member has identified as a challenge in our province, which is the lack of health care facilities to be able to deliver the quality of services and support that is required for a growing population here in British Columbia — not only a growing population but also recognizing that we are attempting to recover from an infrastructure deficit as well.

This is why our government has made — I’ve said this many times before; the critic will already have become bored of hearing it; I also recognize that members join us at different times as well — the single largest capital investment program in health in B.C. history.

Our current Budget 2025 includes $5.5 billion of capital investment in health care facilities. We’re supporting 30 hospitals, 11 long-term-care homes and four cancer centres, and much more is needed as well, especially for growing communities, particularly given aging communities.

I want to acknowledge the member’s concerns about this. It is something that concerns us as well, and it is a big part of the reason why the Ministry of Infrastructure was created: so that we could streamline processes required around the delivery of capital so that we can identify opportunities for increased efficiency and lower cost delivery, faster delivery.

Also, as I canvassed earlier with the critic, part of the work that we have to do is also sequencing of our projects so that we’re not tripping over ourselves in trying to deliver so many major capital projects in different parts of the province at once that we actually struggle to get sufficient bids on some of these major projects.

That’s something that we should and can be managing, and that is something that the Ministry of Infrastructure was created to provide greater oversight on.

Bruce Banman: With the greatest of respect, what I heard is that nurses and doctors can continue to expect to trip over patients in hallways for the foreseeable future. I think the minister and I can both agree that this is not, in any way, shape or form, what British Columbians deserve.

I was appalled at the treatment that my own family received. The care they got from the professionals was top-notch. It is the facilities that are letting them down. The fact that there was a design phase back in 2023 and we still don’t have a design yet — if that’s the minister’s idea of fast, I think it needs to have a redefinition in the Oxford Dictionary as to what “fast” actually means.

With that, I would like to actually go on to something else, which is also in the line item. The University of the Fraser Valley has the largest population base in Canada that does not have a comprehensive university. There are three levels of university: research — UBC, SFU; comprehensive, which has some research attached to it; and then there is basically vocational. This is where UFV finds itself, which is primarily vocational.

Again, like the hospital, it is busting at the seams with capacity. And the University of the Fraser Valley actually has more than one campus, as I am sure the minister is aware.

I see in the line item there is an expansion for residencies, I do believe, or student housing, which is a project that is scheduled. Housing is definitely needed for all of our universities, in particular the University of the Fraser Valley.

[12:55 a.m.]

Would the minister please expand upon where that project is in its current state, and again, is it on time or anywhere near budget? What is the completion date, and how many residents will it be able to house?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The student housing project at the University of the Fraser Valley will provide 398 beds for a total project budget of $105 million. The project broke ground in fall 2023. We expect it to be complete in fall 2025 with occupancy in early 2026.

Bruce Banman: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Those are definitely much-needed rooms for all kinds of students because, as the minister knows and I was just mentioning, it’s a fairly large basin. Just for those that aren’t aware, there are campuses in Chilliwack. There are campuses in Mission. There are campuses in Abbotsford. And we’re very proud of it.

What the minister did not answer is whether or not it is on budget and on time. Perhaps she could answer that, but I do have a follow-up to that.

So we’re now going to add — what was it? — 398 I think was the number that the minister gave. Let’s just call it 400 residents there. Are there any other projects so that these 400 residents actually are going to be guaranteed that they’re going to have an actual classroom to sit in? The university is actually at capacity now.

Are there any other projects that are scheduled that I’ve overlooked, that I did not see in the budget, to help expand the actual classrooms at the University of the Fraser Valley?

[1:00 a.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good morning, Members.

Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you so much, and welcome back again to the chair.

The 398 beds in this project should not be confused with 398 new students. It’s very likely that the existing student population — in fact, it’s pretty much guaranteed — will fill the 398 beds. The demand for student housing amongst the existing student population is extraordinary. That’s that piece.

In the University of the Fraser Valley’s five-year capital plan, they did not submit to the ministry any academic projects. It should be noted that the post-secondary institutions determine the enrolment that they’re able to set based on the facilities that they have or that they have planned for. It’s different, of course, than K-to-12 schools, where really, as a province, we’re obligated to accept the number of students that come to us.

[1:05 a.m.]

In terms of the member’s question on whether or not this project was on time and on budget, the project was originally announced at $75 million, anticipated to be complete in spring 2024. What we found, as a province…. Of course, this was prior to the creation of my ministry, but the procurement process was issued basically at the peak of construction.

In speaking earlier with the critic, we talked about the importance of sequencing and the possibility of so many government projects flooding the market at once that those projects actually drive up costs. And we found that to be the case on this project, so it was intentionally delayed in order to control costs and to mitigate and to enable some heavy-value engineering to occur in order to mitigate the cost increases.

The current project, which broke ground in fall 2023, is the $105 million and is expected to be ready for occupancy in early 2026.

The Chair: Member for Langley–Walnut Grove.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you again. It’s nice that you get to take a break, but we don’t.

I’d like to turn the floor over to the member for Courtenay-Comox.

Brennan Day: I almost feel I want to raise a motion to allow energy drinks in the cups on the floor, but I will thank everybody for sticking with it. Yes.

Interjection.

Brennan Day: Oh, that’s what’s keeping you going.

I’m going to switch to an issue in my riding of Courtenay-Comox. Highway 19 cuts through multiple jurisdictions in my riding, including Comox, Courtenay and the regional district. It crosses one bridge, services a ferry terminal and a federal military base, and it is absolutely a jurisdictional nightmare.

Currently we are dealing with infrastructure, a cantilever bridge that raises and lowers and is unfixable, should it break down. We are dealing with a B.C. Housing project which will not allow access to the street and has absolutely no active infrastructure on it, including just a sidewalk to get to a bus station.

In addition to that, we have $1 billion of federal investment finally coming into the air force base there, which will require substantive changes to the end of Highway 19–Anderton Road area, which is a ministry road.

I’m wondering if the ministry could answer what investment is being made in this absolutely problematic corridor that cuts through the centre of town, multiple bridges and services as a lifeline to multiple critical infrastructure projects here on Vancouver Island.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to thank the member for walking me through what sounds like an incredibly challenging situation involving some very important infrastructure in his community.

The Ministry of Infrastructure, despite its very broad-sounding name, was purpose-built with a very specific carve-out, which is the delivery of provincial buildings from which provincial services are delivered. We primarily only deal with vertical capital projects.

There may be some policy pieces that we may be involved in elsewhere, although we haven’t gotten there quite yet. But in terms of projects, we aren’t involved in transportation projects. The member’s very important question is best directed to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to correct a statement, a response that we made previously. I had previously said that the University of the Fraser Valley’s five-year capital plan did not include any academic building requests. That was incorrect. There is one, but it was not in Abbotsford. That’s why my question was phrased the way that it was, but I should have been more precise in my language.

The Chair: Members, just noting the comments brought about by the member for Courtenay-Comox regarding energy drinks. I think it would be very wise of us to take a seven-minute break, and everybody can recharge. The last break was three hours ago, and it is now ten after 1 a.m. on April 1.

Let’s just take a quick seven-minute break. We’ll be back momentarily.

The committee recessed from 1:10 a.m. to 1:20 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back, Members. Good morning again.

We will call this House back to order, where we are contemplating the estimates of Vote 37.

Misty Van Popta: I’d like to hand the floor over to the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: What a lovely morning it is.

I have a few questions. Some of them might have some multi-jurisdictional aspects to them, but bear with me, and we’ll see how it goes.

On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2024, there was some $850,000 worth of damage done to the commercial transport inspection station on Highway 97 near Red Rock, British Columbia. This is a building, so it’s above ground.

I’m wondering what steps are being taken to build this medium-scale building facility near Red Rock, British Columbia. It’s an important aspect of safety, and it is infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you so much for the question.

It absolutely is very important infrastructure. Unfortunately, despite the broad-sounding name of the ministry, we do not do transportation infrastructure and infrastructure that supports transportation.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit, their capital portfolio remained intact, and that includes the type of building that the member is referring to.

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate the minister’s answer to the question. It’s been one of great confusion and concern to me and the residents of Prince George–North Cariboo.

Another question I have: what plans are in place to assist the Lheidli T’enneh in bridging the Fraser to connect their reserve lands, and what arrangements are being made with the federal government to help support that particular project?

I know it sounds like it might be a Ministry of Transportation question, but I don’t think it is because of the nature of the type of facility that it is, involving First Nations, the federal government as well as the provincial government, and the need to deal with a significant project that affects the Lheidli T’enneh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Recognizing that this is more complicated project than simply a transportation project, it is likely to involve multiple ministries, of which the Ministry of Infrastructure is not one.

I might recommend to the member to canvass his question not only in the Ministry of Transportation and Transit’s estimates but also the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Sheldon Clare: Some time ago I attended the seniors advocate presentation in Quesnel, British Columbia, in which a number of particular infrastructure needs were identified. One of them was to increase the number of long-term-care facilities for seniors.

What new construction is planned for long term to support the needs of rural seniors in Quesnel, in Williams Lake and in Prince George?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The delivery of provincially owned and operated long-term care is in the Ministry of Infrastructure’s portfolio. However, the Ministry of Infrastructure does not currently have any projects in the communities that the member has asked about.

[1:25 a.m.]

That being said, I do recommend the member canvass this question again with the Ministry of Health, as the Ministry of Health does have operating agreements with private providers that do support additional beds, and they would be best positioned to provide the second half of this response to the member.

Sheldon Clare: Cedar Point is an important recreational area located in Likely, British Columbia. Recently the Cedar Point reception office and welcoming facility was condemned due to the presence of mould, a roof that leaks and a number of other problems which make the building unsuitable for human occupation, and it is taped over and so marked.

What assistance is available to support replacing the Cedar Point reception office facility, including its demolition and reconstruction, and when does the minister believe that such a project could be undertaken?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure was created on November 18. We were provided with a specific carve-out and generalized capital projects from Education, from Health, post-secondary institutions, as well as a few what we would call orphan projects, projects that did not have a ministry home that were assembled in the Ministry of Infrastructure.

The Cedar Point reception office and welcome centre…. My understanding is that is likely related to a provincial park. Is that correct?

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, can you allow the minister to finish her statement?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: That is completely my fault. I looked to the member for an indication or not, and so I confused things. My apologies.

It sounds like there might be a bit more context that I could receive from the member. I’m going to sit and have him provide that addition. Just a little bit more context as to who owns and operates the reception centre, welcome centre, will help us pinpoint.

The Chair: Member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your tolerance and guidance of my few foibles that I’ve committed occasionally. And I thank the minister for taking some responsibility in that aspect.

What is the projected cost associated with the construction and maintenance of the acute care tower for the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia, and what abilities are going to be associated with the expansion of emergency room facilities in that important regional hospital?

And further, will we be able to see funding commensurate with the costs of such things that are similar to the types of funding models we see in the Lower Mainland for medical facilities?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, we are still in order here.

[1:30 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Recognizing that members are eager to continue on with other business, and also recognizing that I did not answer his previous question because I didn’t fully understand it, I wonder if the member would submit his two questions to us in writing. We will provide a more fulsome response without making the entire House sit while we dig up from our papers tonight, given the early hour of the morning.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask to leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 1:31 a.m.

The House resumed at 1:31 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax
Amendment Act, 2025

Jennifer Blatherwick: Section A reports Bill 8 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax
Amendment Act, 2025

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Members, I am just advised the Lieutenant Governor is on her way. She should be here momentarily, so you can remain in your seats.

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

[1:35 a.m. - 1:45 a.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this act.

Hon. Wendy Cocchia (Lieutenant Governor): Thank you, again.

I can’t remember the last time Serg and I watched you guys on YouTube till 1:30. What was it…?

But my goodness. I have always said people don’t know in British Columbia how hard you all work. We really do appreciate everything that you’ve done. Especially as, I think, we can always celebrate the wonderful process that we have in British Columbia and in Canada.

I wish you all a very good sleep, and I want to know where the after-party is. Thank you.

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call….

[Laughter.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call on all of us to thank the staff who stayed while we were able to do all of this.

[Applause.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: Can we adjourn until later tomorrow?

I asked, Members. I tried my best, so you can have better sleep. Nobody doesn’t agree.

So we will adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. I know it’s too late.

The question is to adjourn the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Now we are adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1:48 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

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

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll be brief because we don’t have a lot of time, just to introduce my team.

Of course, we’ve got our deputy minister, Silas Brownsey, on my right. We’ve got our head on finance issues on my left, Tracy Campbell. Behind me, Nick Grant, Claire Avison, Kim Lacharite. Then we have a number of executive directors and folks working within the ministry to answer specific questions to the best of our ability.

It’s great to be here, good to see the member, looking forward to the next hour or so that we have together.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and staff. And congratulations on your appointment. I’ll endeavour to ask some good questions.

I’ll just start by acknowledging that the resort municipality that’s within the riding I represent, the resort municipality of Whistler, is celebrating its 50th birthday or anniversary this year.

The first part of my questions is focused on resort municipalities; I’ll just jump straight into it.

The budget and the ministry service plan made no mention of investments or dedicated funding to address challenges in resort municipalities. Can the minister describe how much funding the budget provides for resort municipalities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In terms of direct targeted funding for resort municipalities, it’s about $13 million in our budget currently. To be clear, though, of course, that’s not all of it.

[2:45 p.m.]

Of course, Destination B.C. We do international marketing, and as the member knows, some of our biggest markets are places like Whistler.

Happy 50th birthday to the community of Whistler. I’m sure the mayor is watching. He told me he was last time.

Hello, Jack. I hope you’re well.

Then of course, we have our regional destination marketing work that we support, which also benefits Whistler, and then our ministry has other support that gets to resort municipalities, whether or not it’s event programs, work through B.C. Arts Council, gaming funds, and so on.

But I’ll let the member ask more specific questions.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister speak to any funding within this budget that specifically addresses housing shortages for staff and temporary foreign workers in resort municipalities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As the Ministry of Tourism, we’re also not the Ministry of Housing, but we would love to…. We always support it, because we know that good housing policy is good tourism policy. Questions specific to how much money from which fund within Housing would be best directed through that ministry.

Of course, there is the MRDT, which folks can avail themselves of to support their own housing work, but it’s probably best for housing specific questions to go to the Ministry of Housing.

Jeremy Valeriote: As the minister knows, resort municipalities service much higher populations than they tax from, and their infrastructure ages at a faster rate due to higher use from higher population service.

Can the minister outline a plan to address infrastructural and capacity concerns in resort municipalities, particularly considering the potential surge in domestic tourism resulting from U.S. tariffs?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, an increase in tourism is a good thing. But I understand it’s also a challenge for some municipalities, where they’ve hit the upper limits, or they feel they have, in terms of their own taxpayers’, their own residents’ ability to look after infrastructure that’s important for them.

So we actually are working, my team, with the mayors of the resort municipalities. Thank you to Mayor Crompton from Whistler for his leadership in that group. We are looking at that issue, because we’ve recognized it as a barrier to growth for tourism communities but also a barrier to ensuring effective infrastructure for those communities and the residents there as well.

It’s on our radar. We understand it. We had a good meeting with the mayors earlier this year. They’re actively engaged. They want a solution. We do as well. I look forward to our continued good work together to address that issue, because resort municipalities bring so much to our province. They give us such an opportunity for good jobs, for tax dollars to invest in health care and all those other things we have needs for — arts as well, sports, and so on.

I thank the member for acknowledging the role of resort municipalities and also the unique challenges that they face.

Jeremy Valeriote: The service plan describes this government’s commitment to supporting a “resilient” tourism sector that is regenerative and adapting to climate change. Can the minister please provide specifics of how they will help build a strong and sustainable ecotourism sector in resort municipalities?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, climate resiliency and addressing how you make a resort, how you make a community, how you make a small camping site, how you make a hotel — all those things are important. How you make them more sustainable, I guess, is what I’m trying to say.

Over the last couple of years, the ministry, working with the Ministry of Energy, with Hydro and with others, actually had a climate resiliency fund, which went to the businesses to help them with planning. We helped them with, in one case, I think…. It’s not within Whistler, but I think it’s called Fishpot Lake. I heard from folks out there who actually managed to use this funding to shift off of diesel and shift into solar for their rural campsite, for their rural cabins. Looks like a beautiful place. I’ve got it on my list of places to visit.

That kind of program — I know we’ve done that there. We’ve supported programs up and down the coast and in the Interior to do similar approaches. I know Whistler itself, as a resort municipality, has taken steps further to look at zero carbon and how they do that as a municipality.

We’re always looking for good ideas and to support…. Certainly, through industry associations, through Destination B.C., Indigenous Tourism B.C., we’re working to help educate, to help show the opportunity, and people want it. I think the businesses are keen because it helps their bottom line, but it also helps their environmental line and actually increases interest in visitors staying at those locations.

I’ve talked to some operators who, when they shifted off diesel, for example, now have people staying long term. They now have people visiting long term who came once. When they sent out an email saying, “Oh, we’ve now moved to solar and got off the diesel,” their business went up, because people didn’t want to smell the diesel fumes. They didn’t want to deal with the issue of having to hear the generators at nighttime, and so on — a small example.

I know the member probably had, maybe, a more specific question, but they were exciting projects, and I think we need to do more of them where we can.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the focus on our existing infrastructure. One aspect we’re quite tuned in to is the possibility of providing low-carbon tourism options.

One simple instance I’ve heard of…. This is encouraging people to come to Whistler, for example, for one two-week trip as opposed to two one-week trips. You can imagine the…. There are various iterations on that. This would help with B.C.’s reputation as a destination and can build resilience against some of the reputational damage we may incur from news of wildfires.

I’m wondering whether the minister can speak to any of that. I believe YVR has a low-carbon initiative. Are there any initiatives underway on promoting B.C. as a low-carbon tourism option?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I certainly know that many in the business world in B.C. have made this one of their key calling cards, in a sense, when they market internationally, when they reach out to people to come be part of B.C. In some cases, it’s through things like offsets. That’s not the standard, but they will market that.

[2:55 p.m.]

Certainly, I know YVR, of course. Harbour Air and, I believe, Helijet, as well, have looked at those arguments to show that they’re doing what they can within the means they have. Obviously, their innovations, looking at electric float planes and those kinds of things, are pretty cool stuff.

But I think our regional destination marketing organizations…. They’re all biosphere certified to try and look at how they operate and how they work with their clients. It’s a growing market. People want to know that when they travel, they’re not doing harm.

They certainly want to…. In some cases, some of our tour operators have done things like, “Okay, we’re going to have a tree planting as part of what we do” or “Oh, we’re going to go clean up.” I was telling people about cleaning up the garbage on the beaches.

That’s preventative, in a way. It doesn’t solve the broader problem, but certainly, our operators know that our key market is super, natural British Columbia — you know, the beauty of our outdoors, the incredible opportunities you can have, whether it’s in our forests, in our grasslands, in the Interior, in the desert. We’ve got a bit of everything in this province, in the oceans and on the coast, etc. We have to treat it as our number one asset, I think, and that’s what we try to do within the work we do and educate our partners.

I’d invite the member next year, when the Tourism Industry Association has their conference…. It’s one of the key areas where there are educational aspects, where people share their successes. Both they and, here in Victoria, Destination Victoria have their IMPACT conference. Both of the conferences have a very heavy focus on sustainability, on carbon issues, on water, on how you deal in climate emergency situations, how you make guests feel welcome, how you support them.

They’ve seen all sides of this, and I think they’re, in a way, closer to the ground on the impact of not doing anything than most because the land base is largely what they sell and largely what they rely on for people to come back again and again.

More to do. I’m interested in this field and where we can both market and also shift behaviours in how we treat the planet that we rely on.

Jeremy Valeriote: Before I move on to other topics, I just wanted to check…. My apologies. I had brought the big budget document with me when I was here before the break to ask questions. I didn’t bring it.

I didn’t see funding specific to RMI, resort municipality initiative. Does that $13 million that is targeted include RMI funding, and can you tell the committee if that funding is stable for resort municipalities going forward?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just want to say yes, yes and yes, but I guess to be more specific: yes, it’s in the budget. Yes, it’s $13 million. Yes, it’s dedicated to the resort municipality initiative.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just a follow-up on, hopefully, the fourth yes. Can resort municipalities count on that funding for a time frame into the future that the minister can predict?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I can say that it’s in our budget. We support it. It supports resort municipalities. They certainly are glad that it’s there and certainly ongoing work together to continue to grow what they do. We like what they do for our province, and we want to support them.

Jeremy Valeriote: With regard to cycling tourism — and you can imagine this one comes directly from my caucus colleague, Saanich North and the Islands — can the minister speak to any funding in this budget dedicated to cycling tourism and infrastructure, particularly considering the completion of the Salish Sea trail loop on Salt Spring Island?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In terms of the completion of a bike route on Salt Spring Island, that would probably be best placed to the Minister of Transportation. We don’t have a budget within the Ministry of Tourism for building transportation-related projects in that sense, but I can say that in terms of the broader question of cycle tourism, I think it is a huge opportunity for many regions in our province. We’re already seeing it, of course, in many regions, as it is.

Certainly, the member’s constituency…. We get a number of folks who do that route — or routes, I guess I’d say. A lot of folks travel to my constituency in the West End because of cycle tourism — the desire to go around that seawall. If you haven’t done it, it’s not to be missed.

I think there is an opportunity for continued growth in cycle tourism. I know a number of the regional tourism organizations and even city-based destination marketing organizations have really tapped into that, and they’re looking for opportunities.

We are always looking for ways we can support our friends in the Ministry of Transportation because we know that good, safe ways to get from one place to another are crucial if you want to grow tourism. If the journey itself is part of it, as it is in cycle tourism, obviously that needs to be safe too.

I once did a cycle tour from B.C. down to the Oregon border with California — incredible. I ride my bike to get here most days, and I know that there is an opportunity and that there are gaps in the system which limit us.

There are incredible routes here in the capital region where we see people, and they’ve told me they’ve travelled here specifically because they can feel safe getting in and around in the region. I think that’s true for much of B.C. and could be true for much more of B.C.

Ministry of Transportation has an active transportation program and granting stream. I think they recently announced more projects across the province for cycling, for walking, for active, for rolling, for all the different things you might need to do. So worth following up with them on that specific question.

Jeremy Valeriote: Moving on to the arts, I see here a few quotes. The minister has spoken positively in terms of the value of the arts to our society.

Can the minister speak to any new funding in the budget that will be made available to protect workers in the arts sector, especially considering the cost of living and impact from tariffs?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d say there’s been a real change in how we treat arts and culture in this province. When we formed government in 2017, we were worst in Canada for investments in arts and culture. We’re now first or second, depending on which ratio and how you do the statistics. Obviously, Quebec has been a strong supporter of culture as well. So it has been an incredible change.

I just spent part of the last two weeks getting out, meeting arts councils, theatre companies, dance groups and music groups. The number of folks who stepped forward and just said how important that funding has been for stabilizing them….

We put more supports into arts and culture after COVID than pretty much any other province because we knew that many of these groups would go under because of the impact of COVID and not having an audience, not having the ability to do the work that they did. So I’m proud of our investments.

I think we’ve got a new permanent fund dedicated to events, the destination events program. So that’s a new application that folks can make. It’s available now.

I hear the member. There’s always demand. There’s always need. But what I’ve heard most from the sector is they’re glad that they have a steady partner, a stable partner and that, quite frankly, we’re not doing what other governments have done in times of economic crisis, which is slash and burn the arts.

They remember very strongly 2009-2010 when the B.C. Arts Council budget was cut in half, down to…. I think it was about $15 million. We’re now over $40 million. Sorry, it was down to $10 million. It had been at $20 million and went down to $10 million. Gaming grants, likewise, cut in half. Gaming grants are crucial for community charities.

Again, steady funding, steady support, because we believe very strongly in arts and culture in this province both for its life-giving abilities but also the economic returns and the benefits to the broader public, even health care.

[3:05 p.m.]

A recent study I was reading talked about how getting seniors the opportunity to engage in art at their seniors homes led to longer lives, happier lives, less medication, less need for physical intervention because they were engaged, and the arts gave them an ability to express themselves. I think we see that throughout our society.

Jeremy Valeriote: Speaking of the B.C. Arts Council, thanks for laying out the timeline. If I’m not mistaken, the government promised during this past election campaign to increase B.C. Arts Council funding to $50 million. If that’s correct, is the minister able to provide a timeline on increasing that funding to that level?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the platform pledge from the 2017 election was to double the B.C. Arts Council budget. So we started around $20 million, give or take, and now we’re up a little bit over $40 million now. But when you include the investments that we’ve made to many different factors of the arts over the last couple of years, including our destination events program and others, I’d say we’ve met the test.

I always look for more, but I know that times are tough. Budgets are tight, and it’s hard. I certainly am glad with where we’ve got, because it’s made a real difference in our communities.

Jeremy Valeriote: The ministry service plan commits to improving access for “historically underserved artists” and enhancing support for Indigenous artists. Can the minister provide examples of the funding that exists to help artists in historically marginalized communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, the B.C. Arts Council has its own independent board of directors, and so policy often comes up through that board. But certainly, our expectation and our cooperation with them and their desire, as well, has been to see the faces, the realities of British Columbians reflected in the funding decisions they make.

They’ve focused on ensuring that there’s greater regional support across the province, looking at ensuring that when they do funding decisions, they consider that it’s not all through the eye of classical music, for example, making sure that forms of music that are present in communities all over this world are also considered. Dance, for example. It’s not just ballet but Dancers of Damelahamid, an Indigenous dance company funded by the B.C. Arts Council up north.

They’re really working to ensure that those groups across the province, who may not have thought of themselves getting support through a professional arts organization like the B.C. Arts Council, realize that this is an arts council for professional and community artists and that just because you may not have studied in university to become a professional dancer in that form and you may have done that through your own community cultural teachings, that’s valuable as well.

So shifting who is on juries to better reflect the broad public, the diverse nature of our province, ensuring that there’s an understanding of regional differences — all of those go to help ensure that we are doing the work there.

They also are continually looking at the funding decisions and comparing them to the broad swath of our province and going: “Are we actually getting out to the communities?” And if we’re not — if we’re not getting any applications, for example, from some parts of this province — we’re making sure to go out there and help folks understand that they can apply, how to apply.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re looking at the application process itself, because some of it had in the past been very academic, very credentials-driven as opposed to community driven. So looking at, again: how do you…? Art is subjective, but we need to make sure that the support we’re giving provincewide goes to the great diversity in our province.

I’m proud of the work they’re doing. Always room for improvement.

The member has suggestions on other approaches we can take. Always happy to hear them.

Jeremy Valeriote: My last question relates to the fairs, festivals and events fund, which I’ll note anecdotally was highly successful and valuable during the COVID period. I’ll also note a 2024 election campaign promise to provide stable year-over-year funding for fairs, festivals and events.

Can the minister confirm whether the budget includes funding for the renewal of the B.C. fairs, festivals and events fund at the 2023 level and whether there are plans to make this a permanent program?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I am happy that through this budget we were able to find the resources to set up a kind of a follow-along to the program the member mentions. This is now called the destination events program, and its focus, largely, is on events. It’s similar to the previous program but a little bit more specific to events that set up a community as a destination: they are events that people come to from more than just the immediate vicinity. They stay in the hotels, they spend money in the restaurants, in the local community.

The destination events program has been set up with applications open now. We got the information out to the fairs and festivals collective, to all the folks that the members probably had correspondence from. So they know about the program now. I hope they apply, and I’m looking forward to more great festivals and events across B.C.

I should also say just for those who might be watching and think that’s the be-all and end-all, we also fund festivals and events through the B.C. Arts Council and through community gaming grants. So many of the events may have one, they may have two, they may have all of them in terms of how they get support.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and staff. I will yield the rest of my time to the next member.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Sure.

Thank you, thank you. Just to say thank you to everybody, thank you to the team, and just because you may not have had a question asked about your item doesn’t mean I won’t ask it later.

It’s wonderful to have had this opportunity. I’ve got a great team and I thank the Leader of the Third Party and members of the opposition for their interest in tourism, arts, culture and sports — and heritage. Even if it’s not in the title, we still remember you too, heritage; can’t forget the heritage.

Anyways, thank you, I would like to move the vote.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all of the members here today. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 44: ministry operations, $186,048,000 — approved.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief recess for the next ministry.

The committee recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Agriculture and Food
(continued)

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

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

[3:25 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister and her staff that have come along today to get us back into this, which we ended a couple of weeks ago.

I just want to quickly back up. We covered a few things a couple of weeks ago when we got started regarding the actual budget itself and some of the numbers within the budget.

I would like to also remind you that we spoke about the Investment Agriculture Foundation. I can pass along to the minister that Jack DeWit actually phoned me. He goes: “Hey, I heard my name got mentioned.” So he said: “How about if we come over and sit down with your caucus, and we’ll explain exactly how IAF works and where a lot of the funding is going.” I’m looking forward to that. We’re trying to set that up in a while.

My first question, if we go back to carbon tax, because it’s something that we’re likely going to discuss in the next few days…. Without mentioning the bill, I just want to simply ask: when we talk about the consumer portion of carbon tax versus industrial, will agricultural products using carbon such as grain dryers using propane or natural gas, natural gas to heat our poultry barns, natural gas to heat our greenhouses, etc…? Will those agricultural uses of fuels be considered a consumer part of the carbon tax, or will they be considered industrial polluters using the carbon tax?

Hon. Lana Popham: I also have a package of documents that we promised when we last met, and that includes the full list of programs being delivered by Investment Agriculture and provides a report on the food security initiative programs, which are being delivered. I’m just going to make sure that the member gets that for his records.

Then to the question about the carbon tax and agricultural producers: if this bill passes today, the removal of the consumer carbon tax ensures that agricultural producers and greenhouse growers are not subject to any carbon pricing.

Ian Paton: I want to talk for a moment about farmers institutes in British Columbia. Historically, farmers institutes have been a very important part of our different regions of British Columbia. I am still very actively involved with the Delta Farmers Institute. We have them throughout B.C.

I get questions from time to time about the future of our farmers institutes in B.C. and how they seem to be getting somewhat ignored by government. Despite our attempts to engage with the superintendent of B.C. Farmers Institutes, including an invitation to our January AGM — and by the way, I’ll backtrack and say that this is actually coming from the district A farmers institute representing 12 farmers institutes on Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast — we have been unable to establish meaningful dialogue. This communication gap hampers our ability to serve our communities and advance provincial agricultural activities.

So establishing partial funding for administrative support for active farmers institutes, enabling us to better serve our communities and implement ministry initiatives…. My question to the minister: is the Ministry of Agriculture willing to step up and establish partial funding for administrative support for active farmers institutes in this province?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. I know the member is a great fan of farmers institutes, as am I. We’re very lucky that we still have 45 farmers and women’s institutes around the province.

Currently we do support their website annually, but we also are looking to modernize the legislation that they fall under. This is on my workplan list for this year: modernizing their legislation, which is from the 1940s.

Obviously, there are things that have changed since the 1940s, and currently they’re quite hampered at applying for grants and funding. The modernization of this legislation will assist them in applying for grants that they’ve brought to our attention and that they’re interested in applying for.

We’ve also added them into the government org book, so if somebody is looking for a farmers institute, they can actually find that on the government listings.

That hasn’t been possible in the past, and we have had complaints that people couldn’t find them if they tried. I think this is really going to help, especially as we see this renaissance of interest in agriculture. People are going to be reaching out to them, and I think that’s great.

I recently had a meeting with the South Island Farmers Institute. The farmers institute and the ministry have had a lot of back-and-forth about what we can offer, what programs we have in place. Then we are hoping — we’ve seen this happen previously — that farmers institutes will reach out to us and be the people on the ground and in community. I think that they really have a great knowledge base of what’s going on locally.

I think we have a great working relationship. The official funding is for the current website, but we are looking at ways to support them more.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. We’re talking just about District A Farmers Institute right now.

What I’m wondering is can we look at future funding. For instance, at Delta Farmers Institute, we live off $100 per farm as an annual registration fee to try and fund our farmers institute.

[3:35 p.m.]

Would there be money in the future from the government, even if it was $10,000 a year or something, to help support our farmers institutes?

Hon. Lana Popham: The ministry does not have funding to support 45 farmers institutes, but what I can tell the member is that on March 19 there will be an opening of programming called the knowledge and tech transfer program. Farmers institutes can apply for this funding. It’s about $7,500.

They can use this funding to host events, do educational opportunities for their members, advertise their value to members and, hopefully, be able to increase their membership that way. So there are other ways that farmers institutes can get to funding, but we don’t have direct funding for them.

Then I will say again that modernizing the legislation will allow them to apply for other grants that they could be interested in. We are assisting them; it’s just not direct funding.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Agriculture critic for allowing me to ask a question in the estimates debate here today.

I have a question regarding the integrity of farmers institutes in the province overall. In particular, there’s a significant dispute over the governance of the Salmon Valley Farmers Institute that now spans, actually, decades.

I know that the Farmers and Womens Institutes Act has not been updated for quite some time, so it’s very good to hear that the act will be updated. Unfortunately, the original intent of the act is not being met in Salmon Valley, and I fear that there is serious financial risk to other farmers institutes in the province if this Salmon Valley case is not effectively audited by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Local farmers have been shut out of the institute. They have also been shut out of the community hall and curling rink, controlled by the organization.

My question: can the minister confirm that the Salmon Valley Farmers Institute is in good standing? If it is, I’m wondering if the ministry can direct an audit of the Salmon Valley Farmers Institute to ensure that such disputes don’t ever happen again in this province.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I’d like to thank the member for the question.

We are well aware of the Salmon Valley institute. Our ministry staff has been in conversation for months with the organization around the concerns that the member has brought up, so we’re actively engaged. I can tell the member that there is currently a possible lawsuit, so we won’t be able to go into depth too much about that.

But I think this is the most interesting part. That organization is in good standing as it relates to the current legislation and the current act, which is actually the catalyst that got us moving on modernizing the legislation. This is an example of the current legislation not enforcing good governance, for example.

So yes, very well aware. I’m happy to have a chat offline with the member anytime, as we kind of move through the modernization. If there are particular things that the member is interested in, happy to chat those out. But I’m really glad that the member brought this forward.

Ian Paton: Based on my lack of short-term memory, I want to quickly just go back and ask one more carbon tax question.

The minister knows I toured Village Farms just last week, the tomato side of Village Farms. Extremely impressive. The cannabis side — incredible technology and whatnot, producing cannabis in Delta.

My question: will the greenhouses that are growing tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, which get an 80 percent rebate on their carbon tax, be getting a 100 percent rebate as consumer carbon tax users?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think my first response is a question to the member, and that is: did the member sample both types of products out of Village’s? Just curious.

Okay, so yes, there was a partial exemption for up to 80 percent of the carbon tax on natural gas used for heating greenhouses up to this point. If the bill passes, there will be no need for that system. There just will be no carbon tax on greenhouses.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. That’s good news. There’ll be zero carbon tax charged to greenhouses.

Would we be able to say the same to poultry farmers with baby chicks that are heating their poultry barns that need to stay warm, farmers up North using grain dryers to dry their grain? Two other examples.

Hon. Lana Popham: The answer is yes; they will be exempt from carbon pricing.

I think this is really good news for our food producers, our agricultural industry. We all have food security in mind right now. We all have cost of food in mind coming in from our constituents, and so I think this is really good news on that front.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. That’s definitely good news for our agricultural food producers in the province.

I guess I could go on with one more question about carbon tax. The trucks that move our food around. For instance, the trucks that pick up our milk and use a lot of diesel to run those trucks, from dairy farms as far north as Prince George and Smithers and come all the way down to Abbotsford to a processing plant. Will trucks transporting agricultural products such as milk also be granted carbon tax exemption?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: As much as I’d love to continue talking about this, because I’m just as happy about this change as the member is, for agriculture, I’ve been reminded that I’m not supposed to be talking about any changes that the bill might be bringing because the bill is actually up for debate. But we can talk about that over a coffee tomorrow if it passes.

Ian Paton: I’ll move on to farm classification. According to the B.C. Ag Council, the minimum farm classification requirements to receive farm classification on properties in B.C. no longer adequately ensures that farmland is being used for agricultural production.

This has been asked year after year: when will the ministry make a decision on raising the threshold to incentivize small-scale farmers to produce more on their land?

Hon. Lana Popham: Great question from the member of the opposition. This is something that I’m very interested in as well. But as the member knows, this falls under the purview of the Minister of Finance, so I would hope that the member would go to the Minister of Finance and ask this question as well.

But I have to say that this is on my work plan, and I’ve been out talking to farmers, getting feedback, small and large scale. I’ve been socializing it to try and get a feel of what’s going on out there and, of course, engaging with the B.C. Agriculture Council.

The member will know that this has been in place for a very, very long time and most likely doesn’t reflect what’s really happening on the ground. But again, it doesn’t come without controversy. So that’s a conversation I feel like I need to engage British Columbians in and bring that feedback to the Minister of Finance. But I would hope that the member would also canvas those ministries.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

I guess I’ll throw this out. In the opinion of the minister…. I think I’d be correct in saying that, roughly, for the farm classification status you have to meet around $2,500 in farm product sales for the year. The B.C. Ag Council has suggested it should be $7,500 or even $10,000. Do you have an opinion on that?

Hon. Lana Popham: Another good question.

If you are growing on an acreage two acres or less, the number is $10,000 already. If it’s two acres or more, it’s $2,500.

The member is correct. The UBCM has suggested $7,500. The B.C. Agriculture Council has suggested $7,500. That’s the number that’s floating out there, and that’s really what I’m referencing in my conversations.

[3:50 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

I guess, without belabouring this, to ask one more time…. This question has been asked year after year in budget estimates for Agriculture. My question is, when will…? You’re suggesting the Ministry of Finance has to make this decision. When can we finally see a decision? I’m asking, really, not only for myself but on behalf of the B.C. Ag Council.

The Chair: I will say to the member for Delta South on questions of repetition…. We’re not supposed to ask questions that have been asked year after year, but I’m going to let this one go ahead.

Hon. Lana Popham: I think the member and I both share the frustration around this issue, so I’m happy to answer it. I’m just as interested as the member is on this topic. I’ve tasked my ministry staff to do the policy work on it. So we’re well into it. They’re working busily on that and also informing the Ministry of Finance and working with the Ministry of Finance.

I can’t tell the member an exact date, but I can tell the member that there’s more work that’s been done on it now than there ever has been, and it is in my interest to move this forward.

Ian Paton: The minister will recall, several years ago with the Agriculture Day at the Legislature, the evening get-together gala next door at the Grand Pacific Hotel — on stage in front of the B.C. Ag Council, with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and herself, making a statement that finally, after all these years of trespassing, horrified farm families that are scared at night, during the day of trespassers coming onto their farms, setting up illegal cameras in the farms, etc…. Trespass continues to be an ongoing concern for members, especially of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association.

This has been long and dragged out. There seem to be no answers on updating our Trespass Act for farmers in this province. Could you give me a briefing now as an update to where we’re going with our Trespass Act, that so many years ago said would get fixed through the Attorney General’s office?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question.

Yes, we, in fact, did make those statements, and we have been endeavouring to pursue making family farms safer, protecting them from very difficult and traumatizing incidents, as the member has brought up. It’s a really difficult thing for Ag when you see some of the ways that protesters have infiltrated farms, causing great stress to animals and to the families that live there.

As we’ve been working on this, it has become more complicated than we thought. It’s not just an easy fix; working with the AG’s office as part of it. We’re looking at issues around biosecurity that would perhaps protect barns more fully.

I’d be happy to give the member an update as we progress. But I have to say…. The member’s frustrated. I’m frustrated. It’s not as easy as we thought it was.

Ian Paton: Thank you to the minister.

I’m sure it is a difficult situation, but I think the last when I heard that the problem will be fixed and there was great applause from the B.C. Ag Council folks that were there that evening.

My question to the minister: how often and are you regularly working with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General to work on some sort of legislation to protect farmers or to up the fines or enforcement for trespassing on people’s farms?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: This is what I can tell the member, that it’s an active file in the ministry, and we continue working on it. I’m in constant conversations with everything ag, with the B.C. Ag Council. I think that that line of communication is very open on this.

We also have the newly formed Premier’s Task Force on Agriculture and Food, so for difficult, complicated issues like this, we do have a place that we can work with the community, ag processing, all of it, at the Premier’s task force. That’s all I can tell the member for now, but I’ll keep him updated as I can.

Ian Paton: I appreciate that answer.

I’ll move on now to a real problem we have in this province. And Mr. Chair, you’re from Vancouver Island. We have a huge problem in this province with wildlife that are affecting agricultural crops and agricultural crops that are in storage and lovely fields of grass and alfalfa that are being ruined by not only elk but by ducks and geese and bears.

I guess, as the Agriculture critic…. I’m sure the minister gets a lot of emails, but I get a lot too, thinking I can help fix the problem, which is pretty difficult. But I can tell you that I have endless emails and phone calls from people that have been affected by…. I’m going to mostly talk about elk right now.

The elk damage which is taking place not only on Vancouver Island is unbelievable. The stories I get from farmers in the Cobble Hill area, the Yellow Point area near Ladysmith. You know, elk that literally invade the farm, where people are almost scared to get out of their vehicles because there are elk literally on the driveway coming into their farm.

I’ve had emails and correspondence from as far away as Cranbrook. There are over 8,000 elk roaming the farmers’ fields in the Cranbrook area that are damaging, a great deal of damage, alfalfa fields. I’ve been up there just last summer to Cranbrook. You look out at a field full of alfalfa, but it’s got a pivot irrigation system. You look and go: “I think there are 400 elk out in this field laying down and damaging, obviously….” I don’t have to tell you how they’re damaging the alfalfa crops.

For instance, a letter from Nechako Valley Regional Cattlemen’s Association was actually sent to Minister Bailey: “On top of the issues with elk, producers in our area are suffering unprecedented crop and forage losses from elk. Ministry biologists have surveyed and documented well over 1,000 elk in the broader Nechako Valley area. An elk eats about three pounds of food per day….”

I forgot that I’m not even talking about Cranbrook right now; I’m talking about the Nechako area.

“An elk eats about three pounds of food per day for every 100 pounds of its body weight. This means that a 500-pound elk eats about 15 pounds of food per day, while an 800-pound bull elk eats about 24 pounds of food per day. And this is food that they’re taking from our farmers’ fields.”

The frustration is that so far, people within whatever ministry it is are telling people: “Well, you need to put up a seven-foot-high fence on your farm if you’re in Cobble Hill area or up in Nechako or up in Cranbrook.” What farmer could possibly afford to? I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. If you have a farm that’s 200 acres in size, how could you possibly put up a seven-foot-high chain link fence to keep the elk out?

This question has been asked over and over again. When will ministry coordinate with another ministry to figure out how we can have a cull program or some sort of compensation for farmers to be able to put up these fences to keep the elk out of not only their fields but their barnyards?

And we all know about round bales that go into storage and silage. The elk will come into a barnyard and literally rip open the plastic and start eating the feed that is meant for the cattle.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks very much for that question. I am also very aware of the situation, particularly around elk up in the Cowichan and in other areas of the province.

It’s a difficult topic, because often where you find agriculture, you find the wilderness, and this is where domestic animals and wildlife collide. Wildlife — they’re not stupid. They’re going to go where the eating is good, and that’s, unfortunately, often a farmer’s field.

We know that. We do have a program that supports farmers that find themselves at the bad end of the stick when it comes to wildlife destroying or eating their crops.

This particular issue falls under the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, and we have a cross-ministry group that was stood up last year specifically about this issue. We have been able to support farmers who have found themselves with damage — $9 million in the last year, which was 600 producers. It is in everybody’s best interest to try and solve this problem.

It’s an expensive problem, but it’s complicated. You have many user groups on the land base. We have a contract with a person who is doing a cross-jurisdictional scan on how other areas are also trying to solve this issue.

So it’s a work in progress, but I think the member asked if there was a program in place. We do have a program, and there was a $9 million spend.

Ian Paton: So $9 million — I’m not seeing any record of that in the emails that I’ve been getting from farmers. There has been $9 million put out to farmers affected by elk in the last year to build fencing.

Hon. Lana Popham: Just to clarify, this is part of business risk management programming, and the payments are going out the door as we speak. This is not to build fencing; this is to mitigate the loss of crop.

Ian Paton: I understand completely. I’m going to get to the AWP, agriculture wildlife program, in just a moment.

[4:10 p.m.]

Still, we’re talking about elk, and the farmers are asking the question, through you and another ministry: is there any plan for relocating elk or for having a cull of elk?

We can’t just solve the problem by throwing money out to build fences. That is impractical if you have a 100-acre farm or a 200-acre farm. I’m going to get to AWP with damage by geese and ducks and swans, etc., in our farmer’s field, but is there specific money that’s being set aside to deal with the elk problem? Is there an elk relocation possibility?

Hon. Lana Popham: Just to clarify, the programming that we’re talking about right now includes damage from elk. Elk are included in the suite of wildlife that this program would support as far as compensation goes.

The member is asking when are we going to fix the problem. I get that. That’s what the farmers are asking us as well. This working group that we’ve stood up is a serious working group, where we’re trying to get to a solution, but I’m sure the member can understand it is extremely complicated.

What’s on the table? Everything is on the table. Relocation. Culling. Hazing, which I think stands for scaring them away with noise. Partnerships with First Nations. Everything is on the table because this is a battle that farmers are losing, and it’s an expensive one to compensate for.

So yes, the member is right. I hope that we will have something to update the member on, and the farmers, in the near future. But I can guarantee that this is a work in progress right now.

Larry Neufeld: I was listening and hearing about the fencing of elk property. In my area, the farmers have raised elk in the past as a means of trying to diversify their economy and create an economic opportunity for themselves.

I personally witnessed, driving to a jobsite three days in a row, where the elk fencing separated a cow and its calf. It was heartbreaking to the point where you knew that that calf was going to perish because the mother could not get back to it, and the calf could not get through the fence to join its mother. The mother stayed in the adjacent field for three…. On the third morning, she was gone. I don’t know if she was poached or what happened or if she just abandoned the calf.

My question would be: what mitigating measures would the ministry be planning, to avoid that type of tragic scenario?

Hon. Lana Popham: I’d like to thank the member for bringing this into estimates. In my view, being in this Legislature since 2009, this is exactly one of the reasons why estimates in this format is positive, because I can hear about issues like this.

[4:15 p.m.]

What I will do is invite the member to come and discuss this one-on-one, maybe bring the Agriculture critic, as well, to discuss where the farm is, what all of the details are that we need to figure out why this happened.

Was there a role that…? Is there something that could have been done to change the outcome? I can’t tell you that right now, and my staff that are here don’t have those details, but we would love for the member to come and talk to us about that. We’ll make sure that we’ve got supporting staff in place when that conversation happens.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

I do have another scenario that I would like to share at this time as well, and it was even more tragic than the one that I just did share. In my area, as I say, there is a significant amount of…. As we all know, farming has been a challenge.

I grew up on a farm. I grew up in Saskatchewan during a timeframe when we were losing 1,500 to 1,800 family farms a year. The farmers were trying everything to try to diversify their means on which to keep the farms alive.

The scenario that I would like to share was also around fencing. It was a scenario where, unfortunately, we watched a cow moose drowned inside of a closure which had an excavation in it. That was proper certified elk fencing in both cases, very tall. The adult animals were able to get overtop, but they didn’t have the runtime or whatever they needed to get back out again.

That was another one that I’d like to share. Again, mitigating measures would be my question, since I do need to ask a question.

Hon. Lana Popham: Again, I appreciate this example coming forward, and I would make the same offer. Maybe we can talk about both issues at the same time.

Ian Paton: While we’re on the subject of wildlife damage, I have been inundated with calls from farmers not only in Delta but up in Cranbrook and different areas, about their payments. Perhaps you know about this, but everybody is way behind on getting paid for their crop damage for…. I’ve got to think about this now. Normally for the winter of 2024, we would get paid in the late part of the fall of 2023, 2024.

Anyway, my question is: why is there such a massive hang-up of people waiting to get their compensation cheques? There are farmers that are owed $70,000 for damage from geese, ducks, etc., and elk as well. They’re waiting for these cheques, and they’re way, way overdue.

Hon. Lana Popham: Can I just ask a clarifying question? How far behind does the member think the payments are at this point?

Ian Paton: I would say they’re probably six to seven months overdue right now from their normal time of year.

I personally, as a farmer myself, would get a cheque every year. I’m waiting for my cheque for crop damage to my hay crops.

Hon. Lana Popham: The member is correct. We are running about six months behind. The payments went out last week, so there should be money being received by farmers over this coming week. They’ve gone out. It’s out the door.

Ian Paton: Okay, that’s appreciated. Good news. I’ll be letting several farmers know that have phoned me, wondering where their payments are.

I’d like to move on to processes of local procurement. Several years ago in Agriculture budget estimates, the minister told me about how much work had gone into getting local-produced food in British Columbia into our institutions such as our prisons, our schools, our hospitals, our universities.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m just wondering. How subscribed is the Buy B.C. program, and what is the province doing to ensure that public sector institutions such as hospitals, schools, universities, Crown corporations, prisons, etc., are procuring local products in light of the current trade dispute with the U.S.? How is the current Feed B.C. procurement framework being used to expand local markets for tariff-exposed exports?

Hon. Lana Popham: I feel like I won the jackpot with this question. It’s my favourite topic, which the member knows. I go on and on about this one.

Feed B.C. got established in…. We started working on it in 2017 — really difficult type of programming to implement. Started with health authorities, and we were told that it was almost impossible, a variety of reasons. It would cost more. There was no distribution set up. There was no system in place to keep track of it.

We plugged away for a number of years, and then Interior Health became the first partner with Feed B.C. with the Penticton hospital. They started using B.C. eggs. Six hundred thousand shelled eggs started moving through Interior Health, and that was just the start of it.

Once the system was established, there were…. After hours and hours and hours, now six regional health authorities all subscribe to Feed B.C. It’s not a legislative policy or framework. It’s a partnership that we have with health authorities.

Back in the day, when we started it, there was a lot of talk about not being able to have legislative totals put into place or regulated totals because of trade agreements. Most often cited was TILMA. So we put in some language that suggested they move their totals.

We started with health authorities that were probably procuring between 11 and 14 percent, and now on average, it’s 30 percent. Some are higher; some are lower. But we’ve really moved the dial, and this is millions of dollars of B.C.-grown and -processed food that is now flowing through health authorities. The member will know that it’s a bit harder to do that in our northern health authorities, but they have really taken it on as well.

Because all that hard work was done with health authorities, it cleared the path for other areas to be able to take on Feed B.C. So that would be post-secondaries. Twenty-five post-secondary institutions are partners in Feed B.C., and some of them are getting…. They’re well over 40 percent of procurement that’s being done. They have a larger budget, and they have a different type of clientele, a student base that is requiring different types of foods, which lends itself to different types of procurement. But we are moving the dial there. Right now we are also working with B.C. Ferries.

This is a program that I would say had all-partisan support. It’s something that I talked about back when I was the critic. And I don’t think anyone can argue that this is definitely the way to go.

We’re going to see how this goes with these new trade threats. Because, of course, the conversation around “you can’t violate any trade agreements….” Well, right now I’m not really sure which trade agreements we’d be violating if we actually pushed harder on this.

[4:25 p.m.]

Luckily, we have got very willing partners. This work continues around the calendar. There are meetings with health authorities, post-sec, specifically around Feed B.C. throughout the year as we try to bring new producers in.

I’m going to tell a really, really quick one. I thought this was one of the best stories I’ve heard this year about Feed B.C. I was at an event, and Fraser Health was there. A representative of Fraser Health came up and told me that this is the first time that they have actually made a contract directly with a blueberry farmer. So instead of going through the usual ways to procure food distribution, they were dealing directly with a farmer.

I think this is a big win for agriculture. I think the more we do this, the easier it’ll get, and you’ll see more direct contracts with farmers across the province.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. As I’ve said in the past, we know that the farmers cannot back their truck up to a hospital or a prison or whatever and say: “Here are blueberries from my farm.” They have to go through processing plants and then through companies — big, big food distribution companies such as Gordon and Sysco. I think you know how the food ends up going to our institutions.

My question is: have you been in touch with these huge food distribution companies? They’re the ones that would make the contract deals with our institutions on what’s provided and what’s most economical, what’s cheapest.

I guess the second part of my question is: now that your leader, the Premier, has said over and over again that we will not deal whatsoever if we have to with the United States, are our institutions suddenly not purchasing any product, having any product from the United States going into our hospitals, our prisons, etc. — in other words, applesauce from Washington state or strawberries from California, etc.? Have we completely cut off using U.S. agricultural products in our B.C. institutions?

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks again for that question on Feed B.C.

Pertaining to the large distributors and if we are working directly with them…. The member is right. Hospitals and often universities are using companies like Gordon and Sysco.

The good news is that they’ve been partners with us right from the get-go. They attend all of our Feed B.C. meetings, and they’re great partners. If you go online and look for products to buy, they were the first to establish a buy-B.C. section, so it would be easy for not just health institutions, etc., to make those choices but also the restaurant industry. So there’s a great partnership there. There are 290 B.C. businesses that are in partnership with these distribution companies already, so it’s well set up.

[4:30 p.m.]

As we see things change with the tariff war, I think the good news is that we’ve done all of the groundwork to make this very easy. I would say that the health authorities, for example, are not buying 100 percent, but we definitely have made these inroads. I think as things ramp up and products get highlighted as B.C. products, as those conversations happen more and more, we’re going to see it’s easier to make those choices.

I’m just going to give the member an example of something that’s in his own riding — I was not able to visit last week, but I’m hoping to visit soon — Olympic yogurt. One of the things that hospitals buy is yogurt. There are parameters around that in the health institutions. It has to be a certain size, and there has to be a certain sugar content, etc. So it’s very particular, unlike post-secondary, who have a little bit more freedom. Olympic yogurt could possibly be the company from Delta that is the yogurt supplier into our health authorities.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

So although things are difficult because of the tariff conversation, I think we have a ton of opportunity on the Agriculture and Food file.

Sheldon Clare: When we closed Ag estimates last time, I asked a question with regards to fencing on rail lines, with BCR lines, CN, and what engagement there was with the feds and the local community with regards to that kind of issue. You had indicated you would have a response for me today.

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks again for reminding me about the question.

I think the first thing that we did is sort out who’s responsible for the issue. Although our ministry is not responsible for the animals that got struck on the rail line or the fencing situation, we do know that the WLRS ministry and the Ministry of Transportation are responsible, and we would be happy to set up a meeting with the member and folks from those ministries.

Ian Paton: I’d like to move on to some Agricultural Land Commission issues.

I travel a lot within the Fraser Valley. I travel a lot throughout the province every chance I get for agricultural purposes. I’m seeing the wild, wild west of what’s going on in our ALR right now with properties that are run down. They’re dumps. They’re dumping grounds for fill material. They’re places to park trucks on agricultural land.

There are buildings going up that shouldn’t be going on agricultural land. There are businesses that are literally setting up right in east Delta, in my area, businesses building buildings and setting up businesses on agricultural land, which is totally inappropriate. It’s totally illegal. It can’t be done.

We know that the minister is frustrated with this as well. Your budget went from $5.4 million, I believe, for the ALC, to $5.5 million. Totally unacceptable. I’m not quite sure how you can sit in cabinet and say: “I’m okay with that.” I’m sure you don’t. But it’s totally unacceptable that the land commission does not get more funding to try and control what’s going on in British Columbia.

For instance, we turn on the TV at night and we see situations of dumping, especially in the Hatzic area, dumping throughout the Fraser Valley of illegal fill material late at night.

I guess my first question would be: what is the Agricultural Land Commission doing? I know they only have six enforcement officers through the entire province, but how can we get a handle on illegal dumping that’s going on farmland in British Columbia?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Yes, fill dumping is a complete problem. I’m seeing it myself; I travel just as much as the critic does. It’s in every community.

It’s really difficult to keep ahead of folks that are making this probably their business. More money in dumping soil on farmland than probably farming, in some cases. So it’s really difficult to stop, but the ALC has really always made it a priority to be ahead of this issue.

Just the last two years $432,000 in penalties were given out, and there is court action being taken in many cases. All of that being said…. There’s stuff that’s being done, for sure. Is it keeping ahead of the problem? They’re trying their very best, but it’s a really bad situation.

We are exploring some new options. I can’t talk about that right now. I can’t give any more detail, but I will keep the member apprised of what we are planning or hopefully be able to do.

Ian Paton: With non-farm use activity on our ALR lands, not only am I seeing….

I drive to Abbotsford quite often, because my wife’s mom lives in Abbotsford. We take 16th Avenue, and there’s a perfect example of terrible run-down properties that got subdivided many, many years ago. There’s no farming taking place. It’s just a place to store junk. It’s a place to park trucks at night. I feel sorry for the land commission trying to stay on top of this, but it’s getting completely out of hand in this province.

The building of non-farm-use barns…. And I’ll use my riding of Delta as an example. I think it’s the prime example going on right now in British Columbia.

Here’s a letter from the city of Delta who met with the land commission just recently: “Delta’s property use and compliance department have several open files where agricultural land is not being used for its intended purpose in contravention of the Delta zoning bylaw. Items of particular concern are unauthorized farmland developments, including construction of large structures unrelated to farm operations, the use of agricultural land for commercial vehicle parking and the unauthorized deposit of fill material on farmland.”

As the land commission would know, we have no less than six or seven massive new barns that were built. They’ve actually been put on a stop-work order right now because it somehow slipped through the cracks of the city of Delta’s planning department. They are so unconventional that they don’t even make sense as far as normal farming practices.

[4:40 p.m.]

They are two storeys with windows up above, so they’re obviously going to be used for weddings. They’re going to be used for suites for people to stay upstairs. Thank goodness they’ve been put on hold with some sort of a stop-work order, either by Delta or by the Agricultural Land Commission.

My question is: where are we right now with the illegal buildings, non-farm-conforming farm buildings that are being put up around B.C.?

Hon. Lana Popham: Just to go back to the fill dumping for a moment, one of the things I failed to mention was that I’ve asked my deputy to pull together the trucking associations of the Lower Mainland and the development community to try and get all of industry to the table to be part of the solution on fill dumping, to try and stop it up front. I’d be happy to invite the critic to that meeting and that round table. This is about everybody being at the table to try and harness this really difficult situation.

As far as non-conforming illegal structures, the member brought up examples in his own riding, Delta South. I think it was great that the member brought that up, because I’m very aware of what’s going on there and also because maybe we could give the municipality, the local government of Delta, a lot of kudos for being awesome partners. Even though maybe something fell through the cracks, Delta’s really great to work with. I think they’ve got a very engaged MLA.

Also, farmers institutes. Farmers are a really important part of the conversation. The Agricultural Land Commission and the city of Delta have recently gotten together. They are forming a working group specifically on structures on farmland. The ALC is going to help try and guide Delta in creating possibly some bylaws on what’s acceptable when building applications are being approved. They’re doing this in conjunction with input from the farmers institute in Delta.

I think this is a really great example of how this problem cannot be solved at one level alone. It takes everybody coming to the table to talk about it. So this is going to be a great example to show to other local governments across B.C.

[4:45 p.m.]

Ian Paton: I guess my next question would be…. We know that there are some non-farm use buildings that are going up, either claiming to be used for their farm operations or some that we know don’t even have anything to do with farming. They’re a commercial business that thinks they can set up and run their business on farmland because there’ll be cheaper taxes.

My question: where do we sit with those? If we determine that some of these huge barns in Delta obviously aren’t being used for proper farming purposes, can they be completely shut down, or is there a process to fine them, and would they be able to continue on and continue to build their barn? I mean, what do we do with these things?

Hon. Lana Popham: Where are we provincially with this whole situation? The ALC is a complaint-driven process, so if there’s a complaint about a structure, the ALC can inspect it and make a decision based on what they see, as far as it being legal or illegal, and work with local government.

But in the case of an area like Delta that has identified structures that are illegal, there are stop-work orders in place. There can be remediation done, so ultimately, the buildings can be removed from the land base. That’s one of the options. It takes time to do that, to get through the system, but just so the member knows, that is an option.

Ian Paton: I want to talk a bit about housing on our farmland, and I know the minister has heard me talk about this many times. I’m an absolute believer that a bona fide farm…. I’ll repeat. Bona fide farm families that are making their 100 percent living on their farm have the next generation come along — the son or a daughter gets married, they have children…. They have the right to live on that farm with a second house or even a third house on the farm.

My question, to start with. If you want to build a massive indoor riding arena on farmland in Delta or you want to build a massive new barn for your dairy herd or you want to build a massive pit that you dig into the ground of hundreds of square feet, thousands of square feet as a manure pit, those are allowed. Will the minister agree with that — that those facilities are allowed, massive indoor riding arenas that are the size of an ice arena or massive new barns or in-ground manure pits, on farms?

Hon. Lana Popham: The short answer is that if they are truly in place for farming and they’re farm structures, then the answer is yes, they are allowed.

Ian Paton: Further to that, we’ve agreed that massive 100,000-square-foot indoor riding arenas that take up a massive amount of land on a farm are allowable. A huge new barn, a heifer barn, a milking barn for a farm? It’s allowable. An outdoor riding arena on a horse equestrian facility? That’s allowable. It takes up hundreds of square feet or square metres.

If you’re a farming family with one principal residence, you’re saying that the second residence for a farm family…? Young farmers that are married with kids that want to work on that farm are allowed a second residence, if approved by the municipality, of 970 square feet.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Again, the short answer is if the family needs a structure bigger than 90 square feet, what’s needed is an application to the ALC.

I can say to the member that I look at the approval rates of housing for farm purposes, and I will get the exact percentage, but it’s rare that something gets turned down.

Ian Paton: The picture I’m trying to draw here is that on farms, without permission from the land commission or, if it goes through your local municipality, for massive new structures that take up hundreds of thousands of square footage, that’s okay, but if you want to put a second or third home on a farm for farming members to live in, that’s like pulling hen’s teeth. I get more complaints from people saying they’re hung up with trying to get a second or third house on a farm.

Right on my particular road in Delta is a family that’s been there since 1962. I grew up with this family. They’re trying to put a second home on a piece of land that’s part of the farm home plate. It’s actually a lawn that they’ve been mowing. It’s not going on any part of land that’s being farmed to grow food, yet they’ve been hung up for months and months trying to get a variance to put up a building that’s slightly bigger than 970 square feet.

Hon. Lana Popham: Maybe I’ll start with the percentage of secondary dwellings that are approved by the ALC.

Maybe I’ll back up a little bit. The reason why there’s an application for a second dwelling on the agricultural land reserve — except for the 90 square feet, which does not require an application to the ALC; that’s just through local government…. The reason why there’s an application for housing that’s larger than that is because when an application is put into the ALC, there is a verification that happens to make sure that it’s for farming.

If we didn’t have that system in place, everyone who’s not a farmer could also do it. The application process is really critical to make sure that we’re protecting farmland and housing opportunities for actual farmers.

I’d be happy to have a larger discussion with the member about that, but I think that with that knowledge, that it’s…. To me, it’s clear that an application process is the only way that we can make sure it’s a farmer or a farming family that’s applying. In those cases, 92 percent of the applications get approved. It’s kind of the checks and balances that are in place.

Now, the member brought up these very large structures that can go in regardless, because they’re barns, because they’re riding rings, whatever they are, but still a notice of intent has to go into the ALC because they’re going to verify that that’s actually farming that’s happening.

The member brought up an example of somebody on his street whose application for a second home, even though they’re a farming family, has been caught up for months and months. We’re kind of checking in without knowing all the details. Nobody is familiar with that scenario, so it could possibly be that it’s the municipality of Delta where the application process is hung up. If it’s hung up at the ALC, the member can get back to me, and we’ll check and see where the progress is.

[4:55 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. I can pass along that the city of Delta sent forward their favourable recommendation for a variance for a larger home for this house in Delta. It’s sitting waiting for some sort of approval or an answer back from the ALC. It’s been several months, according to that family.

Another question I have…. Let’s be clear. What I’m getting at is I don’t know how government came up with 970 square feet as a suitable size for a secondary home on a farm. If you’re a farming family and the next generation has married, they’ve got three or four kids. I mean, come on. Who lives in 970-square-foot houses nowadays on a farm?

Bill 44 came in, which we voted against. Bill 44 actually says that in British Columbia, you can demolish your house in a single-family neighbourhood and replace it with a fourplex where your house was on a 4,000-square-foot lot. Yet on farms in B.C., you’re allowed one more house, and it’s 970 square feet. You need to allow a third house. Can we have a third house? Is that even possible to have a third house? That’ll be the first part of my question.

The second part of my question is: could the minister answer for me why it is that greenhouses…? I love greenhouses. We have lots of them in Delta. But if you put up a greenhouse, you can bring in housing for your workers, up to 100 migrant workers living in housing on a farm that does greenhouses. Yet right next door you could have a dairy farm where they’re struggling to get a second house built.

I’m asking: why is it that greenhouses are allowed so many residents for migrant workers but your typical bona fide B.C. farmer has so much trouble getting a second house?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, a division has been called in the main chamber. We will recess to attend that division.

I ask members to return promptly following the conclusion of division. If I can get back here, you guys can too, because I’m slow. Thanks.

The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Lana Popham: I owe the member an answer from before the break.

Maybe I would just start by saying that I just want to make a comment on the 90-square-foot residence that’s allowed without going through the ALC. You just have to get it approved by local government. I want to start there because the member has said a few times now that his impression — and I don’t want to speak for the member, but this is what I’m getting — is that that, he believes, was a solution put in place for farm families, and how could a farm family even live in something that small?

Let me just set the record straight. That is not intended to meet the expectations of a secondary residence for a farm family. That is simply an option that was put out there, where there was only the requirement of a local government application approval, to give farm families an additional opportunity for income. They can rent out that small space. They can use it for workers. It really wasn’t intended for a full, entire farm family to live inside of. It was there as another option for income, or like I said, perhaps it was for a farm worker.

That aside, there’s an application process for farm families — for anybody who wants to have a secondary home, a third home, a fourth home, a fifth home on farmland. The reason why the application process is the way it is, is because when somebody wants a secondary residence that’s the same size as the primary residence, there needs to be an application where the ALC has a set of eyes on it that says: “Yeah, that’s for a farm family. Check.”

Since Bill 52, there have been 21 applications approved for three residences. There have been three applications approved for four residences. There have been two applications approved for five residences for farm families. Every single application that was made to the ALC for more than two residences was approved. It’s a 100 percent approval rating. So I just wanted to put that out there. We could talk more about it.

The member also talked about having greenhouses in place and then kind of work-camp-style accommodation go up for their workforce. That would most likely be considered temporary residence for workers in the view of the ALC rather than a permanent residence situation.

I really need to reiterate, because I think the member has brought up the example before, that farm families are limited to the number of residences that they can have, when, in fact, if it’s for farming, it’s really unlimited. There’s no limit. We’ve had up to five residences approved on the same property for farming purposes. So I think there is real flexibility and acknowledgement of the needs of farm families since it’s a 100 percent approval rate for those additional residences.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

We must be living in totally different worlds because I deal with people every day trying to get one more residence on their farm, and you’re telling me that there are applications that’ve been approved for three, four, five?

[5:20 p.m.]

I find this absolutely astounding, absolutely astounding, when I’m trying to help neighbours get one more residence. Not only just the residence itself, but could we actually make it 1,500 square feet instead of 970 square feet?

My question, again: why is it that the greenhouse industry can put up housing for 100 migrant workers on that farm property, yet next door is a bona fide family-owned, third-generation farm growing potatoes or a dairy farm that is not allowed to put up the same migrant worker housing on their farm? Dairy farms nowadays have six, seven, eight, ten employees now. It’s not like the old days where there was one hired hand.

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, I think the answer is that if there is a need for additional housing for farm workers, work camp style, which you see at greenhouse locations, then an application goes into the Agricultural Land Commission. They use that lens that they use. Is this for agricultural purposes? Does this support the farm?

For the one greenhouse, which I think the member is referencing, the answer was yes. It supported that greenhouse. Comparing that to a farm family needing an additional residence or some kind of supportive housing for workers…. Larger-scale worker housing is normally considered a temporary type of housing on farm, but if it’s to support family members who are farming on that farm, the number of residences is basically…. It’s an unlimited number.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members of the committee, we will be going back to the chamber for the Lieutenant Governor to give us royal assent. Once again, I challenge you to get back here before I do. Thank you so much.

We are in recess at this time.

The committee recessed from 5:22 p.m. to 5:38 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, folks. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Lana Popham: I know the member has another burning question, but I wanted to make sure that I gave him an update on something that I think is going to make him happy.

Member, the folks that live on your street will be receiving their decision from the Agricultural Land Commission this week.

Ian Paton: Well, thank you for that. I haven’t even mentioned who it was, but that farmer and I went to school together since grade 2. And we’ve been…. Anyway, they’re a long-standing, third-generation farm family.

[5:40 p.m.]

I just want to reiterate that I’m not trying to…. You know what I’m not trying to do. But I’m trying to spell out that my life as the Ag critic is phone calls and emails constantly from people frustrated with issues at the Agricultural Land Commission and trying to get answers and trying to get things approved.

My speed dial…. There’s a guy named Colin Fry, and Kirk Miller and John Moonen. You know they go: “Can you help these people out, because I’m not sure what to do.” I think the people here, the staff, will know who I’m talking about. I’m trying to ask them for help to get through issues.

The next thing I’ll jump onto…. What I’m trying to point out, is that you can build massive buildings on top of prime agriculture farmland for equestrian or for greenhouses or for all these different things, but it just seems like a house that takes up 2,000 square feet is really hard to come by. But it’s easy for massive buildings that take up huge square footage on a farm. So that’s what I’m trying to get at.

My next question is about foreign ownership of farmland. I’m getting calls from some of my MLA colleagues from up in northern B.C., the Prince George–McBride area. They’re U.S. developers or wealthy U.S. people coming up, purchasing large tracts of farmland up in the McBride–Prince George area, and they’re not farming it. They’re leaving it fallow, and they’re having their hunting buddies come up from the States to hunt on these farmland parcels that aren’t actually being farmed.

So my question: what are we doing, Minister, about foreign nationals that are purchasing farmland in B.C. and not actually farming it but using it for a purpose such as hunting for their buddies in northern parts of B.C.?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Good question, yes. I’m very well aware of the issue that the member brings up. In fact, my deputy and I will be going up into the Vanderhoof area to talk with the folks, hear a little bit more about this issue.

One of the problems is that we’re not quite sure how much land is affected, but what I can tell the member, and I think it’s good news, is that property transfer tax data from the Ministry of Finance shows that foreign investment has declined steadily from 3 percent of annual transactions in 2017 to 1 percent in 2024 in B.C.’s real estate market.

The reason why we believe this is happening is because of the foreign buyers tax. There are discussions about should that tax be increased to try and really push this great result, but that hasn’t been landed on. I can say that I think the speculation tax, foreign buyers tax, is having the effect that we want around just pieces, swaths of land being purchased by foreign owners and left vacant.

I understand the part about the hunting.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. It’s certainly an issue in B.C. that we have to try and get on top of.

One more land commission question, if I could.

Greenhouses on prime agricultural land in the 1990s were very controversial, especially in my riding of Delta South, where most of the big greenhouses are growing beautiful peppers and cucumbers and tomatoes. And of course, I’m not too happy about it, but growing cannabis as well. They’ve switched from tomatoes to cannabis.

A lot of the farmers in Delta weren’t too happy about these greenhouses on our prime flat class 1 Delta soil. But as time went by, we toured them. We got to see just how fantastic they were with producing homegrown products in Delta.

My question is…. I hate to keep bringing up everything in my riding, because this isn’t about me and my riding, but there’s an example of a 50-acre farm that was called Wellbrook Winery in east Delta, where I live. Wellbrook Winery folded up. It got purchased by a local greenhouse next door, and they want to expand.

A farmer just about gets put in jail for putting crappy fill material on his farm — illegal dumping — yet this greenhouse property was allowed to cover 40 acres with poor quality fill material from some excavation site in Vancouver. Why was that greenhouse in Delta allowed to cover up 40 acres with two feet of fill material preparing to build their next greenhouse?

Hon. Lana Popham: I am also a big fan of greenhouses, but I know that years ago, it was more controversial. The effects that the greenhouses were having in certain areas…. I will use Delta as well. Light shining out of them at night, etc. etc. But technology has really brought us down a great path. There’s more mitigation around light at night. There’s just a whole bunch of great things that greenhouses are doing — less water consumption, beneficial insect management programs, all of that.

Right now when we need it most, they are producing a ton of food for British Columbia. I’ve been having a lot of chats with greenhouse operators, and they’re excited about the future. They’re excited about the future that they will play in a larger footprint of B.C. food security here. I couldn’t be more happy about that.

[5:50 p.m.]

As far as greenhouses and building on farmland…. I mean, one of the consequences of having a successful greenhouse industry is that they are allowed. It’s an allowable use on farmland. So greenhouses, like any larger agricultural structure…. You will need to bring in structural fill. It is unfortunate in some ways that this area of land gets filled with structural fill in order to place a greenhouse, but it is an allowable use in the agricultural land reserve.

Ian Paton: Before I pass a question on to my colleague, I just want to say that as the Minister of Agriculture, I would find it unacceptable to cover up class 1 Delta black soil with two feet of fill material.

I live right there. This stuff’s full of rebar, it’s full of rocks, it’s full of chunks of concrete. I mean, I just don’t know how the land commission allowed that 40 acre…. That’s a huge piece.

It’s one thing to say to a farmer: “You want to build a new barn? Put down some fill material to build your barn on, which is going to take up 90,000 square feet.” But we’re talking 40 acres of crappy fill material going on to prime farmland to build this greenhouse. I find that rather unacceptable.

Perhaps the minister has an answer for that. If not, I’m willing to move on.

Hon. Lana Popham: I think this particular example….

The Chair: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. Lana Popham: Oh, thank you, Madam Chair.

Through the Chair, this particular example…. It sounds like there was a soil and fill plan that was in place, and they stuck to the plan.

I mean, this is what it comes down to, I think: that it’s an allowable use in the agricultural land reserve. It’s a very successful part of our agriculture industry. It’s producing food.

Greenhouses also need flat space. The members’ constituency is a prime location for greenhouse operations, and I believe they want to expand. I guess we could have a debate today: should greenhouses be allowed to expand in this member’s constituency, where should they go, and how should we approach it? Right now we’re open to greenhouse expansion in the province.

Ian Paton: I, too, am in favour of greenhouse expansion. I believe the greenhouses make a fabulous product — extremely high tech.

I can tell you that Village Farms and VanMarrewyk’s and Windset Farms and Millennium Greenhouses are all built on the soil of the farmland of Delta. This is one exception where 40 acres got covered up with fill material.

At this point, I’m willing to sit down and pass on to a colleague of mine from Kamloops.

Ward Stamer: Just shifting gears a little bit on ALC studies — on ALC land, on ALR land.

I have a constituent who had a winery, who basically went through all the hoops with ARC studies, spent over $400,000 in this. They even did it about three different times down by the river, when they were told that because of the flooding, they wouldn’t find anything. They were right.

So a couple of questions to you. They’ve closed the winery now, and they’re looking at subdivision. The way it’s set up, I think they can do three ten-acre parcels on one section, and then 100 acres will stay in another section.

They’re telling me that they’re going to have to redo the ALC studies in this process. Also, they do not have timelines on when that work would be completed, if it had to be completed, and there’s no limit on costs.

Going forward, as we are trying to not only maintain and develop our ALR lands, is the ministry looking at opportunities where, if studies have been done in the past, they will be accepted, and that it’s not just the exception, it’s the rule, unless things have changed, like, on the ground?

The second thing is having proper timelines and costing, because right now it looks like it’s an open-end cheque depending on whichever jurisdiction or whichever First Nations is responsible in that area.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks to the member for the question, and welcome to estimates.

This particular legislation and ALR studies fall under the Ministry of Forests, so we don’t actually have any information on that. I would direct the member to go and canvass the Ministry of Forests when that comes up.

Ian Paton: I’m going to move on now to some water-related issues. I want to make sure that the minister is aware that farmers don’t necessarily trust government not to cut off their water supply before they process their water licences due to backlogging in the system.

The B.C. Agriculture Council is calling for the creation of agricultural water reserves — I think the minister knows all about this — giving farms priority access over other industries.

In this vein, will the ministry commit to ensuring that agriculture is a distinct water user group under any watershed security strategies and include agriculture as a distinct category in any further watershed agreements with stakeholders?

Hon. Lana Popham: The member brings up something that’s a really, really important topic. It’s always been an important topic, but right now it’s even more important.

We know that our province is suffering under drought status, and this is affecting all user groups, including agriculture. When it affects agriculture, it’s a really serious and difficult problem. We saw that in the Cowichan Valley with the dairy there.

There are choices that have to be made when we’re literally running out of water, looking at all the different user groups. Is it the salmon? Is it the dairy? There’s a ton of complicating factors with water.

But the thing that we know that’s very clear is that this is a problem that’s getting worse. We need to have all of our best minds together to try and come forward with some recommendations on how we mitigate this.

Our ministry has committed $100 million to water infrastructure funds, and I think around $70 million has already been moved out the door, so we still have some money left there.

I think most importantly with this question, it’s important to know that the Premier’s Task Force on Agriculture and Food, which the B.C. Agriculture Council is a huge part of, is tasked with figuring out solutions and coming forward with recommendations. Perhaps it’s the one about the water reserve that they’ll land on.

Through this task force, water is their top issue. They’re starting the discussions on water, I think, next week or the week after. The timeline on when we expect recommendations back is within seven or eight months, so we should have…. And there are great minds at the table, including farmer representatives.

This is something we’re going to have to grapple with as a society: who gets water and when do they get it as we start running out. Water collections and agriculture is going to become more and more important, low water use.

Getting back to greenhouses, they use a minimal amount of water. We’re going to have to get our heads around how we’re using water and how it’s being allocated. It’s a really difficult topic.

[6:00 p.m.]

Ian Paton: I believe it was Labour Day of 2023. There was an emergency meeting called in a community hall in Westwold, B.C. I drove up there that morning. It was the same day as my son’s wedding, so I had to get back in time.

Over 200 farmers came out that morning, absolutely irate about — I want to call them — the water cops that were represented by the Ministry of Environment, I think, that came. They were shutting down everybody’s irrigation systems in the Westwold area — Falkland, Westwold. And these guys were absolutely irate. Like, over 200 farmers on a Saturday morning on a long weekend came out to this hall. We said we’d do what we could.

I want to just read something out here. At the B.C. Agriculture Council gala in January ’24, and unfortunately, the minister wasn’t at that gala, the Premier said…. I can’t say his last name; I’ve been getting used to this over the years. The Premier said that farmers wouldn’t have their water cut off or fines, yet two days later the province announced a host of new penalties for violations of the water sustainability and fines up to half a million dollars. This is after he said at the gala that farmers would not have their water cut off.

Will farmers in Westwold, Vancouver Island and other places be told to shut off their water or get these substantial fines in the summer of upcoming 2025?

Hon. Lana Popham: Let me just start off by saying that it’s like a cross-ministry approach on fines and penalties when it comes to water infractions. That side of it is covered off by the WLRS Ministry.

Let’s go back to that moment in time where there was a very difficult moment for farmers in the Westwold area. I’ll be the first to admit that the communication around what was going on was not good. There are big lessons learned there. I would say that it is a completely different world now on the way that we interact with farmers around drought issues, and the Ministry of WLRS does as well.

So unfortunate situation, but lessons learned. Everyone’s in communication. We’ve also put a ton of work in as a ministry to try and figure out how to mitigate some of these situations.

I would like to give the member some reassurance that under my watch as Minister of Agriculture, as long as we’re communicating with farmers, we shouldn’t be running up against fines and penalties. We should be on the same page as we kind of enter into another drought situation. And that’s my guarantee to the member.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer. I’ll be sure to pass that on to everybody at the agriculture gala coming up this spring. I’ll be repeating everything from Hansard at the agriculture gala.

One more question about water. It’s kind of a two-part question.

The watershed security strategy, which was supposed to be completely launched in early 2024, envisions the potential for an agriculture water reserve.

[6:05 p.m.]

My question to the minister: does the Ministry of Agriculture support this vision, and will it support the adoption of a regulation formalizing the process for creating an agriculture water reserve within the watershed security strategy?

The second part of this question. In March 2024, an $80 million agricultural water infrastructure program was announced. How many farms have received money, and how much is left in this program?

Hon. Lana Popham: Okay, so let’s start first with the number of applications, number of farms.

There was actually $100 million. There’s $80 million that I’m going to talk about now, and then there was $20 million that came from a different stream, so $100 million in total. The other $20 million was fully allocated, but let’s talk about the 80 that the member’s referring to right now, so $80 million.

There were 501 applications approved. Currently we still have $26.9 million to allocate, so that’s pretty good.

Then the issue of the dedicated water reserve for agriculture is the top issue that the Premier’s task force will be talking about and grappling with. It’s on May 7.

I thought there would be…. I misunderstood. I thought there would be a report at the end of the seven-ish months that they will be grappling with topics, but, in fact, they’re going to be bringing forward recommendations specifically about water within a number of weeks of meeting on May 7.

We should see some recommendations come forward by the summer, and those will obviously be public.

Ward Stamer: You were mentioning earlier in one of your statements about changes to allocation in water, or at least looking into those allocations.

I know, talking to some of my residents…. That is in my riding, in Westwold. There were discussions last year after the 2023 stuff, and then 2024. There were a couple things that came to mind.

One was the science in determining what the drawdown should be. So that was one of the questions that was brought up, both in 2023 and 2024, to try to determine those guidelines.

The second one was on the potential of reallocation or identifying who got water before somebody else. One of the questions was the difference between alfalfa for beef versus vegetables, and nobody had a straight answer on how that was going to be.

When you look at the water rights in this province over the last 100 years, how they were determined, how rights were established then with the new groundwater act and how everybody had to apply and regain those rights in the Okanagan…. You’re very well aware of the BX water system. It was originally designed for agriculture, and then all the expansion in residential households in Vernon put a lot of strain onto that BX water system.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister has any idea what we would be looking for in 2025 in regards to those opportunities for engagement and consultation with the public, with the stakeholders, when the government starts talking about reallocation.

Hon. Lana Popham: Can I just clarify with the member: was the question specifically about Westwold?

Ward Stamer: No, it was for the province.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Ward Stamer: Through the Chair, sorry.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: That was a complicated question.

This member is good with the big questions. He’s like Mr. Complicated over there, but I like it. It’s challenging.

I hope this is going to suffice, but if not, we can continue on. Again, if the member wants to drill down a bit deeper, happy to have that conversation in my office after estimates are done. My door is always open.

The member represents Westwold, which was really the epicentre of things going sideways, and a lot of that was around transparency and communication. Again, I wanted to reiterate that we believe we have now fixed that problem, and I’m going to depend on the member to kind of update me if the member thinks that that’s not going well. I think it is, my team thinks it is, but always open to having some input from the local MLA.

Last summer we did some workshops from the ministry called “Decoding Drought.” I’m not sure if the member knew about that. Within these workshops we were able to have the conversation with the agriculture community about the science of hydrology, from the ministry’s perspective and from the farmer’s perspective. We were able to talk about how allocations are done at that point, but to make sure that everyone was on the same page as far as the science goes, because that was going to have to be the starting point for transparency and how we’re considering the science.

There was, of course, the conversation about first-in-time, first-in-right, and what’s the value of agriculture when it comes to water. As the member brought up, how can we better value the agriculture sector and different commodities when it comes to water use? We are collaborating with WLRS, and we have been since last summer, talking about putting that lens on agriculture. For example, there’s a hay field, and there’s livestock. You can’t really have the livestock without the hay, so there’s just a different value that’s put on it that may not have been there previously.

Along with the B.C. Agriculture Council, the local farming community, MLAs, I really honestly think that this approach is solving the transparency and communication side. But we also need to continue to grow our tools, because we’ve never faced this kind of drought before. We might have the science, but facing it head-on is new to many of us in government, local government and agriculture communities.

We have this new tool called the B.C. crop reporter that is set up within watersheds — the more difficult, intense watersheds; and Westwold is one of those watersheds. Farmers are able to report their water use, the amount of water that they’re using at different times, precipitation, all of the things that are included when we talk about water so that we’ve got some on-the-ground, granular knowledge within each of these watersheds. That’s playing out right now, and I think that’ll allow us to have some data that’s much needed.

We’re also doing this work in collaboration with WLRS and, like I said, the agriculture community, so we’re really hoping this tool gets us a little bit farther down the track as far as an approach that we might use.

Again, water and this issue is one of the main topics that’s getting pulled through the Premier’s task force.

Ward Stamer: Does that also include on the database, because Westwold was significantly impacted by the White Rock fire, so some of the changes to the hydrology to that? That would be one thing I think would…. That can be anywhere in British Columbia.

The second part of my question is: when we’re looking at those models and those opportunities for discussion, have you looked at other storage opportunities? I know that’s a big issue even for municipalities, and the risk associated in that comprehensive plan. Are they also looking for other opportunities for water storage? I know, of course, First Nations would have to be involved all the way through this process.

[6:20 p.m.]

Is that also part of that assessment, looking at the overall picture of what we have in agriculture, what we have for water, and as we go forward, what the opportunities are to try to increase that capacity?

Hon. Lana Popham: A great question.

We don’t have the ability to take on the forest fire area effects, but we’re going to flag it for WLRS, because I think that’s a great question. I think we all know that when a fire rips through, the hydrology can significantly change. Good point.

Then as far as water storage, of that $80 million that I was discussing with the previous member, there is a stream within that funding that’s specifically for local government to take on water storage and water conveying — larger projects. It means that local government would have to take it on as a project, but there’s funding to support them to do that, and it’s not one of the programs that’s really taken up.

We have $26 million left in that fund. I’m happy to walk the member through, possibly with his local government, to try and figure out if there’s an opportunity for an application there. Yeah, that is available right now.

Ian Paton: I want to move on to a bit about processing. My personal opinion about agriculture in this province…. Whether it’s livestock that you’re raising, whether it’s vegetables that you’re growing, you can be the farmer of the year growing stuff but if you don’t have a place to take that product, to have it processed and turned into a cheque that they send to you in the mail, what are you actually farming for?

The small-scale farmers, as you know, are great. They make a great product, but on a small scale, and they take it to their farmers markets. That’s how they handle their product. The farmers markets are great; you get good, fresh stuff. But big conventional farmers need to have a processing plant, or if you’re in livestock, you need an abattoir, to be able to process a product you’re growing to bring in some income.

With the closure of the cooperative up in Oliver, with B.C. Tree Fruits, many packinghouses will be taking an increased volume of fruit from farms across the region. To support and provide a legal pathway for the storage, packing and marketing of this fruit, the province is making a temporary exemption to the 50 percent ALR rule for tree fruits, which is the requirement that value-added products processed on the ALR must have at least 50 percent of the processed product sourced from the farm itself.

The NDP platform of 2024 promised to support and expand food processing in B.C. Is there a plan to include a section or a parcel of the industrial land reserve for food processing and, if not in an industrial land reserve, does the ministry plan to expand the ALR to include land that they would like to have used for food processing?

[6:25 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Lana Popham: To the member’s question, the member is right that, especially maybe now with the tariff war going on, people are really interested in not just B.C.-grown food but B.C.-processed food.

To the member’s point about the co-op, I just went up and spent a week in Kelowna and had three town halls with orchardists, talking about what they’re looking at for this year and what facilities they’re going to be using. We talked to a lot of folks on apple storage areas — processors and the farmers.

There’s a big conversation going on right now with orchardists — especially, maybe, with the apple growers. Do we need to have an apple marketing commission? Is there a moment where a co-op could be reborn? It’s unknown at this time, but for over a week, in six hours of meeting with folks, we tried to focus in on solutions and potential.

This is a great time of year to go up and visit with farmers because it’s spring, and there’s hope in the air. The winter has been pretty good in the Okanagan. I feel like we’re going to continue with those discussions over the next number of months and, hopefully, be able to land on something.

As far as processing goes, the member mentioned that maybe we should be expanding the agricultural land reserve and making areas for food processing to happen. I am all for expanding the agricultural land reserve.

I think that’s a great idea, Member. I’m not sure how we would do that, but we could probably team up on that one.

To the credit of the Agricultural Land Commission, they do approve food-processing facilities, which can be large and small.

I don’t know if the member knows about a new business called EggSolutions. It’s a 75-member egg co-op, and they have been approved, as a co-op, to process eggs on the ALR. The facility itself is over 75,000 square feet. It’s a massive building, specifically approved on the ALR, to support farmers as a co-op model.

[6:30 p.m.]

So you can have larger processing applications go into the ALC if it’s a co-op, or for a number of other reasons that support domestic processing. I think there’s opportunity there, but I think we also know that everyone is more interested than ever in seeing more B.C. product out there. That’s going to be a conversation in progress, but I also think there are a lot of great examples of where that’s happening now.

Ian Paton: I think the question I wanted answered with a yes or no is on giving a 50 percent exemption for the tree fruit people to be able to handle more than just their 50 percent of the product. I’m asking if you would allow processing on our agricultural land, to be able to use more than 50 percent of what they’re just growing on their farm.

You could set up a processing plant if you’re a blueberry farmer. But you go: “I can’t make a living doing this with just my blueberries. I need to take in blueberries from other farmers to make this profitable and worthwhile.”

Do you see the future enabling processing plants on ALR land being able to go above the 50 percent rule?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think that because of the tariff situation and the food economy having a heightened awareness from consumers, we’re looking at every option. How can we get more grown and processed food out there in our food economy? So that’s under discussion.

I have to say that if somebody wanted to have a processing facility on the ALR that was processing less than 50 percent of what was grown on a farm, you can do that by application right now. I’ve got a giant list of successful applications that have been put forward to the ALC. There have been a dairy and milk processing business, an abattoir, a food hub, seaweed processing, poultry abattoir, mobile juicing, Meadow Valley Meats.

All of these businesses are not producing 50 percent on the ALR land that they exist on. They’re bringing in a product to process. They’re doing this by application through the Agricultural Land Commission.

The Agricultural Land Commission’s mandate is to protect land, but it’s also to encourage B.C. food growing and then, in the case of all of these applications that were approved, processing. I think that there’s an avenue right now, but we are talking about how we can ensure that there’s more B.C. food in our economy.

Ian Paton: I’m going to move on.

I must say, we all deal with farmers constantly. I go to farmers meetings. I meet farmers for coffee. I get endless emails. Farmers have become very cynical in this province. They’re trying to make a living. The cost of production is through the roof. Taxes, permits, paperwork, licensing — it’s endless.

Now we see this government coming forward…. I got elected in 2017. This is the fifth task force that has been put together to somehow save agriculture in B.C., and farmers are laughing. They’re cynical. It goes all the way back to the Minister’s Advisory Committee for Revitalizing the ALR and the ALC, way back in 2017.

[6:35 p.m.]

The deputy minister’s task force in agriculture, oil and gas up north. The revitalization of the ALR and the ALC. The Minister’s Advisory Group on Regenerative Agriculture. The MLAs committee that talked about carbon sequestration in our agricultural soils. I sat on that committee last year.

Now we have the B.C. Food Security Task Force. This one here, this glossy book — I’m going to be bringing this up. Of course, now we have the Premier’s task force on agriculture, with 15 members to that task force.

Can the minister outline the selection process for the 15 members on the Premier’s task force on agriculture and food? Can you tell me how many real farmers and ranchers and people in aquaculture are on that committee?

Hon. Lana Popham: I’m excited about the Premier’s task force because I think the timeline for results is quite short, and they’re dealing with some really tough issues that we talk about in here. We’ve got some great representation on the task force.

To the member’s point about “are there real farmers that are represented,” BCAC is a co-chair. They represent 20 farm groups, which are the cattlemen, the dairy, all of that. So we do have that representation, which I think is really important.

Jennifer Woike, of course, is the president, and she’s an egg producer. We have Annalise Grube-Cavers, who is a co-owner of Fresh Valley Farms. Nav Bains, speaking of blueberries, has a very large-scale blueberry operation. Then we have Chris Bodnar, who is an agrologist and somebody who works at the University of the Fraser Valley. He also is a farmer himself.

So I think we have farming covered off, and then we’ve got a whole list of other folks, thought leaders, people from processing. Food and Bev is another co-chair, James Donaldson. So we were looking at the entire supply chain from ground into retail, on the table, whatever it is. I think we’ve got a really good representation there.

We do have Steve Pocock, who is the owner of Sawmill Bay oysters. He’s actually also from land farming himself. That’s his background in the U.K. Very smart guy, and he’s been in the aquaculture business for years up on Quadra Island. So I think we’ve got a great group.

When it comes to things like water or the water reserve, competitiveness, all of the topics that the task force is going to deal with, we also have the option, and we’ll be doing it, of bringing in outside experts. So when we talk about water, we know that the cattlemen represent rural areas, and water to the cattlemen might be different than someone who’s farming on the Saanich Peninsula, for example, or in Delta. We can bring in experts from outside, including representatives from dairy.

[6:40 p.m.]

These four topics are going to roll through the task force between now and October. Although these are the folks that sit around the table officially, we’ll be bringing other folks in. These names, of course, were…. This list was created in conjunction with B.C. Food and Bev and the B.C. Agriculture Council and ourselves. It wasn’t like we just appointed a bunch of people. Everybody worked on this list to make sure that we got a good, rounded group.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

I think you’ll agree with me that our largest agricultural export in British Columbia is farmed salmon. Is there anyone representing the farmed salmon industry on this task force?

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, the B.C. salmon farmers are represented by the B.C. Agriculture Council. We’ve been telling all commodity groups like that to filter their input through the B.C. Agriculture Council, so everybody is well represented.

Ian Paton: As I listed off, I think, five different task forces have been put together since 2017. Why do you think this task force will be any more successful than any of the past ones? We’re still in big trouble in B.C. with our agriculture and our farmers.

Hon. Lana Popham: I mean, we could go back and look at all the task forces, including under the member’s previous government, that have been stood up to deal with issues around agriculture and food. The select standing committee, a legislative committee, was stood up when I first became minister, and we dealt with meat regulations. Other subsequent task forces have been stood up. Task forces come forward with a list of recommendations and then, in most circumstances, it’s up to government to take some of those recommendations or not.

I would say that all work done on any agriculture task force, standing committee, even under the previous B.C. Liberal government, has had a positive impact at raising the profile on agricultural issues that are important but also has moved the dial on things that we’ve needed to focus in on.

I can tell you that the select standing committee on meat production in B.C. changed the way that meat production is done on farm and in rural areas. It made a significant difference.

We could go through every task force to talk about what improvements have been made. The revitalization of the agricultural land reserve…. We came up with more flexibility for farmers. There’s a whole bunch of stuff. So I would say that disparaging agricultural task forces that have been stood up is incorrect. They’ve all had some kind of value, and they’ve allowed us to have some touch points on issues that are complicated and diverse.

I can’t speak for task forces before our government, but I would be pretty confident in saying that when you populate a group of folks onto a task force or a select standing committee, these are people that are thoughtful folks, that are there for a reason. They have some connection to agriculture and food. When their recommendations come forward, it’s not to be disparaged. There are good recommendations, and government acts when and how they can on those recommendations.

Are all recommendations accepted? No, because it’s almost impossible to do that. But generally, I would say that every task force has moved the dial.

Ian Paton: I have a colleague that’s going to ask a question in just a moment, but this one here — I believe I’m able to hold this up — is a real gem. This is a 77-page glossy book from the B.C. Food Security Task Force. And my goodness, it was going to change the world in B.C., and it was going to make us a world leader in ag technology in British Columbia.

I’m just wondering, to the minister. If you recall this glossy booklet that was put out, how many recommendations in this book were actually acted upon by the provincial government?

The Chair: Sorry, Member. Member, that would be considered using a prop.

Ian Paton: Thank you.

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: That was a Premier’s task force. I don’t have the recommendations in front of me, but I can tell the member that I wholeheartedly believe that every task force, including that one, has led to work being done that has moved the dial.

For that one in particular, there was a lot of focus on agritech and clean tech for agriculture. That really spurred a lot of work within the ministry and within the government, including the Ministry of Jobs, to try and figure out different avenues of funding to support agritech and to have a conversation about vertical farming allowed on the agricultural land reserve. It also was really the instigator for BCCAI, the Centre for Agritech at SFU, which is significantly important. I believe that it’s done some significant work. So that’s an example that I can give about this particular task force.

But let me just go back to the select standing committee on meat, because I’m really proud of that work that was done, and the member sat on it. The member toured the province going to small-scale abattoirs.

I would like the member to come back and tell me whether or not that particular select standing committee had a positive effect. I believe we can say that about all of them, but that one in particular was a tough one. Boy, we implemented the recommendations, and it was excellent.

This one, I’d say that we can point to work being done on agritech.

Ian Paton: Of course, the committee on meat inspection in abattoirs was the only one that was really good because I was on it. Okay? You can admit that.

Madam Chair, I’d like to turn things over to my colleague from Kelowna.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair, I’ll ask a few questions.

The Chair: Sorry. Sorry.

Member.

Gavin Dew: Madam Chair, I’ll ask a few questions.

I must say I am dismayed to hear the Premier’s Food Security Task Force report given such short shrift. It appears as if the minister believes there was more value in task forces undertaken under previous governments than in the one undertaken by her own government under the leadership of the former Premier.

I am frustrated to see the level of public commentary, including from the folks that led that task force. They seem to believe that the government has largely abandoned that task force and left its recommendations to moulder.

I wonder if the minister could provide an update on what has been done in the last five years to move forward materially on on-farm processing.

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I don’t think that I was trying to say that the Premier’s task force under a different Premier was not valuable. We’ve actually implemented eight out of the 14 suggestions, so I think that it was important.

It really spurred the agritech grant program that we have, the agritech concierge service that we were offering through the Jobs Ministry. It allowed us to move forward and sign an MOU with the Netherlands around agritech and agritech knowledge-sharing. Those are really important pieces of work that we moved the dial on.

It also allowed us, as far as food processing goes, to try and figure out the best way to support food processing and which streams of funding are needed. So $20 million was stood up, specifically, about competitiveness and food processing.

I think the member asked quite a wide-ranging question. I’m happy to drill down with more detail, but as far as defending the task force, I think they’ve all had value.

Gavin Dew: I spent some time working on related issues and a significant amount of time with both municipal leaders and farmers in the Fraser Valley, many of whom felt that five or six years ago, the Premier at the time went to them and made commitments around on-farm processing, around agri-industrial zoning.

Five years later those commitments remain unfulfilled, from their perspective, based on those conversations I’ve had with stakeholders. So I wonder how this new task force can have legitimacy when there is a perception among a lot of people that the most important recommendation, a central recommendation of the previous task force, has not moved forward, and there are a lot of frustrated people that are waiting to see action on that.

They have led me to the belief that there is a significant internal divide within the government caucus around this matter, and therefore, there is a lack of courage to actually address the issue.

I wonder. Will the minister actually be addressing agri-industrial zoning in the next five years after leaving it to do nothing for the last five, or very little?

Hon. Lana Popham: The current task force. There are four topics that they will be considering, four topics that I think are pretty important: water; land, access to land for primary production; competitiveness; and labour.

These topics have been identified by the industry, and the solutions and the recommendations are going to be coming forward from industry. I feel like there is…. This is really set up for success, and I’m really looking forward to the work that they’re going to be doing.

[6:55 p.m.]

I think that the member was also talking about: are we going to be focusing in on food processing? Absolutely. We’ve been doing a lot of work on that and trying to look at ways that we can make sure that there isn’t an increase in speculation on primary farmland, because primary production is still important to this government, as well as support for value-added, which I think we can all get behind at this point in time.

Gavin Dew: Just so I can get really clear on this, because there was no answer in that answer, for those stakeholders who have been waiting for five years since the publication of the previous Premier’s Food Security Task Force and several years of consultation before that…. For those that are waiting for the recommendations of that task force around agri-industrial zoning to be implemented, will the minister give a straight answer as to when, if ever, they will be implemented?

And if the answer is that they won’t be because this government has changed its mind, will the minister just simply give a straight answer on that matter please?

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, I think the answer that I can give the member is that government is giving the lead to industry to bring forward solutions. Food processing is incredibly important. We have to also protect our primary agriculture folks. So striking a balance, I think, should be the priority.

Yet right now everybody’s focused on more value-added, more processing from Canada and British Columbia, and we are alive to that.

Tony Luck: To keep on the theme of groups waiting for things and actions that happen in the province, I would like to ask a quick question about a current incomplete order in council — I believe it’s with the Minister of Agriculture, but I might be incorrect on that — in regards to requests by the B.C. Bison Association.

The BCBA has been in negotiation for over three decades in an effort to get this province to recognize the importance of clarifying bison as domestic livestock. This would not take away from the game herds or the wild herds that are out there already but would at least classify those animals on ranches and domesticated to be under the agriculture classification to better recognize the importance of this bovine as an integral part of the diversification enhancement of the agricultural sector in the province.

We’re the only province in Canada after 30 years that does not recognize bison as livestock, and they are an important segment of the bovine industry in B.C., as I’ve mentioned. The BCBA has been unsuccessful after decades of lobbying government in this province to get into line with the rest of Canada and other jurisdictions to have farm bison designated as livestock.

For example, in Saskatchewan, bison are regulated by two ministries, recognizing bison as domesticated livestock and wildlife. The Ministry of Agriculture obviously looks after domesticated livestock. The Ministry of Environment looks after wild herds.

In recent years, there was an order in council started to recognize bison as livestock. Unfortunately, as I understand, this OIC is one signature short of enacting this order. How long does this take?

Can we get a commitment from this government to bring this across the finish line and get the final signature BCBA needs to recognize bison as an important piece of the diversification of our agriculture industry in this province so that it can provide the programs the ranchers need to make this a thriving industry and bring the security and certainty of the bison industry they need as a part of an important piece of food security as well?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. That was a new one for me.

I can say that I will be in touch with the chief vet, and I will be able to get the member a timeline.

Ian Paton: We’ve got a lot to try and get through, and I’m going to try and…. We’ll end everything before eight o’clock tonight, okay?

We’re going to go on to tariffs now. B.C. farmers and food producers rely on an intricate supply chain with the United States. Feed additives, hatching eggs, fertilizer, pest control products, construction materials, farm equipment, animal health supplies, etc.

Tariffs on agriculture products on top of increased production material costs threaten farmers twice. What is the minister doing now, besides a task force, to protect farmers from this double threat?

Hon. Lana Popham: We’re doing a lot on the tariffs. I hesitate to mention a task force because of what the member said earlier, but we do have a task force. We’re working really closely with industry. My staff is doing constant outreach.

As minister, I’m doing constant outreach to talk to our larger suppliers, the greenhouse industry, which we mentioned previously, to figure out where the markets are, where the pinch points are in the system. We’re doing this work cross-ministry with JEDI, of course, and Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat out of the Premier’s office.

We’re working with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada looking at ways that we can be flexible with our SCAP agreement. We were able to get some changes as far as primary agriculture goes around the changes to the CAP and with agro-stability that originated out of British Columbia, so we’ve been really proactive in that way.

We also have an opportunity with Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. to ramp up our programming there and really try and make sure that we have our domestic market covered off. The work that’s being done on inter-provincial trade barriers, this will also have an interesting effect for us as a province.

We are the least affected by tariffs of any province. We have a very diverse market, and we’re going to go after different trade partners as we try and move away from being so dependent on the United States.

[7:05 p.m.]

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

As we know, everything we’re talking about right now, the media, in the Legislature, is about the American tariff threat. And especially to our agriculture industry, this is going to be devastating.

I’m going to ask the question again. There has to be immediate action by the Ministry of Agriculture when it comes to…. What are we going to do about shutting down trade offices in Asia that have traditionally then been interested in our beef and agriculture products?

Think about those products that are the biggest export product of provincial agriculture. Think about our greenhouse industry, our peppers, our cucumbers, our tomatoes that 90 percent go to the United States. Our beef cattle, our slaughter cattle go to abattoirs big time down in Washington state. A lot of our cattle go to feedlots down in Washington state.

So agriculture is very difficult in this province right now with farmers and ranchers trying to make a living with the cost of production and now being hit with a 25 percent possible tariff on their agricultural products going to the United States and vice versa.

Many of the things that the greenhouses use — packaging, cardboard, all those things — come up from the United States. In fact, you toured West Coast Seeds the other day. Aaron Saks called me and said: “Ian, we’re now being charged a tariff on the little packets that get produced in New York of all things, with the nice little picture on them of what the seed’s going to look like when it turns into a flower or whatever.”

My question again is: what is the ministry doing immediately to help our farmers with this tariff trade war?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think we all know this is going to be a really difficult time for our country. We did not pick this war but we are in it, and we’re going to do our best to come out of it on the other side in the best way that we can.

Our job in the Ministry of Agriculture is to continue to talk to stakeholders, to ask them how they’re going to be affected, to identify the ways that they’re going to be negatively affected and to feed all of that information through to our Jobs Ministry. They are leading on a lot of the tariff discussions.

One of the things that I think the member said is incorrect. We aren’t shutting down our trade opportunities in other countries. We have trade investment officers — in fact, we have got new ones — looking for how to diversify our market.

I’ve been out talking to some of our larger agricultural producers like in the cherry industry that have depended on the U.S. What are they thinking? Where do they want their new market to be?

There will be trade missions that will be going out, and we’re going to be having those really incredible diversification conversations.

I think that the member should really canvass the Ministry of Jobs to find out the strategy coming from that ministry, but I can tell him wholeheartedly that we are filtering critical information through to them as they create their strategy.

[7:10 p.m.]

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

In 2024, $2 million went to marketing efforts of the Buy B.C. logo program to identify B.C. products with a one-month application window. In January 2025, another $2 million was announced for the Buy B.C. logo program to identify B.C. products.

My question to the minister: don’t you think that this should be increased given the B.C. government’s big tariff support for agriculture is to buy B.C.?

Hon. Lana Popham: The answer is yes.

The member knows how much of a champion I am for Buy B.C., and I think he is as well. I think we’re all becoming Buy B.C. champions right now in this province. We’re definitely looking at how to ramp up the program right now, whether that’s new funding, redirected funding. We know that it’s having an effect on consumers. Consumers are looking for that logo.

We have over 10,000 B.C. products that have the logo printed on their labelling. We have great partnerships with retailers, hundreds of retailers. They are contacting our ministry, finding out how they can do more.

This is a hot file, and I’m glad. I feel like getting a T-shirt that says Buy B.C. on the front and on the back, #IToldYouSo.

From 2017, I’ve been hammering on this, as the Minister of Agriculture, trying to reignite a program that started in the 1990s, and I think it’s just coming into its own now.

Ian Paton: What is the ministry doing to remove interprovincial trade barriers for local agricultural products such as wine deliveries, B.C. to Alberta. I think we sorted that one out, but there are also issues with the use of Ontario wine products or wine juice, grape juice I should say, to come out our way.

So the question is about interprovincial trade barriers for agriculture.

Hon. Lana Popham: Again, our ministry is feeding information through to the Jobs Ministry, which is really leading the interprovincial discussion.

We also have the Premier’s committee on trade and tariffs, which is also collecting information from industry. I think between JEDI, the Premier’s committee and then cross-ministry information being flowed through, I think our ministry is doing everything it can to represent the viewpoints of primary agriculture producers who have had a U.S. market and are looking to diversify across the country.

Ian Paton: I guess my next question regarding the tariff situation and trade barriers…. Three questions, basically, lumped into one.

How are we diversifying our trade of our agricultural products? How are we actively searching for new export opportunities if we don’t want to send our product to the United States because of tariffs?

Two other questions. What about trade offices throughout Asia and other parts of the world? And do you have any upcoming trade missions for B.C. agricultural products?

[7:15 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I can give a list of investments that we’re making along with JEDI on looking at how to diversify our markets. There is a global seafood expo in Barcelona in April, which we are funding with JEDI.

We have another opportunity, Food and Hotel Asia, Singapore. This is a trade mission into Singapore, one of Asia’s largest international food trade shows, with over 3,500 exhibitors from 70 countries. We’re putting funding into that.

In September, there’s the Asia Fruit Logistica in Hong Kong. This is the premier trade show for fresh fruit and vegetables. It’s great timing for us because that’s when we harvest a lot of our fruit, and we’ll have some great product to be able to display there.

In October, the China Fisheries and Seafood Expo. This is the largest seafood trade show with over 1,000 exhibitors and 30,000 attendees.

Then next February there’s the New Exporters to Border States, Seattle, Washington. This is a new exporter trade show with international trade as a focus. We’re supporting that as well.

There’s a long list of different trade shows that we are putting funding into. As far as what trade shows I’m going to, we’re just trying to make those decisions now, but we’re doing that with input from our sector.

Ian Paton: I think we’ll move on to avian influenza.

Farmers have to shoulder the cost after birds are euthanized. CFIA will pay per bird that has to be euthanized because of avian influenza. They are paid for the actual birds, but the extra costs are enough to sink a farmer after he’s been hit three times with avian influenza: the cost of feed that never got used in the bin, because he had to pay for that bin full of feed, which is extremely expensive; disinfecting the compost; lost revenue while he can’t get another flock into the barn.

Given that avian influenza is, unfortunately, here to stay, what is the long-term plan from the province to help support farmers in the industry to stay afloat?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: The member is accurate in saying that avian influenza is a really…. It’s been a devastating year for our farmers, and it is unfortunate that it’s affecting them on so many levels. It’s affecting them financially. It’s affecting their mental health.

Speaking to many of them myself, the outlook on the future is they’re very worried. We hope that they will continue doing what they do best, but it’s a really, really serious problem. Avian influenza is here to stay.

We’ve got a number of months where we’re not being affected — we’ll call it the peace times — where we have to do everything that we can to prepare for the next round, which we know will be in September.

We have a table that’s going right now which includes all the poultry and dairy, because we know in the States we’d see some crossover with dairy cows, which is very concerning to us. This table is tasked with figuring out how we can enhance biosecurity with the focus on: how can we keep it out of the barns? Vaccines, of course, which the world is talking about.

Then what’s the new technology that we can use to try and prevent it? Prevention is the key, so it’s all hands on deck. But we know that it’s taking a really big toll on our farmers.

We introduced a $5 million farmed animal disease program to support farmers with some of the measures that they could use, such as biosecurity. We stood that up in 2023, that funding, and I think farmers really took advantage of it. They were relieved that there was some funding in place so that they can put into place things and try new things.

We saw this year to be…. The numbers are high again, as far as how many birds and how many farms were affected. It’s a major situation.

The United States is a worry right now because of the way that they’re pulling back on some of their requirements around testing and protocols with avian influenza. That is worrisome for us as a province and as a country. We are the hardest hit in Canada with avian influenza, and so we’re going to just keep working with our stakeholder groups and our farmers to give us the best chance to get through the next round, which will be September.

Ian Paton: I appreciate that answer. To take it a little bit further, this is devastating mentally to a lot of our young poultry farmers that have been hit two or three times with avian influenza.

So as far as the Ministry of Agriculture, we know that we’re trying to ramp up the biosecurity — people not coming on the farm, hazmat sort of outfits on when you go into the barns. But there must be someone in your ministry, some people in the lab, scientists, that are trying to figure out how we can…. We can’t just say: “Well, it’s going to happen year after year.”

What is being done to actually figure out, besides vaccines, which would be a great idea if we could get going on that…? But what is actually being done to try and limit the infections of AI that have been going through our farms, not only in the Fraser Valley but up in the Okanagan?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I guess maybe I’ll reiterate that it’s all hands on deck. We’re calling this moment in time where we do not have any avian influenza infections in barns the peace time, which will probably last until September. During that time, we’re doing everything we can to address what the member has presented.

We have partners in this fight. SFU BCCAI is looking at a framework to evaluate the latest technology, so doing a scan of other jurisdictions and what technologies are being used there.

Our chief vet is working with Genome B.C., which is really important work.

We’re working with CFIA. CFIA has been doing case-control research, which is basically on-farm audits to make sure that everything is in place.

Just today 20 producers, association members met at the table that we’ve stood up to try and talk about next steps for the industry as a whole, poultry and dairy.

So there’s not a moment that we’re not working on some kind of strategy to get us to September, to have more tools in our toolbox to try and fight this off. Because as the member said, it is extremely difficult on the producers, and many of them who have been hit more than one time were worried about their mental health, and they can’t really withstand many more years like we’ve had in these past few years.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

One more question with avian influenza. We all know it was very out there in the media recently about an ostrich farm up in Edgewood, B.C., on the edge of, I believe, Arrow Lake.

My question to the minister: what is the ministry’s situation? What is the ministry’s take on this euthanization situation with this ostrich herd?

I’m kind of wondering right now where it’s at. Is this going to happen? Has CFIA gotten back to us to say they don’t need to be euthanized or they do need to be euthanized? I’d like your opinion on…. I know it’s a federal issue, but what is the ministry’s opinion on the euthanization of these mature ostriches up in Edgewood, B.C.?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Well, I don’t have much of an update for the member, but I can say that…. Well, it’s a tragic situation, as they all are. CFIA leads the file. The CFIA policy has been to eradicate and depopulate when avian influenza strikes a farm, but that’s to stop it from spreading. It does not make it any easier. It’s a terrible situation.

This particular situation is before the courts, so I can’t comment on it. But my heart goes out to the owners of the farm. It’s been a really, really harsh situation.

Anna Kindy: I think with this case, it would be important to look at the science which this court case is showing, meaning that the ostriches that died were the recent ostriches, and the ones that survived were the ones that they had had for a long time, and they have antibodies against avian flu. We’d be destroying, first of all, animals that are used for scientific purposes, as well as they’re immune from the H5N1. So it kind of makes sense to me to actually be able to use those ostriches as a learning tool as opposed to destroying them.

Hon. Lana Popham: I thank you for joining estimates today.

This file is led by the federal government. We don’t have jurisdiction over those decisions, so I won’t be able to comment, because it’s before the courts.

Ian Paton: We’ll turn now to the B.C. tree fruit industry. I think my first question would be….

I spent a lot of time in Osoyoos, Oliver, as the minister has, with the tree fruit farmers — what they’ve gone through with the heat dome that damaged their fruit and then the extreme cold snap, which killed off cherry trees and different soft fruits, etc.

Then I toured the most incredible facility in Oliver, which is the co-op facility for packing and packaging and exporting our B.C. products. Incredible technology, robotics, these floating canals of thousands of apples that went and got boxed. I was just so impressed with the technology.

What a shame when the co-op suddenly closed the doors, locked the gates, and tree fruit farmers all over the Okanagan had nowhere to send their fruit.

My question is: did the Ministry of Agriculture make any kind of attempt to go in — it’s not big money, when you come to what’s in the budget — to actually purchase the co-op assets and keep that packaging facility up and running?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: The situation with the packing, the co-op, is really, really unfortunate. This is not a sudden demise that happened. This has been something that’s been rolling out over years.

We have been working really hard, as government, to try and support them through difficult times. It had its own internal politics, unfortunately. But we tried to help improve the outcome. We started the fruit tree stabilization project with them, worked for five years. We’ve funded a lot of things through the co-op.

Unfortunately, when push came to shove, at the end of the day, we were not able to save it. We were not able to go in and purchase it. But what we did is we really put a focus on the growers. We made sure that the growers got paid for their apples. We put processes in place to make sure that they could get into storage. We changed regulations temporarily to allow them to try and finish off their season.

Along with all of that, during the summer demise that happened, we’ve also been putting a lot of investment into the sector. We did a $15 million perennial crop renewal program, $70 million in enhanced replant, $5 million in fruit tree climate resiliency, $15 million in the B.C. AgriStability enhancement program and, just most recently, $10 million, a one-time payment going to be paid per acre to growers to make sure that they’ve got some money in their pockets to stand up a good, successful fruit-growing season.

I agree with the member that it’s a tragedy that the co-op ended. I think people in British Columbia were really rooting for the co-op to succeed. It just couldn’t, under the circumstances, but we haven’t abandoned the growers. We have been constantly making sure there are supports in place, most recently with $10 million.

Ian Paton: How could this sudden demise of the B.C. tree fruit growers co-op happen when the Ministry of Agriculture had actually two appointed board members on that co-op? How could the ministry not have known about this in advance, that this was a serious issue that could implode the co-op and its packing-processing facility?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question.

There weren’t staff that were board members. There were two staff members who attended for technical advice to the co-op as they tried to grapple with the way that they were failing. And it wasn’t just this year; it’s been over a number of years.

There was a lot of dysfunction. We tried to support them with a stabilization fund for five years to try to get them back on track, but I can tell the member that it was literally impossible. The dysfunction could not be overcome, so they had to close down. But it wasn’t without a lot of effort and trying by the ministry to try and get them on the right track.

Ian Paton: I do understand the $10 million fund that was put forward to the tree fruit growers just recently. A statement from the Ministry of Agriculture says that the money will be handed out as one-time payments to farmers and can be used to help with needs like tools, training, capital for farm improvement, farm debt repayment, farm wages. So a one-time payment to 720 fruit growers who will be eligible for this payment.

My question to the minister: how will a one-time payment make sure that the tree fruit farmers are ready for this season and seasons to come? How many tree fruit farmers are ineligible for the payment? How much of the $10 million fund has been allocated so far?

Hon. Lana Popham: The good news is that the fund will be launched in probably a week and a half, so it’s going to happen fast.

The eligibility is a minimum of 2.47 acres, maximum 70 acres. It’s a per-acre payout, so I can’t tell the member exactly how much is going to be paid, because we have to see how much uptake there will be.

If people are registered already in our business risk management programs, they’re already going to be contacted by the ministry. Then for the folks that are not signed up for business risk management, we’ll be working with the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, etc., to contact everybody that we can.

It will cover off the things that the member mentioned. It might even come down to them being able to pay a mortgage payment. It’s supposed to be able to relieve some of the early spring pressures that they’re going to have, and the parameters are very flexible. Of course, you can’t go to Vegas with the money, but you can pay off your bills.

Maybe it’s buying fertilizer. Maybe it’s making a mortgage payment. Maybe it’s repairing your tractor. It’s just the things that need repairing and are able to be addressed right now so they’re set up to have a successful growing season.

This has all been with input from the B.C. Fruit Growers Association. We worked really hard with the chair and the co-chair. I really appreciate the fact that they spent a lot of time trying to work through this with us, and I think they’re happy with the outcome.

[7:45 p.m.]

Ian Paton: It was a huge blow to tree fruit growers that traditionally ship all their product to the co-op processing facility or to a co-op controlled-environment facility. A lot of people don’t realize that apples have to go into storage. They can’t just go directly from every fruit grower to the processing plant to get packaged. They have to go into storage where it’s a controlled environment that keeps them looking healthy and fresh and bright red. So those facilities were lost as well.

My question to the minister: what’s going to happen with the upcoming growing season with the former co-op members that would ship to a controlled-environment warehouse in the Okanagan or to the co-op facility? Where are their apples, cherries, soft fruits going to go if there aren’t enough private packing plants to accept them all?

Hon. Lana Popham: The member brings up a good point about the controlled-environment packers. When I was up there last week, I actually had some apples from different packers that were in such perfect condition because they had been in a controlled environment. It’s really an excellent tool for farmers to have, and the fact that we do have a number of packers that have a controlled environment is really important.

We’ve extended the 50 percent exemption so that farmers can use packers, as they did this year, into the next storage season.

I think right now what I saw last week was farmers are shifting around. They’re having conversations with different packers, trying to figure out what best suits them for this upcoming year. I think one of the themes was that we need more controlled environment. But I feel like most people had a home for their apples because of what transpired over September. Nobody was left out, but they just need to figure out their contracts for this year.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

With the tree fruit industry, I want to talk just briefly about the SIR program. I’ve got a letter from Michelle Cook with the sterile insect release program. She wrote me wanting to know about further funding.

I believe they’ve asked for $2 million over four years — it would be $500,000 a year — to continue with the sterile insect release program. They’re wanting to know if the Ministry of Agriculture will keep that funding going.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: I love the sterile insect release program. When I was up there last week, I actually met with Michelle as well. I’ve also toured the facility where they raised the insects.

It’s critically important. It’s cost-shared with local government. We have not funded them. It’s not continuing, the $500,000. We have not done that before. But what we have done is…. They’re trying to figure out how to become sustainable, so we funded a feasibility study that they’ve now done. And they’ve just sent us that correspondence, so we’re taking a look at it.

I think one of the things that I’m most excited about is hearing how they wish to expand down to Washington state, which would allow them, definitely, to have a stronger business plan.

I think what we all understand is that without this program, the codling moth would have probably infested many of the orchards in the Okanagan. Right now it’s done biologically with the sterile insect release program. This is saving thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in pesticide application, and it’s better for the environment.

It’s an important program, and we support it. We’re just trying to figure out how to support them to become more sustainable themselves.

Ian Paton: Just seeing what we can fit in here right towards the end.

Interjection.

Ian Paton: Eight minutes. Well, they told me I can keep standing up as long as I want, actually.

Interjection.

Ian Paton: This is where I get pretty owly, in the last seven or eight minutes.

I want to talk about the Agriculture Minister’s mandate letter. The mandate letter talks about access to farming as a career for aspiring farmers. It talks about expanding affordability and food security in the province by working with farmers to find ways to control costs. Strengthen our regional food systems by supporting farming, expanding local food processing, identifying supply chain disruption vulnerabilities and working with farmers and food and beverage producers in the Okanagan Valley who have been impacted by significant weather-related crop loss.

It also goes on to talk about the very importance, in the minister’s mandate letter, on ensuring the continuation of public support for the agricultural land reserve, including protection of B.C. families from food price shocks and promotion of financial success, work with farmers and food producers throughout the province and to encourage the saving of good agricultural land in this province.

I brought this up before in question period about this wonderful 130 to 150 acres of prime agricultural land in Cowichan Bay on Vancouver Island. I’ve been on this for about three years now. I’ve toured the property. I’ve done videos. I’ve done op-eds about the property. I’ve been a good friend with the farmer that farmed these 150 acres. He grew corn for dairy cattle in the general area. He grew grass for hay and silage for dairy cattle in the general area.

Beautiful piece of farmland. Absolutely beautiful piece of farmland, and of all things, it was owned by the Dinsdale family. Many years ago Nature Trust of B.C., in collaboration with Ducks Unlimited, purchased these 150 acres of prime farmland in Cowichan Bay.

Now, unbelievably, the Nature Trust of B.C. actually made application to the Agricultural Land Commission to remove this piece of land from active agriculture by breaching the dike that goes around this farmland at the foot of Cowichan Bay so that the ocean water can roar in and flood these 150 acres of prime farmland.

[7:55 p.m.]

At the end of the Cowichan Bay Road are other farmers and residents who are there that have wells. There’s a huge aquifer underneath this farmland, this 150 acres, and they draw their drinking water from this well as well as for livestock. If the saltwater is allowed to rush in and destroy these 150 acres of farmland, it will also destroy the aquifer and infect the aquifer with salt water, which will affect all the drinking water for many residents around Cowichan Bay.

Believe it or not, on February 28, 2024, the applicant to the Nature Trust of B.C. and Ducks Unlimited…. The application to remove this dike and flood this piece of farmland was made by Jesse Patterson from the actual government Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. He’s actually a member of the government bureaucracy making the application on behalf of the NDP government to flood this piece of farmland. I find this incredible.

I’ve had the minister stand up in question period and say: “Oh well, you know, my mandate letter says I am supposed to respect and revere farmland in B.C.”

I mean, nothing, in my mind, tells me more about being the Minister of Agriculture than preserving our farmers and our best farmland in this province, yet the minister stands up in question period and says: “Well, sometimes you’ve got to just do what you’ve got to do, and you’ve got to cave into the Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Trust. It’s okay with me that we breach this dike and flood these 150 acres of prime farmland and infect the aquifer underneath this farmland, which affects all the wells and drinking water of people in the general area.”

My question. Section 7 of the Environment and Land Use Act says that the orders of the Lieutenant Governor in Council: “(1) On the recommendation of the committee,” and the minister sits on that committee, “and despite any other Act or regulation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make orders the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable respecting the environment or land use.”

The Minister of Agriculture, on this committee, could step forward to her cabinet and say: “I suggest that this be stopped with the Agricultural Land Commission and that the Nature Trust and Ducks Unlimited can no longer move forward with breaching this dike and flooding this farmland with salt water.”

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Lana Popham: Thanks for the question. I know the member is very passionate about this.

I’ve been informed that there’s an active application at the Agricultural Land Commission. The member will know that, as Minister of Agriculture, I can’t comment on a situation where there’s an application that’s proceeding through.

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to take part in that part of the debate for this evening.

Ian Paton: It’s every little farm boy’s dream to one day go to Victoria, the Legislature, and become the Minister of Agriculture.

I would say if I was the Minister of Agriculture, my legacy would be preserving the integrity of agriculture in B.C. by saving our good farmland in B.C. It’s not all good that’s in the ALR, but there’s a lot of it that is good, and this is a prime, good piece of farmland.

I would also fight tooth and nail for my Agricultural Land Commission people to increase their budget and to do what their mandate is. The land commission’s mandate is to preserve our farmland.

This ALR was brought in, in 1973 by this NDP government to preserve our farmland in B.C. This minister has the opportunity under this land use committee she sits on.

As an order in council, she could go to her cabinet and say: “I want this stopped.” She has the power to do that. I’m just saying that if I was the Minister of Agriculture, I would walk out of what I’d done here in Victoria as a legacy of preserving some fantastic farmland in this province, and this Cowichan Bay piece of farmland is absolutely worth preserving.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, would the minister like to make closing comments?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think the comments I’d like to make in closing are to thank the member. He and I have sat across from each other for years. I know he’s passionate about really important things.

I want to thank the member for being so thoughtful today in your questions. We will endeavour to get back to him with anything that’s outstanding.

I would like to thank anybody else who took part in the debate today. It’s a really difficult time for British Columbians and Canada, given the tariff threats. But I also think that this is a really great opportunity for agriculture to get the recognition that it’s always deserved and for farmers to feel great about feeding our province and our country at a time when we really need it most. So thank you very much.

I’d like to thank my staff, as well, for supporting me.

Ian Paton: I’ll just make one closing statement. I, too, would like to thank the minister. We’ve done this many times, back and forth.

I’d like to thank her staff. They have always been good to work with when I try and get some answers from them. I got a little snarly right at the end, but other than that I think we are pretty congenial towards each other.

Thank you once again.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 12: ministry operations, $99,120,000 — approved.

Vote 13: Agricultural Land Commission, $5,508,000 — approved.

The Chair: We will now take a short recess to prepare for the next ministry.

The committee recessed from 8:05 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $55,332,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes. Thank you so much.

I’d like to begin by recognizing that we are here today on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I’d also like to recognize the ministry staff who are with me today: Bobbi Plecas, deputy minister; Jason Butler, executive financial officer and assistant deputy minister of corporate services and community capital development; Jennifer Melles, assistant deputy minister of infrastructure policy and partnerships; and Amy Miller, assistant deputy minister of community capital development.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

It was a great honour that only a few months ago, on November 18, Premier David Eby appointed me Minister of Infrastructure, which is a new ministry that represents our government’s commitment to delivering the schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that families need in their communities. More people than ever have decided to make British Columbia their home, and we are dealing with an infrastructure deficit after years of under-investment.

Over the last eight years, our government has embarked on an incredibly ambitious capital plan, the single largest capital investment program ever attempted by the B.C. government, to build the schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that growing communities need. At the same time, costs for capital projects have been increasing, not just here in B.C. but across Canada and throughout the world.

That said, we know that people cannot afford to have us stop building the public infrastructure they need to access vital services like health care, education and more. That is why the Ministry of Infrastructure was created.

We are a purpose-built ministry created to meet the challenges of building capital projects and delivering infrastructure that people need. It brings project planning, procurement and delivery for vertical provincial capital projects as well as land acquisition for vertical provincial project sites under one ministry. Another way to describe it is that we help build provincial buildings, from which provincial services are delivered.

We have pulled together teams from across government and tasked them with a straightforward but ambitious goal: to build the public facilities that B.C. needs, faster. To do so, we are exploring several ways to accelerate and streamline construction, including more standardized design and prefabricated additions.

For the benefit of the opposition and for those watching from home at 8:15 at night, really looking forward to this debate, I’d like to provide a little bit more background on what is specifically included in the Ministry of Infrastructure.

The main types of projects within my ministry’s mandate are public K-to-12 schools, hospitals and other medical facilities, including long-term-care facilities and cancer care centres; post-secondary core facilities that support education delivery, including student housing; courthouses and correctional facilities.

My ministry also oversees two Crown corporations: Infrastructure B.C. and B.C. Infrastructure Benefits. For greater clarity, questions from the opposition on these projects should be directed my way, and I will work with my ministry team to answer them as fulsomely as possible.

I want to thank my critic, the member for Langley–Walnut Grove, for her time this evening, for taking on this role.

[8:15 p.m.]

I know that you’re very busy in your community, and to take this also on for the rest of the province, I think, is a really important thing. I want to honour the time that we’re going to be spending together — late into the evening, perhaps.

The Chair: I’d like to now recognize the member for Langley–Walnut Grove, if you’d like to make any remarks.

Misty Van Popta: Well, I didn’t come with a lot of remarks. I wasn’t sure. Other than just diving straight into it, I do want to acknowledge being very thankful for this opportunity. I’ve had the pleasure of chatting with Minister Ma a few times. I’m not going to call it a debate. Let’s just call it an understanding and a delving into the budget and how the province will be working the budget on infrastructure projects. I’m thankful for this time.

I will open up with my first question, with a backgrounder.

Going through Standing Strong and then the estimates books that came along with it, under the “Community capital development” and “Executive support services” is the description as follows: “…for program support, management and procurement,” etc., “for capital infrastructure.” Then under the executive and support services, we have almost the same line item, which reads: “…services to support program delivery.”

The operation budget is $55.3 million for the Infrastructure Ministry, and 21 percent of that operation budget, for an extremely important portfolio, goes to the minister’s office. That’s $11.8 million to support the minister’s office and $40.3 million to support all infrastructure projects, in the billions of dollars, in the province.

The question for the minister is: if project contracts already support project management, procurement and delivery, and now community capital development also supports program management and procurement, can the minister please tell me how her office sharpened its pencils to lessen bureaucratic layers in project delivery when it, too, is also tasked with supporting project delivery?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’d like to correct the critic. The critic earlier said that 20 percent of the ministry’s budget went to the minister’s office. The minister’s office budget is $767,000 in total. The $11.08 million that the critic refers to is for corporate services. That includes ministry public servants to support the functions of the ministry, not the minister’s office. The minister’s office is completely separate.

[8:20 p.m.]

That includes staff members to support strategic human resources, the corporate finances department, IMIT support staff, the deputy minister’s office and support staff there, staff to support freedom-of-information response requests, recordkeeping, correspondence.

Basically, the corporate services are…. I know my deputy minister refers to it as the connective tissue in terms of staff that allow for the ministry to actually function as a ministry.

Misty Van Popta: A follow-up to that would then be: how many staff in corporate services are there that support project delivery when we have other layers of project delivery support?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Can the member clarify the question? Is she referring specifically to the corporate services staff?

Interjection.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Okay. Thank you so much.

All corporate services staff serve the function of enabling the ministry to operate, and that operation of the ministry is what supports the delivery of capital projects.

For instance, strategic HR as a corporate function ensures that we have the staff to do the work to interface with our delivery partners like school districts, health authorities, post-secondary institutions. They are doing a lot of the capital project work.

The corporate finances division ensures that all invoices get paid, which, obviously, is very important to ensuring that projects continue to be delivered.

The IMIT support services teams manage and support the programs and the applications that other staff members rely on to help manage the complex capital projects that we have, and therefore, they support project delivery.

The correspondence unit is required to respond to members of the public and to the correspondence that we receive on the well over 1,000 different projects that we have. We are legally obligated to respond to freedom-of-information requests. We’re legally obligated to maintain records. And so that team supports that function so that we meet our legal obligation as a ministry.

All of this enables us to deliver projects.

Misty Van Popta: Can the minister please explain how that is different from the project support in the community capital development? I hear a lot of overlap, so I want to understand how $11.8 million is under the executive support services versus the community development executive services.

[8:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Just a reminder that questions are to be asked through the Chair.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Project support and community capital development was the question that was being asked. These are our program staff. They are the capital planning staff that are responsible for actually bringing projects to fruition. They work directly with our delivery partners. They work directly with the health authorities, the school districts, the post-secondary institutions and so forth.

They differ from the corporate services I described before in that corporate services are basically like the shared services of the ministry. So they’re the shared services team. They aren’t necessarily assigned to…. The work might kind of flex within the groups.

So there’s a corporate services team that provides that connective tissue, but the capital planning staff are responsible for working with the partners and actually getting those projects from point A to point B.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, well, we’ll move on from that.

Langley Memorial surgical unit opened 35 years ago, when I was 13 years old. I’m aging myself here. On September 7, 2024, surgeons of Langley sent a letter to Minister Dix, decrying a lack of any meaningful capital improvements to surgery since then. Langley Memorial has 1.17 funded beds per 1,000, while the Canadian average is 2.6, which is well below the World Health Organization’s recommendation. By comparison, the Vancouver Coastal region offers three beds per 1,000.

Langley has grown 15 to 22 percent since 2021. The original hospital tower announcement was made in 2015.

What is this government’s timeline for any Langley Memorial Hospital capital improvements?

[8:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you, Chair. You did that without even looking. How did you know it was me?

The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that. Getting better.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: To the member’s question about capital investments and improvements in Langley Memorial Hospital, our government has invested $103.46 million in capital investment in Langley Memorial Hospital since 2017.

This includes the medical imaging rad room 1 replacement project, estimated to be complete this December; the MI rad room 2 replacement project, also anticipated to be complete this December; the pharmacy expansion and upgrade project, which was completed in 2021; the emergency department redevelopment project, which was completed in 2021; and a new magnetic resonance imaging, a new MRI, which was completed in 2020.

Misty Van Popta: It is true that services have been invested in for Langley Memorial Hospital, but Langley Memorial Hospital is at capacity and cannot expand until the long-term-care facility is moved and rebuilt.

How come this campaign promise facility is yet again not in the budget? Is the business case report completed, and if not, what is the ETA?

I can tell you for free that the business case report is not needed, and we just need to move on with the expansion.

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: At the Langley Memorial Hospital, Fraser Health Authority is currently undertaking their master planning, so that work is happening right now. That master planning is….

Sorry, my brain starts to slow down after a certain time, because then in a usual day, it switches to lullabies for Azalea.

Master planning is underway by Fraser Health on that site. That work is underway. It will identify opportunities for expansion and investment. That’s what they do for the site.

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to walk the critic a little bit through kind of the high-level process for these major hospital redevelopments and development projects.

Health authorities undergo a master planning exercise. Through that master planning exercise, they identify their five-year capital plan priorities. When a capital plan priority is identified that government has agreed to work with them on, the health authority will develop a detailed business case. Those detailed business cases can take quite a while, 18 months to even two years or more, depending on the complexity of the project.

It is a detailed planning document that governments and health authorities use to scope out the project, the specifics of the services that need to be delivered, the schedule and budget that might be required and associated with the project. It will identify procurement opportunities. It is a very detailed document that for a major hospital redevelopment project could be in the order of $100 million to produce.

I know that the member had mentioned earlier that a business case is not required. I also know the member is a project manager and has a project management background. I’m sure she would agree that a capital investment of hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars would be extremely fiscally imprudent to invest in without a business plan.

Misty Van Popta: I was being a little bit tongue in cheek there, of course.

My understanding, having been involved quite a bit in the community, especially in regards to information on the hospital, is that there were two announcements. The master plan has been well formed. The original announcement for a tower was actually in 2015.

[8:40 p.m.]

The master plan has been completed, and the announcement in, I believe, September 2024 was funding for the business plan portion.

I believe there was already perhaps an estimate of $187.2 million for the tower project, $102.7 million coming from the province, $81.9 million from Fraser Health and Langley Memorial Hospital Foundation, which has got money earmarked aside, and $2.6 million from the township of Langley. We’re definitely beyond the master plan phase of this, and so I just wanted to bring that back, but I’ll just go to my last question here.

Given that the master plan has already been completed, in my understanding with talking with the hospital foundation…. Given that Langley Memorial is in a hospital zone and has height restrictions, what steps has the government taken to ensure that the required work and communications and that any permissions needed with Nav Canada to construct a new tower will be finalized prior to construction of the tower?

What pre-work and pre-permissions can we get done ahead of time, so that we’re not delayed further waiting for those types of red tape items?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are aware that Fraser Health did a master plan for that site back in 2015. I’m sure the member will agree that Langley has grown substantially since 2015. That master plan does need to be updated, and we are anticipating the updated master plan to be sent over to our ministry shortly, within the season, basically.

My team and I, though, are struggling to place the $187 million reference that the member raised. I’m wondering if the member has a little bit more context as to where that number might be coming from or what she’s referencing.

Misty Van Popta: I would have to go back into my own notes and find out where I got those numbers. The breakdown of $102 million from the province…. I don’t know if that was maybe a rough estimate, maybe in 2015. I would have to go back in my notes and figure that one out. Sorry about that.

Procedurally, Chair, I am unsure how to do this next step, but I would like to turn the floor over to my colleague, the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, with a question for the minister.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for…

Trevor Halford: Surrey–White Rock.

The Chair: …Surrey–White Rock. Thank you for the assistance.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank my colleague for giving me a little bit of brief time here and the minister and her staff for indulging me.

Question on Peace Arch Hospital. The ICU there has been under stress for a number of years now. I’ve met with the hospital foundation. I’ve met with the previous leadership at Fraser Health, which has changed in the last little bit. I just want to get the minister to confirm what capital funding has been allocated specifically to the replacement of the ICU at Peace Arch Hospital.

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member asked about Peace Arch Hospital, and the ICU in particular. There is currently a $38.36 million renovation underway in the Peace Arch Hospital ICU. Estimated completion is in 2027.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister and your staff for that quick answer. How much of that is going to be covered by the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation and how much will be covered by the provincial government?

I have a pretty good idea. I just want to have it confirmed by the minister.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m fortunate to have excellent partners in Peace Arch Hospital Foundation, as well as the general community. I know that British Columbians benefit from the generosity of other British Columbians and community members all throughout the province.

This is definitely a case where that generosity has enabled this renovation project. So $35 million comes from the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation through the generous donations of community members and the remainder is funded by the B.C. government.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

We’re talking about the fact that we’re now in construction for the Cloverdale hospital, which will not have an ICU, right? White Rock and South Surrey are growing at a massive pace, and we’re seeing that every single day, or I’m seeing it in my community.

The Peace Arch Hospital Foundation does definitely punch above its weight. I’m quite proud of that. They’ve been doing that for a number of years.

But we’re talking about a project that I know they’ve been advocating for years, predating this minister’s time in this portfolio, and I say that with the most…. Because I’ve met with the previous Minister of Health on this to try and get commitments.

We are now talking about a capital project where the hospital foundation is usually funding equipment and other things.

[8:50 p.m.]

This is a capital project where they’re funding over…. My math isn’t that good, but I’d say probably 95 percent of this project is being done by the hospital foundation, and the province is coming in at…. I would guess it’s under $2 million for a project I think the minister quoted was $38 million and something.

I just want to put on record here that that’s not a partnership. That’s not even close. That’s almost an embarrassment. And if you look at what the hospital foundation could be putting that money towards, whether it’s mental health supports or different things in our community, to be funding over 90 percent of a capital project as important as an ICU, when a hospital that they’re building less than 12 kilometres away will not have one, I think shows — and it’s not under this minister but under the previous decisions of previous ministers — a complete unbalance of health care in in Surrey, in White Rock, in the Fraser Valley.

It’s not really a question to the minister. It’s just a disappointment that the hospital foundation, the community has borne the cost of this at well over 90 percent of such an important structure that’s literally held together today by duct tape.

[8:55 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I understand we’re going to be adjourning here and moving over to the main chamber.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and report progress on the Ministry of Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:56 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 9:17 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 8 — Carbon Tax
Amendment Act, 2025

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

I call upon the Minister of Finance. Do you have any remarks?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have no opening remarks, but if I just might take a moment to introduce my team that are supporting me today: Doug Scott, our deputy minister, Ministry of Finance; Jordan Goss, who is the associate deputy; Andrew Avis, who is the senior executive director in tax and assessment policy; and Amanda Willick, who is our strategic adviser.

We’re ready to get started.

On clause 1.

Peter Milobar: Thank you to the minister and her staff.

A few general questions around the bill in terms of what the government’s overall intent with this bill is in terms of the overall operations of government. Obviously, it’s a pretty significant tax amendment, and the opposition is trying to ascertain the full impact that this bill would have for residents of British Columbia.

In regards to the overall intention of government on this, the minister has made it very clear in previous statements that if this bill was to pass, the low-income climate action tax credit would be removed. Can the minister confirm that is in fact the case and that its value is at around $1 billion?

[9:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, it is correct that contained within this bill is the cancellation of the climate action tax credit. That tax credit annually is $1.025 billion. This year that number will be somewhat less because of the April payment of $256 million.

Peter Milobar: I recognize that later on in the bill, we get to Income Tax Act changes as well, so I’ll keep asking some more generalized questions of the bill. If the minister would prefer or wants those redirected to the income tax section, that is fine. I’ll pick them back up there.

I can assure the minister, though, that if I have covered them off already, I won’t redouble them later on as well. So with a little back and forth, I’m sure we can plow through this.

Okay, so about $1 billion of the $2.8 billion that was slated to be collected this year is for the low-income subsidy to be removed. We know that out of that $3 billion, around $200 million is what would be considered for industry.

When carbon tax used to be revenue neutral, there was a very open and transparent reporting mechanism. There were a lot of tax measures that were connected to carbon tax. Whether you agreed they should have been connected or not is up for debate, obviously. Nonetheless, they were associated and tagged with carbon tax. That amounts to about another $1.8 billion.

Is the government’s intention, then, with the repeal of carbon tax for consumers with this bill, to simply increase the deficit by another $1.8 billion, or will there be program cuts that that $1.8 billion is currently funding?

The Chair: A reminder to members that they are not able to rely upon electronic devices while asking questions.

It appeared that you were glancing at an electronic device while you were giving your remarks, is all.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, there is work underway. We are reviewing all programs that are linked to this. We’ll have more information, and are planning to include that, in a report out in Q1.

Peter Milobar: Well, I guess the problem with that is that in the budget document, tabled March 4, there was language in there from the government saying that they were already working on a strategy if the federal government was to remove carbon tax.

There are some significant programs that are attached to carbon tax. By the time Q1 reporting happens, which…. Let’s see. It would be April, May, June. I believe it comes out sometime in late August, early September. We have the Q1 reporting out.

[9:25 p.m.]

One program in particular will be long since come and gone. In 2009, when carbon tax was first introduced, the homeowner grant for rural and northern residents was increased by $200 a household. I think the homeowners in rural and northern B.C. would want to know whether or not their $200 extra homeowner grant is in jeopardy with Bill 8 or not.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As I’ve stated, we are going to be doing a review of programming, and we’ll be reporting that out in Q1.

Peter Milobar: Well again, people have until today, I guess the next 2½ hours, to get their speculation tax forms in. That has no bearing on carbon tax, obviously, but it does have a bearing on people’s overall costs of taxation related to their homes.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The homeowner grant will be getting mailed out, and notices will be going out very shortly to communities, to people. The ministry insisted on bringing it in to the provincial government again, so it’s not an exercise of checking off the box and sending the form into your municipality or your regional district with your property tax notice anymore to get the homeowner grant. You actually have to do a separate process with the provincial government, because apparently they wanted even more information about the homeowner.

The bottom line is that that process will have come and gone as the minister is talking about what may or may not be included with the extra $1.8 billion of cuts that this government needs to make. It sounds like what the minister is saying is that the $1.8 billion will not be added on to the deficit but, in fact, it will result in cuts, but only after what sounds like we’ve basically left this place and done with budget estimates. Then we will find out what the government is trying to cut.

Again, when will homeowners find out whether or not the extra $200 on their homeowner grant — which is directly attached to the carbon tax, and it has been since 2009 — will still be in effect or be cut?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

The member opposite is putting words in the minister’s mouth. I did not say that. In fact, what I have said is very clear. We are going to be reviewing programs, and decisions will be made about how we move forward. That will be reflected in our Q1.

Peter Milobar: Review a program when the budget has already been set as of March 4. This means there is not the ability to add money to said program, or one would assume it’s in the budget already. For the minister to say they are reviewing, with the backdrop of discussion around how $1.8 billion of revenue will be gone if Bill 8 gets passed tonight, can only mean the review is the government’s intention to cut some or all of the programs associated with that $1.8 billion.

[9:30 p.m.]

The timeline the minister has now provided…. Again, we are standing here tonight because the government got the Speaker to agree to the fact that this was an urgent matter that desperately needed to be dealt with all in one day. Couldn’t possibly wait for an extra day or two so that we can get proper information and discuss things with stakeholders that might be impacted by the decisions made in Bill 8. This is of the government’s making that we are standing here tonight trying to get transparency on this.

It’s a pretty straightforward question that I think homeowners in rural and northern B.C. deserve to know. If Bill 8 gets passed tonight, is the extra $200 that they receive for their homeowner grant that has been in place since 2009 — is it on the chopping block or is it safe?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The reason we’re here tonight is that we made a commitment that when the federal government steps back from the carbon tax, we too will step back from it. That decision was made on March 15, and the first time that we have been back in this place is today.

We want to ensure that we align with that commitment with the federal government, that British Columbians are having the same experience at the same timeline as other Canadians and that we’re providing the opportunity for businesses to have certainty in what’s happening. That’s why, five or six days ago, we let businesses know that this was coming and that they can make the change at the pump. We’re providing that certainty.

Now what the member is asking is for what comes next, which is an evaluation of how we move forward. We’ve got a number of different reviews underway, including programmatic reviews, we’re doing an efficiency review and we’re going to do a review of CleanBC. None of those decisions have been made yet, and there is time for consultation and time to do this work.

Tonight what we’re talking about is the repealing of the carbon tax.

Peter Milobar: The minister’s boss, the Premier, has decided to make this a confidence vote. The opposition is trying to figure out whether or not we support the government continuing on tonight or not based on the decisions the government is making on carbon tax being removed. It’s not as simple as the carbon tax is being removed, and this government gets to have a ticker-tape parade thrown in their honour.

People have the right to know and have an understanding of the gut thought the government put in to $2.8 billion of lost revenue. So far, the only thing this minister has been willing to repeatedly commit to is removing a subsidy for low-income households.

We are simply asking for the same clarity on very straightforward and basic questions on other programs that are directly tied and have been for the better part of almost two decades to the carbon tax in B.C.

The first one I’m asking about is the homeowner grant program, which very clearly provides an extra $200 for rural and northern homes and was instituted and funded by carbon tax, a carbon tax that, if Bill 8 passes, will no longer exist. So it is directly tied to Bill 8 and the government decisions around Bill 8 and, frankly, how the opposition may or may not vote at third reading for Bill 8.

So how can the minister say that decisions haven’t been made on something that would impact the first quarter numbers when we will be gone from this place, not able to scrutinize what those program cuts might be, and get a better understanding on that, when we’re here tonight because the government said there was such urgency to deal with carbon tax and it all had to be done today.

If there’s been clear language about what’s going to happen or is expected to happen at the price of the pumps or on people’s home heating bill, I do not understand why it’s unreasonable for those same homeowners to get a clear understanding from this government what decisions have been made around the homeowner grant.

[9:35 p.m.]

Again, if the homeowner grant has not had a final decision, does the minister not find that it would be problematic to tell homeowners in June that they no longer have a homeowner grant for $200 extra when they could have answered that tonight? In June, it’s too late for most people filing for their homeowner grant in July.

[9:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I am going to try to flesh this out a little bit more for the member, because the member could go through many examples of programs and we would be right back to the same place, which is that programmatic reviews are underway, and we are going to report out on Q1 on where we are with that.

The timing is going to vary program to program, and decision to decision will vary, as well, based on the work that’s being done within each ministry.

I think the member has asked specifically about the homeowner grant, so let’s use that as an example. The homeowner grant for this year is currently already underway. It’s a situation where should a change occur — if that were to happen, and no, that decision has not been made — it would require legislation.

There have been 17 years of programs and legislation related to this tax. It’s going to take time for us to figure out which will move forward and which won’t. It’s going to be through the ministers. It will be part of reviews that they are doing. It’s complex and important work, and it will take time, and it’s going to be done carefully.

I think it’s unrealistic to make a request that I have information on all of those decisions yet. This is work that’s undergoing and will take some time.

Peter Milobar: Well, there’s a wide range of programs that have the exact same title as when there were still transparency reports provided, before the NDP removed the legal necessity for carbon tax transparency reports to be made on where the revenue neutrality came into with carbon tax.

Basic credits for Film Incentive B.C. and production services sales tax credits on page 60 of the budget, almost word for word what was in the last transparency report for tax credits applied by carbon tax. I said at the beginning that people can dispute whether or not it was really carbon tax–appropriate or not, but that’s what was associated with carbon tax.

Clean buildings tax credit on page 60 was also referenced in that same listing.

Interactive digital media tax credit, made permanent in this year’s budget, was listed repeatedly in those same reports.

Small business venture capital tax credit listed and associated with carbon tax.

The homeowner grant associated with carbon tax.

Training credit for apprentices associated with carbon tax.

And there are others that I could go into as well. There was the seniors home renovation program, which I don’t think still exists.

The corporate income tax had been increased up to $500,000 as a threshold. That still exists at that threshold now in this year’s budget.

I find it incredible that we are standing here being asked to make a vote that the Premier has declared to be a confidence vote and the government cannot, with any confidence, tell us what is going to happen to $1.8 billion worth of programs if this vote goes through.

I don’t think they’re unrealistic questions for an opposition being asked to provide that confidence to the government in terms of removing a tax, which Bill 8 is purporting to do, but when you remove a tax, you create a big hole in revenue.

The minister would have us believe that despite this budget and only being able to point to $300 million worth of savings in this budget, which is arguable about how much is actual savings or not…. There was a review, despite months of lead time to get this budget created.

Despite months of lead time, the government was only able to land on $300 million. And now, in the backdrop of public sector negotiations beginning with 80 percent of the public service in B.C., the government is going to take meaningful action for cuts with that being the backdrop for this $1.8 billion, let alone the whole rest of the budget of another 90-or-so-billion dollars’ worth of spending, when only $300 million was found on $90 billion to begin with.

Is there a target that the minister has, that the government has, for this $1.8 billion for savings, or is it truly the intention of the government to add $1.8 billion to the overall deficit of B.C.?

[9:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I feel like I have provided an answer to this question. I’ve been clear that there are going to be programmatic reviews, that this work is underway and that the ministries are doing the work.

I’m not going to make a surmise about the outcome of that work. The member well knows that we have an efficiency review, that we’re doing a programmatic review, that we’ve identified this review.

I think it’s time that we start getting into this bill and talking about what’s inside the bill rather than surmising the work that’s coming up in the future.

Peter Milobar: It’s disappointing that the minister finds it cumbersome that we’re trying to have a conversation about $1.8 billion of cuts, service cuts, which would be six times the dollar value that they have identified supposedly in the first $90 billion of the budget.

Carbon tax obviously takes quite a bit to administer. Has the ministry done a review on any potential cost savings in terms of the bureaucracy associated with processing, auditing, managing, collecting carbon tax? What does that workforce look like before Bill 8 and then once Bill 8 is passed?

[9:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a tax that’s going to take some time to wind down. When we actually do get to the bill, we’ll see that there are particular clauses to allow for that timeline, because it is going to take time to wind down the tax. So no, we’re not expecting any particular savings in regards to FTEs on this tax.

Peter Milobar: Well, maybe I should be clear, then. There are current-year FTE savings and then there are overall, moving forward, FTE savings.

Is the minister saying that there will be no efficiencies found in the tax departments within the Ministry of Finance and that carbon tax has essentially been worked off the side of everybody’s desks all these years and that, as the things get wound down, there will be no staffing changes needed within the Ministry of Finance or within the tax collection departments and auditing departments at all?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think that’s the same question. It’s been asked and answered.

Peter Milobar: No, it wasn’t answered, frankly. The minister may have felt that I was asking about the current year fiscal only, in her first answer. So I clarified, with my second follow-up question, that we were trying to ascertain what the impact of the overall staffing will be, with carbon tax to the consumer removed, in terms of the overall implication within the overall bureaucracy within the Ministry of Finance and the various departments that deal with carbon taxation.

As the changes that take some time get implemented, what is the expectation, or has there been zero modelling done by the ministry, as to what impacts that would have, as they’re asking for a confidence vote on the removal of carbon tax?

[9:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Stopping a tax can occur quickly. However, winding down a tax takes much longer. Audits, refunds, appeals and debt collection can take a number of years.

Staff that undertake these functions generally also administer other taxes. I think it’s worth noting that there are no staff members who specifically work on the carbon tax alone.

Peter Milobar: Their workload will be diminishing. I guess we are trying to figure out how that gets reconciled when you have a tax that collects $3.10 billion over the next few years.

Highly technical in its application in terms of fuel in particular, in terms of volumes and coming across the border and gas stations and everything else…. The minister is saying that, essentially, as things get phased off the books, there will be no change to staffing whatsoever and people will just have a little less to do on their desk, and there will be no actual savings to government with the removal of a tax. Is that what I’m hearing?

The Chair: Asked and answered.

Peter Milobar: Well, excuse me, Madam Chair, with all fairness this is supposed to be the opposition’s time to be asking questions of the minister to get clarification. But I guess am I supposed to be getting clarification through the Chair on all things.

Maybe I could ask the Clerk for clarification on that clarification because it could be a long night if this is the road we’re going down.

The Chair: Minister, you are inclined to answer the question?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I believe the question would be the same answer that I previously gave, that these folks are working on multiple files and it will take a number of years to wind it down. That’s the answer I’ve prepared.

[10:00 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: To be clear then, we can’t identify any savings for staffing by getting rid of the carbon tax. We can’t identify any programs that may be cut or not out of the $1.8 billion remaining that’s not been identified of carbon tax taxation that would be removed with Bill 8.

We know that there would still be $200 million of revenue coming in from the industrial side, and we know that low-income households can expect $1 billion less in payments.

Does that about summarize the government’s position on Bill 8 at this point in terms of the $3 billion of carbon tax that’s slated to be collected starting tomorrow to the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The climate action tax credit was brought in specifically to help people offset the cost of the carbon tax. They’re in concert with each other. With the removal of the carbon tax, so too are we getting rid of what offset it, which is the climate action tax credit.

On average, people in British Columbia would pay $410 in carbon tax, and the average that people who receive the climate action tax credit would receive is $485. We do acknowledge that there is a gap there, and that those in fact are averages.

Our government remains deeply committed to addressing affordability, and we’ve been working very hard on many affordability measures, including rental assistance programs and the renters rebate. We’ve increased the minimum wage multiple times. We’ve lowered car insurance costs. We’ve reduced child care fees. The B.C. family benefit has been brought in and increased. We’ve made transit free.

The member asked the question about affordability, and I’m answering it. We’ve also brought in three….

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Member, you have asked a number of questions that I’ve indulged you in. I think that you can sit through an answer that is related to the question that you asked about us eliminating this tax credit.

The Chair: Minister, if we could go through the chair.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, Chair, for the reminder. Excuse me.

The reality is that these two go hand in hand, and that we’ll continue to do the important work that we do on affordability.

Jeremy Valeriote: Many of the financial questions have been asked, and my colleague has a couple more. They’re on a broad level.

My question is: what is the minister’s plan to address the loss of worldwide respect from being a leader in addressing the climate crisis, especially its impact on the clean technology industry?

[10:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I very much reject the framing of the question. British Columbia is a technology leader, and we’ve done extraordinary things in regards to clean technology. That work will continue. We’ve won numerous awards for this, and I can mention many, many companies that are succeeding in British Columbia because of the environment that we’ve created for businesses to be successful in this regard, and we’ll continue that really important work.

In fact, innovation is going to be a major focus of this government going forward. We’ve made huge investments in innovation already, and you’ll see, even just in this last year’s budget, a $30 million investment supporting Innovate B.C. to continue their work to help businesses grow. And one of the categories that they look at specifically, through our legislation and guidance to them, is companies that are having an impact on climate.

I’ll share an example with you, the integrated marketplace initiative, which is $30 million out of this budget, supported a company called Moment Energy out of Coquitlam. The way the model works is it helps a business that is looking for a large client in order to help them have that to point to in their growth plan. We partnered Moment Energy with YVR, and government de-risked that partnership. Since then, they have been listed on the recognition of the top 100 global clean energy companies, and that is largely because of the work that we’ve done through Innovate B.C.

There are many other examples I could share. This work will continue. It’s deeply important. I know that the member is disappointed in this bill being brought forward, but it’s important that the member knows this does not mean that we don’t care and won’t continue to invest in addressing climate change in many, many other ways, including, and so importantly, through innovation.

Jeremy Valeriote: A different topic. From our understanding, the new output-based pricing system has had a downward impact on B.C.’s carbon tax revenues. I would appreciate if the minister could tell us what the revenue was from industrial carbon pricing in 2024-25, and how it compares to the previous pricing system for industry.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This bill that we’re talking about tonight, Bill 8, does not address the area that the member is asking the question about.

This bill is specific to the consumer carbon tax, and I would recommend respectfully that the member take up this question with the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Rob Botterell: Earlier you mentioned that there would be program reviews, and you also mentioned that a variety of the programs that are under review are baked into legislation.

Could the minister confirm that each cut to a program as a result of program review, after this bill passes, will be subject to approval of the Legislature?

[10:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are multiple programs over the 17 years that this tax has been in place. Some of them are in legislation, and some of them aren’t. I’ve described that there will be an extensive program review happening within the ministries involved.

But I really think it’s important that we get to the bill at hand. Clause 1, after all, is about removing the requirement to collect tax, and we’ve canvassed the question of offsets quite extensively. So my recommendation to the member is that we move on to the bill.

Rob Botterell: One other question on clause 1.

Should this bill pass later tonight, the climate action tax credit will end. There will be a benefit to drivers of cars of, potentially, a 17-cent-per-litre drop in gas prices, although it’ll be interesting to see how much of the 17-cent drop actually reaches drivers.

How will British Columbians without a car be supported when they no longer have the climate action tax credit? They won’t see the impact of the reduction in tax. How are we going to support those British Columbians?

[10:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do just want to highlight that it’s not only savings at the pump — and I agree; I hope that those show up tomorrow as they should — it’s also natural gas. So, for example, heating your home would be an area that people would see decreases.

We’re hoping also, perhaps, in grocery areas where there’s a transportation component or areas that people will have paid the tax. Those deductions should be passed on to consumers.

Peter Milobar: Just a couple of other follow-up questions based on my friends from the Greens’ questions and the minister’s answers.

It sounds like Innovate B.C. is not on the chopping block in any review, based on the minister’s answer saying that it’s doing well, it’s functioning well, and they have no plans to take any steps towards it. And it sounds like transit, despite many government announcements around transit being funded by carbon tax, is not on the chopping block either.

Can the minister confirm that Innovate B.C. and transit, based on her previous couple of answers, are not actually part of the review and not subject to potential cuts?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will repeat the same answer that I’ve given the member many times tonight, which is that there will be a fulsome review of all of the items that are funded through the carbon tax, and that that review is forthcoming.

Peter Milobar: I appreciate that’s the answer the minister has given me, but she gave the Green Party members a slightly different answer on those two specific questions — around Innovate B.C., which she actually offered up as an example of a program that is doing great work and has nothing to fear, and then the question in response to how people would reasonably see the same benefit of the carbon tax reduction if they take transit instead of driving a car. The answer there, to the Green Party again, made it very much seem like those two programs are, in fact, safe.

Is the minister now saying, despite the previous answers to the Green Party, that, in fact, those programs are still fully under the review and could see cuts depending on the outcome of those reviews?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not going to accept the opportunity for the member to put words in my mouth. That is not what I said.

I pointed out to a member of the Green Party that in this year’s budget, there’s $30 million that has been provided to Innovate B.C. for innovation programming, including prioritizing programming on sustainability.

Peter Milobar: Well, in this year’s budget, there’s also $3 billion of carbon tax that is being removed — sorry, $2.8 billion of carbon tax that is being removed — as a revenue source. So apparently, what’s in the budget is somewhat irrelevant, as there’s this ongoing review of all things in the budget, including the allocations of carbon tax.

One would assume that green initiatives like Innovate B.C…. Again, the government has repeatedly referred to transit investments as coming from carbon tax, some of those programs coming out of the $1.8 billion. So I’m just….

These aren’t really gotcha questions. It’s just trying to get a clear sense of what is actually truly on the cutting block or not with this government’s plans.

Again, this is the government’s prerogative — to bring this bill forward with the spending priorities attached with it or the cuts that might have to happen as a result of this. It’s a confidence vote. I think the public and the opposition are entitled to figure out, before they vote with confidence for the government or not, whether they have confidence that this has been well-thought-out or not.

The minister made it seem like Innovate B.C. has money in the budget and that that won’t be touched, based on how she framed her answer. We’ll probably be going long enough that we’ll probably have the Blues updated by the time we get further on, so we can always go back and read the exact wording.

Then when the question was around transit versus cars, the impression was that people taking transit will have the same access they always have. In fact, they might have other low-cost avenues to access transit.

I’m just simply trying to get a sense of if those are still safe and not threatened by any potential review in the first quarter. Again, we won’t be reviewing Bill 8 in the first quarter — we’re reviewing it tonight — and the intentions of government wrapped around Bill 8.

[10:20 p.m.]

So could we just get some clarity on those two items that have had fairly clear indication, at least to the Green Party — I’m not sure if the minister thought I wasn’t paying attention or not, but I was — compared to the answers that I was receiving for the previous hour and a bit?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has asked me a number of times this evening to make speculation about the outcome of the work that is ahead of us in regards to reviewing all of the different programming that is linked to this tax.

I am not going to do that. That’s work that needs to be done in a thorough and careful way with the ministers that are involved.

Chair, I recommend that we move forward with actually taking a look at clause 1, which we have not yet done.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, we’re simply trying to get the mindset of the government as they introduce legislation. That’s really what we’re trying to do.

We’re not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth. We’re trying to understand the bill and the government’s intentions with the bill, and that’s pretty standard in any piece of legislation.

Typically, we would have much more time to go through these ahead of time to talk to stakeholders that might be impacted, to talk to people that might be associated with Innovate B.C. or transit systems and things of that nature to find out what concerns they might have about a carbon tax removal.

But we don’t have that time afforded to us because the first we saw this bill was around 11 o’clock this morning. I get that the minister might be frustrated by this process, but this is a process designed by her government.

I would suggest the frustrations could be discussed in the Premier’s office or the Government House Leader’s office, not with the opposition simply trying to do their job on behalf of the residents of British Columbia.

On clause 2, section 28 is amended. A lot of the discussion today in the morning about the urgency of this bill was how it had to be passed today, had to be passed in advance of April 1. The impression was that retroactivity was not really an option.

What is the technical reason why section 28 cannot be amended in a piece of legislation as a retroactive clause? In other words, why did we have to pass it today for it to take effect on April 1?

Why could we not have had proper length of debate and scrutiny by the public and the opposition over the course of this week, pass this bill on Thursday or Monday of next week and had it retroactive to April 1?

[10:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.

This clause, specifically clause 2, adds a new subsection to provide that, despite the general rule requiring retail dealers of natural gas to remit all carbon tax collected in error to government, retail dealers of natural gas can retain carbon tax collected in error from customers on or after April 1 if the retail dealer refunds or credits the amount back to the customer.

The reason for this change is to implement the new refund and credit mechanism introduced under clause 4, which we’ll get to shortly, of this bill. Retail dealers of natural gas must be permitted to retain carbon tax collected in error on or after April 1. This rule would not result in a windfall for the retail dealer, as the retail dealer can only retain amounts collected if they directly refund or credit the customer who paid the amount. Remember that this is specific to natural gas retailers.

Peter Milobar: Well, it appears, and it seems like it’s a safe assumption to make, that in fact the changes to section 28 of the act in clause 2…. Really, the urgency to deal with everything tonight appears to be a political decision, not a technical decision. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The situation that the member is pointing to is one of natural gas, and natural gas providers have a relationship with the consumer. They know who the consumer is. They bill the consumer, and the consumer pays them. It’s quite a different circumstance when you’re filling up your car at the pump. There’s not the same relationship, and so the circumstances there are quite different.

It was pressing that we get the information to the gas providers so that they can ensure that it is available at the pump as of April 1, and that’s what we’re doing in this bill today.

Peter Milobar: Section 28 of the bill that is being amended by clause 2 appears to always have been around remittance to government as it relates to natural gas.

The reason I say it appears to be political and not technical in nature is when you read the legislative changes that have happened, in the legislative book on the Carbon Tax Act…. The interesting thing is on section 28 of the act. It was amended in 2008, was amended in 2010, and it was amended again in 2010, both January and July. It was amended in May 2012.

Interestingly, it took effect May 1, 2012, retroactive from when it received royal assent on May 14. So there was no technical reason, on a clause that deals solely with remittance to government, a section in the act that deals solely with remittance to government for natural gas…. There’s been no previous technical reason that it could not be retroactive.

[10:30 p.m.]

Yet we’re being led to believe today, through the morning debate, the request to the Speaker and through second reading debate by the government, that it was critical that clauses in this bill be dealt with today because retroactivity was seen to be not possible.

Again, how can the minister explain that section 28 of the act, in clause 2, appears very much, on a technical basis, to be able to be a retroactive passing, in fact two weeks later, but not now?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The urgency of this bill is really around the dropping of the rate to zero. It’s not around any specific one clause.

Peter Milobar: Well, there are all sorts of tax changes. Rates change. They go up or they go down. In Bill 6, there are multiple tax changes in this year’s budget implementation bill that have retroactive clauses in them. Some go back years. Some go back almost a decade or more to when they would take effect. There have been retroactive clauses with carbon tax changes over the years as well.

Again, the Premier signalled very clearly, and the Premier has a majority, to retailers and that that this was coming. I fail to understand how a retroactive clause would not have been deemed to be possible under this and that it was critically important to ram this through tonight.

When I asked, when I made a statement earlier: what happens if we’re still debating this after the clock strikes 12…? We know what happened to Cinderella when the clock struck a certain time, but I’m not sure if we were into April 1 with this bill, or potentially even April 2 if we start having some amendments, that we wouldn’t have retroactivity by default anyways.

There are bulletins that go out from the Finance Ministry all the time about tax changes coming. There are all sorts of tax changes built into the budget that was presented on March 4 that will be retroactive not just in this fiscal year or a coming fiscal year but previous years, and people make tax adjustments and everything else to the like.

[10:35 p.m.]

Why, if in previous years section 28 of the act was able to be retroactively amended, was it not possible to retroactively amend it in clause 2 of this bill this year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I understand that the member is frustrated to deal with this bill in an accelerated way, but I think that this question has been already decided upon by our Speaker. The leaders of each party, House Leaders, presented their arguments to the Speaker, who made a ruling that, in fact, it was passing the test for urgency. That ruling stands, and I think we should focus on the bill at hand.

Peter Milobar: I am trying to focus on it. I didn’t ask about the Speaker making a ruling. I don’t think the Speaker read through the bill with any level of scrutiny to figure out the urgency or not of the clauses, whether or not retroactivity was appropriate or not. The government said they were.

I started this off asking if it was a political or a technical decision. That wasn’t actually answered, other than it kind of leaned towards a technical decision that retroactivity would not be appropriate to amend section 28 in the act. I then pointed out it’s actually been amended with retroactivity in the past.

The Premier made very open and very public statements that the government would be instructing people not to charge carbon tax on April 1. That will have the same impact getting out to the broader community and gas stations and Fortis and everyone else as us passing this at 11:30 tonight, thinking that they will magically have everything changed in half an hour at 12:01 or at six o’clock tomorrow morning.

It’s going to take time for that information to filter out, in a bulletin to be issued by Ministry of Finance. There are all sorts of taxation bulletins that get sent out to businesses on taxation across the board. I used to get them all the time with my hotel and bars and liquor store. You’d get tax notices from government all the time. There are all sorts of tax measures that wind up with retroactivity attached to them.

Again, can the minister point…? If there’s not a technical reason, given that section 28 of the act has previously been amended with retroactivity, is clause 2 a political decision or a technical decision for why retroactivity would not be appropriate this year versus why it was in previous years, when this exact section of the act has been retroactively amended?

[10:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 2 is a technical clause, and it’s part of what is required to eliminate the carbon tax. Having royal assent in advance provides certainty, the most certainty that we can, to the business partners who are going to be eliminating the carbon tax. That’s what we’re hoping to deliver.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, in the limited time we had for a briefing today…. And admittedly, I cut it short once I felt I had the answers because it became clear with staff that they couldn’t answer on the technical side and they rightfully so indicated that the minister would be more appropriate to answer some of the questions once we get to committee stage.

It was very clear that again, there doesn’t seem to be a technical reason. The minister and the government may want the political certainty around having clause 2 dealt with today, before April 1, but there’s no technical…. In the technical sense of the way that the tax would not still be able to go to zero by the end of this week with an April 1 implementation…. Gas stations have either charged it or not charged it and other retailers, given that — sorry, this is natural gas — they would have been given the notice ahead of time that the bill is progressing through, because we see that with all sorts of tax changes.

I guess I’ll just either raise my voice up a notch at the end to make it into a question, I guess…. Or really it’s just more of an observation that this clause has very clearly been amended before to allow for retroactivity despite what we had heard when the bill was first introduced today.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

[10:45 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: On clause 4, how will these refunds or credits be monitored? Who is responsible for ensuring that all credits are passed back to consumers?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The ministry undertakes risk-based audits and that’s how it’s ensured.

Peter Milobar: Again, section 36 is being amended here in clause 4 of the act. I’ll go back to the handy little chart. I’ll tell you, these law books are just wonderful. You get the nice current information.

So June 2 it received royal assent in 2011, retroactive to February 16. Once again, May 14, 2012, retroactive to May 1.

What exactly was the problem with having section 36 being amended retroactive, similar to section 28 questions in clause 2? Why the political urgency to deal with a bill that…? Very clearly, these clauses could have been dealt with through a regular pace of legislation this week, and we could have had retroactivity take effect, and perhaps, we might have had more clarity around where the missing $1.8 billion in revenue and spending will be.

[10:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will reiterate what we’ve already discussed with this member in regards to the questions of retroactivity.

This question has already been litigated this morning by the Speaker and by the House Leaders of the three parties, and the decision was, in fact, to go ahead, and the reasons provided for this accelerated timeline were accepted. It has been litigated. It’s accepted. This is what we’re doing.

Clause 4 is really about providing certainty to natural gas customers to ensure that should they erroneously be charged carbon tax, it will be returned to them.

Peter Milobar: Again, I’m not trying to litigate what the Speaker’s ruling was. I don’t think it really shocked anyone what the Speaker’s ruling was, frankly, today. It tends to be how the standing orders operate. It doesn’t matter which government is in, in which Legislature. Standing orders tend to tilt to the benefit of whoever the sitting government is. I’m not taking issue with that at all.

The point being, I’m asking for technical answers from the minister’s point of view as to why retroactivity was not deemed to be appropriate enough. One would assume that either the Premier’s office or the House Leader of the Government would have consulted with the Minister of Finance around how fast and how expedient it was necessary, on a technical basis, to make sure that this bill was in place by April 1.

However, we’re on the second of three clauses so far that have details around natural gas dealings, and two of those three have been subject to retroactivity amendments in the past. I’m simply asking, given that clause 4 would enable there to be carbon tax refunds and 180 days for that on top of that….

Given that natural gas customers, the vast majority except for the very few that might fill up a vehicle with natural gas, a few remaining ones in the province…. There are credits with Fortis on people’s home heating bills, who is the predominant natural gas supplier in the province, if not the only one, all the time. This provision would allow for 180 days for those credits to be accounted for, by the looks of it.

[10:55 p.m.]

Again, why on a technical basis was it imperative that this clause be passed tonight, as it’s being passed with a retroactivity clause attached to it?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is the act as a whole that it is imperative that we pass tonight, not the specific clause that the member has pointed to.

Peter Milobar: Well, so far, just about every clause has previously had retroactivity attached to it. I’m not quite getting the urgency piece of the overall bill, but we’ll keep working our way through it and figure that part out, I guess.

In terms of clause 4, why is the 180 days the required time to send out a carbon tax refund? Why was it landed on 180 days, on what is typically a monthly billing, and not three months or 30 days?

We’re told that retroactivity wouldn’t have been a wise move, because people need to know and get their refunds dealt with immediately, yet this provision would enable six months for that reconciliation to happen between the supplier and the customer.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There were two reasons for that decision of 180 days. The first reason is that there was a reference to section 146 of the PST Act, which has a similar provision. The second reason was that this is a new mechanism that these natural gas retailers are putting in place, and we wanted to ensure that they had time to set it up.

The Chair: Given that the committee has been working on this bill for some time, I declare a recess of ten minutes. We’ll have everybody back here in the room at 11:10.

The committee recessed from 10:59 p.m. to 11:11 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back to Committee of the Whole, Bill 8.

We’ll be starting at clause 4.

Peter Milobar: Just to clarify with the minister on clause 4, the section 36 amendment, this is really more, then, geared towards a homeowner or a small business that is a natural gas customer. It’s to ensure, if they are deemed to have overpaid carbon tax, delivered on or after April 1, that there is a refund mechanism.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, that is correct.

Peter Milobar: Again, I’ll go back to the importance, or not, of retroactivity if there were to be some charges incurred for the first couple of days of April, or not. Is the hesitancy by government to have this bill be dealt with in the normal course of action through the course of this week and to get royal assent by, say, Thursday of this week…?

The hesitancy around having that retroactivity…. Is there a materiality that the government felt would be a problem in terms of dollar value of potential refunds that consumers may have been paying for their natural gas between Tuesday to Thursday?

[11:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It really is the same question that we have been asked. The same question will get the same answer: it is the totality of the bill that is the urgency, not the specific clause 4.

Peter Milobar: My question was if there was a worry about the material dollar value. Is there a threshold that the government was worried about hanging out there, with refunds all over the place, to a large dollar figure for individual customers, particularly homeowners, if this were to take effect on, say, a Thursday, retroactive to the Tuesday?

That’s really what I’m trying to get at, because this section is about refunds. Again, was there a dollar threshold that the government was concerned about retailers having to refund back to their customers and trying to circumvent that with the 180-day period? What does that dollar value look like?

[11:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: By accelerating the act, we expect that there will be very few refunds necessary. Actually, by moving the bill quickly, it mitigates the risk effectively.

Peter Milobar: I hope the minister can bear with me. I know we’re pushing midnight here.

“Section 36 is amended by adding the following subsections: (1.1) despite subsection (1) of this section and section 42 (1) (a)….” So if you go to the carbon tax and 42(1)(a), which I just happen to have here, it deals with refund limits and says, “Despite section 16 of the Financial Administration Act,” which actually says, around refunds: “Money received by the government that is erroneously paid or collected, or for any purpose that is not fulfilled may, subject to directives of the Treasury Board, be refunded from the consolidated revenue fund or the appropriate trust fund in part or in full as circumstances require.”

Despite that section, 42(1)(a) says: “a refund of less than $10 must not be made.” That means if people were to incur a carbon tax charge on Tuesday to Thursday of less than $10, they would have no ability, under section 36, to ask for that refund anyways, as I read this, because it says, “Despite subsection (1) of this section, sections 42 (1) (a),” so despite that. Then it goes into what you can ask for a refund on, and it goes into giving you 180 days.

Now the reason I ask that is the rest of 42 goes into how “a refund other than a refund referred to in paragraph (c) must not be made on a claim for a refund that is received by the director more than 4 years after the date on which the amount claimed was paid or remitted,” and a refund to a person under section 38(5) “must not be made on a claim for a refund that is received by a director for more than 4 years after the date on which the person who sold the fuel referred to in section 38 writes off as unrealized or uncollectable amount owing to the person who bought that fuel despite the limitation act in action for a refund must not be brought more than four years after the date on which the amount claimed was paid or remitted.”

Now, I’m just wondering. Section 36 of this bill gives people 180 days, and it refers to section 42 of the act. Section 42 of the act gives people four years. Which is the overriding piece of legislation if someone is looking to get a refund? Is it 180 days or is it four years? It’s a little bit of a difference.

[11:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is testing me at this late hour, but we’ve got the answer for the member.

The way that it is structured, the seller, in this case the natural gas retailer, has 180 days to credit a consumer should they be charged carbon tax and they shouldn’t have been charged carbon tax. That 180 days, as we’ve discussed, is time for the retailer to set up their systems but also is a benefit to the consumer to make sure that they’re refunded in a timely way.

Now, if on the off chance, there’s an error and that customer isn’t refunded in that 180-day timeframe, you can go to the default, which is the four years, and seek that money from government, which they would be refunded.

The member also raised the question of the $10 limit and there is language here that says despite 41(a) there will be the ability to have a refund of less than $10. So that has been addressed.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

[11:30 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: To be clear, on clause 4, let the record show that was not me that caused that interlude for a minute there. I get blamed for enough delays in this place.

The Chair: I agree.

Peter Milobar: With section 5, it appears that these changes don’t actually make a material difference. I’m not quite sure why the urgency or why the need for these changes.

Could the minister enlighten us as to what the material difference these changes would actually make her?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The proposed change here…. This amends subsection 37(2) to ensure that persons can receive refunds in respect to an amount paid as if it were security — i.e., an amount of security that was paid despite there being no legal obligation to do so under the same refund rule.

The reason for this change is that the change is consequential to the removal of carbon tax as of April 1, 2025. It fills a gap in the legislation to ensure that businesses can apply for refunds if they are charged security in error.

Peter Milobar: Again, section 37, May 14, 2012, to take effect May 1. Section 37 actually had some interesting ones later on. It was dealt with retroactively March 2018 to take effect February of 2014. Again in 2016, it had a couple-year lag of retroactivity that backdated it.

Again, it seems like a clause that can be fairly easily backdated and amended without causing massive indigestion for the people that would be impacted by it.

I guess I’ll go back to the same question — you know, why? Why again? This is a third of four clauses now that have any substance whatsoever to them.

Retroactivity has not been an issue in the past. Why, oh why, do we have to be here until midnight dealing with a bill that we could have easily dealt with on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday of this week?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member has asked before and I will answer again, it is the totality of it, not the specific clause that drives the urgency of this bill.

Peter Milobar: Well, what I’m pointing out to the minister is that essentially the totality of the bill has been retroactively passed at some point in the past. All the various clauses.

That’s really the fundamental problem that we’re trying to get to here is: why the urgency? Frankly, we could have been back over the last two weeks to deal with this as well, but we’re here today. That’s really the essence of this.

[11:35 p.m.]

In terms of section 37(2), however, what are the dollar figures that would be typical with a clause like this, in terms of the security and the difference between the amount the person paid? Are these the high-volume people? Are these just regular individual homeowners? Who is trying to be captured, and what’s the order of magnitude that this clause would actually purport to be rectifying?

[11:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Before I recognize the Minister of Finance, I would like to just remind members that, despite the fact one may not appreciate the response of a minister, they should avoid repetitious lines of questioning.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked about: is this corporate? Is it large sums of money? Is it individuals? These are very large corporate actors and it’s large sums of money. These are corporate sellers. In the normal course of business, they would be significant transactions.

This is particularly consequential, this amendment, because it fills a gap, and it ensures that, should there be an amount transferred in error…. It allows that amount to be returned.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Peter Milobar: I’ll keep down my lines of questions, hopefully. It doesn’t seem repetition, because they are….

Retroactivity comes up yet again. Section 84 has been amended in the past. October 9 takes effect September 2 or October 29; June 2 takes effect February 16; May 14 comes back on May 1; and so on and so forth.

I ask that because this section deals with “A regulation made on or before December 31, 2025 under this section for the purposes of section 23 (7) or 35 (12), or under subsection (3) (a), (b), (c) or (s) of this section, may be made retroactive to April 1 or a later date, and if made retroactive it is deemed to come into force on a specified date.”

Then (9) is: “A regulation made on or before December 31, 2026 under this section in relation to refunds may be made retroactive to April 1, 2025 or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into force on the specified date.”

That is now clause 4 or 5 of this bill that has previously had retroactivity attached to it in previous amendments to this bill. In fact this is a section making regulations that will allow the ability for orders in council to be made retroactive to April 1 of this year all the way up to and including December 31, 2026.

Could the minister please explain why retroactivity is okay for the regulation-making powers of orders in council, but it was deemed too onerous of government to have this bill proceed at a normal time frame throughout this week?

[11:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 6 is really adding the authority to make retroactive regulations under section 84, related to cancelling all appointments and certificates, prescribing a time and manner for remittances under the new section 35(12), clause 3 of this bill, addressing unanticipated refund scenarios, removing the requirement to pay international fuel tax agreement deposits and ending irrelevant administrative requirements.

Really, what’s driving the change on clause 6 is that it allows regulation changes to ensure a smooth transition away from the carbon tax, and it must be implemented via regulation.

Peter Milobar: Well, I started pointing out that these are four or five clauses that previously had had retroactive changes made to them, in previous iterations of the legislation.

The interesting thing is in section 84(8) on this bill where it says “or 35.” Interestingly enough, section 35, in clause 3, is the one section out of the five that had never actually had retroactive provisions enacted on the changes that were made legislatively. Now it does.

The totality of the bill, as the minister keeps saying, is why retroactivity was deemed to not be acceptable. We now literally have every section of this bill, which previously had retroactive legislation up to and including this current piece of legislation, that has amended sections being dealt with in this bill.

Now that we are at five out of five of these clauses all having been subject to retroactivity, including this clause, which actually gives this current government the ability to make regulations on or before December 31, 2026, which can be “…retroactive to April 1, 2025 or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into force on the specified date.”

Again, what was the political calculus here? It has obviously not been a technical calculus as to why we needed to deal with this bill in its entirety today, when every single clause has very easily been dealt with, with some very long retroactivity time frames, including what is in this — which will be up to a year and a half from now.

The Chair: Hon. Member, I note that the minister has responded a number of times today regarding your question. I ask that you reframe your question towards a new line of questioning. Thank you.

Peter Milobar: Mr. Chair, I’m not sure how to reframe, respectfully, when I’m asking, frankly, different questions.

The minister has said it’s the totality of the bill. I am painting a picture, clause by clause, of the totality of the bill: that every single one of these clauses has been dealt with retroactively, except for the one clause in section 35, which previously hadn’t. Now in clause 6, it actually is being dealt with in a retroactive manner. So the discussion, to this point, has been that we weren’t able to deal with this bill in a retroactive manner. Clause 6 is all about retroactivity.

I’m not quite sure how we can get to what the government’s intention is on a bill without asking questions specific to each clause. The questions I’m asking, although they may be repetitive about retroactivity, actually are specific to each of the clauses, based on the sections in the act, of the carbon tax, and based on the interconnectivity with that and the other provisions that we’ve read in other acts.

I’ll be delving into the Income Tax Act when we get to there as well, and the retroactivity potential on those. Really, I’m kind of at a loss. I get that the minister might not like the line of questioning and feels it’s repetitive. But clause 6 is much different than the other clauses. Clause 6 actually allows for retroactivity once Bill 8 is passed.

[11:50 p.m.]

I’m not sure why the government doesn’t want to answer the political calculus. Only the minister can answer that. The technical staff cannot answer that question. I tried canvassing that in the briefing today. They rightfully pointed out that it would have to be more of a politician’s answer to these types of questions. I’m not quite sure when the opposition is supposed to access information from this government if we’re not empowered and enabled to ask the question.

It’s up to the minister whether they actually want to answer what the political calculus was on this versus the technical calculus of this bill in its entirety, given that we are now on clause 5 of five, with retroactivity previously being established and now being established in this clause specifically.

The Chair: Shall clause 6 pass?

Some Voices: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

Peter Milobar: Point of order. I still have questions on clause 6. There was no answer given, so how was I to assume there was going to be a vote?

I’d like to ask questions. I don’t know if the vote….

The Chair: Thank you. I would like to ask the committee if it is okay if we go back to clause 6 so that the hon. member is able to continue their line of questioning.

Some Voices: Aye.

Peter Milobar: Later on in this legislation, there are regulation-making powers that have sunset clauses in them.

Is there a reason that this section does not have a sunset clause the same as the upcoming clauses?

[11:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: These tools in this clause are primarily administrative. They’re designed to stay in effect as part of the administrative theme to ensure proper wind-down.

Peter Milobar: In part 2 of this clause, subsection (9), the minister is giving the government 640 days from now to continue to make regulations that would be retroactive to April 1, 2025. What types of regulations does the ministry foresee that will be needed?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is really designed to cover unanticipated refund scenarios that are not accounted for in this bill.

Peter Milobar: I can appreciate not foreseen in this bill, but obviously, those changes, by virtue of them being done by regulation means that they won’t come in front of the Legislature. It will be an OIC signed off on and posted to the website at some point in the future.

Given that there is that ability, then, to set within the Carbon Tax Act the ability to provide for future unforeseen regulations that may be needed to deal with removing carbon tax in its entirety…. Given what was unfolding all through January, February, March leading up to the budget, the language in the budget talking about recognizing that there may be a shift in carbon tax policy in the country moving forward and that the government would take action and remove carbon tax if the federal backstop was removed, obviously, that type of legislation could have come forward with enabling, by way of regulation, the government to strip down carbon tax to zero.

Why was that not pursued over the last month and a half that we’ve been in Victoria, instead of things like clause 6, which now gives you that ability, by regulation, to deal with unforeseen issues with the carbon tax removal, as opposed to that just being the legislative piece in the first place? Then we would have actually had a fulsome piece.

[12:00 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m hoping to scope this question down to relevance on clause 6. The member is asking a hypothetical question about process, and really, what we’re talking about is clause 6, which is quite specific, so I’m going to decline.

Peter Milobar: Clause 6 gives the minister and the government the ability, over the next 640 days, to make retroactive changes on anything they may have missed in terms of removing the consumer carbon tax.

If, by way of example, item 1 in column 1 in schedule 1, aviation fuel, is missed today, if that had been left out of this bill and missed, would clause 6 enable the minister to make, by regulation, a retroactive change? Let’s say they realize that on May 1. The airline industry comes to them saying: “Wait a second. We’re still paying carbon tax on our aviation fuel.” It gets discovered on May 1. Would the minister, by way of regulation, with clause 6 be able to amend that retroactive to April 1 of this year and remove the carbon tax retroactively on aviation fuel?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No.

Peter Milobar: What errors, then, would be missed — that the minister may have missed, the staff may have missed — that would not lead to the removal of consumer carbon tax? If something as basic as a fuel listed on a schedule wouldn’t qualify, what types of things, then, would be subject to future orders in council under these clauses?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Specifically, this adds authority to make retroactive regulations under section 84 of the Carbon Tax Act if they are related to cancelling all appointments and certificates, to prescribing a time and a manner for remittance under the new section 35(12), to addressing unanticipated refund scenarios, to removing the requirement to pay international fuel tax agreement deposits and to ending irrelevant administration requirements.

Peter Milobar: Okay. So to be 100 percent clear — and again, I’m truly not trying to be argumentative here — the possible regulation changes of any possible missed regulations that are needed are simply confined to those areas and no other areas as it relates to consumer carbon tax. So this is not a catch-all, as was semi-conveyed in a previous answer. This is very tightly constricted down to those certain areas.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, that is correct.

Peter Milobar: Not a question on 6, because I’ve been down this road before. I thought I would give a heads-up to the ministry so that they could double-check, before we get to clause 10, about a possible error. I only say that to give you a heads-up, because before, we went back and forth. We had different versions of an act that were being read in two different areas.

[12:05 a.m.]

When I look up the Income Tax Act, and I’ve double-checked — it’s chapter 215, ’96, in subsection (2)(a), the striking out of a month specified for the 2021 and subsequent tax years — the only wording I can see in that section is referencing 2007.

When we get to it, maybe the ministry could clarify if I’m reading from the right book of laws in this chamber or not. That would be great. That’s just a heads-up.

No questions left on 6 for me.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Peter Milobar: This clause takes effect now. Well, five minutes ago. How about that? This clause was supposed to take effect five minutes ago. What is the notification process to make sure gas stations, purveyors of diesel, any of these types of fuels, have notified the retailers that this tax or these rates may be in effect sometime in the next few hours?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The ministry has been in communications with retail throughout the week leading up to this. The general webpage, when it’s updated, kicks out a notification that goes to sellers, and they will have been paying close attention to that.

There’s also a communication that goes out to sellers via something called eTax, which is a communication platform that they’ve signed up to be members in.

Peter Milobar: For things like home heating, the predominant fuel is natural gas. It’s a real-time delivery system to the homeowner, with a meter at the house.

[12:10 a.m.]

I’m assuming that as of today, Fortis will be instructed to drop the rate from that 15.2 cents per cubic metre down to zero and that your on-time delivery for your home heating fuel, if it’s natural gas, to your home will be at zero.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked the question: if someone had fuel delivered today, if they would be charged the carbon tax on that fuel from…. The example given was Fortis, many other natural gas providers as well. Certainly, the intention is no. We expect that it will be dropped to zero, but on the off chance there is a consumer that is charged the carbon tax…. That’s why we’ve built in the refund mechanism that we’ve already canvassed in the previous clauses.

Peter Milobar: That covers off a large portion of the population that uses natural gas to heat their homes. As I say, it’s on demand; it’s metered. It’s all that. That’s understandable.

But there’s also a very significant portion of the population that deals with the fuel in item 12, which is propane. I know in my former riding, Kamloops–North Thompson, the whole North Thompson Valley, there is no pressurized natural gas line. People use propane or wood to heat their homes.

However, those are very large propane tanks that people would have been filling up, especially if they just filled it up as they’re getting to a tail end, and then they would have filled them up to make sure they get through a cool spring and things of that nature.

What is the refund mechanism for those people that would have paid to fill, essentially at a consumer level, a bulk purchase of propane that in all likelihood won’t really be tapped into at any consequence of volume out of that tank until they head into the next fall, but they prepaid, and so they would have paid carbon tax on all of those home heating fuels? Are they just out of luck, or do they have a refund ability like a homeowner would have if they had the benefit of being on a Fortis pressurized natural gas line?

[12:15 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It is in regard to the date of April 1. Yes, folks who are using propane, if they purchase propane April 1 or beyond and are charged the carbon tax, have an opportunity for a refund, but after April 1.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s not, “Wait for the first-quarter update,” like the homeowner grant. I guess that’s some solace to northern and rural residents.

I guess the question is…. That homeowner purchased, on bulk, very large tanks of propane for their home. It’s no different than a gas station that would have been purchasing, over the last few days, to refill their tanks in the ground. Is there not the mechanism for those storage tanks to be recognized, moving forward as of April 1, with the credits and the values that would be stored in those gas station tanks as to when the carbon tax is applicable or not, and then back to their distributor, and so on and so forth?

Or are the automotive gas retailers who have filled up tanks in the ground…? Too bad, so sad. If you paid carbon tax to your distributor to fill up your in-ground tanks two days ago, do you have to eat that as well? Are you only exempt from paying carbon tax to refill your in-ground tanks at the gas station, as the operator, from April 1 moving forward?

[12:20 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a sales tax that applies only to the end consumer.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Peter Milobar: So again, this is to deal with any transition regulations that are needed that will be done by order in council as well, not by legislation.

I’m just wondering what, typically, would be the transition regulations that we could expect to see under clause 9.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I want to begin talking about this section by describing the reasons for the changes that we are requesting here.

Although the Carbon Tax Act contains extensive regulating authority, these existing authorities were drafted under the assumption that the carbon tax would remain in place, and they’re not broad enough to support the government through a transitional period.

The total elimination of a tax is a legislatively complex process that the Ministry of Finance has not undertaken in over a decade. Broad transitional authorities are needed to ensure that any issues that arise in the process of dismantling the carbon tax can be swiftly rectified via regulation.

As any regulations made under this amendment are automatically repealed by April 1, 2026, any amendments the regulations made under this section must be done by subsequent legislative amendments if government wishes to have those amendments remain in effect after a year.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The proposed changes add authority to make regulations for the following purposes: any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers is not provided for in the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025; any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate for bringing the amendments of that act into operation; any matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate for limiting or addressing transitional difficulties related to the repeal of the Carbon Tax Act; and resolving errors or inconsistencies in the Carbon Tax Amendment Act, 2025.

[12:25 a.m.]

Regulations made under this provision can be made retroactive to April 1, 2025. This provision and any regulations made under it are repealed automatically April 1, 2026, or at an earlier date.

Peter Milobar: I’ll go back to my example about aviation fuel.

It’s May 1, and it’s discovered that aviation fuel, in fact, was not dropped to zero cents per litre. Under 9(1)(d), it would seem resolving any errors or inconsistencies or ambiguities arising from the amendments made by this act….

I’m assuming that omitting aviation fuel off of schedule 1 would be considered resolving an error, and that could be corrected by this section and then, in fact, retroactively dated back to April 1.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Just for the benefit of my team, I want to point out for the record that aviation fuel is, in fact, on the table and is No. 1. I know the member is using it as an example, but it’s definitely included.

Yes is the answer to the question. It could be used to make an amendment of that nature.

Peter Milobar: In actual fact, then, essentially, had the government brought forward clause 9 over the last month, that would have given them all the powers they needed to enact any changes by way of regulation as it relates to carbon tax, correct?

[12:30 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked a question about a theoretical process that is not the process that led to this act, nor is it in relation to this clause or this act. I don’t know if the answer to his question would be yes or no, whether it would be possible to legally create this fictional version of the act, but it’s not relevant to the work that we’re doing tonight.

Peter Milobar: It’s not a fictional version of the act. The premise for Bill 8 was that it had to be done. It had to be done at the earliest possible date, which was today — well, yesterday now — because the federal government didn’t make a change until March 15.

Despite the fact that we had a budget come in on March 4, despite from January 31 on, every federal leader or potential leader was saying they were going to scrap the consumer carbon tax, the government said they couldn’t take any action at all on carbon tax removal in advance of any of that happening.

In actual fact, and I get that it might wind up being slightly more complicated than just the provisions in (d), however, the basic catch-all of clause 9 is that anything that’s missed can still be dealt with by regulation on the premise and the fundamental goal to remove the consumer carbon tax, up to and including the schedule, which actually sets out taking the carbon tax to zero.

The first question I asked was, “If aviation fuel was missed in this schedule and was discovered on May 1, could it be made retroactive to zero as of April 1 under the provisions of clause 9?” and the answer was yes. So there was the ability for the government to bring forward legislation dealing with carbon tax over the last month and a bit that would have set the stage for a zeroing of the carbon tax to be done by order in council if and when the federal government changed the rules around the federal backstop.

Clause 9 seems to take that into account by making sure it’s a catch-all of anything that may be missed in the few clauses that are in Bill 8 because, as the minister says, it’s very unwieldy to try to unwind a tax. I can appreciate that. Things may get missed. But this very clearly creates the legislative framework for things to be dealt with by regulation, up to and including the rates of tax, retroactively, to April 1.

Is the minister now saying that the first answer that I asked on this section was wrong —that, in fact, you cannot amend and make those types of changes on the example that I gave around aviation fuel?

[12:35 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The answer to the member’s question is no. The only reason that we can amend the rate schedule, the theoretical aviation fuel example, is because of the other clauses in this act, specifically clause 7. Clause 7 is the clause that brings all fuel cells to zero.

Peter Milobar: Well, I understand that clause 7 does that, and that assumes clause 7 is perfect. It assumes clause 6 is perfect and clauses 5 and 3, 2 and 1 and that, in fact, the government didn’t miss anything, in which case, we don’t need the transition regulation provisions as the catch-all, indeed “resolving any errors, inconsistencies or ambiguities arising in the amendments made by this Act.”

Now, I get that. I understand the premise. But the minister seems to not want to either acknowledge, or what, my question. My question is…. If the government is able to demonstrate the ability to create a framework for essentially enabling regulation to happen on any and all aspects of carbon tax removal — in this case because of error, but it could have just as easily been worded something to the effect of “pass any regulations to match the federal backstop rules around the consumer carbon tax….”

That, by virtue of the fact we can, by regulation, take care of any errors, means that there must have been the ability for the government from when we first started sitting in the middle of February and had nothing but throne speech to debate for two weeks.

Then we went into budget speech and had nothing but the budget to debate for the better part of two weeks because there was no actual real legislation other than park boundary amendments, which is a yearly housekeeping thing, and the critical Conflict of Interest Commissioner two-clause bill and a piece of consumer protection that hadn’t been consulted on with anyone for over three years but then was rushed forward to have something to work on in the Legislature.

We could have actually had a carbon tax removal bill enabling…. This would be one of the few times you have opposition saying: “Why didn’t you just take it under regulation instead of legislation?”

Why was the decision not made to enable legislation to create the framework that we could be zeroing carbon tax by regulation and orders in council to sync up and match up with the federal government? In which case, we wouldn’t be in such a rush and a time constraint to have gas stations know what they should be charging for gas at this very moment.

That could have been dealt with, and they would have had two or three weeks’ notice to get it in place. In fact, they could have had all spring break, but no one was in this place working.

Am I missing something? Is there not, based on clause 9, the ability for the government to have done that?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is making a massive extrapolation based on one clause of the bill. This bill is very interconnected. I do not accept the premise that the member is bringing forward. The creation of bills is complex. The work of the drafters is very specific, and I’m not going to engage in this theoretical extrapolation.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister convey to the House when the work on this bill started?

[12:40 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not seeing the relevance to clause 9 from the member’s question.

Peter Milobar: Well, the minister in her answer around clause 9 and the transition and my assertions, I guess, that we could have had similar clauses that would have enabled the removal of carbon tax to be done by regulation to line up with timelines and dates of any changes federal government may make, as is mentioned actually in the budget book that the government would be doing that…. That budget book came out on March 4.

The minister has conveyed that this is a very complex piece of legislation and takes a lot of time, and I totally appreciate that and agree with that.

The budget book came out on March 4. It has language in there that says the government is aware of, and preparing for, and will match any federal changes.

I’m sure by March 4, the ministry staff and the minister would have known any carbon tax changes would be complex then.

I’m simply asking when the transition regulations, when the overall bill with all of its complexities, was first being worked on based on the minister’s previous answer to clause 9.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I believe that’s been asked and answered.

Peter Milobar: Well, no, it hasn’t been answered. The minister’s answer was it’s not relevant.

When was clause 9 developed?

The Chair: It appears that the member is pursuing a line of questioning that is becoming repetitious.

Peter Milobar: No. Point of order, Madam Speaker. No, it’s not. The minister has not answered the question. It’s a very direct question about clause 9 of when it was developed or not.

The fact the minister doesn’t want to answer the question does not mean that it’s repetition or irrelevant. It just means the government does not want to actually answer a question that the opposition is rightful in their place to be able to ask and should reasonably expect an answer.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do not see the relevance of this question about when we started working on clause 9 to the question of whether clause 9 should pass.

[12:45 a.m.]

I can remind the member about the reason for this change. The carbon tax already contains extensive regulation-making authorities, and these existing authorities were drafted under the assumption that the carbon tax would remain in place and are broad enough to support government through a transitional period.

They’re not, and so, therefore, we’ve extended what’s possible under clause 9.

The total elimination of a tax is a legislatively complex process that the Ministry of Finance has not undertaken for over a decade. Broad transitional authorities are needed to ensure that any issues that arise within the process of dismantling the carbon tax can be swiftly rectified via regulation. That’s what clause 9 is about and for, and I believe that’s what we should be discussing.

Peter Milobar: Well, respectfully to the minister, she doesn’t get to decide what I find relevant to why I may or may not vote in favour of a clause in a bill.

The minister has said that the bill has to be taken in its entirety and all clauses are integral to each other. So I’m assuming that all clauses are being worked on at the same time.

The minister, in her own budget document, on page 66, says that government remains committed to removing the consumer carbon tax should the federal government remove the requirement for carbon pricing across Canada. That’s in a document that was presented to the Legislature on March 4, which would have gone to the King’s Printer sometime in February, which means that decision of that wording was signed off on quite some time ago.

Today we had the Government House Leader, in justifying Standing Order 81, say that the opposition will have every opportunity to stand up and everyone that wants to speak on Bill 8 will get a chance to speak on Bill 8, and all questions that need to be asked will be fully canvassed and fully answered by government.

And repeatedly, I’m being told by the Chair that I’m being repetitive, and that’s because the minister has repeatedly refused to answer the question. If the question was answered, I would move on.

The question is really not that difficult. When was clause 9 beginning to be drafted by government? It’s a pretty standard question that opposition asks about every piece of legislation in this place. When did it start to get worked on? It gets asked about almost every piece of legislation, and usually there’s an answer.

There are not four questions in a row of a minister refusing to answer a most basic question, let alone a question about one singular clause, let alone the whole bill as to when it was being drafted. But we are dealing with this at the eleventh hour on a topic that was referenced on March 4 in a government document that would have gone to a printer in February.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to know, based on clause 9 having provisions that will be a catch-all, to catch any errors by regulation and allow them to be retroactive — there’s that word again — to April 1, when clause 9 was being drafted to make sure there was a catch-all to catch any errors or omissions in the removal of carbon tax.

To be abundantly clear, I will ask the minister again. When was the work done to draft clause 9?

The Chair: Member.

Peter Milobar: Well, Madam Chair, I’m not sure what exactly opposition is supposed to do with a minister that’s just basically saying: “I’ll give them the silent treatment, and we’ll see how that plays out.”

Is the minister aware of what date clause 9 was drafted and worked on by the Ministry of Environment, the staff she is supposed to be responsible for, to draft the legislation?

[12:50 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is embarking on an effort to play a game of gotcha about when this legislation started being worked on. That is abundantly clear. I don’t think it’s relevant to this clause.

Also, when a piece of legislation is worked on is…. I’m very unclear what you’re even asking. We started work on it within the ministry, discussing it and planning for it, yes. It started being drafted, yes. You’re making an assumption that everyone’s working on it at exactly the same time. You said that. I don’t share that assumption.

It’s a nebulous question, it’s not relevant to what we’re discussing, and I don’t have an answer to it for those reasons.

Peter Milobar: I don’t know how the minister feels she gets to decide what I find, in my canvassing, is or is not relevant when I’m asking direct questions about the bill, on the clause.

She’s got four staff sitting with her. She’s got three more staff in the gallery. She’s got lord knows how many more watching on TV, able to provide information back into this chamber. Part of the reason we’ve been here as long as we have tonight is because of this back-and-forth of never-ending, unrelenting unwillingness to provide basic information.

Is the minister saying that the date the drafting of clause 9 commenced is under cabinet confidentiality?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are a number of privileges that we think are at play: solicitor-client privilege, cabinet privilege. Also, it is my belief that the question of when we started working on the bill is a nebulous timeline, and it’s not relevant to the bill.

We’re here to talk about the bill, and the bill is the bill. It is here, and we’re meant to be debating it and talking about it. The member is going a different direction than that.

Before the member responds, may I request a bio break, Madam Chair?

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess. Members should return at 1 a.m., please.

The committee recessed from 12:55 a.m. to 1 a.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

Peter Milobar: Based on the artful dodging that we’re seeing, refusing to answer a pretty straightforward question, I think a lot of people in B.C. are probably relieved to know that the government’s not going to proceed with trying to get all-encompassing power that could be done out of the Premier’s office and not have to deal with the Legislature whatsoever.

It is beyond the pale that we have a minister of the Crown that refuses to answer the most basic of questions around a transition regulation clause that, by its very nature, being a catch-all to catch any other errors on a carbon tax repeal, which by the minister’s own words is one of the most complex unwindings of a tax policy in the last decade — there’s undoubtedly going to be the odd error made, just human error or a missed word search or whatever when this was drafted — clause 9 would be integral for. You wouldn’t draft a bill like this without a clause 9.

I haven’t asked when all the other clauses were drafted. It’s pretty easy to see that a schedule would just be inserted. That’s pretty standard boilerplate and things of that nature. But clause 9, whether the minister likes to admit it or not, is pretty consequential to the functionality of this bill, moving forward.

The first provision that…. Clause 6, with section 84, had a very tight prescriptive area that the government could, by order and regulation, deal with things retroactively to April 1. Clause 9 doesn’t. Clause 9 is wide open. So we have two of nine clauses that are dealing with catching errors and omissions with retroactive aspects to them, for long periods of time. This has a sunset clause, at least, in it, but there was obviously a lot of thought given to why this would be needed in a bill like this.

I’m at a loss to understand why the minister refuses to answer when this was drafted, when the work on this provision started in clause 9. It is beyond credibility to suggest that that answer cannot be found, given there are seven Ministry of Finance staff here and others watching. Somebody had to have done the work. Somebody has to have known when they were doing it.

I don’t expect the minister to know off the top of her head, but that’s why, in these sessions, ministers turn around and converse with their staff: so they can provide to the opposition and the public an accurate answer. This isn’t question period, where evasion is the name of the game. This is where we’re supposed to actually get the answer on behalf of the public.

The minister has documents that say the government was aware of carbon tax changes on the horizon, yet they budgeted for three years of budget tax revenues in that same document. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the public, given that we were all jammed at the last-minute nature of this bill, to find out when this was actually getting worked on, because the federal government didn’t sign off on any changes until March 15.

Based on the evasion by the minister, it feels like this was drafted sometime between March 15 and March 31, but the minister doesn’t want to give an answer. And in that vacuum, the public will be left to decide just how rushed this was or not.

Would the minister please grace us with the answer of when clause 9 was drafted?

[1:05 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We remain stuck with this question. The member has suggested that I haven’t answered it. I’ve, in fact, given three answers.

The member suggested I turn and ask my team their opinions. I have, and I’ve heard from them that they believe that there is client privilege and cabinet privilege at play.

My own opinion is that the measurement of when we started depends on who you ask, and it’s very nebulous. You haven’t been specific even in the question.

Also, it’s not relevant. It’s not relevant to what we’re trying to do here, to talk about clause 9, to talk about this bill.

The member said that this is a consequential clause. It is a consequential clause. Let’s actually talk about it. I think people would be interested in seeing what’s here and what’s actually at play.

[1:10 a.m.]

Peter Milobar: I actually think people would be interested to know, and I think the minister really doesn’t want to give the people an answer as to how rushed this legislation actually was or not.

It is beyond ridiculous to say that the process of drafting somehow has legal and cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client-privilege-type protections on something as simple as a date.

And for the minister to try to play games with saying, “Well, it’s always a moving target and it depends on who you ask and it’s really hard to pin down,” but won’t even give one date….

That very clearly indicates — in the court of public opinion, I will guarantee to the minister — that this was rushed. And the minister doesn’t want to acknowledge that it was rushed, despite language and other aspects of documents that would indicate conflicting messages within their own budget book presented by this minister.

The minister seems intent on insisting that she knows what constitutes my decision-making on whether or not I am going to support clauses or not on a bill that her boss, the Premier, has made very clear is a confidence vote, which means you’re supposed to have the confidence of the House.

Typically, people would like to give confidence to the people that are giving clear answers on pretty straightforward questions around something as simple as when a clause is being drafted, that is a very consequential clause, moving forward, to this bill and to the overall actions that this bill is trying to accomplish, which is the removal of consumer carbon tax, because this is the catch-all clause.

This enables cabinet to correct any errors without having to come back to the Legislature, so it actually is kind of important, and it is kind of important to myself, to my colleagues and more importantly to the public when things were drafted.

The minister seems to want to not to share that information with people. That’s disappointing. I guess we’ll see how the votes go.

The Chair: Shall clause 9 pass?

So ordered.

Division has been called.

[1:15 a.m. - 1:20 a.m.]

The question is on clause 9 of Bill 8.

Clause 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Davidson	Morissette	Choi
Routledge	Sharma	Bailey
NAYS — 6
Milobar	Kooner	Dew
Boultbee	Williams	Botterell

The Chair: Members, there being six votes for and six votes against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 9 to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at the second reading.

On clause 10.

Peter Milobar: This is the clause that I gave a heads-up to the ministry and the minister about, a potential typo.

[1:25 a.m.]

I’m glad I did. Before I’d gone down…. Myself and a previous minister spent about 45 minutes — I don’t think anyone would want that late tonight — going back and forth debating language. We were both working off two totally different sets of legislation.

I’ve been informed that apparently the King’s Printer did not have proper paperwork in the legislative books that I’ve been working off, both here and in the main chamber. In fact, the online version has 2021, whereas the books here, in the Income Tax Act, have 2007.

Just to let the ministry know, I no longer am assuming that there is a typo in that clause, so no amendments would be needed.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just wanted to thank the member for having given us the time to look at that. That was generous. Thanks for the correction. Not needed.

Clauses 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On clause 14.

Peter Milobar: I’ve just got to ask, because otherwise it wouldn’t be me: would “April 1,” on sections 1 through 12, now be considered retroactive?

[Laughter.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No.

Clause 14 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 1:27 a.m.

Contents