Hansard - Monday, April 14, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 42

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Joining us in the chamber today is a historic, first-ever, self-advocate-led delegation meeting with the Premier this morning. We don’t think this has ever happened before. They are leaders in the diversability movement.

Will the House please make welcome these four really powerful self-advocates.

Michael McLellan is president of the B.C. Self Advocate Leadership Network. He’s vice-president of Empowering Self-Advocates to Take Action. He sits on the provincial accessibility committee, UNITI and the Inclusion B.C. board.

Bryce Schaufelberger is president of Mission Self Advocacy Group and Reimagining Community Inclusion. Kara Anderson from Nanaimo sits on the Inclusion B.C. board, and Krista Milne sits on the Self-Advocates of Semiahmoo.

Will the House please make their support workers and these four powerful self-advocates very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I am hoping that everybody here can welcome Ali Safdari. He is celebrating his 19th birthday with us. He’s studying political science at Langara, and he’s a proud Young New Democrat. He’s passionate about provincial politics, and maybe we’ll see him down here on the floor as an MLA one day.

If we can all please wish Ali a very happy 19th birthday.

Welcome to him and his dad.

Claire Rattée: It’s an honour to recognize someone today that I deeply respect and admire. Mayor Sean Bujtas is up here from Terrace, B.C., from my riding, and I’m really grateful to consider him both a friend and somebody that I’ve worked alongside for a number of years now.

I would ask that the House make him feel very welcome.

Hon. David Eby: Good to see….

I’ll follow the member for Skeena in recognizing someone who is respected on both sides of the aisle, Mayor Sean Bujtas, here to meet with the Minister of State for Local Governments and rural matters to talk about the Northwest B.C. Resource Benefits Alliance, along with many other issues, I’m sure.

Good to see you, Sean, and welcome to the House.

Sharon Hartwell: It’s a pleasure to stand today and welcome a mayor from my riding, Her Worship Mayor Gladys Atrill, and her CAO, Michael Dewar. They’ve travelled all the way from the beautiful Bulkley Valley to come here and speak with ministers this morning, and it’s a long trek.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

Nanaimo Clippers and
Cowichan Valley Capitals
Hockey Teams

George Anderson: Every once in a while there is a hockey game that occurs, and last Thursday there was a hockey game between the Nanaimo Clippers and the Cowichan Valley Capitals. I expected, as usual, for Nanaimo to do as great as it normally does, but unfortunately, in this one scenario, we did not win.

It was actually my friend the MLA for Cowichan Valley, who…. We had this bet that whoever won, the other person would wear the jersey. So here I am in the House representing the Cowichan something or whatever.

I know that next year it’ll be the Nanaimo Clippers who are on top, and the MLA will be wearing the Nanaimo Clippers jersey.

Introductions by Members

Gavin Dew: There was so much competition to introduce the next individual among the MLAs from Abbotsford that I had to step in and provide a neutral voice.

Don Campbell is an Abbotsford-based economic and real estate researcher, author and analyst who for 30 years has provided unbiased research and analysis on the fundamentals of the Canadian commercial, residential, agricultural and industrial real estate markets.

Don is Canada’s number one best-selling real estate author of seven best-selling books, including Real Estate Investing in Canada, which is the all-time best-selling real estate book in Canadian history. Don donates 100 percent of his author royalties from all of his books directly to Habitat for Humanity, and so far, this initiative has been the catalyst to raising over $1.3 million, almost $1.4 million to build homes for those in need of a hand up.

In addition, Don has raised an additional $1 million for the A440 Foundation charity, which provides a hand up to those in the Fraser Valley who are making a difference in the community.

Please make Don very welcome.

Hon. Josie Osborne: It’s my pleasure today to introduce members from the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, who are joining us in the gallery this afternoon.

Many members and I were privileged to spend breakfast with them this morning and their board of directors, including president Glenn Powers, executive director Pia Schindler and many wonderful volunteers with the Kidney Foundation. We were reminded of the work that the Kidney Foundation does in promoting and improving the lives of the one in ten British Columbians who are living with kidney disease through their advocacy, critical research and innovative programs.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome this afternoon.

Heather Maahs: It is my pleasure to welcome my first guest to the Legislature and, rightfully so, my very good friend, my campaign manager, my executive assistant, the former Abbotsford school board chair — so she comes with lots of great qualifications — Cindy Evans.

Please make her welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We are celebrating someone very special in our caucus today. She is probably one of the most selfless people that I know. She has dedicated her life to her community. She is a mom of five. She is my special friend and colleague.

The MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville is celebrating her 50th birthday today, and I would hope that the entire House would say happy birthday to her, thank her for her service, and just thank her for being the wonderful, absolutely amazing human being that she is.

Bruce Banman: As we’ve heard, Abbotsford is well represented today. My colleague from Kelowna-Mission and I will have a chat in the Whip’s office about taking credit for stuff when he begged me for an introduction, but that’s another story.

I am here, actually, to introduce my wife, Sharon Banman, who has asked me not to embarrass her, so I think I will leave it at that.

The love of my life is here, Sharon.

Would the House please give her a huge, warm welcome for having to put up with me for 44 years.

Nina Krieger: Today in the gallery, we are joined by Tara-Lee Novak, the film commissioner for Vancouver Island south. This regional film commission is a non-profit dedicated to marketing and promoting the locations, skills and creativity we have here in Victoria and Vancouver Island to the global film industry.

Their work is yielding very exciting results. Filming will soon begin on the TV series Private Eyes West Coast starring Jason Priestley. After five seasons set and filmed in Toronto, Priestley’s character is moving to Victoria to start a new chapter. This is a rare opportunity for the city to play itself and speaks to the appetite of Canadian audiences wanting to see our region on camera.

We are very fortunate to have Tara-Lee Novak in this important role.

Please join me in making her feel very welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ve got some good friends in the House. One person in particular, Sharon Wilkinson. It was about 11 years ago. I was 19 years old. I asked Sharon to be my campaign manager for my first run as a school board trustee. She’s a former trustee herself, former chair of the Sooke school district.

Sharon, it’s good to see you, my friend.

I often joke with my mom that Sharon is mom No. 2 for me and our family.

Joining Sharon in the House here today are Ingrid Busch and Kathy Krogh. Kathy is all the way from Toronto. I asked her if she was planning on bringing any weather from Toronto to the west coast, and she said no.

Thank you for that.

It’s Kathy’s first time in the House watching question period.

Will the House please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

Lynne Block: I did this introduction this morning, but I think they’re here this afternoon. I was wondering if, with your permission, I could say the introduction again.

The Speaker: That will be fine.

Lynne Block: Thank you.

It’s my pleasure to introduce a friend and near constituent from Eagle Harbour in West Vancouver, Alexis Mackay-Dunn.

Alexis is a small business owner, a devoted mother of two and a patient living with late-stage kidney disease. Drawing strength from her own experience, Alexis has become a passionate advocate for kidney health across British Columbia.

Today Alexis is part of a powerhouse delegation from the Kidney Foundation, here to meet with MLAs and shine the light on a growing issue. Kidney disease now affects one in ten British Columbians, many of whom are unaware they even have it.

Please join me in welcoming Alexis and in thanking the Kidney Foundation for their vital work to improve outcomes for kidney patients and their families throughout our province.

George Anderson: I have the pleasure of introducing Ms. Marilee Washington, a youth and family counsellor, and Ms. Catherine Wallace, a teacher from Stelly’s Secondary. They’re up here in the gallery.

They’re focused on making sure that students have the resources that they need and also just uplifting voices all across their secondary school.

I would hope that everyone would give them a warm welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Niki Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 10, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

This bill amends the following statutes: the Judicial Compensation Act; the Land Title Act; the Libel and Slander Act; the Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act; the Police Act; the Small Claims Act; the Wills, Estates and Succession Act.

We’d be pleased to elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading of this bill.

The Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Remembrance of RCMP Constable
Neil McArthur Bruce

Macklin McCall: Today we pause to remember a courageous officer whose legacy continues to inspire. Const. Neil McArthur Bruce of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police tragically lost his life on April 14, 1965, at the age of 26, 60 years ago today.

He was fatally wounded while attempting to negotiate the release of a young woman being held against her will in West Kelowna, which was then Westbank. Despite his valiant efforts, he succumbed to his injuries four days later. His sacrifice is commemorated on page 130 of the RCMP honour roll book.

In 2000, to honour his memory, Constable Neil Bruce Middle School was established in West Kelowna. It stands as one of only two schools in western Canada named after a fallen police officer, ensuring that future generations remember his dedication and bravery.

Constable Bruce’s legacy lives on through his son Don Bruce, who followed in his father’s footsteps and became a member of the RCMP. As of the latest available information, he serves as an inspector in Ottawa, continuing the family’s commitment to public service.

At the West Kelowna RCMP detachment, Constable Bruce’s regimental number, 20824,mackenzie is displayed above each door, serving as a reminder of his sacrifice and the values he upheld. As we reflect on Constable Bruce’s life, we are reminded of the daily risks law enforcement officers take to keep us safe.

We honour not only his memory but also his legacy of service and bravery. Let us never take for granted those who run towards danger to shield us from harm.

May the memory of Const. Neil Bruce forever remind us of the price of peace and the strength of those who guard it.

Creative Industries Week

Nina Krieger: I rise today to recognize Creative Industries Week in B.C., running today through April 18. This year marks the tenth anniversary of celebrating the people and businesses driving B.C.’s vibrant creative sector, from film, television, music and publishing to interactive digital media.

These industries are not only the cultural cornerstones of our province but major economic drivers, generating $5.6 billion in GDP and employing nearly 122,000 people in 2023. That’s why our government has made the largest one-time investment in B.C.’s creative sector, an historic $42 million, spread over three years, to help the sector continue to grow and to thrive.

B.C. is a global hub for motion picture production. Despite recent challenges, our industry is recovering, and B.C. remains a top filming destination. Productions like Virgin River, season 7, and the upcoming Murder in a Small Town, season 2, written by a B.C. author and filmed on the Sunshine Coast, highlight our strength in this sector.

Our province is a powerhouse in music and home to world-class songwriters, producers, technicians, record labels and performers. And 2025 marks the Year of Music in B.C., with Juno wins for local artists, star-studded performances at the Invictus Games 2025, and the upcoming Canadian Country Music Awards in Kelowna.

From being a world leader in animation and visual effects to hosting the international Web Summit in May, our interactive digital media sector is thriving.

[1:50 p.m.]

We are also home to Canada’s second-largest video game workforce and English-language publishing market.

I would like to thank Creative B.C., the B.C. Film Commission, B.C. film unions, Screen B.C., Music B.C., Books B.C., MagsBC, DigiBC and many others for championing this sector.

Thank you to the thousands of workers with their talents that they bring to the creative industry, which really bring it to life. We cannot wait to celebrate you this week and beyond.

Food Bank on Wheels

Lawrence Mok: Today I rise to recognize the outstanding contributions of Food Bank on Wheels Society.

Established since 2018, their team has delivered food hampers to single-parent families who would otherwise struggle to access local food banks because of illness or disability.

Their focus on single-parent families is an important one. The child poverty rate in single-parent households in B.C. is approximately 45 percent. That is nearly five times the child poverty rate in two-parent households.

These single-parent families struggle from a combination of factors, but the added difficulty of illness or disability can be very challenging. That is a major gap in food bank service for British Columbians, but Food Bank on Wheels steps in and does their very best to fill that gap across 11 different communities in B.C., including in my constituency of Maple Ridge.

Last month I had the opportunity to meet members of their team at a local event. Their stories, hard work and determination inspired me a lot. Like myself, they are strong believers that no family should go hungry, and their efforts to feed as many parents and children as possible go above and beyond.

As the organization says themselves, they are not just an illness-disability home delivery service; they are a lifeline for families who need it the most.

I hope that this House can join me in thanking all the hardworking staff, volunteers and supporters of Food Bank on Wheels.

Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade

Sunita Dhir: This past Saturday, April 12, the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver hosted the annual Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade, and what a celebration it was. About 200,000 people came out to walk the parade route, enjoy incredible food made by volunteers and soak in the vibrant colours and joyful energy across South Vancouver.

The day began with a prayer at the historic Ross Street Gurdwara, marking the birth of the Khalsa in 1699, by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, a moment that grounds this celebration in deep spiritual roots.

Vaisakhi is also a harvest festival, a time to give thanks, come together and honour hard work and new beginnings. That spirit was felt throughout the day.

A big shout-out to the executive committee of Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver — president Kuldip Singh Thandi, Kashmir Singh Dhaliwal, Jagdeep Singh Sanghera, Jarnail Singh Bhandal and Joginder Singh Sunner; and all the volunteers who helped make the event such a success.

Our government is proud to recognize the Sikh community’s contributions to our economy, to our communities and to our shared future. The values of Sikhism — equality, compassion and justice — reflect the best of who we are.

We must also remember where we have come from. In 1914, 376 passengers aboard the Komagata Maru were denied entry into Vancouver, a painful chapter in our history. But through resilience and perseverance, Sikh Canadians are now thriving in leadership roles and helping shape a better future.

[1:55 p.m.]

Vaisakhi is more than just a celebration; it’s about identity, courage and gratitude. This weekend Vancouver truly reflected that spirit.

Happy Vaisakhi to all.

Penticton-Summerland School Closings
and Work of Trustees

Amelia Boultbee: Schools have always been more than just buildings. They are the heart of our neighbourhoods, places where children learn, friendships are built and where families and communities come together. That’s why news of school closures in Penticton and Summerland is so difficult for so many people across our region.

As the MLA for this community, I know how emotional and deeply personal these decisions are. Schools shape our daily lives. They provide child care, sports, after-school programs and a sense of belonging for kids and families. Losing that connection hurts.

I’d like to recognize and thank the teachers, education assistants and school staff who work so hard to create safe and supportive learning environments for our children. No matter where classrooms are located, it is these dedicated people who make the biggest difference in the lives of students.

I want to acknowledge the school district 67 board of trustees. Trustees are elected by their communities to make incredibly difficult decisions, decisions no one takes lightly. I know how much time, care and consultation went into reaching this point.

Trustees were asked to make choices in a challenging environment, balancing the needs of students today with the long-term sustainability of our education system. But that doesn’t take away from the real impact these closures will have on students, families and neighbourhoods. Change on this scale is never easy.

As the MLA in Penticton-Summerland, I am committed to listening to families, supporting students and working with local leaders to make sure that these school spaces, which hold so much significance for children and families, continue to benefit our communities in new ways.

In difficult moments like this, what gives me hope is knowing the strength, resilience and heart of the people of Penticton-Summerland. I know we will get through this together.

Food Link Society

Jennifer Blatherwick: I rise today to recognize Food Link, an organization doing groundbreaking work to both combat food waste and support food security in my Coquitlam community and across the Lower Mainland.

Food Link was founded in 2016 by a group of new immigrants who met at the language instruction for newcomers to Canada classes in our local school district. Coming from different backgrounds and different areas of the world, Reihaneh Mirjani and Ali Haeri brought their experience from Iran, and Igor Bjelac brought his knowledge from Serbia.

Moved by a documentary on food waste, they collected food from grocery stores that would otherwise have been thrown out and distributed it to their fellow students.

Over the last nine years, the charity has grown to support thousands of people in the community every week. An army of volunteers travels to grocery stores across the Lower Mainland, gathering up donations and bringing food back to their location partners, which include churches, schools and local legions, where it’s sorted, packaged into hampers and distributed.

Food Link has recovered and redistributed 4,232,629 kilograms of surplus food as of January, with a total value of more than $32 million. Keeping this food from the landfill means that almost 11 million kilograms of CO2 emissions have been prevented, and every week, they feed 4,000 people.

A few weeks ago Food Link opened its first community kitchen so volunteers and staff can learn and teach techniques to preserve the good food they rescue.

This massive operation works so well because of the dedication of the founders but also dedicated staff like Young and Melody, who help coordinate, and the large group of volunteers who pick up, sort and distribute the food. For many, this volunteering is their first Canadian job experience.

My heart and the hearts of thousands of British Columbians are grateful for the work they do to prevent food waste, save our environment and help families.

Oral Questions

Crime in Communities
and Action on Community Safety

John Rustad: A 92-year-old man was assaulted by multiple people in Downtown Vancouver Eastside. He later died in hospital. What was the issue? He simply wanted to use a washroom, went into Carnegie Centre and was assaulted. His family went looking for him when he didn’t return, and they received a call from the hospital two hours later.

[2:00 p.m.]

Businesses around the province have to have security guards. Is this Premier really prepared to say that we have to have security guards at all public washrooms now in the province? This is completely unacceptable.

Maybe the Premier can explain why seniors aren’t safe using public facilities in British Columbia.

Hon. David Eby: This is a terrible story about an elderly man who just wanted to access a public facility at the corner of Main and Hastings in the Downtown Eastside. It shouldn’t matter where it is in the province; seniors need to be safe in our communities.

We’ve worked closely with the city of Vancouver to support additional enforcement in the Downtown Eastside to address those issues. We have larger systemic work to do with them. What’s happening in the community and across the province? We stood up 12 repeat violent offender teams. We’re tracking 400 people, driving down criminal activity in the province. We are increasing funding for the Justice Institute of B.C. — it’s up 50 percent — for more police officers across the province.

But it can’t just be police. It also needs to be addressing issues of mental health and addiction, which is why we’re working with an expert in the area to open up facilities to support people with serious brain injuries and mental health issues that lead them to be a danger to themselves and to other people. We’ve got lots more work to do.

This is an unacceptable and deplorable incident.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, the reality is the streets are becoming more violent, more chaotic, and we’re seeing more brazen attacks by the day. Mental health and addictions is a serious issue, there’s no question, but what we have seen is a soft-on-crime, soft-on-drugs approach by this government for years which has perpetuated and grown this problem.

Perhaps the Premier can just answer a simple question. Will he admit that his approach in British Columbia has failed?

Hon. David Eby: This is a serious issue that we’re seeing, actually, across the country and across North America: random stranger attacks, issues around safety in public spaces.

Here in B.C., we’re taking an approach to really focus on those individuals that are causing that chaos. Our repeat violent offender program has driven down repeat offending by 40 percent. We’re seeing double-digit crime reductions in a number of communities across the province.

Now, we’ve got more work to do here. That’s why we’re opening a new facility this month at Surrey Pretrial for people with serious mental health and addiction issues and another facility in Maple Ridge on the Alouette grounds to ensure that people get the care that they need.

We’ve got more work to do, but we’re headed in the right direction. With that said, you get incidents like this. It shakes people’s confidence, and rightly so.

Everyone needs to be safe in every corner of the province. That’s our goal. That’s what we’re going to deliver.

Government Action on
Illicit Drug Trade Activities

Bruce Banman: The Premier just mentioned what shakes people’s confidence. Let me tell you what else shakes people’s confidence in British Columbia.

Within the last week, the RCMP dismantled not one, not two but three highly sophisticated drug labs in Pitt Meadows, Mission and then Aldergrove. They were set up in commercial buildings just steps away from residential areas.

We’ve learned that these were not street dealers. These criminals were running super labs with industrial equipment and expert chemists that were tied to international organized crime. We also know that two suspects were arrested — oh, and then, surprise, surprise, released.

How did this NDP government allow B.C. to become a safe haven for industrial-scale fentanyl production where drug-peddling criminals operate with virtual impunity?

Hon. Garry Begg: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Enforcement is the key pillar of our efforts to fight the toxic drug crisis. We’re ensuring police have the tools to go after drug traffickers and seize all of their equipment, which is exactly what happened all across the province.

Your question about the release of the offender in this case is one that is better addressed because it is a federal Crown counsel responsibility…. We’re not responsible for it. We’ve advocated to the federal government to change the law, and it is a work-in-progress with us and them.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

Bruce Banman: The Premier can sit there and roll his eyes and shake his head, but several million lethal doses of fentanyl were intercepted over the weekend. If it was not for the hard-working police officers, five million doses of fentanyl could be flooding our streets right now.

The RCMP are pleading for stronger tools to fight national crime. The RCMP are pleading for stronger tools to fight transnational crime.

When will this soft-on-crime, pro-drug NDP government stop playing games, put the rights of victims before violent criminals and bring the legislative reforms needed to shut down organized criminal operations?

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s important that the opposition understand that we’ve made the largest investment in policing in our province’s history, as $230 million has been expended to hire more RCMP officers across the province. This is filling vacancies in rural detachments and hiring additional officers in areas like major crime.

We’ve created the integrated gang task force team, which is improving intelligence coordination related to gang activities.

At the root of all of these offences are money laundering and organized crime. We’re prioritizing those groups for enforcement all across the province.

Government Action on
Drug Toxicity Crisis and
Overdose Deaths

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s a solemn day, as was reflected on the front steps of this building at the noon hour. Since the toxic drug crisis was declared a public health emergency nine years ago today, we have lost more than 16,000 British Columbians.

We must make every effort to avoid normalizing this emergency and continuing with business as usual. I recognize the efforts this government has made to address the crisis. But it is not enough, not when we continue to lose loved ones — five, six and seven every day.

To the Premier, does he see a day when we can set aside political calculus — as we did during the other recent public health emergency, which was COVID — and implement the evidence-based policies that are urgently needed to save lives?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you so much to the member for the question and for noting that today is indeed a very solemn and somber day, on this ninth anniversary of the declaration of a public health crisis, a toxic drug crisis that has taken the lives of over 16,000 British Columbians.

Each and every one of these people were loved. They were daughters and sons. Some were mothers and fathers. Each and every one of these people are grieved by the people that they’ve left behind. It’s important that we always remember these people, their families, and put them at the centre of the work that we’re doing.

I appreciate the support of the member opposite in the work that we are doing and his encouragement for the work that we have to continue to do. That’s why we, as a government, have invested so much into a full continuum of care, providing supports for people at every stage of the journey that they are facing in battling their addictions.

We have a lot more to do, but there are new services. There are new treatment beds, over 750 publicly funded new treatment beds.

We are continuing to build out services for youth, for Indigenous people, for women and ensuring that people have access to the full continuum of supports that they need.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: Nine years of an emergency and drug poisoning continues to be the leading cause of death among people aged ten to 59. I’m failing to hear the urgency.

Report after report, experts continue to provide this government with the solutions needed to save lives: more treatment beds, prescribed and non-prescribed safe supply, regulated and evidence-based treatment services and more of them, barrier-free access to health care that can be a starting point for healing and accessible housing for all, and basic human dignity. After nine years, I think it’s time we recognize that every drug death is a policy choice.

Again to the Premier, the evidence, research and policy solutions are in front of us. When will this government make the changes urgently needed to save lives?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: I don’t disagree with the member at all about all of the supports that he has listed. That is why this government will continue to add new resources, as we did in this year’s budget, to continue to support people through every stage of their journey.

Whether that’s harm prevention services like take-home-naloxone kits, like drug-checking services, like overdose prevention services to keep people alive, connecting them to the supports that they need, building more treatment and recovery beds and adding mental health resources for adults and for youth alike.

Working with First Nations on eight new Indigenous-led treatment centres — two that are already open, more that are underway — and continuing to do the work that is needed. There is a sense of urgency. While we know that lives lost to the toxic drug crisis are starting to come down, we cannot lift our foot off this gas pedal.

We have to continue to invest. That is what this government is going to continue to do, and I look forward to the support of all members of this House in doing this work.

Attacks on Police Officers
and Government Action
on Repeat Offenders

Macklin McCall: As a former police officer, I’ve seen the risks our front-line officers take to keep communities safe.

Two Vancouver police officers were set on fire while patrolling the Downtown Eastside. The suspect was wanted on ten outstanding warrants for his arrest, which included violent offences. One of the officers was burned. This is just the latest in a string of over 35 assaults on VPD this year alone. That’s a 25 percent increase.

Will this Premier abandon his anti-police activism and finally stand with the men and women who risk their lives every single day to keep our streets safe and for once put the rights of victims ahead of violent criminals?

Hon. Garry Begg: I, too, spent most of my life as a police officer.

The incident on the Downtown Eastside is horrific. It’s a senseless act of violence. There’s no justification for that type of behaviour. I’m glad to hear that a suspect has been arrested and charged in this incident.

I should thank police for their swift action in apprehending the suspect.

My thoughts are with those two officers, and I wish them a full recovery.

Bryan Tepper: B.C.’s police officers put their lives on the line every single day. I know this because I was a police officer. I’ve lost friends. What they need is a Premier focused on public safety, not how to sue the police.

With officers being spat on, slashed and set on fire, when will this Premier finally stand up and restore peace and order to British Columbia?

Hon. Garry Begg: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

It’s important that we understand that policing in Canadian society has not changed in many years. We believe that police officers are centurions at the gates of justice. I, like you, took an oath to protect the law in this country, and I worked almost 40 years to do that.

What has changed is, to some degree, the way we treat people who have, for example, concurrent drug and alcohol addictions. That has changed. So what we must do, what we will do, every day, as the rationale changes for behaviour, is make sure that we adapt our plans to do that. Every day, every month, every year across this province, when men and women who wear the uniform to protect the country go out there to do that, we arm them by giving them the tools to do the job.

In British Columbia, we continue to do that, and that will be my pledge to you. We will continue to give the police the tools to do the job they need in British Columbia.

Violent Attacks and Action
on Community Safety

Brennan Day: On March 25, a man in Parksville was attacked in his own home. A stranger rammed a car through his garage, broke in, wrapped a chain around his neck and threatened to kill him. The suspect was arrested and then released on $500 bail.

[2:15 p.m.]

This wasn’t petty theft. This was a violent home invasion. He is currently out free.

Can the Premier explain to British Columbians why someone capable of that kind of violence is currently free and back out on the streets?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we can all agree that that’s a horrific incident and that we are thinking of the family and the victims. In such a case, it’s very important in the province that we have very strong bail laws. That’s why we led the charge across Canada to make sure that the federal government changed the Criminal Code to strengthen our bail laws for repeat violent offenders.

We’re not done yet. We’re going to continue to advocate for a stronger bail system in Canada, and we’re going to put the resources in place on the ground to make sure that our system is ready to respond, no matter what happens.

Anna Kindy: Just days later in nearby Parksville, another family was terrorized by a stranger who broke in while they were sleeping. The intruder tried to re-enter the home after being forced out. The man was reportedly intoxicated and was released, no charges.

Why does this Premier prefer to sue police instead of prosecuting criminals?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We haven’t just advocated for stronger bail laws across this country; we’ve been successful in some Criminal Code changes. We’re going to keep at that advocacy. We’ve also put direct resources on the ground. That means the repeat violent offender program, which is currently seeing over 400 individuals.

I’ve visited some of these hubs of the repeat violent offender initiative, of front-line workers that are circling around those most violent offenders in our system and making sure that they stay off the streets and that the tools are in place to keep communities safe.

We are investing in police officers, record investments in the province. We’re investing in Crown prosecutors. We’re investing in all those tools that we know the system needs in order to address public safety, and we’ll continue to do so.

Brent Chapman: There’s more. A Surrey couple was left covered in blood after a violent, random, home invasion, attacked by a man demanding their car keys, in the middle of the night.

The suspect didn’t stop there. He tried breaking into two other homes and a community building before he was finally arrested. B.C., where home invasions have become a normal part of life.

Why does this Premier keep putting criminals first, and if he does not put them first, how can British Columbians tell the difference?

Hon. Garry Begg: I think we all want the same thing in this House. We all want to feel safe in our neighbourhoods, downtown and in our communities.

Our repeat violent offender intervention program is making a big difference in helping people to break the cycle of reoffending.

For example, in Surrey, the ReVOII hub there is monitoring 40 people. One of these people used to generate over 100 calls a month to the police. Through that program, he got access to a support person who is helping him to keep his life on the right track. In four months, after being in the program, there were zero calls for this man to the police.

We’re going to continue our actions to make our streets and our neighbourhoods safe for everyone.

Korky Neufeld: Well, that is no comfort to a woman who was sexually assaulted, in broad daylight, at Mill Lake Park in Abbotsford. The suspect is still on the loose. Again, bad provincial policies are putting criminal rights ahead of victims. That is not okay.

How can this Premier claim he’s keeping British Columbians safe, when people can’t even walk in their own neighbourhood parks?

Hon. Garry Begg: I repeat that every British Columbian deserves to feel safe everywhere in British Columbia. We’re acting not only to strengthen policing but also to rebuild the critical services that were cut under the opposition leader’s time in government.

The opposition leader’s old government cut funding…

Interjections.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Garry Begg: …for crime prevention and for victim services.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Garry Begg: This is at the root of what causes our crime. They ended the prolific offender management program that had reduced reoffending by 40 percent in its first year, and they also slashed $360 million from health care and mental health.

We are making record investments in mental health to break the cycle of crime, including intervention programs and front-line community supports.

We know there’s more to do, but we’re taking action to keep British Columbians safe.

Jody Toor: A brazen armed robbery led to a police chase that ended in Langley after suspects stole a cart of tools and pulled a gun on staff. The chase ended in a multi-vehicle crash that sent two RCMP officers to the hospital. One of the drivers is now under investigation for drunk driving.

At what point will this Premier put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of violent criminals?

Hon. Garry Begg: I know, we know that incidents like this, as told by the member, can make communities and people feel less safe. Reducing violent crime means addressing it by examining the causes that hold offenders accountable. For example, what we’ve done is expanded peer-led response teams bringing together police, mental health professionals and outreach workers to proactively address public safety concerns like the one raised by the member opposite.

In the first nine months of 2024, these teams responded to over 4,000 calls. These teams are now operating across B.C., helping people in crisis and breaking cycles of crime. Programs like this show that real intervention makes a real difference.

We will continue to invest in community-driven solutions that help keep British Columbians safe wherever they are.

Claire Rattée: This weekend in Terrace, a man known to police pointed a gun at his neighbours, threatened to kill them and then barricaded himself in his home during a nearly eight-hour standoff with police and SWAT.

Police seized multiple firearms, yet he was out of jail just eight hours later. His victims, who were also his neighbours, were not informed that he was released.

When will this government end its disastrous catch-and-release policies and start protecting innocent people in our communities?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s vitally important that we have really strong bail laws in this province and, in fact, across the country, which is why we led the charge and will continue to lead the charge with the federal government to make sure that the Criminal Code has the right tools in it for our justice system here in B.C.

It’s vitally important that we keep guns off our streets, that we make sure that guns are not in the hands of criminals. That’s why I’m surprised to hear this question from across the way, because when the Leader of the Opposition was campaigning to be Premier…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Member, wait for your turn.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …he said that if he was Premier, he would instruct police officers to stop enforcing the laws related to semi-automatic guns.

You can imagine how safe we would be in this province. That’s why I’m glad we’re over here and they’re over there.

Sheldon Clare: On Tuesday, April 8, 2025, a man was randomly stabbed in broad daylight behind the Odeon theatre in downtown Victoria. The suspect is still at large.

Police believe this was a completely unprovoked attack. It happened at noon in the heart of our capital city.

Why does this Premier allow British Columbia to turn into a dystopian hellscape where criminals have free reign and often more rights than their victims?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Garry Begg: It’s disturbing to hear the member using dystopian terms to describe what’s happening here in British Columbia. This is not a dystopian society. We condemn crime where it happens and when it happens, and for you to suggest that we allow criminals to go free is contrary to the facts.

Everyone who is arrested in British Columbia is taken before a court, and a court decides whether or not he or she will be released. That is the police’s job: to ensure that a criminal is brought before the bar of justice. That happens every day in this province.

We do have a disagreement with the federal government on the way some of their release provisions work. The Premier and the Attorney General have made trips to Ottawa to talk about that and to ensure that changes are made.

Government Action on Repeat
Offenders and Crime in Communities

Lorne Doerkson: In Williams Lake, a prolific offender smashes into a tire shop. He then steals a truck from inside, drives it through a second door. A few days later a prolific offender trashes a local tea shop’s front door.

Fires, vandalism, violence and prolific crime is daily life now. And while B.C. families are afraid to walk their own streets, a Mexican hitman tied to the La Familia Michoacana cartel is seeking refugee status right here in British Columbia.

If the government will not solve prolific crime, at the very least, will the Premier assure British Columbians that today hitmen and hired killers are not welcome in B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Let me be clear on behalf of government. Individuals like that are not welcome in B.C.

Support for Police Officers
and Government Action
on Community Safety

Elenore Sturko: Senior citizens beaten to death. Fentanyl superlabs. Home invasions. People threatened with firearms. Random stabbings. Sexual assaults. A little six-year-old girl killed by a hit-and-run driver suspected of impaired driving.

Terrible incidents, not just examples from one city, but these incidents are happening all across the province. Based on everything that we’ve heard today, it’s no wonder that a recent survey found that 58 percent of British Columbians don’t feel safe in their communities.

As a former police officer, I’ve seen assaults on police. But I was shocked — shocked — to see the video of two Vancouver police officers set on fire last week. Thirty-five assaults on VPD officers in just over three months, and instead of standing with police, this Premier funds pro-drug, anti-police groups that actively work against them.

My question is: how can British Columbians feel safe when the people risking their lives to protect us are under attack and this Premier is working against them?

Hon. Garry Begg: It has become obviously repetitive to read the headlines here and accuse the government and the police of not doing their job. We support….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, order.

Hon. Garry Begg: This is a government that supports the police. Unlike the members opposite, we’ve made the largest investment in policing in our province’s history. We’re training today and hiring more police officers. JIBC training is up 50 percent, from 192 to 288 police officers per year.

Where were you when that was happening? This is a government….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. Garry Begg: This is a government that gives resources to strengthen our law enforcement.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Members, through the Chair.

Hon. Garry Begg: That’s something that we will do and will continue to do.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Elenore Sturko: I’d like to reserve my right to speak on a point of privilege with the member stating that this side does not support the police.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Garry Begg: As minister responsible for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, I have the honour to present the results of the accident benefits review of compensation rates under part 7 of the Insurance (Vehicle)Regulation.

Per section 46(2) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, the minister responsible for ICBC must initiate a review at least once every five years of the amounts payable as accident benefits to a person injured in a car accident and for the provision of health care services — for example, physical therapy — to a person injured in an accident.

This review specifically addresses benefits for accidents that occurred prior to May 1, 2021.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this House, I will call Motion 18.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 18 — Indigenous Rights and
Recognition of Historical
Wrongs and Legacies

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I move Motion 18, of which notice has been given in my name, on the order paper:

[That this House:

1. Acknowledges the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls that cultural genocide occurred in Canada.

2. Recognizes this cultural genocide was born out of the Canadian government’s multifaceted attempts to separate Indigenous people from their land, culture, and languages and that residential schools were a key pillar of this strategy.

3. Recognizes that the remains of 4,000 Indigenous children remain buried in marked and unmarked graves at residential school sites across the country.

4. Recognizes that decades of legal precedent in Canada and British Columbia have affirmed the existence of Indigenous rights and title, which places an obligation on government to acknowledge, respect, and uphold these rights and title.

5. Accepts that the voices of residential school survivors, intergenerational survivors, their families, and communities must be at the centre of all discussions on the real and ongoing impacts of this tragic chapter of Canadian history.]

As I rise today to speak, I reflect on my journey to get to this moment. This is the people’s House — all peoples’ House. It’s hard to believe that in 2025 there are still people that try and deny the experiences of First Nation, Inuit and Métis children. But here we are.

Attempts to discredit the experiences of former residential school students are deeply disturbing and damaging for survivors and their families.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

For over 150 years, the residential school system operated as a systematic, government-sponsored attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and languages and to assimilate Aboriginal Peoples so they no longer existed as distinct peoples.

This intent was cultural genocide. One hundred and fifty thousand children were stolen. The legacy of the residential school system is one of generational trauma. There is no disputing that.

Reconciliation is complex work, and we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to do better.

The heart of this motion are children: children taken away from their families; children taken away from their communities; children sexually and emotionally abused; children who died with no grave, no ceremony, not being brought back to their parents to grieve their loss.

Why in the year 2025 would anyone question this? What do they intend to gain from having survivors and their families relive their pain to provide proof. Proof of what — bodies, bones, spirits? My heart hurts for the survivors and their families who have to keep hearing these people dispute what happened to them.

[2:35 p.m.]

Each year we remember our veterans that bravely served in battle, and each year we remember the brave children that survived the residential schools in Canada.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission began in 2007. I can list facts and figures like others have. The commission spent six years interviewing 6,500 witnesses. There were seven national events. I personally attended and helped plan the one in Vancouver. There were 94 calls to action for further reconciliation between Indigenous Peoples and Canadians.

This is Canadian history. This involves each of us who is alive today and sitting in here representing all British Columbians in this House. Each riding in here represents survivors. Resilience. Healing. Truth.

I met an Elder in Quebec that described to me…. He was six years old. It was a sunny day, and he was playing in the playground with his eight brothers and sisters. A school bus pulled up and loaded every single child onto that bus and took them to the local residential school. I never thought about how they got the children to the school.

And what he described that day changed me forever. He said his parents showed up to that school days later, his mother crying, unconsolable. The children were lined up on one side of the room, and the priest and the nuns were sitting in the middle, and he and his brothers and sisters were lined up on the other wall. The priest had told those children that their parents didn’t care about them anymore and they were going to live there with them. And the mother and the father knew they’d be arrested if they tried to take their children home.

We have all witnessed the stories that the survivors have been brave enough to share. Our Indigenous sisters go missing at an alarming rate in Canada.

Between 2009 and 2021, Indigenous women and girls made up only 3 percent of the population in Canada, but they represented 7 percent of homicide victims. Women matter. They are loved. They are mothers and sisters and aunties and daughters and granddaughters. And they are missed. They will always be remembered.

We shouldn’t have to stand in here and talk about whether this is the truth. We should be inspiring hope and continuing the good work that has been done by all the survivors and their families to share the very personal and hard stories of their lives. We should be working hard to protect the children and the women today. We should be listening and understanding. We should be including and validating.

That’s the type of future that I want to build for my daughter. That is the future that I owe to those Indigenous children, who were the true heroes in our history.

Justice Murray Sinclair said: “Remember, reconciliation is yours to achieve. We owe it to each other to build a Canada based on our shared future, a future of healing and trust.”

[2:40 p.m.]

And Dr. Martin Luther King said it best: “Make a career of humanity. Commit yourself to the noble struggle for equal rights. You will make a better person of yourself, a great nation of your country and a finer world to live in.”

Scott McInnis: Before I begin, I’d firstly like to formally congratulate the Kitselas First Nation on their treaty and constitution ratification, which happened late last week. This is a huge milestone for Chief Bennett and council and the entire community.

Unfortunately, we’re not spending any time in this House recognizing such an important, historic time that was over 30 years in the making. Instead, we are here spending public tax money on wedge politics, again, by this government who has utterly failed Indigenous people in British Columbia. I’ll get to the details if you stick around.

I must also speak plainly about this motion on behalf of the official opposition. Why are we debating this motion right now in the face of urgent, ongoing and worsening crises that Indigenous communities are experiencing across this province?

We are not lacking statements. We’re not lacking acknowledgements. What we are lacking, and what Indigenous communities are pleading for, is action. What we are lacking is the political courage to confront the hard, modern realities that persist long after the last residential school closed.

Under this government’s watch, First Nations’ life expectancy is declining. Despite decades of commitments and reports and promises of reconciliation, the basic outcome of a longer, healthier life, something that every British Columbian deserves, is moving in the wrong direction for Indigenous people in this province.

We see the consequences everywhere. In our foster care system, Indigenous children remain grossly overrepresented in government care. And as we saw with Chantelle Williams recently, kids are dying in care. Despite making up less than 10 percent of B.C.’s child population, Indigenous children account for over two-thirds of those in care.

This is not ancient history. This is happening today, under this government, and we are wasting more time not funding solutions to the disaster this government has created. We are talking about a motion, a virtue-signalling motion.

In our criminal justice system, Indigenous incarceration rates remain staggeringly high, reflecting a system that continues to punish poverty, trauma and disconnect rather than fix it.

While we gather here to revisit the past — and yes, those chapters must be remembered — too many Indigenous people are still caught in a cycle of marginalization that policy after policy has failed to break. There has been no meaningful work to fix the foundation. Again, wedge politics are what this government wants to spend time on.

In the addictions crisis, the most pressing health emergency of our time, First Nations individuals are dying at rates five times that of non-Indigenous British Columbians. The First Nations Health Authority has called it a state of emergency. Families are grieving. Communities are stretched to the breaking point. And we’re debating a motion that we have talked about time and again, which does not address the immediate crisis unfolding right now across this province.

This House must ask itself a serious question. What are we doing with our time? While we debate this motion, restating points that have already been acknowledged at the highest levels of this Legislature and across this country, families are attending funerals, children are being taken from their homes and people are dying.

[2:45 p.m.]

I do not question the intent of this motion, but I do question the decision to bring it forward now instead of using our time to debate legislation, policies and investment that could actually start to shift outcomes on the ground. This pattern of returning again and again to symbolic affirmations while delaying the hard work is becoming too familiar.

Indigenous people are not asking for more recognition. They are asking for respect through results, through action, through real reconciliation, measured not by speeches but by outcomes. This government needs to stop waving their virtue-signalling flag for political gain and start working to better the lives of Indigenous people in this province. This is your responsibility.

We in the opposition are fully prepared to work with the government to advance meaningful, tangible reconciliation. If this government brings forward bold policies to improve life expectancy, reduce child despair, tackle poverty and treat the addiction crisis with the urgency it deserves, we will meet them in good faith.

But we do not support motions like this when we should be in our offices working on solutions. What we see instead is a government that prefers to invest its time and the Legislature’s time in reiterating what we already know instead of doing what is so desperately needed.

To be blunt, motions do not change lives. Services do. Housing does. Justice reform does. Community-led healing initiatives do. The reality today is that Indigenous communities are asking this government to listen not just to stories of the past but to their needs in the present.

Let’s listen when nations say they want authority over child welfare. Let’s listen when they call for stable, long-term housing. Let’s listen when they demand addiction treatment centres that reflect Indigenous culture, language and leadership. Let’s stop spending so much time saying that we’ve heard them and start showing it through action.

I’m going to close with this. Every single person in this House carries a responsibility not just to acknowledge our shared history but to act on it. That responsibility does not end with remembrance; it begins there. And it continues with every choice we make, every bill we table, every hour we spend in debate. It requires humility, yes, but it also demands courage — courage to shift power, courage to move resources, courage to do the work that is uncomfortable, complex and long overdue.

This House should be a place where our time is dedicated not to polishing our reputations but to building a province where Indigenous people are no longer overrepresented in tragedy and underrepresented in opportunity; where life expectancy rises, not falls; where a child grows up safe in their culture, in their family, in their community, not in a system that continues to fail them.

To Indigenous families who are watching today: I want you to know we hear you. I know you’re tired — tired of ceremonies that don’t translate into safety, tired of apologies that aren’t followed by justice, tired of being seen as symbolic figures rather than equal partners in the shaping of this province.

You deserve better. You deserve to see the change in your lifetime, not in another generation, not in another report, not in another future that never comes. You deserve a government that is just as invested in your children’s potential as you are.

The time for delay is over. The time for empty affirmations is over. You’re asking for action. You’re asking for investments in your communities. You’re asking for control over your own futures. It is this House’s duty to deliver — truly serious. Then the pathway is clear about reconciliation.

Stop using this House’s time to restate what has already been accepted, and start using it to pass laws that make lives better. Bring forward the legislation that recognizes and supports Indigenous self-government. Bring forward real investments in health, housing, education and justice. Put reconciliation into actions, not just on the order paper.

[2:50 p.m.]

And know this. When you bring those solutions, we will work with you. We will not play politics with people’s lives. We will support measures that bring healing, dignity and real measurable change, because that is the work reconciliation truly requires; not performance, not symbolism, but shared effort and shared accountability.

Let’s stop wasting time on these ridiculous motions that are nothing more than meaningless political posturing with no measurable action or outcomes. Let’s make this chamber worthy of what we’ve already heard and the futures we still have the power to shape. Enough of the wedge politics. The public, who we’ve been elected to serve, are sick and tired of it.

Let’s get on with making a real difference in this place.

Rob Botterell: For the record, I’ll be the designated speaker for the Green caucus.

I rise in support of the motion put forward by the member for North Coast–Haida Gwaii, the Minister of Environment and Parks.

I’m very disturbed by the comments by the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I will take the time I have to speak in support of this motion, and I trust the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke will take the time to listen to what I have to say with an open mind.

I thank the minister for stepping forward in this manner, for calling us together in support of fundamental truths. I acknowledge that in doing so, she puts herself in a position to be targeted by those who spread hate and disinformation and call into question her motivation and integrity. I thank her for her courage in refusing to be silenced.

I raise my hands to the minister, to the Indigenous members of her caucus and across this House who will step forward in support of this motion and to the truth-tellers and knowledge-holders across this province and across the country, who speak bravely and fiercely to bring truth to light, to remind us of those truths. We must always be reminded. I acknowledge that in too many cases they speak on behalf of people who didn’t make it, and I’m sorry for the burden that they carry.

The truth has been hard fought in this country. One of the tools of genocide, of colonization, is limiting access to information.

Early settlers were upfront about their desire to ensure Indigenous communities weren’t easily able to share their history and their truths. There was an extensive set of measures put in place, including residential schools, forcible relocation to reservations, outlawing of ceremonies such as the potlatch, designed to ensure that history and culture could not be passed on. That is why we must take such great care with the truth, why we have such a responsibility to seek it out, to share it and to defend it.

One of the reports that the minister referenced, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, spent six years travelling to all parts of Canada and heard from over 6,000 witnesses. That is over 6,000 people who spoke about their history, their family’s history, their experience of genocide perpetrated by this country.

[2:55 p.m.]

The mandate of the commission was to reveal to Canadians the complex truth about the history and the ongoing legacy of the church-run residential schools in a manner that fully documents the individual and collective harms perpetrated against Indigenous peoples and honours the resilience and courage of former students, their families and communities; and to guide and inspire a process of truth and healing, leading towards reconciliation within Indigenous families and between Aboriginal Peoples and non-Aboriginal communities, churches, governments and Canadians generally.

The process was to work to renew relationships on a basis of inclusion, mutual understanding and respect. This mandate sets out an expectation for all of us as individuals and as representatives to learn the history of the lands on which we stand.

For those of us, such as myself, who aren’t Indigenous, it sets out an expectation and puts a responsibility upon me to understand the experiences of the people upon whose lands I work, live and play and to commit myself to doing better than my ancestors did.

There is never a time when we shouldn’t reflect on the importance of this. As elected representatives, there is a clear expectation upon all of us to remember the actions of our predecessors who stood in this very building and who made decisions whose actions live on. We must face that responsibility squarely. We cannot attempt to ignore it or pretend it did not happen.

For too long, the policy of this House was outright denial of the Indigenous rights and titles or even attempts to eliminate peoples altogether. The history of these lands and this place is a burden that we must all shoulder in order to walk forward together. The stories in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s reports reveal the depths that the government went to, to try and eliminate the peoples of this land, and their stories are evidence of the failure to do so.

This report is one of the greatest gifts that we could ever receive. It is a beacon for the future, and we must respect it as such. We owe it to the people who told their stories, who spoke on behalf of themselves and those who didn’t survive, to treat this history with deep respect and with a deep and true desire to do all that we can to ensure that this never happens again.

The authors of the report, Justice Murray Sinclair, Chief Wilton Littlechild and Dr. Marie Wilson, said it so well in their introduction to The Survivors Speak section of the report.

“A survivor is not just someone who made it through the schools or got by or was making do. A survivor is a person who persevered against and overcame adversity. The word came to mean someone who emerged victorious, though not unscathed; whose head was bloody, but unbowed.

“It referred to someone who’d taken all that could be thrown at them and remained standing at the end. It came to mean someone who could legitimately say: ‘I am still here.’ For that achievement, survivors deserve our highest respect. But for that achievement, we also owe them the debt of doing the right thing, coming out of this history.”

That introduction is a call to action for all members of this House. More than almost any other people, we have an ability to set the direction for the next 100 years of interaction between our government, First Nations and Indigenous Peoples across this province.

Each year the Truth and Reconciliation Commission provides an annual report outlining the work that has been done to uphold and progress the commission’s work. Executive director of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation Stephanie Scott comments:

“There are hard truths about our country’s colonial history that some people are still not prepared to hear and do not want to be told. But we all must learn the true history of residential schools, listen to survivors and take a stand against deniers. Sadly, we see increased ugliness from those who deny our truths, experiences and oral histories as reality, and that is something that we must address.

“It is disheartening, to say the least, to read hateful comments challenging the documented experiences of Indigenous people, particularly survivors. People perpetuating myths like ‘It didn’t happen’ or ‘Some good came out of the schools’ is bad enough. But reading statements like ‘Children never died in those institutions’ is truly repugnant.

[3:00 p.m.]

“At the NCTR, we see these baseless claims and attempts to erase history firsthand, and they must be countered with education and truth. But the responsibility of truth-telling should not be placed solely on survivors’ shoulders. Each and every Canadian must reflect on the role they can play in reconciliation. It requires institutions, governments and individuals to live up to their responsibilities and complete and fulfil the TRC’s 94 calls to action.”

While the commission has made significant progress, there remains a great deal of work ahead to address the ongoing denialism and injustices that persist. True progress requires action and reparations, and we must never forget that each and every one of us has a role to play in truth and reconciliation. We have work to do, but we must always take the time to remind ourselves of the history that has led to this point where we are taking the steps.

As Stephanie Scott points out, those who deny the claims of realities of residential schools do harm to survivors and do harm to all Canadians as we walk the path of reconciliation. And those who deny the claims of residential schools and the harm of colonization, clearly, also ignore the reality that we see every day.

The harms of colonization are not something that is in the past, but something that we continue to live with. It persists in the over-representation of Indigenous Peoples in our justice system, in the over-representation of Indigenous people in people experiencing homelessness, and the challenges that still exist between Indigenous Peoples and police forces.

I was glad that the minister referenced the report on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. One of the truly heartbreaking damages that our colonial system continues to exert is in the numbers of Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people who are missing or who are murdered. We know the names of some of these women, names like Carsyn Mackenzie Seaweed and Chelsea Poorman, but there are so many more that we do not — women and girls who deserve to live, to be with their families and their friends, who deserve a government that prioritizes their safety.

The national inquiry into missing and murdered women and girls presented their final report in 2019. The final report reveals that persistent and deliberate human Indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind Canada’s staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. The two-volume report calls for transformative legal and social change to resolve the crisis that has devastated Indigenous communities across the country.

The final report is comprised of the truths of more than 2,380 family members, survivors of violence, experts and knowledge keepers, shared over two years of cross-country public hearings and evidence-gathering. It delivers 231 individual calls for justice directed at governments, institutions, social service providers, industries and all Canadians.

Six years on from the delivery of this final report, Indigenous women are four times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be victims of violence. Indigenous women make up 16 percent of all female homicide victims and 11 percent of missing women, yet Indigenous People make up only 4.3 percent of the population of Canada. And 56 percent of Indigenous women have suffered physical assault, and 46 percent have experienced sexual assault. By comparison, about one-third of non-Indigenous women have suffered these assaults in their lifetimes.

The Assembly of First Nations has repeatedly called out the lack of progress in implementing the findings of the inquiry and, in the 2024 progress report, were clear on their expectations for all levels of government to do better in this work.

[3:05 p.m.]

They noted it is not enough for institutions like governments, police forces, hospitals, courts and the criminal justice system to use cultural awareness training as a cure-all for systemic institutional racism. These institutions must undertake an honest review of their laws, regulations, policies and practices to uncover the built-in systemic biases against First Nations people and commit to making real substantive changes.

This is the work that this House needs to do, as well, to go beyond awareness and to undertake a clear-eyed review of how our processes, our biases and our adherence to historic norms entrench systemic racism that makes life more difficult for Indigenous members, Indigenous staff and all British Columbians who look to this House.

I want to acknowledge the work that our Speaker is leading in this area, and I urge all members to support him, to continue to support him and to ensure this work is a high priority.

However, of the 231 calls for justice in the final report, only two have been completed. This is unacceptable. We must do better. We owe it to the Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in our lives to make clear that we value them, we love them, and we’ll do all that we can to protect and uplift them.

This is why our caucus has pushed so hard for public safety and police reform, why we continue to urge the government to spend more protecting Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit people, as they do protecting industry, and why we continue to raise concerns about systemic racism within the Ministry of Children and Family Development. These are systemic issues. They need a systemic response.

Unlike my colleague, earlier, on this side of the House, we will work with the government, and we are not pointing fingers. We see a path forward. There’s a lot of work to do, and we want to work together, not with the tone and approach that we heard earlier.

I raise my hands to my predecessor as MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, Adam Olsen, who rightly took issue with the government investing more in policing opposition to resource development than it does on protecting First Nations, opposition that is frequently Indigenous-led and generally occurs in remote areas such as the Wet’suwet’en opposition to the Coastal GasLink pipeline throughout northern B.C.

In this section of the House, we are committed to working through these issues in the priority they deserve. The offer remains open to all members of the House, particularly those members with responsibility in these areas, to bring life to these recommendations.

The reports on systemic challenges that First Nations and Indigenous people face do not end with these two reports. I’d like to also speak to the In Plain Sight report, which looks into Indigenous-specific racism within the British Columbian health care system. The report was finalized in 2020 and found a B.C. health care system with widespread systemic racism against Indigenous Peoples. This racism results in a range of negative impacts, harm and even death.

The review also found that this widespread racism has long been known by many within the health care system, including those in positions of authority, and is widely acknowledged by many who work in the system. The report contains the following contextual statement, which is true of the health care system and of so many systems which we oversee as a Legislative Assembly.

“This review has been conducted in a moment of increasing understanding about the colonial history of Canada and its enduring legacy and the moment of transition we are in.

“Prejudice and racism against Indigenous Peoples have roots in colonial beliefs that Indigenous Peoples were weak, less worthy of care, dying off, incapable, savage and primitive. These beliefs, embedded in laws and policies for more than a century, have shaped and continued to permeate public services such as health, education, justice and child welfare. A lack of readily available factual information, knowledge and understanding about this history contributes to ongoing negative attitudes and social inequities.”

[3:10 p.m.]

The report found that widespread, Indigenous-specific stereotyping, racism and discrimination exist in the British Columbian health care system, that racism limits access to medical treatment and negatively affects the health and wellness of Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia, that Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately impacted by Indigenous-specific racism in the health care system, that Indigenous health care workers face racism and discrimination in their work environments.

We are seeing the outcomes of this disparity every day in our communities, in our families, across the entire province. We can see firsthand the impact that it is having on life expectancy among First Nations people in British Columbia, which has dropped by more than six years. Between 2017 and 2021, a loss of six years, from 73.3 years to 67.2 years. Yet people have the audacity to stand up and suggest that racism doesn’t exist, that discrimination doesn’t exist.

This statistic hits particularly hard for me today as I mark my 69th birthday, a milestone that now, on average, more than half of Indigenous Peoples in this province will not reach. I think of the years that I have ahead of me, contributing as a member of this House, as a member of a community, a family, as a husband and a father, and I think of the loss to communities who are losing their Elders before they are old.

Systemic racism has torn communities apart. It has deprived people of their family members before their time. It has stopped the passing down of lessons, of language, of learnings, of time. It is the fault of the institutions, such as this House, and of the system that we oversee. We must work together to answer all of this.

Today is a milestone in so many ways. It is the ninth anniversary of the declaration of the toxic drug crisis as a public health emergency in British Columbia, and it feels apt that we are having this discussion on this day and with that at the forefront of our minds. One of the other findings of the In Plain Sight report was that current public health emergencies magnify racism and vulnerabilities and disproportionately impact Indigenous Peoples.

The First Nations Health Authority reports monthly on the impact of the toxic drug crisis in British Columbia, and I thank them for their data. In December 2024, the last month for which data is publicly available, they found there were a total of 219 paramedic-attended drug poisoning events reported amongst First Nations people. This represents an 11.2 percent increase from the previous month and an almost 16 percent decrease from December ’23. But First Nations people represent 20.6 percent of all toxic drug poisoning events this month.

In 2024, women represented 38.3 percent of all First Nations toxic drug poisoning events. Among other residents, 25.6 percent of all drug poisoning events involve women. In December 2024, we lost an additional 24 First Nations people due to toxic drug poisoning. First Nations people represent 16.3 percent of all deaths this month. Since 2016, the year in which a public health emergency was declared, we have lost 2,536 First Nations people to toxic drug poisoning. I could go on.

It remains shocking to me that in the year 2025 we need to continue to have these conversations. There are people within this province that would disagree with the statements made by the government’s Indigenous caucus this afternoon. It remains shocking to me that such blatant discrimination and racism has been normalized and accepted in this incredible place that we are allowed to call home.

[3:15 p.m.]

I would like to end today with some fundamental truth that speaks to the heart, on behalf of the Green caucus. The rights of Indigenous Peoples are inherent, existing, and cannot be infringed upon. First Nations hold rights and title to land, because it was never legally surrendered or ceded, with very few exceptions, and historic treaties have not been honoured. Ignoring this reality is not only unjust but also creates uncertainty and leads to costly, protracted litigation for the province.

While economic reconciliation is essential, it is not enough. We must strive for full reconciliation, supporting Indigenous Peoples as they heal from the damaging legacies of colonization. Reconciliation should inspire Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals to transform Canadian society, ensuring that future generations can live together in dignity, peace and prosperity on these shared lands.

I have been honoured to get to know and work with so many nations over the course of my career — among them, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Cowichan Tribes and Tsawwassen First Nation. The Huu-ay-aht honoured me with the traditional name Naacałuk, which means “always watching” in nuučaan̓uɫ. It is a name I carry with pride and deep respect for the responsibility it carries.

It is in the spirit of that name that I rise today to honour the comments put forward by the Minister of Environment and Parks.

It is in that spirit that I congratulate the government for the work they have done on upholding Indigenous rights and title and incorporating the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in British Columbia. That is very important work, and we should all be congratulating the government for that work.

It is also in that spirit that I will call attention, respectfully, to the work that is yet to be done, to the many ways in which this House, this institution and the system that it upholds continues to fail Indigenous people across this province.

I’ve spoken at length today about the impact that colonization, the history of residential schools and genocide have had on Indigenous communities within British Columbia. This has been a tough speech to make and, I’m sure, a tough speech to hear for those members here today, but I appreciate and thank you for hearing these words.

I do want to speak briefly to the settlers and their descendants, those of us who are feeling awkward as we sit in this room and hear of the actions of our ancestors and their compatriots. I want to acknowledge that it can be really challenging to hear about the harms perpetrated by those who came before, the people whose actions allowed you to be here today.

We all want to reflect positively on our families, to think back fondly on our grandparents and great-grandparents. The idea that our families did harm, that they displaced people and that they committed genocide is challenging, but I urge you to sit with that feeling, to think not about the people who may have committed harms, but to think, instead, about those who are certainly the victims of it.

This is not the time for white fragility. This is the time to acknowledge the harms of the past in order that we may learn from them and ensure that they do not happen again. We who sit in this House give many gifts to our descendants, one that not all of our ancestors have given to us. Our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will never have to wonder where we stood on an issue. Thanks to the wonderful team at Hansard, our words and actions will be readily available for them to see.

I urge everyone who is feeling uncomfortable today to be the ancestor that they wish they had, to speak up, to speak out, to acknowledge that we built our country on stolen lands, that genocide was committed in our name, and then to move forward with that knowledge to be better, to do better and to remember that we are not the victims, that we can contribute to a better future.

[3:20 p.m.]

I want to speak, though, to the strengths of our Indigenous peoples across this province. I do not…. I want to leave this speech in a strengths-based manner, because that is what our First Nations Peoples deserve, what they continue to demonstrate day after day, month after month.

These people are survivors. They have faced racism and discrimination, but they are so much more than that. Indigenous peoples have lived on and stewarded these lands since time immemorial.

All of the Indigenous people I know are strong, smart, thoughtful people. They are funny. They’re interesting. They have so much more than the wrongs that their people have faced. The Indigenous people that I know are great parents, strong community members. They’re athletes, performers, professionals, business people. In the shocking statistics that we’re speaking of today, I don’t want us to lose sight of that.

Every community is more than the worst things that have happened to it, and this is so true for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.

I want to once again acknowledge the Minister of Environment and Parks for her role in pulling today together and for sharing her experiences so fully and allowing us an opportunity to reflect on and support the motion in front of us.

As Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, said: “We are all here to stay.” It is with that in mind that each of us must work together every day to complete the hard work of putting this genocidal chapter of our history as British Columbians and Canadians behind us and building a bright future for Indigenous people across this province.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to begin by acknowledging, with deep gratitude, the Minister of Environment and Parks for bringing this important motion to our attention and to thank her for her leadership and her strength and her friendship, as well as to thank the powerful voices of Indigenous MLAs in this House, who we will also get to hear from and whose presence and leadership here is profoundly changing this place for the better.

I rise in the House today to speak in support of this motion, but first I want to speak very briefly in response to the comments that we heard from the member of the opposition. I expected better from him. For the vast majority of British Columbians, this is not a wedge issue. Indigenous people are asking that we push back against the harmful misinformation and denialism and anti-Indigenous racism being spread by members of this House.

This is the work that we have been doing since forming government and that we will continue to do, creating transformative change in partnership with First Nations; in governance; in decision-making; in land stewardship; in children, youth and families; jurisdiction; and so much more. This work is rooted in respect for survivors, for families and communities. It’s rooted in the truth of our past and the promise of a better future ahead.

We are listening and we are acting because this work matters to us as a government. It is a shame that it doesn’t matter to the opposition.

We find ourselves at a critical moment in the history of our country, in a time of great economic and political anxiety, when we should be working together to meet the threats we face as a nation. Instead, some elected officials are trying to drive wedges between us, seemingly against Indigenous people in general and residential school survivors in particular.

Reconciliation is imperative, embedded in law and the constitution. It is the foundation of who we are as a country and who we must continue to be.

[3:25 p.m.]

Reconciliation is about moving along the same path we should have been taking together since contact. It requires us to work together and find a path forward that works for everyone, one that finally accepts the truth of our shared history and the systemic and institutional racism that Indigenous people have endured with devastating consequences. It compels us as individuals and leaders to not only accept what happened but to take responsibility to ensure it never happens again.

Reconciliation is necessary for all of us as citizens, as neighbours and as governments. Everyone holds the responsibility to foster a path of true partnership that brings people together. Everyone holds the responsibility to learn about the uncomfortable truths and injustices in our society and in our communities, to know the facts of our history and the truth of our realities. Together we must stand up against the things that drive us apart — stand up against anti-Indigenous racism, against residential school denialism, against anti-Indigenous stereotypes and the harm that each of these things causes every day to members of our community.

To chart a path forward together, we must first acknowledge and understand that shared history. The path to a stronger British Columbia is not through ignoring our own history or the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples. It is through listening that we can begin to understand the responsibility we have as leaders in this, the people’s House, to follow the overwhelming direction of the Supreme Court, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and most importantly, the survivors of residential schools.

Decades of court rulings and extensive documentation and testimonies from survivors and witnesses have affirmed the truth: cultural genocide occurred in Canada; it occurred in B.C. This genocide was born out of the Canadian government’s efforts to separate Indigenous People from their land, culture, languages, legal orders, economies and communities. Residential schools were a key pillar of this unfathomable and deliberate strategy. This undeniable fact was proven through the Indian residential schools settlement agreement in 2006. At the time, it was the largest class action lawsuit in Canadian history.

According to the definition of genocide in the 1948 genocide convention, the Indian residential school system constitutes genocide against Indigenous people. This was affirmed in 2022 when Canada’s House of Commons unanimously recognized the Indian residential school system as genocide, following Pope Francis’s acknowledgement, during his visit to Canada, of the impact of residential schools on Indigenous communities.

As a province and as a nation, we continue to grapple with the attempted genocide of Indigenous people, with the apprehension and death of children at residential schools and with the very real impact this continues to have on Indigenous people’s lives today.

Through the settlement agreement process, the court confirmed the truth of the common experiences of those Indigenous children who were forced to attend residential schools — that there were violent impacts and specific sweeping abuses of thousands of students over generations. It provided compensation for common experiences and specific abuse, like sexual abuse, murder, infanticide, torture and malnourishment. It directed all of us as Canadian citizens to reconcile with this painful but overwhelming truth.

Created in 2008 as a result of the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada had a mandate to listen to survivors, their families, communities and others affected by the residential school system and inform all Canadians about the residential school system and its legacies.

[3:30 p.m.]

Extensive work was carried out from 2008 to 2015, which included documenting the truth of survivors, their families, members of their communities, former staff of residential schools and others; hosting seven national events to promote awareness and public education, including one in my home community of Vancouver, which I attended and spoke at as part of a presentation about the intergenerational impacts of the residential school system.

It included collecting all documents from churches and government entities and creating a historical record of the residential school system, establishing the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation at the University of Manitoba and issuing a comprehensive report on the policies and operations of the schools and their lasting impacts.

The commission recorded testimony of more than 6,000 survivors affected by residential schools. It estimated that over a century, about 150,000 Indigenous students, Indigenous children, were separated from their families and communities and forced to attend one of 139 residential schools across Canada.

Over 4,000 Indigenous children died at residential schools, and their remains are buried in marked and unmarked graves at residential school sites across this country.

The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission included ten principles for reconciliation and 94 calls to action that speak to all sectors of Canadian society. The calls to action include specific actions related to missing children, residential school cemeteries and unmarked burials.

A few of those actions that directly guide us in our response include working cooperatively on strategies to identify, document, commemorate and protect residential school cemeteries or other sites at which residential school children were buried, and working to identify and collect copies of all records and provide these to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. These calls to action continue to guide the province in our response to work on the sites of former Indian residential schools and Indian hospitals throughout B.C.

The legacy of the residential school system is showing itself in many ways. One of the most horrific is the legacy borne by Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, who remain more vulnerable to violence. There are very real underlying social, economic, cultural, institutional and historic causes that contribute to the ongoing violence and vulnerabilities of Indigenous women and girls across Canada.

Indigenous women are four times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be victims of violence. Indigenous women make up 16 percent of all female homicide victims and 11 percent of missing women. Indigenous women are more likely to not just experience violence but to lose their lives as a result. Yet Indigenous people make up only 4.3 percent of the population of Canada.

Ending the critical situation of violence, disappearance and murder of First Nations women, girls and gender-diverse people is a collective imperative. The national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls has 231 calls for justice. Together with B.C.’s own report entitled Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, there continues to be an urgency to our collective efforts to do better.

So what is the way forward, then, if Indigenous peoples’ rights are to continue to be recognized, respected and implemented? Well, B.C. is an extraordinary place. First Nations are a fundamental part of the fabric of this country and of this province. This is recognized in the constitution and reinforced by court decisions, going back decades.

[3:35 p.m.]

The work of reconciliation is in reflecting this legal reality in our laws and our systems of governance. Rather than equating assertions of sovereignty to foreign interference or threats of annexation, the work we need to do is to ensure that First Nations rights are appropriately recognized and implemented as part of British Columbia and Canada. That’s what makes our country stronger. Recognizing our diversity and legal pluralism makes us stronger and brings us together.

We all want to build a good life here, but for too long, Indigenous people have been denied basic rights and opportunities. Since time immemorial, First Nations people have owned, governed and managed their territories and resources according to their distinct legal orders and governance structures. First Nations inherent rights of self-determination and self-government, as well as their inherent rights and title to and within their territories, are affirmed in the UN declaration.

The rights of Indigenous people in Canada are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act from 1982. Here in B.C., we have binding obligations to uphold Indigenous rights and find a way forward together.

Unfortunately, there are people, including some elected members in this place, who would still rather divide communities than bring people together. There are members who seek to turn back the clock and justify the limitations of Indigenous Peoples section 35 rights. One has done this while repeatedly bringing up their career as a lawyer as some type of validation for their views on Aboriginal rights and title. For a self-proclaimed legal expert, the member conveniently leaves out the constitutional reality of our country, as well as half a century worth of court cases that recognize and affirm the rights, including title, of First Nations.

We have learned a lot together in the past decade about the benefits that come from bringing people together to find solutions. At a time when our economy is under threat and when quick and decisive action is needed in a variety of places, it’s imperative that we recognize that the path of partnership, of working together with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, local governments, organizations and businesses is the path to a stronger B.C.

It is clear to me today that many members of this House have more work to do in recognizing the truth and educating themselves so that we can respect survivors and their families and communities, so that we can find a better path forward for all of us.

It is my hope that every member of this place takes the opportunity to reflect on our history so that we can move forward in a good way together on this shared path of reconciliation in British Columbia. As I said at the beginning, this is work that matters to us. It should be work that matters to every member of this House. And it is work that we will continue to do as a government for a better British Columbia for all of us.

I want to end, again, by acknowledging and thanking my colleague and good friend, who is also the Minister of Environment and Parks, for bringing forward this timely and important conversation today.

I look forward to continuing the work alongside her and other members of our caucus.

Amshen / Joan Phillip: I am just so proud of our Minister of Environment for presenting this motion, and I am speaking in favour of it.

In order to have reconciliation, the truth needs to be told. I’m so very glad that our Green Party representative also spoke in favour of this motion. I was shocked at one of the members not wanting to really face the truth. So far, it feels like there’s been a snowballing of denial not just in this House but nationally, across the country.

[3:40 p.m.]

I want to talk about our inherent rights, our sovereign rights. Our Indigenous title was first recognized through the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This was during the time, of course, of European settlement of what is now Canada, or the New World. In the formation of Canada, it was also recognized through the British North America Act of 1867, which divided up the responsibilities both federally and provincially.

All across the country, England, at the time, had made treaties with the Indigenous Peoples to ensure that settlement was legitimate. They negotiated up to as far as British Columbia. And in B.C., Treaty 8…. There were 14 treaties on Vancouver Island, actually, that were negotiated by England. Then they said: “Okay, we’re out of money. You settlers are on your own, but we want to make sure that you promise to deal fairly with the Indigenous Peoples here.”

Well, that didn’t happen. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen. Through a lot of protesting from the Indigenous Peoples, where settlers were coming in, in bigger numbers, without any real authority, the federal government chose to say, from 1927 to 1951: “Okay, no more talking about the land question issue.” It was illegal for us to talk about the land question issue. It was illegal for us to hire people to talk about the land question issue.

We couldn’t pursue our land rights. We couldn’t gather more than five people at a time to talk about those issues. So when the Native Indian Brotherhood was formed in 1931, they feigned being a Christian organization. They started off every meeting singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers.” Today when they meet, that’s exactly what they still do. They sing “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” in honour of that history.

When we finally were “allowed” to pursue our land issues, the Nisg̱a’a decided to take their title matter to court. All seven judges agreed that Aboriginal title existed. That’s affectionately referred to as the Calder case in 1973.

Again, because of denial of those rights in 1982, the Guerin case was brought forward to the Supreme Court of Canada. All of the Supreme Court justices declared that Aboriginal title was “sui generis,” which is unique, and that the federal government was the one that had the fiduciary duty to preserve it.

Again, 1997, Delgamuukw. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en people brought theirs to court. But more importantly, it laid out the process for proving that you have Aboriginal title.

[3:45 p.m.]

The first one was that you had to occupy the land prior to 1846, that you had present and continuous occupation of those lands and that your occupation of the lands was exclusive.

Finally, what Delgamuukw said was that our title was not just an interest in the land; it carried with it an undeniable economic interest. And the slogan at the time was “Nothing about us without us.”

In 2007, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted internationally, but Canada didn’t sign on until 2016. In fact, they opposed UNDRIP at the time, and they said that we were a domestic issue, not to be connected to the United Nations declaration.

Now, what Delgamuukw also said was that…. In that case, it said that in order to infringe on our title, it at times required our consent.”

In 2019, again, the Tŝilhqot’in Nation brought their case to court. And in that case, the Crown was attempting to argue that their title was based on small spots. “This is your fishing station, and that’s where you can harvest the forests or gather things,” or “This is your traditional village.” But the courts denied that. They said, “No, no. Title is to the extent of the whole of the territory, not small spots within that.” So I’m so glad that it also included “consent.”

This is what Justice McLachlin said: “Aboriginal title confers the right to use and control of the land and to reap the benefits of it.” So I’m so happy that we had justices that were interested in just that — justice.

In 1982, during the constitutional discussions, they were going to reconstitute our Canadian constitution, and they were going to do it without us. Well, we did protest, and we finally got to sit at the table with them.

I recall…. I have a relative, an uncle, Richard Wilson, whose nephew was also Bill Wilson at the time. Bill Wilson was in direct discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau, and he successfully argued section 35 within the Canadian constitution.

His last parting shot was, “Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. I would hope that the next time we have some talks, we could do more than just educate you.” It’s the first time I’d ever seen anybody get the best of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Prime Minister at the time.

I next want to talk about what genocide is. Let’s define that. It’s an act committed with the intent to destroy, either whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, specifically, forcibly transferring children from a group to either residential school or into care, preventing births through sterilization. And there was a sterilization program in this country.

[3:50 p.m.]

I was a counsellor at an outreach alternate school in Vancouver that operated at the old United Church at Hastings and Gore. A young lady had gone in to get checked out by the hospital, and she found out she had been sterilized. As luck would have it, they missed the fact that she was already pregnant, so she did have one child. That’s genocide.

I want to tell a story that my uncle, Sam George, had published. I asked him if I could present his story in this House, and he said yes. It was a story about his young friend at residential school, who was much younger than him. He befriended him because the little kid was always by himself and really sad, so Uncle Sam went over and made friends with him.

They were lying out in the residential school yard, and they were sharing a pear. And Uncle Sam said: “Don’t tell the nuns.” They shared the little pear, and they went to bed. He was moaning; there was something wrong with him. So a nun came over and took little Sam away, but he never came back to bed.

Years later another student who was also from that school told Sam: “You know what happened to that little boy, Charlie?” He goes: “No.” He said: “Well, a nun had thrown him down the stairs, and he died of his internal injuries at the hospital.” It’s stories like that.

My grandpa, Dan George, at five years old, started residential school. They chopped his finger off for not speaking English. He spoke his language; he didn’t know English. Thank goodness he overcame that impediment and became a good actor.

Part of what is also determined as genocide is causing bodily harm or mental harm, inflicting conditions of life to destroy the group, such as disease-infected blankets, poor housing or lack of housing, or even the killing of a student. Little Sam was just one example of that. As I’ve said in this House before, a girlfriend of mine….

After they found the 215 anomalies, he said, “I know where the bodies are buried,” because they made the older kids bury the little kids. They put the newborns next to the river for high water to wash away, because they were the ones that were illegitimate children of the staff at the residential school.

He was very angry. He’s 80 years old, and he was still angry. What’s helping him now is that he’s spending his time talking to young people in schools about his residential school experience, and that seems to calm him down some. I’m so happy for him that he’s getting over it. He’s 80 years old, but he’s sharing his experience. The whole thing about stories is that you have to humanize what happened. It’s not just statistics and numbers.

[3:55 p.m.]

There were many of our people that remember being with the RCMP police present, all the kids being loaded up onto cattle trucks. They’d have to stand, crammed in like little sardines, soiling themselves. They called it the crying truck, because all the little kids were crying because they got crammed on, these little…. Taken away from home, and their parents were left fighting with the RCMP police back in the community.

Much like what happened with the Jewish people in Germany, we children were given a number. One of the stories from Kuper Island was that when you got the number you could never, ever sit out and play in the yard and relax and have fun, because every now and again, a window would fly open, your number would get called, and you’d have to go upstairs. All the kids knew what was happening to that child. When they’d come back like this, nobody’d want to look at them. They were shunned. It was just heartbreaking, those kinds of stories.

Of course there was the starvation. They were taken away without extra clothes, without food, and then soiling themselves. Then we wonder why women don’t feel good about themselves. I was a victim of sexual abuse, and he made it perfectly clear that it was because I was a dirty blah, blah, blah, a dirty Indian. I was beaten within an inch of my life. The whole side of my head was bloodied because I’d been pounded with a rock. If there hadn’t been witnesses available, I would have been a statistic by those railroad tracks.

Something has to be done. It’s got to stop. When is it going to stop? We heard about the statistics around Indigenous women being sexually assaulted and how many are missing. Just a month ago one of my niece’s daughters went missing. They’ve since found her, but I worry about my own granddaughters. I had to wait for the grandchildren to have daughters; I raised four boys. It’s just so…. Something has got to stop.

We go missing at a higher rate; we die at a higher rate; our infant mortality is at a higher rate; our representation in the Downtown Eastside is a higher rate. I know things are getting better.

In spite of the fact that it’s Canada’s responsibility to look after Indigenous Peoples, we’re still colonized. I can’t cut a tree down on my property, on a reserve, without a permit signed by His Majesty, because the land doesn’t belong to us, it belongs to His Majesty, set aside for our use and benefit. I’m still controlled by the Indian Act. So colonization still exists today.

I’m so proud of this government that not only adopted the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples but developed an action plan. We’re moving through that action plan. I know we need to do more, but at least we’re moving forward. It’s a start.

[4:00 p.m.]

The start is understanding who we were, what had happened to us and the rights that are legally entrenched in the constitution and the laws of this country.

This is a good little book to read. It’s the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in a neat, tidy little booklet. I would suggest it’s a very good read.

I just want to thank everyone for listening to me. I may have more to say, but suffice it to say that I’m proud of the work that we are doing, and I really look forward to the more that needs to get done.

Thank you. Huy ch q’u siem.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: This motion was made necessary by some members of this House choosing to spread misinformation about the residential school systems and about Canada’s treatment of Indigenous Peoples.

It’s really sad that I’m having to get up and speak about this, but also just recognizing and having in this space, in this House and in my speeches, bringing forward my mother’s story, the Elders that I sat with, the Elders that are still here and the Elders that have already passed. Those voices that I’m bringing here into this space are the ones that are now gone. I’m the one to be able to bring these messages forward. I’m the one to be strong enough to bring this forward just like other people that are standing up.

I raise my hands to the Elder of the House here. She’s been such an inspiration, such a strong woman.

When I think of my mom, of how she suffered…. The misinformation that’s being spread is harming. Not only is this being spread in this House, but it’s being spread in my community and across B.C. The Elders of the past, the Elders that are still here, were hurt by what they’ve heard, what they’ve witnessed and what they felt.

Indigenous women, men, boys, girls are more likely to be victims of violence or to go missing in their lifetimes, including in my riding in the Cowichan Valley, where many families were lost, who’ve lost their loved ones. They still have unsolved cases today. It will take all levels of government to have a role to play in addressing these issues that are affecting thousands of Indigenous families and communities across Canada.

I send strength and solidarity to all the survivors of this violence and their families on this day. I’ve stood at rallies where they’ve brought recognition of wanting to get answers about their missing loved ones, their murdered mother and the pain and the sorrow of having unanswered questions.

[4:05 p.m.]

Reconciliation is an imperative in abetting in law, and it requires us to work together to find a path forward that works for everyone.

For too long, neighbours, communities have been divided, fueled by court battles and hurtful misinformation. Reconciliation is ongoing and complex work, and we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to do better and to be better.

My grandson shared a story. He was hearing some things in school, and he just looked at me and said: “Grandy, it has to start at home.”

Everybody has to go back to their communities and do their best in trying to work towards a better relationship. Reconciliation means so many different things to so many different people, but for me, it’s the move towards what we really need to do here, the work that I have to continue on in this House.

The Elders were very strong. They were always talking about what they had gone through, the stories about their hurt and their pain of not even being able to go into a grocery store downtown. I shared that with my spouse. There was a sign in the Odeon theatre in Duncan that said that the First Nations sat upstairs. The Indigenous people sat upstairs, and the non-Indigenous people sat downstairs. He couldn’t believe it, and I said: “Yep, it was there.”

Same thing with my mom carrying around a blue card for her to be able to get into the old Eaton Centre that we had in Duncan. I just mentioned to someone the other day that my office is in the old Eaton’s building, and she said: “Wow, you’re in the Eaton’s building.” It was just one of those things where our neighbour…. As my mom married a non–First Nations, she received this blue card that gave her the right to go shopping in the store. She had to go with her, because she would be stopped. She’s carrying a blue card to say she’s disenfranchised as an Indian. She looks like an Indian.

Again, the word “Indian.” You know, when the colonizers landed, they thought they landed in India. That’s how we became Indians, by the way. I laugh about it, but it’s not funny. I think that’s just where…. I said to somebody the other day: “We’ve been called Indians, Indigenous, Aboriginal, First Nations.” I don’t know. It changes, right?

But all we really want and all we’re looking forward to is being able to be included, not to be looked at sideways when we walk into places, not to be followed around thinking that we’re going to steal stuff out of the store. This still happens today in Duncan. I hear people sharing stories with me. I see it on Facebook that someone has been followed at Superstore or in a grocery store somewhere else. It’s just sad to hear, but it still happens today. People are shocked when I tell people about it, but it still happens.

Reconciliation requires recognition of the rights and the acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past, knowing of the history and working together and upholding Indigenous rights.

I was at the yacht club last year when they were celebrating 99 years. I’ve been invited to the 100th. As I was sitting there, one of the fellows said: “I’m really sorry for my fellow friends here. Some of them don’t believe.” I said: “Well, I’m not here to come and take your house from you.”

[4:10 p.m.]

It’s about correcting a wrong and being able to belong in our communities that we live in, being treated like a human being. The Indian Act actually says that we’re not human. That’s weird. Like, I just think it’s so outrageous that it’s still there.

There are still old bylaws and stuff within municipalities that still have these weird things that have to be looked at and brought forward. Then we hear the cries from the community that it’s going to cost a lot of money for us to hire a consultant to look at all of these to make sure that we’re doing these things right. But it is going to take money to try to fix the wrongs of yesterday.

People are going to be scared of change. I think that the change is scary. I’m scared of change. I don’t like anything to change, that’s for sure. Ask my husband. He’ll tell you. But I think you don’t have to be afraid. We do have to start doing things differently, and that’s what we owe British Columbians — to work together and to come up with a way forward.

It’s unfortunate in my community that this has bubbled up to the surface of this — racial comments of wanting to change land back to what it used to be before. It’s very hurtful to hear these comments from people in my community that continue to say that we didn’t consult, that we didn’t do anything, blah, blah, blah, all of this stuff.

I’m allowed to say blah, blah, blah, hon. Speaker? Anyways, I did.

It’s been many, many years of work. I’m going to say maybe ten years that I heard that this piece of property was going to be changed into something wonderful. If any members here sell their piece of property, you’ve sold it. It’s not yours anymore, right? You don’t have any control over that piece of property anymore. You sell your property, like my husband did in his old house, and people come and cut all the trees down. He’s upset about it. He can’t do anything about it.

The same thing here, same thing in the Cowichan Valley. It’s that piece of property. You wouldn’t want someone to come along and say: “This is what we want you to do with your piece of property.” You’d turn around and go, “What are you talking about? I bought this right out, and I can do whatever I want with it,” right?

Again, it’s misinformation bubbling to the surface of this hatred that just keeps building. All we really want to do is grow our own food. It’s food sovereignty. That’s what it is.

Together we must stand up to the things that drive us apart — the anti-Indigenous racism, residential school denialism, the anti-Indigenous stereotypes. We need to work together with the First Nations and local communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. We can follow a path for a stronger B.C.

As I shared at North Cowichan when I was a councillor, this is really scary. It’s scary for me. We’re going to learn together. We’re going to start doing things differently. Is it going to be perfect? No, it’s not going to be perfect. Are we going to fall down? Yes, we will fall down. Will we make mistakes? Yes, I will even make mistakes. I’m scared.

[4:15 p.m.]

Those Elders of the day, they’re really mean, I tell you. If I sit you in front of one of them, they’ll tell you what’s what. But they’re coming from a place of fighting for their life, fighting for their rights and fighting for who they are, for me, so I can stand here and have a voice, so I can have the courage to be able to be speaking, my voice reaching the rafters, and to have that right.

It’s really hard to believe that in 2025 we’re still talking about this and that people deny the experience of Indigenous children, but here we are. For over 150 years, the residential school systems operated as “a systematic, government-sponsored attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and languages and to assimilate Aboriginal Peoples so that they no longer existed as distinct peoples.” This intent was cultural genocide. This is from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Someone interviewed me and asked me about it: “How did you react to recreating the village?”

I really didn’t think that it was going to affect me that much, but it did. I broke down and started crying. I said that I’ve seen my mom. I’d taken her to counselling. She had this bottle that she’d just twisted the cap on and shoved way down hard, and she did not want to open it.

We went to the counselling and sat down, and the fellow said: “What are you doing here?” She said: “I don’t know. My daughter asked me to come here.” That was it. She just could not take that bottle out and open it, because the pain was so hard. It was too hard for her to relive.

When we saw the Truth and Reconciliation Commission come through town, we lost so many members who had gone and shared their story. When you share that, it’s releasing something, but also, it’s bringing back that ugliness that they lived, and they were reliving those moments. There were so many suicides. There were violent fights with families because of these things happening and because of what they had brought forward.

I’ve gone through 20 years of counselling. It’s really tough work to unravel all that stuff that you’re carrying around and that you’ve learned from your parents. I know other people have. It’s probably not as bad as what I have but anyways. My mom and my dad — it’s just the way of that era, of what they had taught me.

Anyway, it’s a lot of work to release that also. Even today, just speaking about what I’m doing right now, it’s going to be heavy. It’s going to be really heavy, but I know our government is going to continue to protect the Charter and constitutional rights of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples alike. I would encourage all members of this House to do the same.

I went off my speaking notes, hon. Speaker.

The other thing that I wanted to touch on was that Kuper Island — which is across from Chemainus, where I live — was one of the first two residential schools across the country that even started. It was known as Canada’s Alcatraz.

[4:20 p.m.]

Beverly and Patricia Joseph drowned trying to escape this place. Then several children drowned between 1889 to 1975. Let that sink in for a minute. I was five years old. There were still kids trying to swim and get away from that place. I listened to the Elders from Kuper. Now it’s called Penelakut because Kuper is an old colonial name. It’s called Penelakut Island. I know I’m saying it wrong. I apologize. I have trouble with names. I inherited it from my dad — pronunciations.

They shared about being forced over to this island. They were taken on the bus, as the member had mentioned earlier. They thought they were going to the movies. They were all told they were going to the movies. How exciting. All these kids are getting into the bus, and they’re going to the movies.

As they’re on the ferry going across to Penelakut, Kuper Island, they turn back, and their villages were being burnt down, destroyed. They never went back to that home, where they knew where home was.

Just other things that happened along that way. All their rights were taken. Their hair was cut. In our culture, when you cut your hair, it means both parents are dead. You’re orphaned. You’re an orphan now. That’s what that meant.

So they were quite devastated seeing this village burn down, their village, going over to this residential school, having their hair cut. You’re just a child. You don’t know. You don’t know what’s going on, so you just believe the adults in the room about what’s happening.

We hear from Indigenous members in our communities every day about concerns that they have about the increased presence of residential school denialism. The denialism has a very real impact on our communities. Many survivors are still struggling with mental and physical health issues stemming from their time at residential schools.

When comments emerged suggesting that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was lying — the victims are the witnesses who endured these painful memories and provided their testimonies — it was very hurtful.

I just hope that members will take this opportunity to get behind this motion and uphold the reality of what happened in our country, and it’s simple to. This is unacceptable. We owe this to our community. We owe this to the Elders that went through that pain and trauma. This is not a partisan issue. The courts have long upheld the affirmation of the existence of Indigenous rights and title. Not only do these rights exist, but we know British Columbia is better off when we work in partnership with Indigenous Peoples.

[4:25 p.m.]

I have heard so many things where we need to be included in those conversations, going forward. It is complicated. If you look at just your families, like, if you have a small family or a large family. My sister has a different idea of how she wants to approach an issue. I have a different idea. We have five years’ difference.

Oh, I’m not going to say how old she is because she’s going to give me heck. She is my older sister, though.

My aunt came to me and said: “You guys have to work through this.” I’m upset, and she’s upset, and it’s just like that.

We have so many nations. We have over 200 nations in B.C., and it is going to take a long time to unravel the mess that we have collectively got ourselves into, because we’re part of that. We’re part of that entangled mess, right? Our people are just trying to get out of that. They just want to get on.

We do want to be, and we are, contributing people in our society. We have jobs. We buy houses. We buy cars. We pay taxes. We do all of these things. We don’t get anything for free. When people say that we get things for free, oh, my gosh.

Live a day in the Elder…. I would not want to, by the way: how painful. How painful. It was a lot of pain and suffering to get to where we are today, and it’s a tragic chapter in our Canadian history.

I know. Like I said, my dad and my mom…. My dad is Chinese, so there was some racism happening there too. Within our municipalities, within our communities, there are these policies that we need to change.

I do recognize that the Elders say that we can’t do things really quickly, because we can stumble and fall on our face. Those are the things that they said. But we can take one step at a time to correct the wrongs of yesterday, and we should do this together.

This isn’t saying that we think the other person is wrong about doing this. We’re all in this together, and we all need to fix this together. It’s not about blame. It’s not about shame for me. I’m just saying. This is about looking at what we have been moving towards, what we have already started, and not taking 20 steps back when we already took ten steps forward.

I have hope. I shared with my Elder that we have a right. We have this right. We have this right in this House to share our voice, share our truth, the truth that we know. That’s for everyone, and everybody is going to benefit. It’s not just an Indigenous thing. It’s everybody’s thing.

I just wanted to share that because I think…. My spouse says this to me all the time: “You start a story, and you go off into another one.” Going back to the yacht club. I said to please share with your friends that I’m not here to fight with them. I’m here to fight with the policies and those procedures that tied our hands and tied our people back.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

We just want to move forward. We want to live, and we just want the freedom to do it. I’m going to leave it at that. I probably could go on some more, but I will not.

I just wanted to share a little bit more history about what we’ve gone through.

[4:30 p.m.]

Rohini Arora: Just sitting in this House and listening to our Matriarch the MLA for Vancouver-Strathcona, my dear friend, and the MLA for Cowichan Valley share their experiences, what they’ve been through, how it’s shaped them and how they look forward toward the future — all at the same time, finding moments of laughter and the small joys that matter, to help people that are suffering get through their lives — is something I feel very deeply.

When I heard that this motion was coming up, I wanted to speak to it because I support it. It’s an important motion that deeply matters, not just to Indigenous communities but to all of us as good settlers that are on this land.

I just want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən, including the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, who have been here since time immemorial. I will move on this territory with respect.

I also want to acknowledge my amazing sisters: the Minister of Environment and Parks for putting this important motion forward; our Matriarch the MLA for Vancouver-Strathcona; and the MLA for Cowichan Valley. As Indigenous members of our caucus, I’m truly, truly grateful to be here with you, learning from you together as we do this work.

There was a day when our caucus was having a conversation, and the topic was difficult. I had to speak about something that really mattered to me. It’s so amazing when you are around people of different walks of life, with different experiences, because the way they even navigate an issue or deal with a problem can look different than the way that you’re used to it.

I was given a rock by the Minister of Environment and Parks. She told me to hold onto it and that when I talk about things that are difficult, it will help me stay grounded. I carry that rock with me everywhere I go.

It’s helped me in more situations than you will ever know.

Thank you.

Today I just want to talk about why it is essential — morally, socially and nationally — to support Indigenous Peoples with a focus on the history of residential schools and the heartbreaking and urgent crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people, especially here in B.C. We carry a responsibility to not only witness these injustices but to act. Let’s start with a truth that should guide us all: Indigenous rights are human rights.

To understand why support is needed, we have to start by understanding the context, how we got here. It’s so disappointing to know that we have to have this conversation in 2025, as many of the members spoke about earlier.

I have to say I was extremely disappointed to hear the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke earlier talk about needing to take action. It is under this government that UNDRIP was brought in. It’s under this government that an action plan has been created. Not to mention that there are three strong women that belong to Indigenous and First Nations communities within our caucus and that are helping to guide a lot of our work.

For generations, Indigenous Peoples in Canada have faced systemic injustices; forced removal from their lands; residential schools; the Sixties Scoop; overpolicing; underprotection; poverty; racism in the health care, education and justice systems.

[4:35 p.m.]

The colonization of Turtle Island and the colonial policies of Canada were designed not just to assimilate Indigenous People but to erase their cultures, families and identities. These policies didn’t just happen in the past; their legacy is still active today. The trauma is intergenerational; but as we’ve got to witness here today, so are the strength, the resistance and the resilience of Indigenous communities.

One of the most urgent issues is the ongoing national crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and two-spirit. According to the national inquiry on MMIWG2S, Indigenous women are 12 times more likely to be murdered or go missing than any other women in Canada. In some areas, including parts of B.C., that number is even higher.

Why is this happening? It’s because Indigenous women are at the intersection of multiple systems of oppression: racism, sexism, colonialism and poverty. For decades, they’ve been ignored, dismissed and devalued by the very systems that are supposed to protect them.

The Highway of Tears is B.C.’s tragic legacy here in British Columbia. We know this crisis intimately. The Highway of Tears, a stretch of Highway 16 between Prince George and Prince Rupert, is a symbol of this tragedy. Since the 1970s, dozens of Indigenous women and girls have gone missing or have been found murdered along this route. Many of their cases remain unsolved. Many families are still waiting for justice.

This isn’t just about crime; it’s about how society values Indigenous women and people. When reports are ignored, when media coverage is minimal, when cases are mishandled, it sends a message that Indigenous lives don’t matter as much. That is something we cannot and we must not accept.

The national inquiry into MMIWG2S, completed in 2019, called this crisis a Canadian genocide. That’s a strong word, and it’s one that some people still struggle with, but it reflects the truth. The inquiry identified systemic racism in policing, health care, the justice system and social services. Families told stories of being ignored when they reported their loved ones missing. Police sometimes didn’t even open files or launch meaningful searches. When Indigenous women are victims, they’re often blamed or stereotyped.

Supporting Indigenous people means demanding better. It means pushing for accountability from all levels of government and governmental bodies; culturally safe health care; support for Indigenous-led services — work that this government continues to do; and real implementation of the 231 calls for justice that came out of the MMIWG2S inquiry.

Support is not passive. It’s not just about sympathy; it’s about listening, learning, showing up and pushing for systemic change. It means ensuring that we have more and more Indigenous-led initiatives, shelters, mental health services, legal aid, language programs and cultural revitalization. It means education, making sure that every Canadian learns the true history of colonization, residential schools and Indigenous resistance.

It is wild to be standing here and have to say that there are members within this very Legislature that have perpetuated further harm against Indigenous communities by denying residential schools and the children that we know are there.

You might be wondering why does this matter to me if I’m not Indigenous? It’s because injustice anywhere affects justice everywhere. As a person who has reckoned with the fact that I am a colonial settler, I’m doing my duty and standing against oppression in all forms, but in this moment, I am standing with Indigenous People, the children who didn’t make it out of the residential school system, the survivors and their families and missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and two-spirit.

[4:40 p.m.]

In India, before 1947, the same colonizer was on our lands. I remember my mom went back to India to visit. It was probably the late 1980s. She told me that if a British soldier — I jumped ahead, but I’ll explain why that matters — were standing in the alleyway, even if you’re pregnant, you had to crawl. You had to crawl in the alleyway. You couldn’t walk past them.

Dehumanization is a theme that is felt in every part of this world, and it looks a particular way. That’s what we as Sikhs have in common with the Indigenous People of this land. We share the same colonizer. We were displaced from the border. We had to move across, lost our family members.

My grandmother had to be transported. It was Muslims who saved my grandmother, because she was a Hindu on the Pakistan side of the border. To get her across the border safely, they had to pretend it was a dead body — to be able to move her across. She’s one of many stories, and that intergenerational trauma lives on.

See, we don’t have the benefit of being white. We don’t get to benefit off of that system here. We know different contexts. We know what it looks like in another country. We know the impact that it has on our communities, from our grandparents to our parents to us as children trying to break these generational cycles. We’ve had access to more opportunity and more education, and we’re able to get resources like counselling.

If we live in a country where a whole population can be systemically neglected, violated and erased, then none of us are truly safe. A country that allows a cultural genocide, racism and apathy to continue is not the kind of country any of us should want to live in. People here have to understand, including some of the members.

Today the focus seems like it’s on Indigenous people. Tomorrow it could be any one of them, for any reason, something they cannot control. It’s why we have to push for progress, because if we don’t, we will regress.

More than that, Indigenous Peoples have always cared for this land. Their knowledge, teachings, languages and stewardship are part of the richness of this place. When we support Indigenous People, we are helping to heal the land, restore balance and move toward a more just society.

I want to pause here and reflect on the human side of all this. This isn’t just about statistics. It’s about parents, families, grandparents, mothers, aunties, uncles, brothers, fathers. These are people, not facts and just figures. These are real people. People like Tamara Chipman, who went missing near Prince Rupert in 2005. She was a young Haida mother, only 22 years old.

Loretta Saunders, a university student, was writing her thesis on MMIWG when she became a victim herself in 2014. Can you believe that? She’s writing her thesis, trying to make change, trying to use the colonizers’ tools of academia to get people to believe that this was an actual situation. She didn’t make it to the end so that she could defend that thesis.

Their stories are real. Their families are still grieving. They deserve justice. More than that, they deserve to be remembered with dignity and action.

What can we do? We have to continuously educate ourselves and others. Learn about the history. Read the Truth and Reconciliation’s 94 calls to action. Read the 231 calls for justice from the MMIWG inquiry. Share them. Talk about them.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you. I see we have a report from Section A. Would you reserve your place and adjourn the debate? Then we’ll hear the report, and you can continue. Reserve your place and move a motion to adjourn the debate.

Rohini Arora: I reserve my place, and I move a motion to adjourn the debate.

Rohini Arora moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[4:45 p.m.]

Susie Chant: Madam Speaker, Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and asks leaves to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In Committee A, I call committee stage, Bill 7, Economic Stabilization Act.

In this chamber, I call continued debate on Motion 18.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 18 — Indigenous Rights and
Recognition of Historical
Wrongs and Legacies
(continued)

Rohini Arora: Just to remind folks where I was at and also to remind myself: what can we do? I mentioned that we can educate ourselves, learn the history, but we can also support Indigenous-led organizations, whether it’s by donating, volunteering or amplifying their work. Support the people doing the work on the ground.

Hold governments accountable — all levels of government, as the member for Cowichan Valley mentioned, even at the municipal level. It does take money. It does take some funding, but it’s important. And equity is work that’s ongoing. We can’t reach inclusion as an outcome without doing that work.

Push for meaningful investment in Indigenous communities. That’s an important piece as well, something this government is doing as well.

Listen to Indigenous voices. Amplify Indigenous creators, journalists, leaders and Elders. Centre their voices in the conversation about their rights. Respect their land and titles.

As we heard from both MLAs for Vancouver-Strathcona and for Cowichan Valley, legal precedents have affirmed the existence of Indigenous rights and title.

And it’s really important to understand the difference between being an ally and having a saviour complex. Stand in solidarity, not in front. Let Indigenous people lead, and follow their direction.

There is a future we can build. It’s hard work, it’s painful, it’s emotional, it’s heavy, but it’s also hopeful. Because when we choose to face the truth, when we choose to support Indigenous communities not just in words but in deeds, like this motion….

I’m sure that when the Minister of Environment and Parks got elected and was appointed to her position, when the MLA for Vancouver-Strathcona and the MLA for Cowichan Valley as Indigenous members — Indigenous women within their caucus, within this caucus — were elected, I don’t think that they thought that they were going to come in here and have to hear harmful words and commentary about residential school denialism. Yet here we are.

So yeah, this motion does matter. We do have to have these conversations. It’s not just about economic reconciliation. It’s about the truth — the truth in truth and reconciliation. We are choosing a future that is more just, more compassionate and more connected.

To the countless children who never made it home, survivors of the residential school system, Indigenous women and girls and two-spirit folks who are still missing: we see you.

To their families: we stand with you.

And to Indigenous Peoples across B.C. and Canada: you matter. Your lives matter. Your futures matter.

It’s time to walk forward together — with truth, with heart and with action.

Stephanie Higginson: There has been a lot of speakers today, so I just want to take a couple of minutes briefly to respond to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke who clearly stated that he was speaking on behalf of all members opposite, some of whom have actually put headphones in so they won’t have to listen to these responses today.

[4:50 p.m.]

Meaningful reconciliation begins with the truth. Every time a statement is made in these chambers, the people’s House, that denies the experiences of Canada’s collective history, this government will respond. We will remind people why this work is important and the impact of their words on people across British Columbia.

Because what members opposite call wedge politics, this government calls the truth.

Because what members opposite call virtue signalling, this government calls the truth. What is actually virtue signalling and wedge politics is using your incredible position of privilege in this House to deny and dismiss the truth.

This government knows that the messy work, the hard work of meaningful reconciliation begins with the truth, and we will respond every single time it is denied and dismissed.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I move to close debate.

Deputy Speaker: The question is adoption of the motion.

Division has been called.

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of Motion 18 on the order paper.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate, Bill 5.

[5:05 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene: I wanted to make note that the former member for Richmond-Queensborough, Aman Singh, is in the House. He’s dedicated so much of his life to making the province a better place for everyone.

I would like everybody to make him feel welcome back on the floor.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, be read a second time now.

Bill 5 consists of two parts. In part 1, the bill amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to include the 2027-2028 fiscal year in the period of fiscal years that may contain a deficit in the main estimates. This is consistent with similar amendments made in recent years.

Budget 2025 includes a three-year fiscal plan extending to ’27-28, and it includes deficit forecasts for each of the three years of the fiscal plan. This proposed amendment ensures that the fiscal plan as presented in Budget 2025 is in line with legislation and past practice.

Part 2 of Bill 5 amends several statutes to implement the tax measures in Budget 2025. The bill amends the School Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act to create provincial property tax exemptions for First Nations interests in specific properties that are vacant or that are used for cultural or community purposes. This measure is the result of collaborative engagement with First Nations and represents an important step forward on the path to reconciliation.

The Taxation (Rural Area) Act is also amended to provide a property tax exemption for lands and improvements in rural areas with treaty-designated foreshore areas that are owned or held by a modern treaty First Nation or its public institutions. The exemption will bring the property tax treatment of modern treaty First Nations in line with other local governments that are typically exempt from the property taxes in areas where they exercise governance authorities.

The bill amends the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act to increase the tax rate in 2026 from 0.5 percent to 1 percent for Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are not untaxed worldwide earners, and from 2 percent to 3 percent for foreign owners and untaxed worldwide earners.

The new tax rate will apply to the speculation and vacancy tax payable by property owners based on the use of their residential properties during the 2026 calendar year and onward. Increasing speculation and vacancy tax rates will turn more vacant homes into housing for people and help ensure that residential properties are used as homes rather than investments.

In conjunction with these tax rate increases, the bill increases the speculation and vacancy tax credit for B.C. residents from $2,000 to $4,000 to reflect the higher tax rate. British Columbians with a second home in the taxable areas will continue to be exempt from the speculation and vacancy tax for the first $400,000 assessed value of their home through this tax credit.

The bill also amends the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act to authorize the Lieutenant Governor in Council to exclude the Predator Ridge resort from the speculation and vacancy tax retroactive to January 1, 2024.

The bill also amends the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act to consider medical certifications completed by nurse practitioners for health-related exemptions. This amendment provides another avenue for property owners to demonstrate eligibility for health-related exemptions during this difficult period in their lives.

The bill amends the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act to increase the maximum parking tax rate that TransLink can charge from 24 percent to 29 percent.

[5:10 p.m.]

The bill amends the Income Tax Act to enhance tax incentives for the motion picture industry in British Columbia. The bill enables the increase of the basic Film Incentive B.C. credit from 35 percent to 40 percent and the basic production services tax credit from 28 percent to 36 percent. These new rates apply to productions with principal photography beginning after December 31, 2024.

The bill also introduces a new tax credit for production services tax credit claimants with B.C. production costs greater than $200 million. The new credit will provide an additional credit of 2 percent on B.C. labour expenditures for eligible major productions. This will effectively increase the basic production services tax credit from 36 to 38 percent for these productions. This new tax credit will be available upon completion of the production, with eligibility starting for productions that begin principal photography after December 31, 2024.

This enhanced tax credit incentive is designed to attract large-scale film and television productions to British Columbia, strengthening the province’s motion picture sector and ensuring that good-paying industry jobs remain in B.C.

The bill also amends the Income Tax Act to allow production corporations working on animation productions with a brick-and-mortar presence outside the designated Vancouver area to claim the regional and distant location tax credits, either under the Film Incentive B.C. tax credit or the production services tax credit. The change applies to animation productions that begin principal photography after December 31, 2024.

Productions will be required to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the new rules to qualify for the regional and distant location tax credits. Production corporations found to be non-compliant will not be eligible for the regional and distant location tax credits or may not qualify for other tax credit amounts provided under the Film Incentive B.C. and production service tax credits. This measure will help ensure we retain talent in B.C. and foster the continued development of the animation industry outside the greater Vancouver area.

Bill 5 amends the Income Tax Act to increase the interactive digital media tax credit from 17.5 percent to 25 percent for eligible salaries and wages paid in B.C. after August 31, 2025. The program is also made permanent, to provide interactive digital media companies with certainty for long-term investment.

The bill increases the annual limit for individuals under the small business venture capital tax credit from $120,000 to $300,000, to allow for larger individual investments in eligible corporations.

The bill amends a number of other income tax credits under the Income Tax Act. The bill extends the clean buildings tax credit to March 31, 2026, and the training tax credit for apprentices to the end of 2028. It further amends the enhanced training tax credit for apprentices to ensure that those who are eligible for the enhanced credit for First Nations individuals or persons with a disability continue to receive the enhanced credit after the federal apprenticeship initiative grant expires on March 31, 2025. And it extends payments under the B.C. family benefit for grieving parents.

Finally, the bill makes various technical changes to harmonize with the federal income tax provisions as well as other technical amendments.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kelowna Centre. Sorry, Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: Thank you. Yeah, you don’t want to mix up those two K towns, Madam Chair. It gets feisty in both those cities when you get mixed up, so I appreciate the correction.

I rise to speak to Bill 5, and I’m sure it’ll please the various members of the government that are here that I will not — I repeat, not — be our designated speaker. I will just be the 30 minutes or less in this case with Bill 5.

Really, Bill 5 is an interesting bill this year, given where we are at with our current budget and how things are moving forward.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s interesting. The minister started off by talking about clause 1, which is the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. I would point out the only time that that clause has been amended in recent history — in fact, I think since the implementation of that act — has been while the NDP have been in government. Most recently, only under this current government, has it been extended. It’s been extended now…. I believe this is the third or the fourth time that it’s had to be extended.

I find it interesting that it’s only been delaying the requirement for budgets to be balanced in the forecast for the main estimates until 2028, given where the forecast deficits are — let alone the exponential growth we’re seeing in the projected deficit just a few days into the new fiscal year that we’re currently in.

This is, I guess, the opposition’s conundrum when it comes to Bill 5. Bill 5 is a series of tax measures meant to be implemented within the budget that was presented on March 4. As the minister pointed out, a great many of them are tax measures that will be retroactive, some back a couple of years, some back a year. But significant dollars attached to those. When you’re talking film and production credits, potentially significant — tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of tax credits, retroactive….

So here we are a week removed from carbon tax removal legislation — or is it two weeks? It might be two weeks removed — with that legislation and that removal of those tax measures that were not retroactive. We were assured by the government they had to be implemented immediately or else it wouldn’t work. Fair enough, but now we are finding ourselves debating budget measures implementation on a budget of some tax measures but not all tax measures. That’s really, at its core, what we’re looking at.

Bill 5 has been introduced, by all accounts, with comments made by the Finance Minister in and around the introduction of Bill 5 but certainly around the credit downgrades that we received from our bond-rating agencies. The minister acknowledged that the government was always fully expecting that we would see credit downgrades this year. So we have Bill 5 implementing tax measures on the backdrop of a government knowing they were going to get credit downgrades while enacting a budget, and the Bill 5 that goes with it, at the same time.

Now, the two credit downgrades are significant because what they do is…. Well, first off, it’s four credit downgrades under this current Premier now that we will have seen in the two short years that he has been Premier. But they’re significant, because when you have credit downgrades, it impacts the ability for other tax measures to be taken, other spending priorities to be taken.

Across this province right now, when you’re seeing school districts grapple with the reality that they are going to be faced with, with their funding envelopes for this coming year not being adequate…. In Kamloops, where I’m from, they just announced 77 jobs will be lost in the Kamloops school district this year — 77 jobs that will not have been properly funded in the budget by this government.

Yet this government refuses, in the face of this budget, to acknowledge that they are making cuts, because they are passing the cut-making over to other boards and other agencies to have to do the dirty work and heavy lifting for this government. And the government tries to stand up and say that they’re not making cuts.

Now, that’s on a backdrop of a Premier that campaigned that this coming budget that we’re debating currently would actually have funding for a teaching assistant in every K to grade 3 classroom this year. That’s not in the budget. Not only is that not in the budget, but we’re going to see cuts to existing teaching assistants and educational assistants and teachers and custodial staff.

In Vancouver, we’re seeing bus drivers for children with special needs being told that they are going to see a 23 percent reduction in their salaries. The Vancouver school board is walking away from a commitment for a living wage for their staff. Surrey is having to cut vital programs for their school district. But in this government’s view, they have not made any cuts.

It’s simply not good enough. When you read through Bill 5, what you realize, and I said this on budget day, is that this budget was a budget full of missed opportunity. We have a budget document in Bill 5 for the taxation measures with scant taxation measures for the broader business community to rally behind in the face of a tariff war.

[5:20 p.m.]

There is certainly a lot in this bill to deal with film credits. Those have long been lobbied for. I think we can all understand the film industry in British Columbia. It was one of the first things the government did. It seemed to be their only priority, after they were sworn in as ministers: to jet down to Los Angeles and come back, touting the fact that they flew down to tell film production that there’d be more tax credits in British Columbia, retroactive tax credits. Productions can claim retroactivity on that — unlike the carbon tax, which was apparently impossible to make retroactive.

Frankly, that is it when it comes to the significance of the tax changes in this year’s budget. We have the government assuring that they’re allowed to run deficits, in Bill 5, and the vast majority of tax measures are revolving around film. Now, why that’s a problem and why that’s a missed opportunity is that it does nothing. Despite all this government’s talk about trying to shelter and help British Columbians in the face of a tariff war, we don’t see any of that reflected, not only in the budget but certainly in Bill 5, to enact that.

What I mean by that is that what Bill 5 should have is a series of tax measures that would be complementary to Bill 7, which is supposed to be removing, or trying to remove, interprovincial trade barriers in Canada. While you need the tax measures in Bill 5 to be complementary to that, it simply does not make any sense when B.C. is already the highest-cost, least-competitive jurisdiction in Canada for businesses to operate in.

Be it forestry, be it light manufacturing, you name it, they all say the same thing: our business confidence levels are at an all-time low. We do not see any of that reflected in Bill 5. As a consequence of that, nothing of that nature is reflected in the budget itself. That’s the missed opportunity we’re talking about: making B.C. companies competitive, making B.C.’s companies want to invest what little investment dollars they have in British Columbia, as opposed to other provinces, in the face of a tariff war.

Remember, we have a 23 percent tariff equivalent drag on the B.C. economy with interprovincial trade barriers within Canada. Removing those interprovincial trade barriers is absolutely important, and it’s the right thing to do. We need to do that, regardless of the threat from the United States, but if we’re not a competitive jurisdiction against an Alberta company, a Saskatchewan company or an Ontario company, and you open up our borders, because we remove the protectionism that envelops B.C., our businesses are at a disadvantage.

They then have an important decision to make. Do they continue to try to operate out of B.C., or do they move out of B.C.? I think what we should be striving for is for them not only to be continuing to operate in B.C. but to want to expand what they do in British Columbia.

That’s important, because when 50 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds in British Columbia say they are looking to move out of province because they can no longer afford to live and work here, they need to know that there’s a future, that their jobs are secure, that expansion may happen and that other spinoff-type companies and jobs may be created out of that.

How you attract that investment is you make sure that in bills like Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, there are tax measures to help more than the film industry. I’m not begrudging the film industry. They talk with us all the time. They lobby all the time; we get that. But a government should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. There should have been tax measures that would actually help spur on investment in British Columbia.

The tipping point for LNG to go ahead in B.C., among other things, was a $600 million PST holiday granted by the NDP government at the time. They did that because they wanted LNG to have a competitive footing to make their investment.

[5:25 p.m.]

They’re providing a tax break, in Bill 5, to the film industry, because they want the film industry to be on a competitive footing with other film production jurisdictions. But they’re not providing any relief to the forest industry in Bill 5, which is under serious threat from jurisdictions around North America. The forest industry, their companies are investing in forestry; they’re just not investing in British Columbia forestry right now, because it is too high cost, too high risk of a jurisdiction to operate in.

I get that the Finance Minister can’t take away some of the risk in terms of permitting and things of that nature, but the Finance Minister could have had, in Bill 5, tax measures that would have helped the forest industry, to take away some of that investment risk, to not only secure the existing jobs we have but to hopefully see incremental growth in other aspects, especially as you try to remove interprovincial trade barriers. That’s just one aspect that’s missing from this.

There’s nothing for light manufacturing in here. We have a lot of manufacturing that happens in B.C. Some goes down to the States, but a lot tries to go interprovincial. Again, if the government was truly serious about removing interprovincial trade barriers, why does Bill 5 not reflect that in any way, shape or form?

We have a record deficit in the budget, of $11 billion that, as we now know, based on the removal of carbon tax, is $13 billion and climbing. Based on the government’s projections, if tariffs take effect and hit B.C., it will climb to $14.5 billion. But nothing in Bill 5 to counteract that. Nothing.

At the pace that the government has moved on the tariff file, one has to wonder, if the federal government starts to actually return back to B.C. the reciprocal tariff funds at a proportionate rate, what that would actually look like. The government won’t tell us what those plans are, and there are certainly no plans reflected in Bill 5 around tax measures where that federal money would be offset with it.

Another interesting piece in Bill 5 is the change to the DigiBC tax credit. I say that’s interesting because DigiBC has been lobbying the NDP government since 2018 for the changes we see in this year’s budget. Year after year the government has said: “Thanks, but no thanks. That’s not what we’re prioritizing for a tax break.” Now with the new Finance Minister, that’s taking effect.

Forestry, you’re out in the cold; no tax breaks for you. I would point out forestry has been looking for competitiveness measures for long time as well. Governments have to make choices. Governments have to prioritize. They can’t necessarily say yes to everybody. I think that’s well understood.

This government chose to say no to DigiBC from 2018 until this year. New ministers across the board…. I’m sure there were other priorities when we switched from Carole James to Selina Robinson, Selina Robinson to Katrine Conroy, Katrine Conroy to the current minister we have now. That’s a natural course of business for any government to do. It is interesting, though, that in 2018, it was this Finance Minister that was lobbying on behalf of DigiBC for those tax breaks, as their lobbyist.

Again, all we can do as an opposition is look at what tax measures are in Bill 5 or not, more importantly what’s not in Bill 5, and try to get a sense of where the priority of this government is in terms of growing our economy when they say they’re trying to be on a path to a balanced budget. In clause 1, they say they only need to delay the requirement for balanced budgets in the forecast for the main estimates until 2028. It’s a three-year fiscal plan.

[5:30 p.m.]

There’s nothing in there that says they’re going to go from the $14 billion deficit that we’re currently sitting at to zero by 2028. But clause 1 in Bill 5 is pretty optimistic. The only optimism this government has shown to try to grow the overall economy is for film credits for existing film productions, because it’s retroactive, and DigiBC.

Again, this isn’t a statement against either of those two, but there are a lot more industries, businesses and manufacturing in British Columbia, screaming for help from this government, which have been ignored in Bill 5, a great many more.

This government started looking at electric vehicles as the path to emissions control. It was with great fanfare, a couple years ago, that they removed the PST from used electric vehicles. They also made a lot of changes around the PST being charged on gas vehicles that were used, and the valuation of that. I believe it was actually the Finance Minister at the time that characterized people as tax cheats that were buying used vehicles. That’s partly why we had to change the taxation system.

I know some members over there are looking like…. What am I talking about? We’ll pull the quotes; don’t worry. There are a lot of them, about people buying used cars, undervaluing them and going into ICBC and getting their transfer papers and being tax cheats because they dared to buy a $5,000 used car to try to have something reliable to get to and from work. The Minister of Finance wasn’t Minister of Finance at the time, but that’s how she characterized them: as tax cheats.

So we had to bring in software that, conveniently, makes sure it values vehicles at a much higher value than the same ICBC office would if you go to write your car off. The software they use for that values your car much differently than the one they say when you’re purchasing a vehicle. It’s to make sure they get maximum tax out of you when you’re buying a used vehicle. That was all around the same time.

A lot of fanfare: “We’re removing the PST on used electric vehicles.” Well that clause has been removed in Bill 5. Electric vehicles will be taxed like every other vehicle, which is okay. We can understand that. It does make one wonder, though. In the same year that this government, propped up by the Greens, is removing incentive for people to buy a used electric vehicle, they’re removing carbon tax, which was supposed to fund all these green initiatives. They won’t tell us what green initiatives will or won’t be cut.

When we hear spending right now on programs that get announced, of $100 million here and $100 million there…. There’s a caveat that we’re not sure how long these programs might last for with the change in carbon tax coming in. Now we see at least a cut. Well, it’s really a cut. It will add tax revenues to the government by removing used electric vehicles as being PST exempt.

That’s the fundamental, interesting part around this: instead of acknowledging that times are tough and that a lot of people might be buying lower-value used vehicles, just to try to make ends meet — especially as used vehicles are going to start spiking in price again, based on the tariff war and scarcity around that — and instead of removing a tax from all used vehicles, electric or gas, this government’s response is to add tax to the electric vehicle.

So now you have a more expensive used vehicle in an electric car, to begin with. This government wants you to pay the full tax on it and thinks that people will gladly do that, instead of just trying to make ends meet in the here and now, and worry less about amortizing four or five years’ worth of buying gas at a gas station. That’s the mindset we see play out in Bill 5.

[5:35 p.m.]

Normally, budget measures bills just show how little is in this year’s budget and how much of a missed opportunity this government had to try to reshape the private sector in British Columbia, to reinvigorate the investment climate, to take away that risk factor of governmental cost layered onto either new capital coming in, expanding your existing operation, just figuring out a way to keep your doors open, or maximizing your opportunity if this government actually manages to follow through.

I say “if” with a big question mark, because I don’t think they’re actually going to pull it off: removing interprovincial trade barriers and fully maximizing that advantage, to make sure that our small manufacturers, our value-added sectors, be it in wood or in all the sorts of light manufacturing we see all over B.C., have full, unfettered access to the rest of Canada in a competitive way, so that that their tax structure is competitive with the rest of the country.

Missed opportunities. Bill 5 is less than a quarter-inch thick. Most years, the budget measures implementation bill is about three-quarters of an inch to an inch thick. That’s how many tax changes are being made by a government in any given year.

In a year when they have so few tax measures, over half of which, of that volume, are to deal with the film industry, it’s all very procedural. The concept is very easy to understand, but there are just lots of clauses you have to adjust, given that it is tax law. It creates a lot of volume, but it doesn’t really change the concept that each clause isn’t just building upon the next.

In a year with that light of a budget measures implementation bill, they couldn’t find the time to put in any other types of tax measures to support small and medium-sized businesses in this province, which have been desperately screaming for it. Study after study shows that business confidence in B.C. is plummeting.

They couldn’t find the time to properly model out and very clearly tell residents of British Columbia what a post-carbon-tax B.C. looks like. Despite referencing a balanced budget by 2028 in clause 1, that they aim to be back by that year, they leave out that they’re removing $10 billion of revenue, with the carbon tax decision, to aim for that target in clause 1.

Perhaps they should be upfront with everyone and give a better year than 2028 and just say the part that everyone knows but that no one wants to say out loud if you’re in government: that they will not be back in balanced budgets anywhere near 2028. In 2035 maybe, or 2037? This is a government that refuses to acknowledge they’re even making cuts, when school districts around this province are hacking and slashing right now — a workforce that’s largely unions that are direct supporters of this government.

The leadership of those unions must be a little disillusioned right now. It should make for a very interesting public sector bargaining round coming forward, when you have 80 percent of the public service up for renegotiations. They’re looking at the lack of transparency in this government of where we are headed, and government says, “There’s a hiring freeze” to those unions, but there’s not a hiring freeze if you’re a political communication staffer. Hire away at that point. It’s open season. Hire, hire, hire. Promote, promote, promote.

If you’re political staff, especially political communications staff, “You’re in; you’re fine. Don’t worry about it. We’ll find money for you.” If you drive a school bus, in the Vancouver school district, for children with disabilities, you’re going to get a 23 percent pay cut. That’s the attitude of this government, which says they’re looking out for the average person out there.

[5:40 p.m.]

We do look forward to committee stage on Bill 5. There are a lot of questions. Although it’s a thin bill, there are a lot of questions around how decisions were made by this government, how priorities were made. We look forward to canvassing that. I know I have a lot of members that have a lot to say, as well, about Bill 5 and the interconnectivity to the overall budget, because there are just so many touchpoints, even within Bill 5.

We’ve already heard the government talk about how TransLink will be able to move the off-street parking tax to 29 percent. Well, that’s in Bill 5. Going from 24 to 29 percent more tax on off-street parking for TransLink is in Bill 5. Now, we can understand why TransLink needs more money. That’s well known.

What’s not in Bill 5, but the government keeps talking about it, is this mythical or magical new revenue stream. The government won’t tell us about that. They won’t answer that. We don’t know if it’s buried in Bill 7. We don’t know if…. It’s certainly not in Bill 5. It’s certainly not in the budget.

We’ll have questions, and we’ll start figuring that out as we get into the parking tax, the off-street parking tax, that’s in this.

Suffice it to say that when the government fundamentally changed the ground rules of the moment-in-time budget, as they like to call it now — we call it a fudge-it budget — it’s two very conflicting views of the budget. One’s very clearly highlighting just how inaccurate it is. The other view is that it’s a snapshot in time. Well, I guess today is a snapshot in time. By the time we get to committee stage on Bill 5, it’ll be a new snapshot in time.

I do have several colleagues that do have concerns about how the overall budget ties in with Bill 5 and the missed opportunities out there and what they’re hearing in their constituencies of what constituents and businesses — small and medium-sized businesses — were hoping to see for tax measures. They want to bring voice to those businesses that are lying awake at night wondering if they’re even going to still be in operation, wondering how they break that to their staff — people that have been employed for ten to 15 years wondering if they’re going to be laid off.

That’s what’s actually happening in this moment in time in our ridings. They expect some answers from the government. When we point them to Bill 5, there are none, unless they’re in the film industry, and even then, as we all know, film industry can be erratic at times in terms of decisions around productions. It employs a lot of great people, a lot of great skills in British Columbia.

Again, we’re not saying you shouldn’t be supporting film industry, but we are saying: where the heck are all the other supports for all those other businesses and employers in B.C. that are missing out on Bill 5?

I thank you for the time on this, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.

Hon Chan: It is with deep concern and, frankly, with frustration that I rise today to speak on Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act of 2025.

Let’s be clear. This is not just a housekeeping bill. It highlights the consequence of poor leadership. It reveals the complete absence of vision, discipline and accountability from this NDP government, a government that has led our province into not one but two downgrades, actually four downgrades, under this Premier’s watch.

[5:45 p.m.]

This government conveniently shifts all its failure onto someone else. This time they have found a new scapegoat, Donald Trump. What a perfect storm for their excuses. Somehow, apparently, the Premier of British Columbia now wants us to believe that every single crisis — from the record budget deficit, from the debt to the lack of trade policy, from record deaths due to illicit drugs, to the record number of people leaving the province, all of which occurred before Donald Trump ever came into power — can be blamed on this new U.S. President.

Even worse, this government is now turning around and accusing us, the opposition, of not supporting British Columbians, of somehow siding against them in this economic storm.

I want to make something perfectly clear. We are against these U.S. tariffs, but we are also against the NDP’s failed approach to managing this crisis.

To the member opposite: stop spreading misinformation. Stop blaming your failures on someone else. Stop acting like President Trump, spreading misinformation and lies. Stop acting like President Trump, wanting power to sign executive orders while getting away from legislative supervision.

I mentioned the multiple credit downgrades just moments ago, but I feel it’s important to take this moment to break down just how dire the situation is for British Columbia right now. In case the members across the aisle aren’t fully understanding the situation, let me remind them. A credit downgrade is not just a symbolic slap on the wrist from rating agencies; it’s a direct message to the people of British Columbia. It’s a warning that their government has failed to manage their money responsibly and has lost the confidence of those who invest in this province.

Moody’s, one of the most respected and reputable credit agencies in the world, has now forecast our provincial deficit to hit a staggering $14.3 billion. Let me repeat that number, $14.3 billion. It’s not a small sum. That’s not something that can be brushed aside as a minor inconvenience. This is a massive hole in the provincial finances, and it’s growing day by day.

Yet despite the magnitude of this crisis, what do we hear from this government? More of the same reckless spending, no accountability and no clear plan to address this overwhelming deficit. We can’t ignore the fact that both rating agencies, Moody’s and S&P, have made it very clear another downgrade is likely. The next one is already on the horizon, so when the government says they’re on the right track, we must ask ourselves: how many more downgrades will it take before this government finally gets it? How many more times will the people of British Columbia pay the price for the incompetence and inaction of this government?

Let’s take a step back and really think about these downgrades, what these downgrades mean for everyday British Columbians. This is not just about numbers on a piece of paper. This is about real-world consequences. This is about the cost of borrowing going up. This is about your taxes rising. This is about service cuts now and in the future. This is about future generations being burdened with the failure of this government that couldn’t balance the books.

Let’s be crystal-clear about what’s been downgraded. It’s not just the province’s credit ratings. What’s already been downgraded, what’s already been lost, is the confidence — the confidence in this Premier, the confidence in this Finance Minister and the confidence in this entire government.

Guess what. The Finance Minister promised a cost-cutting and efficiency review to save money. Wow. First, there’s no timeline. And these initiatives can save about $300 million, 0.3 percent of the overall spending.

Wow. Good job, Minister. That’s not a plan; that’s PR.

People are asking: how can we trust a government that cannot even get the basics of fiscal management right? How can we trust the leadership of a Premier who has overseen a growing deficit, rising costs and declining public services? How can we trust a Finance Minister who continues to present budget after budget with no real plans to balance the books and no accountabilities for the ballooning deficit? And how can we trust a government that is more focused on making excuses than on taking responsibility for the mess that they created?

[5:50 p.m.]

It’s not the credit rating that’s in decline; it’s the government’s ability to lead. It’s their ability to manage the finance of the province effectively. This government is the downgrade. They are the ones who have failed. And the people of British Columbia are the ones who are paying the price, not these so-called leaders of the province. The consequence of these credit downgrades are very serious, and they will be felt for years to come.

We have heard the promises from this government, haven’t we? “We are making life more affordable for British Columbians.” Well, we have heard it all before. But as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and this bill, Bill 5, speaks volumes.

Let’s talk about something that affects each and every one of us here in Metro Vancouver, parking taxes. Parking taxes are going up again.

Let’s take a moment to consider what’s going on in the real world, outside the hall of this Legislature. Families across the province are already struggling with the crushing weight of inflation, sky-high rent, sky-high gas prices, sky-rocketing grocery bills. What does this government do? They add more taxes on parking. Yes, parking.

Let’s be clear. Parking is a necessity. It’s something most people in Metro Vancouver can’t avoid. Whether you’re heading to work, having a quick meal at a restaurant, supporting small business in the region, dropping the kids off at the sports centre or simply running errands, parking is part of daily life. Yet this government’s answer to affordability is to squeeze British Columbians even more, just to park their cars.

I ask you. Has anyone in this province, anyone at all, ever said: “You know what, Mr. Premier? Parking is so cheap here”? Not once, not ever. Many people I know have started avoiding going out for dinner because of the high parking cost. But somehow this government believes that raising parking taxes is the answer. The truth is this government is out of touch with the realities facing ordinary British Columbians.

Now let’s move on to another issue that really highlights the hypocrisy of this government’s approach to affordability: used electric vehicle taxes.

We have heard this government say time and time again that they want people driving electric vehicles to protect the environment and reduce emissions. They have pushed for transition. But guess what. In this very bill, they have introduced a tax hike on used EVs.

This is not a tax on luxury cars like Lucid, Porsche or Tesla. This tax hits working families, hard-working British Columbians who are just trying to save money on gas, and they’re looking for more affordable ways to make the switch. Instead of encouraging them, this government is punishing them.

Why? Guess what. Many people are buying used cars because they simply cannot afford new ones. This is the government that claims to care about affordability, yet they introduce tax hikes on used EVs, making it even harder for working-class people to make the transition to clean energy.

But let’s not forget that this government has already started taxing used vehicles when they were just first in power, even though those vehicles were already taxed when they were new. That’s right. This is the same government that double-taxed people for buying used cars. How is that fair? How is that helping British Columbians?

Let’s get to the heart of this hypocrisy here. First, this government taxed gasoline, forcing people to pay more at the pump. Then they taxed electric vehicles — vehicles that are supposed to help British Columbians save money on gas. So I ask: what exactly does this government want British Columbians to drive? Either way, you are being taxed to death.

This is the government that claims to care about the environment. This is the government that wants British Columbians to drive EVs. But when people finally take the step to do so, they get slapped with another tax. This is not the way moving forward.

[5:55 p.m.]

Let’s be clear. This government is not helping British Columbians. They are making life harder, not easier. They are raising taxes on parking, on used vehicles and on everyday necessities. And for what? To pad their budget without any real solutions to the affordability crisis.

So let me tell you. Instead of supporting the working-class people in British Columbia, as we examine this bill, Bill 5, we’re seeing a $45 million tax break for the video game industry buried in this legislation.

Let me be absolutely clear. We fully support the tech and film sectors. They are vital to our economy. However, when this tax break is introduced immediately after the former head of DigiBC, an influential industry lobby group, becomes Deputy Finance Minister, we can’t just call this a coincidence. The optics are troubling, and the message it sends is undeniable.

This government is rewarding its friends, insiders and lobbyists, while everyday British Columbians are struggling to put food on the table. There are families in this province who are barely $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Yet this government finds $45 million to hand out to industrial insiders. You can’t make this up. The priorities of this government could not be clearer, helping their political allies and leaving the rest of us to deal with skyrocketing costs and shrinking incomes.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Let’s take a moment to think about what this bill could have addressed, what it should have addressed but did not.

This bill could have provided real relief for families who are drowning in debt. It could have offered support to the restaurant sector, which is facing record closures and is hanging on by a thread. It could have addressed the health care crisis, where patients wait half a day in emergency rooms and months or years for surgeries.

Most importantly, this bill could have given a clear plan to eliminate the portables in Surrey, Chilliwack, Richmond, etc. Because no child should be forced to learn in makeshift classrooms in a province as so-called wealthy as ours.

Instead of solutions, this bill gives us more taxes, more spending and absolutely no accountability. This government has chosen to continue its path of fiscal irresponsibility, making life harder for the people of British Columbia while protecting the interests of its political allies.

Let me take a moment to remind you of the reality facing British Columbians today and what this government’s proposed solution is offering in response. First and foremost, let’s address the issue of the U.S. tariffs. The government has repeatedly said that they are the champion of standing up to external pressures. But when it comes to action, there’s nothing but empty promises. There’s no funding, no concrete plans and no new actions to address these tariffs.

Our total exports have decreased by 3 percent across the province. Yet this government has chosen to ignore both internal and external trades. Promises of the interprovincial trade agreements are being made, but there are no models or details on how this would work. Until today, we still haven’t seen such agreement. Instead, our party, the opposition, has proposed a bill to address interprovincial trade barriers. However, this government is not standing up to support it.

On top of that, corporate tax revenue has dropped to 24.8 percent, and the provincial debt is projected to hit a staggering $208 billion by the end of this plan. This figure will be higher, but this secretive nature of this government means we can never get a clear picture of the true financial status, despite numerous requests from our side.

Now, let’s talk about housing. Housing starts have dropped by 9.2 percent from last year, and in 2017, the number of housing starts was 44,000. Despite all the promises made, this government hasn’t delivered on the housing needs of the people of British Columbia.

[6:00 p.m.]

There’s also a promise of $370 million over three years to support education, but the Premier promised an educational assistant in every elementary classroom. Clearly, this is not enough funding to address the real needs of our education system.

Yet the government continues to implement a public sector hiring freeze. The public sector workforce has ballooned to 593,000 employees, costing the province $53.2 billion. In contrast, in 2017, there were only 310,000 employees. Why? This is outrageous. And still there’s no plan to balance the budget and no strategy to respond to the U.S. tariffs.

When it comes to migration, British Columbia is now seeing a decline in interprovincial migration. For the first time, we have lost 5,030 people, a sharp contrast from the net positive migration of 1,185 people in the previous years.

This government is failing to deliver on its promises. We’ve seen no plan for trade offices to bolster our international relations. There’s no mention of a plan to tackle the opioid crisis or mental health supports. The Ministry of Jobs has only received a modest $1 million increase in funding, while the minister’s office has seen a net salary and benefit increase of $1.18 million.

Let’s talk about homelessness. A small positive step is the $30 million allocated for homelessness. But there is a problem. B.C. Housing projects are over budget and behind schedule all the time. On top of that, we have seen a loss of 45,000 jobs in the province. This is a government that is clearly out of touch with the reality on the ground in our province.

This is just a snapshot of how badly this government is mismanaging our province. We have record deficits, record debt, record drug deaths and record restaurant closures.

The number of people wanting to leave British Columbia is growing. This is the first time we have seen a net outflow of people from our province. With Bill 5, this government is offering record levels of taxation, with absolutely no roadmap for recovery.

British Columbians deserve better than this. They’re not asking for miracles; they’re asking for leadership. They’re asking for honesty and for a government that actually delivers, not just talks. Instead, what we have been given is a government that continues to ignore the real issue facing this province and its people.

What do we need? We need a new direction. We need a new government, actually. We need a government that respects taxpayers, focuses on outcomes, not just announcements, supports families and small business, stops rewarding friends and insiders and allies and, finally, restores fiscal discipline in this province. And please balance the budget.

British Columbians are tired of political games. They are tired of being told one thing and experiencing another. They need relief. They need security. They need hope. And most importantly, they need a government that understands the real struggles they face every day.

Since this NDP government enjoys playing political games, let me conclude with a game that I enjoyed as a kid, a game that I’m sure many of you have heard of, SimCity. In SimCity, you are tasked with building a city or region, growing it and attracting people, business and tech companies to your region.

While you expand, you must also ensure that you balance the books. You can take out loans to build your city, but if you reach a point where the budget can no longer be balanced, you face bankruptcy. Residents start leaving, businesses shutting down.

[6:05 p.m.]

Here’s the thing. While even a child playing SimCity understands the importance of balancing the budget and the consequences of unsustainable debt, this Premier, this government, seems to have missed the lesson entirely. Even a child understands the concepts of providing service to residents, but at the same time, they must keep finances in check.

This government is clearly failing to do so. The result? A province heading towards unsustainable debt, with people and businesses leaving in cars and planes. This is not just mismanagement. This is a failure to understand the fundamentals of good governance. And that is truly pathetic.

Bill 5 offers none of these things. Our budget offers none of these things. It offers no solution, no real plan and no real commitment to the future of British Columbians. This is not the direction we should be heading.

British Columbians deserve better, and we will continue to fight for the future they deserve.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today not only as the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen but as someone who understands firsthand what happens when government forgets what it’s meant to serve. This speech is in response to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and while this bill amends tax codes and revenue authorities, what it really reveals is a government that is out of touch with everyday realities of British Columbians, particularly those in rural communities like mine.

This government’s throne speech spoke about standing strong and delivering on kitchen table priorities, but it is clear that it matters which kitchen table you are sitting at. The view from Vancouver–Point Grey is very different than the view from Boundary-Similkameen. It shows in the policies, because the reality at the kitchen tables in rural B.C. is far more grim than this government seems willing to admit.

Bill 5 includes tax changes: a million-dollar credit expansion for the film industry, benefiting major productions; an increase in parking taxes in Metro Vancouver; changes to the B.C. family benefit calculations. But for families in my riding who can’t even drink their tap water, who are drowning under $64,000 infrastructure assessments or driving 4.8 kilometres on highways to get their kids to school because there’s no bus service, none of this addresses their realities.

Let me tell you about one of those realities. In a community near Skaha Lake, 321 homeowners are facing a water and sewer system collapse. They’ve been told repairs will cost over $20 million, and it’s being assessed at more than $64,000 per household. These are seniors, many on fixed incomes. They moved to the Okanagan to retire. Imagine getting a bill for $64,000 in your mail today. They’re facing debt or displacement. And even if they try to sell, their equity is gone. No one wants to buy a home on a failed system.

In Bill 5, there is not a word about grant reform or eligibility changes that would allow improvement or irrigation districts to access these critical funds to build and fix this infrastructure. These people pay taxes. They just don’t get any value from this government.

In Princeton, children are expected to walk nearly five kilometres to school in the winter, on highways without sidewalks. There is no bus service, and this budget and Bill 5 offer no structural reforms to fix it. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about safety. Yet in this bill, this government chose instead to make parking more expensive in Metro Vancouver. I don’t see the common sense in those decisions.

Bill 5 is not just thin in physical form; it’s thin on vision. This legislation could have been an opportunity to correct some of the most glaring oversights in how this government funds and supports communities in B.C.

The amendments proposed in Bill 5 include no changes to how water systems could be funded, no new tax credits for small or private water operators and no tax credits for transportation needs in rural B.C. There is no procurement reform to ensure that local businesses, especially in rural B.C., can compete fairly for government contracts. There is no incentive for municipalities to prioritize infrastructure upgrades that enable real housing growth. In short, Bill 5 is a missed opportunity to build capacity where it’s needed most.

But let me be clear. I am not simply here to just oppose. I am here to offer some commonsense alternatives.

[6:10 p.m.]

What if, instead of issuing one-size-fits-all mandates for densification, the government had tied infrastructure funding directly to housing delivery targets and local infrastructure realities? What if tax credits in this bill included support for agricultural innovation, small-scale water conservation infrastructure or localized food distribution networks? What if procurement processes gave weight to social and geographic equity, allowing contractors from Princeton or Midway to compete on an even playing field with firms based in the Lower Mainland?

These are not radical ideas. These are grounded in fiscal prudence, regional equity and long-term sustainability. Instead, we see a bill that reinforces systemic imbalance, where tax benefits flow to industries with strong lobbying power, while communities in crisis are left to pass the hat around.

We are witnessing a slow erosion of trust in government institutions, not because people don’t believe in democracy, but because they no longer see themselves in the decisions being made. Legislation like Bill 5 in its current form just widens that gap. It sends a message that those who live outside the urban core matter less. I believe we’re better than that, and I believe that British Columbia can and must do better.

We are a province rich in resources, talent and entrepreneurship, yet Bill 5 does nothing to address the roadblocks we’ve allowed to persist in interprovincial trade. It does nothing to empower local food producers. Our farmers and ranchers are still saddled with burdensome regulation and uncertainty. Meanwhile, this government talks about affordability while importing food we could grow right here at home if we had the infrastructure and support to do that.

We cannot talk about Bill 5 without acknowledging the broader financial context this legislation exists within. The government introduced this bill, knowing full well that our province was already facing two credit-rating downgrades, one of which came from Moody’s, which now projects that B.C.’s deficit may climb to an astonishing $14.3 billion. That’s more than $3 billion above what was forecast in the budget, and it raises serious concerns about our long-term fiscal sustainability.

What does a credit downgrade mean for British Columbians? It means higher borrowing costs. It means that infrastructure projects get more expensive. It means that every dollar we spend servicing our debt is a dollar we don’t spend on schools, hospitals or drinking water systems. This is not just a spreadsheet problem; it’s a compounding burden that impacts every corner of this province.

Compounding that risk is the fact that many of government’s largest public sector unions are currently negotiating their collective agreements. We know, from the government’s own budget documents, that a 1 percent increase in compensation across the public sector would cost the province approximately $532 million annually. If even modest increases are agreed to, which we should all expect, given inflation and service demands, that’s billions more in pressure on this budget, which is already spiralling out of control, yet Bill 5 offers no meaningful fiscal guardrails or structural restraint.

There are no long-term-planning tools or debt management reforms embedded in this legislation. We’ve just extended it another year, allowing government to do that deficit for another year. Instead, we see political priorities funded, like a million-dollar tax credit expansion for the film industry, while real-world necessities like school buses, clean water and affordable housing remain unfunded. These credit downgrades were not unforeseeable. They were avoidable, and still this government chose to pursue short-term headlines over long-term sustainability.

When we look at the priorities encoded in Bill 5, it becomes clear where the government focus lies. We see targeted tax amendments for sectors that already receive significant public investment, while those serving the backbone of our province — agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism — are given no new supports. This is a government that proudly funded a rebate for electric vehicle owners and expanded the film industry tax credits but has yet to commit to restoring rural health care staffing ratios or expanding long-term-care beds.

These are the real priorities in rural British Columbia, yet they find no mention, no mechanism or remedy in Bill 5. We needed a budget measures act that rose to the moment, a bill that delivered not just to headline sectors but to every region and every person who calls this province home.

[6:15 p.m.]

The disconnect between provincial expectations and municipal realities continues to grow. In Bill 5, we see no shift toward genuine partnership with local governments. Instead, we continue to see top-down mandates, unfunded expectations and a dismissive attitude towards local knowledge.

Municipalities are being told to densify, to permit faster, to build more. I support the goal of building more homes. But when the infrastructure isn’t in place and there’s no funding in sight to fix the failing sewer systems or expand water capacity, these mandates are only an illusion. How can a town approve more housing when its water plant is on the brink of collapse?

Bill 5 could have amended funding formulas. It could have introduced municipal cost-sharing frameworks tied to housing targets. Instead, local governments are being told to do more with less again.

Let’s talk about who is most affected by the legislation void in Bill 5: our youth, our seniors and those who rely on our health care system. In my riding, we have children who cannot safely get to school. We have school districts with no busing and municipalities expected to meet provincial learning outcomes while lacking basic transportation. Bill 5 could have addressed this by embedding rural equity into education funding formulas or mandating transportation solutions as part of core service delivery. But it didn’t. Instead, it tightened the belts in areas where the strap has already snapped.

Our seniors, many of whom live on fixed incomes, face rising costs in every aspect of their lives. Whether it’s housing, utilities or simply getting to a medical appointment, they are being stretched to the breaking point. We talk about affordability, but the practical application is missing. What would it have looked like for Bill 5 to include tax incentives for retrofitting homes for aging in place, or funding for rural transit programs that get seniors to where they need to go?

Then there’s health care. We have emergency rooms that close without warning, paramedics stretched too thin and patients being redirected across the province. Bill 5 does nothing to address the underlying costs driving these failures or realigning the funding to reflect service needs. Instead, it remains silent while rural hospitals hang in the balance.

Let us take a closer look at the actual clauses embedded in Bill 5, the details that reflect this government’s priorities more clearly than any press release.

Clause 1 amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to extend the period in which deficits are allowed to be forecast. In simple terms, this government is moving the goalposts again. Instead of charting a path back to balance, they’re changing the rules to permit even more years of deficit spending. This is not fiscal prudence. It’s an admission of failure, buried in legislative fine print.

Clause 3 adjusts the definition of adjusted income for the purpose of the sales tax credit. On the surface, this may seem like a technical change. But what it could do is reduce benefits for low-income families with a non-eligible partner. It could claw back affordability support from those who need it most, all while the government publicly claims to be easing the cost of living.

Clause 6 increases the individual annual limit for small business venture capital tax credit from $120,000 to $300,000. This will no doubt benefit some investors, but where are the provisions in this bill that support rural entrepreneurs? Where are the rural-specific venture supports or incentives for local processing, storage or product development? Once again the mechanisms of investment are tailored for the insiders.

When we get to clause 11, a 5 percent additional tax credit for qualified B.C. labour expenditure in film production…. Clause 12 expands regional film tax credits for animation studios outside of Vancouver. I support the film industry, but I cannot ignore the fact that this government has refused to provide similar targeted relief to forestry communities facing mill closures, to ranchers reeling from drought or to tour operators that were hit hard by fire bans and travel advisories.

These are not fringe industries in B.C. They are the backbone of our province. They provide the jobs, the exports, the tax base and the identity of entire regions of this province. Forestry workers have watched mill after mill shut down, and with them go entire local economies. Ranchers are facing devastating losses from drought and feed shortages, with no coordinated response, just overlapping regulation and bureaucratic hurdles to rangeland.

Tourism operators, already battling pandemic losses, now contend with season after season of cancellations due to wildfires, with no business interruption relief and no marketing support, with no plan to help them recover.

Yet Bill 5 prioritizes an industry that’s already booming, film production, through expanded tax credits and new carve-outs. Meanwhile, the sectors holding our rural economies together are asked to wait, to struggle a little longer, to build resilience while government investments flow elsewhere.

[6:20 p.m.]

This selective generosity is not accidental. It is structural. This legislation proves it. The rules are designed for those with access. The benefits flow where lobbyists are loudest. Rural communities, despite our contributions to B.C.’s economy, food supply and export markets, are treated as secondary or, worse, invisible.

What we need are not more platitudes about resilience. What we need is targeted investment, relief that reflects real loss, support that recognizes the central role our industries play in keeping this province moving, not just culturally but economically. Until that happens, speeches like this one will not be optional. They will continue to be a necessary activity in this House.

All this is happening in the context of a $14.3 billion projected deficit and two credit-rating downgrades in a single day. The Finance Minister knew it was coming when she tabled this reckless fiscal plan.

When you mismanage the finances of a $90 billion provincial budget, the consequences aren’t abstract. They are real, and they are painful. Every dollar we borrow, we pay interest on. Every extra point of interest we pay is money we can’t spend on health care, education or fixing our houses and infrastructure.

In 2018, this province spent $2.6 billion servicing our debt. Today, in 2025, in this minister’s budget, more than $5 billion — double what was spent only a few years ago. By 2027, where we’re extending our ability to have debt.… It’s just two years from now. Debt-servicing at that time is projected to hit a staggering $7.1 billion. That’s nearly tripled in less than a decade.

While this government goes around saying they’re protecting health care and schools, here’s the truth they won’t tell British Columbians. Since 2018, debt-servicing, the cost of paying interest on their overspending, has grown by 11½ percent per year. Meanwhile, health care, 6.8 percent. Education, a mere 4.1 percent.

So let’s be crystal-clear. The fastest-growing item in the B.C. budget isn’t doctors, it isn’t nurses, it isn’t teachers. It’s interest payments. It’s servicing the debt the NDP has racked up through unfunded promises and bloated bureaucracy.

Here’s the kicker. All of this information is buried in table A11, page 150, of the government’s own budget and fiscal plan. That’s where you find the truth. Not in the glossy press releases, not in the Premier’s photo ops and certainly not in Bill 5.

One of the most glaring disconnects represented in Bill 5 is the relationship, or lack thereof, between provincial and local governments. Local governments are increasingly on the front lines of delivering essential services, from water and sewer infrastructure to transit, emergency response and housing approvals. Yet time and time again they are handed mandates without the resources to carry them out.

This government has required municipalities to implement sweeping housing reform, forcing densification bylaws in small communities with no capacity to support new development. The government demands more units, faster approvals and fewer zoning delays but fails to provide funding for the water, sewer and transportation systems that must underpin that growth.

Bill 5 could have acknowledged this imbalance. It could have introduced a housing infrastructure linkage fund or created grant programs that reflect the realities of rural and small-town capacity, but it did not.

Instead, local governments are left to wrestle with failing infrastructure and skyrocketing capital costs, while the province praises its affordable housing strategy from afar. This is not a partnership; it’s unilateralism dressed up as a policy.

We should be working with local governments as equal partners. That means investing in planning capacity, upgrading existing infrastructure and removing regulatory hurdles that delay shovel-ready projects. Real collaboration means setting shared targets and funding them appropriately, not forcing smaller communities to carry the cost of provincial ambition on municipal backs.

Perhaps most revealing of all is what Bill 5 does not say. There is not a single clause in this bill that addresses water quality, nothing for drinking water systems in rural B.C. that are failing under overuse and age. We have over $200 million worth of needed upgrades just in the South Okanagan. There’s no mention of irrigation or agricultural water storage, despite repeated drought seasons and growing food insecurity. No mechanisms to support dike upgrades or floodplain management.

[6:25 p.m.]

Nothing for school transportation in areas without bus service. Bill 5 is silent on rural emergency room closures, silent on retaining doctors and nurses in small towns and silent on infrastructure replacement for communities with aging sewer and water.

Yet this budget implementation bill, the very legislation meant to carry out the government’s fiscal vision…. If this is the blueprint for our year ahead, then rural B.C. has been written off entirely.

British Columbia has everything it needs to thrive: abundant resources, entrepreneurial people, world-class institutions and the energy of its communities. But what this legislation lacks is a vision for prosperity.

If we were serious about building a strong province, we would see that reflected in Bill 5. We would see infrastructure grant programs linked to local readiness. We would see procurement reform to support small town and rural businesses, giving them a fair shot at delivering public works. We would see revenue-sharing frameworks for communities generating natural resource wealth, ensuring that local impacts come with local benefits. We would see tax incentives that prioritize investment and real assets, like food security, water storage, broadband connectivity and regional logistics hubs.

Instead, we get one-off tax credits for high-profile industries and mandates that assume one size fits all. This is not prosperity, it’s reliance, and it will leave this province more fragile, not less.

One of the most dangerous aspects of this government’s approach, reflected again in Bill 5, is the cost of delay, the cost of inaction, the cost of endless consultation with no delivery. Every time a project is delayed due to permitting backlogs, red tape or unclear regulatory framework, the province loses potential revenue, communities lose jobs, investors lose confidence. These delays are not benign. They have real, measurable consequences for our economy and our families.

In my riding, resource projects that could support local employment, infrastructure development and housing investment are caught in bureaucratic gridlock. Forestry approvals that used to take months now take years. Mining applications are languishing without decisions. Municipal infrastructure upgrades sit on paper while communities face boil-water advisories. Yet Bill 5 does not contain a single clause that accelerates approvals, supports regulatory modernization or even acknowledges the consequences of delay.

Meanwhile, inflation climbs, the cost to build escalates and rural communities are left behind while their needs are under consideration. Time is money, and in this province we’re losing both. This bill shows clearly that this government continues to double down on their failing approach: urban-centric policy, insider benefits, no changes to grant eligibility, no new programs to support agricultural innovation and no meaningful reform to permitting our natural resource development that would allow us to generate the revenues we need to invest.

The very makeup of this House should be a wake-up call to this government. The Conservative Party of B.C. represents almost every rural region in this province. We are not here for sound bites. We’re here because our constituents are being left behind. This was a missed opportunity for this government to change course, to collaborate across the aisle and to deliver legislation that actually meets the needs of the whole province.

At the heart of this debate is a question of leadership. Not management, not messaging — leadership. British Columbians are not looking for more programs. They’re looking for someone to stand up and say enough — enough delay, enough half measures and enough of ignoring rural B.C.

The House is changing. Rural voices are here, and we’re not going away. We represent the people who grow your food, mine your minerals and build your homes, and we’re here to bring common sense back into the conversation.

This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a wake-up call. It’s a signal that people are tired of being left behind, tired of being taxed more and getting less. They want representation that listens, responds and delivers. We don’t need more announcements. We need action. We don’t need more management. We need leadership. And we will keep fighting to bring that leadership to every corner of British Columbia.

Few things highlight the inequity in this province more clearly than health care. In my riding and in countless others across rural B.C., emergency rooms are closed without notice. My own emergency room is not open evenings or weekends. Families are forced to drive hundreds of kilometres to see a specialist, and many simply go without care or delay it until it’s too late.

Meanwhile, urban centres see billions in hospital infrastructure, and patient access is taken for granted. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the commitment to equity? Bill 5 does nothing to address this.

[6:30 p.m.]

There are no structural changes to address the health care delivery gap between rural and urban B.C. There are no incentives for retaining rural doctors, no funding models for cross-regional service delivery, no mental health supports targeted to isolated communities, and our constituents are being left behind, again, where this bill is silent.

If we are truly serious about building a strong and prosperous British Columbia, then we must begin by investing in the infrastructure that makes it all possible. It’s not just about equity or catching up; it’s about enabling the growth this government says it wants.

We cannot expand trade if our highways crumble. We cannot move goods across regions without reliable transit. We cannot build homes if sewer lines are failing. We cannot grow food without water. Many of our rural regions serve as the economic arteries of this province, moving people, products and power. Yet Bill 5 includes no meaningful provisions to strengthen or expand that backbone.

There is no mention of rural capital investment, no fiscal signals to support the foundational work required to keep our province competitive. Neglecting rural infrastructure is not just shortsighted; it is self-defeating. It slows down the very economic growth this government claims to support.

British Columbia has everything it needs to thrive. But what it lacks, what this government lacks, is the political will to govern for everyone, not just the urban core. That’s why I will continue to stand in this House and call for commonsense governance. I will continue to fight for safe drinking water, for working ambulances, for rural health care, for infrastructure funding that reflects real need — not just political priorities.

The amendments in Bill 5 may look technical on paper, but what they represent is a government that has chosen insiders over infrastructure, headlines over homes and rhetoric over results. British Columbia deserves better.

Rural British Columbians deserve a government that hears them. I will continue to fight for them, and I will not support a bill that reinforces the same approach that has already left so many behind.

Let’s stop chasing headlines and start delivering results. Let’s put rural communities back on the map, not just as backdrops to campaign photos but as equal partners in building this province.

Brent Chapman: Today I rise in this House to speak to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, a bill that has a few tax changes on a budget that is now outdated and no longer relevant to our circumstances. This, I would argue, is an accurate reflection of how this government has operated this session.

The contents of this bill don’t alter the fundamental reality that there is currently a $3 billion revenue hole right smack in the middle of the budget. Neither us on the other side of the aisle nor the public at large have a clear understanding of the full scope of the consequences of this shortfall.

As a matter of fact, we don’t know how it will affect government spending, nor do we know what substantial cuts will have to be made as a result. All we know is that British Columbians are the ones who will bear the burden of this uncertainty. Quite frankly, to get yourself out of a hole, you can’t keep digging.

We’ve been left in the dark once again to poke and prod on our own, to come up with some semblance of an understanding of what is going on so that, as representatives, we can do our jobs and move forward with some sense of stability, the stability that we aren’t getting from this government based on how they’ve handled their budget. This lack of transparency is not only frustrating, it’s irresponsible.

This is the kind of instability that this government has brought to the table, and it’s the instability that we, as a Legislature and as a province, are left to grapple with. It is a disservice to those who rely on us to make sound and informed decisions on their behalf.

This budget measures implementation bill mentions some tax changes, updates some tax rates and addresses some other financial matters that fall within the general scope of the realm. This is a typical feature of every budget cycle.

While it usually can contain some pretty substantial material, this year’s version is notably shorter and more limited in scope, with much of the attention being focused specifically on the film industry.

Perhaps the most glaring issue with this bill, and the one that should concern all of us, is the simple fact that it is based on a budget that is no longer accurate as of just last Monday.

This isn’t some trivial matter. The very document and references to financial data that we are debating here is now outdated, inaccurate and no longer reflects the true fiscal reality that British Columbia faces.

[6:35 p.m.]

We know with certainty that the numbers we are working with in these discussions no longer align with the current state of our province’s finances. The issue with this bill is the fact that it deals with a budget that isn’t accurate as of last Monday.

As I just mentioned, Bill 5 introduces several significant amendments that impact B.C.’s film industry, aimed at enhancing competitiveness for B.C. as a filming destination. While I wholeheartedly agree that the film industry should be supported…. After all, as someone with professional experience in acting and producing, I have seen firsthand how vital the industry is to the economic fabric of our province. There is not a shadow of a doubt that B.C.’s film industry is of immense value, bringing in revenue, creating jobs and fostering talent.

However, with my experience in this field, I also understand a crucial reality. During times of economic hardship and uncertainty, B.C. as a filming destination becomes far less competitive. Back in 2008 during the recession, I lost all my commercial work because American producers and filmmakers decided to stay home, choosing instead to film domestically. The economic landscape at that time made B.C. less attractive compared to other destinations offering fewer uncertainties.

Now we’re seeing a similar trend develop again not only because of economic uncertainty but also due to the divisive rhetoric that this NDP government has chosen to engage in. In relation to the United States, the blind rage and risky behaviour pointed towards Americans recently has created an atmosphere where Americans may no longer feel welcome in B.C.

Outside of the escalated response to Trump, this is about American citizens who work in the film industry and how this rhetoric will negatively impact our local film industry. When a government makes it clear that it has no qualms about targeting specific cross-sections of American society, particularly in the time of economic and political uncertainty, it is inevitably disincentivizing American filmmakers from coming to B.C., and that’s just the reality of this industry in this situation.

The film industry is highly sensitive to these kinds of shifts in sentiment, especially when there are countless other filming location options available in their own country. Film executives, producers and talent are well aware of the rhetoric coming from this government. I wouldn’t be surprised that they are now questioning whether B.C. remains a desirable place to do business and to film. As a result, the province’s reputation as a premier filming destination is being eroded. This is a reality we can’t ignore.

When international businesses, particularly film productions, decide to look elsewhere, it leads to a loss of not only jobs but also culture and economic benefits that this industry brings. If this government continues to push away international productions, it will only result in a further decline in B.C.’s competitiveness, with ripple effects across tourism, local businesses and the broader economy that the tourist industry brings.

At the end of the day, the film industry is a highly competitive global market. While these tax credits aim to enhance B.C.’s competitiveness as a filming destination, this government’s actions are directly counteracting their own efforts to do so, driving business away from B.C. at a time when we need to be fostering relationships and opportunities, not burning bridges.

This bill also increases taxes on parking in Metro Vancouver, a decision that once again adds to the growing list of ways this government is determined to squeeze every last dollar out of the people of this province.

Let’s pause and reflect on the irony of this move, just for a moment. This is the same government who hands out $1,000-a-day paycheques to their friends and insiders, the same government that prioritizes padding the budgets of their own offices and giving out raises, bonuses and lavish severance packages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Meanwhile, ordinary British Columbians continue to struggle. They try to make ends meet, with many of them $200 away from being unable to pay their bills. In fact, they’re already spending $800 more on food this year compared to the last. Despite this reality, this government has decided that it’s time to raise taxes on parking.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never once heard anyone celebrate the cheap parking in Metro Vancouver, because the truth is Metro Vancouver is notorious for sky-high parking rates. It has become so expensive to park in many areas that people now rely on parking maps, maps specifically designed to track and compare parking rates. They are accessed and used by countless residents and visitors, just to avoid the most overpriced parking lots in the region.

Parking in Metro Vancouver has become a major cost burden for families and individuals alike, who are just trying to get a haircut or go for a walk or maybe support a small business, grab a bite to eat, and more.

[6:40 p.m.]

Let’s not forget business owners operating in the most high-traffic areas of Metro Vancouver. Take downtown Vancouver, for example, an area that is known for its outrageous parking costs. Business owners, who not only work overtime to ensure their businesses stay up and running but who also need to be parked in a spot for the full day, could be paying upwards of $100 a week just so that they can drop their car off and go to work.

How is it fair that these owners who work hard every day to contribute to our economy are now bearing the brunt of a tax increase on a necessary service? It’s honestly ironic that this government has been encouraging British Columbians to buy local for the past couple of months, yet they themselves are increasing costs for those who are providing these local goods and services this government has encouraged everyone to buy.

In the face of what they deem economic uncertainty, this government has decided to introduce even more instability and inflate parking costs by increasing taxes, further driving up costs for people who are already stretched thin. And for what? To fund a government that continues to spend recklessly, rewarding their own with lavish bonuses and perks while the people of British Columbia face financial struggles just to keep up with basic costs. This isn’t the kind of leadership we need. This isn’t the kind of leadership British Columbians deserve.

The financial track record of this government alone should be enough to hammer this point home, not to mention yet again the $3 billion hole in the budget as of last Monday. Simply put, raising taxes on parking isn’t the solution. It is only a misguided approach that deepens the divide between this government’s priorities and the lived realities British Columbians face every day.

While we’re on transit, raising taxes on parking only increases uncertainty around transportation costs. If uncertainty is going to deter people from driving downtown, for example, this government should at least consolidate some sense of certainty around public transit. Guess what. They haven’t done that either. Funding for transit appears completely subjective, with no real criteria for how it is allocated and applied.

Many British Columbians, especially those that access public transit during rush hour or require HandyDART service or rely on transit services, are met with uncertainty mirroring the uncertainty of this budget. Whether it be inconsistent coverage and accessibility of services; a complex fare system that is difficult to navigate, with different fare structures in different regions; scheduling and timing issues; or just an overall lack of communication, users are left stranded without accurate information, similar to how we are now stranded debating a bill that is based off inaccurate information.

The issue is that this government makes one form of transportation more costly but sits idly and doesn’t do anything to offset those costs in other more accessible modes of transportation. All it does is raise prices on British Columbians, working-class families who rely on their vehicles and rely on public transit to go about their day.

This brings me to a critical point. This bill doesn’t contain a single tax cut, not one, not a single measure that offers British Columbians any relief from the rising costs of living. Instead, what do we see? This government continues to bombard taxpayers with higher costs and excessive spending, all while watching the people of this province struggle to make ends meet.

Whether it’s families trying to pay bills, let alone pay for parking, or seniors on fixed incomes, everyone is feeling the pinch. Yet not a single tax break in sight, not a single gesture to ease the burden. Well, there was the grocery rebate, but the government clearly doesn’t want to talk about how they deprived people of the promised $1,000 rebate and instead tried to quietly sweep it all under the rug.

What’s even more concerning is this. The government refuses to cut taxes and ease financial burdens until they are pushed to the absolute brink, until the public outcry becomes so loud and so overwhelming that they don’t have a choice but to respond.

A great example of this was last Monday when the government finally cut the carbon tax after they were pushed to the brink, and public outcry reached a fever pitch. Only then did this government even consider making a change, a change that wasn’t planned properly and has left us staring directly at a $3 billion hole in the budget with no answers and no idea where the cuts need to be made.

[6:45 p.m.]

This is not leadership. This is a government that reacts rather than plans. This is a government that waits until things are on the brink of disaster before it takes action or rhetorically acknowledges that they will act. This is a government that lacks true understanding of how to resolve their own financial mismanagement.

Leadership means foresight. Leadership means making tough decisions ahead of time, not waiting until the crisis has already hit.

Now that the government is finally responding, the budget numbers are outdated. Therefore, Bill 5 is rendered outdated as well. We cannot move forward with a bill that is based on an outdated and inaccurate budget.

How can we debate these numbers properly when they no longer reflect the true state of our provincial finances? How can we make informed decisions as the opposition when the very foundation of that information is built on flawed data? It’s like trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. Eventually it’s going to collapse. I’m afraid we’re seeing more than cracks already just in this first session.

Let’s be clear. We cannot accept a bill that continues to raise taxes on the things that make life harder for the people of this province. Whether it’s the rising cost of parking, the increased taxation on electric vehicles or any other hikes rather than cuts that are buried in this bill, every single one of these measures adds on to the financial strain that British Columbians are already facing every day.

And for what — so the government can reward political insiders? So it can give out seven-figure severance packages to failed CEOs? So it can keep pushing forward with a budget that is out of touch with reality? We need a government that listens and understands the struggles of people. From here, it doesn’t seem like they do.

Take ICBC, for example. This multi-billion dollar Crown corporation with a long history of unfairly treating those who have been injured is continually allowed to have a monopoly over insurance systems under this government. This piles on top of a slew of ongoing faults where we see ICBC completely starve autobody shops and starve victims of the proper compensation that they deserve.

ICBC is essentially given permission to dangerously interrupt the process of professional therapeutic attention for victims who are just trying to see a physiotherapist and get their lives back on track after life-altering accidents that are not of their fault. For far too long, this government has let British Columbia’s most vulnerable slip through the cracks, and ICBC is just as guilty.

There needs to be accountability for this bare minimum care that ICBC has provided, particularly to crash victims who are further placed in financial precarious situations following accidents which aren’t their fault.

This is just another example of how this NDP government expects British Columbians to navigate the affordability crisis while actively burdening them with more financial challenges. That trend continues throughout this entire budget and now on to Bill 5.

Instead of being content to wait until pressures become unbearable, we need a government that takes action proactively before it’s too late. Real tax cuts and real relief is what the people of our province deserve, and until it happens, we cannot accept this bill. Doing so would be a disservice to those who elected us into government, and doing so would put us in the same boat as the government — ignorant to the numbers and unwilling to face the reality of a massive deficit and its consequences.

Oh, and let’s not forget the fact that when the Minister of Finance tabled the budget, which this act is based on, she was actually already expecting to receive two credit downgrades. That is deeply concerning.

Let’s talk about what two credit downgrades actually mean for British Columbians. They aren’t just numbers for a spreadsheet or a distant statistic. They have real consequences for our people.

Two credit downgrades means that attempting to fix B.C.’s already broken health care system under this government just got a whole lot more expensive. Every dollar borrowed to invest in hospitals, nurses, doctors, safety for our essential workers and our paramedics all come with a higher price tag. We are paying more and getting less all because this government has majorly mishandled the financial status that it inherited. In just a few short years, B.C.’s fiscal credibility has been completely undermined.

Two credit downgrades means that eliminating portables in schools, whether it be in Surrey or just anywhere else in the province, just became a steeper climb and a more unattainable goal. Parents, teachers and students, the future backbone of our economy, have been waiting years just to see a proper classroom built. They have been promised better by the lofty goals that this government touts, but thanks to these credit downgrades, these goals drift farther out of reach.

[6:50 p.m.]

Let’s not forget about the impacts of these downgrades on our deficit. Moody’s credit rating, one of the agencies that downgraded B.C.’s credit rating, has now also predicted our province’s deficit to hit a staggering $14.3 billion. You thought $9 billion was bad. Well, $14.3 billion is, quite frankly, unfathomable, until you realize that this is about to become a living reality for our province.

This is not even close to fiscal management. This is fiscal mayhem, and this fiscal mayhem is the very budget that the entirety of Bill 5 is based on. To make matters worse, both agencies are now forecasting further downgrades in the near future. That’s no warning bell. That’s a full-fledged alarm, and this government is still fast asleep at the wheel.

It’s not just the credit rating that has been downgraded. It’s not just our fiscal standing under this government that has taken a hit. No, the real downgrade sits in front of us. This Premier and this Finance Minister, their choices, their mismanagement and their refusal to act responsibly, are exactly what we’re forced to watch as fiscal mayhem unfolds in front of us. When your credit goes down, your costs go up. When your deficit balloons, your options shrink. And when the people in charge are the ones dragging you there, it is time for a change.

As I conclude my remarks on Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, it’s clear that this legislation is built on a fiscal foundation that is both outdated and unreliable. The $3 billion revenue shortfall presents a significant challenge, and the lack of transparency we’ve received from this government only deepens my concern.

While supporting our film industry is important, these tax credits are essentially nullified by this government’s rhetoric and actions, which have created an environment that discourages international productions.

The proposed tax increases on parking in Metro Vancouver will disproportionately affect everyday British Columbians, especially owners of small businesses who rely on parking spots to ensure they make it to work, run their businesses well and are able to return home to their families in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the government’s delayed response to fiscal challenges, culminating in two credit downgrades and an escalating deficit, raises serious questions about its ability to manage finances properly. At the heart of this debate lies a simple truth. British Columbians are being asked to shoulder more while getting less in return.

Bill 5, and the outdated budget it’s based on, does not provide the relief people are looking for. It does not offer a single tax cut nor address the soaring cost of living. Worst of all, there is no clear plan for how this government intends to navigate the $3 billion revenue hole it has created.

Instead, we see more taxes and more misplaced priorities, where political insiders are rewarded and everyday families are forced to tighten their budgets. This government waits until the last possible moment to act. This isn’t leadership. Leadership isn’t reactive; it’s proactive. British Columbians deserve leadership that anticipates challenges, not one that scrambles to fix them after the damage is done.

Bill 5 is a symptom of mismanagement, not a solution. In light of these issues, I cannot support Bill 5. It’s simple. We cannot move forward with a bill that is based on a budget that is outdated and contains inaccurate numbers. We cannot accept a bill based on a budget that continues to raise taxes on the things that make life more expensive for British Columbians.

This bill represents a continuation of fiscal irresponsibility and a disregard for the economic well-being of British Columbians. For these reasons, I urge this House to reject this bill.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I feel truly honoured today to rise in the House as the elected representative for Chilliwack–Cultus Lake and the House Leader for the official opposition. Here in British Columbia, in this chamber, we get to stand as leaders and to use our voices to the best of our ability to represent the people that elected us.

[6:55 p.m.]

It’s my opportunity today to use my platform — where the voices of everyday British Columbians are brought forward, where concerns are heard and where we are entrusted with the responsibility to speak on behalf of British Columbians. This is where democracy comes to life, not just in speeches and votes but in the stories and the struggles and the hopes of the people that we represent.

Every time I stand, I do so with gratitude, knowing that I’ve been given the opportunity to speak for those who cannot. The purpose that this gives me gives me a deep sense of gratitude and honour and respect for all of the communities that I serve.

For me that starts with Chilliwack–Cultus Lake, a riding that stretches from the rolling farmland of Greendale to the heart of Cultus Lake, a place that is shaped by small business owners, farmers, service workers, artists and resilient families who give so much and ask for so little in return.

In my role as House Leader, I carry the responsibility not just for my constituents but for all of British Columbia, helping to elevate the issues that matter most, ensuring that the voices in this chamber reflect the urgency, the sincerity and the diversity of the people that we serve. This role is about giving voice to all communities and all community members, especially those whom we often do not hear.

This is about standing up for our shared values: fairness, accountability and compassion. It’s about ensuring that every British Columbian, regardless of where they live, who they are or what challenges they may face, knows that somebody in this House is standing up for them.

Today I rise to do exactly that and to speak to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025. I want to be clear from the onset. This legislation, like the budget it stems from, is a missed opportunity. It does not meet the moment. It does not address the real and rising needs of British Columbians. It does not demonstrate sound planning or principled leadership. And more than anything, it underscores a government that is out of ideas, out of touch and out of time.

This legislation arrives at a time when this government could have been doing everything in its power to strengthen the foundations of our economy. Instead, we’ve been left exposed — vulnerable to rising global instability, vulnerable to supply chain pressures and vulnerable to the fiscal consequences of this government’s short-term thinking.

We should have been investing in resilience. We should have been incentivizing innovation, expanding trade within Canada, supporting rural industry and taking bold action to make our province competitive, an attractive place to do business. Instead, we’ve seen policies that drive away investment, saddle small businesses with new costs that they can’t afford and pile taxes onto industries that power our economy, or should be powering the economy.

Now British Columbians are paying the price. This province should have been ready to weather the storm. But after years of fiscal mismanagement, people are finding it difficult to stock food in their fridge and make necessary repairs to their homes, if they’re lucky to be able to afford a place to live in the first place.

Instead of strengthening our fiscal position when we had the chance, this government ran massive deficits. Instead of balancing books, this government focused on expanding programs without long-term funding plans. Instead of focusing on productivity and private sector growth, they increased government bloat.

Now when challenges arrive and inflation spikes, when interest rates rise, when tariffs threaten our export sectors, we have no cushion. We have no backup plan, no clear path forward, and the people of this province are left carrying the burden, and they are shouldering a burden that is almost breaking us.

[7:00 p.m.]

It is my duty, as the elected representative for Chilliwack–Cultus Lake, to shed light on the key failures of this budget, failures that risk worsening our economic downturn, that neglect our farmers who grow our food, that ignore transportation bottlenecks, that exacerbate the housing affordability crisis, that fall short on flooding and extreme weather response, that overlook crime rates and that abandon the mental health and addictions treatments that are needed so badly, not just in my riding, but across the entire province. This is especially true for my community, the Stó:lō Nation.

It is also my duty as a House Leader to speak up not just for my own constituents but for all British Columbians, as I’ve outlined, who feel let down by this budget. Whether you live in the Fraser Valley, the north coast, the Okanagan or downtown Vancouver, people are feeling the pressure of rising costs, stretched services and a government that seems more focused on responding to crisis than proactive, meaningful results.

Our communities deserve more. They deserve leadership. They deserve a government that not only recognizes the challenges they face but that takes decisive, practical action to address them. Unfortunately, Budget 2025 misses that mark on too many fronts.

Bill 5 is, on its surface, a routine piece of legislation. It contains the technical tax and policy amendments that give legislative effect to the budget that was tabled earlier this year. But we can’t talk about Bill 5 without talking about what happened since that budget was introduced. The financial landscape has shifted dramatically, and not for the better.

British Columbians have recently learned that this government’s mismanagement of public finances has led to not one but two credit downgrades. These downgrades to B.C.’s credit standing are major warnings issued by two well-respected credit-rating agencies. The message of these warnings is loud and clear. If this government had any shred of fiscal credibility left after Budget 2025 was released, it’s now officially gone.

How are we supposed to dig ourselves out of this financial hole, when the cost of every dollar borrowed just got higher, at a time when our provincial debt is already skyrocketing? This isn’t just about the future projects being delayed. This is about the compounding impact of reckless fiscal decisions that leave less room for health care, education, emergency response and the very services people rely on every single day. The more we borrow, the more we pay interest. The more we pay interest, the less we have to invest in our people.

Let’s take a quick look at health care. Two credit downgrades mean that borrowing costs for our province will go up, which means that fixing our health care system is going to cost more. These downgrades mean that every dollar intended to hire doctors, reopen ERs or expand mental health services will be stretched thinner. It means that we get less health care for more money.

Two credit downgrades also affect our education system, our children and, let’s be honest, our future. Every intention for future investment into our schools is now looking grimmer and grimmer as we march on. This means that eliminating portables in overcrowded schools, as seen in my riding, will be delayed again. My son learns, the majority of his classes, in those portables. Students will remain in temporary, inadequate spaces, and the promises this government made to parents, teachers and students alike will remain just that — promises.

We’ve already seen this NDP government abandon previous commitments to our education system, such as bringing an education assistant to every K-to-3 classroom. Now that their money doesn’t stretch as far, we’ll have to watch them fail to meet several other commitments too.

I could extract any section of Budget 2025 and lay out how these recent changes to B.C.’s financial position will bring failure to the NDP’s already inadequate plans. Instead, I will focus on what is perhaps the most concerning part of all.

[7:05 p.m.]

The two credit downgrades mean that our already ballooning deficit will climb even higher. In fact, Moody’s now expects this government to run a staggering $14.3 billion deficit. That’s the consequence of choices and the price tag on years of fiscal mismanagement and political procrastination. Let me please repeat what Moody’s has said. They have no expectation that this government will balance the budget — not this year, not next year, not ever — unless something fundamentally changes.

These credit downgrades are not the only downgrades that British Columbians should be worried about. The real downgrade in British Columbia is that this government and their so-called leadership have not stood up to the promises that they made to every British Columbian when they ran for office.

Let’s be honest. The downgrade is on them. The downgrade is the Premier and the rest that prop him up. The downgrade is in the Finance Minister, and the downgrade is in the budget. The downgrade is Bill 5.

Let’s turn back to the contents of the bill, because while British Columbians are struggling, while families are falling further behind and while affordability has become the number one issue in every single community in this province, for the community members we have left, the bill delivers very little relief. Bill 5 could have been an opportunity to course-correct after the abysmal Budget 2025 was introduced, and it could have offered even a single measure to ease the cost of living that affects nearly every household in the province, but instead, it offers the opposite.

Let’s start with one of the most out of touch components of Bill 5. This government has spent years telling British Columbians that they need to make the switch to cleaner transportation. They have pushed EV adoption, introduced mandates and lectured everyday people about their carbon footprint. Now, they’re punishing the very people who listened.

Buried in the fine print of this bill is a tax hike on used electric vehicles. Let that sink in. At the same time this government is urging people to go electric, they are making it more expensive to do so. This isn’t about luxury EVs or even high-end Teslas. This applies across the board. Everyday British Columbians who are trying to make responsible environmental choices are now being punished with higher costs. How does that make sense, and how can you claim to support green innovation while increasing taxes on the very vehicles that you’re trying to get people to adopt?

Speaking of the contradictory policies, let’s talk about the so-called tax cut in the bill. This government will tell you that the bill supports the tech sector, particularly the digital media and film industry, which I worked in. That may sound good on paper until you dig a little deeper. This government refused to consider this tax break for years. I know because, again, I worked in that very film industry that was begging for these changes, not this amount of changes but more. So why now?

I wonder if there is a coincidence to the fact that the Minister of Finance chose to suddenly introduce this cut, having formerly been the head of DigiBC. British Columbians are asking themselves the same question. That is what we bring forward. What we’re hearing in the public, we must present and echo into the chamber, because that’s what we’re here to do.

It’s certainly not the first time that this government has appeared to make decisions to favour their friends in high places. So while families are $200 away from being unable to pay their bills and perhaps feed their children, while seniors skip meals to cover utilities — sometimes medications and food is the choice that they have to make — and while small businesses close their doors due to rising costs that they cannot shoulder, this government is handing $45 million to the sector that their own Finance Minister used to lead.

Let me be clear: we absolutely support the film industry in British Columbia. It creates jobs, it fuels our creative economy, and it uplifts voices, stories and perspectives that shape how we see ourselves and one another.

[7:10 p.m.]

As somebody who has spent most of my life in the arts, I know firsthand the power that creative expression has and the importance of supporting this growing sector. I have taught students, built projects and helped grow spaces where young people can see a future for themselves in storytelling, on screen and behind the camera as well.

But this bill is about the timing. This is about priorities. This is about appearances. At a time of record deficits and failing credit ratings, rewarding your former employee sends the wrong message to those struggling across the province.

There are choices in every budget, and this government’s choices are revealing. They’re telling a story. This government’s choice is exposed. They choose insiders over taxpayers, appearances over transparency and band-aids over actual solutions.

Now let’s turn to another section of Bill 5, a tax increase on parking in Metro Vancouver. This might seem like a small thing until you realize how many working people rely on their vehicles every single day. Front-line workers, teachers, tradespeople, delivery drivers and parents juggling drop-offs will all be paying more. And for what? This is a government handing out $1,000-a-day paycheques to insiders and consultants while raising parking fees for everyday workers who are just trying to get to their jobs.

It also contradicts the buy-local narrative that this government keeps pushing, with no legitimate action to back it up. These parking increases will raise the cost of accessing local goods and services, pushing people to stay home and buy online as front-door shopkeepers have to close up their doors. This might seem like a minute change to the out-of-touch NDP, but let me be very clear: this will absolutely hurt small businesses.

British Columbians are genuinely struggling to the point that this increase in the cost of parking will have to be considered when deciding if they can afford to shop or dine locally. No one in British Columbia is saying: “I wish parking cost more.” No one’s asking for this. But that’s what the bill delivers: higher costs, few answers from a government that seems more and more out of touch by the day.

I want to reiterate that Bill 5 doesn’t meet the moment. It doesn’t meet the needs of the people. It doesn’t even reflect the reality of our province’s current finances.

British Columbians are facing crisis after crisis — health care, housing, public safety. Crisis, crisis, crisis. Addiction crisis. Affordability crisis. Every one of these compounds the other. What does the budget do? What does the implementation offer? Nothing close to a plan to address them.

I’m on the phone, in my emails, reading letters on my desk every day from people in my riding that are struggling to find housing, to get services, literally the stories that I shared throughout this speech; having to make choices between medication or food. It’s not right.

We need a government that doesn’t just say it will take action. We need a government that actually takes action. This government needs to fix the problems that it created. But more importantly, we need a government that delivers results, not excuses, and is proactive. This bill, like the budget it implements, fails on every one of these fronts.

Let’s take a step back for a second and ask a fundamental question. Is this the best that we can do? Is this legislation, with its tax tweaks, insider breaks and tone-deaf fee hikes really what British Columbians need right now? Speaking on behalf of my constituents, again, this legislation is the opposite of what they want and what they need, especially as I knocked on doors day after day and heard from people in my own riding what they were up against and what they needed from the incoming government.

[7:15 p.m.]

When we speak to families across the province, we’re hearing that they need something different. We’re hearing from the seniors who are forced to choose between the fundamentals in life, the small business owners who are drowning in red tape, the young people who are giving up their dream of home ownership, and we know that many of them are leaving the province to achieve those dreams.

There are parents that are unable to find doctors for their kids and communities that are stuck with overcrowding in schools and crumbling infrastructure. They are looking for leadership, for competence, for integrity and for hope. Sadly, that’s not what they’re getting from this government.

Let me offer one more example of how the government has failed to lead, and we don’t need to look back far. There are more than enough embarrassments to pull from in the short time since this session began.

After years and multiple statements defending the carbon tax, years of insisting it was revenue-neutral, which it started out as. Despite overwhelming evidence, this government suddenly scrapped it. Years of punishing hard-working British Columbians for heating their homes in the winter, driving to work in communities where public transit isn’t a viable option or buying groceries that arrived by truck — they stood by it all. They brushed off the criticism, dismissed legitimate concerns. They refused to admit that the burden was falling hardest on the very people least able to afford it.

And now, all of a sudden, it’s dropped. They rushed it through the House in a panic. Their mishandling of the whole ordeal certainly did nothing to raise my confidence. Let’s not pretend that the decision was rooted in principle or concern for affordability, fairness or common sense. It was a reaction to polling and political pressure. A pre-election manoeuvre, it was a federal shift that forced their hand. And while they dropped the consumer carbon tax, they left the industrial one intact.

We in the B.C. Conservative Party ran on a clear promise to scrap the carbon tax, and we meant all of it. We wanted to get rid of the carbon tax for the consumers and for industry too, because we all know that we need our industry to kick-start, and we need it fast. But this government left the industrial version in place.

That means costs are still being passed down the chain to truckers, to farmers, to small businesses and, ultimately, to families. Let’s be honest, British Columbians will still feel it. Whether it’s labelled a carbon tax, a climate levy or buried in delivery fees and grocery bills, it ends up in the same place: on my and your receipts.

In Chilliwack–Cultus Lake, the pressure hasn’t let up. Families are still paying too much to heat their homes and drive to work. Local businesses and agriculture, trucking and forestry, the pillars of our economy, especially locally, are still absorbing higher fuel and production costs. Some have had to cut staff or scale back just to survive. Our rural and semi-rural communities already pay more. Simply because of where we live, we shoulder that burden.

While the government pats itself on the back for dropping one piece of the carbon tax, they continue to ignore the broader affordability crisis that’s hammering every household. Yes, the headlines might have felt like a momentary success for government, but in reality, the damage is still being done. The costs are still there. They’re just now quietly embedded in everything British Columbians pay for. And it’s harder to see.

That is not a forward-thinking government. And that is what we see again in Bill 5 — a bill that reacts rather than leads, a bill that patches rather than plans, a bill that tinkers rather than transforms. Don’t be fooled. Bill 5 is not anchored in some wider economic plan constructed to better the lives of British Columbians. This government can try to spin it all they want, but Bill 5 is merely a collection of political reactions that adjusts margins while the structure completely collapses.

[7:20 p.m.]

There is a clear pattern with this government. They delay until they are cornered. They deny until the evidence is overwhelming. They deflect when they could accept responsibility. And finally, when the pressure becomes politically unsustainable, only then do they act, and they only act just enough to claim that they’ve done something. It’s a cycle of denial, delay and deflection. This government has shown time and time again that this is a tactic that they have in their toolkit. Bill 5 is just the latest proof.

What we need from this government is real affordability, an actual plan to make lives easier for the people who are struggling the most. This government keeps talking about affordability, but they’ve offered no real plan — no cost-of-living relief, no pause on fee hikes, no rollback on punitive policies like road pricing or industrial levies that keep driving up prices across the board.

British Columbians need more than lip service. They need a government that understands the reality faced by many citizens across British Columbia, that recognizes rural families, working parents and small and large businesses not as obstacles but as the backbone of the province that we all love. Real affordability means looking at every policy through the lens of its impact on people.

One more area is tax policy. This bill increases the speculation and vacancy tax, which I’ve had many of my constituents write to me about. The rates go up, the reach expands, but where is the data showing that this tax has solved the housing crisis? Where’s the evidence that it has increased supply, lowered rents or even improved affordability? We know by recent reports that the four most expensive cities to live in Canada are right here in the Lower Mainland.

In the real world, we’re hearing the opposite. We’re hearing that renters can’t find a home and from first-time buyers that they can’t get into the market. From landlords, we’re hearing they’re selling their properties, and again, more people are leaving the province for better investment. Raising a tax that isn’t working is not a smart policy. It’s stubborn politics.

Let’s not forget the $3 billion revenue hole created by recent policy reversals. The budget initially tabled is already obsolete. The numbers no longer add up, the fiscal framework is no longer valid, yet here we are debating the legislation to implement it as if nothing has changed.

This is not just a matter of numbers on a page. It’s a matter of priorities; it’s a matter of trust; and above all, this is a matter of leadership. British Columbians are not asking for perfection. They’re just asking for honesty. They’re asking for a government that will level with them, show its work and put people before politics. They’re asking for leadership that listens, plans and prepares.

I can say this without hesitation. On this side of the House, the official opposition is fighting for something better. We believe in fiscal accountability as a commitment to the next generation and all of the generations that follow. In our language, it’s called tómiyeqw. You think seven generations in the past, seven generations in the future.

I cannot support Bill 5, and I urge the House to think about what it contains, what it reveals about the competence of this government and the direction that we’re headed. British Columbians deserve more than this bill. They deserve stability. It’s time for a new direction, and it’s time for leadership that meets the moment.

Kw’as hó:y.

Kristina Loewen: Today I rise not only as a member of this House but as someone who has spent a lifetime in the communities that this government continues to overlook. I rise for the families of British Columbia — families who have done everything right, who pay their taxes, who contribute to their communities and who have not been met with partnership but with indifference.

[7:25 p.m.]

Today we are debating Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, a bill that on its surface might appear technical, procedural, even routine. But let’s not be fooled by its thin form. This bill speaks volumes, not just in what it contains but in what it leaves out. Bill 5 is meant to implement the financial roadmap this government laid out just weeks ago, but that roadmap is already broken.

The numbers in this budget no longer reflect reality. The fiscal context has changed. The province is staring down a $14.3 billion projected deficit. Two credit downgrades have already hit, and British Columbians are left asking who is going to pay the price. The answer is clear.

It won’t be the Premier’s office. It won’t be the insiders getting $1,000-a-day consulting contracts. It won’t be the former employers of the Finance Minister receiving $45 million tax breaks.

It will be the working family in Kelowna scraping together enough to cover the utilities. It will be the senior in Kimberley facing a $64,000 infrastructure assessment just to keep their tap water clean. It will be the small-town parent walking their child nearly five kilometres to school because there’s no bus service and no sidewalk.

Bill 5 is a failure, not because it lacks polish but because it lacks purpose. It does not meet the moment. It does not reflect the real needs of British Columbians. It is outdated, it is out of touch, and it is out of time.

We are told this bill reflects the government’s fiscal vision, but if that is true, this government needs glasses. There’s no plan to address the infrastructure collapse facing rural communities, no plan to address skyrocketing food costs, no plan to address service erosion in our schools or hospitals and no plan to get this province back on solid financial footing. What we see instead is a government so busy managing optics that it has forgotten how to manage outcomes.

British Columbians deserve better than this bill offers. Over the next few minutes, I intend to lay out exactly why Bill 5 fails not just as legislation but as a statement of values, as a reflection of priorities and as a test of leadership. Let’s begin where most British Columbians, or many British Columbians, are feeling it: at the kitchen table.

This government likes to talk about kitchen-table priorities, but Bill 5 makes it painfully clear whose kitchen table they’re talking about. From where I’m standing, it’s not the table of a single mom trying to pay off her groceries while rent climbs by the month. It’s not the table of seniors weighing heating costs against medication. No, this bill is written from the kitchen table of an office tower in downtown Vancouver, where lobbyists have easy access and affordability is just a buzzword.

The truth is this. Affordability is slipping further out of the reach of British Columbians. Last week in Kelowna Centre, three separate senior men sought shelter for the first time in their lives. They sought shelter because they were homeless. Not one of them, none of them, had a drug problem. Each one had lived a productive and responsible life, but they now found themselves without a home in their senior years and in British Columbia. At a time in their lives when they shouldn’t need to worry, this province, and this government, has let them down.

Food bank usage is up 353 percent in Kelowna since 2019. That’s staggering and heartbreaking. The fastest-growing demographic for using the food bank are working families. Year-over-year food bank usage is increasing by 59 percent in the Central Okanagan. Seventy percent of food bank users are the working class. Let that sink in for a second. These are the productive citizens in our communities, the families who are struggling to make ends meet.

[7:30 p.m.]

Affordability is slipping further out of reach for British Columbians, and this bill does nothing to bring it back. Instead of offering relief, it actually makes life more expensive. It raises taxes on electric used vehicles, vehicles that working families invested in to lower their fuel costs and to do their part for the environment. The government told them, “Go green, and we’ll have your back,” and now those same families are being punished for taking that advice. This isn’t just policy confusion. It’s a betrayal.

Let’s talk about the new tax on parking in Metro Vancouver. In a region already plagued by sky-high parking rates, the government has declared that it’s time to make things even harder. Who asked for this? Who benefits from this? It certainly isn’t the small business owner who parks downtown every day to open their store. It’s not the young parent who needs to drive to a medical appointment. And it’s not the delivery driver trying to make ends meet while gas and insurance skyrocket.

This is a government that says to shop local while taxing local businesses into the ground. A government that says it wants to help commuters while driving up the cost of getting to work. And while they do this, they squeeze every dollar out of the middle class.

They still find a way to hand out $45 million in new tax credits to the film industry. Not, by the way, to the camera operator in Kamloops, not to the crew in Penticton but to major productions, the ones with lawyers and consultants who know how to maximize the perks. We know how hard the last few years and this government have been on small business. The struggle is pronounced and obvious. We watch small businesses struggle and shutter their doors far too often.

During my campaign, one of my favourite coffee shops closed. In fact, my campaign team was meeting in this coffee shop right up until they shut down. Between the downtown crime, the drug use and bad behaviour and the heightened property costs, their lease became unaffordable. In an interview, the owner cited a chair being thrown through the window of his business, combined with lewd behaviours as deterrents and costs to his business. Ultimately, these things, combined with new lease terms, made his busy coffee shop more of a hassle or a liability than a thriving business.

Small businesses need support. They need to be set free from the crushing tax, burdensome regulation and a government that over-invests in public services. It baffles me that this government thinks that the public sector can support its own weight. The private sector, small business, is the backbone of the economy and always has been. We need to correct course now. There is not a single tax cut in this bill, not one. In fact, without tax cuts, this government has led us into massive deficits and budget shortfalls.

Our schools are being affected — our children’s education, their learning and their futures. Kamloops school district is facing a $6 million budget shortfall, and they are considering freezing board salaries and cutting nearly 80 jobs. Kelowna is facing a $5.2 million budget shortfall. Kelowna is up to 112 percent capacity — it was 108 percent last year — and relies heavily on costly portables as temporary classrooms.

And Surrey…. Well, Surrey is facing a $16 million budget shortfall. They are faced with reducing bus service for students and closing learning centres.

No help for our students watching another portable moved onto their school playground. No help for families watching grocery bills rise by hundreds of dollars. No help for the senior on a fixed income. No help for small-town entrepreneurs trying to stay afloat. British Columbians are asked to shoulder more and more while getting less and less in return.

People are not asking for the moon. They are asking for relief. They’re asking for fairness, and they’re asking for leadership. And on that front, this bill fails entirely.

[7:35 p.m.]

We cannot have a conversation about Bill 5 without confronting one of its most glaring omissions, our infrastructure crisis. In communities across this province, residents are facing impossible challenges — boil-water advisories, crumbling sewer systems, collapsing dikes and roads so neglected they are functionally unsafe. And what does Bill 5 offer them? Not a single mention, not a single clause and not a single dollar.

In Kelowna, the city has given up on a second bridge. Whether you agree or not or whether the city always wanted this or not, one thing is clear. They are believing the message of this province and the message of this government when the government has proven they are unwilling and uninterested in supporting infrastructure. Money for a second bridge? Not on this government’s watch.

Take the community near Skaha Lake where 321 homeowners are facing a water and sewer collapse. They’ve been told it will cost over $20 million to repair. That’s more than $64,000 per household. These are seniors. These are families. They are people who did everything right, and now they’re being asked to choose between taking on life-altering debt or walking away from their homes with no equity left.

You know what they were told? That because their water system is managed by an improvement district, they don’t qualify for basic grant programs and that the system is outside of scope. These people pay taxes. They vote. They contribute. But they’re invisible to this government.

And what about transportation? In Princeton, kids are walking nearly five kilometres along unploughed highways just to get to school — no sidewalks, no bus service and no alternative. These kids can actually say they walk to school for miles in the snow, and it’s 2025.

This is not just about education. It’s about basic safety. Where in Bill 5 is the funding to fix this? Where is the plan to bring rural transportation into the 21st century? Let’s be clear. This isn’t about asking for special treatment. This is about fairness. It’s about being seen.

We have towns that want to build new homes, but they can’t get permits because their sewer systems are maxed out, municipalities that want to grow, but they can’t secure the infrastructure needed to support development, communities where fire-suppression systems failed under pressure because the pipes are too old. Yet in this budget measures implementation act, the legislation meant to operationalize the government’s budget, there is no structural reform, no funding framework, no acknowledgement that this crisis exists.

We cannot build homes if the ground beneath them is broken. We cannot invite people to settle in regions where the water isn’t safe and the roads are impassable. We cannot call ourselves a forward-looking province when we’re ignoring the foundational infrastructure that makes life possible. This government has spent months talking about housing, about density, about rapid permitting. But density without infrastructure is a fantasy, and permitting without water and sewer and transit capacity is a shell game.

Bill 5 could have recognized this. It could have tied infrastructure grants to realistic housing targets. It could have introduced procurement reform to allow rural contractors a fair shot at bidding. It could have set the stage for growth. Instead it offers silence. For the communities who are paying the price for that silence, this bill is not just a disappointment; it’s an insult.

The relationship between the provincial government and the local municipalities should be built on trust, on partnership and on respect for the realities on the ground. What we see in Bill 5 and in this government’s entire approach to governance is the opposite — top-down mandates, one-size-fits-all policies and expectations that local governments must deliver with shrinking resources and zero support.

Municipalities are being ordered to densify, build faster, approve more homes. Let me be clear. I support the goal of increasing housing supply. I absolutely do. But the problem is not ambition. The problem is execution.

You cannot build new homes on broken foundations. You cannot expect communities to grow when the waterlines can’t keep up and the sewer systems are at capacity. You can’t expect them to grow when the energy system is not able to keep up. And you can’t expect British Columbians to feel satisfied with this life in this province when they’ve neither been asked for their opinion nor supported in the process.

[7:40 p.m.]

This government says, “Build more,” but they won’t fund the infrastructure needed to support that growth. Bill 5 could have introduced cost-sharing frameworks. It could have reformed the funding model for infrastructure grants. It could have acknowledged that small towns and rural communities need support if they’re to meet the demands placed on them. Instead, we get silence again.

What happens when municipalities can’t deliver? The government points fingers. They blame local delays. They say communities are getting in the way. It’s disingenuous, it’s dishonest, and it’s deeply unfair.

This disconnect has real consequences. We see it in the gaps in school transportation, we see it in the absence of long-term planning for rural transit, and we see it in the towns where a single emergency room closure means the next available hospital is hours away. We see it in the volunteer firefighters, municipal planners and public works crews who are doing more with less every single day.

Well, this government pats itself on the back for historic investments, and they never make it past the press release. Where is the support for towns actually delivering the growth this government claims to want? Where is the respect for local leadership, the people closest to the challenges, who are being completely left out of the solutions?

There is no mention in this bill of municipal cost pressures, no commitment to improving grant eligibility for communities that fall through the cracks, no reforms to procurement so that local contractors, engineers and suppliers can actually win public projects in their own backyards.

Instead, the government continues to write policy in a vacuum, where Metro Vancouver is the default, and every other region is expected to adapt or fall behind. We need collaboration, not command; we need investment, not indifference; and we need a government that sees municipal leaders not as obstacles but as allies in delivering results. Bill 5 fails to recognize any of this.

If there is one issue that cuts across every household, every age group and every region in this province, it is health care, yet here we are debating a bill that purports to implement the government’s fiscal vision for the year ahead, and there’s not one meaningful commitment to health care equity, access or capacity in it.

What does it say about a government that can find room in the budget to expand tax credits for elite sectors but not for the people who are waiting weeks for a family doctor or spending hours in emergency rooms, if they can find one open?

In Kelowna and countless other ridings across British Columbia, we are seeing ER closures with little to no notice. Paramedics are stretched beyond capacity, walk-in clinics are shutting down and specialists might as well be a myth in many parts of the province.

Bill 5 does nothing to address this. There are no incentives in this legislation to retain rural health care workers, no reforms to attract doctors and nurses to underserved communities, no investment in mobile clinics or expanded telehealth or regional health care models that reflect the geographic diversity of our province. We hear a lot about universal access, but “universal” means nothing when it isn’t actually available.

Seniors are being discharged from hospitals without adequate supports. Young families are paying out-of-pocket for mental health services that should be publicly funded. Communities are fundraising for basic medical equipment, while this government throws money at politically convenient industries and headline-grabbing announcements.

Bill 5 could be an opportunity to set a new tone. It could have included funding models for integrated care in rural areas. It could have implemented tax credits for health care professionals who choose to practise in underserved regions. It could have made meaningful investments in long-term care, so that families aren’t forced to send their loved ones hundreds of kilometres away just to receive basic care.

Instead, this government has turned its back. Affordability is not just about food and fuel; it’s about access to care when you need it. Right now that access is deeply unequal.

[7:45 p.m.]

We do not have a health care system; we have a health care lottery. If you happen to live in the right postal code, you win. But if you live in a rural area, if you’re low-income, or if you rely on transit to get to an appointment, you are out of luck. This bill ignores that inequity. It allows it to fester, and that alone is reason enough to vote it down.

Perhaps nothing in this bill illustrates the government’s misplaced priority more than its treatment of the film industry. Let me be clear. I support the film industry. I know the value it brings to our economy, our communities and our cultural landscape, but what I also know is this. If you want an industry to thrive, you have to pair smart incentives with smart strategy. What we see in Bill 5 is the opposite.

This government is expanding film tax credits, adding an additional 5 percent credit for qualified B.C. labour expenditures and extending regional incentives for animation studios. That might sound positive on paper, but we need to ask: where is the corresponding support for the industries that have no lobbyists on call? Where is the targeted relief for forestry communities hit by mill closures, for ranchers crushed by drought, for small processors and regional exporters, who are the backbone of our economy? They’ve been left behind again.

Worse still, this government is actively undermining its own efforts. When you create an environment of economic and political instability, when you target specific segments of American society with performative rhetoric, you make B.C. less attractive as a filming destination. That’s not conjecture; that is experience. During the 2008 recession, productions fled this province. They will do so again if we continue down this path.

At a time of rising costs and shrinking margins, why would international producers choose B.C. over other jurisdictions if they sense political hostility, regulatory confusion or tax unpredictability? This government cannot have it both ways, claiming to support an industry while alienating the very people who keep it running.

This is only one part of the problem, because while the government funds tax credits and spin campaigns, our province’s fiscal health is deteriorating. Bill 5 is based on a budget that no longer holds. When the Finance Minister tabled it, she already knew two credit downgrades were on the way. She knew the deficit forecast was no longer accurate, and she proceeded anyway, without disclosing the risk, without a plan to mitigate it and without any structural reforms to restore confidence.

Now B.C. is looking at a projected $14.3 billion deficit. That’s $14.3 billion in debt that our children and grandchildren will be responsible for, and every credit downgrade means higher borrowing costs, more expensive infrastructure projects and less flexibility for future budgets.

I am worried about my children’s future. This is not a spreadsheet problem; this is a public service problem. Every dollar that goes towards debt is a dollar not spent on schools, it’s a dollar not spent on hospitals, and it’s a dollar not spent on clean drinking water or rural roads.

What does Bill 5 do in response to this financial cliff? Nothing — no debt management strategy, no long-term spending plan, no fiscal guardrails; just politics, just photo ops, just more of the same.

Leadership is not about pretending things are fine when they’re not. It’s about making tough decisions early, not waiting until the crisis hits. This government reacts instead of plans; it scrambles instead of leads; and it’s the people of British Columbia who are left holding the bill. I’m so tired of hearing that we have a strong economy, because it only takes a moment and a pair of eyes to notice the holes in that statement.

[7:50 p.m.]

At the heart of this debate is not just a fiscal document; it’s a question of leadership. British Columbians are not asking for more programs. They’re not asking for more consultants, task forces or talking points. They’re asking for someone to stand up and say enough — enough delay, enough deflection and enough neglect. They want to be heard, and they want to be seen. Above all, they want a government that acts, and not just when the polls drop or the headlines shift, but when it’s hard and when it matters and when lives are on the line.

This government has forgotten what leadership looks like. Leadership means anticipating challenges, not reacting to crises alone. It means investing in infrastructure before it fails. It means prioritizing long-term stability over short-term optics. And it means listening to those who don’t have a lobbyist, who don’t hold a press conference, but who still get up every day and hold this province together. This bill fails that test.

Bill 5 is not just a missed opportunity; it’s a mirror reflecting the priorities of a government that has lost its way. It shows us a province where insiders are rewarded while families are taxed more; where consultants are hired while seniors face disconnection notices, while seniors face homelessness; where school buses don’t run but press releases do. It’s a budget bill with no vision, a fiscal plan with no anchor, a government initiative with no grounding in the lived reality of British Columbians. That is why I cannot support it.

This House is changing. Rural voices are rising, and people who have been left behind are no longer silent, and they will not be ignored. The Conservative caucus is here because our constituents sent us here, because they are tired of being told to do more with less. They are tired of hearing excuses while infrastructure crumbles and while taxes rise and while services fail.

We don’t need more management; we need leadership. We don’t need more bureaucracy; we need action. We will keep standing, day in and day out, until the needs of every region, every industry and every family in this province are respected and addressed.

British Columbians deserve better than Bill 5. They deserve a government that governs for all, not just the few. They deserve fairness, foresight and fiscal discipline. And they deserve a future built on substance, not spin. Until we see that kind of government, we will continue to hold this one accountable.

Pete Davis: As representative for Kootenay-Rockies, I stand before this House today to express my deep concerns about Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. This piece of legislation, as it stands, embodies a fiscal direction that, quite frankly, is out of step with the values and needs of the people I represent, and indeed the hard-working citizens across British Columbia.

One thing I want to do here today: I want to take a moment to clear the air, because I think it needs to be cleared. Every time this government gets asked a tough question or confronted with the consequences of their decisions, we hear the same tired excuse: Trump, Trump, Trump.

Apparently everything that’s gone wrong in British Columbia for the last eight years is somehow the fault of the United States and the President that’s been voted in just six months ago. What about the other 7½ years that this government has had to mess up this province? This is the NDP’s mess, and we will ensure that they own it. No amount of deflection can change that fact.

[7:55 p.m.]

In 2017, when the NDP first took office, the debt in this province was $30 billion less. People weren’t dying from toxic drugs at the rate we see now. Our streets were safer. The cost of living was manageable. Families could afford to live, work and thrive here. Working families were not having to go to the food bank to get food. That is the British Columbia we once knew, but not anymore. Now look what we are today. The numbers speak for themselves.

I’m going to challenge this government right here, right now: stop playing the blame game, stop reaching for excuses, start taking ownership of the financial disaster that you’ve created, start accepting responsibility for the social decay that has unfolded under this watch, this NDP government. British Columbians deserve accountability, not more finger-pointing. This government does not need another scapegoat; it needs a reality check.

Now that I’ve addressed that issue, as we look at this bill, I believe we must take a look, a long, hard look, at what the true meaning for the future of our province is.

For all of the promises of progress and prosperity, this budget fails to provide a clear, sustainable path forward for the people of rural B.C., small businesses and core industries that are the lifeblood of our B.C. economy. Instead, what we have before us is an expansion of government, an encouragement of dependency and a prioritization of niche sectors at the expense of the broader economy of our province.

Let me begin by discussing one of the key elements in this budget, which, if I may be frank, represents a dangerous precedent for future generations: the extended permission for deficit. The government has sought to forecast deficits through 2027 and 2028, a move that entrenches long-term deficit spending without offering a clear path back to a balanced budget. I just read today that by 2027-2028 we could be at $1.553 billion in debt. I read another report that says it could be as high as $208 billion. That’s scary. I don’t care what side of the House you’re on, that’s scary.

What we are seeing here is a pattern, one where this government has continuously kicked the can down the road, borrowing more and more while giving no clear indication of how or when we will return to fiscal responsibility. I’m starting to doubt what’s going to happen with this government. That’s why we’re here.

The people of B.C., especially those in rural communities, are not blind to the impacts of this. Each dollar borrowed today is one that will have to be repaid tomorrow, and that repayment will not come from the coffers of the NDP government. No. It will fall to the hard-working families, businesses and taxpayers of this province. We’re looking at our children and their children. They will inherit the debt that we rack up today.

And while this government talks about helping families in the short term, they are effectively mortgaging our future with each passing year of deficit. This is not a budget implementation act. It’s a long-term permission slip for the NDP to continue running deficits with no clear plan to restore fiscal balance.

I know the people of Kootenay-Rockies are asking themselves: what does this mean for me and my family? It’s a valid question, because when you look beyond the headlines, you realize that these deficits mean higher taxes, reduced public services and a growing burden on the future generations.

The result of this unstable path will be higher interest payments, fewer resources for vital programs like health, health care and infrastructure and a diminished ability to invest in the services that communities so desperately need. This bill sets us up on a path where today’s luxuries are funded by tomorrow’s sacrifices. That is not the future we should be creating.

Now, let us take a closer look at the tax credits that this bill expands, specifically for sectors like international film productions, high-budget projects in interactive digital media. Let me be clear. We support the creative economy. These are valuable industries. They employ British Columbians, they contribute to our GDP, and they’ve carved out a role in our cultural and economic fabric.

[8:00 p.m.]

But here’s the issue. This government is pouring tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars into tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit large multinational corporations, companies that can shop globally for the best deal, while turning a blind eye to the struggling backbone of this province. This government is so eager to hand Hollywood more money, while small businesses in Cranbrook, Fernie, Sparwood and Elkford and every rural community that I represent are drowning in red tape, staggering under the weight of rising costs and completely abandoned when it comes to meaningful support.

Where is the tax relief for the miners who pull value from the earth, the loggers who steward our forests, the farmers who put food on our tables and the ranchers who care for our land? Where is the help for our tourism operators, those who are trying to rebuild after years of devastation, now facing labour shortages, climbing costs and absolutely no support from this government?

This bill is not balanced. It does not reflect the economic reality of this province. This is a Vancouver-centred budget, designed in an urban echo chamber for the benefit of the privileged few. It leaves out the workers and industries that sustain the rest of British Columbia.

Let us not ignore the one tax cut this government finally decided to implement, a tax cut they resisted for years — until, quite conveniently, the former head of DigiBC became the Minister of Finance. Lo and behold, now we have a $45 million reward to the very industry she once represented. Let that sink in. While everyday British Columbians are $200 away from missing a bill payment, this government finds $45 million for foreign film companies and global tech firms.

Let me say it again. We support the creative economy, but this is not about whether or not the film tech sector matters. They do. This is about timing, and it’s about priorities. Most importantly, it’s about fairness. How does it make sense, to anyone in this House or anyone in this province, that during a cost-of-living crisis, while families are struggling to pay for groceries, fuel and rent, this government’s priority is to hand a tax break to Netflix?

Instead, the budget props up narrow, idealized visions of B.C. that exist only in the boardrooms and studios of downtown Vancouver, while the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces. This bill does not serve the hard-working people of British Columbia, it does not serve the resource communities, and it does not serve the rural families. It does not serve the small business owners, and it certainly does not serve the people I was elected to represent.

I want to remind the members of this House of the four industries painted on the ceiling of this very building — logging, mining, fishing and agriculture. These industries are the foundation of British Columbia. They represent our past and our present. And if we have any wisdom, they’ll be our future too.

This leads me to the third issue I want to address, the neglect of core economic sectors. Once again, we see this government showering tax credits and incentives to sectors that already receive ample support, while ignoring the industries that are responsible for the vast majority of jobs and economic output in rural B.C. I mentioned earlier that the resource sector — mining, forests, oil and gas — has powered our economy for generations, yet this bill offers no relief, no support and no recognition of their critical role.

Similarly, the agricultural producers who feed our province and the tourism operators outside the Lower Mainland who help drive our rural economies get virtually nothing in this bill — absolutely nothing. These sectors have been largely forgotten by this government, and while they are struggling to survive under mounting costs and increasing regulatory burdens, this budget focuses its attention on the glittering allure of the film industry and the latest digital fads.

[8:05 p.m.]

The people of Kootenay-Rockies and all of rural B.C. deserve more than just token gestures and empty promises. They deserve policies that will support the industries that truly drive our economy. They deserve policies that recognize the value of resource development, the importance of agriculture and the need for robust tourism support in regions outside the Lower Mainland.

It is time we speak plainly and without apology about the enormous untapped potential of British Columbia’s natural resource sector. For far too long, this government has neglected — no, actively undermined — the very industries that built this province. Let me be clear. If responsibly unleashed, the power of our natural resource sector could not only pay down our ballooning debt but fund the very infrastructure our communities so desperately need.

We’re talking about bridges that don’t collapse under age, roads that connect rural communities instead of isolating them, schools that inspire rather than overcrowd, hospitals that heal without months of long wait-lists, and safe, dignified spaces for mental health support and addiction rehabilitation.

Why does this government persist in turning its back on the industries that have historically supported our families and our economy? Logging, mining, fishing and agriculture — the very icons painted on the roof of the building. Have they provided a break for these workers and small business owners who rely on these sectors? No, they have not at all. Instead, they shower tax breaks on foreign interests and elites, padding the pockets of the wealthy in the film industry while propping up economic model imports from Hollywood.

It is what British Columbians asked for. Did anyone in rural B.C. say: “Forget forestry. Let’s bet it all on the movie sets”? I don’t think so. We must get back to basics. We must support the people who live here, who raise their families here and build this province from the ground up. That begins with respecting and revitalizing the natural resource sector, not as an afterthought but as the cornerstone of our economy and the future prosperity.

I want to address the growing dependency on government handouts that this budget further encourages. Expanding benefits like the B.C. family benefit to continue for six months after the death of a child is, without a doubt, an act of compassion. No one here would question the need for compassion in times of tragedy, but we must also ask: is this the right solution to the challenges facing families in B.C.?

The reality is that while this measure may offer short-term relief, it also deepens the dependency on government. It expands the welfare state when what we should be doing is empowering families, providing them with more opportunities to succeed and reducing their reliance on handouts. We should be focusing on creating a stronger economy where families can thrive through work and opportunity rather than relying on temporary government assistance that can replace the dignity of self-reliance.

This budget represents a missing opportunity, a chance to truly address the needs of British Columbians, particularly those in rural communities. Instead we see an expansion of government, the prioritization of niche sectors and a failure to provide meaningful support for the industries that matter most to the people in my riding of Kootenay-Rockies and in B.C.

I ask this government to reconsider its approach. I ask them to think about the long-term consequences of continued deficit spending, the missed opportunities for small businesses and the need for a more balanced, sustainable economic strategy. The people of Kootenay-Rockies and all of B.C. deserve a government that will fight for them, not one that continues to ignore their needs in favour of urban-centred policies that benefit only the few.

You know what? It’s also very disturbing to me, and should be to every British Columbian, that when the Minister of Finance tabled the budget that this bill was based on, we learned something alarming. This government was already expecting two credit downgrades. This government knew that this was coming down the line but chose to move forward this budget and this bill. This is a government that is failing in its most basic duty, the stewardship of our province’s finances.

[8:10 p.m.]

Now, let’s break this down for the people of British Columbia. The implications of these two credit downgrades are profound. First, two credit downgrades means that fixing B.C.’s broken health care system just became way more expensive. We’re talking about a health care system that is already stretched thin, where patients are waiting for long-term care, where families are concerned about the state of emergency rooms.

Where the system’s financial health continues to deteriorate when credit downgrades happen, borrowing costs go up. What does that mean for British Columbians? It means that every dollar spent to improve our health care system will be harder to come by. It means that the status quo is no longer an option, but this government’s actions are making it harder to fix.

Two credit downgrades also meant that eliminating portables at schools, whether it be in Surrey, Chilliwack, Sooke or any other community in this province, just became more challenging. It also means that rural communities such as communities in my riding of Kootenay-Rockies will get moved down the line for new school buildings we so desperately need.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

There are school buildings in my riding literally falling apart around these kids. The lack of action on building new schools and classrooms has already led to overcrowded classrooms across this province, particularly in fast-growing communities. Yet this government has failed to take real, meaningful action to address this issue.

The burden of these credit downgrades will fall squarely on the shoulders of our children and the next generation of learners, making it more difficult to create the educational opportunities that are so critical for their success.

We cannot ignore the most immediate action of these downgrades. B.C.’s deficit just got worse. Moody’s, one of the credit-rating agencies that downgrades B.C.’s rating, now expects this government’s deficit to reach an alarming $14.3 billion.

Let me tell you something. This government has no credible plan to balance the budget anytime soon. Both credit-rating agencies have made it clear that they expect B.C.’s credit rating to be downgraded again in the near future. This is the reality that we face. It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when. And the people of B.C. are right to ask: when will this government take the necessary steps to address this growing fiscal crisis?

Yet, despite these dire warnings, this government continues to move forward with Bill 5, a bill that, in my view, does little more than maintain the status quo of financial mismanagement. The tax changes included in this bill are simply tweaks that fail to address the real needs of British Columbians.

Let’s talk about one of the most absurd pieces of this bill: the tax hike on used electrical vehicles. Now, we’ve all heard this government go on and on about electric cars. That’s their big push. That’s their so-called vision for a greener future. But here’s the irony. While they’re busy patting themselves on the back for being champions of electric vehicles, they’re quietly slipping in new taxes that are going to make these vehicles even more expensive and out of reach for the ordinary British Columbian.

This isn’t about reducing emissions. It’s about squeezing more money out of all the families who are already doing their part, families who in good faith bought into this government’s narrative that going electric was the responsible thing to do. Now those same families are being punished with higher costs. This isn’t going to hurt the elites flying around in private jets. It’s going to hit working families who are looking for a practical, affordable way to commute, to get their kids to school and to live their lives.

Let’s not forget about the new parking tax hike in Metro Vancouver, because apparently in the mind of this government, parking your car is now a luxury. At a time when people are living paycheque to paycheque, the NDP thinks the real issue is that parking is too affordable. Meanwhile, their friends and insiders are still cashing $1,000-a-day paycheques, courtesy of the taxpayer.

[8:15 p.m.]

That’s the reality under this government. One set of rules for the well-connected and another for everyone else. It’s clear this government is out of touch with the real priorities of British Columbians. They don’t see the struggle. They don’t feel the squeeze. If they did, they wouldn’t be raising taxes on people trying to work, pick up their kids and visit their aging parents.

That brings us to the heart of the matter. Bill 5 and this government’s fiscal approach are not grounded in economic growth or common sense. There is no vision here. There is no real plan to balance the budget, no meaningful effort to grow the economy, just more taxes, more bureaucracy and more control. That’s what we get from this NDP government.

This bill is a laundry list of out-of-touch decisions wrapped in hollow talking points. It does nothing for the people of Kootenay-Rockies, it does nothing for the people of British Columbia, it does nothing for the resource workers, it does nothing for the small businesses, and it absolutely does nothing to ease the burden of families already doing everything they can to stay afloat. As my colleague hon. Peter Milobar put it perfectly, this is a budget measures implementation bill with a few tax changes, predominantly for the film industry. That’s about it.

And to top it off, we’ve got a $3 billion revenue hole in the budget, with no real adjustments to spending. This government is steering the province straight into a fiscal ditch, and they either don’t see it, or they just don’t care.

The people of this province deserve better. They deserve a government that respects taxpayers, understands working families and has the competence to manage our finances responsibly. This bill does none of that, and I will not support it.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to all members, we don’t use names in the chambers.

Sharon Hartwell: I rise in this chamber today with a heavy heart and a deep sense of duty, a duty to speak for the people of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, the people of the North, the people who continue to be forgotten, overlooked, ignored, dismissed by this government. I speak today not just as their MLA, not just their provincially elected representative, but as one of them.

That’s my home. That’s where I was born and raised as someone who knows what it means to live in a rural community where we don’t have the luxury of being forgotten. Because when we are, it’s not just an inconvenience; it’s a matter of our very survival.

We are here to debate Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. A bill that is supposed to reflect the priorities of this government. A bill that is supposed to give life to the budget this government tabled just weeks ago. A bill that is supposed to take the theory of the budget and put it into action.

What does this bill really reflect? Does it reflect a commitment to the communities that power our province? To the industries that keep our economy running? To the families that build our future? To the nurses and doctors who keep our health care system strong? To the teachers and education assistants who educate the next generation of British Columbians, or to the post-secondary students who are planning their futures? To the mom-and-dad pop-up businesses who carry communities on their shoulders? No, it does not.

What it reflects is the continued neglect of the North, continued mismanagement of public funds, continued indifference to the challenges that we face and continued failure to recognize that this province is powered by the energy and minerals pulled from the ground and put to work by the very hard-working people of the North.

We have a Premier and Finance Minister who, through this budget and their actions, show the North doesn’t really matter to them. The people of the North are not in their thoughts, not in their plans and not tied to the outcomes they desire for this province. Instead, they seem more interested in rewarding the insiders than in serving British Columbians. This budget shows a government that is all politics, all the time.

Allow me to break down what this means for our people, the true northerners of B.C., who again and again are let down by the urbanized government disinterested and disengaged in how to actually move this province’s economy forward.

[8:20 p.m.]

Let’s start with what this bill really means. When the Minister of Finance tabled the budget that this bill implements, she had every single financial implication that credit downgrades were on the way. The Finance Minister knew. That means the Premier knew, cabinet knew, and likely all members on the opposite side knew. If not, they should have known.

The Finance Minister should have shared with them that the choices made by this Premier and Finance Minister were driving B.C. further and further into debt. The credit-rating agencies had already sounded the alarm. Years of overspending, of running massive deficits, of printing money without a plan: those chickens have now come home to roost.

Moody’s now expects this government’s deficit to hit $14.3 billion. We’ve heard that repeatedly this evening. That’s not just a number on a spreadsheet. That’s $14.3 billion of debt that our children and grandchildren will be paying off.

Even more troubling, those same agencies are already warning that more downgrades are very likely. They see what we all see: a government that has no plan to get back to balance, no intention to rein in spending, no willingness to make the hard choices necessary to protect the future of this province or the people that it says it represents.

But what’s most galling is not just the fiscal incompetence; it’s the utter hypocrisy. This is a government that claims to care about affordability, about working families, about the environment. Yet in this bill, we see tax hikes on used electric vehicles. Yes, that’s right — used electric vehicles. It’s not just the high-end Teslas and luxury models but the everyday vehicles that working families are trying to afford, the very vehicles this government says we should all be driving. Now they’re going to cost more.

How does that make any sense? How does that line up with this government’s own rhetoric? Well, it doesn’t. And it’s not just electric vehicles. This bill also includes a tax hike on parking in Metro Vancouver. Again, who asked for this? Who said parking in B.C. was too affordable? Well, not anyone that I know.

Now, let’s talk about who this government is looking out for. While families are $200 away or less from missing their rent or mortgage payments, this Finance Minister thought it was the perfect time to hand out a $45 million tax break to her former employer. Let me repeat that. While ordinary British Columbians are struggling to make ends meet, the Minister of Finance found room in the budget to reward the company she used to work for, the company that she used to lead. That’s not just a conflict of interest. It’s an insult to every taxpayer in this province.

That brings me to the heart of the matter — the North, my home. My riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine is one of the most beautiful, resilient and hard-working regions in this province, yet year after year, budget after budget, we are left behind. Promises are made. Photo ops are staged. Press releases are issued. But when the rubber hits the road, there is nothing.

The most glaring example is the promised long-term-care facility in Smithers, a promise made by the former MLA while campaigning, a promise that gave people hope that their loved ones could receive care close to home, surrounded by family and community. But in this budget, that promise is nowhere to be found. Not a line, not a dollar. Just silence.

It’s not just health care. Our roads are in a shameful state. The Babine and Suskwa roads are seeing 150 to 160 truckloads of logs every single day, every day. These roads are essential not just for industry, and that’s only for the mills that are working, but for safety, for emergency response and for connectivity. Yet they are neglected. I know. I’ve been driving on them.

Contractors are burning through equipment faster than ever. Tires, shocks, suspensions are all torn apart by roads that haven’t seen real investment in years — not consistent investment. Who pays for that? The small business owners, the truckers, the families, the ones who get up at 5 a.m. and put in 12-to-14-hour days just to make ends meet. What do they get in return? Potholes, washouts, silence. The roads are not maintained.

The situation up Highway 37 is just as dire. This is a highway that services some of the most productive mining operations in our country.

[8:25 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, noting the time, and due to the deferred discussion on Bill M205, please reserve your place and move adjournment of the debate.

Sharon Hartwell: Noting the hour, I reserve my place to continue my remarks and move adjournment of the debate.

Sharon Hartwell moved adjournment of debate.

Point of Order

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m going to request a point of order, please.

Deputy Speaker: Go ahead.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I take very strong offence to comments made by this member.

To directly quote this member, this member has alleged that a $45 million tax break was provided to my former employer, DigiBC. Zero dollars have been provided to my former employer, DigiBC, and I would like an apology from the member opposite.

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: If it’s untrue, show me the information that says it’s untrue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute.

Member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, could you please repeat your remarks.

Sharon Hartwell: I’ll review the information, Minister.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Just to recap, the member had moved the motion to adjourn the debate.

Motion approved.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Bill M208 — Emergency and Disaster
Management Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Speaker: Members, earlier today during private members’ time, a division was requested, second reading of Bill M208, intituled Emergency and Disaster Management Amendment Act, 2025. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the deferred division will take place now.

[8:30 p.m. - 8:35 p.m.]

Members, the question is second reading of Bill M208, intituled Emergency and Disaster Management Amendment Act, 2025.

[8:40 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 45
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
Bird	Luck	Stamer
Maahs	Tepper	Mok
Wilson	Clare	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Chapman	McCall	Valeriote
Botterell	Kealy	Armstrong
NAYS — 46
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

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d like to reserve a right of personal privilege, please.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 8:42 p.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
Mining and Critical Minerals
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $61,012,000 (continued).

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I just want to briefly make comments. I want to say thanks to the member opposite for Kootenay-Rockies for the constructive dialogue last week on Thursday.

I welcome the questions again from the member and other members to continue the dialogue on the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

Ian Paton: As many of us know in this building, jade is a provincial gemstone of British Columbia. We are global leaders in the world for our production of jade as a very, very valuable and decorative gemstone.

In the year 2024, the Environment and Land Use Act discontinued the production of any new jade operations on April 1 of 2030, upcoming. Now there’s talk of environmental concerns from First Nations, the Tāłtān Nation, up in that area.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain to us what further harm and disturbance there is to the environment by shutting down jade mining in the northern Dease Lake part of B.C.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

The cumulative impact of jade mining in northwest British Columbia has caused harmful effects on the sensitive alpine environment and created regulatory challenges for permitting compliance and enforcement.

In response, the province established an order in council under section 7 of the Environment and Land Use Act, prohibiting jade mining on new tenure in northwest B.C. while allowing existing tenure holders to continue jade mining for five years, which is called the jade transition period, under enhanced reclamation requirements.

The OIC does not impact other mining operations in the northwest region and does not affect jade mining in other areas of B.C. Ministry staff have worked collaboratively with jade operators and First Nations in developing guidance on the enhanced reclamation requirements. Existing operations within the OIC boundary can continue to submit notice-of-work applications pertaining to jade throughout the jade transition period.

Regional operations are currently processing four notice-of-work applications pertaining to jade for the 2025 field season.

Ian Paton: Tony Ritter, who owns Cassiar Jade, has been in the business for 35 years, and he’s currently had to sue his own government for compensation. He would like to know why he’s been expropriated without compensation. That would be question 1.

Question 2. Stating that there’s environmental damage that’s been done by the jade business in northern B.C., which is an economic driver in that part of our province, could you explain what further harm and disturbance the jade operations have caused to the environment?

[2:50 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

There were two parts to the question. The first one was about the case. I cannot comment on any specific case with judicial proceedings.

At the same time, I just want to say to the member that we continue to take applications when it comes to jade operations in 2025, moving forward.

As far as the environment is concerned, jade operations are sensitive to the ecosystem, and it takes a long time to reclaim the area. That’s why we are actually working on the transition period and working with both the industry and First Nations to make sure, moving forward, that we can do it safely and to the satisfaction of everyone.

Pete Davis: Last week this minister claimed that the decline in B.C. exploration spend was caused by global trends and inflation. Well, you’re correct in that investment has declined generally for exploration, but the truth is B.C. is falling much faster than Ontario and Quebec. It appears, actually, that Saskatchewan is projected to overtake B.C. for third place this year.

In fact, in this ministry’s own report, released in February 2025, it states: “Policy considerations are also contributing to B.C.’s declining exploration spend.”

When is this minister going to fix the policy issues created by this government and get back on track? Why does this government continue to push forward on modernization of the Mineral Tenure Act, which is adding further uncertainties to our policy environment?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

The mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy. We are absolutely clear that there will be no mine without the exceptional work of prospectors, and there will be no stability in the mining sector without true reconciliation. That’s why we support a sustainable, responsible and globally competitive mining sector.

I just want to inform the member that the province’s fiscal incentives, rich mineral deposits, world-class infrastructure and clean and affordable energy continue to make B.C. an attractive jurisdiction for investors, with approximately $15.3 billion investment in B.C. companies and assets in 2024.

In addition to that, investment dollars in mineral resources development are up 50 percent over the ten-year average and are the second highest in ten years. Also, the total employment in the mining sector has gone up 10 percent since we took over in 2017, from 36,000 working people to 40,000 working people. Also, the total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent from around $20 billion in 2017, when we took over, to around $17 billion in 2023. So we continue to make progress.

The Premier has given me a task, of course, to bring permitting timelines, and I’m very pleased to continue working on that piece. We have already reduced the major mine application review timelines by 35 percent, and we have also reduced the regional permitting backlog by 52 percent. We will continue to work on that path to provide fixed timelines to the industries, where we can bring more stability, more certainty.

[3:05 p.m.]

That can bring more investment and make the mining sector even stronger, to create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and to grow the economy — particularly, with critical minerals, to grow the clean economy in the province of British Columbia.

Pete Davis: In my question to the minister, I talked about Ontario and Quebec, and now we’re in fourth to Saskatchewan.

My question to the minister: can this minister please give me some information as to what the minister’s government plan is to make sure that we’re not in fourth? Obviously, we’re going down. We’re getting behind in this industry.

B.C. is one of the richest natural resource provinces in this country, but yet we’re lagging behind. So what I’d like to know from this minister: what is your government planning to do to try and make our province more attractive for investment?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

For the first part, B.C. offers a very competitive incentive for mineral exploration and development, including the mining flow-through share tax credit and mining exploration tax credit, the most favourable in Canada, as well as extensions to the new mine allowance and PST exemptions for critical equipment.

The province is committed to ensuring that its fiscal framework supports a highly competitive mining sector and continues to position B.C. as a sought-after jurisdiction for investment.

The ministry is developing an investor outreach strategy right now. The initiative is being led by the critical minerals office, working in cooperation with industry, First Nations, unions and others. The CMO is pursuing targeted capital markets, engaging to promote B.C.’s strategic advantage and ESG credentials, and to highlight critical minerals opportunity for investors.

On top of that, I just want to say to the member that the key to being competitive right now in Canada and also in the global community is, actually, the permitting timelines. The Premier has given me a clear mandate to come up with fixed timelines. I’m working with the industry, and I’m working with, of course, the First Nations and other stakeholders, to basically find the fixed timelines moving forward.

I can say to the member that because the mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy, we are taking actions to speed up the permitting process in a way that supports sustainable economic development and environmental protection. I just want to say to the member that I agree with the industry that permitting timelines, including under the previous administration, have been a challenge, particularly to make mining globally competitive. The difference is that the previous administration did not take any actions, and we are taking actions.

We already reduced the major mine application process by 35 percent, as I said earlier, and the regional backlogs by 52 percent. We will continue to work with the industry, as well as First Nations, to find the fixed timelines. Fixed timelines are the key when it comes to keeping the mining sector competitive and moving forward, because they’re going to bring stability and certainty to the sector. With that, we can bring more investment into the province.

This is a very attractive province for mining. We have, I think, 18 of the 32 critical minerals in the country. We produce almost 60 percent of the copper from the country. We are the only province producing molybdenum. We have very attractive critical minerals in the province. We have also an exceptional ESG score and a very diverse workforce in the province. We have exceptional port infrastructure to transport the minerals, whether it’s to Asia or anywhere else.

This is a very attractive place for mining and critical minerals. Moving forward, we will do everything we possibly can to make it even more competitive and more attractive to the global community.

Pete Davis: I appreciate everything the minister said, but the numbers speak for themselves. According to the most recent British Columbia mineral and coal exploration survey, mineral exploration spending across the province declined by 14 percent in 2024, despite the fact that copper and gold, our two primary exploration targets, are trading at near-historic highs right now. In fact, exploration expenditures for copper fell 28 percent, and for gold by 24 percent.

[3:15 p.m.]

This seems to suggest, to me, that the fundamental disconnect between market conditions and investor confidence is our jurisdiction here. Would the minister agree that this discrepancy reflects not a lack of resource potential, because we have it, but rather, growing apprehension about policy stability, regulatory timelines and general uncertainty in the investment climate here in British Columbia?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I just want to add to what I said earlier when we talked about exploration spending. What happens, Member, in the mining sector, is that for some of the projects, particularly major projects, when they move out from exploration and move to the development stage, the expenses in the exploration go significantly down.

We have three projects which were actually doing heavy exploration and heavy spending in that stage. Those were Blackwater gold, Eskay Creek, and Cariboo Gold.

[3:20 p.m.]

Because they were spending tons of money there, doing the hard drilling and exploration at that stage, they were spending, of course, way more money there. Now they have moved from that stage to the development stage. They’re spending money at the development stage, not at the exploration stage anymore. That’s one key reason that we may see spending in the exploration stage a little bit down.

Let me tell the member that we are fast-tracking projects. We are expediting projects right now, 18 projects in the province, and four of them are mining projects. That includes Highland Valley Copper, Eskay Creek, Red Chris and Mount Milligan.

At the same time, Member, I just want to say to you that we have actually made huge progress from when we took over, six or seven years ago, from the previous administration, which had been known as kind of a business-friendly administration. I want to highlight this thing one more time: investment dollars in mineral resource development are up 50 percent over the ten-year average and are the second-highest in ten years.

Total employment increased in the mining sector by 4,000 people, which is 10 percent, since 2017. Total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent, from around $12 billion in 2017 to around $17 billion in 2023. So the mining sector is doing exceptionally well.

We are well placed, we have critical minerals, we have ports, and we have a very diverse workforce. We have policies in place, and we are going to put in place what we call fixed timelines, so that we have more stability, more certainty, to move the mining sector even further, make it bigger.

We also, Member, have the ESG high score. British Columbia’s mining projects are very well respected globally because we look after the environment, we make sure we have the right policies, and we make sure we have the right social inputs into the system. So the mining sector, at this point in time, is doing exceptionally well.

We will do it even better. I’m working with the industry, working with the First Nations, to make sure we move forward to find fixed timelines to create certainty and stability in the sector.

Pete Davis: Well, if we’re going from third to fourth, there’s something wrong. I just want to point that out. We’re going down; we’re not going up.

The survey that I was talking about, as well, also reports notable research in metallurgical coal exploration, something, of course, that’s very special to me and important to me. It’s in my riding of Kootenay-Rockies, where coal has long been a cornerstone for local economies.

At the same time, there has been a well-publicized push towards the development of critical minerals to support the so-called energy transition.

How does this minister’s ministry plan to strike the appropriate balance between embracing the new frontier of critical mineral development while still maintaining a stable, competitive environment for metallurgical coal, a commodity that remains indispensable for global steelmaking and, therefore, the very infrastructure that the transition depends upon? Will this minister fight to make metallurgical coal an essential mineral in B.C.?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member.

I just want, very quickly, to touch upon the previous question, Member.

When we talk about the expenses, about the exploration, we need to understand this. In the mining sector, we have very small companies that we call free miners. Even exploration has different stages. The member will probably know about that. When the exploration becomes serious, the company starts investing millions of dollars. Sometimes, it goes to hundreds of millions of dollars. Then it becomes heavy drilling, and all activities take place there.

At the initial stage, the expenses are very, very small. But then the company goes through that major exploration exercise, for which, I would say, 90 percent of the expense is there.

[3:30 p.m.]

Then when that company finally finds the deposit and then moves on to build the mine to the development stage, that’s where the major expenses take place.

Now, three mining, three exploration activities from that stage have now moved to the next stage, which is the mining development. That’s why you see the expenses have dropped. Overall we see we have 17 projects waiting. We have four projects in priority. We have everything else going up. So the mining sector is doing, from that perspective, very well, but we need to, of course, do more to make it even better.

Now the metallurgical coal. First of all, I want to say to you that I’ve had the opportunity to visit Highland Valley. But that was copper. What you call the coal valley, the coal mines in that valley…. Those are huge operations, as you know. So British Columbia has recognized the significant economic contribution of southeast steelmaking metallurgical coal operations.

Steelmaking coal mining in the southeast sustains more than 12,000 family-supporting jobs in B.C., with 3,600 direct jobs and 7,200 indirect jobs. In July 2024, in B.C., our government established a special office, because it’s a high priority for us to support the metallurgical coal mining sector.

In July 2024, B.C. established what we call the southeast initiatives secretariat, a new office, a multi-agency team led by a dedicated assistant deputy minister, Laurel Nash. My ADM is here. That department is run by her. That department supports strong cross-ministry governance, establishes clear accountabilities and is tasked with developing specific actions to resolve challenging issues.

We are very dedicated when it comes to the metallurgical coal because metallurgical coal in the mining sector plays a huge, important role. So we take it very seriously to support the sector, moving forward, because I know in the rural areas, particularly, coal mines are sometimes the major job creator.

For example, I can say in Elkview, a Sparwood company, there are 1,107 employees. At Fording River, which I think I visited, there are 1,346 jobs. Line Creek, Elkford, has 684 jobs. Greenhills, Sparwood, 711 jobs. Willow Creek, which is Chetwynd, 275 jobs.

In this way, these mines create huge jobs in the rural areas, and we will continue to support them.

Pete Davis: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

While we’re talking about exploration…. You mentioned some stuff about exploration and costs. Early-state exploration companies, often small and usually family-run, are already struggling to stay afloat. These companies take the biggest risks and often lead to the biggest discoveries. But this government’s changes will make it even harder for them to operate. More delays, more costs, more confusion.

How are they supposed to survive, let alone succeed? Can the minister explain how your government expects these small companies to keep working under these conditions, or are you just willing to just let them fall?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member.

I would like to ask the member to clarify the question. Like, what conditions, I want to know, is the member talking about?

[3:35 p.m.]

Pete Davis: I’m talking about the changes in the consultation process. I’m talking about the changes in the Mineral Tenure Act. I’m talking about the stuff that’s been added that’s making things harder and more expensive for people to do business in British Columbia.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the clarification.

First, I would like to talk about the new mineral claims consultation framework that the member talked about. I want to say this to the member, that the mining and mineral exploration sector, as we have said many times before, is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy.

I’m absolutely clear. I just want to say to the member, assure the member that there would be no mines without the exceptional work done by the free miners or prospectors. But at the same time, Member, there will be no stability in the mining sector, which is very important to grow the mining sector, without true reconciliation at the same time.

That’s why we are supporting a mining sector that is sustainable, responsible and globally competitive — to bring more investment to the people of British Columbia, create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow our economy.

The new mineral claims consultation framework has been developed, as the member knows, in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. That’s how it came into existence. We did consult and develop this new framework in consultation with the First Nations and with the industry, particularly the leadership of the Association for Mineral Exploration, AME.

I’m very pleased to say to the member that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the Association for Mineral Exploration. But we will not stop there. We will continue to review the new framework as we move forward, make changes, make improvements in consultation with the First Nations, as well as with the industry, to make sure the new framework is working.

In the end, I want to say that this is…. Ontario has lost the case. Quebec has lost the case. I don’t know where they’re going to go. But we are the first province to put these rules in place so that we can bring more stability and more certainty into the system.

As far as the MTA is concerned, the Premier has given, in my mandate letter: to reform the MTA. The intent of the MTA is not in any way to impact the mining sector in a negative way. The intent of the MTA is to create the conditions, create stability, create certainty, working with the First Nations, working with the industry, so that we can actually have fixed timelines. We can have, actually, reduced timelines, moving forward, when it comes to mining and make mining a sector way more attractive than it is today.

That’s the intent of the MTA reform. I know when we try to change something, there are always concerns. But that’s the intent of the new system, and that’s what the goal is. That’s the goal we keep in mind when we talk about reforming the MTA. That’s how it’s going to work.

It will be done with full consultation with the industry, with full consultation with the First Nations. The final intent is that we create certainty out of this, stability out of this, and not anything else.

Pete Davis: I’d like to pass it on to my co-worker here from Penticton-Summerland.

Amelia Boultbee: As this ministry may recall, in 2024, a permit was issued for a gravel pit in Summerland, B.C. This was done over the objections of the district of Summerland, the chambers of commerce, the Penticton Indian Band, all relevant stakeholders, due to concerns around road safety, environmental concerns, impact on local Indigenous groups.

[3:40 p.m.]

Particularly, tens of millions of dollars of ecotourism is being put at risk by the permit for this gravel pit. In addition, my understanding is that in the latest disclosure of freedom of information given to the district of Summerland, there’s an opinion from one of the ministry’s environmental biologists that says that for environmental reasons the project shouldn’t go through.

My question is…. From the correspondence with the district of Summerland, my understanding is that they have been told they have two options. If the mining permit goes through and the mine becomes operational, only the chief inspector under the act has the authority to close the mine or cancel the permit, specifically and narrowly, only if there’s non-compliance with permit conditions. So that’s one. Then the only way, potentially, that they could actually stop the permit is through judicial review.

If the minister could please clarify whether I have that correct, I would appreciate it.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Once again, thanks to the member for Penticton-Summerland for the question.

Garnet Valley sand and gravel pit. On July 9, 2024, the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals approved a permit application for the proposed Garnet Valley sand and gravel pit. Located on private land in Summerland, British Columbia, this decision raised concern, as you said, among nearby residents in the Garnet Valley area, the local government and the Penticton Indian Band, all of whom had written letters opposing the project during the public consultation period.

The ministry addressed these concerns in the reason-for-decision document that was shared with interested parties. They had it. But on January 31, 2025, a petition under the Judicial Review Procedure Act was filed to the Supreme Court of B.C. by the Garnet Valley Agri-Tourism Association to challenge the permit decision. The matter is now before the court, so I cannot comment on that case.

The other question the member raised was about the chief inspector. The chief inspector has the authority to halt mining activities anywhere — not only for this one but anywhere — if it harms the environment and if it is putting people’s lives at risk. So the chief inspector can halt the mining activity.

Amelia Boultbee: I just want to clarify what I’m actually asking. I appreciate the answer from the minister, but it doesn’t actually answer my question.

What I’m trying to get at is whether or not there is an alternative legal mechanism outside of either the chief inspector, as we talked about, or judicial review. Specifically, the reason I’m asking is because, according to my research, the government has powers under the Environment and Land Use Act to restrict or freeze mining rights even if a permit was previously granted.

Notwithstanding that a judicial review is underway, I’m trying to determine whether it was theoretically possible for the government to do the right thing and cancel that permit before our constituents had to go and start this expensive and costly legal action.

Specifically, the example that I looked at that seems parallel to me. Four cabinet orders were granted on March 7, 2024, over a prohibited placer and mining claim staking on Banks Island and part of Vancouver Island and restricted exploration activities. Effectively, it cancelled existing mining permits, so it seems possible to me that it can happen. The mining deferral area…. It’s Lax K’naga Sts’ool. That is one of them. The other is Ehattesaht Hay-Na.

Could the minister please clarify whether it is possible under the Environment and Land Use Act to cancel an existing mining permit?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

We have a very rigorous assessment process to ensure the public is safe, to ensure the environment is protected. It is done by the ministry.

The decision is made by the independent permitting officer. After collecting all the information, after going through that process, the decision is made by the permitting officer. During that process, of course, the permitting officer looks into all the concerns submitted to the ministry from the local residents and the local government and everybody.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

After going through that very rigorous review process, the permitting officer makes the decision. After that, there’s only one step, and that’s appeal. That’s what we call it, the judicial review.

[3:55 p.m.]

That’s where this case is. It’s basically at that stage. Now the judicial review will decide whether to proceed or not.

I want to say to the member also at the same time that we need these gravel pits to build schools, highways, hospitals. For a lot of stuff we provide to the community, they play a very important role. And of course, they create jobs.

We go through that process, and then the decision is made by the permitting officer. This is at what you call the judicial review stage.

Amelia Boultbee: I appreciate the comments by the minister, but with all due respect, my question has not been answered.

My question was: is it legally possible for the government to have used the Environment and Land Use Act to restrict, cancel or otherwise revoke the permit that was already issued, as they did on March 7, 2024, in the precedent case that I just referred to?

[4:00 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I will try one more time. When it comes to the permitting process, Member, as I said earlier, we have a very rigorous process to ensure public safety, to ensure environment is protected. And we go through that process.

Subsequently, people are consulted. If there are any concerns by anybody, that is also handed over to the permitting officer, who is independent, Member. The permitting officer makes the determination. If people are still not happy, they can appeal that, which is basically a judicial review. That’s part of the process, to provide fairness and certainty to the whole process. That’s what this is, and that’s how it happens.

Other than that, I can’t say anything because it is under the judicial review right now. I can’t say anything else.

The Chair: Just a reminder to all members that if you have your cell phone or any other device, you place it on mute or silent.

Amelia Boultbee: With the greatest of respect to the minister, I do not accept that answer. That is not an answer.

I’m asking a very simple question. I’ve given you a piece of provincial legislation that currently exists. I have cited a case and given you an exact date and description of exactly what it is. I’m saying that that happened, that this act was used to cancel, revoke and restrict existing permits. And I’m asking: is it the government’s position, somehow, since then, that it has become legally impermissible to use the Environmental Land Use Act in that way?

I appreciate that the minister has just described to me alternate routes, but that is not my question. I’m not asking about all the various ways. I’m asking about this particular way.

Can I please get an answer?

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I just want to be clear on this. I am speaking to the permanent decision taken under the Mines Act. The member is talking about the Environment and Land Use Act. I understand the context is very different, so I will be happy to follow up with my colleague, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, who is responsible for that act.

Amelia Boultbee: I appreciate that. Thank you to the minister.

I would put a request on the record that we receive a written explanation outlining how that case — which, for ease of reference, I’ll call the March 7, 2024, cabinet orders — is or is not applicable to the Garnet Valley gravel pit.

Pete Davis: The minister and the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship are tasked with advancing land use planning in northern B.C.: “Where opportunities exist to reach large-scale agreements on land use and critical metal and mineral development with First Nations in a manner that expedites permits, protects the environment, offers investor security, lead that work on priority basis.”

My question is: where’s the minister’s ministry at with respect to this work? What First Nations are involved, and has the minister held meetings with those First Nations as of yet? And one more: what are the plans to engage with the public and industry and local communities on this?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member once again. Good question.

B.C. is experiencing a generational opportunity to strengthen the critical minerals sector, access global markets and score new jobs. One outcome of land use planning is clarity on where development can happen and where conservation is needed. Through land use planning, opportunities are available to reach large-scale — not small, large-scale — agreement on land use and critical mineral development with First Nations, in a manner that protects the environment and important cultural areas while providing predictability to the sector.

So that’s the purpose of this. I want to show the member that when we do this, we are going to, of course…. First Nations are part of this. We are going to consult very closely with the industry partners to make sure that all stakeholders are part of this discussion, which is a very important discussion moving forward.

Pete Davis: Just to be clear, then, you have not held any meetings with First Nations.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The discussions about the need for land use planning have been going on with the First Nations and also with the industry for some time, in recognition that land use planning will support certainty on the land.

I met a number of First Nations, and land use planning discussion comes whenever you meet with them. That’s part of the discussion. And similarly, I have, in general, met with industry and some of the industry members, also, for this issue, and I have discussions with land use planning on that side too.

[4:25 p.m.]

I want to say this. Land use planning is a complex issue but an important one in my view. But if we do that, and once we do that, it will create a lot of stability, a lot of certainty for the mining sector. At the same time, it will protect the environment. It will protect other social and cultural areas of First Nations.

But it will provide, when it comes to the industry, a lot of certainty. And probably, my understanding is that it will also reduce the application review process significantly as well, once the land use planning is completed.

Pete Davis: Thank you for the answer.

I’m speaking about northwest B.C., that area. I’m just asking what First Nations are involved.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The nations that actually fall in the northwest area are Tāłtān, Taku River Tlingit, Kaska, Gitanyow and Nisg̱a’a. But I think for a specific question relating to the land use planning process, I would encourage the member to ask the question to my colleague, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, because that minister leads the land use planning process.

Pete Davis: So we’ve named the bands now. My question is: have you met with them? Have you had a meeting with them? Has the minister had a meeting with these bands?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member.

The Chair: Hold on a second.

Members, there are still questions going on. We are in estimates, so I just ask that people keep their voices down.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thank you, hon. Chair. Thanks to the member for the question.

I have met with Tāłtān, Taku River Tlingit, Gitanyow and Nisg̱a’a. I haven’t met with Kaska. I met these nations when I took over the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. I met some of them during introductory meetings with First Nations.

The majority of those meetings were online. I also met with them when I went to Prince George to attend the Natural Resources Forum. Some of them I met with there. I also met with them during the First Nations Leadership Council summit during that time, but not for a specific discussion on land use planning. It was an overall discussion, which may include questions about land use planning.

Pete Davis: This will be my last question, as I’m out of time. It’s been a great time. This is actually a question from a person in my riding.

Minister, mining provides good jobs and strong economic activity, especially in rural and resource-based communities, but by making it harder to explore, harder to get permits and harder to invest, this government is putting all of this at risk.

Is this government prepared to tell people in those communities that fewer jobs and less economic growth is just the cost of these new rules? Right now it looks like your government is more focused on paperwork than people.

[4:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Welcome to the Chair. You came at the right time.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Just to conclude, I want to say that I’m very excited to be the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. I want to say thanks to the Premier for giving me this opportunity. I want to say that I’ve tried my best, during the last five months, to reach out to the mining industry, the First Nations and all the other stakeholders, to understand the industry.

This industry, when we talk about mining and mineral exploration, is a founding part of the British Columbia economy. It took me quite a bit of time to understand the whole mining cycle. Now I have a clear understanding from the first step of the cycle, from the free miners doing mining and mineral exploration to moving forward. Finally, the mine is built, and then, subsequently, we have production, and the product going to international markets.

It’s quite a long cycle moving forward, but I want to say to the member that I am fully committed to work with the First Nations and to work with the industry, to make sure that we provide them with fixed timelines, when it comes to the application process, and that those timelines are very competitive internationally with other equal jurisdictions. That’s my goal.

I also want to make sure that we ensure competitiveness — mining is very competitive globally — to make sure that their industry is very competitive, on whether to sell the product or bring in investment from other jurisdictions. It also provides stability and certainty moving forward. That’s the focus.

I am very happy to conclude the estimates debate. I want to say thanks to the member for his thoughtful and respectful, I would say, dialogue. I will be happy to continue working with the member, moving forward, and I will be happy to listen to any concerns the member has, whether it’s any constituents or any issue, and I will be happy to work with the member on those.

With that, I would like to thank the Chair, to conclude estimates here.

I want to say thanks to my staff members, who have been guiding me on what to say and what not to say during these two days.

Thank you very much, and to the members on this side, for listening very patiently.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 40: ministry operations, $61,012,000 — approved.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:40 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 5:07 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act

The Chair: Good afternoon, almost evening, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to start by giving my gratitude and thanks to the team that’s joining me here today and will be helping me through the committee stage of this bill.

We have Natalie Barnes, executive director, policy and legislative division, justice services branch; Isobel McIntyre, senior policy analyst, justice services branch; Jasmine Dadachanji, senior policy analyst, justice services branch; and Hana Blazkova, senior policy analyst, justice services branch.

Thank you all for being here.

On clause 1.

Steve Kooner: I want to start by saying that I have heard a lot of concerns about this bill, concerns throughout this bill. I’ve had a lot of questions in the constituency, and just in going around and about in the Lower Mainland, there are significant concerns.

The themes of the concerns are essentially coming from the financial side. People are talking about the deficit. The deficit is $10.9 billion, but some people have projected that to be $14 billion, and people are wanting accountability. I’ve received messages that something needs to be done about the affairs of this province. There are a lot of people watching, they’re very concerned about the financial situation of this province, and they’re wanting fiscal accountability.

There are other issues I’ve heard about, particularly from a lot of people from my constituency of Richmond-Queensborough. They’ve heard about the tolls that were mentioned in this bill. They’ve read about it in the paper, and they’ve heard about it in the news stories.

I have the Massey Tunnel, the Knight Street Bridge and the Queensborough Bridge in my riding. I have Highway 99 in my riding and Highway 91 in my riding, which leads up to the Alex Fraser Bridge. You can just imagine that by having so many crossings, there are a lot of people concerned.

So I wanted to start by addressing those concerns that I’ve been hearing. It’s not just about one aspect of this bill; it’s about the bill in its entirety. That’s why I feel that it’s relevant for me starting by talking about what those concerns are.

[5:10 p.m.]

My first question just goes to the title of this clause. It talks about an economic stabilization and a tariff response act. I would like to hear, when this title was being formulated, what the government was thinking. When they were putting that phrase together, what was the thinking behind it?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just seeking some guidance. Are we on clause 1?

The Chair: Yes. Thank you, Minister.

To the member, generally we do the title last, and we start with clause 1, if we may.

Steve Kooner: I just want to set up a general theme and just talk about things generally throughout, and I know that the bill refers to Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act. It would help to answer some of these questions that I’m going to be asking just to get the intent behind the act, to lead into clause 1.

The Chair: Minister, do you choose to briefly respond to this and look at it more fully — at the title component?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Sure.

A few short months ago we received what was, really, an unprecedented threat of what the Premier has identified as economic warfare that was targeted directly at our economy. With the pace and speed of the executive orders that were coming out of the concentration of the power in the President’s office in the States…. What was a result of that was destabilization of our economy.

We as a government have been at many tables, whether it’s the Premier nationally, whether it’s our Minister of Jobs and Economic Development or our Finance Minister. Every table, we’re to approach in a Team Canada way — how we respond to this direct economic destabilization that’s hitting our country and our province.

The purpose of this act was, really, accumulation of the work that is happening on all those tables. One of the things that we’ve heard loud and clear is that interprovincial trade barriers are a key way that we can stabilize the economy here in B.C. I think a lot of British Columbians would agree that…. Why aren’t we trading with one of the safest partners we could have, which is across provinces and territories, across Canada? We’ve focused on that, as part of the bill, for economic stabilization.

Procurement is another really powerful way that government can direct its resources towards supporting B.C. businesses and Canadian businesses and directing finances away from American entities that are seeking us harm. This is another way to stabilize the economy, through our own procurement.

Finally, another portion of this bill is to do with what is also a Team Canada approach and in search of the purpose of bringing about stabilization of the economy through lessening the measures that the President is taking against us. And part of that Team Canada approach was retaliatory measures that provinces put on the table that would help to show that we will fight back, that we’ll fight back at the measures that are being directed at us to destabilize our economy.

So this is a set of tools that the government can do to respond to the work that’s happening and the need to drop interprovincial trade barriers and also direct our procurement to stabilize the economy.

The Chair: Recognizing the member from Richmond-Queensborough on clause 1.

Steve Kooner: When the discussion is led on economic stabilization, is the Attorney General talking about the economic well-being of our province?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is a direct response, this bill, to the destabilization efforts of the President of the United States upon all of Canada to destabilize our economy. We are responding with the tools that we have and, particularly, with interprovincial trade barriers, as I described earlier.

[5:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Would it not make sense to mention the foreign jurisdiction that we’re concerned about, the United States? Wouldn’t it make sense to mention the United States in here or to mention that this is to address the tariffs that are brought forward by the President of the United States? Doesn’t that make sense to kind of have that in this bill, if this bill is about a tariff response?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I seek your guidance here. I think when we go through section-by-section discussion, I’ll be able to reflect to the member about where we included this type of discussion and why different choices were made on language and definition.

Steve Kooner: Why I ask the question is…. It goes to the intent behind asking every single question to every single clause. It’s important to know, because the act at the beginning talks about economic stabilization tariff response. So we have to know the answer of whether this particular bill specifically addresses a foreign entity.

Does it address the United States? As far as I’m aware, it doesn’t specifically address the United States in this bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Once we go through section by section, we’ll be able to get into detailed discussion about each provision. For example, the provisions related to interprovincial trade barriers are by their very nature going to talk about interprovincial trade and the work that we need to do to drop those trade barriers. Procurement, in particular, is going to be talking about Crown agencies and how they direct their procurement. I can take that question in context through clauses, and I think it will become clearer.

Kiel Giddens: I’m rising today as the Labour critic. As well, I’ll be asking questions. A big part of that is the fact that, obviously, the Labour portfolio is really about governing the relationship between employers and employees. That is a big part of this bill, and particularly the interprovincial trade barrier provisions in the first parts of this bill. So I will have a number of questions.

I thank the minister for your time today and all the staff who are here as well. I will be supporting the member for Richmond-Queensborough for the time being here.

I am fully in support of the interprovincial trade barrier concept as a whole. This is a very important part of this overall discussion. We need to get it right in this bill, and that’s a big part of why I wanted to take part in this debate here.

Really, as a country we need to make it easier to trade between provinces. This is something that has been talked about for decades in Canada. I just want to reference the C.D. Howe report that came out recently. The minister may have been aware of it. It’s called Eyes on the Prize: A Game Plan to Speed Up Removal of Internal Trade Barriers in Canada. I just want to quote it again, for the record, because it speaks to how important this actual part 1 of the bill is, starting on clause 1.

To quote the C.D. Howe: “Removing all obstacles to trade between provinces and territories that might be susceptible to policy intervention could increase the Canadian GDP by up to $200 billion annually, a 7.9 percent boost. The impact would be far-reaching, helping on a range of downstream issues that Canadians care about, like housing affordability, health care worker shortages, supply chain resilience, real wage growth, consumer choice, productivity and industrial competitiveness.”

All of that does really matter. As we’re talking about economic uncertainty, we are in a phase where we’ve had the lowest private sector job growth we’ve seen in some time in this province. I think interprovincial trade is at a time when we can actually remove some of those, as the C.D. Howe has referenced. At a time of that economic uncertainty, I think as legislators we have to really get this section right.

I’ll start maybe by asking in relation to clause 1, I think, and speaking to the overall part of part 1 here. I’m just wondering if the government has done an impact study of B.C.’s GDP from the interprovincial trade portions of this bill and how that will be factored in.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: So just agreeing with the member, and welcome to the debate.

I agree with the member about the interprovincial trade barriers being a significant problem in Canada, but also that this is an opportunity to really tackle reducing those barriers to drive the economy.

Interesting discussion over here about what the information is we have so far to date. Right now I can tell the member that JEDI, the ministry, is working through a B.C.-specific study to understand what it would look like if we reduce trade barriers in B.C., in terms of impacts to the economy. It’ll look at that also in the context of tariffs and what that drive will be. When that report comes out, of course, we’d be happy to provide it to the other side.

Generally, the statistics show that…. Right now I think it’s $19.4 billion that B.C. trades internally, so we’re able to capture that market. The estimates now say that if you were to drop interprovincial trade barriers in Canada, you would add between 4.4 percent or up to 7, close to 8 percent to the economy in Canada. Studies also show that it may actually increase costs to Canadians by having interprovincial trade barriers and the goods and services applied to those barriers.

I agree with the member. This is a really good opportunity for us to look at all of the ways that interprovincial trade barriers show up across ministries.

What this bill does is create a tool that balances our ability to drop trade barriers quickly, but also gives ministries the time to do the policy work necessary to figure out what are the ways we can work through the regulatory legislative regimes in order to make that permanent, if necessary, but also show the impacts, like the member was asking.

It would be a way to actually test out, when we drop certain trade barriers through the tools of this bill, what the impact is on the economy and understand how it’s impacting British Columbians.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s answer.

It would be great to see that report when JEDI has completed it. I think the member from Kelowna-Mission is here as well, as the JEDI critic, and will actually have questions as well, just so you’re aware, as we get through here.

I think there is a big economic opportunity if we can get internal trade right, because it’s really so consequential.

I’m wondering. In the overall context of the government’s performance or the province’s performance, private sector job growth has not been good since 2019. We’ve seen the rate of public sector job creation to private sector is very challenging, very limited private sector growth.

With this in mind, I’m wondering if the intent, obviously, overall, with internal trade unlocking that, if we can get a little bit more on the job side of it with JEDI’s report too, if that’s something they’re including in their projections. I think that would be helpful. I’m wondering if the minister can confirm that would be the case.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just confirming for the member that the study will look at industry impact, GDP and employment.

Gavin Dew: I begin by looking at the very definition of regulatory measure that we start with, which I find very broad, and it takes me to a conversation about the breadth of this bill and the breadth of the intention behind this bill, which I’d like to better understand from the minister and, in particular, which I’d like to understand in light of the government’s failure to use its existing powers to address opportunities to support B.C. business from day one.

As the critic for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, I’m particularly concerned about the fact that we as a province have come into this tariff crisis in a very weak position. We’ve come in with the record of a government that has generated 41 percent more public sector employment with virtually zero private sector job growth. We’ve come in with a very frustrated business community, and I think we’ve seen, in terms of the public reaction to this bill not only in its breadth but also in terms of part-by-part analysis, a general sentiment that people do not want overreach to be done in their name, and that pushback has been very substantial.

Although there is a broad conversation about the first draft of the bill and the second, I would take it back to some of the things that have been said publicly about this bill. There has been commentary in the media from Glacier Media group about the rise of triple-A governments — autocratic, authoritarian, absolutist — and the idea that this bill does away with democracy for the next couple of years in the province.

The idea that the Premier has strayed so far from his roots, gone so far to the other side that if he doesn’t walk back his bill when the Legislature resumes, it will be a telltale sign he has lost the plot. And I will certainly touch on that as it relates to the question of breadth in both the prior and the current version of the bill. We saw from Victoria Times Colonist the characterization of this bill as an unnecessary power grab and the move of an aspiring autocrat.

What I worry about, as we speak even to part 1 of the bill and ask questions about it, is what the comfort level is of stakeholders who, like many of us, want to see interprovincial trade barriers addressed but have concerns about whether or not the overall balance around breadth and scope has been met in that regard.

We heard from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce that while it is clear Trump’s trade war has spurred an economic emergency, it is not clear to us that the sweeping powers are required or justified. We heard from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade that the introduction of Bill 7 and the sweeping powers it would have conferred to the cabinet have raised significant questions about responsible democratic governance and created significant uncertainty for the business community.

If, in fact, our objective in this bill is to achieve economic stabilization, I worry significantly that we have groups reading this bill and responding that would actually destabilize and create greater uncertainty in our economy.

From the Business Council of British Columbia, we heard that Canada’s reputation as a stable and reliable place for investment depends on the stability and accountability embedded in our institutions, including in our system of parliamentary democracy and that now is not the time to weaken them.

What I find worrisome, as I look at even the basic definitions, the breadth of definitions around virtually anything, any other procedure being covered under this, is that there continue to be issues around breadth and reach. And I reflect for a moment on that statement that was made by Glacier Media to the effect that the Premier has strayed so far from his roots.

So I thought I would look back — when it comes to breadth, when it comes to accountable government — at some of the things that the Premier has said in the past. Today he says, “In extraordinary times, we need extraordinary powers,” but I believe that if the Premier were to look at his past record, he would certainly question his current approach.

I think back to his time as head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association when, during protests around the Olympics, he said: “The movement for accountability in government, the movement for a fair and equal society needs to be one that can withstand criticism, one where we need to be able to stand up and say: ‘You know what? That’s not right, and that does not help us achieve our goals.’”

[5:35 p.m.]

I find it surprising that a Premier who argued true democracy requires government to accept criticism rather than suppress it has now brought forward Bill 7, which, in any form, continues to overreach.

The Chair: Member, if I can have your attention for a minute, please.

At this stage of the debate, the committee is really focused on the consideration of clause 1. While members may want to ask questions about the background of the bill, I am listening very carefully, thank you, and I’m prepared to exercise some latitude. However, it’s also important that the committee debate align with the specific clauses under consideration and not be going back to second reading, if we can.

Interjection.

The Chair: If I may continue, please, Member.

Should a member’s question better align with a subsequent clause of the bill, I will not hesitate to advise the member to raise their question once we are in the relevant clause.

As a Chair, I do encourage the members to ensure that we do not repeat second reading debate nor take time to consider clauses which still remain before the committee. There are 30 clauses in this bill, and I would really….

We will proceed on clause 1, please.

Thank you, Member.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to debating each and every clause in depth and to interrogating the philosophical nature behind each and every one of those clauses.

At this stage, I am certainly focused on the very definition of regulatory measures and its breadth, which includes “a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure.” I go back to trying to understand the motivation and the mindset behind this bill at its inception and in its subsequent iterations.

I think back to the Premier’s words, back in that time, when he said: “Solidarity means more like the Bush administration. You’re either with us, or you’re against us, and any critique you give is just giving confidence to those that oppose our agenda. I don’t buy into that at all.” So as I look at part 1 of the bill, and as we examine this and as we struggle with what is and is not in scope right now, I wonder whether the Premier would recognize his old self in the self that he has brought to the table in advancing this bill.

Certainly, I can think back to July of 2013, when the Premier said: “It’s frustrating, as an opposition member, to come into this chamber and have a piece of legislation dropped on us with no previous consultation, no previous discussion and be told it’s a done deal.” I think back to his statement to the effect that it’s a pattern of this government to move ahead without talking to people who are directly affected by the decisions we make.

The Chair: Member, I’m sorry. You’re straying back into second reading territory. This discussion has been held. So if you could bring it back to clause 1, rather than bringing forward repetition of second reading, that would be appreciated.

Thank you so much.

Gavin Dew: I will happily get to my point with regard to interprovincial trade barriers. I think back to the Premier’s statement of May 2014, when he said: “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 who live and work on the land.”

I think about his statement in November of 2014, to the effect that what we see is a government that’s prepared to ram through legislation, giving itself unchecked authority to negotiate behind closed doors, all while locking future governments into deals the public has no say over.

I think, in fact, of his words in February of 2015, when he said that the government has a long history of saying one thing and doing another when it comes to openness and transparency, and that this bill is no exception. At the time, he was not referring to Bill 7 but to Bill 5, the Government Information Act.

I think back to March of 2016, when he said: “Why is it that every time this government talks about openness, it feels like a public relations exercise?”

The Chair: Member, if I were to review Hansard, I suspect I would see some of this discussion in second reading. I really do ask you to move beyond the second reading debate and move into your queries around clause 1.

Gavin Dew: Very well. I’ll start with a query.

The Chair: Thank you. I’ll try to be a little more direct next time, perhaps.

Gavin Dew: Very well.

I will focus now on interprovincial trade barriers, bearing in mind that one of the key areas that interprovincial trade barriers really touch on and one of the examples often held up in our discussion of interprovincial trade barriers is that of our wine, beer and spirits industries.

[5:40 p.m.]

I think back to the long shadow of the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, which was passed in 1928.

I’m often fond of reminding people that that same year, 1928, was the year that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not persons for the purposes of serving in the Supreme Court. We are governed and affected by the long shadow of stale and archaic legislation, and certainly we have the opportunity through addressing interprovincial trade barriers to break down some of those archaic approaches, both those that are found in federal legislation, but also those that are found in protectionism by provincial liquor monopolies.

Now, one of the questions I’d like to really get a better understanding around, in light of this conversation around interprovincial trade barriers for liquor, is that…. We have seen a conversation where that has been cited as an example. We have talked about the importance of part 1 in addressing interprovincial trade barriers, thus strengthening those industries. But I would really like to understand what the mindset is of the government with regard to the trade-off or the balance between actions taken based on powers enumerated in Bill 7 and those that could be taken today.

It is notable to me that we’ve had extensive conversation about the importance of interprovincial trade barriers. We’ve talked about liquor as an example. The government has taken the political gesture of removing American red-state spirits from B.C. Liquor Stores, yet no action has been taken in order to actually create opportunity for B.C.-based small businesses like our craft distillers.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General could touch on the balance of powers needed in this bill versus powers that already exist in order to engage in economic stabilization at this time of a tariff threat.

If in the course of enumerating the difference between actions that can be taken based on powers enabled by Bill 7 and those powers that already exist, we might perhaps get some level of explanation as to why some month after the government removed American liquor from B.C. Liquor Store shelves, they have not advanced any policy to replace that American liquor on B.C. Liquor Store shelves with products produced in British Columbia, thus creating economic opportunity for B.C.-based small businesses, the very businesses they say they want to support through interprovincial trade barrier strategies to be undertaken under Bill 7.

So if the minister could please just provide a little bit of overall coverage in that regard with a focus on the need for the powers enumerated in part 1 of the bill relative to powers already existing and the logic the government went through in order to arrive at the conclusion that it presumably required Bill 7 to be passed before it could take action in support of B.C.’s small craft producers of goods like spirits.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s very clear, I think, to everybody — not only in the Legislature but across the country and, in fact, across the world — that we are not in regular times right now. We are not in a regular time period with respect to trade and the economy. What’s going on right now is a massive destabilization of the world trade order and the economy as we speak. British Columbia is certainly a party to that, unfortunately. So this threat puts us in the position of having to respond very quickly.

[5:45 p.m.]

The member asked a question about how we balance the powers and the tools of this legislation in order to do that — which is, I think, what his point is — along with the long-term regulatory and legislative reform that would be necessary for a lot of industries. I’ll start answering that question with what we have as the definition for regulatory measure, because I think that really exemplifies it. I think it was kind of a question that was asked about what is a regulatory measure that you would want to drop when it comes to an interprovincial trade barrier.

In fact, it’s many things, and this is made out in many discussions and many analyses. It could be a directive. It could be a requirement. It could be a labelling requirement. It could be a requirement for a certification on a product. It could be a whole range of things that are making it so a B.C. product can’t make it to a market in another province or vice versa.

So the reason for the definition being broad of regulatory measure exactly is to make it as a tool for the problem that we are trying to solve. In that solving of the problem, what the bill does is give government the ability to act quickly, to drop trade barriers, and through regulation, protect things that we may think we need to, outside of through an exemption process and a regulatory process, and then allow ministers to do the long-term work of changing the regimes that govern certain products.

Every single good and service is very complicated. The member raised one, which is liquor. Liquor has age requirements, which we would want to make sure stayed. I’m sure most people would think that about the minimum age you could be to buy alcohol.

There are other things about getting products to other markets across Canada that we’re committed to doing. So what we struck with the balance of the legal tools of this bill was the ability to act quickly, coupled by the ability to have space to do that longer-term regulatory and legislative work that we know needs to happen to permanently drop those trade barriers.

I just want to note that the opposition leader introduced a bill that was similar to what was in Nova Scotia, which was dropping interprovincial trade barriers that way. I think it’s instructive also to talk about why we took a different approach to that bill.

We know that the best thing, and a lot of business leaders are telling us this, is for us to move quickly on dropping trade barriers. The Nova Scotia bill does that in a blanket way, but it also requires reciprocity. So it says that it would only be in effect if another province has reciprocal dropping of barriers.

What we have tooled this legislation to do is to do something different and quicker so that we can respond quicker for British Columbian companies through the different tools and not wait for reciprocity. It gives the flexibility to do both: act quickly and do the long-term work that’s necessary.

Gavin Dew: I’m slightly confused by the liquor examples provided by the Attorney General. The premise here seems to be that liquor is complicated because of issues around age and access and because of issues around other markets.

The question I’m trying to understand with regard to the balance of using powers enumerated in Bill 7 versus those already existing to government is that if we’re talking about the distribution of B.C.-produced craft liquor through B.C. Liquor Stores, I can think of no reason why access by age would be an issue, given that we have a robust system of B.C. Liquor Stores that check IDs and that do all of those things.

We’re not talking about other markets. What we’re talking about is an existing government distribution system. Were there to be concerns about access to liquor through B.C. Liquor Stores on the basis of age, I can imagine that would be setting off alarm bells in this government.

I’m really not sure that I entirely understand how being able to address putting B.C. small business–produced liquor on B.C. Liquor Store shelves in an existing robust, well-run system is in any way, shape or form affected by the powers enumerated in Bill 7.

Perhaps I’ll just ask the Attorney General to try again on helping me understand the difference between those things that could be done with existing powers and those that require new powers, and to the government’s mindset behind that thinking.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to the member’s question, I think his question had less to do with interprovincial trade barriers, because he’s talking about putting B.C. products on B.C. shelves. So just to say, I don’t think that we would necessarily look to the tools of this legislation to do that, unless there’s a labelling requirement or something that’s in the way of that extraprovincially — that we can sit on other liquor stores and other shelves. Then it might come into play here.

Just to report, because the member asked, BCL has committed to adding B.C. and Canadian products to the shelves. I think it’s over 90 B.C.-made wines, beers and spirits that will be added to the shelves by the end of April. The rest of the products that they’re adding to the shelves will be moving as soon as possible.

To the point of other tools, we’re using every tool in our toolkit to respond to the threat, and the interprovincial trade barriers is one of them. This legislation gives us tools to deal with that.

Gavin Dew: By the end of April seems very slow. That’s about, almost, two months, six weeks in order to move on that.

Regardless, I want to circle back again, trying to understand the underlying logic behind the bill. The Attorney General touched on the idea that we are not in regular times, and I would fully agree. We are certainly not in regular times, but we have been in regular times. In fact, this government has been in some regular times, some irregular times for the last eight years, during which it has had at its disposal the entire toolkit of government to engage in problem-solving and, indeed, to engage in preparation for a moment such as this — for a crisis.

I think about the extent to which we came into this situation in a very, very weak position. We came in with anemic economic growth. We came in with virtually zero private sector job growth over the life of this government. We came in with massive deficits and an enlarged public sector. We came in with the government having spent the rainy-day fund when it was sunny and then racking up yet more on the people’s credit card.

So I am somewhat confused, and I want to understand the mindset of the government and of the Attorney General behind the drafting of the bill and, indeed, part 1 of the bill. I recall hearing the Premier speak in November about his desire for a reset with the business community after a near-death political experience.

[5:55 p.m.]

I recall seeing this shift toward this not being regular times. If, in fact, we are not in regular times, and if, in fact, we are talking about solving solutions using Bill 7 that were not solved in regular times with tools available in regular times, was it the Attorney General’s belief or the belief of the government going into the drafting of this bill that government had, in fact, failed in regular times with its regular toolkit?

The Chair: Member, I continue to listen very carefully to your debate and would like to remind the member that the committee is considering the first clause of Bill 7. Please ensure your comments are specific to Bill 7 — no, don’t do that — and its first clause.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Gavin Dew: Did you want me to respond?

The Chair: I think, probably, the minister has the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m waiting for the question.

The Chair: You’re waiting on the question.

Yes, you may carry on. Just please stick with the clause.

Gavin Dew: Fantastic.

In light of part 1 and in light of our definition around regulatory measures — including a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure to be used in terms of addressing interprovincial trade barriers — did the government believe, in drafting this, that it had failed to make progress around interprovincial trade barriers using its existing toolkit of regular times powers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That definition that goes back to clause 1 of the bill comes from the Canadian free trade agreement, which was put into effect in 2017.

As a jurisdiction that is at the table with trade agreements both internally and internationally, B.C. has been a very responsible partner when it comes to trade. I think the opportunity that we find ourselves in is unprecedented cooperation amongst provinces and the federal government with one goal in mind, which is tackling those interprovincial trade barriers that beforehand, though there were efforts through other trade agreements, we made progress on. The opportunity before British Columbians and B.C. businesses and, in fact, the country is to work in a quicker way to drop those interprovincial trade barriers.

I’m really heartened, and I know the ministers that are working on this directly, by the speed and the cooperation that ministers across this country and Premiers across this country are focused on, really, the task at hand, which is to create a stronger economy through dropping these trade barriers.

What you find in the bill are very similar things to what I just said. The definition comes from the Canadian free trade agreement of regulatory measures. As we are working, this bill gives us the tools to implement the things that are happening on other tables with respect to the negotiations of dropping interprovincial trade barriers.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for providing the information.

The Chair: Through the Chair, perhaps.

Kiel Giddens: Through the Chair, of course. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for providing where the definition came from. That’s useful information.

I think that the Attorney also referenced Nova Scotia’s bill and cooperation with other provinces, so I do have some questions that are related to that. Across Canada, they’re having similar discussions, but looking at how we address internal trade barriers, we have to look at what makes sense within Canada.

The Attorney General also referenced Bill M203, what the Leader of the Opposition put forward, the Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada Act. Of course, that was another option for the Legislature. That was modelled off of Nova Scotia’s bill, and that was a detailed bill. It was a relatively straightforward bill. And the Attorney referenced reciprocity, so we could talk a little bit about that.

[6:00 p.m.]

Before we do, I really want to talk about that cooperation with other provinces, that Team Canada approach. B.C. has to be cautious here. I appreciate that moving quickly is very important, but doing things in a way that is logical with the other provinces is also important.

Can the minister explain how the bill aligns with the Team Canada approach that the government has been participating in, presumably along with the federal, provincial and territorial governments?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the good question.

I’m happy to describe the whole process that’s going on. This bill is a legal tool, but it’s not everything that’s happening, and the member asked about how everything is going to be integrated.

The Minister of JEDI and our government are at the table with a lot of FPTs right now that are hard at work across provinces to really reconcile the regulatory environment, so to figure out what the ways are that these regulations stand in a way across jurisdictions. That includes foreign credentials, financial services, labour and transportation, to name some of them. Those groups will really be very useful because they will do the deep work of understanding it.

To the point of the difference between the Nova Scotia bill, we are not waiting for reciprocity through the tools of this bill, as the Nova Scotia legislation did, because we want to send a signal that B.C. is open for business and that we are not going to wait. Reciprocity can take a long time sometimes. We’ve seen that with some of the…. Through successive governments, B.C. has, I’m told, been a leader at the table of the Canadian free trade agreement and those discussions, and only very recently have some other jurisdictions entered that discussion or come to the table.

The bill is structured in a way to give us the tools to act quickly through the dropping of trade barriers with the protection of having the minister in charge of that policy work be able to implement exceptions through regulation through that dropping of trade barriers in part 1. Then they will be tasked with the longer-term work of changing the regulatory regime because, as this is a bill that sunsets at a certain time, they will have to do the change of that regulatory work and legislative work to make those changes permanent.

It gives the ability to act quickly and implement anything that comes at those other tables, the FPT tables. We don’t have to wait for reciprocity to do that. Just to note that I’m told that the Nova Scotia legislation…. They amended their legislation subsequently because of the concern over some of the regulated professions and differences in jurisdictions and, I think, perceptions of different safety.

Every time you dive into a legislative or regulatory environment with a specific topic, it becomes very complicated. There are usually very complicated regimes that govern or legislate related to that issue. You need to move fast, which is what we see, in the context of the threats we’re facing. You also need to give the tools necessary to adjust or make changes along the way so that you are maximizing the potential of dropping those interprovincial trade barriers for British Columbia.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer, definitely following my line of questioning. I appreciated the detail with that response.

Just a little bit more on reciprocity though. As we are embarking on this with the other provinces, I can appreciate those FPT tables with the other entities. A lot going on at the moment.

Our ability to stay in step with that…. I wasn’t aware of Nova Scotia’s recent amendment to their bill that they passed just in February.

But just in respect to where they’re at, I know New Brunswick is following Nova Scotia’s lead. I know Ontario is very much on that kind of same line. Respecting these other provinces, I just want to reflect on Nova Scotia’s act.

Clause 2 of their act states: “All goods manufactured or produced in a reciprocating province or territory that may have met the requisite standards and approvals of that jurisdiction shall be treated as if those goods were manufactured or produced in the province and shall not be subject to any additional fees or testing by the province due to the goods having been manufactured or produced in another province or territory.”

My question on that is with reciprocity.

[6:10 p.m.]

I understand the government’s overall position as explained by the Attorney General, and speed is sort of the answer. But I’m trying to match where other provinces are currently at, getting things done in a cooperative Team Canada approach.

I’m wondering how, really, this part of the bill works with the other provinces in terms of mutual recognition of goods or services trading between provinces.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, maybe some guidance. Are we done with clause 1, then, since we’re moving on to clause 2?

The Chair: No, no, we’re still working on clause 1.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair, if you could, please.

Kiel Giddens: Just to clarify, the reason I ask is that as we get into the definition and regulatory measures, I want to make sure that we’re using similar language and understanding, in relation to other provinces, what our legislation is intending compared to those other jurisdictions.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, we took a different approach than that. I think it’s mostly because we wanted to be a leader when it came to dropping these trade barriers. And I think one could view the requirement of reciprocity as another barrier that has been kind of continuing when we have these discussions of free trade in Canada, which is that unless another province has moved a certain way, we’re not going to do it. So we’re just taking a different approach.

What we’re saying is that we will be at every table, and we’ll be leaders at every table, and we will make sure that if there’s mutual recognition of certain barriers, that we can come to agreement across the provinces. I think that’s great, and this will give us the tools to move quickly on them.

But if we see that there’s an opportunity for a B.C. business or something to protect our economy, we won’t need that reciprocity provision to drop that trade barrier. It still gives the minister responsible the flexibility of a regulatory-making power to design it in a way that maybe acknowledges the areas that we have reciprocal agreements across provinces and areas that we would want to move quicker on.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response.

I do think that, again, reciprocity with the other provinces is still crucial to this working properly.

I just want to reflect on the way Nova Scotia has been transparent about their intentions with the act. They state: “The purpose of this act is to remove all barriers to trade in goods, services and investment between the provinces and territories of Canada.” I think that’s a very straightforward, very clean, good purpose of the bill.

One of the issues with the bill before us is that this is convoluted by the fact that we have an internal interprovincial trade barriers part and we’re speaking to the definition of regulatory measures right now. But it’s part of a very confusing and challenging bill for British Columbians to understand.

I think it’s important for us to understand why the government didn’t choose to have dedicated internal trade legislation as other provinces are doing and how B.C. has actually, in fact, done in the past when tackling some of these challenges.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are a few reasons for the question posed, why we landed where we did. One is that we had broader policy objectives in this legislation than just the interprovincial trade barriers, given the time we’re in.

I think that you’ll note that in the Nova Scotia legislation the part on interprovincial trade barriers is not bigger or shorter than ours. It’s about the same in terms of provisions, but we added the procurement and the tolling because of tooling ourselves up with the legislative tools necessary in ways that we think we may need to respond. We are responding with procurement in the context of the trade war that we’re in right now. So the first answer is broader policy objectives with this bill so that it’s not a stand-alone, just interprovincial trade piece of legislation.

I’ve said it before, and I’m going to say it again. Reciprocity is, in effect, a version of a trade barrier, we would view. So this gives us the flexibility if there is an industry or there is a particular….

What we’ve seen with the executive orders is the direct targeting of certain things. It changes every day. I think there was something recently about smartphones. What we know from the behaviour of this current trade war that we’re in is that there may be tools that are directed at us to target specific industries or target specific issues. Lumber and our forest industry is an example of that.

So if we designed a piece of legislation that made it so our ability to act was limited to if there was reciprocity across provinces, we wouldn’t be able to have the minister drop that trade barrier that was stopping our product from going to another economy and finding another market. We wouldn’t be able to do that.

[6:20 p.m.]

We think it actually unlocks a more powerful tool than what is found in some of the other legislation, although we’re working across the way. I’m told from the team at JEDI that we are always at the Canadian free trade agreement table.

Actually, the tool we’ve put in here, working together with those discussions that are happening there, might make it more powerful to be at that table, because once we arrive at particular abilities or understand where the exact trade barriers are that need to be dropped to strengthen our economy and stabilize it, we can go in and do it. That’s going to bring more power to free trade and our ability to participate in that in the country.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the opportunity to begin the discussion around Bill 7. Really, clause 1 defines the terms that flow throughout the entire act as it relates to interprovincial trade barriers.

It seems to me that as we work through the act, a lot is going to be focused not on the wisdom of reducing interprovincial trade barriers, because I don’t think there’s anybody who would think that’s a bad idea. It’s more about the how.

It would be helpful to have an example of the regulatory measures in various categories. More specifically, once a particular area is identified as being a candidate for part 1, how will the assessment of these various types of measures be done to determine which are which and how they might be dealt with?

The question, just to be really specific, is: can you illustrate the application of this definition with an example?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Welcome to the member, to the debate. It was nice to work with him through this piece of legislation.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

I’ll start by describing the approach that’s been taken here. I’m told that the way it’s phrased is a negative list approach. It sounds like a very trade agreement–style way of saying that it’s just that barriers are dropped. Right now the ministers are tasked, mostly through JEDI speaking with different ministries, with where you might want to put regulatory exceptions in, so as to keep the protections. There may be good examples, like public safety.

Once you look at all the possible trade barriers, you can create the idea of that negative list of what you’re putting through regulation as being protected in the province. That’s the kind of approach that’s being taken right now. I’m told that, like I said, JEDI is meeting with all the ministries to figure that out and do that analysis. There would probably be any number of reasons, like I said: public safety, interests of reducing burdens on business, things like that.

Peter Milobar: A couple of questions for the minister on clause 1 as well.

I’m just wondering. The minister has referenced a lot of times, and I’m certainly well aware of the committee, the national committee of all the trade ministers. It started in 2017, and it’s ongoing until now.

In light of the timelines around when we first started hearing an impetus to seriously try to address interprovincial trade across the country, especially in relation to the tariff situation, when was the drafting on Bill 7 started, and when was it completed?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in response to the member’s question, Trump was President at the end of January. I think there was talk already around there about the direct threats to Canada. So the work ramped up pretty quickly after that, and I’m told by JEDI that they started meeting on interprovincial trade barriers as part of their response. The policy work would have started there, which is surprisingly not that long ago, although it might feel to all of us as a long time ago.

To the specific question, the minute a minister or a minister’s office starts receiving legal advice for drafting, it’s under solicitor-client privilege. I can’t reveal the exact date that we started drafting because of that privilege, but what I can say is that because of the nature of the situation we’re in and how quickly it turned, the response and the policy work started shortly after the President was in office. And the Premier and the ministers have been kind of at every table trying to figure out the coordinated response to this.

So what you see in the policy pieces reflected in this bill related to procurement…. The retaliatory response that we offered with the tolling and the interprovincial trade barriers are a result of all that work.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, and I appreciate that we’ll get to those sections and parts later.

It’s a bit of an interesting bill because there are parts — part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4; and then there are the clauses. Anyway, there’ll be a lot of interplay, I’m sure, with some of the phrasing, not meant to be problematic by any means.

In terms of clause 1, though, and the definition of the regulatory measure, the reason I was asking…. It ties into what some of my colleagues were pointing out as well. The minister herself has referenced that we have a trade group that’s been meeting since 2017, yet no actual urgency provincially or nationally on removing interprovincial trade barriers and regulatory measures until a presidential change. We could have been facing a 23 percent tariff equivalent drag on our economy for years, theoretically.

[6:35 p.m.]

I guess I ask that because…. Again, the minister references that 2017 working group. I would point out that one regulatory measure that that group actually came to an agreement on was back on September 26, 2024. A lot of provinces signed off on it; B.C. didn’t.

Now, I recognize we were in the middle of a writ period at that point. I publicly said that in interviews previously. But it’s been a long time since the election ended. So even before the presidential threats from the United States, we have a trucking agreement out there — B.C. is not a signatory to it — which is supposed to recognize regulatory measures within the trucking industry across Canada. B.C. is one of the only provinces and territories that haven’t.

Somehow it’s going to speed up trucking between the Yukon and Alberta when B.C. hasn’t signed on. We’re actually an impediment. We have the ports, but we don’t have a trucking agreement with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, the Yukon — like I say, just about every province. That was signed in September by all these other provinces. B.C. still hasn’t.

How do the definition and the regulatory measure in clause 1 help at all? The minister says we’re going to be leaders at all these tables when, apparently, we’re not a leader at the trucking table — what is it now? — eight, nine months after that agreement’s been signed by all these other provinces.

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To start off, with the member talking about the state of interprovincial trade…. Generally in Canada, and I guess I could share some agreement…. I think that probably, collectively as a country, we could have had better opportunities to participate in interprovincial trade. And my understanding in successive governments is that B.C. has been a leader and always at the table with dropping interprovincial trade barriers, but certainly, we’re in a different time of opportunity.

We dug into the question, I think, as a fit into the definition here about the trucking agreement. My understanding is that we are participating in that pilot program. B.C. is at the table when it comes to that. We couldn’t directly…. The term “sign on” is used, but I’m told there’s nothing to sign. But there’s a trucking pilot project that B.C. is very much at the table at right now, and I think that’s the one that the member is referring to.

Again, the definition in clause 1 is directly from the Canadian free trade agreement.

Peter Milobar: With clause 1 — that the removal of “regulatory measures” includes a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure — is the intention, then, of the government with this change of the definition that it would be removed completely?

In other words, credentialing would be an immediate recognition or that credentialing would just be sped up, particularly as it relates to, say, some of the more professional aspects of interprovincial labour markets in terms of professional credentialing that might be different between B.C. or in Alberta or B.C. and in Ontario.

Is the intention with clause 1 to get that to zero days? It’s a direct line? Or is it that instead of a maybe six-month wait for credentialing, it gets dropped down to one month?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just throwing out again…. I wonder if we are done with clause 1, because I find myself going into the other sections to answer this particular question, which I’m very happy to do.

The answer to the question about how the act is designed for credentialing is in section 2(4), and then later on in section 3 and 4. To be read all together, it sets out the regime that would be in place if the bill was passed.

Just to explain it, it would say there are, basically, two streams.

There’s the stream that is under section 2(4), which is for supply of services. Within that one, there may be a labour mobility issue where there’s a credentialing or certification or something that is embedded in that service, the ability of that person that’s providing the service to provide that service. The way it’s structured, that would just be dropped, so it wouldn’t be a matter of a timeline. It just removes it, subject to any exceptions that were put in place by the minister responsible, related to that particular service or individual, that credentialing.

Then clause 3 is related to how we would go about it if it’s not us that controls that, if it’s a regulatory body or some other agency that controls that credentialing. It sets out a process to direct that agency under certain timelines.

And then the final way that the question may apply is under the Labour Mobility Act. Just to explain that, the way we constructed this bill was to keep the Labour Mobility Act and the regulated professions that are within that separate from this piece of work. That discussion and those agreements that are related to regulated professions do set out timelines, and it’s a matter of the compliance of the regulatory bodies, but they are not under the other sections.

The Chair: Sorry, if we could call a brief recess….

Peter Milobar: Yeah, I just didn’t want to lose the spot, so that’s fine.

The Chair: I appreciate it.

So if we could call a brief recess and have everyone return by seven o’clock, please.

The committee recessed from 6:48 p.m. to 7 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call the committee back to order. We are considering Bill 7.

Steve Kooner: I just have a few clarification questions from the previous members that were debating the bill with the Attorney General.

The Attorney General referred to a negative list, also referred to possible overlap in legislation and also referred to filling out a framework, whereas the legislation would be provided, and ministers would then fill in the gaps.

I just have a question in relation to that. Would the ministers have all the discretion when they’re making further regulations, unilaterally, or will there still be some legislative oversight on that process?

Hon. Niki Sharma: What is going on right now is a very highly coordinated and integrated process that I was describing earlier, related to multiple stakeholders and multiple tables, including ministers and also our trade and economic security task force.

In that task force, we rely on leaders in the business community, labour, First Nations and the full list of the participants of that task force to help us formulate our response, even down to specific items that are in need of addressing through interprovincial trade barriers.

Just like the course of any regulation, this is a cabinet regulation. The minister is empowered through this legislation to make that regulation, and it will work in coordination with all of the different tables that that minister is on and the stakeholders that they’re talking with about which measures — in this case, through the regulation for exemptions.

[7:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: A follow-up question. Unlike other legislation that is fairly detailed and then regulations are made after the fact, in this case, the case that we’re dealing with right now, it’s a piece of legislation that really needs the blanks to be filled in. So that is a bit of a concern.

My question to the Attorney General: what legislative oversight will there be on further regulations moving forward? Will there be further legislative oversight? This is not the same situation as other legislation that’s well-debated before and well-crafted in detail. There are a lot of details missing here.

The question, again, is essentially: will there be some legislative oversight to how ministers put forward their regulations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I expect that the member knows the usual process when it comes to legislation and regulation and what that balance is, so I won’t go over the explanation of what that means in terms of how the legislation oversees the powers that are granted to a minister in the legislative process.

What I will say is that the Leader of the Opposition introduced a bill that was very similar to the Nova Scotia bill that was, I would say, in our estimation, even vaguer, more vague than the bill and the process that we’re putting in place here, where that legislation drops all trade barriers without any legislative specificity, and then it just waits for reciprocity.

What we have is a deeper process that’s quicker, lets us respond quicker, but also helps us drop those interprovincial trade barriers and enact the things we need to enact quickly.

Steve Kooner: A follow-up question. So there is going to be no further legislative oversight in terms of these further regulations that are drafted. I understand the process of how regulations are made, and they are made through the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I understand that process. But the difference here is that this legislation is not fairly detailed. It doesn’t have the proper framework, and now it’s being put forward, and the ministers are going to get the authority to kind of fill in the blanks.

Again the question: will there be further legislative oversight from the Legislative Assembly in regard to further regulations that will be made in the future, in regard to Bill 7 here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Three times with that question, but I’ll try it again.

The way that the legislation and the regulatory process works…. I won’t go through that in detail, but what I can add is that if, once we get to the further clauses of the bill…. I’m not sure where we’re situated with the actual clause right now. It sounds like we’re having a general discussion, but once we get further down in the bill, I will be able to articulate where the legislative processes would fit in of the ministers bringing forward the legislative changes that they would want to make, with the permanent changes that they bring forward to the regulatory or legislative regime, which would, of course, have legislative oversight.

I’m happy to move on so we can get into it.

Gavin Dew: Just for my own edification and clarification, in her prior answer, I’m pretty sure the Attorney General implicitly called her own legislation “vague,” referring to other legislation as “even vaguer” or “more vague.”

Could the Attorney General just confirm whether she believes her legislation, the government’s legislation, is in fact vague, for clarity in Hansard?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Well, thank you for the question.

I was merely responding to the question that the previous member had about what’s contained in legislation and what isn’t by comparing to Nova Scotia. I think we have the appropriate levels of tools to respond quickly to the tariffs.

I wait for the Chair’s guidance on how we’re attaching these questions to the actual clauses that we’re dealing with.

[7:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Is there a question?

Steve Kooner: I would like to add that all these questions actually deal with the regulatory measures that we were talking about. All those from the previous discussion, as the Attorney General was discussing, about the regulatory measures…. It was discussed what authority the ministers would have. So all these questions are coming from there. I just, like, wanted to add that. So they are highly relevant to clause 1.

I’d like to move on further to another question that I have on the same clause. We’ve heard a little bit about some sort of consultation that is going to be happening into the future, but my question is: how much consultation was had with stakeholders in regard to clause 1 and this bill prior to this bill being introduced?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The number one thing that has come out of every table and every discussion since Trump has been President and started this trade war on us…. You can talk to business leaders. You can talk to labour leaders. You can talk to any leader in, almost, the country. The number one thing that you will hear is that dropping interprovincial trade barriers is a win for our economy and our country.

We are leaders in B.C. at being at the forefront of almost every table. It’s hard to summarize the level of consultation that would have gone into it, but in particular, I would direct the member’s attention to the TEST committee, the trade and economic security table task force. That was enacted by the Premier very early on, when the tariff threat came to our doorstep.

That consists, again, as I think I said previously, of business leaders, labour leaders, First Nations leaders, leaders of economic development, the new economy — really, leaders throughout the province that are helping us at the table navigate our response through the interprovincial trade barriers.

I, myself, went before that committee, the trade economic security task force, to talk about this bill. So this is actually resulting from a lot of conversation about interprovincial trade barriers at many tables.

Steve Kooner: Next question to the Attorney General. What I was more looking at was specific names, in terms of what consultations were had with specific entities, specific parties.

Is there a list? If there are Indigenous groups, what are the lists of which Indigenous groups were consulted with? If there are some trade organizations, which organizations were consulted with?

[7:15 p.m.]

I’m just trying to have a list so the people that are listening at home can understand a lot of consultation went into this and they have examples, real-life examples of entities who actually vetted this bill before it came to the House.

Again, the question is: is there a list that can be provided in terms of which stakeholders, specifically, were consulted?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to endeavour to get such a list for the member, but I can say from the conversations we’re having it would be very extensive. Ministries set a part on every table to talk to their stakeholders. JEDI has had a standing email address where businesses have come to respond to things, including the bill.

We’ve had such a high level of response and open door policy since the tariff threat has come forward. I’ll just say again the number one thing that we’ve heard from, particularly, businesses was a dropping of interprovincial trade barriers, and that’s certainly part of it.

So it wouldn’t be a small project to get such a list. Maybe we can move on to the next questions, and we can endeavour to put that together.

Gavin Dew: I do think that the Attorney General did confirm that that list would be made available in due course. Is that correct?

Okay, that’s correct. She has confirmed that.

I’m a little confused because I’m hearing about an open door policy, I’m hearing about extensive consultation, yet by all accounts, there appears to have been a breakdown of consultation.

Having seen, during the same time that this was underway, the apparent breakdown in consultation over Bill 4, in which this government made assurances that there had been extensive consultation only for it to be discovered that there had been virtually no consultation, that the consultation that was undertaken was several years ago, and for numerous business organizations to write letters to the government asking them to consult, only to have the legislation rammed through….

I am a little bit concerned, and I’m wondering if the Attorney General could speak to what the breakdown was in consultation that happened during this process.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I believe I’ve answered the question quite a few times now about the steps that we’ve taken.

[7:20 p.m.]

The thing that’s concerning me a little bit about this line of questioning is that it seems to be…. The members over there are really stuck on process during a time of unprecedented challenge and threat to our country and our economy.

We did consult. We spoke to many people about what was needed, and interprovincial trade barriers was the number one thing that we heard. We also heard: “You need to move with speed when it comes to stabilizing our economy.” I’ll keep answering these questions about all the people — the task force and the FPTs, the ministry — that we all engaged with to get to where we are today.

I just want to say that another thing we heard is that you need to move quickly. So we are hoping that this bill goes through the House quickly and that we’re able to get to work when it comes to the barriers that we can drop that the business community, like everybody, has said that we need to do.

Gavin Dew: I respect the importance of speed, but I am, again, confused, because I have in front of me quotes from three groups that were involved in that consultation.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce said: “While it is clear Trump’s trade war has spurred an economic emergency, it is not clear to us that the sweeping powers are required or justified.”

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade said: “The introduction of Bill 7 and the sweeping powers it would have conferred to the cabinet have raised significant questions about responsible democratic governance and created significant uncertainty for the business community.”

The Business Council of British Columbia said: “Canada’s reputation as a stable and reliable place for investment depends on the stability and accountability embedded in our institutions, including our system of parliamentary democracy. Now is not the time to weaken them.”

I think that the Attorney General, perhaps, is confusing speed with the abrogation of basic democracy. I’m very, very concerned by this attitude that we’re hearing that anything is justified by the Attorney General’s need for speed.

Returning to that breakdown of consultation, if, in fact, the Attorney General believes there was no breakdown of consultation or believes that what they were hearing was a need to ram the gas pedal over and over again, to what does the Attorney General attribute the massive outpouring of very, very substantial concern from the business community with regard to the progress of that consultation? And can the Attorney General confirm whether the concerns that were expressed publicly were first expressed privately?

Hon. Niki Sharma: What this process is an example of is a very healthy democracy. We have had to move with speed when it comes to responding to this threat that’s coming at us very quickly with executive orders. The Premier, the Minister of JEDI, the Minister of Finance, almost every part of our government has been solely tasked in figuring out how we as a government respond to that challenge. And we have had to move quickly.

To the concerns that were raised…. I think the member has made those quotes a few times now. And they are on the record, I assure him. From that discussion, I went to the TEST committee. I talked through their concerns, and we are amending the bill in response. What that is an example of is a healthy democracy and a government that is standing up to make sure that we get it right in this very uncertain time where things are changing very quickly.

I just want to say that we landed in a space where we think we have the effective tools that would be necessary for government to respond in these uncertain times, and we took into account the concerns that stakeholders had about other portions of the bill.

Gavin Dew: I’d ask the Attorney General just to clarify. While that all sounds great, what has been reported in media has been that those concerns were expressed privately, significantly before they were expressed publicly.

If the Attorney General believes this was a healthy, robust democratic consultation process, to what does she attribute the fact that stakeholders who had apparently been consulted privately expressed their concerns about this bill? To what does she attribute the fact that they felt that it was sufficiently problematic that they needed to make their objections public some days or weeks after they had made those same concerns known to the government privately?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, just seeking your guidance again on how these are tied to particular clauses that are before us. If you can provide me with that guidance, I would really appreciate it.

It’s a similar question that I’ve been asked again. What I would say is that in the speed and the way that we had to respond to the tariff threat, we endeavoured to do everything to make sure that we’re responding as quickly as that threat was facing us.

The Chair: At this stage of the debate, the committee is focused on the consideration of clause 1. There is some latitude in consideration of clause 1. However, it is important that the committee be reminded that we do focus on the bill at hand and clause 1.

Kiel Giddens: Just with respect to clause 1, we’ve been in a discussion on consultation. The Attorney General referenced the fact that healthy democracy includes significant consultation. I do think it was a healthy democratic process that as soon as an undemocratic nature of the latter portions of the bill were referenced, that was challenged, and we’re going to see, hopefully, amendments.

But with respect to clause 1, I want to get back to a little bit about the consultation overall with other provinces. We talked a bit about that in relation to the bill when we were discussing Nova Scotia’s bill, for example.

There’s been a lot of reference to the Committee on Internal Trade, to the various federal-provincial-territorial tables. I’m wondering if the Attorney General can clarify. Have other provinces specifically been consulted on clause 1 and part 1 of the bill?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have reached out to other Attorneys General — which is how you’re supposed to say it, Attorneys General — in the country. I’ve sat down — we’re scheduling with a few of them — to talk about different approaches, in terms of the legal side of it. There’s a lot of legal complexity when you start to design things in the context of international trade agreements and being a law-abiding jurisdiction and how you navigate that when an actor isn’t.

There was an FPT where the DMs discussed their approaches to various things like legislative or retaliatory tariffs. I think that’s a constant discussion.

I have issued an invitation to other jurisdictions if they want to share. I think we really are trying to take a Team Canada approach. We’re all facing very similar legal and regulatory issues. We’re hoping to build that network, and I already talked about the various tables that are already existing to make sure we can do that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response.

Just to clarify so I understand it accurately, through that Committee on Internal Trade and the federal-provincial-territorial tables, were the actual clause and the part 1 provisions…? Was it actually explained in detail how B.C. is going to be doing things differently from other provinces and their intent to act in this clause and this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, we did not show, just like Nova Scotia didn’t for us, particular clauses of our bill before they were enacted. We had the benefit of seeing Nova Scotia’s once it was introduced. I think it was through the legislative…. I may be losing the timeline when we were looking at it.

Generally speaking, given various types of privilege — legislative and Solicitor General are different types of privilege — that attach themselves to a bill, once it’s in the drafting phase, it’s not a common practice for different Attorneys General to share drafts of bills because of all those things. They have to be passed and treated a certain way with a certain level of confidentiality at that time.

Steve Kooner: In regard to consultation on clause 1, what was discussed earlier was that consultation was had. My question is…. There were probably a number of concerns from the stakeholders. Were any of those concerns incorporated in drafting this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, and I’ll give you an example. BCBC endorsed part 1 of the bill and said it was a positive and necessary step and aligns with long-standing business recommendations.

Steve Kooner: Other than the endorsements, were there concerns that any of the stakeholders mentioned that they wanted rectified in this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not about this clause, or, generally, the interprovincial trade section.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the regulatory measures, clause 1, discussion was had in regard to ministers being able to fill in the blanks of how these regulatory measures would be implemented. There was, I believe, some discussion that in addition to ministers, there will be other authorities as well.

[7:35 p.m.]

Is it fair to say there will be other authorities, such as Crown corporations and non-profits, having directive authority through this legislation? There are other entities that are non-governmental that will have authority out of this legislation. Is that fair to say?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: In addition to the minister, what will be the authorities, exactly, that will have discretion to implement the regulatory measures?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to provide clarity for what the definition of “regulatory measure” actually means…. I think there’s a misunderstanding that it means the regulation that a minister would bring in.

The reason for the definition and the use of the definition is to define what interprovincial trade barrier is to be dropped. That’s the regulatory measure definition, just to provide some clarity.

This is answered later on in the bill, under clauses 3 and 5, so I’ll be happy to get to it when we get to that clause.

Steve Kooner: I believe the member for Prince George–North Cariboo has a question about how this clause was drafted. I’ll turn it to that member.

Sheldon Clare: I’m looking at the wording of this particular clause in a technical sense. One of my backgrounds is technical writing. When I look at the term “regulatory measure” in this part, I take this as meaning that this applies to part 1 of this particular bill. I take it that is correct. Is that so?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Sheldon Clare: Now, when I’m looking at this term, which purports to be a definition, and you just said that “regulatory measure….” You provided a definition, but this clause itself is a definition. I’m looking at the words in this particular definition. This is what this clause purports to be. It says: “includes a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice and any other procedure.”

Notwithstanding the lack of an Oxford comma after “practice,” I look at this clause, and I’m wondering. Are these terms likewise not also used throughout this document, and are they also not likewise in need of definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, we don’t need to define the rest of the items that are included in that definition because we don’t use them throughout. This was drafted from the Canadian free trade agreement definition of regulatory measures.

Sheldon Clare: Well, I was looking at the term “regulatory measure” as it is used in this part, and it is frequently paired with the term “enactment,” with the word “or” between them. Is a regulatory measure also an enactment? Are they equal and equivalent, or are they somehow different?

I think this matters to people. It matters in the crafting of a statute as to what the words actually mean and how they’re used. I’d be very interested in the Attorney General’s perspective on whether those words are equivalent or they have a different meaning.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: An enactment could be a regulatory measure, but a regulatory measure is broader and actually also includes the rest of the things in that list.

Sheldon Clare: So a regulatory measure is broader, and an enactment doesn’t include those measures in this list. Is that correct? An enactment would not ever be a directive, requirement, guideline, program, policy, administrative practice or any other procedure. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, an enactment could be a regulatory measure, like a regulation or a law of B.C. It’s defined in the Interpretation Act. But as you see in the definition, regulatory measure also includes policy, which is, of course, not an enactment. Regulatory measures are broader.

Sheldon Clare: It seems to me that the definition itself tends to be a little bit confusing, and I wonder if it needs to have another look. When I look through the use of an enactment and I look at the use of a regulatory measure, it seems to be given equal status where it’s used.

With regard to that point, I wonder, when you chose to use the Canada free trade agreement for this definition, why was that chosen in particular? Why was there not a made-in-B.C. definition chosen for terms that would apply to a provincial bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for using the Canada free trade agreement…. The idea of a regulatory measure comes from there. It’s a way to encapsulate what might be included in an interprovincial trade barrier.

There are modifications from that to make it more applicable to B.C., I’m told by some of the drafters, but that was the reason that we based it on that.

Sheldon Clare: In the terms of this definition, a concern that has been brought to my attention is this very broad use of “any other procedure.” That seems to be incredibly broad in this definition.

[7:45 p.m.]

When you couple that to things like directives, requirements, guidelines, programs, policy and administrative practice, this seems to be a huge definition that really encapsulates far, far beyond what the stated intent is of this legislation.

I’m wondering why there would be such a broad definition for what appears to be a simple term. How is this going to give people comfort that the legislation is actually focused, narrow and intended to really provide the protection for British Columbia in removing interprovincial trade barriers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to clarify again, which I think will help explain the definition, about what this is used for. “Regulatory measures” as defined there is not, which I think I’ve heard a couple times from the other side, what it empowers a minister to enact through regulation. A regulatory measure is meant to define what an interprovincial trade barrier is.

In that sense, you would want to be as broad as possible in your definition to capture any number of things that might be included in an interprovincial trade barrier, in effect. So it’s to define that regulatory measure or the interprovincial trade barrier.

The language in here is taken from trade lawyers and people that work in trade. It’s a common language that we tried to pull from when it comes to that definition. There was an understanding that what we are talking about is interprovincial trade barriers or trade barriers that we were dropping.

Sheldon Clare: I wonder. In looking at the term “administrative practice,” was there consultation given to S.A. de Smith’s work on the subject of administrative law, policy and practice? This would appear to be an administrative statute. If so, how would that have coloured the construction of this definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this is part of language to define what an interprovincial trade barrier is. I’ll give you an example. If it’s an administrative practice that is to do with processing applications, and the manner or order or how it’s done is, in effect, an interprovincial trade barrier, then that would be an example of something that you would capture under this definition and therefore have the ability to remove that barrier, subject to any exceptions.

Sheldon Clare: Could you perhaps provide some examples of what would be considered “any other procedure” in terms of the use of this definition? I think the people of British Columbia deserve to know just how inclusive this definition is.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, the definition is meant to be as broad as possible, because in this state, we’re defining what is an interprovincial trade barrier. What the analysis and, generally, other trade agreements find is that when you dig into it, it can show up in different ways.

The “any other procedure” is very common in legislative drafting, as you would know with your technical background. It helps you have a placeholder for something you didn’t imagine is an interprovincial trade barrier or regulatory measure that’s doing that. You didn’t contemplate it at the outset, so you couldn’t list it. That was the reason for it.

Sheldon Clare: What I was asking…. I understand the need to be wanting to be inclusive in this. However, could you give us some examples of things that could be considered “any other procedure”? I think that’s a pretty big thing to be throwing in a definition. I mean, I come from a world where definitions are narrow and focused and clearly understood. I don’t understand this definition.

Hon. Niki Sharma: One example might be a reporting requirement or a requirement to file a document or something that, in effect, acts as a barrier.

Sheldon Clare: Well, again, when this was drafted, what references were used in its draft besides the free trade agreement?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The policy and drafters, when they looked at this…. It was really important to root the work, when it comes to these definitions, as much as you could with the current framework in terms of free trade and other trade agreements. I’m told from the policy team that they looked at the CFTA, as already mentioned, and the Labour Mobility Act, and they had internal consultation with ministries about where it shows up.

Sheldon Clare: The word “policy” in this definition of regulatory measure is also used in a later clause under “regulatory provision.” Are regulatory provision and regulatory measure identical terms?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: They are in fact two different things. One is…. We talked about regulatory measures, so I’ll keep that one aside. A regulatory provision is something that’s made by a regulatory body under an enactment.

Sheldon Clare: Again I’m wondering why, when this term “regulatory measure” is being defined as including policy, “policy” is also defined under a different term. What is the justification for that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the provision the member is talking about — which I’d be happy to talk about in detail once we get there, under clause 3 — is different in the context that it’s used in. They are quite apart in how they are applied and used in this act.

Once we get to clause 3, I’d be happy to go through in detail the different ways that that shows up.

Sheldon Clare: Am I given to understand that words can be defined differently in the same bill in different parts? Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: A policy can be made under an enactment or a regulatory body under a different authority. So that is the reason for the separation and the different definitions.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: Clause 2(1) reads: “Subject to any laws of British Columbia respecting who may sell, purchase or use a good, a good that may be produced, manufactured, grown or obtained in, used for a commercial purpose in or distributed from another province of Canada may be sold or used in British Columbia.”

Now, my question is to the first part of this phrase. It says: “Subject to any laws of British Columbia respecting who may sell, purchase or use a good….” Why is this clause being made subject-to?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s very specifically put in there with the intention of protecting the public. There are a few good examples that I can provide the member. For example, who can possess body armour or armoured cars? Right now we have a legislative regulatory regime around who can possess them, and you would want to make it clear that this provision wasn’t dropping that.

Also, we talked earlier about the age of majority for purchasing alcohol. We have a standard here in B.C. that we have enacted at a certain age, and we wouldn’t want that to be dropped either. So that’s the reason for the subject-to.

[8:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Earlier the Attorney General mentioned that the minister would get some discretion to fill in the blanks in legislation through the regulations. What’s so different in this particular clause, where a minister cannot fill in the blanks?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe we could ask the member to clarify the question a little bit more.

Steve Kooner: A question was asked earlier about alcohol, and an answer was given in regard to alcohol. That’s why a minister…. I’m paraphrasing now. That’s why a minister should have discretion to…. There’s a negative list, and the minister should be able to put in exemptions.

In this particular clause, it seems to be putting in a qualification up front rather than later on. So why is this clause any different than what we were discussing before? Why is there a qualification done to this clause when other clauses will have their qualifications put in by ministers at a later date?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It was just a matter of the speed and efficiency that we could go about this project. The method that the member described as a possible method, where you could have said the minister has to go through all the legislation and regulation and make sure that any restriction to where something’s sold, like an age requirement for alcohol and all that….

We felt like that was a very big project and, instead, they should be focused on breaking down the interprovincial trade barriers that we know affect our economy and affect the ability to open up other markets.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Steve Kooner: A follow-up question.

There are clauses in this legislation that do not have the qualifications, and those clauses are to be altered at a later date. I just want to make that clear. There’s a distinction here with this particular clause. The qualification — it has been put on here, but there are other clauses in this bill that do not have those qualifications. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would be helpful to know which clause that the member is talking about, but maybe if I could explain how the bill is constructed.

The bill is constructed in a way that, with the provision that we’re talking about, drops trade barriers. So except for the exceptions that the ministers are putting in regulation…. In this particular section, it was felt like it was needed to make it clear that any laws that were respecting who may sell, purchase or use a good was an exception from that blanket drop. And then the exceptions that come into place with the ministers provide that ability to circle around just the exceptions.

The negative list that I was talking about…. Had we not put that subject-to, any laws respecting the subject-to that the member is talking about, it would have been an exercise of going through every piece of legislation and regulation for a minister to understand.

For example, I talked about body armour or armoured vehicles. You could probably have weapons that are age-restricted. You probably have lots of things out there that have rules about who can buy them and then create a massive list of exceptions.

It didn’t seem like a very useful use of resources and efficiency of our staff, when they need to be very squarely focused on the work that is going to be needed to drop interprovincial trade barriers to stimulate the economy at a time of mass destabilization.

Steve Kooner: This talks about interprovincial trade and, obviously, it involves other provinces. Other provinces have some regulations as well. Wouldn’t that come into play?

[8:05 p.m.]

Why put a subject-to on this clause when you’re dealing with goods that are already circulating in other provinces, that are already dealing with regulations in those provinces? Why put the subject-to clause in this particular clause when you already have those protections?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I’ve answered this question already, but maybe a little further clarity might help.

There are going to be incidences where, with respect to public safety, we have set clear limits on…. I talked about body armour, armoured cars. Probably there is a whole slew of things that are dangerous or we have to set age limits on. So in that sense, it’s the legislative authority of this Legislature in this province to understand what public safety threats are there and set those. And I’ve given some examples of that already.

We are focused on interprovincial trade barriers, and there are plenty of reasons why goods and services…. We need to drop those interprovincial trade barriers to get things to market, to stimulate the economy, to do all the things that we’ve been talking about. But I would imagine the member would agree that having anybody own body armour or armoured cars or any age restriction on who can possess controlled substances would be something that the Legislature in B.C. would be best tasked to do.

This isn’t about…. I think I’ve answered the question about why we’ve put that subject-to clause in this particular….

Steve Kooner: I understand this is to remove interprovincial trade barriers. That’s a good thing. And that’s to look at all barriers.

Now, we have other Canadian provinces in this country that also have rules and regulations and to actually…. To your example, I’m pretty sure there are other provinces that also regulate body armour and stuff like that, body armour and other public safety equipment.

If it’s already being regulated, those entities are already going through the process in different provinces and that are going through the regulatory processes that are legislatively sanctioned in other provinces.

Why are we putting up an extra blanket subject-to clause? If there is a concern, why can’t the minister…? If there are only a few examples, why can’t the minister, after the fact, just make a regulation saying that particular item is not going to come to B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Once we get to later clauses like clause 5, I’ll be able to go through all the regulatory powers that this piece of legislation will give. And I think, in particular, some of the answers or questions that are being posed here would be answered by some of those regulatory clauses, 5.1(a) in particular.

I think I’ve already answered this question in terms of the enormous task it would take for our resources to be put towards the model that the member proposes in terms of having exceptions to those rules, so I won’t go over that again. I think what we have is the right balance between quickly dropping interprovincial trade barriers and providing protections in place where we see that we needed them.

[8:10 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: For clarification, clause 2 allows that any good or service that is approved by any other province is accepted into B.C. without compliance with other B.C. regulations.

Two questions in that regard. What does the government believe are the largest differences in regulations between B.C. and other provinces that are the most likely to be relevant here? Are there any key sectors in which they foresee this being an issue? Have any reports been undertaken in that regard, and if so, can the Attorney General please share those?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we mentioned earlier the study that’s going on with JEDI, so I won’t go back to revisit that.

I will say that I mentioned the FPT tables that are at place right now, which have a key focus — transportation, foreign credentials, financial services and labour. Those are the ones that the provinces and the federal level are particularly interested in.

Gavin Dew: For British Columbian manufacturers who are following and have been following B.C. regulations and who have accordingly established their business models, their equipment, their capital investments, their labour conditions, does clause 2 create an imbalance or a potential issue of competitiveness if other provinces are not required to follow B.C.’s potentially stricter regulations?

What kind of issues around timeline or delay of implementation could affect the competitiveness of B.C. manufacturers in this regard? Has any substantial effort been undertaken in order to evaluate those kinds of potential issues and to prepare mitigation strategies accordingly?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before I note the hour, I think that the member has identified an issue that exactly is part of the reason why we structured the bill the way we did. That is that we want to create opportunities for B.C. businesses, and we want to support them through this transition.

By having section 2 work in parallel with the regulatory-making power that’s later on in the bill and having the ministers do the work of figuring out who in their stakeholders are the businesses affected and how we can support them, there is a way through that negative list to create clarity of what the business environment, working environment is in B.C. and what interprovincial trade barriers are dropped.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:16 p.m.

Contents