Hansard - Wednesday, April 16, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 45

The component 4 LifeLabs bargaining committee —Mandy DeFields, bargaining committee chairperson; Kelly Jeffs, bargaining committee vice-chairperson; Maryam Baghalha, bargaining committee member; Tony Ly, bargaining committee member; Rosario Viray, bargaining committee member; Wendy Cummer, bargaining committee member; Linsay Buss, BCGEU staff representative, negotiations.

As well, Barbara Mitchell-Pollock from Council of Canadians and B.C. Health Coalition.

As a past proud BCGEU member, I know this House will also make them all feel welcome here.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Today I would like to welcome several public service staff from my ministry. Corrina, Marie-Helene, Travis, Angus, Darren and Gayle are joining us today.

I’m excited to see that Gayle Mavor is joining us in person for the first time in her last week before retirement. I know we all have a bucket list in life, and I’m more than happy to help Gayle with her bucket list today, joining us in the B.C. Legislature.

Gayle has been in government since 2017 and has served under multiple ministries. I’m especially grateful for her communications support over the last few months while I transitioned into this role.

Happy retirement, Gayle.

Will everybody please join me in wishing Gayle a very happy next part of her journey.

The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South.

Bruce Banman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure you can identify…. The role of the Whip is often filled with having to chastise folks once in a while, which is a role I’m sure that you are well aware of and familiar with, me being of the better-behaved people in here. I would never….

It is also filled, at times, with great celebration, and this would be one of those times. It has come to my attention that the member for Kootenay-Rockies…. It is his birthday today.

Would this House please join me in wishing Pete a happy birthday.

Happy birthday.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Happy birthday to the member.

Also, happy birthday to my husband, Romi. It’s a great day to have a birthday.

It’s also a great day to be the Minister of Culture, because it is Creative Industries Week here in B.C. Thank you to all the members who joined the over 180 creative individuals who came and joined us in the rotunda, representing the over 122,000 people who work in the creative industries in B.C.

Whether it’s film, TV, visual effects, digital media, music, books, magazines or tech, their brilliance was certainly on showcase today. I have more than 50 of them joining us here today in the House. I plan on naming them all. No, I don’t. Don’t worry about that. That’s too many names to mention.

But I will say where they have come from: International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees; the Directors Guild of Canada; Union of B.C. Performers; ACTRA; the Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople; International Cinematographers Guild; the International Teamsters; B.C. Film Commissioners; Creative B.C.; Books B.C.; MagsBC; Music B.C.; VFX and Animation Alliance of B.C.; Canadian Media Producers Association, B.C. office; Screen B.C.; and many more — and Knowledge Network, of course, as well.

B.C. stands for British Columbia, but it also stands for “be creative.”

Thank you for being here.

Amelia Boultbee: I rise today to welcome Julie Fowler, one of my constituents and the co-producer of one of my favourite events, Ignite the Arts Festival, which is a ten-day celebration of arts, culture and music that takes place every spring in Penticton.

[1:40 p.m.]

She is the executive director of the B.C. Music Festival Collective, an industry association supporting over 100 music festivals in the province. She is here for Creative Industries Week.

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

Hon. Diana Gibson: We’re honoured here today to be joined by the Hon. Elizabeth Cull and her partner, Terry Wickstrom, up in the gallery.

It is a real privilege for me to be able to welcome the Hon. Elizabeth Cull, former Minister of Health, former Minister of Finance and, notably, the first New Democrat MLA elected in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. She has paved the way for me, been an inspiration for me and been a mentor to me.

It is a real privilege to have her in the House.

Would all the members help her feel welcome.

Gavin Dew: Our research team uncovered shocking information today.

Ryan Painter, a communications staffer who is well known on both sides of the House, is getting married this Sunday. He and his fiancée, Stephanie, have been together 21 years, after meeting at UBC Okanagan. According to our researchers, Ryan first proposed ten years ago, and this weekend they’re finally tying the knot and then spending the break cruising down the Mexican Riviera.

Please join me in heartily congratulating Ryan and Stephanie.

Hon. Lana Popham: Not only is he the guy with the best hair in Saanich; he happens to also be our mayor. I would like to welcome Mayor Murdock to the Legislature. It was so great to have lunch and have a great conversation about all things Saanich.

I have known Mayor Murdock for a long time. I consider him a good friend and also a really incredible leader in our community. I commend him for his efforts on food security, always advocating for the citizens of Saanich and bringing his hair and his good brain to the table.

Welcome to the chamber.

The Speaker: I thought the minister was going to talk about my hair.

Minister of Water and Land.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would love to speak about your hair, but instead, I’m going to speak about the hair of one of our best mayors in the Powell River–Sunshine Coast riding, the mayor of Gibsons, Silas White, who is also sporting quite the do.

It’s nice to see you, Silas. I know you had lunch with the Minister of Health as well.

Could the House please welcome him today.

Jessie Sunner: I have the honour today to introduce folks from an amazing organization doing wonderful work throughout our communities and, especially, to do so during Sikh Heritage Month — folks from Khalsa Aid, which is an international humanitarian organization inspired by the Sikh principle of seva, a selfless service.

Khalsa Aid Canada has played an incredible role in providing relief throughout Canada in times of crisis, whether it be through COVID-19, through our disastrous floods or the worst wildfires that our province has seen.

Today in the gallery, we have Baljit Kamoh, Parmeet Sidhu, Darshdeep Dehradun, Peter Gill, Upinder Dhindsa and Trevor Magus.

Thank you so much for your service and everything that you do for our province.

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

Steve Morissette: I don’t have much of a do to sport here.

This is a great week. B.C. Book Day yesterday, and today in the gallery I have two friends from Fruitvale.

Craig Horsland was a long-time teacher and an area historian in Fruitvale. Also, Craig has recently moved to my colleague’s riding in Nanaimo to be close to family.

With Craig is one of my favourite people in Fruitvale, Gladys Todd. Gladys is a lifelong community volunteer and has been a most lively, vibrant and positive personality in the West Kootenays for 93 years.

Please join me in welcoming them to the House.

[1:45 p.m.]

Sunita Dhir: Today I would like to let the House know that Parmeet Kaur Sidhu from my beautiful riding of Vancouver-Langara is visiting us with her awesome team of volunteers from Khalsa Aid B.C.

I also just found out that she’s the daughter-in-law of our dear friend, Amarjeet Singh Sidhu, who works as a longshoreman along with my darling husband, Navdeep.

Please make her welcome in the House.

Rohini Arora: There are a couple introductions I want to make. Of course, my colleague here and other colleague have introduced Khalsa Aid, but I have to shout out Baljit Kamoh, who has been such a mentor to me in reminding me of the importance of selfless service. I think every conversation I’ve ever had with her has ended with that reminder.

Would everyone please join me in making her feel very welcome today.

One more. I’m so excited to see a lineup of my dear friends from IATSE 891. I used to work at the B.C. Fed before this, so I’ve worked very closely with one person in particular.

Sano, I want to give you a shout-out. Keep organizing, my friend.

Hillary Bergshoeff, of course, another dear friend of mine; Crystal Braunwarth, who is the business representative; and Amanda Bronswyck, who is the newest president of IATSE 891.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Will the House please welcome Brent Frain and Sonjia Grandahl.

One of the first things I remember about Sonjia was that she was a recipient of an insulin pump. She let me know so often what an important part of the health care system that was for her.

Brent Frain is famous for many areas of activism, but particularly, I learn a lot from the PWD Allies podcast that he co-hosts.

Will the House please make Brent and Sonjia very welcome.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: With Creative Industries Week, there are so many people here that we could highlight and congratulate. It’s such an incredibly important part of our economy.

I want to just take a moment, if I could, to really give a shout-out to ILM. Industrial Light and Magic have just expanded their presence in Vancouver. They’ve opened up a new office, more than 900 people working there.

At this moment in time, where there are challenges between the United States and Canada, it’s really important that we congratulate and embrace those American companies that continue to be such a vital part of our ecosystems in many different ways, like Industrial Light and Magic. The 900 employees here, their largest studio worldwide, are creating some of the highest and best quality storytelling the world knows, contributing so much to the ecosystem in British Columbia. They are represented today by Jeff White and Spencer Kent.

Could the House please join me in making them most welcome in this place and in B.C.

Rohini Arora: I thought I was done, but I saw another union brother just walk into the House, my dear friend Michael Cheevers from UBCP-ACTRA. Many of you will know him. He used to be the chief of staff to the previous Minister of Labour, Harry Bains.

Please join me in making my dear friend Michael feel welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Garry Begg presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025.

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

I am pleased to introduce Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025. The proposed Motor Vehicle Act amendments support increasing accessibility and safety to two driver licensing programs, the graduated licensing program and the new motorcyclist licensing program.

These amendments will create new authorities to update the restrictions, qualifications and timelines that apply to the two driver licensing programs.

[1:50 p.m.]

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Garry Begg: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M212 — Income Tax
(Grocery Rebate Guarantee)
Amendment Act, 2025

John Rustad presented a bill intituled the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, 2025.

John Rustad: I move that a bill intituled the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

“People need help now, so they can get ahead. They can’t wait 18 months to receive any support. This tax cut for the middle class supports people who are struggling with the high costs of groceries.”

“A thousand dollar tax cut a year, this year, next year and the year after that.”

“Under our plan, families will get more support. You’ll get it right away.”

“I’m on the side of everyday people and families who just want to end the day a little further ahead than when they started.”

All those quotes are from the Premier between September 29 and October 9 of this past year.

This Income Tax (Grocery Rebate) Amendment Act proposes to save each and every person in British Columbia $500. By increasing the basic personal exemption, every British Columbian who files taxes in B.C. will save $500 on their personal income taxes. This means that a family of two with two incomes would have that $1,000 savings each and every year.

Last year the NDP promised to bring in the $1,000 annual grocery rebate and then abandoned that promise after the election. This bill rectifies that broken promise, and it brings back the grocery rebate through reducing income taxes and making it permanent.

The Premier said: “People need relief now.” This bill would provide immediate relief to those who are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.

I hope that all members will find a way to be able to support this bill.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill intituled the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, 2025.

Division has been called.

[1:55 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 90
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
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	Giddens	Rattée
Davis	McInnis	Bird
Luck	Stamer	Maahs
Tepper	Mok	Wilson
Clare	Williams	Loewen
Dhaliwal	Doerkson	Chapman
McCall	Valeriote	Botterell
Kealy	Armstrong	Brodie
NAYS — 1
	Hepner

John Rustad: 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.

Linda Hepner: I have had my hand up, and I was asking for a correction relative to the vote, if I may make a correction. I’m sorry if you didn’t see my hand.

The Speaker: The Chair will ask the House if the member is allowed to make that correction.

Okay, there’s no consensus. We won’t have it.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Garry Begg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Garry Begg: I perhaps have made a mistake as the other member has.

I spent 38 years as a proud Mountie, and I’ve been told that the commissioner of the RCMP, Giuliano Zaccardelli, is in the House today, something I should have acknowledged earlier.

I apologize, sir, for that mistake. It’s very nice to have you here in the House.

You’re joined by other members of the International Police Association — Bill and Eileen Ardill; Renata and Han-Guenter Bergen; Patrick and Shauna Convy; Jim and Lorna Dallimore; Peter and Kelly Hoppe; Richard and Noreen Seville; Kevin and Kathy Worth; the commissioner and his wife, Betty; Judy Jasper and Roger Finnan; Paul Segonah; Gerry Pash and Beverly Straub.

I hope that you join me in welcoming the commissioner to the House today.

[2:05 p.m.]

[Applause.]

Members’ Statements

Creative Industries Week
and Music Industry Achievements

Susie Chant: I rise today to celebrate Creative Industries Week and to shine a spotlight on 2025, the Year of Music in British Columbia.

I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people, the lək̓ʷəŋən, particularly the Songhees and Esquimalt here, and the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh where I live.

Music is the heartbeat of our province. While we often celebrate the artists on stage, there’s an entire ecosystem working behind the scenes to bring music to life. Educators spark creativity in our young. Producers, engineers, agents, managers, venue operators and festival organizers all play a vital role. Families and friends cheer on young musicians as they pursue their dreams. These are the people who power B.C.’s vibrant music industry.

In my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, organizations like the North Shore Registered Music Teachers Association and Ava Music and Art Centre are building community through music and nurturing the next generation of talent. Strong music programs across primary, secondary and post-secondary education ensure every child has a chance to discover music.

This year B.C. artists are already making their mark. At the 2025 Juno Awards, B.C. talent earned 66 nominations, 26 of them supported through the provincially funded Amplify B.C. programs. One of the winners was Raffi, for those of you who know Raffi.

In February, B.C. musicians such as Nelly Furtado lit up the stage at the Invictus Games, and we look forward to the Canadian Country Music Awards in Kelowna this fall.

Local concerts and festivals also continue to connect communities, support local economies and strengthen our cultural fabric. That’s why in 2023, our government announced a historic $42 million investment in the creative sector, including $22.5 million over three years for Amplify B.C.

Let’s celebrate the people who make music and the incredible music that makes B.C. such a vibrant place to call home.

Ed Mah and Contributions to
Dawson Creek Community

Larry Neufeld: I rise today to recognize a remarkable citizen of Dawson Creek, Ed Mah, a man whose life has been defined by service, generosity and unwavering commitment to his community. Ed is the proud son of Bing Mah, a Chinese immigrant who founded Bing’s Furniture in 1959.

Over the 1980s, Ed took over the business, officially purchasing the 29,000-square-foot building in 1985. But what Ed built went far beyond furniture. He built a legacy of community care.

For decades, Bing’s wasn’t just a store. It was a stepping stone for local youth entering the workforce, a place where families struggling to make ends meet could still access essential furniture through flexible, pay-when-you-can plans. Ed never hesitated to help a staff member in need, whether it was a vehicle, a loan, repairs, etc. Because of him, business was always personal.

Ed and his family gave tirelessly to the community. His parents painted the mural scene on Bing’s west wall, and Ed has shown up for every school function, coached local baseball and volleyball teams, and even brought McDonald’s fries for entire classrooms, with his burned arms and all. He read weekly with students, supported school fundraisers and was a fixture at hot dog days.

After retiring in 2023, Ed continued working without pay for 1.5 years in order to assist the transition of the new owners. Just last month he took back the business to transform it into a year-round local market for artisans and entrepreneurs.

Ed Mah is also a Citizen of the Year, founder of the Dawson Creek car club and a recipient of the King Charles III Coronation Medal.

Today I ask this House to join me in thanking Ed Mah not only for his service but for his heart.

[2:10 p.m.]

Downtown Surrey Business
Improvement Association

Amna Shah: I rise today to recognize the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association, more commonly referred to as the DSBIA.

At its inception in 2001, this BIA was formed by a small group of business owners and property owners who had issues of concern and also to plan for economic development in the Whalley area. The DSBIA has now become one of the most impactful organizations in the downtown core. But of course, no organization is great without the people who keep it running.

CEO Elizabeth Model, who, by the way, also has well over 100 Ironman triathlons under her belt, is the leader who inspires excellence and influences thoughtful growth in the downtown core. She is a community champion who bridges conversation between various sectors and groups, and her team — Tracey Gravel, the now retired Bonnie Burnside and Madeline Nicholls — are the hard-working pillars that give the DSBIA the excellent reputation that it deserves.

A highlight initiative of the DSBIA is their student internship program. Students plan and execute projects which benefit our business community and the broader community, from working with businesses to revitalize their storefronts to developing websites and marketing strategies for the mom-and-pop restaurants which have some of the most delicious food in the city, from conducting safety surveys and studies to hosting events, meticulously planned from start to finish and on budget.

I have seen the excellent students who go through this program. Some have interned here at this very Legislature and some actually work in government. We are very proud of their accomplishments.

We say in the city of Surrey that “the future lives here.” I can say with confidence that our future is well nurtured with organizations like the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association.

Falkland Stampede

David Williams: Now that the warmer weather is upon us, that can only mean one thing. It’s officially rodeo season. In my riding, we are proud to host one of Canada’s oldest and finest, the 105-year-old Falkland Stampede.

It all began in March of 1919 when residents gathered in a field in the northwest corner of the townsite to celebrate the end of the First World War. They arrived by wagon, buggy, horseback and car, sharing food, laughter and homemade ice cream. That humble celebration became the first ever Falkland Stampede.

One of the first bucking horses ever mentioned was a big roan owned by David Hill, who worked on the CNR grade. He bet that a young Cariboo cowboy named Chris English couldn’t ride his bronc. Well, Chris managed to stay on for a few seconds, but he stayed on the ground a lot longer.

Over time, the traditions grew, and what became Empire Day in March shifted to Victoria Day in May. In 1931, students from Glenemma, Falkland and Westwold schools voted to choose a May Queen. Although the May Day activities eventually faded, the rodeo itself kept growing stronger year after year. In 1936, a brand-new community hall hosted its first stampede dance.

Then in 1969, the Falkland Little Rodeo went professional, officially registered with the cowboy protective association and has been expanding ever since. A special highlight came in 1980 with the Terry Fox Rodeo of Champions, which raised $6,000 for cancer research and drew a crowd of 4,000 people for this small little community.

Today the Falkland Stampede ranks among the top 12 rodeos in Canada. Thousands gather each year for world-class rodeo events, fan-favourite clowns, as well as trick riders, pancake breakfasts, country dances, and so much more.

This year’s stampede runs from May 17 to May 20. If you’ve never been, come experience the excitement for yourself. If you’re a regular, yee-haw, and I’ll see you there.

Ladysmith Resources
Centre Association

Stephanie Higginson: Today I’m excited to rise to highlight an incredible organization in the riding of Ladysmith-Oceanside, the Ladysmith Resources Centre Association.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Ladysmith Resources Centre Association is an inclusive, non-profit, multi-service organization that assists people in all stages of life in the Ladysmith community and surrounding areas. This includes providing housing support, victim services, counselling, restorative justice, family and youth support, senior services and food security.

The LRCA was formed in 1992 and continues to grow and has become an integral part of the Ladysmith community. One of their newest projects, the Heart on the Hill, is a 36-unit subsidized housing initiative that just celebrated its second full year of operations, providing stable housing for Ladysmith residents in need.

The Ladysmith Resources Centre operates a ten-bed, 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year shelter for anyone who is homeless or at risk of homelessness. The facility operates seamlessly in the heart of downtown Ladysmith.

This past year the LRCA was able to expand their counselling services and has grown to include both master’s-level student counsellors and retired professionals offering their expertise. This includes Ladysmith’s first trauma counsellor to meet critical mental health needs in the community. Their victim services program provides 24-7, on-call and in-office crisis and trauma support to the communities of Ladysmith, Cedar, Cassidy, Stz’uminus, Thetis Island, Penelakut Island, Saltair and Chemainus.

There are lots of other amazing programs the LRCA provides, including programs for LGBTQI+ youth, mental health and wellness initiatives, a drop-in program for fathers, senior support services and so much more.

I admire and appreciate all the work they do for the community and for leading with empathy and compassion in everything they do.

Role of MLAs

Pete Davis: When I first walked into this Legislature, I stopped for a moment not out of nerves but out of respect. You can feel the weight of this place, the history, the responsibility, the generations of decisions made within these walls. Standing here, I felt it. But more than anything, I felt purpose.

I didn’t grow up planning to be a politician. I was busy raising a family, running a business and doing what folks in the Kootenays do — work hard, solve problems and help our neighbours. But over time, I started seeing too many things slipping through the cracks, and I couldn’t ignore it, so I stepped up.

I’m here because I believe B.C. can be better for working families and rural communities, for the next generation. Representing Kootenay-Rockies, just the eighth MLA ever to do so, is one of the greatest responsibilities I’ve ever had to carry, and I take that seriously.

The people I represent are resilient. They value hard work, straight talk and accountability, and they deserve someone who brings that same spirit to this chamber every single day.

Now, let’s be honest. We won’t always agree on things in here, and that’s okay. That’s what we call democracy. But whether sitting across from me or right beside me, I believe that we all are here because we care deeply about this province.

So to everyone in this House, I want to say: thank you. Thank you for your service, thank you for your dedication and thank you for your belief in this province.

We are all here for the same reason — to make life better for the people who depend on us, the people who put us in these seats. When we leave these halls, it’s not the titles that will matter. It’s the lives we’ve changed, the people that we’ve helped and the future we’ve built together for British Columbia.

Oral Questions

Emergency Preparedness
and Climate Change

Rob Botterell: In recent years, devastating floods and extreme wildfires in B.C. have killed countless people, destroyed hundreds of homes, displaced tens of thousands of people and caused billions of dollars in destruction. It’s undeniable.

The climate emergency is slowly destroying our ways of life, yet this government has consistently shown it’s not prepared to protect people from the impacts of climate change, nor are they ready to transform the extractive economy that got us here. This year’s budget provided no mention of increased spending for the province’s nascent flood plan or for reduced wildfire risks.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. Your own Climate Solutions Council warned that the province is not prepared for the threats that climate change pose to communities and the economy. What is the minister’s response to them?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The Climate Solutions Council, which is established by legislation, plays an important role in providing recommendations for change and working with us to see that that change is implemented. We’ve consistently done that.

You see that in the clean electricity requirement, which has been given life since the most recent parliament was put into place, with renewable energy projects across B.C. You see it in the low-carbon fuel standard, which we’ve used not just to expand our climate agenda but to support jobs in different parts of the province.

We’ve seen it in the output-based pricing system, which we support in British Columbia and continue to support. We saw it on January 1, when we put in new methane regulations. B.C. is leading Canada in the reduction of such emissions in the oil and gas industry by 43 percent since 2015.

In short, by working together, we’re making progress. Under the CleanBC plan, we need to make more progress, both in the commitment of people and the opportunity of people to contribute to solutions on climate change. That’s why we’ve moved forward our review of that plan and are working with the hon. member and his party on a review of this plan, which I hope we will be announcing shortly.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Fossil Fuel Industry Impacts
and Health Care Cost Recovery

Rob Botterell: If this government is serious about recovering health care costs from wrongdoers, they must look at the role of fossil fuel companies in B.C.’s health costs.

Fossil fuel air pollution is a leading cause of early death in Canada, killing 34,000 Canadians each year. The 2021 heat dome cost the province upwards of $5 billion. Smoke from wildfires leads to respiratory, heart and other conditions that require hospitalization and increased health care costs.

Just like the tobacco industry, fossil fuel companies have engaged in misinformation campaigns to discourage governments from enacting laws that would save lives.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will this government demand accountability and compensation from the oil and gas industry so that citizens aren’t left bearing the costs?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m really proud of the work our government has done, and we’ve led the way in terms of national class actions. We’ve led the way on tobacco. We’ve led the way on opioids and had success at every level of the court system here in B.C. That’s a B.C.-led initiative that we can all be proud of.

Recently I was able to announce one of the largest settlements ever against tobacco, big tobacco, and that would mean $3.7 billion coming into B.C. health care right here.

The tools that we have under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act are very important, although as Attorney General, I’m not going to indicate in the House right now what would be future litigation opportunities or where we will use the tools that we’ve developed.

What I will say is that I am very proud of the work we’ve done so far on behalf of British Columbians, and it’s something we can all be proud of.

Prescribed Alternative Opioid
Safe Supply Initiative

Á’a:líya Warbus: To the Minister of Health, how many doses of prescribed alternative opioids did this government hand out between 2022 and 2024?

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

Talking about the prescribed alternative program, which is a valued part of our government’s approach, one of many tools that we are using to separate people from the effects of the toxic drug supply…. Prescribed alternatives are literally medicine for people that help save lives while they work with their care providers and prescribers to move on to other forms of assistance like opioid agonist therapy.

We’ve recently made changes, as the House knows, to the prescribed alternatives program, moving into witnessed consumption as a way of balancing public health priorities.

We know that prescribed alternatives need to be used by the people for whom they are intended, and that’s why we’ve moved the program this way.

The Speaker: Member for Kootenay-Rockies.

[2:25 p.m.]

Permit Process for Mine in Sechelt

Pete Davis: It’s my birthday, and you forget me. It’s okay.

To the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals, how long has the Sechelt carbonite mine been undergoing permitting in B.C.?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

We have a very rigorous assessment process when we talk about the mining sector to make sure that we have public safety and a high level of environmental safety. I cannot comment on the individual case.

I will be happy to talk to the member, if the member wants to talk to me about that particular case. I can provide, of course, the member with information. I will be happy to talk to the member about that.

Long-Term Care
Waiting Times for Seniors

Jody Toor: To the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, what is the average wait time for seniors who applied for long-term care in B.C.?

The Speaker: Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

It’s taken on notice?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, long-term care is not in my file, but I will say that absolutely any time that a member of the public seeks services from our government we do everything we can to get them connected it as quickly as possible.

Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

Ian Paton: Eight years have gone by with no signs of the George Massey Tunnel ever being replaced.

To the Minister of Infrastructure: how much have you spent on the Massey Tunnel replacement even before the environmental assessments have been completed?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Work is underway on the George Massey Tunnel. It is funded by the provincial government. We are working with the federal government to get a significant contribution to that project, which is going to improve transportation throughout the Lower Mainland by being able to take dangerous goods under there. It’s a project that has been approved by local government.

We know that the other side of the House, again, doesn’t seem to want the project to go ahead, but this side is committed to building the project. Work is underway in terms of design preparation.

I told the House the other day in response to a question where they said there were engineering and technical issues that that was not the case. The engineering and technical issues are….

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister will conclude.

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

The project is being built, and we’re going to get it done.

Motor Vehicle Fatalities

Harman Bhangu: To the Minister of Transportation, how many people died in fatal crashes in British Columbia in 2023?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: One death in a crash is too many. That’s why this ministry focuses on ensuring that our highways are safe, with incredible staff who do an amazing job. That’s why we’ve strengthened the number of commercial vehicle safety enforcement officers.

That’s why we are making investments right across this province in terms of dealing with issues on our highways and our side roads, identifying priorities, making sure they’re funded. That’s why there’s $15 billion of capital projects across this province to improve transportation and make our roads and highways safer.

We are going to continue to do that kind of work because it’s important for the province of British Columbia.

Food Costs

Lorne Doerkson: To the Minister of Agriculture, how much more is household spending on food this year as compared to last year?

Hon. Lana Popham: I think that the cost of food and where we are sourcing it is of great interest right now to British Columbians. I do not have that fact on me today, but what I can say is that as we look over this year and, I expect, the coming years, there’s been a fundamental shift in the way that people are shopping. They’re trying to support British Columbia producers.

We are focused on trying to make sure that we’re supporting farmers so they can produce more. We’re looking to support food processors so they can process more and get more B.C. and Canadian food onto those shelves. We see that’s what consumers are wanting these days.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hiring of Crown Prosecutors

Steve Kooner: What is the current vacancy rate for Crown prosecutors in B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve been making record investments in our justice system. I’m really proud to note a few things.

We are almost at full complement when it comes to our Supreme Court and our Court of Appeal.

Our Provincial Court is fully complemented with our judges and Crown counsel. We were able to hire 40 new Crown counsel over the last couple years. So we are continuing to staff up our Crown counsel, and from the B.C. prosecution service note to me, we have full complement.

Safety of Children
in Government Care

Amelia Boultbee: How many children in MCFD’s care are currently missing?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to thank the member opposite for the question.

The safety and well-being of children in this province is my top priority. Any time a child is missing, that is very concerning for the family, for the caregiver and for the people involved in the child care system.

We have processes in place in our ministry anytime a child is in need of protection. I’ve provided the member opposite with the information around the policies and procedures in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Front-line staff work with families with information. Information around children is protected under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Always happy to work with the members opposite on this very issue.

Heather Maahs: My question is also for the Minister of Children and Family Development. How many children have died in government care since 2017?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: As I’ve mentioned in this House before, any child that dies is devastating. We have provided the numbers. We publicly disclose the numbers of children who die in government care and children who die, in general, in this province. Everybody has access to that information, including the members of this House, including the members of the public.

I’ve provided the member from Penticton a comprehensive breakdown of the number of children in care who have passed away. The Coroners Service publicly discloses the reasons for those deaths, and we’ve canvassed that pretty extensively in this House already.

High-Speed Internet Service

Rosalyn Bird: What percentage of rural British Columbians do not have access to high-speed internet?

Hon. George Chow: Thank you for the question.

Since 2017, we have invested $584 million to works expanding connectivity to rural, remote and First Nations communities as well as along highways.

So now 74 percent of rural homes have access to high-speed internet compared to only 57 percent when we took office in 2017. So that’s a vast improvement from 57 percent to 74 percent.

In 2017, only 66 percent of homes in First Nations communities had access to high-speed internet services. The figure is now 83 percent, and that will grow to 96 percent when the current projects in progress are completed, and that’s anticipated in 2027.

SkyTrain Fare Enforcement

Brent Chapman: What is the fine for not paying for a ticket on the SkyTrain?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Our SkyTrain system is going to grow by another 16 kilometres as we are investing $5.9 billion in building a brand-new line.

[2:35 p.m.]

Part and parcel of that expansion will be an expansion in the very important transit police who help keep security and safety on our transit system. In fact, yesterday I met with the representative from the transit police union to talk about ways in which we can….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please conclude. Please continue.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The member across the way says that talking about the great work that our transit police do on our transit system to keep people safe is pontificating. Shame on that member. Those men and women do an incredibly important job, and they put their safety on the line every single day.

He may think it’s pontificating, talking about the great work that they do. This side of the House supports our transit police.

Funding for Surrey
School District Infrastructure

Lynne Block: To the Minister of Education and Child Care, what was the infrastructure deficit for the Surrey school district as of June 2024?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: In Surrey, we have invested over $1 billion in Surrey school district since 2017, a historic investment. We have so far completed 19 projects, with 19 projects more underway.

This is in comparison to the years prior to our government taking office, when zero new schools were built in the four years prior to 2017. So yes, there was absolutely an infrastructure deficit, and we are working hard each and every day to overcome that.

Child Care Spaces and Wait-Lists

Reann Gasper: To the Minister of Education and Child Care, how many people are currently on the wait-list for $10-a-day child care?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I thank the member for the question, because we know how important it is to provide affordable, reliable, safe child care to families all across the province. We have a number of ways we do that.

The $10-a-day program that the member mentioned currently has over 16,000 seats in it. Just two weeks ago I announced an additional 770 spaces. We are on track to meet our federal targets of 20,000 by spring next year.

But that’s not all we do. We also provide support to 138,000 families through our fee reduction program, which has resulted in the reduction of costs — on average, $900 a month per family. This has brought child care down from $47 a day, when we formed government in 2017, to $19 a day on average. And we’re going to keep going.

Disaster Financial Assistance

Macklin McCall: To the Minister of Emergency Management, what’s the average insurance payout from disaster financial assistance for losses due to a wildfire?

Hon. Kelly Greene: We know that communities across B.C. are finding challenges with flooding, with fire, and it’s always so important for personal preparedness as well as government preparedness.

For people, I recommend going to PreparedBC and looking at the information about addressing each of the hazards that different communities might face.

One of the aspects that people should be looking at is getting home insurance. Fire insurance is readily available across B.C., and people can look at optional coverage for things like overland water and earthquake coverage, which are very critical.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Disaster financial assistance helps assist people coming back from an emergency in instances where there is no readily available insurance. I know that it’s very important…

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Kelly Greene: …for personal preparedness, and I welcome any questions from the member on that.

Wildfire Preparedness and Response

Hon Chan: So far only one minister answered our questions, so let me try again.

To the Minister of Emergency Management, how many evacuation alerts due to wildfires were there in 2024?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: It’s very important to coordinate response across different ministries.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’m really quite disheartened that members opposite find emergency preparedness, keeping communities safe, protecting people in their time of emergency, hilarious.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Kelly Greene: The amount of laughter on the other side is shameful.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Minister will continue.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you very much.

My ministry coordinates across ministries for different kinds of emergencies — whether that’s wildfire, whether that’s flooding, whether that’s landslides. Our ministry makes sure that those lines of communication are open, that we’re protecting people, that we’re showing up in communities and supporting them in their response and recovery.

Foreshore Licensing

David Williams: To the minister of water, lands and natural resource stewardship, how many new foreshore licences have been processed or renewed since the 2024 election?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question. It’s Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, not “natural.” But thank you for that.

I can get that number for you.

Electric Vehicle Decal Program

Larry Neufeld: To the Minister of Energy, from 2018 to January 2025, how much did the government spend handing out stickers for EVs?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the achievement of British Columbians in leading Canada in buying new EVs and the impact that has on the economy — where we’re displacing gasoline, which is produced outside of B.C., with EVs that are powered by electricity that we make inside B.C. — is a significant achievement.

It’s a significant achievement, for example, by the New Car Dealers Association, which has been a partner in that exercise; by B.C. Hydro; and by British Columbians.

I hold the member in high regard, and I look forward to our further discussions in estimates debate. I would say that these issues in our province are serious issues — the issues of climate change, the issues of economic development, of building a better province together.

I think, in this House, in the questions we ask, in the way we have exchanges, we should promote that dialogue and promote solutions, and not engage, I think, in games that don’t serve the public interest.

Closing of Forest Industry Mills
and Production Facilities

Ward Stamer: Thanks for the reminder that this is question period, not answer period.

To the Minister of Forests, how many sawmills and manufacturing facilities have been closed in the last two years?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: At a time when we are under threat by Donald Trump, you have an official opposition that is completely out of touch. What an absolute embarrassment we are experiencing. Whether it’s the threat on our sovereignty, whether it’s the impact on our softwood lumber, the impact on our forest sector, to have the members across the way waste valuable time from holding government accountable to ask really dumb questions.

I would ask the member opposite: use your time wisely. Ask us questions. Hold us accountable. Don’t waste our time.

Emergency Room Waiting Times

Anna Kindy: Not to waste anybody’s time, but to the Minister of Health, what is the benchmark standard for emergency room wait times?

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

We had the chance to canvass many detailed questions like this in estimates. I don’t think this is estimates. I think this is question period.

I think the members opposite know that cabinet ministers have a tremendous responsibility; that they oversee incredible resources, people, opportunities and programs; and that we are focused on making life better for British Columbians.

Those are the subjects we should be canvassing in this House. That’s what we should be talking about.

Brennan Day: To the Minister of Health, with that non-answer, we know that the benchmark is around four hours.

What percentage of ER visits meets even that low standard?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Once again, thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I know that he and many others on the other side haven’t had the privilege of sitting in cabinet and haven’t had the responsibility of overseeing the programs and services that British Columbians depend on. They don’t expect us to memorize numbers. They expect us to do our jobs, and my job is to help strengthen the public, universal, health care system for British Columbians.

I am willing and I have made it abundantly clear to the member opposite that I am willing to work with him to sit down and talk about solutions. Those are the conversations I want to be having with the opposition, with all members of this House. It’s the work that I was sent here to do and that I am going to stay focused on.

Addiction Treatment Beds
in Northern Health Region

Claire Rattée: To the Minister of Health, and this is a question that you should know the answer to: how many treatment beds are there in the Northern Health region?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Yes, we did canvass this. You know what? I don’t have that number memorized, so I’m not going to say a number that I might get wrong. I will get it back to the member. We have canvassed that in estimates.

I can tell her that we have added over 750 treatment and recovery beds since we formed government in 2017. I can tell the member that we have over 3,700 publicly funded beds here in British Columbia. I can also tell the member, because we discussed this in estimates, that there are not enough services for people up north and that we know there is more work to do to serve people who live in remote and rural communities.

My commitment is to continue to expand those services. We will be expanding Road to Recovery into the northwest part of British Columbia, because we know that people living in those communities need accesses to services like that. I remain committed to that work, and I’m here to do it.

Government Action
and Accountability on Issues

Peter Milobar: Today we’ve had questions asked of, by my count, 21 ministers, and we’ve had one minister even come close to answering a question that they were asked under their file, and it was the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

We got a lecture from the Minister of Forests because we had the temerity to ask a question of how many sawmills have closed under his watch. Instead of remotely answering the question he said, and I quote: “Holding government accountable is a waste of time.”

We asked the minister responsible for kids in care how many kids are currently missing. No answer. How many kids…?

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Peter Milobar: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, we’ve asked ten-second questions today and had to endure three-minute non-answers, so I’ll just be a second.

No answer on how many kids have died. You would think that a government that is supposed to be focused on results would actually know what the results that they’re trying to drive towards actually are. But this government…. From sawmill closures to ER closures to ER wait times…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Peter Milobar: …wait-lists for child care, kids missing, kids who have died, wildfire costs — no answer. There’s no relevance from their answers whatsoever, because they simply do not know where they’re trying to drive, while we have record deficits in British Columbia.

Again, my question to the government is a simple one. When can we expect this government to actually start publishing, start providing to the public, to the opposition, because it’s not a waste of time to hold the government accountable, actual benchmark deliverables that the ministers are actually responsible for and driving towards?

These are supposed to be in their mandate letters, but apparently, they consider all of that a waste of time, and how dare we ask them what they are actually delivering on for British Columbians.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: What we saw today from the opposition shows exactly why they deserve to be over there. They know full well, and that member knows full well, that the estimates process deals with detailed questions every single time we’re in estimates, which we are right now, and that those questions get answered.

He knows full well that the role….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: “Know the file,” hon. Member? Every single member on this side of the House knows what the file is.

Every single member knows it’s about making life more affordable for British Columbians. Every single member knows it’s about building the infrastructure, whether it’s hospitals in Fort St. James, hospitals in Terrace, bridges like the Pattullo Bridge.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Every single member knows what their job is. It’s about making sure we maintain a public health care system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We answer questions on those every single day.

But, you know, when it comes to questions, we saw them during the election campaign. Half their members wouldn’t show up to an all-candidates meeting.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Their leader would hold press conferences and refuse to take a supplemental. He would only take questions….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members, be quiet, please. That’s enough. Members, come to order.

Please conclude.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll tell you something else. No one on this side of the House had to throw out their campaign signs because they decided they couldn’t win with the party they were running for and ran with another party.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Amna Shah: I raise a point of order or privilege — I’m not sure, if you would guide me — where a member opposite referred to us as lying, which I’m sure is a word that we cannot use in this House.

The Speaker: Member, that’s a point of order.

Amna Shah: Sure. Thank you. A point of order for the member for Langley–Walnut Grove.

The Speaker: Who else? Any member on that point of order want to say anything?

If not, we will take it under advisement, Member. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, continued committee stage, Bill 7.

[2:55 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, where we will contemplate conversations around Bill 5.

Speaker’s Statement

Relevance of Debate on
Second Reading of Bill 5

Deputy Speaker: I do just want to introduce a brief statement, Members.

Over the past two days, the Chair was very lenient with respect to debate on the second reading of Bill 5. The debate has resembled debate on the budget motion, a question that is no longer before this House.

As always, the rule of relevancy applies at second reading. Members must address principles and merits of Bill 5, which deals primarily with taxation matters. The Chair put members on notice prior to adjournment yesterday to keep their remarks strictly relevant to Bill 5.

As the debate is, of course, on Bill 5, we’ll continue. The rule of relevancy will be strictly applied.

Welcome, everybody.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025
(continued)

Ward Stamer: I know I don’t have a lot of time left. I just wanted to cover a couple of points directly to Bill 5, knowing that this is a tax bill.

Again, I asked the question in question period and got a bit of a row from the minister in regards to how many sawmills have closed in the last two years. Make no mistake, we had mills closing before any threats of tariffs.

Back to Bill 5. There’s no tax relief whatsoever in this bill for the forest industry. There’s tax relief for other industries, including the film industry, but there is no tax relief for our forest industry, where so many of our communities, including our First Nation communities, rely solely and directly on the forest industry of British Columbia.

We’ve brought forward measures on stumpage reform. We’ve brought questions in regards to freezing of stumpage paid in a specific period of time. That can be achieved as it has in the past, where those logs that come into the manufacturing facility actually get put over to one corner, and they don’t get processed. And if they do get processed within that period of time, they go across the scales, and stumpage is paid.

Again, my question to you, Mr. Speaker, is: why isn’t this government recognizing the reality of how serious the situation is with our forest industry, and why can’t we get this government to help the much-needed communities and the much-needed people of British Columbia on this file?

I would suggest that in this budget and Bill 5, there are going to be revenue increases to the government, with an actual reduction in what we’ve already cut this year. There was a guarantee of 45 million cubic metres that we were supposed to be able to attain this year. Last year we did 32. In the budget, it says 30, then 30, then 29.

That is not what’s being asked for from the industry. What’s being asked for is more fibre for our markets, more fibre for our manufacturing facilities, more fibre for our value-added sector. Without this fibre, without inputs, we have no outputs.

In closing, I’m very disappointed with Bill 5. It doesn’t address the issues that are pertinent to the industries in British Columbia today, and I would wish that the Minister of Finance would relook at those opportunities.

Gavin Dew: It is an honour to rise in this Legislature and to speak to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act of 2025. For those watching or listening who may not follow the legislative process closely, which is probably most people, let’s begin by clarifying what this bill is and what it does.

Bill 5 is not just a technical document or a piece of procedural legislation. It’s the implementation mechanism for this government’s entire fiscal plan. It is the legal and financial tool that enacts the choices made in the provincial budget.

[3:00 p.m.]

In other words, Bill 5 is the government’s priorities written in law. It determines which groups receive tax relief, which sectors are burdened with new costs and, most importantly, who is ignored altogether.

It’s the blueprint for how the government plans to raise money and spend it. So when we look at what is included and what’s left out, we’re not just looking at numbers; we’re looking at values. Based on Bill 5, it’s clear that this government’s values are deeply out of step with what British Columbians are asking for.

This is a bill introduced in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Families are struggling to pay for groceries. Seniors on fixed incomes are falling behind. Small businesses are hanging on by a thread. Parents are worried about their kids’ education. And people across every corner of the province are wondering when, if ever, the government will start to prioritize them. Bill 5 could have been the moment to respond to those concerns. It could have delivered a real plan for affordability, for recovery, for growth. Instead, this bill does something very different.

This bill extends the government’s ability to run deficits for three more years, until 2028. It formally amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to allow for continued overspending without a requirement to return to balance. This is not a one-time emergency measure. It is not a response to an unforeseen crisis. It’s a calculated move by a government that clearly no longer feels obligated to manage public finances responsibly.

Make no mistake, deficits are not victimless. Every dollar borrowed today is a dollar that has to be repaid tomorrow by our kids, by our grandkids, by future generations who will inherit the consequences of this government’s failure to lead with discipline and foresight.

What makes this all the more frustrating is that British Columbians aren’t asking for extravagance. They’re asking for relief — targeted, practical relief that would make life just a little more affordable and a little more manageable. But Bill 5 offers no such relief. There is no provincial grocery rebate, even as grocery prices continue to soar. There is no tax relief for small business owners. There is no fuel rebate for truckers, no support for seniors, no credits for rural communities. Every one of those items could have been included in this bill.

The government had the power and the opportunity to act, and they chose not to. That’s what makes this legislation such a profound disappointment. It’s not just about what’s in the bill; it’s about what’s missing. It’s about the things this government said during the throne speech, during the campaign, in their press releases, and then failed to follow through on when it mattered most.

Over the course of this speech, I’ll be walking through the specific sectors that were left behind by Bill 5 — small businesses, agriculture, construction, education, transportation and seniors. I’ll detail how this legislation could have delivered tangible supports to people in every region of British Columbia, and how it instead delivers more of the same — big promises, vague talking points and no meaningful action.

I’ll also highlight the long list of broken commitments from the 2025 throne speech, commitments that were made with great fanfare and then quietly abandoned when the rubber hit the road. At the end of the day, budgets and tax bills are not just about numbers; they’re about trust. Trust that a government will do what it says. Trust that public money will be managed responsibly. Trust that the people who show up, work hard and follow the rules will not be forgotten by their government. Bill 5 breaks that trust.

It’s not just a missed opportunity; it’s a signal to every British Columbian who was hoping for relief this year that help isn’t coming. That is why I stand here today, not just in opposition to this bill but in support of the people it leaves behind.

[3:05 p.m.]

Let’s turn now to the core of what Bill 5 should have done but didn’t. This bill is a tax bill. It sets out how the government plans to collect revenue, who it chooses to support and who it ignores. When you look at that list, you’ll see some glaring omissions, especially in the very sectors that are supposed to be the backbone of our economy.

Let’s start with small business. Small businesses are more than just commercial spaces. They’re job creators, community builders, economic stabilizers. They’re the coffee shops, mechanics, bookstores and tradespeople who hire local, who give back and who help communities thrive.

In Kelowna alone, hundreds of small businesses support our economy, and they’re hurting. These are business owners who weathered the pandemic, who took on debt just to survive, who now face rising interest rates, rising payroll costs, rising input costs and a carbon tax that keeps climbing. Many are barely staying afloat.

What did they do in Bill 5? Nothing. There is no expansion of the small business tax credit; no relief from the employer health tax, which punishes success by taxing job creation; no support for seasonal operators who have short business windows but year-round expenses; no incentive to hire or invest; no program to help rural or remote businesses who face unique logistical challenges. The NDP love to show up at ribbon cuttings and call themselves pro–small business, but when the moment came to provide actual relief, they passed.

Now, let’s talk about agriculture. Farmers are some of the hardest-working people in this province. They deal with climate volatility, fluctuating markets, rising fuel and fertilizer costs and the burden of new regulations, all while producing the food we eat. In the past five years, they’ve endured floods, fires, extreme droughts and supply chain chaos.

What did Bill 5 offer them? Nothing. There is no rebate or deduction for food costs, no tax credit for modernizing equipment or improving energy efficiency, no investment incentive for food processing in rural B.C., no input cost deductions, no targeted measures for greenhouses, livestock producers or fruit growers and, perhaps most shockingly, no provincial grocery rebate for struggling families or the farmers who feed them.

It is not as if this government didn’t promise support. They promised to establish a Premier’s task force on agrifood competitiveness. They pledged to identify land for innovation and expand food processing, something they’ve been promising and not delivering on for five years. They said they’d match young farmers with land, invest in extreme weather preparedness and top up crop renewal programs. Bill 5 proves that all of those promises were just that — promises, not priorities.

Now let’s move to construction and trades. This should be a slam dunk for the government. The trade sector builds our schools, homes, roads, hospitals — everything government says it’s investing in. These are skilled workers, apprentices, independent contractors, small firms competing for contracts, people who want to work, train others and grow B.C.’s economy. So what’s in Bill 5 for them? Nothing.

There is no accelerated write-off for tools or equipment; no apprenticeship tax credit expansion; no supports for sole proprietors in HVAC, carpentry, electrical or plumbing; no tax relief for Red Seal workers; no local procurement reforms to ensure that smaller firms can fairly compete for government contracts. This government has missed every opportunity to grow our skilled workforce, despite labour shortages in almost every region of the province. The irony is that these are the very workers the government needs to deliver on its infrastructure plans. When they had a chance to support them through Bill 5, guess what. They didn’t.

This failure goes beyond numbers. It sends a message that the people who keep our economy moving, who invest in their communities, who take risks and create jobs, aren’t worth supporting. It’s a message that hard work doesn’t matter, that government will talk about affordability, productivity and recovery but won’t actually act on it.

British Columbians are not asking for handouts. They’re asking for a fair shot, a government that sees them, a government that supports them with clear, direct, effective tax policy. Bill 5 could have been that support. It could have been the moment this government turned the corner on affordability and backed up its words with real help.

[3:10 p.m.]

It could have brought the Premier’s reset with the business community to life. Instead, it leaves behind the very people we rely on to keep B.C.’s economy strong. That’s not just disappointing; it’s damaging.

Education is the cornerstone of opportunity in any society. It is the system through which we prepare the next generation to lead, to contribute and to thrive. It’s where we build equality, lift children out of poverty and shape a better future for British Columbia. That kind of future requires investment, not just in schools but in people, in teachers, in education assistants, in custodians, in support staff, in infrastructure and in the families and children who rely on all of it.

Sadly, none of that investment is reflected in Bill 5. At a time when class sizes are growing, when students are learning in aging facilities or portable classrooms and when school districts are facing real cost pressures, this government has offered no meaningful tax or financial support through this legislation.

Let’s look at what’s missing. There is no tax credit for educators who spend hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars out of their own pockets for classroom supplies. There is no rebate for rural or remote teachers who travel long distances, often in difficult weather, to serve their communities. There is no low-income grocery rebate or support credit for underpaid education support staff, who are often living paycheque to paycheque. These are simple, effective measures that would have made a real difference. But they’re not in this bill.

The government’s broader promises — nowhere to be seen. They promised to invest $500 million in accessible, affordable child care. That investment is absent in both the budget and this bill. They promised to expand the school meals program, ensuring that no child comes to school hungry. There is no tax mechanism in Bill 5 to support that expansion. They promised a mental health counsellor in every public school. Again, no delivery mechanism in this bill, just a headline with no follow-through.

They promised electric school buses, stronger drug education, a ban on cell phones and enough EAs in every K-to-3 classroom. Perhaps most ambitiously, they promised to build 20,000 new student spaces across 58 capital projects. But those commitments have vanished.

There is no accelerated capital depreciation or tax measure to spur construction, no procurement incentive to get shovels in the ground, no additional funds to retain and recruit front-line staff. The people in our schools, the ones who make the system function, feel it. Teachers are overwhelmed. Education assistants are stretched to the limit. Custodians and maintenance workers are expected to do more with less, and administrators are forced to make impossible choices between basic building upkeep and essential student services.

Bill 5 was a chance to recognize that strain and respond with real support. Instead, it reflects a government that’s either unaware or unwilling to act. This matters even more in growing communities like mine, Kelowna, one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada, where the population of school-aged children continues to climb rapidly.

In our region, portables aren’t a temporary fix. They’ve become permanent classrooms. Some kids will spend their entire school careers in temporary structures. This government, despite all its lofty promises, has done nothing in Bill 5 to address it — no new funding tools, no tax-based incentives for school construction, no support to ease cost pressures on school boards trying to stretch every single dollar.

This bill could have offered targeted tax relief to school districts, managing energy costs or transportation expenses. It could have provided payroll tax deductions for school hiring. It could have created a tax credit for EAs in rural or high-need schools. But, once again, it doesn’t.

Education is more than a line item. It’s more than a campaign promise. It’s a social contract. When we fail to invest in our children’s education, we are failing every generation that comes after us. When we undercut the educators and staff who keep our system afloat, we are weakening the very foundations of our province.

[3:15 p.m.]

Bill 5 is proof that this government no longer sees education as a priority. They’ll say the right things. They’ll make the announcements. But when it comes to actually putting those commitments into legislation, into action and into classrooms, they fall short. It’s not just a policy failure. It’s a broken promise, a betrayal of every student, every parent, every teacher and every worker who believed this government would back up its words with action.

British Columbians want a future where every child has a safe, well-supported classroom, where teachers have the tools they need, where school staff are valued, where infrastructure meets demand, where education is not just a great equalizer but the great priority. That future is not reflected in Bill 5.

When we talk about keeping British Columbia moving, we’re talking about more than just roads and rails. We are talking about a network of people, industries and infrastructure that connects every corner of this province, from the Lower Mainland to the northeast, from the Interior to Vancouver Island. If we’re serious about affordability, about competitiveness, about climate adaptation and rural equity, then transportation must be part of the conversation.

What role does transportation play in Bill 5? Almost none.

Let’s begin with the trucking and logistics sector. These are the people who ensure that our grocery stores stay stocked, our supply chains flow and our economy functions. They’re not looking for handouts, but they are looking for fairness.

Diesel prices have gone through the roof. Maintenance and insurance costs are climbing. These costs hit independent operators and family-run logistics firms the hardest, especially in rural and remote regions where long-haul routes aren’t optional. They’re essential.

Bill 5 could have included a fuel tax rebate for haulers. It could have created a credit for fleet electrification or even a modest deduction for remote logistics operations. But none of that is here. There is not one tax measure in this bill that acknowledges the costs facing the transportation sector or the risks to affordability if that sector collapses under pressure.

Let’s not forget: when it costs more to move goods, it costs more to buy them. So this is not just a trucking issue. It’s a cost-of-living issue for every British Columbian. The impact is felt at the checkout line, at the construction site and at every small business that depends on reliable, affordable shipping.

Now let’s look at rural and regional transportation. The gaps are even more glaring. There is no fuel relief for rural drivers, no rebate for families who live in communities without public transit and must rely on personal vehicles for work, school or medical appointments. There is no support for rural transit operators, no renewed funding for intercity bus services, no tax incentives for regional transportation infrastructure.

In some parts of the province, transit is a distant dream. In others, it’s in crisis. Communities across the North and the Kootenays still feel the impact of Greyhound’s departure. Meanwhile, the cost of maintaining local services keeps rising, and this government offers no help.

Where is the rebate for people who spend hours on the road just to access basic services? Where is the support for seniors who need to travel for specialist appointments but have no transit option? Where is the relief for communities that depend on regional transit for economic development and workforce mobility? There is none.

Even urban transportation receives only vague promises in Bill 5, with no clear tax mechanisms to back them up. Where is the expansion of the West Coast Express? Where is the SkyTrain extension to UBC? Where is the promised freeze on ICBC premiums?

There is also no tax relief for transit operators, no measures to support driver recruitment or retention and no incentives to improve reliability, expand service hours or lower fares. And for a government that talks endlessly about climate change and reducing vehicle emissions, the absence of even a basic green transportation incentive is hard to ignore. They say they want fewer cars on the road but offer nothing to make that goal possible.

Let’s also talk about highways. Our roads in the North, the Interior and the East Kootenays are deteriorating rapidly — potholes, washouts, unstable shoulders. These aren’t nuisances. They’re hazards, and they’re everywhere, like at the corner of Highway 33 and Rutland Road.

[3:20 p.m.]

Industries in forestry, mining and agriculture depend on well-maintained roads. So do First Nations communities, health services and emergency responders. Yet there is no tax mechanism in this bill to fund improvements or maintenance, not even a targeted credit or incentive for regional partnerships to repair critical corridors.

The government has also failed to mention commuter rail expansion through the Fraser Valley or to Whistler and Pemberton, despite rising demand and repeated calls from local leaders.

The taxi industry — left out entirely. No review of the outdated rate structure. No tax relief for owner-operators. No assistance for vehicle electrification.

What does this all add up to? It adds up to a transportation sector under pressure from all sides and a government unwilling to offer even the most basic tools to ease that pressure. This bill could have been an opportunity to create fairness for rural drivers, to stabilize goods movement, to expand clean transit, to improve affordability. Instead, it reinforces the gap between the priorities of this government and the lived realities of people across this province.

Bill 5 is a missed opportunity to build resilience, equity and efficiency into our transportation. We all know what happens when you let roads crumble and costs climb. People get stuck, and economies grind to a halt. That’s the future Bill 5 is steering us toward.

Across every sector, Bill 5 tells the same story — promises made and promises broken. Let’s walk through the commitments the NDP government made in its 2025 throne speech, the grand vision they laid out for B.C., because what this bill shows us is how little of that vision has been realized and how far they’ve drifted from the needs of everyday people.

Start with health care. The Premier stood in front of cameras and pledged new community clinics in every riding. He promised better access to family doctors and nurse practitioners. He said travel assistance would expand for patients needing care outside their home communities. There were commitments to build a second Red Fish Healing Centre and address nurse-to-patient ratios.

But Bill 5 is silent on all of that. No tax incentives for clinic expansion. No funds to support rural or remote medical access. No hiring credit for health professionals. No rebate or subsidy for travel or medication. ER closures continue. Wait times grow. And this bill has nothing to offer patients or providers.

In housing, the government pledged to expand modular and factory built housing, support small landlords with subsidized insurance and prioritize public land for affordable housing. None of it appears in Bill 5. The Premier also promised expansion of HEARTH, temporary housing for homeless encampments. That too is missing. There is no delivery mechanism here, no funding structure, just empty rhetoric. A house built on sand.

In public safety, British Columbians were promised tougher hate crime laws, reforms to the Police Act and better tools for law enforcement. What does Bill 5 include to support those priorities? Nothing. No funding for justice system modernization. No tax credits for community safety initiatives. No support for the people on the front lines.

Even in education and child care, where the promises were loudest, the bill is quietest. They said $500 million for affordable child care, meals for every child in school, a counsellor in every public school, upgraded electrical school buses, every K-to-3 classroom staffed with an education assistant. But those promises simply evaporated. There are no child care tax credits, no incentives for school construction, no retention supports for EAs, nothing in this bill to deliver on those commitments.

In energy and environment, British Columbians were told to expect a bold plan — renewable energy, wind farms, conservation funding, trails and park investments. But the only mention of energy in this budget is that B.C. Hydro is skipping the environmental assessment process for select wind projects, a dangerous precedent and not the transparent green transition people were promised. There is no funding for salmon restoration, no plan to protect 30 percent of land and water by 2030 and not one tax credit to support conservation or sustainable energy adoption at the household or business level.

Across all those sectors — health, housing, justice, education, infrastructure, environment — there is a common thread. Bill 5 offers no tools to bring those big promises to life.

[3:25 p.m.]

Whether we as opposition agree or disagree with those promises, we do want to see a plan. We do want to see financial tools that substantiate the reality this government is trying to paint.

This government has a habit of confusing press releases for policy. They make splashy announcements. They hold photo ops. But when it’s time to actually govern, when it’s time to legislate, they go quiet. And they complain when they’re asked to know their files, know their numbers, know their math. This bill is not about building a better British Columbia. It’s about maintaining the illusion of action without the accountability that action requires.

Let’s not forget the final, central failure of this bill — the deficit. Bill 5 amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to allow deficit spending until 2028, not because of a pandemic, not because of a war, but because this government can’t control its own spending and refuses to make the tough decisions that leadership demands.

Instead of charting a course back to balance, they’re legislating their own excuses. They’re saying to British Columbians: “We’re going to keep borrowing, going to keep spending, and we’re going to leave your children with the bill.” That’s not responsible. It’s reckless.

I want to close by returning to what this bill could have been. It could have helped families with a grocery rebate. It could have offered tax relief to small businesses. It could have supported trades, farmers, truckers and teachers. It could have made life a little easier for seniors, people with disabilities and survivors of violence. It could have delivered on the promises this government made to voters less than a year ago. But it didn’t. Instead, it delivers more of the same: higher deficits, more excuses and nothing for the people who need help the most.

Budgets are about priorities. Taxes are about choices. And this government has made its choices clear. They’ve chosen bureaucracy over people, central control over community empowerment, political optics over practical solutions. British Columbians are tired of it after eight years.

I’ll be voting against Bill 5 not out of partisanship but out of principle, because British Columbians deserve a government that listens, that delivers and that respects their money and their trust.

They deserve better than this bill.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I just noticed up in the gallery today that we have visitors, and I do believe that they’re from the work-able internship program with Jeremy Scott.

I note that they are accompanied by service animals and an ALS interpreter. That seems like a very special internship program.

I do hope that everyone that is in the House right now will make them feel very welcome.

Thank you so much for visiting with us today.

Debate Continued

Jody Toor: As the elected representative for the people of Langley-Willowbrook, I am truly honoured to rise in this chamber today to speak on a matter of serious concern: Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025.

Today marks yet another critical moment for our province as we confront the realities of Bill 5, which relates to our current budget, our tax system and a government that continues to fall short of the challenges British Columbians face every day.

Let’s be clear. Bill 5 cannot be examined in a vacuum. It is not just another piece of routine legislation to be rubber-stamped and set aside. It is, in fact, the legislative mechanism that translates this government’s budget into a real-world action.

[3:30 p.m.]

Every clause, every amendment and every decision embedded in this bill reflects the priorities, or the lack thereof, that define this government’s fiscal blueprint.

Bill 5 also, at its core, is just another tax bill, but what makes it so concerning is the role it plays in deciding who gets help and who doesn’t. It lays the foundation for determining which British Columbians receive relief and which sectors benefit. It’s not a neutral instrument. It’s a policy filter, a structure for picking and choosing where support is directed and where it is withheld.

In a province struggling under the weight of affordability, this matters. Relief is not a theoretical concept. It’s the difference between stability and the crisis for families, workers and businesses. And when government chooses to withhold relief from those who need it most, that choice has real-life consequences.

The reality is that the relief can change everything for someone. For example, consider a mother at a grocery store. She is choosing between yogurt or cereal, both of which her kids are asking for, but she can only afford one. She is not deciding based on nutrition or preference or even sale price. She is deciding based on survival. She has to explain to her children again why they can’t have both.

Relief also means something to business owners down the street. The one who started her café a decade ago — she’s not looking for handouts; she’s just trying to stay open. Her margins have been eroded by the inflation, insurance hikes, higher rent and increased food costs. Her accountant tells her she’s operating in the red, and she’s now asking herself whether she can keep the doors open for another month or if she has to call it quits.

It’s not just small businesses. Larger employers and ones who provide hundreds of local jobs are reviewing spreadsheets, comparing operations across their businesses and asking whether it makes financial sense to stay in British Columbia at all.

That’s why relief matters, and that’s why the decisions baked into Bill 5 carry so much weight. This bill, whether intentionally or through oversight, decides who gets access to meaningful support or who is left to fend for themselves.

Equally important is the other side of this: taxation. Bill 5 also determines who gets taxed and who doesn’t. It is not just a revenue mechanism. It is a reflection of government priorities.

It influences the same. Mothers’ decisions at the grocery store…. If transportation taxes go up, so do food costs. If EV taxes go up, the family considering a used electric car has to delay that decision again. If carbon levies remain in place, heating the home in the winter becomes a bigger financial strain.

Every layer of tax is passed down, built up and eventually lands in the same place: on the shoulders of the average household. It all compounds, it adds up, and when it does, it forces parents, and particularly single parents, to begin subtracting from their already thin budgets. First go the outings, then fresh produce, and then medicines get stretched, skipped or rationalized. All of this is happening while this government claims to be delivering affordability.

Let’s talk about the worker in this province, the one who earns a modest, reliable wage but can no longer afford to live anywhere near their place of work. They’ve moved outside of the urban core. Maybe they’ve settled in a rural area or in a smaller town an hour or two away, but they still need to commute. What do they have to face? Rising fuel costs, parking taxes and transit fees, all of which are worsened by taxation policies within this bill.

These aren’t wealthy people. They’re tradespeople, care aides, retail staff and contractors. They’re doing everything right, yet they’re being taxed for the privilege of getting to work.

We are not in a stable economic environment. We are in a fragile one. People are not thriving; they’re enduring. Any increase in taxation on those already stretched thin must be approached with accuracy. It must be calculated. It must be tempered, strategic and sensitive to the lived experiences of British Columbians.

But what Bill 5 offers is the opposite. It offers a generic application of policy, rising costs on people with no margins left. That is not strategic. It is not responsible, and it’s not justified.

[3:35 p.m.]

Then there’s a third layer. Who gets exempted? Bill 5 in its structure also defines who gets to opt out, who for whatever reason is not expected to contribute. Who are these individuals or groups? Why were they chosen? What criteria were applied? There is very little transparency, and when decisions around taxation are made without transparency, fairness becomes impossible to verify.

There is no doubt that taxation in principle is essential. We need shared revenue to fund public goods. But taxation must be rooted in equality. It must reflect a shared burden. A mother working two jobs to feed her children should not be paying the same percentage of her income in comparison to taxes of corporations that benefit from subsidies and exemptions. That is not balance. That is a policy failure.

We have seen time and again in this province that those with the most powerful voices or the deepest connections are often the ones who end up avoiding the rules. Whether it’s large-scale property holders, vacancy taxes or niche industries receiving tax breaks that others don’t, the pattern is predictable and deeply unfair.

When governments design policies like this behind closed doors, through dense legislative clauses, and the public has little time to review, these erode trust. People begin to believe that it doesn’t matter how hard they work, how much they sacrifice or how carefully they follow the rules, because the rules, they believe, are only applied to some.

That’s what makes Bill 5 so problematic. It’s not just about raising a fee here or cutting a break there. It’s about how those decisions are made and who benefits from them. This bill gives us a window into this government’s priorities, and from what we can see, these priorities are not aligned with people who need help the most.

What we see is a product presented for the public by the government, filled with gimmicks, minor tweaks and a handful of tax changes, many of which appear to be tailored for the government’s preferred industries, like film and digital media. Meanwhile, core sectors like health care, housing, education, small business support are once again treated as an afterthought.

To understand Bill 5, we must also scrutinize the budget that it is built upon, because you simply cannot analyze the ingredients without first understanding the recipe. What we’ve been handed is a recipe for instability, for deeper debt and for growing costs that will land squarely on the backs of British Columbians. Let’s call this what it is: a reactive, toll-tested strategy dressed up as responsible governance. But British Columbians see through it. It’s a missed opportunity.

Another concerning part of this bill is the fact that government used Bill 5 to extend deficits. The government wants to normalize the fact that it is operating with an alarming deficit. We should not have been in this place in the first place. Now we are forced to make up for the massive number. That’s not fair to the people. The people should not suffer for government fiscal responsibility, poor planning.

Another deeply concerning aspect of this bill is the way the government is using Bill 5 to quietly extend and normalize record deficits. Buried within the fine print is a quiet acceptance of long-term deficit spending as a new standard, as if it’s just the cost of doing business. That is not acceptable.

A deficit of this magnitude should be a red flag, not a footnote. It should be a warning sign that triggers action, not something brushed aside with vague assurance and a political spin. The government wants British Columbians to believe that operating a blooming multi-million-dollar deficit is somehow reasonable or even unavoidable, but it’s not.

We should not be in this position. We should have not been here in the first place. A responsible government should have planned ahead. We should have built buffers during years of economic growth. We would have experienced discipline when revenues were high and interest rates were low, but instead, this government spent without a long-term plan, launched unfunded programs and failed to prepare for even the most foreseeable challenges.

Now, instead of taking responsibility, they are passing the cost down the line. Bill 5 effectively formalizes that failure. It codifies the consequences of mismanagement, and it asks British Columbians to accept them as normal. But we must not, because the people of this province should not be made to suffer for government missteps. They should not be handed the bill of poor discipline, poor foresight and poor execution.

[3:40 p.m.]

When deficits become normalized so does the erosion of public service — delayed infrastructure projects, higher borrowing costs and demolished future opportunities.

Every year we run a deficit like this, we’re borrowing against the future of our children. We are saying that today’s political convenience is more important than tomorrow’s stability. That is not leadership. That is short term disguised as progression. We on the other side of the House refuse to accept that frame. British Columbians deserve a government that plans ahead, not one that stumbles into crisis after crisis and calls it resilience.

Bill 5 doesn’t just contain numbers; it contains value. In that case, those values are clear: pass the burden to the taxpayer, protect the politician brand and hope no one asks too many questions. Well, we are asking, and what we’re seeing is a government that failed to exercise basic responsibility, and it is now embedding that failure into law. We cannot and will not support that. British Columbians deserve better.

The central problem is that Bill 5 is attached to a budget that has already been discredited. It is outdated, is inaccurate and is now fundamentally misaligned with the economic reality we’re facing. No wonder more and more British Columbians and, indeed, members of this very own chamber are referring to it as a fudge-it budget.

Why? Because when the Minister of Finance stood in this House to present the budget, she did so while knowing full well that two credit downgrades were looming. These weren’t surprises that came out of nowhere. They were warnings — predictable, preventable and entirely ignored by this government.

Let’s be crystal-clear about what those credit downgrades mean. They’re not just symbolic. They’re not just technical terms in a financial report. They are direct reflections of a collapsing confidence in this government’s ability to manage our province’s economy.

Two credit downgrades mean everything in British Columbia is about to become more expensive. It means our borrowing costs will rise dramatically, eating into public resources that should be going towards schools, hospitals and housing. It means that already unsustainable deficits will bloom further without a roadmap for recovery. It means taxpayers will be left footing the bill for political short-sightedness and neglected.

We now have respected institutes like Moody’s projecting serious long-term risk for British Columbians. Moody’s now projects that this government’s deficit will hit an astonishing $14.3 billion. This should have triggered an urgent course correction. In fact, both credit rating agencies now expect this government to be downgraded again.

Let that sink in. This government is on track for another downgrade. If we were receiving a performance report card, we would be failing. The public sees it, the market sees it, and now the rating agencies are spelling it out in plain terms.

Instead, the government chose to plow ahead with business as usual, brushing aside warnings as though they were inconvenient background noise rather than red flags screaming for action. This isn’t just poor budgeting. It’s dishonest governing. Promising stability while knowing instability is on the horizon is not just irresponsible; it’s unacceptable. British Columbians deserve honesty. They deserve clarity. Above all, they deserve leadership that puts people before politics.

Bill 5 is the legislative expression of a budget built on shaky ground. It carries forward not just the policies but the priorities and assumptions of a government that has lost its way. And if passed without critical examination, it risks compounding the very problems it pretends to address.

This government continues to behave as though British Columbians can’t see what’s happening. But they do. They feel it every day in their mortgage payments, in their grocery bills, in their gas tanks and in the declining quality of public service they rely on. They are paying the price for this government’s refusal to act with foresight and responsibility. So let us not treat Bill 5 as a formality. Let us treat it for what it is — a test of this House’s willingness to stand up for financial transparency, integrity and for the long-term prosperity of this province.

Despite all of this, the opposition continues to do our job. We spent hours, countless hours, in budget estimates, scrutinizing numbers line by line, asking critical questions, pressing for transparency. But how can we meaningfully review a plan when we don’t even know if the numbers we’re analyzing are still valid?

[3:45 p.m.]

This is not just a matter of legislative housekeeping; it’s a question of financial integrity. We are still waiting to find out whether the government plans to increase the debt or if we’ll be cutting services to plug their growing fiscal hole. We need to know, but most importantly, the public deserves to know.

British Columbians have a right to understand the real state of our province’s finances and what it means for their hospitals, their schools, their taxes and their futures. Instead, all they’ve been given is a moving target, a budget built on shifting numbers, shaky assumptions and, apparently, very little honesty.

The hard truth is that this province is facing many crises, and one of the most pressing is our overstretched, under-resourced health care system. Emergency rooms are closing, wait times are growing, health care workers are burnt out, and British Columbians are paying the price.

Now with the news of two credit downgrades, the cost of addressing these failures has only gone up. The government’s mismanagement of finances isn’t just a political problem; it’s a health care problem. Every delayed investment, every hike in borrowing costs means fewer dollars available for hospitals, long-term care facilities and critical staff recruitment.

One of the biggest needs in both the township and the city of Langley is long-term care for the elders who live in our community. But tell me, where do we find the word “senior” in the budget? Can you please point it out for me? You probably can’t, because it’s not in there. This government has forgotten about seniors.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Jody Toor: Bill 5 doesn’t give home retrofit or mobility credits, no fixed income relief, no expansion to shelter aid or tax derails.

The Langley Care Society has operated the Langley Lodge for the past 50 years and cares for 139 seniors. Right now there is a waiting list of upwards of one year for people seeking care in our community. How will Bill 5 support them? How will it support all seniors in my riding? How will it support all seniors in our province?

These deficits will also affect our schools. In communities like mine, kids are still learning in portables year after year, class after class, with no end in sight. Capital investments to build permanent classrooms to improve school infrastructure and to meet the needs of growing districts all depend on stable, affordable borrowing.

But now every dollar spent on interest is a dollar taken away from students and families. These credit downgrades don’t just damage the government’s credibility; they damage our ability to deliver timely, effective public services. It’s British Columbians who are left to carry the cost.

It wasn’t so long ago — October 9 of last year, to be exact — that the Premier promised every family in British Columbia a grocery rebate, a middle-class tax cut. I quote the Premier’s words, just uttered about six months ago. He said: “It’s really tough out there for families, who have been hit hard by rising costs every day, essentials like groceries.” Said Mr. Premier: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.”

The Premier was very specific about all the help he would give B.C. families, how much help he would give a nurse and a construction worker making $90,000 and $70,000, renting a two-bedroom apartment in Terrace. It would be $4,000 between now and 2028. A couple each making $75,000, renting a two-bedroom apartment in Duncan, would get $4,000. Three roommates renting a three-bedroom apartment in Vancouver would get $6,000 between now and 2028.

All of those very specific promises…

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Just hold on for a moment, Member.

Thank you very much.

Jody Toor: …of immediate and generous relief, of support for working people in British Columbia to buy their groceries between now and 2028…. All those promises are speedy, immediate relief. They all turned out to be lies.

While British Columbians were waiting for that….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m just going to caution against the word “lies.”

Jody Toor: They were dishonest.

Deputy Speaker: Or “dishonest,” frankly.

Jody Toor: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

While British Columbians were waiting for that relief, this government found time to include a tax cut for film industry — a tax cut they had refused for years, until the current Finance Minister, the former head of DigiBC, took the job. It’s not about supporting families. It’s about rewarding insiders.

[3:50 p.m.]

At the same time, this bill hikes parking taxes in Metro Vancouver while everyday people are $200 away from missing a payment. This government is handing out $1,000-a-day contracts and saying British Columbians don’t pay enough to park.

I don’t know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I’ve never heard anyone complain that parking was too affordable.

The government has also promised tax hikes on EV cars, also increasing the issues of affordability. Electric vehicles will now be much more expensive. This is the government that says more people should drive electric cars.

What we are seeing here today is, unfortunately, no surprise. It’s exactly what we’ve come to expect from a government that is desperately trying to cover up the massive black hole of debt it alone has created through years of reckless overspending and economic mismanagement. This is a government that makes short-term decisions with long-term consequences, one that governs by polling data and press releases rather than by principle and planning. And now we’re all paying the price.

British Columbians deserve better. The workers of this province, the families who build our communities and the younger people trying to build a future here all deserve better. Bill 5 fails every opportunity to deliver affordability to support seniors, to help small businesses, to support our farmers, our families.

They deserve a government that is laser-focused on growing and strengthening our economy, not shrinking it through excessive taxation and discipline regulation. They deserve a government that is committed to creating jobs and retaining them, not destroying them or forcing employers to pack up and leave for more suitable areas. They deserve a government that believes in responsible, balanced spending, not that continuously doubles and triples our public debt while offering no credible plan to bring that debt under control.

We deserve a Premier and a Minister of Finance who take the health of this province seriously, who don’t just shrug their shoulders when international credit-rating agencies downgrade our credit not once, but twice. These downgrades aren’t just embarrassing. They’re flashing red lights at investors, employers and families. They’re a clear signal that this government is steering our economy in the wrong direction.

We deserve a government that recognizes the magnitude of the problem, that understands the urgency of the moment and that puts forward a serious, thoughtful and credible plan to address the damage. Instead, what do we get? A government that dismisses every warning sign, that defaults responsibility, that clings to spin instead of substance and hopes that no one will notice the mess it has created behind closed doors.

On this side of the House, we are committed to cutting the tax burden that is crushing working families. We are committed to reducing the cost of living, not with band-aid rebates but with structural changes that put more money back in people’s pockets.

Bill 5 does not provide support to offset the impact of the carbon tax. We ran on a clean, principled platform to eliminate carbon tax in full, not just shave the edges when it becomes politically inconvenient. And what happened after years of ignoring calls for relief, after years of punishing working families and small businesses? This NDP government finally blinked. But the job is far from finished, because while they have tinkled one side of the carbon tax, the industrial carbon tax remains intact. It continues to cause serious damage.

The people bearing the brunt of the burden aren’t the ones in the Premier’s office or in the minister’s press briefings. They’re farmers, truckers, small business owners, people just trying to make ends meet. Ultimately, it’s everyday consumers who pay the price every time they shop, ship or fill their gas tanks. These costs don’t just vanish. They exceed and they compound, and they are making life harder for people who are already stretched to the breaking point.

This government has developed a dangerous habit, one that British Columbians are beginning to recognize all too clearly. It is a habit of governing by reaction. British Columbians need a government that is proactive, not reactive, which Bill 5 is a clear example of, a government that is honest with the public — and does not just hide.

Yes, this government must now know the consequences of its actions, which Bill 5 completely invades, because the damage is real. The housing crisis, the health care crisis, the affordability crisis, the crisis of public trust — they aren’t all inherited. Many were created or made worse by decisions made right here in this chamber.

[3:55 p.m.]

Bill 5 is not just flawed. It’s harmful, it reinforces unfairness, and it misses the mark. It fails to protect those who need protection most. It sends a clear message to British Columbians. If you’re not already ahead, this government is going to help you catch up.

That’s why we cannot support Bill 5. Not because we oppose taxation, but because we believe in fairness, because we believe in good governance and because we believe that in time of economic instability, government should be lifting people up, not pushing them further down.

Today and every day I will continue to fight for that future, a future built on prosperity, growth and opportunity; a future where government is a partner, not a problem; a future where British Columbians lead again.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Finance.

Point of Order

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, hon. Chair. I’d like to make a point of order.

I heard the member opposite use the word “lie” and then correct it with “dishonest,” which really is the same word. I’d like the member to withdraw that comment, please.

Jody Toor: I withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Once again on behalf of my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Newton, I would like to welcome these beautiful students of grade 5 and grade 6 from École Gabrielle-Roy, a Surrey-Newton school. They’re here to visit this beautiful House, at the same time to see the House in action.

At this point in time, we are debating a bill, Bill 5, which is about a budget. On the other side, there’s opposition. This side is the government. Each MLA can speak for half an hour about that bill, so that’s what’s going on right now.

They’re joined by teacher Jeffrey Mathurin.

I will ask the members to please make them feel welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome.

Speaker’s Statement

Unparliamentary Language

Deputy Speaker: I just want to make a quick comment with respect to the comments the Minister of Finance just said. I did attempt to try to correct the second “dishonest” term.

I agree with the Minister of Finance. This Chair won’t accept lying or dishonesty or any kind of allegation of that, and I would appreciate if members would stay away from that kind of language in this chamber.

Now, recognizing for Bill 5 debate, the member for West Kelowna–Peachland.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025
(continued)

Macklin McCall: Bill 5 is a lengthy piece of legislation amending numerous statutes to implement the NDP’s budget. Within its clauses, there are telling examples of this government’s flawed priorities and scrambled decision-making.

Allow me to target and dissect a few specific clauses that highlight the fiscal weakness and dubious choices in this bill. By examining these in detail, we can see how the NDP’s budget choices will affect hard-working British Columbians and why those choices are the wrong ones.

One of the much-touted measures in Budget 2025 is a change to the speculation and vacancy tax presented as helping regular folks. Bill 5 contains a clause that doubles the annual tax credit for B.C. residents under the speculation tax from $2,000 to $4,000. On the surface, that sounds like a gift to homeowners. In reality, it is a gimmick that underscores this government’s lack of a serious housing plan.

Let’s unpack this. The speculation tax was meant to pressure owners of empty homes and foreign investors, ostensibly to free up housing. But after years of this tax in action, British Columbians are still facing an affordability crisis and a shortage of available homes.

Now, faced with mounting criticism, the NDP’s answer is to hike the credit for locals, which conveniently arrives right before an election.

[4:00 p.m.]

This clause is essentially an admission that their original tax was overbroad, snagging ordinary British Columbians, like those with small cabins or family properties in its net. So they raised the credit to ease the pain. But by doing this now, in 2025, it’s too little, too late for many. It took years of complaints for this government to act.

Meanwhile, this tax policy did nothing to make housing more affordable. Vacancy rates remain low, rents and home prices remain high, and people continue to leave the province in search of attainable housing.

Doubling the credit is a band-aid on a bullet wound. It might stop a bit of bleeding; but it doesn’t heal the injury. It certainly won’t suddenly make housing affordable for young families. More importantly, in a budget drowning in red ink, this move actually reduces revenue. Yes, the government found a way to both claim credit for helping citizens and quietly take a hit to the treasury, thereby deepening the deficit just a little more, all for a short-term political win. How is that responsible?

The speculation tax was flawed. Fix it properly or scrap it. If housing is unaffordable, address supply and zoning and interest rates. But this half-measure of a credit increase has the feel of a pre-election rebate cheque, not genuine reform.

British Columbians see through such gimmicks. We know when we’re being bought with our own money. Clause by clause, Bill 5 tries to paper over policy failures with cash giveaways; but it can’t hide the lack of a real plan for housing or fiscal balance.

Additionally, buried in Bill 5 is another telling detail: an exemption under the speculation and vacancy tax for a specific high-end resort area, Predator Ridge in Vernon. Imagine that. While regular folks in cities were dealing with break-ins and high rents, the government was busy ensuring a luxury resort’s wealthy owners get a tax break on their empty vacation properties. This smacks of skewed priorities.

The NDP government will cut a sweet deal for a select few, but where is the relief for the average renter in Surrey or the young family trying to buy their first condo in Kamloops? This selective change shows who gets attention in an NDP budget, and it’s not ordinary working families. It’s yet another clue that Bill 5 is more about politics than good policy.

In sum, the clauses amending the speculation tax reveal poor budget planning in two ways: they concede a failed policy by dulling its edges, and they shrink revenues when we can least afford it.

A strong, fiscally sound plan would not rely on fiddling with such taxes at the margins to claim progress. It would tackle root causes of our housing and affordability issues. A conservative approach would prioritize increasing housing supply and reducing unnecessary taxation, not twirling the dials on a tax and credit scheme and hoping for applause. British Columbians deserve real solutions, not political sleight of hand.

While the government is busy giving modest tax credits with one hand, it’s reaching into British Columbians’ pockets with the other. Bill 5 includes a clause that raises the maximum tax rate on parking rights in the Metro Vancouver region from 24 percent to a whopping 29 percent.

Most people might not immediately recognize what that means. So let me put it plainly. This bill quietly authorizes TransLink to hike the parking tax that is applied every time you park your car in Greater Vancouver. That’s a potential 5 percent jump in the cost of parking at malls, work, hospitals, anywhere a fee is charged. This is effectively a sneaky tax hike on commuters and families, included in a budget bill with little fanfare.

[4:05 p.m.]

Why is the government doing this? Because they are desperate for every dollar, and rather than tighten their own belt, they’d rather empty your wallet. Instead of finding savings in a bloated bureaucracy or prioritizing spending, they choose to allow an almost 21 percent increase in a tax that many working people pay daily.

This is how poor planning manifests, as a punitive measure on the public after the government mismanages its finances. They may not boast about this in press releases, but you can be sure you’ll notice it when you get the parking stub on your windshield.

Consider the timing. Businesses are still recovering from the pandemic. Workers are being called back to offices, and many people have no realistic transit alternative for all their trips. What does the NDP do? Make it more expensive to drive and park.

It’s as if they are oblivious to the challenges of anyone outside their bubble. A parent driving kids to school and then heading to work will feel this. A senior who has to visit a specialist in Vancouver and park near the clinic will feel this. Small businesses that need customers to have easy and affordable parking will feel this. It’s essentially a tax on mobility and daily life, introduced at the worst possible time.

Moreover, this clause indicates zero creativity from the government. Need money for TransLink or municipal projects? Instead of kick-starting the economy or encouraging growth to raise revenue organically, just hike a tax. It’s a lazy and harmful solution.

TransLink’s funding challenges are real, but hitting drivers with a higher parking tax, especially without improvements in services or alternatives, is unjust. Many will ask: “Where is this money going? Will it actually improve transportation or just vanish into the void of general revenue to fill the budget hole?” Given this government’s track record, I fear it’s the latter.

This particular measure shows the NDP’s true colours on fiscal policy: when in doubt, tax more. Even as British Columbians struggle with a rising cost of living, they pile on another burden. It is poor budget planning to lean on the same taxpayer again and again instead of fixing the underlying spending problem.

The Conservative perspective is fundamentally different. We believe government must live within its means and that people’s earnings should be respected, not treated as a piggy bank to raid whenever there’s a shortfall.

Clause by clause, Bill 5 reveals a government that has no qualms about nickel-and-diming its citizens while claiming to champion affordability. To any member of the public reading the fine print of this bill, the message is clear: watch your wallets.

The NDP giveth a small credit with one clause and taketh much more with another. A family might save a couple hundred on the speculation tax credit if they happen to be eligible but will lose far more over the year in higher parking taxes, fees and costs passed down from businesses. This is the shell game of Budget 2025 — move money around, hope people don’t notice the takings and pray they remember the token givings. British Columbians are smarter than that, and they deserve a government that is straightforward and fair in taxation.

Beyond specific tax changes, Bill 5 is rife with amendments that speak to the government’s misplaced priorities; for example, consider the clauses dealing with industry-specific tax credits like the new generous film production credit for ultra-rich Hollywood studios. The budget introduces a major production film tax credit for movie projects over $200 million.

Think about that. While communities are crying out for more police on the beat or more treatment for mental health and addiction, the government’s focus was to ensure blockbuster films get a little extra break if they film here.

It’s not that supporting film and TV production is bad. It’s a valuable industry. But the optics and timing are striking. This was a priority in the budget, something they wrote into law immediately, whereas support for front-line police or community safety initiatives is rolled out timidly and slowly. And we’ll discuss public safety later.

This juxtaposition shows a government enamoured with flashy headlines and appeasing self-interest rather than laser-focused on what British Columbians need every day.

[4:10 p.m.]

Another clause to note is the change in the property transfer tax for certain First Nations beneficial ownership transfers. Now, on this point, the change itself is reasonable, ensuring First Nations aren’t double-taxed when land-ownership structures change in fine policy. But I highlight it to ask: where are similar decisive actions in areas that affect everyone’s daily life?

The government can move quickly to amend laws for targeted issues, yet when pressed on why our courts are clogged or why prolific offenders are on the streets, they shrug and say: “It’s complicated.”

We see in Bill 5 the ability of this Legislature to fine-tune tax policy. Why don’t we see the same fine-tuning applied to, say, ensuring that repeat violent criminals face real consequences? It’s a matter of political will and priority. The NDP’s priorities in this budget bill are scattered. They will tweak laws to make administrative fixes or to cater to narrow groups, but the big issues affecting all British Columbians, public safety first among them, receive only superficial treatment.

Furthermore, Bill 5 lays out spending commitments that reveal the government’s habit of throwing money at problems instead of solving them. We see authorizations for increased spending on programs that frankly have yet to show results. Millions more to various initiatives and strategies that we’ve heard announced year after year. Where’s the accountability?

This government’s answer to any crisis is a press conference announcing new dollars and a new program name, and Bill 5 dutifully shuffles the money around afterward. But have things improved? Homelessness is up. Overdose deaths remain tragically high. Violent random assaults on strangers in our cities, an issue which should horrify any government, have become a regular news story. Yet the budget’s provisions addressing these are marginal.

It’s as if the act of spending money is, to the NDP, an achievement in itself, regardless of outcomes. That is the mindset of a government with poor planning. Process over results. Intentions over impact.

A glaring example of questionable budgeting is how the NDP touts certain funding boosts as panaceas when they are plainly insufficient. We see funds allocated to things like the B.C. Coroners Service and forensic labs because they’re dealing with a record number of deaths and crime scenes. But those funds barely let them tread water. Court services gets a small bump to handle backlogs, but no structural change to prevent the backlogs from piling up again.

It’s reactive, piecemeal planning. The government is constantly behind the curve playing catch-up because it never plans ahead. In Bill 5, we see amendments to allow virtual bail hearings across B.C., a modernization that should have happened years ago, not as a crisis response to 2025. This tells us that only when the justice system reached a breaking point did the government think to act.

The clause enabling wider virtual court services is welcome, but why was it not introduced proactively? Because long-term improvements in justice weren’t prioritized until the problems became acute and politically embarrassing. Again, misdirected priorities and last-minute fixes instead of foresight.

Which of these clauses and spending authorizations, when viewed together, paint a picture of a government lurching from issue to issue without a cohesive strategy? Bill 5 is essentially a ledger of the NDP’s reactions to housing pressure, tax competitiveness, crime concerns, stakeholder lobbying. What’s missing is a bold vision for B.C.’s future. A strong budget implementation act would set the stage for a safer and more prosperous province through clear targeted measures. This bill gives us fragments — a tax tweak here, a funding top-up there — hoping the sum of the parts will somehow equal a whole solution. It does not.

British Columbians remain unconvinced and unsatisfied. They see a government busy rewriting laws, yet their lived reality isn’t improving. Nowhere is this disconnect more painfully obvious than in the realm of public safety.

I turn now to the most critical failure of this budget and Bill 5, the failure to make British Columbians feel and be safe in their own communities.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I ask you to pause for a moment?

Recognizing the Minister of Tourism.

Point of Order

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I listened carefully to the Speaker’s guidance yesterday about speaking to Bill 5 and ensuring that all communications on Bill 5 are actually related to the bill.

The bill is all about taxation. I understand the member talked about bail and other issues that are not in this bill. I wonder if the Chair might be able to provide some guidance to this House about relevance to the bill.

[4:15 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: I’d be happy to do that, Minister. You made, I think, two references to that yesterday, and I think we’ll leave those decisions to the Chair for now.

However, I have made it very clear that I do want to hear about Bill 5 this afternoon. While this member has strayed away, he does continue to come back.

Once again, I’ll thank you very much for your input, Minister, and we’ll turn the floor over to the member.

Debate Continued

Macklin McCall: Public safety is the foundational duty of any government. If people cannot walk their streets or feel secure in their homes, nothing else the government delivers — no tax credit, no social program — will matter. Unfortunately, under the NDP government, and exemplified by Budget 2025, public safety has been treated as a secondary issue.

Bill 5 and the budget show a government that is reacting to a crime wave it allowed to build with too little urgency and too few resources. This section will highlight how the government has failed to allocate and manage funds responsibly in the public safety sector, and how British Columbians are paying the price for that failure.

Look around our province today. Ask your constituents. Talk to small business owners. Talk to seniors. Talk to parents. A consistent theme emerges. People do not feel as safe as they did a few years ago. And it’s not just a feeling; it’s backed up by hard facts.

Violent crime and random attacks have spiked in our cities and towns. British Columbia’s own crime severity index has risen for three consecutive years, now sitting well above the national average. In 2023, B.C.’s crime severity index climbed to a level around 104, significantly higher than the Canadian average of about 80.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you please bring me up on Bill 5 and how that relates?

Macklin McCall: I’m tying all of this back into Bill 5. These are not isolated anecdotes. They are part of a disturbing pattern of lawlessness and disorder. Ordinary citizens are afraid to go out in the evening.

Budget 2025 and Bill 5 were the perfect opportunity for the government to show it is serious about reversing these trends. Instead, what did we get? Some platitudes and a modest funding package dressed up to sound impressive.

The Finance Minister stood up and announced $235 million to improve community safety — spread over three years, mind you, so really about $78 million per year in an $80-billion-plus annual budget.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m going to ask you again to refer to tax credits, breaks, etc., in Bill 5, rather than the budget.

Macklin McCall: Right. Well, I’m highlighting what I think would have been a better use of the tax breaks in terms of public safety. They weren’t adequately represented in the bill itself. I think that having those adequately addressed in the bill would have been very useful.

I’m just about finished here with my comments, my speech here, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion of this section, let me say the Conservative Party hears the people.

We share your urgency for safe streets, secure communities. We understand that every dollar misspent is a dollar that could have been used to hire an extra officer or keep a criminal behind bars or support a victim.

Bill 5, as part of the NDP budget, misallocates resources and misses the mark on public safety. We will not support a budget, or the bill, that does so little when our people’s safety is on the line. We believe British Columbia can and must do better, and we will continue to fight for that on behalf of every law-abiding citizen who has had enough of living in fear or frustration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Again, just a warning that we’ve been trying to make it very clear, from this Chair and others, that we are here to talk about Bill 5.

[4:20 p.m.]

I can appreciate that the budget certainly can get conflated in there for certain, but what we are talking about is Bill 5, and I want, definitely, to concentrate on that.

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of Comments
Made in the House

Misty Van Popta: A point of order was called earlier today, and although the member for Surrey City Centre was incorrect in the word used, I’d still like to withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025
(continued)

David Williams: I will address some numbers, and I will definitely stay on the topic of Bill 5.

I rise today to speak directly to Bill 5, the Budget Measures and Implementation Act, 2025. This legislation is wide-reaching. It amends over a dozen acts and brings with it a host of tax and policy changes.

As the representative of Salmon Arm–Shuswap, I approach this legislation with one fundamental question: what does this mean for rural British Columbians? Bill 5 begins by amending the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accounting Act, extending the window for forecast budgets to include the ’27-28 fiscal year. That’s a number.

This may seem minor, but it’s emblematic of a government that is comfortable moving the goalposts. Rural British Columbians know the impact of government that spends without discipline. Delays in infrastructure, delays in services, delays in broadband connectivity, school upgrades and health care stabilization…. Every year the budget is not balanced is a year where rural priorities risk falling further and further behind.

Clause 2 of Bill 5 transfers oversight of B.C. Assessment Authority bylaws from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the Treasury Board. Why does this matter? Because decisions about property valuation, land classification and assessment policy will now be more tightly linked to fiscal objectives, not fairness. I know that firsthand. I used to work for them.

In rural communities, where assessment data is thinner and economic issues are more diverse — farms, seasonal businesses, small-scale operations — fairness must be protected. Their mandate is to be equitable. I fear this change moves us further away from that.

Clauses 3 through 29 cover a wide swath of tax measures and do merit cautious support. The modernization of definitions around cohabiting spouses in clause 3 helps streamline eligibility for the B.C. sales tax credit. But this must be communicated clearly to ensure rural residents don’t lose out due to confusion from lack of tax file support.

I do welcome the continuation of the B.C. family benefit eligibility for six months after the death of a child. That is compassionate and appropriate.

Clause 6 increases the individual cap for small business venture capital tax credit from $120,000 to $300,000. That might be good news for wealthy urban investors, but what about the bootstrapping entrepreneurs in our rural B.C.? Without greater access to venture capital in the Interior and the North, this credit will remain theoretical for many.

Apprenticeship tax credits, clauses 24 and 25, also deserve attention. They provide $500 for completion of level 1 or level 2 of an eligible apprenticeship program. That could help address the skilled trade shortage if rural residents have access to training facilities. Too many have to relocate to qualify.

Clauses 10 through 22 introduce new tax credits for film, animation and digital media production. There are base increases, regional boosts and even a new 2 percent credit for major productions over $200 million. Hopefully, some come to my area. I don’t see many $200 million productions coming to Sicamous or Falkland.

While this bill offers 12.5 percent or 6 percent for animation produced outside of Vancouver, those benefits depend on the presence of a physical office. Rural B.C. lacks that infrastructure, unless tensor portable buildings count. It’s like offering a scholarship to a school that hasn’t been built.

[4:25 p.m.]

Clause 26 raises the digital media tax credit from 17.5 percent to 25 percent. That’s a positive change, and I encourage the government to pair it with incentives for rural tech hubs, not just in Burnaby but in Enderby, Lumby and Armstrong.

Clauses 28 and 29 extend the clean buildings tax credit retrofit timelines by one year. That’s a welcome relief for rural property owners who often face contractor shortages and permitting delays.

Clauses 35 through 39 increase the speculation and vacancy tax. Foreign owners will pay 3 percent and B.C. residents with vacant homes will pay 1 percent starting in 2026. The resident exemption rises to $4,000. That might make sense in Vancouver; but in the Shuswap, vacancy isn’t always a choice. It’s a seasonal reality. It is tied to family care, land stewardship or just simply working out of town. This tax risks punishing people who aren’t speculators at all.

Clauses 33 and 40 make significant and welcome changes. They exempt certain lands from school tax and rural area taxation when transferred to First Nations for reconciliation. I support these measures. Reconciliation must include land, and land must be free of tax burdens that treat a community’s stewardship in the same as a commercial interest. With that said, we must also ensure rural local governments are not left underfunded when land leaves the tax roll. Provincial transfers must follow these exemptions.

Clauses 43 and 44 grant the government the power to make retroactive regulations. In Vernon, this may mean the speculation tax applies back to January 2024. That’s not fair. Residents deserve advance notice when new taxes are applied. Retroactivity should be an exception, not the norm.

Let’s go back to clause 1. It’s concerning to see the government extend its deficit forecasting window yet again. This sets the stage for continued overspending without accountability, especially when rural communities are still waiting on overdue infrastructure investments, health care and broadband. Budgetary disciplines shouldn’t be a moving target.

There are some takeaways here. Fewer guardrails on spending could sideline rural priorities. Extending deficit windows also suggests a delayed fiscal recovery plan, which could squeeze capital funding on smaller regions like mine.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Part 2 — that’s the one that covers the Assessment Authority Act. It basically transfers powers from B.C. assessment bylaws from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to Treasury Board. Centralizing assessment authority in the Treasury Board raises red flags for rural B.C. We’ve already seen the challenges with property valuations in smaller communities where data is quite thin and decisions often miss the local context. Shifting control from a broader executive council to a budget-centric board risks making it all about dollars, not fairness.

Rural concerns that I have would be local property assessment may become more budget-driven than evidence-based; the Treasury Board may have less sensitivity to community-specific factors such as agriculture use, wildfire impact or seasonal economies.

[4:30 p.m.]

Just to go back, clauses 3 to 5 — families in our region rely on those tax credits, especially with inflation eating away at every dollar. While standardizing definitions within the federal government may simplify administration, the test will be on how these updates affect the thresholds and how clearly they are communicated, especially for low-income, multi-generational or non-traditional households that are common in rural B.C.

Clause 6 — that’s the one that increases the individual cap investment from $120 to $300. It encourages more high net worth investors to back local innovation. On paper, this boosts the support for small business, but I also worry that this credit mostly benefits urban tech ecosystems.

We need to ensure that rural startups and value-added sectors such as agriculture innovation, forestry tech or Indigenous tourism have access to these investment flows. I can tell you, directly, right now, I’ve met with all three of these type of industries in my riding, and currently they’re complaining that they have underfunding. They’re looking for help.

Clauses 10 to 22. That’s the one that adds a 5 percent basic credit for productions after December 31, 2024. It has new regional and district locations animation tax credits: 12½ percent for regional productions and 6 percent for distant location productions. It also introduces a new 2 percent major production tax credit for expenditures over $200 million. It also establishes audit inspection powers and recordkeeping rules.

It looks like a goldmine for major studios, but let’s be honest. Very few of these high-value productions are going to be coming to rural B.C. Meanwhile, our local filmmakers and digital storytellers will still struggle to access grants, training and small-scale support. Without infrastructure and access to talent pools, this rural tax credit might exist only on paper.

I’m sure that most people in the House today have watched many, many films that have come out of the Shuswap, whether it be the one about the wildfires, Ground Source…. There have been many films that come…. There is a lot of small producers within the region. They need help, so I hope that some of this funding reaches them.

Clauses 24 to 25…. That’s the one with the apprenticeship tax credit. That’s the one that gives a $500 tax credit for eligible apprenticeship programs — level 1, level 2. It applies only if the individual does not receive the federal apprenticeship incentive grant, and regulations will be defined by eligible trades and training levels.

Now, trades are the backbone of a rural economy’s resilience. Supporting local apprentices is a step in the right direction, but we need to ensure that the programs are also accessible in the smaller centres. If the folks in Lumby or Sorrento can’t get into level 2 without relocating, then the incentive won’t move the needle much.

Clause 26 — that’s the one that boosts the digital media tax credit to 25 percent. It goes from 17½ to 25 percent. It’s going to be made permanent to support tech and game developers. Well, the digital economy can and should thrive in rural B.C., but access to talent, housing and internet connectivity remains uneven. This credit rewards growth but without addressing access, it risks concentrating growth in urban centres and major areas where access to internet and those tech services are available, not rural B.C.

[4:35 p.m.]

Clause 32 — the keynotes in this one would be the reduction of the PST payable on imported vehicles if the tax is already paid federally or in another jurisdiction. It also fixes minor wording inconsistencies. It’s only fair that British Columbians aren’t double-taxed when they’re bringing a vehicle from out of province. This change does bring clarity. But rural residents still pay a steep PST on used vehicles, essential for commuting in areas with no transit. More flexibility in this area is still needed. There’s a lot of work to be done when it comes to addressing rural B.C.

Clauses 33 and 40 to 41…. That’s reconciliation exemptions for land. It grants school tax and rural property exemptions on land transferred to First Nations as part of reconciliation, held by First Nation–owned corporations or in trust, used exclusively for cultural or community purposes.

This one is near and dear to my heart. Foreshore agreements with treaty First Nations are now trigger exemptions. It gives cabinet new regulation-making powers to prescribe eligible organizations and lands. This is a step forward in reconciliation, and it must be. When land is returned to First Nations through negotiated agreements, it should not be taxed as if it were a private commercial investment.

But let’s be clear. We also must ensure that the rural local governments aren’t left short on revenue when these exemptions apply. Equitable funding must follow reconciliation. Our municipalities and our regional districts still need funding. They still depend on their tax base. That has to be addressed.

Clauses 28 and 29…. That’s the one for the clean buildings tax credit. Retrofit and energy-efficient project timelines are extended by one year. It gives builders and property owners more time to qualify. This is welcome news. Many in our region face longer timelines due to contractor shortages and permitting delays. One year buys a little bit of breathing room, but I’d like to see greater outreach to rural building owners to help them take advantage of this.

Family tax credit reforms — a couple of other things to cover here. It aligns with federal definitions for cohabiting partners. It improves clarity but may confuse eligibility mid-transition.

The small business investment, the tax limit to $300K…. It’s a clear benefit to some rural innovators.

The film and animation credits — it’s big incentives for big companies. The regional and location may be positive in theory, but I think that they won’t really amount to much.

Apprenticeship support — well, again, that’s a good start, but it really goes back to access in each one of these smaller communities when you’re out in the rural.

The digital media tax credit, again, raising it 25…. Not a bad thing, but it also kind of leans towards urban.

And the clean buildings credit retrofit deadlines — that’s helpful considering the shortages that we go through.

Foreign owner tax, 2 to 3 percent — that’s probably reasonable. And the B.C. resident tax reduction doubled from $2,000 to $4,000 starting in 2026.

Also in the bill, it recognizes nurse practitioners, not just MDs, for medical exemption eligibility.

Again, rural British Columbians who leave their home vacant to work out of town or take care of families shouldn’t be caught up in a tax designed for Metro Vancouver housing speculators. This tax hike may work in urban markets, but we need better nuance and local exemption flexibility in places like ours, where vacancy isn’t always a choice. It may be a consequence of life.

Clause 24 — I’ll just touch on that a bit. That’s the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority. While it really does not impact my constituency directly, it is a reminder of how quickly urban tax tools are scaled. Imagine if rural transportation funding for communities — buses, shuttle programs or even highway upgrades — received that kind of decisive investment approach. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? I’d like to see that.

Anyways, in closing, I have cautious support with rural reservations.

[4:40 p.m.]

This bill is massive. It contains some positive steps for apprentices, for clean energy and for reconciliation. But it also raises questions about fairness, rural equity and the direction of our province’s economic policy.

When we raise urban-based taxes, we also must consider rural exemptions. When we offer investment credits, we must ensure access for all regions. And when we centralize power, we must not erase the voices of smaller communities.

I urge the government to listen to those voices from Cherryville to Scotch Creek, from Notch Hill to Malakwa.

Bill 5 may set the table for 2025-26, but rural B.C. deserves more than a seat at the table. We deserve a say in the menu.

Lawrence Mok: Today it is an honour for me to rise in this House to share some of my remarks on Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025. This bill is a series of tax measures that are meant to be implemented within the provincial budget, which was presented in this House on March 4 of this year.

However, times have changed. Within just two weeks, this budget that Bill 5 is based on is not up-to-date and is irrelevant to our proceedings. We are now debating budget measures implementation for a budget that some may describe as frightening. The fact that we are staring at a $3 billion hole in the budget after the carbon tax was removed is far from ideal. Suffice to say, this budget is unsuitable for debate on this bill.

To begin with, I want to remind the House that the Minister of Finance herself has acknowledged that her government was already expecting to see credit downgrades this year. This is not just a speculation. This is an admission made by the minister responsible for overseeing the financial stewardship of our province.

If we take a step back, we can see that Bill 5, and the tax measures tied to it, was proposed against the backdrop of a government who already knew that they would receive credit downgrades — so in short, a backdrop of fiscal instability. It is very concerning that this legislation was put forward with the full knowledge that our province’s credit was already in jeopardy. This government was not blindsided by these developments. They were expecting them.

Yet, despite awareness of this looming financial risk, they chose to proceed with a budget, and now a budget implementation measures bill, that was not crafted to prevent or mitigate these downgrades but rather blames the current pushback on the inevitability of this assumption. That is a troubling foundation to build fiscal policy on.

I don’t know about you, but that type of leadership seems inconsiderate of British Columbians and, quite frankly, reckless. Under this current NDP government, our province has received four credit downgrades in just two years. This is significant, because credit downgrades directly impact our province’s ability to fulfil its spending priorities. These downgrades directly impact all of our province’s sectors — like tourism, technology, manufacturing and entertainment.

Take education, for example. Portables in Surrey have become a growing issue, with students themselves taking the initiative to call for more funding from the province. With credit downgrades, eliminating portables becomes a very difficult task to fulfil and a steeper hill to climb.

[4:45 p.m.]

When you look across this province and see school districts everywhere struggling without proper economic support and grappling with the new reality that they will face, it is really heartbreaking and disappointing. If I’m not mistaken, this government campaigned for teaching assistants to be available in every kindergarten-to grade-3 classroom this year. But when you try to look for it in the budget, funding for this initiative is almost nowhere to be seen.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I just ask you to ensure that your comments are relative to Bill 5, following on the comments of the previous Chair. I know he made remarks asking members to ensure that your remarks reflect Bill 5. I just ask you to help me understand that.

Lawrence Mok: Yes, I realize that, Madam Speaker. My speech will lead towards that. In the last part of the speech, you can see I’ll be speaking more on Bill 5 with figures.

Deputy Speaker: Member, your whole speech should be relevant to Bill 5. Thank you.

Lawrence Mok: Yes. Let me proceed a little bit more, and then you can tell me whether it is good enough. If not, I will jump to the latter part of my speech.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re in second reading for Bill 5, so your remarks should be connected, have to do with the bill itself. Thank you.

Lawrence Mok: I understand.

Bill 5 needed to include tax measures to help more than just the film industry, and it certainly fell short. The film industry gets a tax break because they want to improve competitiveness for our province as a filming location. The rationale is clear and not inherently problematic. Attracting international productions can have economic benefits, but we need to ask: what about other industries, the ones that are not only vying for a larger market share but are actually fighting to survive directly under serious external threat, like forestry?

Forestry is a foundational industry in British Columbia. It supports rural communities, employs thousands of our constituents and contributes significantly to our economy, yet it has been left to fend for itself with no relief in sight.

Moreover, if we take a step back and examine broader global trends, we can see that during times of economic uncertainty, American filmmakers are automatically far more reluctant to invest abroad and to invest in British Columbia. During downturns, the very industry this government is banking on, as seen in Bill 5, is already disincentivized from coming to British Columbia. This is not a political point. It is just the reality of one of the industries and the reality of a highly competitive global market.

[4:50 p.m.]

This government could have taken this opportunity to look inwards and help our most vulnerable sectors, like forestry and mining, and implement some targeted tax measures to strengthen the core of our provincial economy, but they clearly did not take that route.

Another interesting part in Bill 5 that deserves mention is the change to the DigiBC tax credit. On the surface, it may seem like a small or technical adjustment, but when we take a closer look, it tells us a much bigger story about how this government operates behind the scenes. In fact, it may surprise British Columbians that DigiBC has actually lobbied this NDP government since 2018 for the changes reflected in this budget. For over half a decade, they have been actively advocating for priorities that are conveniently reflected in this budget.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with advocacy. We love to meet with stakeholders and hear about their policy priorities. It has been one of my favourite parts of being an MLA. However, we must also ask ourselves where the line between listening to stakeholders and simply doing the bidding of well-connected industry players is.

As someone who understands well the importance of best practices when it comes to transparency and conflicts of interest, I can tell you that this situation sets off alarm bells. It is a textbook case of how decisions made, as reflected in Bill 5, can create the perception of preferential treatment and backroom policy-makers. It leaves us and the public wondering who this government is really working for.

Bill 5 does a good job revealing the inner workings of how this government thinks and operates. It offers us a window into the mindset of this government, whose priorities seem often misaligned with the needs of everyday British Columbians. It is clear that their priorities are out of place. British Columbians deserve to know when the rug is being pulled out from under them.

As opposition, it is our job to examine the tax measures presented in Bill 5, look for what is missing and try to get a good understanding of the approach this government takes in helping our economy grow and try to balance our budget. So it is quite concerning when there’s nothing said to address the deficit that is standing right in front of us.

It is particularly troubling that we are dealing with such a steep deficit at a time when fiscal responsibility should be front and centre in any budget conversation. Instead, this government has presented a bill that seems very disconnected from the economic realities this province is facing.

The only piece of optimism I seem to see is the film credits in clause 1, which, given the precarious economic situation we are in, is disheartening. When that is the only bright spot in the entire bill, it is also very underwhelming, especially since this bill could have had so much potential.

I’m told by my colleagues that the Budget Measures Implementation bill is usually almost an inch thick, but this time around, Bill 5 is about a quarter-inch thick, and over half of it has to deal with the film industry. That is a pretty substantial decrease in content at a time when British Columbians deserve information and answers.

I would say, though, that I’m looking forward to the committee stage of Bill 5 because I know that my colleagues and I have lots of questions to ask the Ministry of Finance. It may be a thin bill, but there definitely is uncertainty around the way that this government made its fiscal decisions. So we will be prepared to unpack that at committee stage.

[4:55 p.m.]

All of us have a lot to say about touchpoints both in this bill and the budget, so we will continue to work with what we are given and ask for the answers that our communities deserve. Our constituents want proper answers, and when we point them to Bill 5, the lack of answers is disrespectful to their time and their lived realities. Unless they’re in the film industry, there’s really not a lot to say. We all know that the film industry can fluctuate wildly, depending on a variety of factors.

Again, I support the film industry. Undoubtedly, this industry employs lots of hard-working people with creative skills. But when we see support for the film industry, it also makes us wonder where all the other supports are for all the other important industries we care about. Why don’t they get to be included in Bill 5?

Last week when I was taking my casual walk on my local river dike in Maple Ridge, a walk which is usually very relaxing, my mind instead was fraught with frustration at the fiscal mismanagement and, quite frankly, crisis that we see in front of us, a crisis that Bill 5 doesn’t address at all.

When I became an MLA, I didn’t expect to be met with such an unbalanced budget, and then also no cleanup measures, which I hoped would be included in this bill. At the end of the day, we must all go home to our ridings and now must bear bad news to our communities.

My constituents of Maple Ride and Mission deserve better than a government who continues to spiral in times of economic crisis and blames deficits on inevitability, rather than proactively trying to find solutions. I cannot even begin to imagine the consequences that those most vulnerable in our province now face as a result of this NDP government’s reckless spending.

To conclude, Bill 5 is a missed opportunity precisely because it fails to live up to the expectations that British Columbians rightfully have of their government during times of economic uncertainty.

British Columbians are looking to this Legislature for signs that the government has a plan, a real and actionable plan to manage our finances properly, support our industries and strengthen our economy. But with Bill 5, what they are seeing instead is a government that seems content to tinker at the edges, while ignoring the much larger and more urgent issues at hand, which is why this bill to me is shocking.

When I saw that it was titled Budget Measures Implementation Act, I thought it would address the budget in a way that might provide some relief or some strategy to deal with all the economic uncertainty we face. But I’m confused with this bill, that has to do with a budget. It’s focused on what I perceive to be the wrong topics.

This is not the comprehensive, forward-thinking strategy that we need. British Columbians deserve a government that takes the full scope of the province’s economic needs into account, and Bill 5 misses the mark big-time.

Tax measures have the potential to be a powerful tool in strengthening our economy and addressing the internal challenges we face as a province. It is clear that the government had an opportunity to use the Budget Measures Implementation Act to think more strategically about how to support a broader range of industries and provide relief where it is needed most. Instead, the focus has been disproportionately placed on one industry, which is less active due to current global trends and the reality that international investors are more reluctant during periods of economic uncertainty.

[5:00 p.m.]

What about other critical areas, such as health care, education, manufacturing, small businesses and any other sector facing economic pressures without sufficient support? Who will support them?

This bill of law is a missed opportunity to leverage tax measures to drive growth and stability across the entire economy. British Columbians deserve a government that is considerate of their lived realities and considerate of the needs of all industries.

For all these reasons, I cannot support Bill 5. We just simply cannot move forward with a bill that’s not only based on a budget that is outdated and inaccurate but that raises taxes on the things that make life unaffordable for many British Columbians. Bill 5 represents an extension of this government’s fiscal irresponsibility and their inability to prioritize those most vulnerable.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to share my thoughts today, and I urge this House to reject Bill 5.

Harman Bhangu: Today I rise to deliver one of the most important speeches I’ve given in this House. Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, isn’t just a technical finance bill. It’s a window into the soul of this government, and what we’re seeing through that window is deeply troubling.

Bill 5 is packed with giveaways for the wealthy, tax credits for big corporations and shiny incentives that do absolutely nothing for the families struggling to make ends meet in this province. It’s the latest example of this government’s dangerous habit of confusing photo ops with policy, of boutique tax credits with economic leadership.

Let’s walk through it. Let’s dig into exactly what is in the bill and, more importantly, what’s not. What is it? More than anything else, it’s a missed opportunity. The Budget Measures Implementation Act is a tax, but it’s the legislative engine behind this government’s latest budget. It lays out a patchwork for tax changes, many of them retroactive, some reaching back a year or more, yet it’s incomplete.

We find ourselves debating a bill that delivers only selected tax measures, while ignoring broader fiscal challenges. The few tax changes it includes are narrowly focused, predominantly targeting the film sector and little for anyone else. Let’s be clear. With Bill 5, we’re looking at a budget implementation bill that’s featherlight on substance, especially for the broader business community, already feeling the strain of global uncertainty — tariffs, anyone? — and trade instability.

It’s just two years under this current Premier, and British Columbia has suffered four credit downgrades. These aren’t just numbers on a report; they have real consequences. Downgrades increase borrowing costs and shrink the province’s ability to invest in key services. There is nothing in Bill 5 to address this level of uncertainty and instability.

Once again, the NDP is using the language of fairness while legislating for privilege. Consider the film tax credit, a new 2 percent major production services credit for large film corporations spending more than $200 million in British Columbia.

I’ve spoken with people across my riding in Langley and Abbotsford. They’re not asking for film subsidies. They’re asking for access to doctors. They’re asking for safer streets. They’re asking why groceries cost what they do. This government’s answer? “Here’s another Hollywood tax break.” Again, this is a missed opportunity to do something tangible, to relieve some of the uncertainty for small businesses.

One big part of Bill 5 is the adjustment to the tax credit for digital media, or what most of us refer to as video games. While that may sound like progress, it’s worth it to point out that the Interactive and Digital Media Industry Association of British Columbia has been lobbying the government since 2018.

[5:05 p.m.]

These changes weren’t driven by economic urgency. They came, once the right political connections happened, by chance, in place. That could tell you something about the priorities of this government.

Bill 5 offers nothing meaningful for workers, families and small businesses or seniors. In fact, recall that the word “senior” doesn’t even appear in Budget 2025. There’s no support for home retrofits, mobility equipment, shelter aid and expanding tax deferral programs.

This is a budget that could have been transformative, but instead, it’s one big, missed, opportunity. Look at agriculture — no fuel tax relief for farmers, no help with rising input costs, no food processing rebates.

Small businesses: no expansion of the small business tax credit, no relief on the employer health tax and no seasonal or rural business exemptions. Where is the targeted investment?

Transportation — again, nothing. No fuel for haulers or rural drivers, no support for the logistics sector. Family-owned trucking companies are being crushed, and this government is nowhere to be found.

In construction and the trades, there is no support for independent tradespeople, no accelerated write-offs, no apprenticeship incentives, no reform to encourage local procurement, not even a nod to the hard-working people that build this province.

Education workers: this government expects them to pay out of pocket for many of the supplies, without even a basic tax credit. No fuel rebates for rural educators, no cost relief for those keeping our schools running. This is a missed opportunity to support our teachers and education assistants.

This bill doesn’t deliver affordability. It expands on deficits, and it ignores the real economy. It picks winners and losers. The losers are workers, seniors and small businesses and taxpayers across B.C. While the government clings to the idea of some future, magical, revenue source, they’ve left a $3 billion hole in the budget from cancelling the consumer carbon tax. Good riddance to the tax, but where’s the plan to replace the shortfall?

British Columbians deserve transparency, not guesswork. B.C. is full of promise, rich in resources, powered by innovation and driven by resilient communities, but this legislation lacks vision. If the government were serious about prosperity, that would be reflected in Bill 5.

What British Columbians need is a government with a real plan, one that doesn’t just talk about affordability but actually delivers on it, one that tackles the health care crisis, fixes the house shortage and restores balance to our economy. Bill 5 does none of that. Instead, it sets the term for who gets taxed and who gets left behind. In doing so, it wastes the opportunity to build up British Columbia.

This government shows deficits over solutions. Let’s talk numbers. The NDP is now running a $13.9 billion deficit — yes, $13.9 billion. That is not a rounding error; that’s generational mismanagement. Where is the money going? Not into health, not into infrastructure, not into tax relief for struggling families. It’s going to corporate credits, DEI programs and administrative bloat.

The worst part? They’re calling this budget responsible. It’s Orwellian. This is a government that doesn’t even blink while borrowing billions from future generations to fund its own political survival today.

What about transportation? The bill amends the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act to increase the maximum tax rate that TransLink can charge, from 24 to 29 percent. Let’s think about that for a moment. This government believes it’s fair to ask hard-working men and women who rely on their vehicle to get to their jobs 29 percent tax on parking in Metro Vancouver.

[5:10 p.m.]

Just let that sink in for a minute. That’s right; there is Bill 5. There in Bill 5, 24 percent of parking tax was just not enough. Do you have any idea what a monthly parking pass costs for health care workers, say in New Westminster, or some cleaning lady in downtown Vancouver, someone who commutes a long distance, maybe to a more affordable home in Langley or Abbotsford?

It’s rich for this NDP government, who claim to be on the side of working people, to be jacking up the parking tax to 29 percent here in Bill 5. Everyday people, people who work hard for a living, they’re getting nickel-and-dimed to death by this government.

Now that they can no longer count on the revenue from the consumer carbon tax, do we really need to ask ourselves what they plan for us next? New taxes on drivers, businesses, families, road taxes, utility levies and property tax hikes are coming because they never budgeted responsibly in the first place.

Let me remind this House. They need the parking tax grab contained in Bill 5 because they are so far over budget on transportation projects like the Pattullo Bridge and the expansion of Highway 1. The widening between 216 and 264 is now delayed yet again. Two years behind schedule and more than $110 million over budget — that’s not a success story. That is a planning disaster.

It doesn’t end there. This government is dangling shiny, new projects in front of cameras while the basics — maintaining our roads, investing in bridges, supporting ferry service — are falling apart.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder to keep your remarks to Bill 5 and the taxation measures.

Harman Bhangu: Just ask the people in Kootenay Lake, where ferry service was suspended for months. I had to travel there myself, as the opposition critic, to get the truth because the NDP wasn’t showing up. They weren’t even answering.

Now under Bill 5 and this budget, they want to double down instead of addressing these failures.

Point of Order

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I would ask if we can confirm relevance because the member has tended to swing wildly off the bill and then just say the words “Bill 5” and then jump off into irrelevance.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder: address the principles and merits of Bill 5, which deals mainly with taxation matters.

Debate Continued

Harman Bhangu: Now under Bill 5, this budget, they want to double down. Instead of addressing these failures, they’re pumping money into TransLink without a clear plan and preparing for new road pricing schemes under Bill 5.

Now let’s step back. Let’s talk about what’s not in Bill 5. Where is the urgent investment in primary care, in specialized nurses, in cancer treatment wait times? I’ve stood in this House before and told the story of a nurse in Langley who was asked to work out of her scope because of a staffing shortage. I’ve heard from parents waiting over 12 hours in the ER with sick children. I’ve heard from seniors who feel abandoned.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just in terms of…

Harman Bhangu: It’s just getting into it right now.

Deputy Speaker: …remarks that relate to taxation matters in Bill 5….

Harman Bhangu: This government had a chance, through this bill and this budget, to show British Columbians that health care is still a priority. Instead, they took tax credits for investors.

British Columbians are asking what the plan is. Inflation is crushing household budgets. Young families can’t afford daycare or a mortgage. Groceries are up. Rent is up. All this government offers is more bureaucracy and more virtue-signalling.

Bill 5 doesn’t put food on the table. It doesn’t build homes. It doesn’t create skilled jobs in forestry, mining or transportation. Where is the investment in trade schools? Where is the plan to make trucking a red seal trade, to improve goods movement and to support Canadian-made infrastructure?

[5:15 p.m.]

This province should be booming. We have natural resources, skilled workers and strong entrepreneurial spirit, but instead of unleashing that potential, this government suffocates it under red tape, taxes and ideological nonsense.

Bill 5 is not just a bill; it’s a symbol of what’s going wrong under the Premier and this government. It’s about centralizing power. It’s about empty gestures over real action. It’s about a political class that’s completely disconnected from the people who elected them. While families are cutting back, this government is splurging. While communities are asking for safety, this government is doubling down on decriminalization and enabling chaos.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is not debate on the budget. It has to do with Bill 5, so I ask you just to bring your remarks in line with the merits of Bill 5, which deals mainly with taxation matters.

Harman Bhangu: Well, let’s talk about education here. There is no financial support for front-line education workers under this bill, absolutely none, and no tax relief here for the farming community, which Abbotsford and Langley are full of. We have a lot of farmers who are very upset about what’s going on with this bill and if they will be left behind or if they will be included in it.

I will be voting against Bill 5. I won’t just oppose it; I’ll expose it for what it is — a betrayal of public trust, a failure of leadership and a missed opportunity to help the people of this province. British Columbians deserve better than this. They deserve a government that prioritizes affordability, safety, health care and infrastructure, not headlines, handouts and hollow slogans.

Let’s get back to the basics. Let’s build a province where hard work is rewarded, where families can thrive and a government that actually works for the people, not the elite.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I’m proud to speak today as the MLA for Surrey North.

Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. Right now more than 700,000 people live in Surrey. In 2027, Surrey will be bigger than Vancouver. That’s meaning we need more homes, more schools, better health care and more help for families. But Bill 5 does not give what it needs. This bill does not help families in Surrey. It does not support workers. It does not help seniors or students. It does not solve the real problems people are facing today.

Life is getting harder. Life is getting more expensive. Food prices are high. Gas prices are high. Rent is high. People are working hard but are falling behind.

Families in Surrey are struggling. Many people work two or three jobs just to pay rent and feed their families. New immigrants are trying to build a better life, but they face barriers every day. Seniors on fixed incomes are being left behind. We need help now, but Bill 5 offers no help.

Schools are overcrowded. Surrey is the largest school district in B.C. We have over 83,000 students in our schools, but we don’t have enough space for all of them. There are over 360 portable classrooms in Surrey.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that we’re debating Bill 5, which has to do with the merits and principles of mainly taxation matters.

[5:20 p.m.]

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Okay. Thank you, Madam.

That is more than any other city in the province. Some schools are up to 20 portables on one side. Some students will spend their entire school year in portables. That is not fair. Our children deserve proper classrooms with heat, safety and space to learn. But in this bill, there is no money for new schools in Surrey, no help for fast-growing neighbourhoods in Surrey North, no plan to reduce portables. The government promised to build….

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. We’ll just pause while they are ringing the bells.

Okay. Member, just a reminder to keep your remarks to Bill 5, which has to do with taxation.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Yeah, I’ll try to. Thank you.

The government promised to build more schools. But now in this bill, they give us nothing.

Where is the support for housing? Housing is one of the biggest concerns in Surrey. Surrey needs 170,000 new houses by 2043. Right now people are waiting too long for housing. Many people….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are not in a debate on the budget or throne. It has to do with matters that address taxation.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Okay, thank you.

What does Bill 5 fix? Nothing. There is no tax credit for renters, no support for small landlords, no help for families saving for a down payment. There is no investment for affordable housing projects. We keep hearing promises, but we see no action. This bill was a chance to help the Surrey housing crisis, and the government did not take it.

What about small businesses? Surrey is home to over 19,000 small businesses. These businesses hire local people. They sponsor local events. They support our economy. But many small business owners are struggling. Their costs are going up. They are paying more for supplies, rent and electricity. And now the employer health tax is making it harder to hire. Bill 5 could have offered relief. It could have provided tax breaks. It could have given help to local businesses. No.

Many people can’t afford to buy or rent. Seniors….

Buses are often full or late. Some areas have no transit at all. People in rural and suburban parts of Surrey need to drive. Gas prices are high, and there’s no fuel rebate. ICBC rates are still too expensive.

Where is the investment in better buses? Where is the tax credit for people who need to commute? Where is the Surrey SkyTrain extension to Newton, to Guildford? Bill 5 does not answer these questions.

Deputy Speaker: Member, a reminder again to return your remarks to Bill 5 and taxation measures.

Point of Order

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess my question is: when are we going to make sure people actually have to talk to the bill?

[5:25 p.m.]

I appreciate the guidance, but the member spent about seven minutes talking about stuff that’s not in the bill. The bill primarily addresses things like the Income Tax Act, PST, so I would hope members would be able to move off of their script, which is not relevant to the current debate, and actually talk about the bill.

Elenore Sturko: I just wanted to acknowledge what my colleague across the way is saying.

Yes, this is about Bill 5. I think that the members on this side are doing a relatively good job. We have a lot of new members, but they are bringing forward issues that they feel are relevant to Bill 5 in the context of their own communities and mostly speaking, I would argue, to what is missing from this bill. I think there is a lot missing.

I would ask the Chair to continue to provide guidance but to also allow our members to have their voice to speak to, really, what is missing from Bill 5 in terms of tax relief for British Columbians, which I think is substantial.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I just ask the member to make sure that your remarks have to do with Bill 5, which deals primarily with taxation. Thank you.

Continue.

Debate Continued

Mandeep Dhaliwal: The people of Surrey North work hard. They play by the rules, but they are being left behind. Bill 5 gives them no relief, no real help with the cost of living, no plan for growth. This bill makes big promises, but it delivers very little. That’s why I will not support Bill 5, because Surrey deserves better.

We need to invest in schools, in housing, in health care and in the families that keep this province stronger. Let’s build a B.C. that works for everyone, not just for Victoria.

Reann Gasper: As the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission and the official opposition critic for Child Care and Children and Youth with Support Needs, I take my responsibility seriously to speak for families and front-line workers.

Today we are debating Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025. Bill 5 decides which British Columbians and businesses get relief, get taxed and get left behind. Once again, it’s the families, the children and the most vulnerable British Columbians who are being left out.

This government had an opportunity to deliver affordability, support growth and build fairness into our tax system. Instead, they’ve used Bill 5 to entrench deficits, double down on spending choices and exclude the very people who need the help the most.

It didn’t have to be this way. This legislation could have supported parents waiting for child care, families navigating special needs assessments or workers struggling with rising costs. One of the most glaring omissions in Bill 5 is its complete and total disregard for children and youth with support needs. You will not find a single section, not a single clause that acknowledges this growing crisis, let alone addresses it.

Families across this province are exhausted. They are stuck on wait-lists that stretch months or even years. They are told to navigate this maze to access assessments and therapies or in-school support services their children are entitled to but which remain out of reach. What does this government offer them in response? Absolutely nothing — not in the budget and not, certainly, in this bill.

[5:30 p.m.]

At a time when B.C. families are pleading for stability, when they’re hanging on by a thread, this government has decided that film tax credits and corporate incentives are a greater priority than the neurodiverse children who can’t get speech therapy, than families who choose between private assessments or paying rent, than the parents who have to leave work just to advocate for basic accommodations that this system should be already providing.

Bill 5 enacts the financial choices of this government, and when children with disabilities are missing from the ledger, that absence speaks volumes. It tells us exactly where they land on this government’s list of priorities: nowhere.

Let me be clear. Supporting children with support needs is not a luxury. It’s not a nice-to-have item that can be added when it’s politically convenient. It is an essential public service. Ignoring them in legislation that determines where our dollars go is a decision with real consequences not just for our children but for their families, for their schools and, ultimately, for our province.

This government continues to make promises to families and then turn around and legislate them as if those families don’t exist. You cannot claim progress when your own legislation does not reflect your promises. You cannot claim inclusion when your tax plan excludes children who rely on supports to participate in school, in community and in life. You cannot claim to be building for a future if you constantly fail to include the very children we represent in that future.

If this government truly believed that every child mattered, then every budget implementation bill would reflect that. Every tax decision would account for the supports those children need to succeed.

Instead, it has chosen to focus its attention on high-dollar production tax credits and retroactive regulation powers for corporate sectors. They legislated for the well-connected and left out the most vulnerable.

A government’s priorities are revealed not just in what it says but in what it does. What Bill 5 does is send a clear message. Children with support needs are not this government’s priority.

Just like children with support needs, Bill 5 is completely silent on one of the most pressing challenges facing working families in this province, child care. There are no tax credits, no relief measures, no investment vehicles in this bill that acknowledge the reality parents are facing today.

Nothing for early child care educators, who are struggling with burnout and low wages. Nothing for families on multi-year wait-lists. Nothing to support the expansion of child care spaces in communities like Abbotsford and Mission and across British Columbia.

This is a tax bill, a bill designed to implement fiscal responsibility through legislative change. The government could have used it to deliver targeted relief for parents through refundable tax credits, child care expense deductions or capital cost allowances for providers to expand facilities.

Instead, the government used this legislation to deepen tax incentives for multinational film studios but did not include a single mechanism to help a mother who cannot afford to go back to work because child care costs are more than her paycheque. They made room for animation production tax credits but not for the care economy.

Let me be clear. Child care is not just a social issue. It is an economical issue. It is a workforce issue. It is a tax issue. This bill should have recognized that. When parents, especially mothers, are forced out of the labour market due to a lack of child care, it’s not just families that suffer. The entire economy loses. Workforce participation drops, businesses lose staff, tax revenue decreases and the downstream costs, from social services to education supports, increase.

A truly responsible budget implementation bill would have taken this into account. It would build in tax measures that support both providers and parents. It would recognize early learning as foundational infrastructure, not an afterthought.

[5:35 p.m.]

We could have seen refundable tax credits for families who don’t have access to $10-a-day care. We could have seen deductions for licensed child care expenses, helping parents offset these costs. We could have seen targeted support for rural and underserved regions that are shut out of the current centralized delivery model.

But we didn’t. We didn’t see any of that, and it is not because it couldn’t have been done. It’s because it wasn’t prioritized.

When governments leave child care out of their financial legislation, they leave working families out of the economy. Bill 5 was an opportunity to change that. Instead, it’s a missed opportunity, one that working parents across this province will pay for day after day and month after month.

It’s not just the children and families who were left out of Bill 5. Adults with disabilities are entirely missing from this government’s tax policy framework. There are no new disability tax credits, no enhanced deductions for accessible-related expenses, no incentives for businesses to create inclusive workspaces or invest in assistive technologies, not even a nod to the mobility equipment or the retrofits that allow people to age or live independently in their homes.

This government had an opportunity to use Bill 5 to modernize how we support people with disabilities through the tax system, but instead, they left every tool on the table.

Our tax system has the power to level the playing field or to reinforce the barriers people face every day. Right now we have British Columbians with disabilities who are forced to choose between employment and essential support benefits. We have individuals who are out thousands of dollars each year for necessary medical supplies, mobility aids or adaptive technology, with no way to recover those costs through our provincial tax code.

This bill could have helped. It could have aligned provincial credits with federal ones, expanded the eligibility or introduced new deductions to reflect the realities of living with a disability in today’s economy. But it didn’t.

When we talk about fiscal fairness, we cannot ignore the fact that disabilities often come with disappropriate costs, costs that are invisible in legislation like Bill 5.

If there’s one group that quietly holds this province together, it’s unpaid caregivers. Yet, once again, they are completely absent from Bill 5. There are no caregiver tax credits, no deductions for home-based care, no recognition of out-of-pocket expenses faced by those who care for aging parents and children with complex needs, spouses recovering from illness or family members with disability. The unpaid care economy contributes billions in economic value to British Columbia every year, but you wouldn’t know that by looking at this bill.

This government could have used Bill 5 to deliver meaningful support. It could have introduced a caregiver tax credit to recognize the hours of care being delivered in living rooms and kitchen tables across the province. It could have implemented deductions for essential supplies, home modification or respite services. It could have acknowledged that caregiving isn’t free and that those costs fall on women, low-income families and culturally diverse households, but instead, we see nothing, not even a line.

This bill reflects a fiscal mindset that values profit over people, and nowhere is that clearer than in its complete disregard for caregivers. When governments fail to support unpaid care, they don’t just ignore a social responsibility. They create downstream costs in health care, mental health, institutional support systems.

[5:40 p.m.]

Caregivers who burn out eventually need care themselves, yet Bill 5 doesn’t just overlook. It erases them entirely from the financial picture. If this legislation is meant to reflect who and what we value as a province, then its silence on caregivers is deafening.

We hear a lot from this government about mental health being a priority. If that were true, it would be reflected in the tax measures before us today. Yet Bill 5 contains no credits, no funding mechanisms, no fiscal incentives tied to mental health or addiction recovery — none. There is no tax relief for front-line workers in treatment facilities, no incentive to support the expansion of community-based mental health services, no deduction for counselling, therapy or even mental health costs that are not covered under MSP.

Families who are already paying out of pocket for private care just to keep their loved ones afloat will find no support in this legislation. For individuals recovering from addiction, the situation is no better. There are no tax credits to help them cover transitional supports, rehabilitation services or reintegration programs. In a province facing record overdoses and growing wait-lists for treatment, this is inexcusable.

The government had the ability to integrate mental health into its tax framework. It could have treated these services as essential health care, worthy of investment. Instead, Bill 5 treats mental health as a policy afterthought. Tax legislation is a powerful tool, and when used wisely, it can expand access, reduce inequality and reinforce public priorities. But when it comes to mental health and addictions, this government has chosen not to use that tool at all.

Education is one of the most critical long-term investments that a government can make, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at Bill 5. This legislation fails to include a single tax measure supporting students, educators or school staff. There are no credits for tuition, no deductions for textbooks or student housing, no support for educators paying out of pocket for classroom supplies.

We hear often about rising inflation and the cost-of-living crisis, but there’s nothing in this bill to relieve financial pressure on post-secondary students who are working two to three jobs just to afford rent and tuition. There’s nothing for parents of children K to 12 who are asked to buy classroom materials the school can’t afford to provide. There is certainly no recommendation or recognition of the growing transportation crisis rural students face just to get to school — costs that could have been addressed through targeted rebates or deductions in this very bill.

The government had the opportunity to introduce tax tools that would strengthen access to education and reduce the financial burden on families. Instead, it prioritizes industry-specific credits and leaves one of the most foundational public services completely untouched. Bill 5 doesn’t treat education like a priority, and once again, students and teachers and working families are left to fill the gap.

For all the speeches this government gives about strengthening health care, you would expect that commitment to show up in its tax policy, but in Bill 5, it doesn’t. There is no tax relief for nurses, physicians or care aides; no retention incentives to help stop the bleeding in our workforce; no targeted tax credits to support rural practitioners or address shortages in communities where emergencies are on the brink of collapse. Patients are waiting 12 hours or more in emergency rooms. Families are driving hours to access basic care. Health care workers are stretched so thin that burnout has become the norm.

Through Bill 5, they could have offered rural practices tax credits. They could have provided rebates for licensing fees, relocation costs or student loan forgiveness tied to service in under-resourced regions. They could have even incentivized employers to improve working conditions for front-line staff.

[5:45 p.m.]

Instead, they used this legislation to deepen tax breaks for high-budget film productions, while the people keeping our hospitals running were left with nothing. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

Low- and middle-income British Columbians are being hit the hardest by inflation, rising interest rates and the cost-of-living crisis, yet Bill 5 offers them nothing. There are no personal tax credits, no bracket adjustments to reflect inflation, no rebates, credits or mechanisms to help working families keep more of what they earn.

This government had an opportunity to deliver direct relief, relief that could have been felt on paycheques and grocery bills. It could have indexed credits of inflation and provided cost-of-living adjustments for essentials like fuel, food and utilities or for existing benefit thresholds for modest-income earners. Instead, this bill doubles down on targeted tax credits for already well-resourced industries, while the average British Columbian gets left further behind.

Working families are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. They don’t need another glossy budget presentation. They need real relief. That starts with smart, compassionate tax policy. Bill 5 could have delivered that, but instead, it leaves the very people holding our economy together with no help, no hope and no plan.

British Columbians are in the midst of a housing crisis. Rents are at record highs, home ownership is out of reach, and housing insecurity is growing across every region of this province. But you wouldn’t know that by looking at Bill 5.

There is no tax relief for families spending half their income just to keep a roof over their heads in this bill. There are no new measures to incentivize the construction of affordable housing stock or support non-profit housing providers.

The only mention of housing in Bill 5 comes through the adjustment of the speculation and vacancy tax. While that change may raise revenue, it doesn’t create affordability. It doesn’t build homes. It doesn’t help people who are struggling to stay housed right now. This government left housing affordability out of their fiscal toolkit again.

Seniors are a growing and vital part of our population, and many are living on fixed incomes, watching the cost of everything from groceries to medication rise faster than their pensions. Yet once again, Bill 5 offers them absolutely nothing.

There are no mobility equipment tax credits, no rebates for home retrofits that allow seniors to age in place, no expanded shelter age, no income tax relief and no targeted support for seniors caring for spouses, managing chronic conditions or navigating rising health care costs on their own. In fact, the word “senior” doesn’t appear in this legislation at all.

This is a government who claims to support our aging with dignity, but that commitment disappears when it comes time to legislate tax measures. Seniors are being left behind in policy and now again in tax law.

It wouldn’t have taken much. A simple tax credit for essential home modifications or an expanded deferral program for low-income seniors would have gone a long way. Instead, the government has sidelined the very people who built this province. Bill 5 does not just overlook seniors; it erases them.

I love seniors. If you’ve sat with them for any length of time and you’ve listened to how absolutely heart-wrenching it is that people that have worked their entire lives, paid their taxes, are now watching a system that is not benefiting them on every level, it’s heartbreaking.

These aren’t just scripts that have been written for me. These are real stories. These are real lives. These are conversations that we are having with our constituents.

[5:50 p.m.]

British Columbian farmers are essential to our food supply, rural economies and climate resilience. But you wouldn’t know it from Bill 5, which contains nothing, zero tax measures, to support agricultural producers or strengthen local food security. There is no fuel tax relief for farmers facing rising input costs, no deductions for equipment or infrastructure upgrades, no credits to support climate-adaptive farming practices or investments in local processing.

The bill could have included targeted tax incentives to help offset the costs of producing food in a high-cost, high-risk environment. Instead, it leaves farmers with high operating expenses and no provincial support. At a time when we should be building food system resilience, this government has chosen to ignore the very people who grow the food we eat.

Agriculture is not just a sector; it is a strategic necessity. But Bill 5 treats it like an afterthought.

Bill 5 makes it clear that this government is out of touch with everyday costs of transportation and trades in British Columbia. There is no fuel rebate for haulers, rural drivers or tradespeople who rely on their vehicles to work; no carbon tax relief for the movement of essential goods; no accelerated write-offs for tools, vehicles or equipment used by independent contractors; no tax credits to recruit or retain skilled workers in communities that desperately need them.

Meanwhile, this bill includes an increase in taxes on used electric vehicles and expands the parking tax in Metro Vancouver at a time when affordability is already stretched thin. This government could have supported the trades and transportation sectors through meaningful tax measures. Instead, they chose to increase costs for working people just trying to do their jobs.

Bill 5 punishes movement and offers nothing to those who keep our province running. Small businesses are the backbone of our community. They create local jobs, drive innovation. They keep our main streets alive. Once again, they have been left out of this government’s tax plan.

I am just noting the time. There’s much to say.

If Bill 5 is supposed to implement this government’s fiscal plan, then we should all be very concerned, because the plan is no longer credible. We now know that when the Minister of Finance introduced the 2025 budget on which this bill is based, which has been said by multiple of my colleagues, she was already anticipating that tax credit — two credit downgrades.

Moody’s is now projecting a $14.3 billion deficit for British Columbia. That is not a rounding error; that’s a warning signal. When this government received multiple warnings from credit agencies about runaway spending…. You double down, you dig deep, and you take responsibility. You scale back, you realign your priorities, and you deliver a plan that restores confidence.

After reviewing every clause of Bill 5, the message is unmistakably clear that this government had an opportunity to deliver real affordability. Instead, it chose to legislate around the people who need it the most.

They could have used this bill to lift up working families; support children with complex needs; ease the burden on caregivers; and address the rising costs felt by renters, seniors, small businesses and front-line workers, but they didn’t. Instead, they handed out tax credits to industries they favoured, protected financial status quo and ignored the affordability crisis that is defining life for most British Columbians.

[5:55 p.m.]

This bill does not build fairness, does not reflect compassion, and it certainly does not reflect fiscal responsibility. What it does reflect is a government that has lost touch with the people it serves.

Budgets and tax bills are not just financial documents; they are moral documents. They show what we value and who we are willing to leave behind. And with Bill 5, this government has made its values crystal-clear.

The people of British Columbia need a government that doesn’t just say it takes action but actually does — a government that puts care before credits, that invests in people before perks, that chooses stability over spin. This bill could have been that turning point. Instead, it’s a missed opportunity, another in a long line of them.

British Columbians are watching. They’re watching. They’re watching this House. They’re watching what happens every day in this House. And they’re waiting for leadership that is grounded in fairness, in vision and in responsibility.

Claire Rattée: I rise today to speak in firm opposition to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025. This bill may be technical in nature, but its implications are anything but, because, at its core, Bill 5 is a tax bill. When you strip away the legal language and legislative formatting, what you’re left with is how this government chooses to raise money, who they take it from and who they leave out.

It reveals, in stark terms, how deeply out of touch this government has become with the realities faced by British Columbians. It’s not just about numbers; it’s about priorities. And this bill is rooted in the wrong ones. Whether it’s increasing taxes on working people, offering selective tax breaks to well-connected industries or refusing to provide relief for those struggling the most, Bill 5 doesn’t just implement tax policy. It exposes this government’s values.

It is a bill that’s guided by broken assumptions and built on a budget that has already proven false. Make no mistake. When a government gets tax policy wrong, people feel it immediately. This legislation, like the budget it supports, is proof that this Premier and this Finance Minister are failing to lead, and British Columbians are paying the price.

Let’s begin with what we’ve learned since this budget was tabled. On the very same day that the Finance Minister stood in this chamber to deliver her budget speech, two of the world’s most respected credit rating agencies, Moody’s and DBRS, issued formal downgrades to British Columbia’s credit rating. Let me repeat that — not one but two credit downgrades. Not a year into the plan, not halfway through, the very day that the budget was released, Bill 5 was already built on borrowed credibility.

What does this government do? They don’t revise the budget. They don’t adjust spending. They don’t scale back risky tax expenditures or re-prioritize relief. No, what they do is double down by introducing Bill 5 — business as usual, like nothing has happened.

Bill 5 is how they’re locking those choices in. This is the bill that gives legislative force to their tax policy, and it’s now tied to a budget that the financial markets have already said they do not trust. This is not business as usual; this is a fiscal alarm bell. And Bill 5 is the government’s decision to hit snooze.

Those credit downgrades weren’t symbolic. They mean every dollar this government borrows, funded by taxpayers, just got more expensive. The real-world consequence of Bill 5 is that taxpayers will be footing the bill for that higher cost for years to come. It means higher interest costs on tax-funded projects like hospitals and schools, less room for tax relief in future years and fewer dollars actually reaching the services British Columbians are already paying for.

And let’s be clear. None of this was unexpected. According to Moody’s, this government is already on track to deliver a $14.3 billion deficit. Both rating agencies say that they have no expectation that this government will ever balance the budget. Yet here we are debating Bill 5, a tax bill crafted on top of a budget that is no longer financially credible. Instead of correcting course, Bill 5 implements the very tax decisions that deepened the problem.

So what are we doing here? We’re being asked to pass legislation that increases taxes in some areas, gives targeted cuts to insiders and builds zero trust with the people footing the bill, all under the pretence that this government still has control of the books.

If the people who rate our fiscal health don’t believe this government’s tax plan is sustainable, why should British Columbians?

[6:00 p.m.]

This Premier, this Finance Minister — they are the downgrade, and Bill 5 is the evidence not just of poor economic management but of a government that refuses to take responsibility for the tax burden they are passing on to working people across this province, because instead of recalibrating, this government has chosen to double down. Instead of listening, they are spinning. Instead of supporting British Columbians who are struggling, they are punishing them.

Let’s look at the measures included in this bill, because what’s in here and what’s not speaks volumes. This bill includes a tax increase on used electric vehicles. Now let’s take a step back. This is a government that has spent years pushing British Columbians to drive electric. They have held press conferences, launched public education campaigns, rolled out slogans about climate leadership. But when British Columbians try to do the right thing, when they try to buy a used EV to reduce their footprint, they’re hit with a tax penalty.

This isn’t a tax on luxury EVs. It’s not targeted. It’s not means-tested. It applies across the board. That means a young family trying to replace their old gas-guzzler with a second-hand EV to save money and reduce emissions are penalized. That means seniors looking to downsize to a smaller, more efficient vehicle are penalized. That means tradespeople, small business owners and working-class British Columbians who can’t afford a brand-new EV are penalized.

I ask the government: what message does this send? It doesn’t say go green; it says pay up. It says climate action is only for those who can afford it. And it says loud and clear that this government is more interested in revenue than results. It’s already bad enough that this government taxes the secondhand sale of non-electric vehicles, or secondhand anything for that matter. But to go after their beloved EVs means they must be desperate for cash.

Let’s talk about the one tax cut included in this bill: a large break for the digital media sector. Now to be clear, I support B.C.’s creative industries. I’m an artist myself, and I’ve built both a career and a successful business in the creative sector. I believe in the talent and potential of our digital and film sectors, but this tax break didn’t come out of nowhere.

For years the industry asked for this support, and for years this government said no. Now suddenly we have a Finance Minister who was formerly the head of DigiBC, the very group advocating for this tax credit, and the money flows. We can debate the merits of the tax change, but the optics and the timing cannot be ignored. This is the same week we were hit with two credit downgrades. This is the same budget where no new investments were made in treatment beds, seniors housing or mental health supports for youth.

This is the same fiscal plan where the government claims there is no more money for municipalities, rural infrastructure or increasing security in our hospitals for their promised grocery rebate or bus passes for seniors. But there is $45 million available for the Finance Minister’s former industry contacts. Let’s call this what it is, insider privilege at its worst. And to be honest, it’s offensive.

I talk to people every day who are at their breaking point. Small business owners, barely hanging on. Nurses and police officers who’ve been attacked on shift. Parents trying to stretch a single paycheque across the ever-increasing cost of groceries, bills and school supplies. They don’t want favours; they want fairness. They don’t need handouts; they need honesty. And they are not getting either from this government.

Another measure that is sneakily tucked into this bill is an increase to parking taxes in Metro Vancouver. Now, I don’t know who in this chamber thinks parking is too affordable, but I can tell you one thing. No one is saying that on the street.

This change hits working people, and it hits them hard. It hits shift workers, hospital staff, tradespeople and anyone who can’t take public transit because their job starts before the buses run or finishes long after they stop. It hits single parents juggling jobs and school pickups. It hits seniors, caregivers and small business owners, most of whom are already dealing with inflation, high fuel costs and increased property taxes.

Once again, these are not the people this government is prioritizing. They’re the ones being asked to give more while getting less. This parking tax hike is just the latest example of a government that has run out of ideas and is now nickel-and-diming the very people they claim to represent.

Now, let’s not lose sight of the broader problem. We are being asked to debate and pass Bill 5, a tax implementation bill based on a budget that is already out of date. As my colleagues have pointed out, the numbers don’t hold up. There is a $3 billion revenue hole, yet Bill 5 moves forward as though nothing has changed. No adjustment to the tax plan, no change to the fiscal assumptions and no update to the measures being implemented in Bill 5.

[6:05 p.m.]

It’s as if this government expects this House and the people of British Columbia to simply pretend that the foundation for this entire tax framework still holds. But it doesn’t. There’s no fiscal update, no revised tables, no attempt to revise the tax policy that Bill 5 locks into law, no acknowledgement that the budget that we’re debating and the tax decisions embedded in this legislation are no longer tied to reality.

It undermines the integrity of this entire legislative process, because Bill 5 isn’t theoretical. It implements real tax measures. It increases taxes in some areas, it hands out scarce credits in others, and it makes permanent choices about who this government is taxing and who it’s choosing to help. But it’s doing so using outdated assumptions, flawed numbers and a financial framework that has already collapsed under the weight of its own projections.

We’re being asked to vote on a tax and spending measures that are no longer tied to any credible fiscal reality. It’s like trying to build a house on sand and pretending it’s concrete and then handing British Columbians the bill.

The Finance Minister claims this is just a snapshot in time. But that doesn’t cut it. Bill 5 is not a snapshot; it’s a binding document. It is how tax law is written and applied in this province.

Let’s be very clear. This is not business as usual. This government knew that there would be a $3 billion revenue hole when they tabled the budget and tabled Bill 5. They knew the threat of U.S. tariffs was looming. They knew they could have waited a few short weeks to provide British Columbians with a full and accurate picture before locking in tax measures through Bill 5. They’ve done it before when it suited them.

But they didn’t. They charged ahead, and now they’re asking us to pass a tax bill based on numbers that don’t reflect reality. British Columbians will be left paying the price, not just for the government’s miscalculations but for their refusal to correct course when it mattered.

Perhaps what’s most telling is not what’s in this bill, but what’s not. Bill 5 is the government’s opportunity to implement targeted tax relief through legislation. It’s their chance to use the tools of the tax system to incentivize care, support vulnerable communities and correct policy gaps.

Once again, when it comes to mental health and addictions, there’s nothing. There are no tax breaks for non-profits trying to open new treatment centres, no exemptions to help organizations providing life-saving front-line care and no financial support to offset the high capital costs of establishing or expanding addiction treatment facilities.

This bill could have included tax relief for those trying to build new recovery spaces, but it doesn’t. It could have offered targeted credits to encourage private-public partnerships in addiction care, but it doesn’t. It could have given northern organizations even a modest break to expand their capacity to treat people in a crisis, but it doesn’t.

Despite overdose deaths remaining the leading cause of death for people aged ten to 59 in this province, Bill 5 fails to provide a single tax measure aimed at addressing this public health emergency. And that failure is amplified in rural and remote regions, especially in the North, where communities like mine in Skeena are facing some of the highest overdose fatality rates in the province.

There are no targeted tax measures in Bill 5 to expand access to treatment, no help for mobile services, no relief for community-run recovery programs and no support to lower the barriers to entry for those trying to step up and help.

Once again British Columbians who are struggling with mental health and addictions have been left behind. Despite all the talk from this government about caring for people, this Budget Measures Implementation Act and the broken budget that it supports fail to deliver a single meaningful tax incentive for detox, for treatment or for recovery.

An average of six British Columbians are dying every single day due to an overdose. I don’t care if the government wants to point to a slight statistical improvement. Six deaths a day are six too many. And when families are burying their children, when people are overdosing on the street or dying alone at home, what’s this government doing? They’re talking about historic investments.

Well, you can’t call it an investment if the money never shows up in communities. You can’t call it support if the tax code punishes the very people trying to build recovery options. You can’t call it progress when the death toll keeps rising. And you certainly can’t call this a mental health strategy when the only thing growing is the number of lives lost.

Bill 5 could have been used to send a signal, to show that this government is serious about putting tax tools behind its rhetoric on mental health. But it doesn’t. No one reading this legislation would walk away thinking the overdose crisis matters to this Finance Minister, and that should shake every member of this House to their core, because it’s not mentioned in this bill. Just like my colleague mentioned previously, there are a number of things that aren’t mentioned in this bill that should be, if they’re things that this government actually cares about.

[6:10 p.m.]

We are in the midst of a generational crisis, and the government’s flagship tax bill contains nothing for the people on the front lines of addiction, recovery or mental health support — no breaks, no incentives, no recognition.

This bill also does nothing to address the ongoing crisis in our health care system, a crisis that’s being felt most acutely by the very people who keep it running — our nurses, doctors and front-line staff. Across the province, hospitals are understaffed, under-resourced and overwhelmed.

Nurses are working in unsafe conditions, often going entire shifts without a break, all while facing rising levels of violence and aggression. Just recently we heard horrifying stories of nurses being strangled, assaulted and pushed to the brink of burnout, one tragically taking her own life. This government’s response was to offer talking points, not solutions.

There is no tax relief for front-line workers, no clear plan to retain or recruit health care professionals and no accountability for the conditions that are driving so many of them out of the system. A tax incentive, for example, to attract health care workers to the severely neglected regions in the North, could have a tremendous impact on staff shortages, but there is nothing in this bill.

After nearly a decade in power, this government still has no plan to fix the staffing shortages, no urgency to reopen closed emergency rooms and no understanding of just how broken things have become for patients and providers alike.

There’s also no meaningful support for seniors in this bill — many of whom are now being warehoused in temporary beds because our long-term-care system is at capacity and, in communities in my riding, essentially nonexistent, seniors who are accessing shelters and food banks to survive. It’s shameful.

I have senior constituents that are facing eviction from the scant subsidized housing that exists in my riding, because the rent was increased 36 percent, and they make less than $17,000 a year and cannot manage these increases. Where is the relief for them? We know that seniors are struggling. We know that they can’t make ends meet. A simple tax cut, a simple tax relief measure for seniors could have gone a very long way, but it’s not in this bill.

There’s also no targeted relief for small businesses that are being crushed under the weight of rising costs, increased crime and never-ending paperwork. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the heart of so many communities. I own a business. I know how much entrepreneurs are struggling. They’ve weathered a global pandemic, rising inflation, increasing property taxes and growing concerns around crime and safety.

Many are barely hanging on after years of economic uncertainty, and what they need now is relief, not more bureaucracy, not more taxes and certainly not more empty promises. Yet there’s nothing in this bill to support them — no tax relief, no reduction in red tape and no real plan to help them recover or grow. Instead, they’re met with higher costs, more bureaucracy and a government that seems more focused on courting corporate insiders than standing up for local entrepreneurs.

There is no recognition in this bill of the unique challenges facing the North, where food insecurity, road closures and housing shortages are daily realities. This bill fails to deliver any meaningful investment in transportation infrastructure in rural and northern communities. There is no plan to address the chronic underfunding in municipalities, which could be provided by redirecting some of the tax revenues to communities that need to improve infrastructure.

In Skeena, we’ve seen fatal accidents on unsafe highways; tragic delays in emergency response due to poor road conditions; and critical access roads like the Kitamaat village road, which is the only point of access for the Haisla Nation, frequently shut down during bad weather, cutting off entire communities from hospitals, pharmacies and grocery stores. In the past five years alone, there have been eight fatalities on that small stretch of road.

We’ve raised these concerns again and again, but this government continues to underfund road maintenance and capital upgrades in the North. It shouldn’t take another preventable tragedy to get this government’s attention. Every British Columbian, regardless of where they live, deserves to travel safely and have timely access to emergency services.

Despite a significant increase in industrial traffic for the facilities that provide the rest of the province with economic benefits and much of the tax revenue that this government relies on, there are no safety upgrades, and there is no plan to handle this increase. There’s no plan to provide any kind of tax revenue sharing with the municipalities that need to rebuild infrastructure.

This bill was a chance to do better. Instead, it does more of the same — more taxes, more favours, more pain for working people.

British Columbians are watching. They’re paying attention, and they’re fed up. They are tired of being told everything is fine when it’s not. They are tired of watching government insiders get richer while they fall further behind. They are tired of slogans, sound bites and spin when what they need is action.

[6:15 p.m.]

This government had a choice with this bill. They could have provided real relief. They could have provided relief to seniors, to struggling families that can’t pay their bills, many of which are only $200 away from insolvency. There’s nothing in this bill to support them. There’s nothing in this bill to support workers in northern communities, whether that’s attracting people for our health care sector with a tax incentive or skilled tradespeople. It’s not in this bill.

They could have revised the budget to reflect economic reality. They could have re-earned the trust of a province that is losing faith in its leadership, but they didn’t. They chose to do what they always do: tax more, spend more and deliver less. This is not what leadership looks like. This is not what accountability looks like. This is not what British Columbians voted for.

I will not support this legislation, and I urge every member of this House, especially those who represent working-class communities, rural regions and small-town economies, to join me in voting no.

We can do better; we must do better. It starts by standing up, right here, right now, and saying: “Enough. No more cash grabs. No more insider deals. No more pretending everything’s fine.”

Let’s reject Bill 5, get back to the drawing table and start delivering a budget that works for the people of British Columbia.

Misty Van Popta: I rise today to speak to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. Let’s not pretend this is a routine legislative procedure. This is a tax bill — a tax bill that decides who gets relief, who gets taxed and who gets left behind. And make no mistake. British Columbians are being left behind.

This bill sets the fiscal course for our province. It is the legal tool through which the government enacts the priorities it claims to champion: affordability, economic growth and service delivery. But when you strip away the headlines, the photo ops and the recycled announcements, what’s left in this bill is crystal clear.

Bill 5 delivers no affordability, no growth, no fairness. It is a bill built to grow government and not grow the economy. It is a bill that locks in historic deficits while leaving behind the very people this government says it supports — small businesses, farmers, tradespeople, education workers, truck drivers and seniors.

At a time when British Columbians are already struggling to put food on the table, keep the lights on and stay in their homes, this government had the audacity to introduce a tax bill that delivers no tax relief at all. Let that sink in. Not a single line in Bill 5 expands affordability for working families. Not a single clause offers targeted help to seniors. Not a single sector critical to our economy — agriculture, trades, logistics, construction — receives even a basic recognition, let alone fiscal support.

This isn’t just negligent; it’s political choice. It is one more example of a government that seems determined to govern from a spreadsheet and not from the real world.

Let’s take a step back and look at the broader picture. British Columbia is now on track for a record $14.3 billion deficit in the current fiscal year. That number alone should give this House pause. But it gets worse. By 2027, the government is projecting to run three more consecutive deficits, bringing taxpayer-supported debt from $97 billion today to over $166 billion. That’s a 70 percent increase.

But what does Bill 5 do in response to this reality? It extends deficits, it expands tax credits for politically connected industries, and it ignores the workers and small businesses who are shouldering the weight of this province.

[6:20 p.m.]

This bill is not a budget solution; it’s a budget problem. It fails the affordability test, it fails the economic growth test, and it fails the fairness test. This is not a bill that respects work. It is not a bill that rewards productivity. It is not a bill that supports families or seniors or rural communities.

Let’s begin where this government should have started, with small business. Small businesses are the backbone of British Columbia’s economy. They create jobs. They drive innovation. They build community.

Until six months ago, I still occasionally helped a friend in her retail boutique store, and I can tell you that times are tough. Customers are noticeably cautious. Yet Bill 5 offers small businesses nothing — no expansion of the small business tax credit, no relief on the employer health tax, no exemption consideration for seasonal rural businesses, no tax-deferral options, no post-pandemic recovery supports, no hiring or training incentives.

Let’s remember that small businesses were among the hardest hit during the pandemic. They drained their savings. They racked up debt. Many of them are still recovering. What they needed was a sign from this government that they are seen, that they are valued and that their survival matters. Instead, they got silence.

Instead of a recovery plan, this government handed them higher operating costs and more regulatory complexity. Instead of powering them to rebuild, Bill 5 lets them tread water while the province spends billions elsewhere. That’s not economic leadership; that’s economic neglect.

The next sector this bill ignores is agriculture. At a time when global supply chains are fragile and food prices are soaring, you would think that the government would prioritize food security, but here’s what Bill 5 actually delivers for B.C. farmers, ranchers and food producers: no fuel tax relief, no tax credits for agricultural inputs, no processing or distribution incentives, no offsets for carbon tax impacts, no provincial grocery rebate to help either families or food producers.

The Fraser Valley and surrounding regions, including Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, feed this province. They produce over 75 percent of B.C.’s dairy and a significant share of poultry and produce, and they drive economic activity across the agrifood chain. Yet there are no mentions, in this tax bill, for them. Meanwhile, the costs of fertilizer, equipment and feed continue to rise. Farm families are being squeezed between inflation and regulation, and this government’s message is clear: “You’re on your own.”

It’s not just tone-deaf; it’s dangerous. Food security isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity. Right now this province is sitting on incredible agriculture potential, while doing next to nothing to support the people who bring food to our tables.

We’ve established that Bill 5 offers nothing to small businesses or farmers. Sadly, the same is true for another critical part of our economy, the skilled trades and construction sector.

This government talks constantly about building more housing, but let’s be clear. You don’t build homes with speeches. You build them with workers, and tradespeople across British Columbia are being burdened, ignored and priced out of the very economy they’re supposed to be helping grow. I heard it time and time again from my crews on my jobsites.

Bill 5 offers no tax relief for independent tradespeople, no accelerated write-offs for essential equipment or tools, no incentives for apprenticeship programs or skilled trades recruitment and no procurement reforms that would prioritize local contractors for public projects. We are facing a housing crisis. The only way to meet housing targets is to grow the workforce — electricians, farmers, roofers, plumbers. But this budget has no plan to attract or retain them.

Langley and the Fraser Valley are experiencing rapid growth. Housing starts are stalled. Timelines are slipping, and project costs are rising, yet tradespeople are being asked to absorb higher fuel costs, higher licensing fees and higher insurance rates, with no tax relief in sight. It’s clear that this government wants more housing but refuses to support the people who actually build it.

[6:25 p.m.]

Next, the transportation and logistics sector. If you want to understand this government’s priorities, just ask a long-haul driver what it’s like operating in B.C. right now. Bill 5 offers no fuel rebate for haulers or rural drivers; no relief from the impact of the carbon tax on goods movement; no support for transit drivers, logistics operators or regional transportation businesses; no incentives to modernize equipment or offset rising costs.

What does that mean for Langley and surrounding regions? It means higher prices for groceries, household goods, building materials — everything that relies on trucks to get to market. It means more small operators being pushed out of the industry. It means that family-owned companies, some of which have been operating for generations, are now wondering whether they can survive another year.

This government loves to talk about reducing emissions, but here’s what they don’t talk about: fuelling that transition requires investment, not punishment. It requires support for cleaner fleets, tax offsets and credits to help trucking companies modernize. This bill offers none of that. Instead, it penalizes the very people moving our economy forward.

Another sector the government claims to support but forgets in practice is education. Front-line education workers, support staff, bus drivers, EAs and teachers have been asked to do more with less for years. Now with inflation eating the household budgets, many are being forced to take on second jobs just to keep up.

What does Bill 5 do for them? No tax credit for out-of-pocket classroom expenses. No rebate for travel costs for rural or remote educators. No provincial grocery rebate or income support for education workers — no mention, no line item recognizing their contributions or their costs.

This bill completely ignores the reality that education workers face every day. It ignores the EA paying for school supplies out of pocket. It ignores the school bus driver paying for gas without reimbursement. It ignores the single mom teaching full-time, still relying on food banks to get through the month. This government claims to prioritize education, but if that were true, its tax policy would reflect that.

Finally, let’s talk about our seniors. British Columbia is aging fast, and seniors on fixed incomes are facing the steepest affordability crisis in decades. But if you search Bill 5, here’s what you’ll find. The word “senior” doesn’t appear, not once. Let that sink in. A government that claims to care about equity and compassion couldn’t even include seniors in their budget language, let alone in their tax policy.

What does Bill 5 offer? No home retrofit tax credit for mobility or aging in place. No provincial grocery rebate for fixed-income seniors. No increase to property tax deferrals or shelter aid. No targeted relief for heating costs, prescription expenses or essential services. This bill offers nothing to a generation that built this province. That’s not just policy failure; it’s a moral one.

When you look at the omissions in this bill, sector by sector, family by family, a pattern emerges. This government is not interested in economic development; it’s interested in political convenience.

It extends boutique tax credits for the film industry, one of the few sectors with consistent government access. It offers tax incentives for large-scale media productions and investors. It pours millions into programs that may benefit a few, but it ignores the broad, working-class backbone of this province. That’s not an inclusive economic strategy; that’s picking winners and leaving everyone else behind.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This government wants the headlines, but it doesn’t want the hard work of governing. Governing means choices, it means setting priorities, and it means putting people ahead of politics. Bill 5 makes it painfully clear where this government’s priorities lie: not with the people who keep the core of our economy running, but with the insiders who keep their government running.

When we talk about missed opportunities in Bill 5, we’re not just talking about a lack of tax credits; we’re talking about a lack of vision, a lack of discipline and a total lack of respect for the public’s trust.

[6:30 p.m.]

British Columbians are facing the most expensive cost of living in a generation. Inflation is up. Rent is up. Groceries are up. What does this government offer in response? Now a projected $14.3 billion deficit.

That’s not a temporary spike or a one-time pandemic hangover; that’s just the beginning. That’s not investment; that’s a warning sign. Every dollar we borrow now is a dollar we’re taking from the next generation, and while this government borrows more than ever, interest payments climb higher. Right now we’re paying more than $400 million per month just to service the interest on our debt.

Yet here they are approving a budget implementations bill that accelerates debt, expands government and refuses to explain where the money is actually going. One of the most alarming features of this government isn’t its debt; it’s its secrecy. We’ve seen an unprecedented erosion of transparency in British Columbia. Ministers announce programs with no timelines, no accountability and no public oversight.

Consider this. Clause 5’s stealthy boost of TransLink’s parking tax ceiling from 24 percent to 29 percent represents yet another tax grab shoehorned into an omnibus bill without meaningful public debate or line-by-line scrutiny. This extra levy punishes everyday commuters and small businesses, especially in transit-poor suburbs, without any guarantee those additional dollars will actually improve service.

Worse, there is still no clear accessible reporting on exactly how parking tax revenues are spent, leaving taxpayers in the dark as to whether funds are enhancing ridership or simply swelling the administrative coffers.

Before granting TransLink broader taxing power, the government should insist on full transparency, real-time budget dashboards, independent audits of parking tax revenues and genuine public consultation, to ensure any rate increases serve the public interest rather than the bureaucratic bloat. This isn’t how you manage a democracy. It’s how a broke and irresponsible government starts skimming from your wallet in secrecy.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve to know where their money is going. They deserve accountability.

What’s perhaps most frustrating is the fact that this government has no plan to get back to balance, not even a pretend one. This bill doesn’t offer a fiscal anchor — no debt-to-GDP target, no clear strategy to rein in spending, no structural reforms, no procurement modernization, no incentive realignment, no performance accountability.

What happens when promises can’t be paid for anymore? Will we raise taxes again? Will we cut services with no warning, or will this government just keep kicking the can down the road, waiting for the next credit downgrade?

This House needs to be honest with itself and, more importantly, with the people of this province. We can’t keep doing this. We can’t keep running government on hope, press releases and political timing. We can’t keep burdening the next generation so today’s politicians can avoid difficult decisions.

British Columbians aren’t asking for perfection; they’re asking for prudence. Yet what Bill 5 offers is neither bold leadership nor basic responsibility. It offers the worst of both worlds: runaway deficits and a refusal to invest in the people and sectors who actually make our province work.

This bill had every opportunity to deliver on affordability, and it failed. It had every opportunity to support small businesses, and it failed. It had every opportunity to bring relief to tradespeople, farmers, truckers, teachers and seniors, and it failed. It had the opportunity to articulate a roadmap out of structural deficit, and it failed. So the question is no longer what’s missing. The question is: why should anyone support a government that continues to fail so completely to serve the people it was elected to represent?

Before I conclude, I want to address another deeply concerning aspect of this government’s tax agenda — the speculation and vacancy tax, clause 35. By shoehorning these speculation and vacancy tax tweaks into an omnibus budget bill, the government once again sidesteps genuine debate and blindsides property owners with stealthy tax hikes masquerading as housing policy.

[6:35 p.m.]

Loosening exemption requirements to accept nurse practitioner notes, while superficially sensible, creates a two-tier medical standard that invites inconsistent application and potential loopholes, all without any public reporting on how many exemptions are granted or revoked. At the same time, ratcheting the vacancy tax rate up from 2 to 3 percent and the extra levy from 0.5 to 1 percent punishes small-scale landlords and seniors holding family cottages for legitimate reasons.

Yet, there is no transparent, real-time dashboard showing how much revenue this will generate or precisely how it will be spent on housing affordability. Even doubling the refund credit from $2,000 to $4,000 is little more than a window dressing when it comes without clear accountability measures.

A truly open government approach would demand line-by-line scrutiny, publicly accessible exemption and revenue data, and independent audits before any further increases take effect. Does anyone in the House even know if the speculation and vacancy tax is even a net revenue generator for the B.C. government?

This tax was sold to British Columbians as a way to crack down on housing speculators and foreign investors, but in practice what we’re seeing is something far more alarming. Ordinary British Columbians are being blindsided by five-figure liens placed on their homes, often without any clear notice or recourse.

We’re hearing from constituents, some seniors, some living out of province temporarily for work or family reasons, who are suddenly discovering liens placed on their primary residence by the provincial government. In some cases, they didn’t even receive proper notice. In others, they were unaware they had to file an exemption in the first place.

Let’s be clear. These aren’t speculators. These are British Columbians who, for a variety of reasons, may have fallen through the cracks of a bureaucratic system more focused on punishment and vindictive behaviour than fairness. This is not how we build trust in government.

When a retired homeowner has a lien placed on their home over a form they didn’t know they had to fill out, that is not housing policy. That is state overreach. Yet Bill 5 does nothing to reform this process — no review of exemption procedures, no fair notice periods, no cap on fines, no path to appeal without costly legal assistance.

Once again, it’s not foreign billionaires paying the price. It’s seniors. It’s workers. It’s families already struggling with affordability. The government talks about fairness, but in practice it punishes the very people trying to hold onto their homes. That should concern us all.

This government is using this bill to build headlines, not build homes, roads or recovery. All of this would be bad enough if it were transparent, but this is also the most secretive government in Canada. The Premier and his cabinet talk about openness, but, in practice, they govern through opacity.

They reannounce infrastructure projects with no timelines, no oversight, no accountability for delays, and through it all, British Columbians are left wondering who’s actually making the decisions. Where is our money going, and who is this government working for? It certainly isn’t the nurses working double shifts in Langley. It isn’t the truckers filling up at $2 a litre. It isn’t the senior trying to retrofit their home on a fixed income, and it isn’t the small business owners navigating new taxes with no new support.

The only thing growing in this province is the size of the government. New hires in the public sector have outpaced private sector job growth in this province for two years running. That’s not sustainable. That’s not a healthy economy. That’s a government building itself up while the rest of B.C. struggles. This government calls it investment. I call it intergenerational theft.

As someone who represents families, business owners, retirees, commuters and tradespeople, I cannot support a tax bill that delivers nothing for them. This government had an opportunity to deliver targeted relief for workers. It chose not to. It had the opportunity to stabilize debt and set a path back to balance. It refused to. It had the opportunity to support economic growth in the real economy. It ignored it. What we are left with is a tax bill that picks winners, hides costs and grows government while working families get left with the bill.

So I ask this government: what is your legacy? Is it the growing list of deficits and broken promises? Is it the secret parking tax increases? Is it endless housing tax hikes? Is it more giveaways to politically connected industries? Is it a crumbling infrastructure system that leaves Lytton in limbo and seniors in unsafe homes?

[6:40 p.m.]

Is it endless announcements, zero delivery and rising interest payments? One day our children will look back at this moment. They will inherit the debt, they will inherit the weakened systems, and they will ask us what we did to stop it.

Let the record show today we stood up. We said: “Enough is enough.” We demanded a government that puts people before politics and results before rhetoric.

I will not support Bill 5, and I urge this House to reject it as well.

Trevor Halford: I really want to thank the speakers that have spoken previously. This is important. Any time that I get a chance to get up in this House, just like my colleagues and the colleagues opposite, I realize the importance and humility that comes with that. Every opportunity, no matter what piece of legislation, is an opportunity. I’m always grateful to be able to do that.

Speaking particularly on Bill 5 and taxation, it’s a tax bill. It’s just not legislative procedure, but it’s a bill focused on taxation. Budgets are important. Budget measures are important.

I told this the first time I was ever elected was…. My grandmother Bev was focused…. There are 14 grandkids in my family. She was focused on budgets. We called it “Budgets with Bev.” She would check in on every one of us about twice a year to just see how our budgets were. We’d sit down with her, and we’d map out our budgets, and then she’d check in to see how they’re coming along. I don’t think Bev would be particularly impressed with the budgets we’ve seen coming forward from this government. I know that. Mainly, we grew up.

We are elected here to take care of the people we represent, not just the people we represent but the entire province. A lot of the ways we do that is through taxation or lack of taxation, so to speak. That can come down to affordability. It can come to growth, and ultimately, it can be about fairness.

I think right now people are feeling strapped. They’re feeling tight. They are feeling overworked. They’re feeling overwhelmed. They’re feeling that they are not able to get by.

How do we provide relief to that? How do we help with that anxiety? How do we help with the hundreds and thousands of workers that we have in our province that set out every single day and are just trying to put food on the table, pay their rent, get their kids to sports and get a Christmas gift for their grandkids? A lot of it comes down to what this government is taking out of your pocket or what this government is not leaving in your pocket.

There’s a saying that’s very familiar. It’s not my saying. It’s that eventually you run out of other people’s money. We’ve done that to record levels in this province, record levels.

We should not be using legislation to extend deficits not to help people. This is a government that campaigned on numerous aspects of relief for the people of this province.

I talked about Bev. She was the favourite senior in my life. So I’m going to talk about seniors. I represent an area that is primarily seniors, in White Rock. It was mentioned before, and it’s worth mentioning it again, that the word “senior” is not mentioned once in this piece of legislation.

[6:45 p.m.]

We talk about taxation. We talk about the fact that everybody…. You know, at an early age, you go to the store, and you buy something for a dollar. You’re wondering why it costs $1.15 or $1.20, and you come to that realization. You go home and say, “I got ripped off,” and your parents say: “No, that’s tax.” You have that conversation of what taxation means, and you come to that realization.

It’s also an opportunity. I think there are some missed opportunities here. We talked about the ability to keep seniors in their home and the importance of that. We talked about home retrofits. Not in here. Campaigned on it. Not in here. We talked about mobility equipment credits. It can be a number of things, a number of very, very expensive things. Not in there. It’s a challenge.

There’s no talk about any expansion to shelter aid, tax deferrals. Not in there. No. What’s frustrating to me is that in my community, seniors are the backbone of my riding, from a population point of view, but also from everywhere. Whether it’s volunteering, whether it’s coaching, whether it’s working at the local grocery store, whether it’s picking up the grandkids after school or whatever it is — they are there every single day.

I can tell you that in my office, the majority of cases that we deal with — I would say at least a healthy 80 percent — are seniors, all of them are talking about the issues that I just talked about. Where is the help that I was promised to retrofit my house so that me and my husband could continue living where we are? It’s not there. Where was the promised help when it came to credits for mobility equipment? It’s not there.

I haven’t even talked about the grocery rebate that, in my riding, I’m sure — well, I know — excited a lot of people. They voted for it. Campaigned on it. Promised it multiple times. It’s not there. People were coming before and saying: “Well, is this going to happen before Christmas? Are we going to get this grocery rebate by Christmas?” Didn’t happen. Not even close.

We look at areas where we come from, and I think it’s been a humbling few months in terms of our financial situation in B.C. Bill 5 definitely alludes to that. We’re talking about two credit downgrades. We’re talking about Moody’s credit rating that downgraded B.C.’s credit rating. It now expects this government’s deficit to hit $14.3 billion.

Again, this government’s solution is to tax, to tax, to tax. Some breaks here for insiders. We’ll get to that in a little bit. But in terms of the on-the-ground people that need the help? Can’t help you. It’s not there.

I think that that’s part of the challenge when you’re talking about record-level deficits, some of the highest taxes in the country, where we have corporations fleeing B.C. now because we have a government in power that they clearly don’t trust. That’s been verified by the rating agencies. It’s not my word. It’s theirs. Their word is much more important than mine.

[6:50 p.m.]

They’re looking at B.C., and they have…. I wouldn’t say significant concerns. Their concerns are very legitimate. Businesses are scared. That’s a growing challenge. We see the fact that…. If you look at it in my neighbouring ridings…. I’m sure my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale will speak at some point on Bill 5 and the agricultural sector that she represents. It’s huge out there in Surrey-Cloverdale. No relief for her constituents — none.

At a time where I’m really glad that we’re draping ourselves in the flag, and we should be doing that every day, back it up. Back it up. Say: “You know what? We want to buy B.C. We want to support B.C. We want to make sure our grocery stores, when we go through the aisles….” Everybody’s going through the aisles, looking in… I think that’s great. But back it up.

No fuel tax relief for farmers. No input cost deductions or food-processing rebates. No support to offset the carbon tax impact. We already talked…. No provincial grocery rebate to help families or farmers. Nothing in this piece of legislation touches any of it. None of it. Missed opportunity. Where we are, that’s a big, big sector. A lot of jobs, and a lot of jobs that we are competing for with Washington state.

You want to talk about levelling the playing field? Start by supporting your own. Start by standing up for the agricultural industry. Support them. Don’t just stand with them in a photo op. Back it up with clear taxation measures that put them at the front.

We’ve heard it before. This government is prime at picking winners and losers. I think that’s one of the reasons why we are in the situation we are today. It’s not helpful. It has actually made things much worse than they need to be.

We can talk about construction and trades. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people in the trades industry are independent. That’s a great thing, except if you’re working on a project that’s CBA. That’s not a great thing because you’re completely shut out, and there’s no work for you.

If you’re lucky to get work in this province…. The majority of people…. When you call somebody and you need help fixing something — whether it’s plumbing, heating, HVAC, electrical, whatever it is — usually your first call is an independent. They’re coming out at three in the morning or whatever time it is to fix what you need. That’s vitally important. Those are real jobs. Those are important jobs. Those are job creators.

A lot of times, these people on these crews…. They can have staff of ten or 100, and they’re well-paying jobs. My son just said he wants to go to BCIT to get into carpentry, and I think that’s fantastic. I want him to stay here. How do we do that? I think, you start with incentivization.

It’s something as simple as an accelerated equipment write-off. The fact is we have no skilled trades incentives or apprenticeship credits. We want to keep people in this province, but you have to give them a reason to stay.

[6:55 p.m.]

Now, my son doesn’t know anything about tax credits or anything like that, but he will when he graduates and he’s trying to figure out whether he’s going to stay here or go somewhere else. That’s going to be the determination. How badly do you want these kids to stay here? The way you do it is you incentivize them. You put in tax credits. You build off that. And we’re not.

We’re missing out on all this stuff because we have a government that is tired, and they’ve run out of ideas. At this point, it’s just spend, spend, spend. Again, I come back to the line of “you eventually run out of other people’s money.” We’ve done that 15 billion times in this province, and that was before any talk of tariffs.

Some of our hardest workers…. You look at the education sector, you look at the support staff, and you look at what they do. It’s something like…. There’s no rebate for rural education travel or fuel costs. You think about the EAs that are travelling from site to site, maybe in Smithers, maybe in Houston, Terrace.

In my riding, I can probably drive to about nine different ridings in an hour. In some of these other ridings, to get to another school, another community, it’s three hours. They do it because they love the work, but we can’t expect them to do it for free. We can’t expect them to continue to go out of pocket every single time because this government doesn’t have their back. They’ve chosen not to have their back. They’ve chosen to not implement things that are so easy.

You know what the hard part for me is? We talk about the construction and the trades, because when they thrive, we thrive. If you give them some of the credits that they’re asking for, whether it’s an acceleration on equipment write-offs…. Doesn’t sound glamorous. But what does it mean? It means they’re going to have more money to invest. It means they’re going to probably hire, maybe, somebody else. Maybe they’re going to up their wages to their staff, they’re going to buy a new truck, or they’re going to buy some more equipment.

What does that mean? There’s a trickle-down effect on all of it that this government doesn’t get. I don’t understand why, because it benefits everybody. It’s basic economics. When people are doing better, we all do better. We all do.

I hardly know any small business owners that just take the money and say: “You know what? Things are going so good that we’re going to scale things back.” They do that when they are overtaxed and they are stretched, which is entirely what is happening right now — full stop.

Our most important workers in the education sector are front-line workers. There’s no support for them in this whatsoever. There’s none. I think that’s such a missed opportunity.

We’ve talked about the transportation sector. We talked about the fact that there are no fuel rebates for our long-haul truckers, at a time, again, when some of them are struggling. Their routes are getting cut. A lot of those truckers were going across, whether it’s from Vancouver to Los Angeles…. They are being the most impacted right now by what’s going on between our two countries.

Again, it’s an opportunity for us to stand up and say that we have your back, and this government chose not to. It’s their prerogative, but I think it’s a prerogative that people are getting pretty tired of, and they’re saying enough. Enough.

[7:00 p.m.]

You want to go out, you want to hold a press conference, you want to talk tough. Back it up.

In the budget, the government promised tax hikes on used EV cars. How does that help? What does that…? I don’t understand what that is set to accomplish.

Again, people are feeling tapped out. The legislation talks about increases in taxes on parking in Metro Vancouver. Do you know how expensive it is to drive right now into Metro Vancouver? How expensive it is to park in Metro Vancouver? And this government says: “You know what? We think you can take just a little bit more. We’re just going to take a little bit more out of your pocket when you go park.”

People are noticing. It’s not the one, the two or the three things that’ll get you. It’s like the thousandth thing, when it adds up, and it’s the straw that breaks everybody.

I don’t support this. I think it’s definitely a missed opportunity to deliver affordability. I come from a line of thought where I think the more people have, especially those that are struggling the most with affordability right now, the more we have to do to support them. This bill has missed the mark with that.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I want to thank you for the time to be able to speak today.

Elenore Sturko: Thanks for this opportunity to rise to speak to Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025.

Just a greeting to my colleagues. I saw a little shift change on the floor, a new group of people, and it’s great to be able to be here with both sides of the House because today in my speaking to Bill 5, I not only want to highlight some of the missed opportunities, but I also have some suggestions to bring forward in ways that this government could have met the mark a little bit better for British Columbians, particularly as we face these uncertain times.

Like my friend and colleague the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, I have heard a lot from my constituents about the challenges that they are facing, particularly seniors but not limited to seniors, with affordability.

In fact, when we campaigned, affordability was probably the second most prominent thing that I heard about. Health care was number one for most people, but affordability and the cost of food, shelter and, for small business owners, the cost of doing business in British Columbia was something that came up quite often. That is why, when I got my hands on a copy of Bill 5, I was disappointed to see how, actually, it’s kind of light. I would have expected, at this time, to see more tax relief for British Columbians — more tax relief not only for families but, in fact, for businesses as well.

I went to a speech of a federal politician. One of the things they said, I thought quite wisely, was that money goes where money grows. What this politician was speaking about is how when we want to have economic development, when we want to grow our economy, one of the things that we have to do is create an environment in our province where businesses feel that they can thrive.

One way that we can do that, certainly, and I think the government does understand this part of it, is we can create tax incentives and cuts for different industries, even small businesses, so that they can actually keep more money within their businesses to both make sure that they’re compensating their employees — growing their employee base, hiring more British Columbians; and expanding their businesses; investing in new technologies to make businesses more efficient; and also innovating for us here in British Columbia, which we’re actually really good at.

[7:05 p.m.]

I had an opportunity to go to Martini Town, which is a place in Langley where they do filming for the film industry. It was fascinating. We learned all about what types of productions they do here in British Columbia and just told us a little bit about what it takes. I’ve not been a person who works in the film industry. I’m a film buff, you could say. I’m someone who enjoys that. I’m actually proud that we have a robust film industry. It’s nice. I’m happy to see an industry getting a tax credit.

But I have to say that when I look at Bill 5, what’s actually missing here is that there was an opportunity to provide these same types of tax relief to a number of different industries that are struggling, despite the fact that we’re famous for them. One of them that I’m going to get to in a minute is actually the cannabis industry. I think people might, probably, be a little surprised to hear me talking about that industry, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

In the fall, after the United States election and all of the — I guess, in January — threats of tariffs and then, in fact, having some tariffs imposed on Canada, having 25 percent on steel and aluminum…. These are things that have had an impact directly on my riding.

Looking at Bill 5 budget measures, which are essentially…. For people who might be watching right now, these are the measures that were proposed through the budget and announced by the government — things that are, for example, some small tax relief, some increases and incentives, of course, for the film industry.

This is a government that has really wrapped itself in the flag and talked about wanting to use a bill like Bill 5 to help British Columbia grow its economy. We are in an uncertain economic time. We don’t know when more tariffs and threats to our economic well-being will come to fruition. It is a very economically unstable time, which is why, when I look at Bill 5, and I don’t see things that my riding actually really needs….

I think the member for Surrey–White Rock hit on it when he talked about agriculture. But that’s not the only industry that we have that would have benefited from receiving tax credits and tax relief within Bill 5. It’s missing. It’s not there.

It’s not enough just to speak about wanting to expand our economy during this uncertain time. You actually have to do it by creating the incentives. When I look at Bill 5, those incentives are not there. I think they’re there for the film industry. Like I said, I visited some places in B.C. where they do some excellent work. We have a lot to be proud of in that industry.

We also have a lot to be proud of, for example, in window manufacturing. Manufacturing in British Columbia is more than 60 percent of our GDP. Yet, in Bill 5, I don’t see really anything here that is going to be a big relief in the manufacturing sector, particularly in Surrey.

I think one thing that was good for me was that when the threat of tariffs came, and when the United States election and Donald Trump came into his administration, it really encouraged me to get more engaged with the business community and understand just how intertwined our economies are with the United States. Seeing that enmeshed economy is partially why I feel very disappointed in Bill 5.

I mentioned earlier that we have a 25 percent tariff on aluminum and steel. One of the biggest manufacturers of windows in British Columbia is in Surrey, in our home community. Certainly, those tariffs are going to be impacting that window manufacturer. It’s very disappointing not to be able to see any economic type of taxation relief or incentive in Bill 5 for them.

[7:10 p.m.]

I had an opportunity to take a fantastic tour of some of the manufacturers and things that I think are really neat. Actually, it’s in South Surrey. There’s an elevator manufacturer.

Surrey is the fifth-largest contributor to manufacturing for the mining industry in British Columbia, which a lot of people didn’t know. A lot of the equipment that gets manufactured in Surrey for mining — conveyors, elevators, even for building things like the Cloverdale hospital — are made of steel and aluminum, things that are impacted, of course, by the tariffs.

Disappointed to not see, despite the fact that we had our Premier and our Finance Minister and many other ministers stand up in this place and talk about their desire to grow our economy, to support manufacturing in British Columbia, to support businesses…. They know how fundamental they are to the well-being of this province, not only economically. This is the lifeblood of communities. People probably don’t realize how the manufacturing industry is so integral to Surrey.

Surrey-Cloverdale has a number of manufacturers, including a manufacturer for drywall. They actually do a lot of contracts with B.C.’s provincial health authorities to help build those hospitals and health care centres that we so badly need.

But Bill 5 does not provide any tax relief for independent tradespeople. They don’t have any incentives or tax relief in here for skilled trades or apprenticeship credits.

When I went to this manufacturer for a tour and a meeting, at the drywall manufacturer…. One of the biggest challenges that this manufacturing company faces, one that is providing all the drywall for the hospitals in most of British Columbia, is that they don’t have people. It’s the human resource that we’re short of. If Bill 5 would have contained incentives for construction and trades specifically related to skilled tradespeople, that would have gone a long way for the people of Surrey-Cloverdale.

This is probably a bit corny, but after the first trade dispute announcements, I made a video for my constituents, and I told them I’d have their back. You know, employers actually have called me. I’ve met with them. They’re emotional, worried about the families that they support, worried that if they have to lay off people, these are families that they’re going to devastate.

So having in Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act…. If I would have seen something in this that would have let me then return to my riding and say to the manufacturers, “Oh yes, don’t worry; the NDP have put something in here for you,” that would have gone a long way. But now I have to go back and I have to tell them that Bill 5 doesn’t have the trades incentives or the tax credits that they desperately need.

I said it earlier, and I’ll say it again. Money goes where money grows. If we don’t incentivize, if we don’t provide the tax credits and we don’t provide an opportunity for businesses to feel they can really get ahead, then they will not invest in British Columbia. They will not expand their manufacturing.

This is the time, if ever there was a time, that we actually need the most to have these types of incentives. We desperately need…. In a situation where we may be on track to lose 170,000 jobs over the next several years if trade tariffs go ahead with the United States, we need to have a situation where we’re strong here and where we are creating jobs. Unfortunately, Bill 5 isn’t delivering that.

It does deliver it for the film industry. I don’t want to stand up here and say that I don’t think that that industry is deserving, because I do think it’s deserving. It’s just that I think that there are so many deserving industries that this government has left behind.

[7:15 p.m.]

I mentioned earlier that I would talk a little bit about some B.C. bud. The Leader of the Opposition here is laughing a little. It’s true. You might not have expected me to do this.

How this is related to Bill 5 is that…. We saw some incentives here for the film industry, and like I said, they’re industry-supporting measures. But I actually had a meeting with B.C. Craft Farmers Co-op. They grow craft marijuana, cannabis and high-quality products that B.C. is famous for. It’s famous for its B.C. bud. But it actually represents $400 million in tax revenue for the province since legalization. That’s pretty good.

What they have told me is that it’s actually taxation and fees and the structures which have been created by this government that are hurting the industry. So just like in Bill 5 with the film industry, the cannabis industry in British Columbia also could use a break.

There are actually a couple of spinoff benefits here, if you bear with me. Not only could we increase the $400 million in tax revenues, but we would encourage a growth of that industry that can employ farm workers and is actually a source of skilled trades in British Columbia.

They actually had made several attempts to reach out to the Finance Minister and to other individuals within this government, and they told me today that they didn’t ever receive a response. I hope that anyone on the other side understands that this is an opportunity for British Columbia to actually grow tax revenue by supporting another agricultural industry, if you would just pick up the phone or answer your email.

They’re asking for a jobs tax credit. They would, too, like to be able to have an innovation in agritech fund. They’re looking for manufacturing and processing grants. It sounds like many other farms, only the difference is that in British Columbia, like other provinces, cannabis is taxed differently. It actually can generate a lot of revenue at a time when we need it.

The government is facing, as you know, Mr. Speaker, more than $14 billion in deficit. Bill 5…. The types of incentives and tax cuts that it offers here to a single industry would deeply benefit other industries here. The spinoff that I had mentioned with helping support a reduction, for example, even in….

For just an application fee to become a farmer that can sell legal cannabis here in B.C. they have to pay $7,500, which is way more than, for example, wineries or breweries. Even just removing that would help reduce costs for them. It’s not in Bill 5, of course.

One of the other spinoffs of supporting other industries, including ones like this, is that even though we have a legal pot market, we actually still have a significant illegal pot market. When we create a situation where it is not easy for regulated cannabis growers to have business in British Columbia, they leave, and it opens up market share to the illicit trade. That’s bad because it puts money and guns into the hands of gangs and cartels, of course.

Bill 5 had an opportunity here to not only support an agricultural industry that employs hundreds of British Columbians and brings in, like I said, $400 million in tax revenue, but they had a chance to fight crime with tax cuts. That would have been awesome.

What the pot farmers also tell me is that because of the taxation and cuts that they didn’t receive in Bill 5, because of the cost of doing business, because they have to pay a 15 percent fee, actually, just a proprietary fee for direct delivery…. So just to grow your weed here in B.C. and sell it to the legal stores, you have to pay 15 percent. That is so expensive for them and the profit margins are so small that they send their products to Germany, and then, actually, we in British Columbia lose an opportunity for taxation, tax revenue.

It’s legal, but whether you’re a supporter of the cannabis industry or not, we’re actually missing out on important revenues and opportunities to bring income into this province because we’re not taking advantage of this in Bill 5.

[7:20 p.m.]

Similarly to how this government has decided to support the film industry, they could have also chosen to do this and brought in more tax revenues and also fought the illicit trade as well.

There are some other examples of this lost taxation opportunity that could have been addressed in Bill 5 that I’m going to speak about, that are probably a little bit unique to some of the things that my colleagues might have already mentioned.

One of them is illicit cigarettes — illicit cigarettes. That’s cigarettes not sold…. Well, some of them are sold in stores, and they have counterfeit excise stickers and stuff on them. Other times they are just sold on the black market. But it’s actually stolen tax revenue, tax revenue that we desperately need.

Bill 5 does nothing to address dealing with some of these stolen tax revenues. We’re not creating incentives, actually, for…. Creating opportunities for law enforcement, for example, to help us get the stolen revenue back. And we’re talking millions of dollars. So it’s not just the incentives, and it’s not just about tax cuts. Sometimes it’s about making sure you’re plugging the holes and collecting those revenues that we desperately need.

Another weird one is stolen revenues in the vapes industry. That’s partly because of, really, a lack of enforcement. Again, stolen tax revenue is something that should be of concern to the government. Looking at how light Bill 5 is, and looking at how it doesn’t really have a very diverse range of industries that it’s choosing to incentivize…. This is very interesting.

So 60 percent of our market share for vapes are actually illicit vapes here in B.C. I had no idea. I was stunned. Where the stolen tax revenue comes from here is actually that in British Columbia, the law is that cartridges for vapes can only have two millilitres of e-liquid inside them and that the concentration of nicotine in any vape can only be 20 milligrams per millilitre. We have vapes on the shelves in stores now that far exceed this, not only in the concentration of nicotine but actually in the amount of e-liquid that’s in them. They’re over-stickered, so they actually say that it’s supposed to be the real one, but it’s not.

How this steals revenue is that the one purchase…. The person’s paying the tax one time to British Columbia, and they’re actually getting the equivalent of five vapes, whereas they should, if…. This is, again…. Not that I’m promoting this industry, because of its health risks, but we’re talking about stolen revenue from the government.

As British Columbians are facing more and more expenses, Bill 5 is not addressing those expenses. As businesses face a tougher and tougher climate, as we face tariffs, as we face an uncertain economic future in our province, we really need to get on top of the stolen revenue. Missed opportunity. There are so many….

I think it’s sort of neat we have Creative B.C. here today. I think it’s time for this government to get creative.

You ever dig in your couch and find a penny? Pennies are worthless, probably, now. I don’t even know if they make them. But as a kid, you’d dig in the couch, and maybe you’d find a quarter or, sometimes, get lucky, a $5 bill your old man lost out of his pocket. But this is the government’s chance to find some money in the couch.

Instead of digging in the pockets of taxpayers, we can find revenue that’s actually being stolen from British Columbians through lost revenue opportunities directly linked to crime, linked to not using opportunities in Bill 5, that we could have, to support other industries. And I think it’s a shame.

Let’s just face it. The budget, I would say, was a bit lacklustre. Most British Columbians are probably pretty disappointed to see our fourth credit downgrade, two credit downgrades just recently this year.

[7:25 p.m.]

Having now what looks to be more than $14 billion in deficit, it’s time to dig in the couch cushions — there, government — and look for ways of getting the revenues that British Columbians are owed to pay down our deficit and our debt and to start not just looking for the industries that you’re familiar with. I do know that in Bill 5, many of my colleagues have talked about the relationship between government and lobbying and perhaps the film industry.

I’m not saying that the film industry is not a righteous industry and that it’s not worthy of support in this province. It certainly is. But there are other industries, maybe the ones that don’t get as much attention, maybe the ones that the government isn’t even answering the email, according to the craft cannabis farmers co-op. Not even answering the email. This is money in the couch cushions being left behind by this government while people can’t afford to put food on the table.

You know what? My disappointment in Bill 5, at the lightness of this bill, at the fact that the government has lacked creativity in finding sources of income for British Columbians, while, at the same time, having ignored opportunities to fight illicit cannabis, to fight illicit sources that are stealing from British Columbians their tax revenues that fund things like hospitals, schools, highways, bridges, our future…. This bill doesn’t deliver on that.

I’m not going to be supporting this because, like I said, I made a video to my constituents saying I’d have their back. Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, does not have the backs of Surrey-Cloverdale.

John Rustad: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 5. Although I must admit, when I think and look at budget implementations, you do hope to see more. I think you’ve heard that from many of our members today and over the debate on Bill 5 just in terms of some of the issues that are in the bill but, more importantly, some of the issues that are not in the bill.

I look at this when I looked through. And you know, when I look to the film credits, for example, it’s: “Good on them.” It’s an industry that’s important. It promotes British Columbia. It’s important to provide so that we be able to compete.

I also look at, for example, our forest sector and all the mill closures, all the issues that are going on associated with it and the challenges that we have around that sector. I think what would happen if we even had just a fraction of those sort of credits that were available to be able to support a sector like that that so many communities around this province depend on.

I also looked in this bill…. I just want to highlight just a couple things before I get really into my comments on Bill 5. When I look at this, I say: “Okay, exactly why is section 3 being implemented for 2013?” I’m not quite sure why that’s in place, and section 4 for 2018, as opposed to a budget implementation for today. It makes me…. There are some questions, obviously, that’ll come up in committee stage as we go and look at this.

I also look at this, and I think: “How is it that government is justifying giving a 50 percent increase to the speculation tax on one category and a 100 percent increase to the speculation tax on another category as part of Bill 5?” I look at that, and I think: “Okay, that’s kind of interesting. It’s an interesting tax grab, I suppose, but what is the impact on that? Who’s being talked to about it, and exactly what families are being targeted here?”

The speculation vacancy tax is, of course, badly named. It really should be named an asset tax because that’s what it truly is as opposed to more of a speculation tax.

Regardless of that, when I look at the issues that are in Bill 5, we have a $14.3 billion deficit according to Moody. You look at that, and you think: “Okay, I can understand we’ve got a big deficit because we’re providing massive tax relief for people. We’re providing an opportunity for people to be able to get ahead, for people to be able to put food on the table.”

But we’re not seeing any of that in Bill 5. There isn’t any help for individuals in this bill. There aren’t any changes to the tax act, even though it was promised by this NDP in this election.

When I think about renters and I think about people paying their mortgages and what we had proposed as the Conservative Party in terms of being able to write those things off against taxes, that would have been a perfect thing to put in a bill like Bill 5. It would have been a nice thing to be able to put in there, to be able to help families be able to get through these tough times that we have in terms of affordability.

[7:30 p.m.]

When you look across the province today, what’s the number one issue? The number one issue is affordability. The number one issue for people in this province is being able to put food on the table, to be able to pay their rent, to be able to build and have a family in this province. I mean, close to half of the youth in this province want to leave British Columbia. What does this do to help keep them here?

Bill 5 doesn’t do anything for those people. It’s reflected, of course, in what happened in their budget. There was nothing for those people in the budget as well — or the throne speech, for that matter — in any sort of components.

Government’s job should be to be able to improve the lives of people in this province. The government’s job should be to give hope and optimism for people in this province so that they can build a future. The government’s job should be about how you project the opportunity of British Columbia.

Yes, you have to manage things. We have to manage health care. We have to manage addictions. We have to manage crime. We have to manage all these sort of things that we need to do. But, at the end of it, you’ve got to be able to give people hope. There’s nothing in Bill 5 that does that. There’s nothing in the budget that does that.

It doesn’t matter, when you look at things like the mining sector…. It has 17 mines that are ready to go in this province that should be focused by this government to be able to get off the ground, to be able to generate the revenues, to be able to generate the jobs, to be able to get our deficit in a situation where we can provide even more tax relief — the types of things we should be seeing in Bill 5.

You look at all those things, and you think: “Where are those in here?” Where is it that this government is focused on that is actually going to drive the revenues that are needed? Where is it in this Bill 5 that shows that you’ve got this economic strategy that is going to create the full potential and realize the full potential that is British Columbia and be able to provide tax relief through things like the Budget Measures Implementation Act? There’s so much that can be done and should be done in this province.

When I look at Bill 5, when I look at the budget and when I look at this whole process, it is a lost opportunity. We have massive spending. It’s obviously misspending, from my perspective, on so many things, especially when you look at administration and the bureaucracy and the size of what’s going on with so many things. When you look at, for example, the forest sector, they just say: “Please, just get bureaucracy out of the way.” We don’t need more bureaucracy. We need less.

Same thing with the mining sector. When you look at Bill 5, and when you hope to see those things like the tax relief that you want to see…. You look at the mining sector and think: “Wow, just imagine. It takes only 15 years to get a mine approved — 15 years. We should be proud of that.” But wait a second. What about Sweden, where it takes two years, or some place like Australia, where it takes three years, or Chile, where it takes three years? How come it takes so long here in British Columbia?

You kind of think about it. If you’re going to be a board, you’re trying to make a decision on allocating money to build a mine, to pay wages, to be able to generate the revenue for the province so they can provide tax relief through things like Bill 5. You say to them: “We’re going to make a decision to put that money in here today, in British Columbia, but the next generation will be the ones that actually build it.”

How does a company make a decision like that? How do you convince your shareholders to say, “Yes, we’re going to put $5 billion into a mine,” like up in the northwest of the province when you look at the Seabridge project? “We’re going to put $5 billion to $7 billion in, but don’t worry. We’ll allocate that money today, but the next generation of shareholders will be the ones that’ll actually build this thing.”

It’s a pretty easy decision from a board. They just say: “Yeah, it’s a great project. We’d love to do it. But why are we going to do it in British Columbia? We can’t wait that long for a payback.”

It’s the same thing with the forest sector. Forestry is in the backbone. I look at the tax relief that’s here for the film sector, and like I say, good on them. We need that vibrant part of British Columbia. When I look at the forest sector, though, and see how it’s struggling and moving out of this province because they can’t get wood…. They can’t get permits. They can’t get through the process.

Even when they can get through the process, there’s no certainty or guarantee that it’s going to be there tomorrow or a year after or ten years from now — the type of plan that you have to do to get the payback for, say, a $250 million investment for a mill.

[7:35 p.m.]

I get why companies are leaving the province. I get why they aren’t going to be here. How do you convince a board to spend that kind of money in British Columbia? When I look at what you hope to see in things like this with a budget implementation, you want to see the type of framework that can be put in place to be able to drive the investment. Tax relief for people — make it more affordable. Make it easier for people to be able to come in and live in this province for affordability so that you’ve got your workforce.

We’ve got a labour shortage right across the whole sector. In all sectors in this province, there’s a labour shortage. One of the reasons why is that you look at it and think: “50 percent of the youth want to leave British Columbia.” It’s no wonder why we’ve got a labour shortage. That is our next generation of workers. The only way you can change that is through things like tax relief and getting your spending under control, obviously — the types of things that really should be in something like Bill 5 and the process.

I also went through and looked at this, and there’s another question I’ve got with Bill 5 that really made me wonder. There are some tax changes to schools tax on properties for certain categories, making them exempt from school taxes. I looked at that, and I went: “How does that work?” Everybody else is paying school taxes and what have you. Why are there those changes for those particular categories?

Like I say, those will be interesting questions that we’ll see come up, obviously, during committee stage of this bill. But you just look at it, and you’re like: “What is the government trying to say here by doing this?”

One of the other things that’s missing from this bill, when I think about Bill 5 and implementation of budgets, is reform that’s desperately needed on PST, especially when you look at the agriculture sector. Some things you have PST on. Some things you don’t have PST on. All these sort of things that are going on in British Columbia that are being charged.

I’m thinking about it. We’ve got this issue from south of the border. We’ve got to push back. There are all these things going on there. But why aren’t we looking at finding ways to be able to support businesses in British Columbia, to support the investment in British Columbia, to support consumers being able to use products from British Columbia?

We all take pride in being Canadian. I’m proud to be Canadian. When I go shopping, I always look for anything that’s made in Canada, particularly things that are made in British Columbia. But what could British Columbia do to try to promote and support that? Budget Implementation was an opportunity to be able to do just that — to be able to have a way to look at supporting our local production, our local business and our local consumption through measures that make sense and to deal with, obviously, the big issues that we have coming south of the border.

You look at this bill, and once again, I look at it from that perspective of it is what it is. Obviously, government, in terms of implementation…. It is a missed opportunity for so many things that could have been positive, that could have sent those right signals in British Columbia.

I just want to talk a little bit more, as well, about, quite frankly, the film tax that’s in here. Yes, we need to be competitive with other jurisdictions. But when you look at the tax breaks that are in place, do we actually make any money on films in British Columbia? Do we make any money on the wages? Do we make any money on the companies that are involved in here?

How many of those companies that come in to make here are based in the United States? Are we now subsidizing those companies in the United States to come and do work here in British Columbia?

Maybe we should. Obviously, there’s a huge benefit for the film industry. It employs many, many people in British Columbia, which are British Columbians earning wages here. But when you look at it, you start looking at that level and thinking: “With this level of tax relief, there really isn’t any revenue that’s coming to government on it or very little in terms of that.”

Can you imagine what that would have been like for something like, say, the oil and gas sector, or the forestry sector, or even the high-tech sector in this province? Or maybe even pharmaceuticals or anything else that is working on those problems? Can you imagine having that level of subsidy where all your wages are paid for? Not, obviously, wages paid for, but if all the taxes on those wages were paid for by government? That’s really what we’re looking at here with what’s being put into the film industry.

Like I say, I support the film industry entirely. It’s nice to see. Every time I go see a movie or see a television series and I see that British Columbia logo, that “Made in British Columbia,” I know all of what that has done for British Columbia. At the same time, there is a level that we need to be at where we need to be competitive. We need to make sure we’re getting a return for our tax dollars in British Columbia.

I don’t know how many times I’ve travelled around this province and had the same story come to me from people that are just looking for hope. They’re looking at it, and they’re thinking: “Why can’t our taxes be just that little bit lower? How is it that we can try to get through just a day-to-day thing?”

[7:40 p.m.]

There was a quote from the Premier, and I’ll use this a little bit later as well. He talks about families who just want to end the day a little bit further ahead than where they started it. It’s strong words. It’s important words.

That’s what I started talking about right from the beginning. How do we make sure that, as government, we’re doing everything we can so that people can end their day a little bit further ahead, so that people can see how they can build that future? Budget implementation is supposed to be about doing that. It’s about what steps government can take to be able to help people through these issues.

Like I say, when you look at the overall tax burden — I mean, you’ve got provincial taxes, have got municipal taxes, have got PST, sales taxes — I think there are some 2,000 different taxes and fees and stuff in this province.

When you look at all of that combined, you think: how much is a family actually able to take home? How much does a family have available for being able to pay their mortgage? How much does a family have available for being able to maybe put a little bit of money away for their children’s education? How much does a young family have to be able to put some money away so that maybe they can start a family?

Those are the factors that we should have clear and plain, saying this is what is available. This is what can be done. This is where we can go in this province.

Budget implementation I also look at from the perspective of wages in this province. When I look at the challenges we have, there’s only so much you can do with taxation relief. We need to make significant steps, obviously, in reducing that tax burden, making life more affordable in British Columbia, but we need to see wages go up in this province. The average wage in British Columbia has been growing slowly, but we have had a hidden inflation in terms of property values and the ability to be able to buy a home.

I think about my parents when they moved to this province. They moved with the promise of what British Columbia was: a place to come and be able to build a future, to buy a home, maybe get a little piece of property or something to go with it and be able to raise a family and know that you can provide for those children and that they’re going to be able to build a future. When my family came here, that is what British Columbia was. Today that’s not it at all.

I’ve talked to a family in Surrey who moved here 20 years ago, and they moved with that hope of what British Columbia could be, with that potential, thinking about raising a family and being able to leave a legacy for the next generations. Now they’re talking about moving back to India. Think about that.

British Columbia used to be a shining star, and now people are thinking about going back to a place like India. Now, there’s nothing wrong with India. India is a beautiful place. It’d be interesting to see what they’re doing with their budget implementation in India, in terms of taxes and that side of things, by comparison. But that, to me, is just wrong. How is it that we have lost the ability for that dream to be fulfilled in British Columbia?

When I look at budget implementation, which obviously is attached to the budget, as well, we need to look at what the real economic growth is in British Columbia. When you talk about 1.4 percent or 2 percent or whatever the number is that is projected, obviously…. I think it’s 1.8 percent that things have been dropped to here lately in terms of that.

Let’s look at it on a per-capita basis. Then you can have a fair comparison of how we are doing on a per-capita basis with all the OECD nations. Guess what. We’re 0.14 percent. That’s what the average has been, 0.14 percent. Let’s compare it to our neighbours south of the border that are obviously picking a fight and pushing back in terms of trade. For the last ten years, they grew at 1.8 percent average. The OECD nations grew at 1.4 percent average. The G7 nations grew at 1.2 percent average.

So 0.14 percent, one-tenth of what the OECD nations are. We, as a matter of fact, are at the bottom of the list of growth. The government likes to say: “Hey, we’ve got the best economy in the country.” Well, wait a second here. It’s not the country we’re comparing to. This is the world we’re comparing to, because people can move, and capital can move.

We’re looking for investment in British Columbia. We’re looking for relief through things like budget implementation. Well, 0.14 percent, the last time we saw growth that slow for that period of time was the Great Depression. We’re now thinking…. A government that’s touting and saying we’re doing these great things — let’s put it in real numbers.

That is what people are feeling in British Columbia today — their inability to be able to buy houses, their inability to be able to put food on the table, the fact that they want to leave this province. They see it. They feel it on a day-to-day basis. It doesn’t matter how much fertilizer is spread by government. That’s the reality that people are facing.

[7:45 p.m.]

I think we should, as members of this Legislature, look at how we can provide some relief, look at how we can actually take this budget implementation and maybe fulfil a promise that came out of election campaigns. There’s so much cynicism by the public about politicians, because they promise all these things and never deliver on them.

Well, I actually think that in this budget implementation, we have an opportunity to maybe deliver on something that was made as a promise. With that, I’d like to move an amendment to the bill. The amendment reads, and I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 5) intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025 be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefor the following: “Bill (No. 5) not be read a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax credit provided in section 4.3 (1.1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 215) to $22,462.”]

Interjections.

John Rustad: Yes, to implement your policy, your platform. This is what you promised. I’m just trying to give you a hand in delivering it.

I’ll have some more to say in a minute, shortly.

Deputy Speaker: Members, give me a moment here.

Thank you very much, Members. The question before this House is now the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

On the amendment.

John Rustad: The reason for moving this amendment and, in particular, that specific amount is that when you do the math on this, it provides $500 per person in this province of tax relief. A family of two, with two income earners in a family, would receive a $1,000 grocery rebate. This is the rebate that the NDP had promised and not delivered.

We are moving this forward to give them that opportunity, to be able to bring this forward, to be able to do this amendment, to be able to make sure that they can deliver on this promise so that people in British Columbia can receive the tax relief that was promised during the election. People voted for tax relief during this election, and quite frankly, it was not delivered. It was obviously false in terms of what this government is doing, so we’re just simply trying to help government deliver on their promises.

I want to read some quotes that I read earlier today, because I think it’s important to do this. This is from the Premier of the province, September 29, 2024: “People need help now so that they can get ahead. They can’t wait 18 months to receive any support. This tax cut for the middle class supports people who are struggling with the high cost of groceries.”

We want to see people in this province being able to realize the dream of being able to raise a family here. We want people in this province to be able to make sure that they can provide for their families and make sure that they can have a future. We need to reverse the fact that 50 percent of youth are thinking about leaving this province.

This is a small step towards it. It’s not as much tax relief as we would liked to have had, in terms of what we were proposing during the election, but it’s an important step. It’s a piece, I think, that is important to bring forward. I think, quite frankly, that when politicians make a promise, they should deliver on that promise. They promised the tax relief.

[7:50 p.m.]

I have another quote from the Premier of the province on September 30, 2024, where he said: “A $1,000 tax cut this year, and year after year after year, and after the year after that.”

This is an important piece that we need to be doing for the people in British Columbia. Once again, the whole reason for me getting up and speaking to the Budget Implementation Act to begin with was just this. Where is the relief for people in British Columbia? Where is the promised relief? Where is the opportunity to be able to help people, those people that are struggling to put food on the table?

Just think. Close to half the population of this province is within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. Food bank use is going through the roof all around the province. That’s not what British Columbia should be. We’re not a third-world nation.

We have tens of trillions of dollars of natural gas that could be used. We have a forest sector that could be revitalized, providing those good-paying jobs. We have 17 mines that could be opened up. If we open up those 17 mines, the revenue from those mines alone would almost be able to eliminate the deficit.

These are the things that we should be seeing and pushing forward. A small amount of that $1,000-a-person tax relief helps people just that little bit more to be able to stay in British Columbia.

We have a labour shortage. If we want to open up those mines, if we want to look at utilizing those tens of trillions of natural gas, if we want to make sure we’re keeping people in the forest sector, if we want to have the people in the construction sector, we need to make sure they can afford to be here. This is just a little bit of help for people on a day-to-day basis.

I don’t know how many companies I’ve talked to in the Lower Mainland that say they can’t even find truck drivers. They can’t find electricians. They can’t find carpenters. Schools that can’t get teachers…. Of course, our health care system is world famous for the fact that we have a shortage of doctors and nurses, and we’re way overburdened with administrators.

All of these things are all about being able to afford to live here, being able to attract people to be here. This is a first step. We need to do much, much more in terms of tax relief for people in British Columbia. We need to do much more in terms of affordability. We need to do much more in terms of driving wages. But it has to start with politicians keeping their promise.

Once again, when you look at everything that could be done and should be done as part of budget implementations, tax relief is a major thing that is needed in British Columbia. Our top tax bracket in British Columbia is 54 percent. The people that are paying that can afford to pay that. When you’re talking, though, about that middle class, the people that are struggling on a day-to-day basis, and how much they have to pay, this goes a long, long way for helping them.

I think of so many youth that have come up and talked to me, people that have said: “You’re bringing us hope. You’re giving us that opportunity to dream again, to maybe be able to stay here and live in British Columbia.”

Tax relief can’t do it on its own. You need to be able to have those good-paying jobs. We need to be able to get the economy going. We need actually….

I was told a story by an executive in the forest sector I just want to relay. When the company goes down to the United States — they’ve got operations now in the States, because they’ve been driven out of British Columbia — and they go do a board meeting in the United States, the governor meets them at the plane. The governor says: “Thank you for being here. Thank you for investing in our jurisdiction. Thank you for creating the jobs. Thank you for supporting families. What can we do to help you?”

You come here to British Columbia and all you get is: “Sorry. You’ve got to pay high taxes. You’ve got to deal with all this bureaucracy. You’ve got to have all these problems.” Not even once does the Premier and the province, like this, even think about meeting with groups like that when they come up here and saying: “Thank you for investing in British Columbia.” Not once.

This has to change. We have to be hungry for these businesses to be here. We have to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to be a welcoming jurisdiction, because if you want to get more than just the tax relief in this amendment, if you want to see the wages go up, if you want to see the investment, you have to be an open jurisdiction. You have to want to drive that business here. It’s not because you want to see companies make money. It’s because you need to see those good-paying jobs, those jobs that support families, that build a future.

[7:55 p.m.]

The reason why my dad and my mom moved to this province…. My dad moved here because he wanted to be able to build a future, and he could see hope and opportunity here. That’s so much lacking. It’s so much missing now from this province.

My hope is that everybody in this House will consider the promise that was made by this NDP government, and consider the fact that we’re being non-partisan in bringing it forward and saying: “We agree. Okay. It’s not everything we wanted, but we agree we need to do this tax relief.”

We get that you made an error. You missed it in your budget. You missed it in the budget implementation process. We’re fixing it for you. We’re giving you this opportunity today to be able to stand up and say: “Yes, I stand for workers in this province. I stand for the people in this province. I stand for the future of this province, and I want to give them some tax relief.”

I know that my colleagues will all want to maybe add a few words in terms of tax relief as well. Maybe I’ll just close with this and just say that when people are $200 away from not paying the rent, from not being able to pay their bills, it’s important that we recognize the challenges.

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: I would just ask you to take a pause for a moment, Member.

John Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bells they are a-chiming. It’s nice to see.

Like I say, when I think about those people, it should be in all of our hearts. It should be in all of our minds. It should be our single thought. How do we say to those people that our job is to make your life better, and we’re going to do that by tax relief? How do we say to those people that we’re not going to deliver on that because, as politicians, they don’t keep their promises? That, to me, is wrong.

This is why we need to amend the Budget Implementation Act. This is why we need to bring this step forward. And yes, it’s also going to meet some challenges on the budget, because obviously, this is going to be approximately a $1.8 billion tax relief for people in British Columbia, but it’s needed. We think that there’s room within government if they took a serious look, particularly at administration and the bulk that this government is doing. There’s room to be able to find that.

More importantly, I don’t know how we can’t afford to do it. The people in British Columbia need this. We can’t see industry hollowed out. We can’t see the youth hollowed out and leaving this province. We can’t stand by and let that happen. We have to fight every single day to do the job that we’re elected to do, which is improve the lives of the people here in British Columbia.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

With that, I just want to wind up my comments by saying that this wasn’t what the Conservatives brought forward. This is what the NDP brought forward. In a non-partisan way, we’re giving them the opportunity to fulfil that promise because we also believe that tax relief should be at the core of what we are trying to do to help make affordability in British Columbia.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I want to speak to the amendment that has just been raised.

Making the decision not to go ahead with the promised grocery rebate was a brutally difficult decision — truthfully, a brutally difficult decision. This is a commitment that we made, because we intended to do it. We fully intended to do it. The first task that I was asked to do as Minister of Finance by our Premier was to get that done. We began that work. We began figuring out what the tool was going to be, what the mechanism was going to be to deliver it.

Everything changed on November 25 of last year when we saw the tweet from then President-elect Trump who announced that there would be tariffs.

Interjections.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The members had an opportunity to speak. I’d appreciate having mine.

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s my turn to speak, Member.

The reality is that….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The reality is that it is absolutely irresponsible to move forward with a $2.2 billion tax cut, in this case, a rebate, although the member has framed it as a tax cut so he can squeeze it in as an amendment.

It is absolutely irresponsible to do that in this moment in time, when we know what is coming at us. This is a time when we are on serious economic threat. There is serious economic threat to our province right now. We have modelled out this threat.

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Of course we’re worried about it. We’re worried about it in our budget, and it is the reason that we made this difficult decision not to go through with something we wanted to do. That’s the nature of governance. You have to make difficult decisions when circumstances change, and circumstances did change.

We have modelled out what we expect to be job losses in our province, should these Trump tariffs go forward. They’re coming in, in different ways, and we do expect them to hit.

This is a time when we must be prudent and careful. I’ve heard members on the other side deeply critical of the $10.9 billion deficit, a deficit that I am working on bringing down to balance, stepping down over multiple, multiple budgets. That’s the work ahead of us. It is important work. We’re doing it in all ministries. It is a serious time for us to look at opportunities to bring spending back into general coffers so that we can be there for the people of British Columbia during this difficult economic time.

We’re doing that while protecting core services for British Columbians. That’s why you see us continuing to make — modest, I’ll grant you — investments into health care, into education, into social services. The things that are most important to British Columbians, we are protecting, while at the same time, we are working to bring down our deficit. That is the difficult work ahead of us.

And to add a, by the way, $2.2 billion expense at this time….

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Member, we chose not to do this. The reason is that it’s the wrong time. It’s not the wrong thing. It’s not the wrong thing to do. It’s the wrong time.

You know, sometimes the world changes. That is exactly what happened, and the members opposite know it. That is the reality.

This is grandstanding. You can’t have it both ways. To be up on your feet, screaming about the deficit that we are carrying and, at the same time, asking us to take on a $2.2 billion additional cost to the deficit…. You can’t have it both ways, Members. You can’t have it both ways.

The work ahead of us is to do a number of things to protect the programs for British Columbians that are most important to them — health care, education, social services. This is what is important. We have to make sure those programs are safe for people, and we have to do the work to ensure that every dollar that we’re spending in this province is landing where it should. That’s the work that we’re doing.

We’ve been in government for a while now, since 2017, and we’re reviewing all of the programming we’ve done to make sure that the dollars are landing where they should and bringing them back into general coffers when they aren’t. That’s the work ahead of us. It is important work.

It is important work, Members. It’s work we should all support. This is about how we protect British Columbians during the most serious economic hardship we have faced in decades.

You might scoff at that. It is real. It is significant. We need to take it seriously. This amendment does not take that work seriously, people. It doesn’t. So $2.2 billion in this context is irresponsible. You should be ashamed.

Bruce Banman: I’ve got to be honest. I found it hard to stomach the words I just heard. I really did.

[8:05 p.m.]

You know, let’s be candid. There was a campaign promise that was made. This is one of the closest elections this province has ever seen, and a $1,000 grocery rebate was used as a carrot to get people to vote for that side of the House.

There were no tariffs back then. There were no tariffs when this budget was being done. And to now use those as an excuse is shameful. It’s shameful.

It is the same trick that was used once before in a similar fashion with the promise of a $400 rent rebate. I would say to those out there that are watching: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But the shame belongs on that side of the House for using the same campaign promise. It was a dirty trick. I think the people I’ve talked to have said that they never intended on keeping it, because the first thing that got dumped was the $1,000 rent rebate — first thing.

The Premier didn’t cut his budget. Nope, nope, nope, nope. “We’re not going to do that. As a matter of fact, we’re going to add $1 million because we need spin doctors.” The heck that this province actually needs real doctors in emergency wards across the province. The Premier wants spin doctors.

Then each and every single one of them on that side ended up with an extra 18 grand minimum in their pocket because the Premier made sure that they got their share of the pie on the taxpayers’ dime.

Don’t you dare. Don’t you dare try and talk about the poor working class when you are taking their tax dollars and stuffing them into your own pockets and not fulfilling a campaign promise. How dare you indeed? You use that to get people to vote for you. We are at an all-time low in public belief of politicians because of dirty, nasty, rotten tricks.

I’m just getting started.

How you can sit there and look at one another and even look in the mirror when you have used the same tactic to win an election and then forego on fulfilling the promise adds to why the general public has absolute disdain for this House. Shame on you. Shame on every one of you.

On top of that, you have the unmitigated gall to stand up here this morning…. It’s a piece of paper. You know, if we had a forest industry, you might understand where that paper came from. You stand here this morning…

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Bruce Banman: …and you voted.

Deputy Speaker: Member, one minute.

Just a reminder to members that the debate must be strictly relevant to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Bruce Banman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I always appreciate your direction.

But this morning, a very similar bill was put in front of this, exactly about this, and that side of the House stood up.

I guess you stood up just for politics, and you didn’t stand up because you actually wanted to fulfil again…. You had no intention of it, or the Finance Minister would be cheering this on that, finally, there is a reason to fulfil a campaign promise.

Hard-working British Columbians, $200 away from bankruptcy, deserve to have that promise kept, that promise filled. That’s why they voted in many cases.

[8:10 p.m.]

I’m going to read some quotes of our Premier. “People need help now so they can get ahead.” You know what? I fully agree with that. “John Rustad would make ordinary people wait 18 months to receive any support. That’s if you believe in him at all.”

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: This is exactly on the amendment. It is the people’s words, and I will allow the Chair to direct me on that. Thank you very much.

“Our tax cut for the middle class supports people now who are struggling with the high cost of groceries.” September 29, 2024, during the campaign, he called this side out and basically said: “Vote for us, and we’re going to help you pay your grocery bills, because you need it.” You know what? This side of the House agrees with that. I’ll be candid. It was a better plan. It would have been nice if there had been any intention on keeping that promise.

“A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that, and the year after that.” Those were our Premier’s words, September 30, 2024, during the campaign. He had every intention and laid a line to people that were getting ready to put their mark beside a ballot that they were going to get $1,000 every single year to help pay for the groceries when we have massive numbers lining up for food banks and that are working.

It was a tactic that worked. He goes on to say: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.” Well, it went right away. It disappeared right away. It is a broken promise. This Premier purposely held the carrot of hope when people were hopeless. This Premier knew exactly that this was the kind of hope that struggling families, single moms lined up at food banks or that actually work full-time needed.

He goes on to say, to add insult to delivery: “Our plan, our families will get more support and you’ll get it right away. John Rustad, I’m sure” — this is a quote, Madam Speaker — “would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators, while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.” Well, guess what. Those folks will never see that $1,000 grocery rebate unless we support this amendment. This is a campaign promise that deserves to be fulfilled.

For this House, that side of the House, any member in this House, to turn their backs on single moms standing in a food bank, where $1,000 — or, in this case, $500 — would mean a big difference, is appalling.

The Premier goes on to say: “I’m on the side of everyday people and families who just want to end the day a little further ahead than they started it.” How the members on that side of the House can look at one another when they stuffed $18,000 minimum a year into their pockets by accepting a pay raise because they got appointed as a Speaker of this or a Chair of that or whatever it was that they got….

How they look at a single mom standing in a food bank, when they are not prepared to fulfil that campaign promise, is beyond me. It adds to the reason why the general public just doesn’t believe a thing we say. Promises matter. They matter.

[8:15 p.m.]

The Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act will propose to save every British Columbian $500 a year. Let’s go through the average family. Well, in many households, there’s more than one person working in that household. We now have houses that aren’t just a mom and dad. There are working children as well that are actually adults, that are in their 30s or 40s and that are still forced to live at home because they don’t see any other way.

That side of the House should be jumping up and down that we’ve given them the opportunity to fulfil a promise and to help everyday, hard-working families who are struggling with their grocery bills. You can’t make a promise like that and not fulfil it.

To say that now is a hard time because it’s too much money to spend…. That side of the House hasn’t given a darn about a deficit budget since the day they were elected. They blew through a $6 billion surplus, and now they just keep doing it and doing it. To say it’s because of the threat of Donald Trump and tariffs is just not credible. It doesn’t hold water. It just doesn’t.

By increasing the basic personal amount, every British Columbian who files tax in B.C. can claim they’re going to save $500 off their provincial income taxes, and it will help put food on the table.

I would add that this government has had no problems in adding new taxes. There are over 30 of them, as I recall. How about one tiny little bone to toss back? How about fulfilling a promise? Do your words mean nothing? If you vote against this, you are basically saying your promises and your words aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. They’re worthless, they’re meaningless, and you never meant them in the first place.

You know what? There’s hope to redeem yourselves, and there’s hope to actually make it better. We’ve just provided the vehicle, and that is this amendment to this bill. Do the right thing. Do what you said you were going to do. My granddaddy taught me that that was pretty important, that your word meant something. We are going to see whether that side of the House actually believes in the words that they said and the promises that they made.

Hard-working families of British Columbia, who are $200 away from going bankrupt or are trying to figure out which bill to pay, are going to find out whether that side of the House actually means what they said, or whether they’re just a baloney factory themselves. Well, the Premier seems to enjoy using the word “baloney factory,” as I can recall.

I guess we’re going to find out whether that side of the House actually means it, takes a chance to redeem it and say: “You know what? In retrospect, this is a promise we should have kept, because it’s the right promise.”

[8:20 p.m.]

The Premier said people need relief now. Well, that side relieved themselves by 18 grand, minimum, a year. They don’t have to worry about feeding themselves. But $500 a year to someone that is struggling is a lot.

They do victory laps on giving $100 back on insurance from ICBC that they never said they would use as a piggy bank and use as a political tool, but again I go back to…. Why don’t they just reduce the ICBC insurance rates by $100? Why go to the trouble of giving back a rebate and doing victory laps on it? That only helps people that actually own a car. Here’s an opportunity to help every single British Columbian that’s hard-working, that is struggling. It creates a level playing field. That’s why I will tell you, quite frankly, it was a better promise.

It’s why people voted, I think, in part, for that side of the House. We have a divided province.

Don’t act like you’ve got a 30-seat majority, because you don’t. And people are going to remember whether or not you take the opportunity for a somber reflection to say: “You know, in retrospect, this is a promise we need to keep.”

This House has voted on issues that have come from this side of this House. It’s been a couple. And that’s a good thing. It’s a great thing. It’s been a long time since it has happened.

This side of the House is trying to help you keep a very important promise that you made that actually is going to help everyday, hard-working British Columbians put food on their table.

You voted for it this morning. I believe it would be hypocritical if you don’t vote for this amendment. Actually put your money where your mouth is and fulfil something, or everything you did this morning was nothing more than a show. It was disingenuous. Do you want a chance to prove that you actually mean something? That it’s not a game? That it’s not just mere words? When the time comes, support this amendment. Everyone in this House should support this amendment.

I really truly believe that by doing this, we will provide hope to families that are considering leaving. One out of three are considering leaving the province. Fifty percent of our youth see no future, and they plan to leave — 50 percent. At a time when we see struggles in our mining sectors, at a time where we see struggling in the forestry sectors, where we see 7,300 jobs vanish from the agricultural sector…. Every sector in British Columbia is in trouble.

At a time where we see the potential and some of the most dramatic food increase prices that we have seen in decades, a little bit of help will go a long way. And $1,000 a year for the typical family means the difference of whether or not they have to go bargain hunt, stand in a food bank, go to a dollar store for grocery shopping, which is now becoming common.

[8:25 p.m.]

This is where we’re now at. This is such a small thing, yet it’s such a huge benefit to some families who are truly struggling.

I don’t see how anyone that stood by their Premier, who made a promise, can possibly reject this, especially when the budget didn’t even include tariffs whatsoever. This budget wiped this out before the tariffs were even announced or even threatened, and to say anything otherwise just does not hold water. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I believe voting in favour of this will help repair some of the damage that has been done by eliminating that promise in the first place.

Let’s give some families some hope again. Let’s give some families the help they need now today. Let’s help the Premier keep his word.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I rise to speak against the amendment.

I just want to put it in context for what it is. The Legislature saw the introduction of the budget by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance put forward a budget that strengthens core services in challenging times. It supports health care and education that ensures that our record number of apprentices, and we’ve heard a lot of talk about apprentices in the last few days, is maintained and increased — apprentice spaces for young people because we need that in our economy, that we provide services to people and that we support people in challenging times.

The Legislature voted for that budget. The Minister of Finance was very clear, I think, that the budget, in respect to tax changes, was going to be modest because the times required that, because the people of B.C. and the people of Canada are facing an unprecedented threat to our sovereignty and to our way of life from the United States.

The leader of the most powerful nation on earth was saying that he wanted to eliminate the border between our countries. He was putting in question our rights over our resources. He was putting in question the border and the existence of the country itself, an assertion that he reiterated in the White House only yesterday. I think Canadians have responded to that in a way that you would expect Canadians to respond to it: by rejecting it.

The American government also, and this is significant for those of us who are their neighbours, at the same time was abandoning vaccine policies, for example, that had protected our two countries for a generation. We’re seeing some of the consequences of that. It’s why I’m proud that our Minister of Health, our outstanding Minister of Health, has put in place measures to support vaccination in B.C. with this budget.

[8:30 p.m.]

The Legislature voted for the budget, and the issues raised in this debate were part of that discussion. Now we’re into Committee of Supply where the opposition can ask its questions, and they do. Ministers in the government defend the spending plan of the government.

Equally, in every budget, there’s a budget measures implementation act. This one, as members have suggested in their speeches, is more modest than some have been in the past, because circumstances required that.

I just want to say something to members of this House, because I have read through the debates in this House on this bill and I have heard member after member on the opposition side cast aspersions on our Minister of Finance. I want to say that she is an outstanding person. She was a business leader before she came to this chamber. She represents working people and health care and education. I am proud to sit with her in this Legislature.

I think it is beneath contempt that people would make it a core argument on this bill to attack her integrity when her integrity is clear and well known and well understood. It is….

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: And now….

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Oh, the opposition Whip. I don’t know what the opposition Whip receives as an extra stipend every year. I don’t know. Perhaps he turned it down. Well, I know, and I’m not the opposition Whip, that you can’t vote from the buffet line at the Grand Pacific. I know that. Earning his dollar, I’m sure — earning every one of them. And he’s attacking the integrity of the Minister of Finance?

We stand with the Minister of Finance. We’re going to continue to stand with the Minister of Finance. She is outstanding, and I am proud to be on this side of the House with her.

Now, we have a debate on Bill 5, and the intent of that debate is to implement the measures in the budget. Look, I was in opposition for a few years, or 12, and it’s possible that, occasionally, I gave a speech beyond the scope of the bill. It’s possible that’s the case, and let me be the first to acknowledge that.

But we have seen a repetition of the budget debate here. Fair enough. Members are making speeches in the House. I think it’s fair to say that we all have records. The member for Surrey–White Rock has been a member of this House. He knows that I’m pretty consistently respectful of people on both sides of the House. I’m not disrespectful of people when they raise issues.

I don’t appreciate, and I don’t accept, the unfounded and untrue attacks on the Minister of Finance. But I would say…. I acknowledge that member didn’t make them. I was here for his speech. But I think it’s legitimate for members on the other side of the House to express disagreement with a piece of legislation, and they’ve been doing that.

This motion simply acts to delay the passage of Bill 5. That’s the purpose of a reasoned amendment. It says it in the amendment: “not be read a second time until….” And then they make their reasoned argument. I think we should implement the budget. I think we’ve had a legitimate debate on the budget. We’ve heard from the opposition. We’ve heard from the government. These are the measures that take place in the budget. Bill 5 implements the measures in the budget, and those measures include….

I’m looking forward, I’m sure, to my own second reading debate on Bill 5 in support of the actions taken by the Minister of Finance. But I think we should proceed with the legislation.

[8:35 p.m.]

I don’t agree with the amendment, which says we should delay the implementation of the budget measures. I don’t think that makes sense. I disagree with that as a member of the government. I disagree with that as a supporter of the budget.

We, together in this House, made a decision about the budget. We made a decision about a budget that supports families, that supports public services, that recognized, in difficult times, the importance of it. We made that decision, and we passed it.

I know people on the other side would have preferred we didn’t, because they were campaigning for another election. But we, the majority in this House, supported that legislation, that budget that we passed. Six days of debate. We’re now having the full debate on the spending of the government in estimates.

I think we should proceed and pass Bill 5. To do so, we have to defeat this amendment, which seeks to delay Bill 5. I recommend to all members of the House that they vote against this amendment and vote in favour of Bill 5 at the earliest possible moment, when the debate on Bill 5 is fully realized.

I know that that could be today and that could be on another day. That is the reality of the democratic process that I have always supported here. I would say to all members of the House: it’s all fair to have a debate.

I support Bill 5. I believe it should go forward. To do that, we need to defeat this amendment, and I recommend that members of the House do so.

Brennan Day: Modesty at $11 billion in deficit…. I don’t know what’s modest about that number. I also don’t know what in this bill gets us….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re on the amendment.

Brennan Day: I’m getting there.

The personal income tax exemption proposed here being increased to $22,462 would align it more closely with the low-income cut-off threshold in British Columbia. Currently $28,514 is required by an individual in this province to be considered to be living above the poverty line. Currently the low-income threshold is at about $15,000. That is unacceptable. That is near half of what’s required just to survive in this province. This is a chance to get us to put our money where our mouth is.

This government has a problem of taking the money in the first place, putting it in the washing machine of government and then hoping that by reducing the amount that they can hand out and rinsing it through the bureaucracy, people will improve their station in life. What we can both agree on is that what we’re currently doing isn’t working, and the impact isn’t being felt by the people that need it most.

I’ll tell you the story about my recent experience working for a mental health non-profit. Most clients in that non-profit were low income. Most of those clients were on disability or other forms of income assistance. Every October and November, we would see them, working full-time at the clubhouse, end up having to turn down shifts because their income was capped through PWD.

This is just one more indication. The $22,462 proposed here in this amendment is just one more where we’re holding people down. We need to be removing those barriers for people that would like to work and removing those barriers for people that want to try to climb out of poverty. This does that, and this doesn’t do it by removing the money, throwing it into the bureaucracy, shaking it up and seeing what falls out the other side. That hasn’t been working.

[8:40 p.m.]

We cannot continue to increase taxation and hope people will be better off on the other end. It’s simply not working. We need to look at progressive taxation measures like this and get rid of regressive taxation measures — the carbon tax being a perfect example of a devastatingly regressive tax that targeted the very people that this amendment seeks to help.

Why can’t we all agree that that’s in the best interest? Regressive taxation, progressive taxation…. This affects the most important part of our society, the people that can least afford to pay the tax. The current basic personal amount in British Columbia is $15,705. In order to make that work for people, they actually have to earn $28,514. So they’re currently paying income tax even though they’re below the poverty line. In this province now, it takes $40,000 for a couple to be considered to be living above the poverty line. So $22,000 is a hell of a start.

No one living in poverty should be sending a cheque to the government. We can agree on that. Your side pushes that. But currently the Birkenstock is on the other foot. We have got to get more creative with how we tax and spend. We cannot continue to simply take more money, hire more bureaucrats and hope the problem fixes itself. We’ve done it again and again, and it doesn’t work.

I’ll say it. This is the opposite of that. This keeps money in people’s pockets. It allows people to make those spending decisions on their own. It doesn’t require bureaucracy that’s hard to hire because we’re having shortages. We’re out of people we can hire as bureaucracy. Half of the people in this province seem to work for the province. That doesn’t make sense.

We in the opposition have proposed this motion to increase the personal income tax basic amount to $22,462 because that will ensure every British Columbian saves $500 a year. Not once. Not an election bribe. Every single year. No gimmicks, a real solution.

For two-income households, that’s $1,000. That’s rent — not here in Vancouver, Victoria or Courtenay, but I’m sure there are certain places in British Columbia that we could still rent for $1,000 a month. It may buy groceries for the month, maybe, if you’re a single person or maybe a couple. Certainly not for a family anymore. But it does offer them a bit of breathing room.

So I ask the members opposite: if you truly believe that the affordability crisis is real, then what justification do you have for rejecting this amendment? You’ve already blown the budget and the deficit to record-setting proportions. At this point, what’s the justification for not adding another $2 billion or $3 billion?

Prior to the budget coming out, my prediction before this all happened, and I had it with the member from North Thompson, was that we’d end up this year, based on the reckless fiscal management of last year, at $16.5 billion. Moody’s is now already predicting $14.4 billion, so we’re off to a heck of a start.

I feel that if we’re going in that direction anyways, perhaps we should try and help the people at the bottom as well. They’re being left behind.

This government, your government, promised that relief. They didn’t get it. But they voted for you. They voted for you. They voted for that $1,000. We know they did. Just like they voted for the $400 rental rebate that never came. These are bribes.

We don’t like bribes on this side. We want to see actual relief that is long term, long-lasting and actually affects British Columbians every day. This isn’t a debate about a dollar figure. At an $11 billion deficit, I feel that debate went out the window long ago — $11 billion. No bridge, no tunnel — $11 billion. Lots of promises, $1000 rebate.

We can go on. There are many more. The members have mentioned them. There’s one for every riding here, I’m sure.

If we truly believe that the affordability crisis is real, justify not supporting the amendment. The government said it wants to lift people up, but this bill and this omission of the $1,000 grocery rebate continues to hold them down. While the Premier travels around the province making announcement after announcement, trying to polish up the desperate state that British Columbians are in and will continue to be in under this government….

[8:45 p.m.]

We can see it in their rent. We can see it in their heating bills. Now we see it in the income tax system, which has been punishing people more and more progressively as we move on. We have got to stop the bureaucratic washing machine, and we need to start focusing on what matters to British Columbians. That’s leaving the money in their pockets and not the bureaucrats’.

Let me be clear. No one earning less than $22,462 should be paying provincial income tax. Both sides agree on that. Not $15,705 as it is now, which is unsustainable and does not support an individual to survive in this province under the crushing weight of what we are seeing here in the excess and the inflation.

If the members opposite truly believe the words in their own press releases, they will support the amendment, because otherwise, this bill and this government’s affordability agenda will go down as just another broken promise. We have the opportunity to fix that. We have the opportunity to help British Columbians who are desperately struggling. So let’s raise the basic personal amount and give British Columbians a break, and not just a sound bite.

Sheldon Clare: I rise this evening in this wonderful place to speak with glowing terms of this wonderful amendment, an amendment which I believe will provide relief to British Columbians, long-deserved relief to the overtaxed people of this province, people who, as of 2022, were paying the fourth-highest personal income tax rate in Canada or the United States.

Nobody really loves taxes. We understand that paying taxes is an important aspect of living in a society where we all work together to achieve common goals. This amendment….

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair, sir, and a pleasant evening to you.

I rise today and speak about fairness and compassion and in our solemn covenant with the people of British Columbia who truly deserve relief from the burden that excess taxation provides. We know that our friends on the other side of the House would dearly love to make the people of British Columbia feel much more happy and without the pain and burden of excess taxation.

People want to pay taxes and contribute to society. Of course, we all do. But we can’t keep taxing the poor. We can’t keep denying that people would spend money if they had more of it in their pocket and that they would create an economic multiplier effect. That’s from a guy named Keynes. Some of you might have heard of him. He was sort of a bit of a left-wing economist, but he was right about most things.

One of the things he was really right about was that if you put your money into spending when you had it, the thing you had to do when you had a surplus was pay down the debt. We have not seen that debt get paid down, and we’re past a tipping point here.

In order to get back, we have to put more money in circulation. I think that’s what John Maynard Keynes said. You have to have money in circulation. People have to be spending money. If they can spend money….

If they can get money out of the ground in this province, and we can open up those mining opportunities and those forest opportunities and make sure that the money is flowing from industry into the coffers of government, then this kind of a thing would mean we could have more amendments that would lower taxes even further.

That is why this amendment proposes raising the basic personal amount to $22,462. That’s that threshold, as the other member mentioned, that aligns with the low-income cutoff in our province.

[8:50 p.m.]

This amendment truly matters. This amendment will make a difference to people’s lives. I cannot fathom for the life of me why my dear friends on the other side of the House would not be enthusiastically embracing such an amendment when they all stood together in solidarity with us this morning and voted so strenuously to support the working people of British Columbia. We saw it — well, almost all of us, anyway.

Nonetheless, it is really critical that we support this amendment and put money back in the pockets of British Columbians, money that they can use to do so many wonderful things. What could you do with $1,000 extra in a family of two, if you each had an extra $500 to spend?

It doesn’t feel like lots. It may perhaps to some here. If you’re sipping on your lattes at the Starbucks or wherever one goes…. I’ve never really got into the coffee myself. But with this amendment, you would have a bit of extra money. You could pay your rent and buy food. If you had a mortgage, you could possibly do that as well. Maybe you could put a little bit of gas in your car and get to school.

Perhaps you could pay for the repairs on a vehicle. Not all of us have vehicles that run very well. It can be pretty expensive to run a vehicle.

Interjection.

Sheldon Clare: The Minister of Forests across the way is quite familiar with my vehicle and understands the need for a little bit of an extra tax relief to make sure that it runs smoothly and evenly, although I believe it was successful when he last saw it.

Other things you could do with the benefits of this amendment. Perhaps you could pay for daycare in a province that has got such expensive aspects there.

You could buy new clothing. I had to buy myself a new suit jacket the other day. I had some soup I spilled on one, and I thought: “Well, maybe I need another. If I had an income tax rebate such as proposed by this amendment, I could almost afford a new suit jacket.”

Footwear. I look at my own shoes. Not wanting to mimic someone else at another time or make a prop of it, I look at how worn they are, and I think: “With this amendment, I might be able to look at another pair of shoes.” I think of all the British Columbians out there who would benefit in that same fashion, and they could get themselves a new pair of shoes. They could buy clothing and shoes for their children. This is an important thing to do.

Maybe some new utensils. They wouldn’t have to go to the thrift store and buy secondhand utensils. They could buy something new and have a little bit of joy in their lives from the ability to have something shiny and new that they could say they could have a little bit of pride in.

This money that the people would save from this benefit would reinvest in the economy. It would help to circulate money in the economy. This would be a wonderful thing.

You could even buy mining equipment. Think of this. You get yourself a gold pan, a small sluice box, a shovel, a bucket, maybe some filters, and you could use the money that you would get, were this amendment to be successful, to go and invest in a gold mine somewhere. You’d probably even have enough money to get yourself a free miner’s licence.

Of course, you’d have to go through a lengthy process to get a claim and stake it and everything. There are some consultations that are required now. But were you to get through all of that, you could use this money to go mining. Then you could start shovelling money out of the ground, money that would be right back into the coffers of your pocket and back into government and would, again, help to rejuvenate this economy.

Think of a little joy that some would benefit from in being able to contribute to recreational activities from gaining some $500 per person that this would provide for. Maybe you could get a new pair of running shoes. Perhaps you could take up a new hobby. All of these things would be wonderful and would make such a difference in people’s lives, because people are suffering.

I know I can be fiery, and some people might have a chuckle or two, but people are suffering. And they’re suffering because they are overtaxed. They’re overtaxed, and they’re not seeing the benefits of that taxation. They are not receiving the services that they have been so well paying for in all these years.

It is not good to pretend that we can keep taxing people into poverty. Pretty soon people are going to run out of money, and then they’re going to be very unhappy.

[8:55 p.m.]

I can tell you this. When they see that our friends across the way have enthusiastically supported this amendment to Bill 5, they will think, in gratitude, “Well, maybe they aren’t so bad after all, and they do care a little bit about British Columbians,” just like the folks on this side of the House clearly have demonstrated that they do.

This amendment isn’t a one-time grocery rebate cheque. It isn’t merely a press release. Of course, a cheque is better than a press release. They’re both paper, but nonetheless, this is something….

Interjection.

Sheldon Clare: I’m glad that I do provide you a little bit of amusement, sir.

For a two-income family, this is $1,000 per year. It’s something permanent. It’s something that will last. It is something that will make a difference over time. This is what my friends on the other side of the House said they wanted to do in the first place. They wanted to help people by giving them a rebate.

Well, okay, let’s pony up. Let’s put our chips in the middle of the table, and let’s make that happen. That’s what this excellent amendment brought forth by the Leader of the Official Opposition will do.

If people are living in poverty, they shouldn’t have to pay income tax at all. But poverty is becoming a much more popular thing, unfortunately, than it has been in the past. More and more people are below the poverty line, and we really have to do something about that.

Today the basic personal amount is just some $15,705, if memory serves. That’s $13,000 below the poverty line for an individual in this province. So the working poor are paying. The people who are working in this….

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

Sheldon Clare: Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to continue my presentation and move adjournment of the debate.

Sheldon Clare moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Nina Krieger: Section A reports progress on Bill No. 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 8:57 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, to order. We are on clause 3 as amended.

On clause 3 as amended (continued).

Peter Milobar: Just a couple of questions. I do appreciate that the Attorney has indicated that we’ll cover off the sunset clause as we get to the sunset clause provision, which is clause 29, if memory serves, on this bill. But there are some questions that I think we just need a little more certainty around as they pertain to clause 3, because when you read clause 29, it looks like this first part is subject to the sunset clause.

[3:00 p.m.]

Can the minister provide more certainty around…? If a regulation is made under clause 3, does that regulation expire at the sunset clause, or does it live in perpetuity, essentially, once it is made?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it expires, but it also gives the minister an opportunity at that point to make it permanent, whether there are legislative or regulatory changes that need to happen to do that.

Peter Milobar: I’m correct in my interpretation, then, that on May 28, or whatever the date was in the sunset clause, clause 3 ceases to exist in its entirety.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister indicate when the trade ministers would have met on the federal committee that is supposed to be dealing with interprovincial trade issues that would fall under clause 3? When was the date of the last time they met?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It was just this morning.

Peter Milobar: Okay, thank you. That provides a little bit of relief, because the only other meeting I was aware of was…. They’re not overly public, the meetings, it seems. I happened to notice a tweet, actually, from the minister back at, I believe, the end of January, the day before the first tariff threat was talked about in February.

My point is, I guess, that it doesn’t seem like it’s a committee that meets super frequently. It has been meeting for seven, eight years now, and very little progress in terms of interprovincial trade barriers has happened, even though that’s the sole focus of this group. It’s literally the trade minister from every province and the federal Trade Minister at the table. That’s it. That’s the committee.

A clause 3 is really what’s needed — the guts of trying to enact interprovincial trade barrier removal. We now have one year to have all of that work done, all the regulations put in place and ministers to decide if the regulations should continue on past that year.

How does the Attorney reconcile the logistics of a timeline like that in the real world where businesses are trying to make investment decisions based on things that may or may not (a) come to fruition or (b) even exist in 12 months?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I am happy to talk about the role of the sunset clause when we get to that clause — I think it, maybe, makes sense to do that — but I will give an answer at this stage.

The balance of the bill is an extraordinary measure. What we are saying is that we’re giving the tools, through regulation, for the override of any regulation or legislation that exists to date. You could classify that as an extraordinary measure, to give cabinet that type of ability, in the sense of it being an economic stabilization bill and our need to do that.

In order to put the right balances in place for that work, the sunset clause plays a counterbalance to that use of that power that actually — we think, with the conversations that we could have — helps in a few ways.

First of all, the certainty will come, once this act is in place, from the negative list approach. It’ll be very clear, once that’s in there, what is not being subject to this regulatory regime or whatever comes into place.

Through that exemption list, businesses will be very certain as to whether or not they’re included as an exemption. Then all the rest of them are removed from that, so those trade barriers are dropped on those goods and services. In the speed of doing that, it gives us the ability, with JEDI, to make sure that we had it right through the use of this power.

There are a few things that could happen once you get upon the end of that sunset clause. You could have had a response from certain businesses that it needs to be adjusted this way or that way, so you could make things permanent, in a way. You could extend the sunset clause through the legislative process if you felt like it was going well. And you could do the deeper stakeholder and legislative work that may take longer. But in the context of the emergency situation we’re in, you can do the dropping of barriers and do that longer-term work to stabilize it for the long term.

Maybe that helps, in the balance that we struck, but I’m sure we can have more conversations about that when we get to that.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to reference clause 3 and subsections (3) and (4), I believe.

In (3) and (4), there are discussions about the minister and discussions about the regulatory authority and requests being made to the regulatory authority to make changes in regulatory provisions.

[3:10 p.m.]

I have a few questions in regards to that. Is the Attorney General able to provide a list of regulatory authorities that would not be affected by this legislation, that have no involvement in trade?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, Chair.

Steve Kooner: The reason why I ask this question…. I know that B.C. Hydro is mentioned later on in this bill. But when you think of B.C. Hydro, you don’t think that they get involved with interprovincial trade. I’m just wondering if B.C. Hydro…. What would be the implications with B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not in this section, and I’ll be happy to address that specific question once we get there.

Steve Kooner: What are some immediate regulatory changes that we can expect to see from this clause that will be pretty immediate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: With respect to this section, there’s no regulatory…. This is not the section that covers regulation-making powers.

Steve Kooner: In regard to subsection (4), there’s a discussion here, “within 60 days after the date of request,” that refers to a minister making a request to a regulatory authority. How did the government determine a 60-day timeline?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That 60-day time limit comes from the Labour Mobility Act, and it was just felt to be a reasonable timeline to have that regulatory authority do the work that it needs to do.

Steve Kooner: Now, in subsections (4) and (5) here, it talks about making a request — the minister can make a request to a regulatory authority — but it also goes further in subsection (5), I believe, which talks about how, in the event the regulatory body or the regulatory authority fails, the minister can take certain actions.

In regard to that, are there any financial or other penalties for bodies unable to reach their 60-day deadline? Is there any penalty for those regulatory bodies?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: As there are probably a whole bunch of regulatory bodies — like, there are many to count — my next question is: is there a particular regulatory body that will be handling a substantial amount of regulatory provisions, in terms of amending them and all that?

In terms of the work that the Attorney General’s office has done, have they narrowed in on a particular regulatory body that may be doing a significant amount of work moving forward? Is there such a regulatory body?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, there is not one particular regulatory authority that is in our mind right now that would do or be responsible for many changes, as the member suggests.

Rob Botterell: Subsection (4), which has the 60-day limit, states: “the requesting minister may, by order, do one or more of the following.” That “may” enabling provision — would that permit the minister to give an organization or a regulatory authority additional time in the event there were a number of requests that might not all be dealt with within the 60 days?

I see that as enabling, not requiring, so I just want clarification on that point.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, the member is correct. It gives the flexibility of the minister to respond to a particular situation if necessary.

Steve Kooner: In regards to clause 3, there are many definitions. You see a definition for “agreement,” a definition for “authorizing enactment,” a definition for “regulatory authority,” and a definition for “regulatory provision.” But this particular part, part 1 of Bill 7, has to do with interprovincial trade barriers. It involves other provinces, involves our province and other provinces, and it is a response to a foreign jurisdiction.

Is there a reason why there isn’t any sort of definition in this part that talks about a foreign jurisdiction, what is included and what’s not included? Yeah, maybe answer that question, if possible.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Legislative drafters would only define terms that are relevant to the particular part, and in this situation, because it deals with regulatory authorities, it would be internal. It wouldn’t be relevant.

Steve Kooner: Well, I disagree with that explanation. I think it is relevant.

At this time, I’m going to be moving an amendment to introduce a definition for “foreign jurisdiction.”

I move an amendment to clause 3 to add a definition, “foreign jurisdiction,” and it would read:

[Clause 3 (1) is amended by adding the following

“foreign jurisdiction” means any Government that is not part of the Government of Canada, a Province of Canada, or a territory of Canada.]

[3:20 p.m.]

The reason for this is that this part talks about interprovincial trade barriers and the concerns of many provinces.

This is being introduced at a time when a foreign jurisdiction has threatened our jurisdiction with tariffs. It’s important to make sure that there is not an opportunity to misinterpret what is a foreign jurisdiction and what’s not. It’s important to define what is actually a foreign jurisdiction and what is not.

In this definition, it includes “means a government that is not part of the government of Canada.” So Canada is not a foreign jurisdiction. A province of Canada is not a foreign jurisdiction, and a territory of Canada is not a foreign jurisdiction.

This would clarify this bill significantly. This bill does have to do with a response to a foreign jurisdiction. This is the part that actually deals with interprovincial trade barriers in response to a foreign jurisdiction.

I’m proposing and moving this amendment.

The Chair: Members, we will take a ten-minute break. We’ll return at 3:31 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:32 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

On the amendment moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough. The amendment proposes to add the definition of the term “foreign jurisdiction.”

Unless the member can explain to the committee how the term is relevant to the clause, the amendment would be out of order, as the term is not found within clause 3.

I remind members that clause 3, specifically subsection (1), provides definitions only for the purposes of clause 3 in the bill.

Steve Kooner: It is highly relevant. We’re talking about interprovincial trade in part 1. This is the definition section for part 1. And if we’re going to have any sort of distinctions between what is a foreign jurisdiction or what’s included in interprovincial trade, it’s a highly relevant term.

The Chair: I would remind the member for Richmond-Queensborough that it is not a definitions section.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, Chair, there are definitions in this section, and in part 1, this has about three or four definitions. Although it may not per se be a definitions section, there are definitions. Any definitions that need to be defined are there in this particular clause at this stage.

The Chair: I would again ask the member to look at section 3(1). The heading is “Amending regulatory provisions.” Clause 3(1): “In this section….” If we go back to part 1, “Part 1 – Interprovincial Trade Barriers,” heading, “Definition for this Part” — two distinct areas within this bill which talk about definitions sections.

What you have suggested…. As I mentioned, you’ll need to provide a relevancy as to why this amendment would fit within this area of the bill, and I am saying, at this point, that it’s out of order.

Steve Kooner: It is clearly relevant because at the initial definition that was provided earlier on…. That was before clause 2 was discussed, and now we’re getting more into the substantive part of part 1 where discussion is being had more so substantively about interprovincial trade.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Chair: I would ask the member to provide further clarification as to how the definition and the term would be used in this section.

Steve Kooner: The further explanation would be, when you’re referring to a regulatory body or a regulatory authority and they’re dealing with interprovincial trade, what interprovincial trade is. Interprovincial trade is something that’s not with a foreign jurisdiction.

The Chair: I have determined that the amendment is out of order.

Peter Milobar: I’m just seeking clarification. Is it the Chair’s sole discretion and sole opinion on this, or is this coming from the Clerk’s office? Is it coming from the Attorney General?

I’m a layperson. I’m not a lawyer. I know there are lawyers in the room. But when I read this and I see “authorizing enactment,” in bold, “means an enactment under which a regulatory authority may make regulation….” That’s in 3(1). And then we have “foreign jurisdiction,” in bold, “means any government that is not part of the government of Canada, a province of Canada or a territory of Canada.”

I fail to see how one is not seen to be as a definition and one is. One is ruled completely out of order, which…. It would be for this chamber to decide whether or not it moves forward or not on an actual vote. It just seems we’re…. I’m not sure if we are debating with government at this point or if we’re now needing to make our cases on sections and provisions in this bill with the Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. I respect your submissions. However, the decision is made by the Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole, which is me, and I have determined that that amendment is out of order.

Peter Milobar: Then could we…? Not having my Standing Orders here, I look for direction through the Clerk’s office here before we move on past this clause to better understand how these rulings…. We have other amendments moving through this.

Not every Chair will have the same level of potential legislative expertise as this current Chair does. There should be a consistent standard for the opposition in terms of how amendments are brought forward to this chamber to be actioned or not, voted on or not by the government.

It seems that we could be into a very arbitrary skill set if the Chair is not — the current Chair; I want to be clear on that…. In terms of their understanding of things and moving forward as we hit other amendments through this bill….

Is it merely whoever happens to be timing in the chair that could make the determination or not? That would open up a very strange process in this place if that is indeed how it’s going to be continuing forward.

So through the Chair, I guess we would perhaps need a bit of a recess to seek clarification through the Clerk’s office how this is going to unfold for the next little while. We’re only on clause 3 of a 30-clause bill.

The Chair: I appreciate the submissions of the member for Kamloops Centre. We will take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:38 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

The amendment proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough that subclause 3(1) is amended by adding the following, “‘foreign jurisdiction’ means any government that is not part of the government of Canada, a province of Canada or a territory of Canada,” has been deemed to be out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: We’re on clause 3. Shall clause 3, as amended, pass.

Division has been called.

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall clause 3 as amended pass?

Clause 3 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 7
Kahlon	Morissette	Higginson
Routledge	Popham	Sharma
	Botterell
NAYS — 5
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok		Williams

On clause 4.

Kiel Giddens: I’m pleased to rejoin the discussion again this afternoon. We are making some progress, folks.

[4:00 p.m.]

With regards to clause 4, labour mobility is a topic we’ve touched on briefly in the other clauses, but this is very explicit in its intent — obviously, exempting the Labour Mobility Act. This, to me, is…. I still do have some challenges, and we’ll have some questions on the intent and the rationale behind this. We do need to, as we’ve talked about previously…. Previous areas that dealt with interprovincial trade also included labour mobility as part of the discussion, whether that was in the trade investment and labour mobility agreement or the extension to the New West Partnership.

Also, other jurisdictions in Canada…. When we talk about interprovincial trade, labour mobility is intertwined with it very closely. When you work in a province and provide a service in another province, that labour mobility is important for the actual ability to provide that service or good in another province. Really, a mobile workforce is also critical to work in our province.

Some in the chambers might recall that previously in my career, I worked in the LNG industry. I can tell you that labour uncertainty…. Both stability, keeping a stable labour supply, and also the amount of labour supply available in the labour market were actually critical.

That mobile workforce was a key risk to, for example, the LNG Canada project when they were looking to make a final investment decision prior to 2018, when they finally did. For two years, their biggest risk to the project, which they were trying to de-risk, was labour supply and labour relations, labour stability for the duration of the project.

It is something that…. As we’re looking to move quickly in terms of reacting to tariffs, the broader intent to this bill, making trades and making labour availability within Canada is important for moving quickly.

I’d like to ask a little bit more about this section of the bill, why it’s so explicit in exempting the Labour Mobility Act. I want to start by asking the rationale. Why did the government not include labour mobility within part 1 of the bill and in clause 4?

[4:05 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason that we put this provision there is to actually create better certainty when it comes to the different modes in which dropping of trade barriers, with respect to services and people’s labour mobility, are dealt with.

What you’ll see, and I think we talked about this at length in section 2, is that for non-trades, we would say, people that are not under a trade, the dropping of the barrier under those sections that allow…. If you’re able to provide a service in one province, you can provide it here. So that would help with labour mobility for construction sites and all those kinds of things.

With respect to the trades, in 2022, we introduced a regulation to the Labour Mobility Act that already drops trade barriers for Red Seal and says that if you were certified in another province, you can work in B.C. So under the Labour Mobility Act, we didn’t want to create duplication of work. That act is set up with the structure possible for us to drop the trade barriers for regulated professions. That work, like I said, in 2022…. I think, to the member’s point with respect to Red Seal or trades, we dropped those barriers under that, a regulation under that act.

The work under the Labour Mobility Act is important. And regulated professions, also important work. So that is happening, and we have the tools there. This gives us added tools, this bill, for non-regulated labour mobility.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response. Just so I follow correctly, and to make sure that there’s confidence in the existing regulatory tools, could the minister provide an example of a trade that would apply in this case and specifically, maybe, focus on the construction trades? That was in my original question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: What it refers to is anything under SkilledTradesBC. With respect to construction, it’s quite an extensive list.

[4:10 p.m.]

I would just refer the member to their website, where they list all of the things, under the subcategory of construction, about what would be covered under SkilledTradesBC. Under the Labour Mobility Act and through that regulation, it makes it so if you have one of those and you work in another province, you can work in B.C.

Kiel Giddens: I will certainly go to the SkilledTradesBC website and review those trades, and I think that’s relevant.

I guess this brings me back to just ensuring the confidence for tradespeople and mobility across the country, expanding that to the training and accreditation standards as well. This kind of goes back to previous discussions we’ve had around reciprocity, because it leads to harmonization of those standards across the country.

In not including labour mobility in this, is there any risk that the government sees in those standards of accreditation being non-equivalent across the country, or is the government confident that there is true labour mobility in that regard?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think, if we take a step back and understand that this is enabling legislation that gives the government the tools necessary to do the job of dropping interprovincial trade barriers for labour mobility…. In our analysis, we felt that the Labour Mobility Act gives us the tools that we need and government needs for regulated professions and trades. I gave an example of a regulation that was brought in, in 2022 that does just that, which is work through that.

What was missing is what’s covered in this bill, which is the non-regulated or not covered under the Labour Mobility Act.

Kiel Giddens: Just to confirm, has that analysis actually been done, then, completed for accreditation standards of both trades and the professions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to take a step back from this line of questioning.

The mechanism of creating the labour mobility with these Red Seal — we’ll circle in our Red Seal professions — isn’t about…. Although there is harmonization work when it comes to working together for credentialing and training and what it takes in each province to get that Red Seal, the point of dropping the barrier is that if you do have a Red Seal in Alberta, you can work in B.C. We’re not going to question the credentials or the training of that Red Seal program in that province.

If you look at it that way, in the line of the question, it may lessen, maybe, the pressure that the member is considering having on accreditation and standards of the courses, because it’s a different way to do it, right?

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response there.

I’m just wondering. I think that I can appreciate that answer and the way of looking at things. The accreditation isn’t the only, I guess, barrier that exists, though, so that’s an important one to discuss. But, really, I look at….

Again, I’ve mentioned my work with the chamber of commerce in Prince George. We used to do a survey of risk to doing business every year, and access to labour was always the top of the list. No matter what issue was going on in the province, northern B.C. just has a labour shortage challenge that is different.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’m speaking partly for the benefit of businesses in my own community and, of course, for businesses across the country that would like to work in B.C., and labour, their workers, who would like to work in B.C.

The other area that tends to be a barrier is the recertification. That’s a significant challenge for businesses looking to hire workers if they’re waiting for that recertification requirement. I mean, the one that comes up most common are probably nurses waiting to be recertified. Fortunately, we do allow, in B.C., some leniency. They can work while they’re waiting for that to occur. But other professions, actually, can’t work in B.C. as easily.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General could provide a little bit more context on where barriers to recertification would be dropped. Is that covered in the Labour Mobility Act, or is that something that still needs to be contemplated in some way?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to refer the member to the Minister of Health with the work that’s being done for nurses, because I know there’s been quite extensive work there, and I don’t want to…. I think that would be the best place for that answer.

In terms of the contents of the bill, the reason that this section is in here is because the same tools exist to drop barriers under the Labour Mobility Act as what we are putting in here for the non-regulated professions. Government’s work on those…. In essence, under the Labour Mobility Act, we’ve given government the tools to do similar things to what we are doing here. It’s duplication to do it here when it already could be done there.

Then I think the question…. I know it’s in the Minister of Health’s mandate letter to really focus on the question that was posed about how we want to bring more nurses and more health professionals here and reduce those barriers to have them working right away. Although I don’t have all the extensive work that’s been done on that, I think the Minister of Health would be happy to answer that.

[4:20 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that. Nursing was an example, but I think that looking broadly at labour mobility is part of this as well. I do know that there are certain occupations that are subject to provincial or territorial legislation that really mandates workers to hold a certificate or licensing specific to where they practise. So it’s quite common in professions.

Obviously, this can create a barrier. Sometimes that can include administrative requirements. It can include fee schedules, things like that, that have to be completed. I’m just wondering if, within the Labour Mobility Act, so that we can ensure it doesn’t need to be included here, there is, basically, certificate-to-certificate recognition between professions that covers enough of the labour mobility that we need to really prevent trade barriers for labour mobility within the country.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The powers and the work are being done under this particular piece of legislation to make sure that certificate-to-certificate recognition exists, like the member asked. I know that the minister is, as per the mandate letter, working on that. I’m told that one of the issues is the time it takes, even if it’s recognized, for that health professional or whatever to get that certificate.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister.

I appreciate that that’s in the Minister of Health’s mandate letter, but what about other mandates? For example, the minister responsible for the Industry Training Authority, the Minister of Labour, other areas where certificates may apply, need to be reviewed or made equivalent.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In our view, the Labour Mobility Act gives us the tools to do what the member is asking. I think I’ve given some examples, like the regulation in 2022 with Red Seal. We’ve already been using that piece of legislation to do the type of work that he’s talking about.

Kiel Giddens: We’ve talked previously, of course, in this part of the bill, about consultation specifically. I’m wondering. On the labour component and labour mobility, who did government consult with about the wording of clause 4 and, in this case, excluding occupations that are included in the Labour Mobility Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to take a step back from the member’s question, what this enabling legislation does is give the tools necessary to do the job, right? Under the Labour Mobility Act, we asked internally in the ministry: “Does this piece of legislation provide you with the tools that you need to go about continuing the work of dropping mobility issues with respect to regulated professions?”

[4:25 p.m.]

As a piece of enabling legislation, that was a lens that we used to look at this particular section. Because in various ministries they talk very much, especially advanced ed and skills training…. A lot of ministries have different regulated professions under them. Because they are regularly in touch with the stakeholders in the community but also understand the HR issues related to that profession, the question that we were asking is, “Do you have the right tools to do the work?” which is a different one than I think the way the member is posing it.

Obviously, this was a piece of legislation that was put together under very unwelcome circumstances with respect to the trade war that we’re in and the threats on Canada. We really relied on the experts, who understood over many years what the barriers were, to help us understand what legal tools they needed to do the work. That was the lens we applied to all of our work.

Rob Botterell: My understanding is that the RCT met this morning. I have it on pretty good authority that there’s going to be a federal election on April 28, following which there will be a new federal government. Shortly after there’s a new federal government of whatever political stripe, I imagine the RCT and other provincial and federal representatives will be diligently working to reduce interprovincial trade barriers.

It seems to me that this section is really intended to avoid overlap and duplication, because if this section was not in the act, then businesses and employment organizations would have a great deal of concern about: which legislation do I look at? What requirements apply?

My question to the Attorney General is: was the motivation for this section as straightforward as, “We have a regulatory framework on labour mobility; let’s make sure we don’t confuse British Columbians by not making it clear that that’s a separate regulatory framework,” which I’m sure the RCT and others will think about as they work through this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member has articulated what I’ve been trying to say in my responses. I appreciate his response, or his question. That’s exactly the reason that we wanted to create certainty when it comes to which regulatory regime applied to different….

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

My apologies, Prince George–Mackenzie.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Chair. I haven’t moved. I’m still living in Prince George these days.

The Leader of the Third Party raised a point about, obviously, reducing duplication. I, in fact, agree with reducing duplication, but we are talking about enabling legislation, as we’ve talked about, so we want to make sure that the existing legislation gives the tools that this enabling legislation can take advantage of as well. It is important to understand.

The minister did talk about the experts and needing the tools to do the job. Part of my question was, really, as we’re talking to experts: who are they? Were there labour groups that discussed this? Were there business organizations? Could that be elaborated on a little bit more, more closely?

Hon. Niki Sharma: With respect to this particular piece of legislation, in part, they were internal to government, what was discussed about the tools. But this is not the totality of the work.

[4:30 p.m.]

The expertise that we’ve developed in ministries with our government team is over years of discussions about labour mobility and labour mobility issues and changes that have been made by using the Labour Mobility Act, like under the regulation I mentioned, in 2022, and whether or not they needed new legal tools to do the work.

That’s the reason that we put this particular section in. We believe that the Labour Mobility Act…. Although continued work that’s happening on a quick basis may mean that we take a look at that act and see if it needs to be changed or adapted, at this stage, it has the tools to do the work for regulated professions.

The tables that everybody is sitting at right now will help to come to agreement across jurisdictions on where we need to move.

Kiel Giddens: I can appreciate that labour mobility is something that has been discussed among groups, as we’ve talked about. The fact that the New West Partnership…. It would have been in that context that some of those discussions would have taken place.

But I guess I’m still wondering about which organizations within that context would be…. Their weighting of, sort of, the opinion of government that led to this decision…. Which organizations, actually, were the ones that provided that expertise that led to the decision in this clause of the bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I believe I’ve answered that question.

Kiel Giddens: Was it…?

The Chair: Though the Chair, if you don’t mind, Member.

Kiel Giddens: I apologize, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Apology accepted.

Kiel Giddens: As we look at organizations that do have that expertise…. I appreciate that government does have a lot of expertise, but a lot of these organizations would be external to government.

Maybe a simple question: did the government include the opinion of the B.C. Federation of Labour in their discussion on how to craft this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I presented this bill to the TEST committee and had a discussion about the bill at the TEST committee, which includes representatives from labour. I haven’t heard anybody come to me and say, with this particular section, that they’re worried about this part in particular. I’ve heard discussions about other parts of it.

I think the real way to situate the power of this is: does the government have all the tools it needs to do the work of dropping trade barriers related to labour mobility, related to goods and services? This piece of legislation fills in the gap when it comes to goods and services and some of the services that are not included in the Labour Mobility Act.

That is the complete regime, if this is passed, that we will have in B.C. to address all of the problems.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response, but I’m still trying to understand. Were there groups that were specifically…? The minister referenced the TEST committee. Was there opposition to allowing individuals with skills certified in other provinces to come and work in British Columbia? How was that factored into the crafting of part 1 and clause 4?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. And I’ve already talked about changes we made in 2022 under the Labour Mobility Act that I think address the question.

Kiel Giddens: In relation to employer organizations that would have factored into the government’s opinion and expertise in gaining knowledge, I’m wondering if the Attorney General could elaborate on the opinion of the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other leading business organizations on how labour mobility would be factored into this part of the bill.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to make it clear, I am not aware of, and nobody has provided, any concerns about part 1 of this bill, especially some of the organizations that the members have asked for. What this does is create the certainty of legislative and regulatory frameworks that are applicable to different sides of our labour force in B.C. I have not heard anybody share any concerns about it.

Kiel Giddens: The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has expressed concerns with the amendments, including part 1.

For one, for the Attorney General’s reference, the sunset clause, and that part of it, is an issue for that organization. The other component they’ve raised as a concern is the fact that they want to make sure that that harmonization has occurred, and they want interprovincial trade and labour mobility barriers to be made permanent. They’ve also talked about labour mobility as a very important aspect.

That’s why I’m asking this line of questioning, to make sure that those independent businesses’ issues — these are typically small businesses — are looked after within this. The reason I’m asking, on behalf of groups like the CFIB, is that I’m wondering if the minister heard any concerns about how this would impact wages or contracts with employees, things of that nature that….

Labour mobility is important for these employers, so I just wanted to find out: has their input been factored into clause 4 and part 1 of this bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve already answered that question.

The Chair: Member, if you can adjust your line of questioning, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll move on to another line of questions here.

Did the ministry make any models, projections or recommendations on what not including labour mobility in this section would do for B.C.’s economy?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to maybe bring some clarity to this conversation, on what the Labour Mobility Act does. Right now the status quo in B.C. is certificate-to-certificate recognition of regulated professions under the Labour Mobility Act. We have that legislative framework in place right now in B.C., and it’s the reason why we added part 4 to this act.

In terms of the question of an analysis, I guess the analysis would be that the tools in here — which are, you could argue, as strong, in terms of recognizing other provinces’ goods — were not needed, because they’re contained in the Labour Mobility Act. The legislative tool is there.

That’s not to say that there’s no more work to be done. I think right now what we’re seeing with JEDI and other ministries is an understanding of what stronger tools may be needed in the on-the-ground implementation of some of that work, which is what the focus of ministries is right now.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General. I think, as part of that, it does speak to the one of the issues with the bill — in its entirety, actually — because the initial premise of the bill is that this is all about moving quickly.

We keep hearing, over and over again, throughout part 1 of the bill, that it is about more work that needs to be done to be able to have that enabling work happen — whether that’s in JEDI, in the Ministry of Labour or in other ministries where this has to happen — and the Labour Mobility Act is another example of that.

I guess what I’m trying to do is to make sure that this bill has the right tools to make sure that we can in fact act quickly. That’s what the government has stated as its intent. That’s what the business community expects.

At the onset of my first remarks the other day in this chamber, I talked about the C.D. Howe Institute report that talked about $200 billion worth of economic activity within Canada that we’re trying to unlock by the nature of interprovincial trade within Canada. Labour mobility is always attached to that conversation.

The reason I’m asking is because if the government is looking to act now, in a time of economic uncertainty, why not include the provisions explicitly within this clause and in this part, in its entirety of the bill, so that the labour mobility provisions can be clear and a signal to the business community that government can in fact act quickly?

Hon. Niki Sharma: First of all, just to take a step back from the comments at the beginning of the member’s statement, there never has been a piece of legislation in the history of the province that is so powerful when it comes to dropping interprovincial trade barriers for goods and services across this province, and we’re working with a Team Canada approach to do that. I would challenge the member to point me to another piece of legislation that has such powers to do so in such a quick way.

The other thing I’ll say is that, from I think all of our perspectives on the policy work, it makes no sense to duplicate laws of the land in another law. If a law stands under the Labour Mobility Act and is doing things like I mentioned before — like in 2022 through regulation, making Red Seal transferable, making sure that there’s certificate-to-certificate recognition of professions across jurisdictions. If that stands, as it does right now, it wouldn’t make any sense just to duplicate provisions in a bill.

[4:45 p.m.]

Actually, that would cause more uncertainty and more confusion, and it would maybe question why we would feel the need to do that with another law that already stands in B.C.

There is more work to do on labour mobility, and it’s happening in rapid pace right now. I’m happy to say that the tools of the Labour Mobility Act or anything that needs to be used or regulated under that will give us the ability to unlock a lot of that potential.

Kiel Giddens: I know we’ve gotten a little bit more high level in terms of where this clause of the bill fits into the entirety of the act. But it is, of course, enabling legislation. Overall, the bill, as originally presented, had to be walked back by the government. We’re hoping to see amendments on part 4, obviously. That was an example.

We’re making sure that interprovincial trade and labour mobility are actually going to be covered into this bill because, as I have always stated, this is the most consequential portion of this entire legislation. It’s important for the businesses of British Columbia.

As I reflect on that, I want to just ask the government for a message and a commitment to the business community. If there is still work to be done as part of this enabling legislation, will they commit to meeting immediately with all of those relevant business organizations that I had previously mentioned in the debate, to make sure that labour mobility and other interprovincial trade barriers are all being captured and covered into what needs to be removed to unlock the economic potential that interprovincial trade can actually in fact do?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I just want to say that there has never been a bill before this Legislature that has done more to drop interprovincial trade barriers than what is before the House right now. In fact, some of the business organizations that the member is referring to express extreme support for part 1 of this bill, saying it’s going to take much-needed steps towards enabling trade within Canada and, without reading those supportive comments, really seeing that this is the farthest that this government has ever gone with respect to this.

The member is asking if we’ll commit to meeting with organizations. Our Minister of Jobs and Economic Development, our Premier — we are meeting with organizations that are impacted all the time — not just businesses but labour, health professionals across the gambit of who’s impacted by the trade war now and who might be impacted by the trade war. I mean, there’s a commitment to do what we’re already doing.

Yes, we will continue to meet with organizations that are impacted and make sure that they know that…. I know the Minister of JEDI has even put forward a direct email address that people can directly respond in a rapid way and raise their concerns to her ministry.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’ll just say on the note about the labour mobility issues that the Prime Minister and the Premiers have directed the Committee on Internal Trade to develop a service standard of 30 days or better to make sure, even though there’s certificate-to-certificate recognition in B.C., that it’s rapidly being enforced so that we can have better standards on the ground.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for that fulsome answer from the Attorney General. I appreciate that that work is going on and want to see it continue to go on, and specifically towards labour mobility. I would make the request to the government, to the relevant ministers, like in JEDI and Labour and other ministries, that labour mobility would apply to have those conversations. I’m asking in earnest to make sure that this is done properly.

I appreciate the Attorney General providing that context on the Committee on Internal Trade. That’s certainly relevant to the discussion we’ve been having so far. I think, for the public, that is good information to be aware of.

I guess, with regards to the work at that committee and how it applies, I’m wondering…. Just to make sure that the Labour Mobility Act tools and what we have, the way clause 4 is used in part 1 of the bill…. How does this ensure that we don’t interfere with the national labour mobility framework while we’re pursuing the freer trade of goods and services and, as an extension, labour mobility within the country?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, that’s exactly one of the reasons that it is carved out. We know that the Labour Mobility Act is…. I think one of the reasons it was enacted is to align with that national labour mobility framework. So it’s actually the reason why we don’t want to complicate, provide uncertainty or duplicate work when we’ve done the work, and we think we have the tools under a piece of legislation.

Gavin Dew: I do just want to dig in, about two answers back, to the matter around support for part 1, subsection 4. I did hear the Attorney General say, and I believe it is true, that there is robust support in the business community for part 1. However, I would reflect back on the evolving public conversation around Bill 7. In the first days or weeks of the publication of the initial version of that bill, there was widespread media coverage which asserted that there was strong support in the business community for Bill 7.

It became clear later that there was significant hesitation among folks in the business community, including those who had been involved in extensive discussions with the government and had been consulted. It was not, in fact, support for Bill 7; it was support for part 1 of Bill 7 that was present and robust in the business community.

I would just like to get the Attorney General to expand on her assertion that part 1 is supported by the business community and help to confirm whether, in fact, there is robust support from consultations undertaken for part 1, subsection 4 specifically, as it stands.

The Chair: Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, Chair.

Gavin Dew: Madam Chair, the question hasn’t been answered.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member?

[4:55 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I would ask again whether there has been any public statement or any private statement that can be shared with the opposition in order to have a better understanding as to a more fulsome breakdown of the discussion and of the support that may or may not exist for different elements of part 1, specifically section 4.

I asked the question, and I will ask it again, because I want to have certainty around this matter. I do not want the government to be embarrassed again by the realization after the fact, having asserted that there is robust support for all elements of the first part of the bill…. I would hate for the government to be embarrassed by contradictory statements, as government was previously embarrassed. I’m simply looking for clarification that there is in fact robust on-the-record support for section 4.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason I said I asked and answered this is because I said there was support for part 1, and I have never heard anybody raise section 4 as an issue.

Gavin Dew: I apologize. We’re all, in fact, confusing sections and parts and clauses. There’s been a lot on this.

Hearing that section 4 has not been raised as an issue, I would just like to understand whether there was specific consultation, whether that was flagged for direct discussion with the business community or with labour groups specifically. I still am confused as to whether or not there has in fact been a clear assertion of support. I want to ensure that we’re not hearing an assertion of support on behalf of organizations that may or may not actually have asserted that support.

I want to afford the opportunity for the Attorney General to recognize the possibility that there might yet be a robust discussion to be had around this section, were the issue canvassed fully with folks in the business community. I’m simply trying to get a better understanding of whether that work has been done or will be done.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered.

The Chair: Member, if you can redirect your line of inquiry, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Gavin Dew: I will happily do so, Madam Chair.

In the service of better understanding the implications of section 4, I would like to ask whether the ministry undertook any models, projections or recommendations on what, including labour mobility, this section would do to B.C.’s economy and whether, in the development of such models, consultation with business economists of regard were undertaken.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered, again.

The Chair: Member, I would direct you to your colleague’s comments and questions to make sure that you’re not repeating the work he has already done.

Gavin Dew: My apologies.

Just to confirm: will such models be made available?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, asked and answered. Same line of questioning that I already answered.

Gavin Dew: Just one more question here.

This government and others have previously talked extensively about expanding certifications for foreign-trained credentials. I’m looking to better understand why, in the context of a very robust conversation both provincially and federally around the recognition of foreign credentials, we would not want to apply a similar approach to interprovincial credential recognition.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I canvassed all the ways that we are doing that with the Labour Mobility Act. Obviously, it wouldn’t be applicable to this act whether foreign credentials would apply, because we’re dealing with credentials within Canada.

[5:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for the answers that we’ve been supplied so far.

On this side of the House, we’re also trying to work towards relief for British Columbians, because a lot of British Columbians are worried about tariffs. We want to make sure we’re getting it right, because a lot of people are also concerned, in B.C., how this bill came about. It’s important for us to ask those questions so the people at home that are listening can have a robust understanding of this bill.

There was some discussion that was had. The Attorney General mentioned there were certain elements of duplication. That’s why clause 4 is in here: so extraprovincial occupations involving labour, those types of provisions, are not addressed again. That’s why there’s an opting out of extraprovincial occupations pursuant to the Labour Mobility Act.

I understand that, but if we compare clause 4 to clause 3, clause 3 referred to goods and services. Now we’re talking about labour. But even in goods and services, there is a certain element of duplication involving goods. There’s a duplication involving services. That’s why clause 3….

A prime example of how duplication exists is that clause 3 was actually talking about inconsistencies and overriding provisions and stuff like that. So if there exists duplication in, like, goods and services and now we’re being told that there’s duplication in labour and that’s why this clause is what it is — that’s why it’s saying extraprovincial occupations in regards to the Labour Mobility Act should not be included — that doesn’t really make sense.

Does the Attorney General have an explanation why it makes sense in this case versus not in the sense of comparing clause 4 to clause 3?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m unable to provide that answer unless the member can point to me somewhere in the clause or section 3 where there is a duplication with another piece of legislation that deals with trade barriers and dropping of trade barriers.

Steve Kooner: Sorry. What I meant to say was…. I referred to clause 3. I was actually meaning to refer to clause 2, sorry. So the reference was to clause 2, 2 and 4. Section, yeah, clause 2.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, Chair, I would like to know from the member what part of clause 2 refers to or exempts duplication of another legal instrument that involves dropping of interprovincial trade barriers on goods and services.

Steve Kooner: There isn’t specific language that talks about duplication, but the provisions, how they’re worded, indicate there is some duplication of certain regulations addressing the same subject matter.

If you go to clause 2 again, it says: “Subject to any laws of British Columbia respecting who may….” You know, it refers to other laws, and it’s a “subject to.” Then it goes further. It goes further in subsection (5) of clause 2, “…if there is a conflict or inconsistency between (a) an enactment or regulatory measure,” and then it says what provision would apply. So it talks about inconsistencies.

Why it’s talking about inconsistency, in my respectful submission, is because there are other regulations, other enactments that are actually covering the same content. That’s why it’s referring to it.

In terms of the explanations that were provided in terms of clause 4, of duplication, it’s my respectful submission that there is duplication in goods and services as well. Otherwise, some of these provisions would not be referring to other enactments, about inconsistent enactments and conflicts and subject-to, if there was no other enactment in regards to specific content.

That’s an example. Yes, there is no specific wording that says “duplication” in clause 2, but if you read the section as a whole and you read the wording, that inference is there in regards to duplication and addressing the same content with various different enactments.

[5:05 p.m.]

The question is…. Again, if we’re trying to avoid duplication, that answer or that explanation doesn’t make sense when we also have…. We have duplication in regards to goods and services already, but we’re allowing for provisions on goods and services, and we’re not allowing it on labour.

The question again. If we have provisions that deal with content that’s referred to in this bill but also there are other enactments, in my respectful opinion, that would be duplication. I’m just trying to understand why there is a difference in one section ruling out specific content because there is argument that there is duplication.

The Chair: I will remind the committee that at this time, we are debating clause 4 of part 1. We have already passed clause 2 of part 1. If we could stay focused on clause 4, that would be appreciated.

Please do not argue with the Chair.

Thank you, Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s hard to answer that question because clause 2 and clause 4 are very different, and they operate very differently. We don’t look at legal regimes and how to solve a legal problem in the way that the member is positioning it as if you do it in this section, you need to do it in this section. What you do is try to figure out what the legal tool is that you need to solve the problem and to make sure you have the wording in place to solve that problem.

Clause 2 is worded to solve the problem of dropping barriers on goods and services. This part 4 is included because we have a legal regime that deals with the Labour Mobility Act, whereas we don’t have a legal regime that specifically deals with dropping interprovincial trade barriers. So there is nothing to be gained from comparing this section with clause 2 because they are targeted and used to do different things.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response.

I have a follow-up question. Is this the first time in B.C. that we’re seeing a carve-out for labour mobility or extraprovincial occupations? Is this the first time we’re seeing this in a piece of legislation, or is there a precedent from before as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m not aware of any examples, and my team has searched and is unaware of any as well.

Steve Kooner: If we’re not aware of any examples, have there been any studies done in terms of how this precedent…? What precedent will this section set for future legislation?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve canvassed for quite a long time the need for this particular provision and the need for this regime to be clear that it doesn’t apply to this part. I don’t have anything further to offer on that on this conversation except to say that there is legal rationale for why we have included this in this section, and the work will be in dropping the interprovincial trade barriers using the tools that exist.

Steve Kooner: Have there been any studies done in regards to how other provinces may perceive this particular section when they’re looking at interprovincial trade with British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, and I would imagine that such a study…. I’m not sure how you would frame that or do it, but in the context of the time that we’re in and working together as a Team Canada approach, I would say that would just slow things down.

Steve Kooner: Provided that there’s no precedent from before in excluding extraprovincial occupations in regards to the Labour Mobility Act, that could send a message that there have been exclusions in terms of interprovincial trade from British Columbia. And we’ve heard that there are concerns from stakeholders. One reference was the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

When we’re carving out sections from content, when we’re carving out labour and isolating it from goods and services, that sends a message that we’re not giving a fulsome approach to removing interprovincial trade barriers, especially when there’s urgent need. The business community is looking at the government in regards to expediency to deal with the tariffs. People are threatened with losing their jobs, and people are threatened…. There are business community members that feel threatened in suffering business losses due to the threat of the tariffs.

Increasing labour mobility through interprovincial trade would provide benefits to B.C. We’ve heard for some time now there are certain professionals that would like to practise across provinces, but they run up against obstacles.

So this is the time, if we want to act in expediency, to provide some sort of resolution to help the business community, making sure that we have the proper safeguards to protect us from the foreign entity that’s threatening us with tariffs, to include a fulsome approach with a full piece of enabling legislation that addresses all pieces, all content, that concern interprovincial trade.

So at this time, I would like to move an amendment to clause 4.

[Clause 4 is amended by striking the word “not.”]

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 4, and the amendment is as….

Would you like to speak to the amendment at this time?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would just like to, if I can, Chair, ask a question, because I think it will help.

I haven’t heard the member articulate what he believes the amendments will do and what the implications are to the entire regime. If he can explain that to me, that would be helpful.

Steve Kooner: Well, when you’re removing the word “not,” that gives the opposite meaning. That allows for the inclusion of extraprovincial occupations that are referenced in the Labour Mobility Act. That sends a signal to the business community that in times of urgent need, their concerns are being taken into place and the government is serious about interprovincial trade barriers. That sends a clear message in regard to that.

The amendment would make it easier for skilled carpenters, electricians, nurses, doctors and any other skilled workers that could move to B.C. if barriers were removed. It would support increasing trade and mobility between our provinces. B.C. already has a shortage of skilled workers. This would help us in this province.

The amendment would include labour mobility and add greater free trade. So it would apply to labour mobility.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. The amendment has been reviewed and appears to be a direct negative. As such, it is considered to be out of order. The preferred practice is for a member to vote against the clause rather than seeking to move an amendment proposing a direct negative.

Thank you very much for your amendment.

We will continue on clause 4.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Steve Kooner: When the government was formulating clause 4, and, you know, the labour mobility was being carved out…. But the government was aiming for addressing interprovincial trade barriers and removing them.

By removing labour mobility, were there any concerns had in government, or anybody that the government consulted with, in terms of stakeholders that said that or felt that the definition of interprovincial trade barriers and their removal was being narrowed or the bill’s scope was being narrowed rather than broadened by carving out a certain aspect of this?

Were there any concerns within government or amongst stakeholders?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve already answered this many times.

The Chair: If you can redirect your line of questioning.

[5:20 p.m.]

Seeing no further questions, shall clause 4 pass?

A Voice: Division.

[5:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, at this time, it appears that we have everyone in place. Are we all right to waive the next four minutes and 22 seconds?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is whether clause 4 of Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, shall pass.

Clause 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 7
Blatherwick	Neill	Davidson
Parmar	Routledge	Sharma
	Botterell
NAYS — 5
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok		Williams

The Chair: We will be moving on to clause 5 after a ten-minute recess. Everybody who’s supposed to be back in their seats, be back in by 5:37, please.

The committee recessed from 5:27 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, back to order.

On clause 5.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much, and welcome to the chair, Madam Chair.

[5:40 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll take this opportunity, as well, to thank the Attorney General for answering these questions and being a part of this process.

I also want to thank the staff. This has been a long week already for many of you, so thank you very much for the work you’re doing on behalf of British Columbians. We are asking these questions on their behalf to make sure that the legislation is understood and there’s fulsome scrutiny of the bill.

Again, as we’ve said many times, internal trade and labour mobility are crucial in Canada. We’re trying to ensure that we have knowledge that we’re getting it right.

Part of that is clause 5, in regard to the power to make regulations. Obviously, in legislation this is common practice. This is an important part of legislation, granting these powers. But they should not be taken lightly. This is obviously an important clause of part 1, of the entire bill as a whole. Really, when it comes to regulations, they need to be transparent.

That’s partly why, in relation to this overall part 1 of the bill as stand-alone legislation, it is still my belief, and many others’, that this would have made sense. The power to make regulations under a cleaner act on interprovincial trade and labour mobility would make more sense. I’m wondering in this power if the Attorney General could respond to, again, why this is not a stand-alone power being granted in this clause of the bill.

The Chair: We’re just having a technical issue, so we’re going to take a brief two-minute recess to check on the issue and resume.

The committee recessed from 5:42 p.m. to 5:43 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair:Thank you. We’re calling the Committee of the Whole back to order.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll repeat my question, as it wasn’t recorded in the previous instance. Clause 5 is in regard to the power to make regulations. It’s an important part of any legislation, and this is consequential here to part 1 of the bill. Again, we’re trying to get trade and labour mobility right.

My question is: in granting this power — it’s not something to be taken lightly; this is an important part of legislation — why could we not have done this in a stand-alone bill?

I’d like to just hear the answer from the Attorney General as to why, with respect to clause 5, part 1 of the bill, this couldn’t have been done with a stand-alone bill.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before I answer, if the member could provide more clarity. Does he mean whether or not all of part 1 could have been a stand-alone bill, or is he referring to the regulatory power versus the other part of part 1?

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that maybe I could have been more clear; it’s getting long in the day. In relation to the granting of regulatory authority, in relation overall to part 1, why couldn’t part 1, as a whole, have been a stand-alone bill so that the granting of regulations under clause 5 could have been simpler, perhaps, if done under those circumstances?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Two aspects of this answer. The reason there’s a part 2 and a part 3 is because of our other responses to the tariff threat.

With respect to part 1, if we were thinking in terms of regulatory versus legislative, the regulatory provisions in clause 5 help give flexibility and ways to make sure that by clause 2 in part 1, the powers of part 1 have the ability to basically protect anything or do anything that the minister, through their work, would want to do through regulation to exempt it from the interprovincial trade barriers dropping.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just because it wasn’t read into the record properly before, I again want to thank the Attorney General for the work on responding to these questions. I also want to give a very special thank-you to the staff, who are working hard on behalf of British Columbians. Public servants do a fantastic job on our behalf.

I guess the reason I’m asking this question in this context…. I recognize the other parts of the bill that were in relation to the response to tariffs, but this particular section, and the regulations that would come out of it, could be viewed as different and apart from the other parts of the bill.

There are organizations that have said that had interprovincial trade been introduced on its own, then the regulations would not have had a sunset clause. It would be made permanent, they’d be part of a long-standing, stand-alone piece of interprovincial trade legislation, and they would have regulations that would follow that bill in its entirety.

I’m asking because I would like clarity as to why part 1 wasn’t done as a stand-alone bill without a sunset clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I have spoken to a question that was almost identical to this one before, but I will provide an answer again.

[5:50 p.m.]

The uses of clause 2 in this bill are considered pretty extraordinary powers to be given — to override all pieces of legislation and regulation with respect to interprovincial trade barriers. The overall goal is to make them permanent and to make the work permanent, but the flexibility that’s built into this act gives the ability of ministers to do a few things.

Through the negative exemption list, it will be very clear, when the regulations are adopted, which industries or which sectors are not included in the dropping of trade barriers — or which goods and services, to be more specific. That will be the way that we will operate, and then the minister and the government can see if there are any adjustments that are needed as they roll out, and the regulatory power gives the flexibility of that.

Then with respect to the sunset clause, there’s an ability to then come before the Legislature or do the changes necessary to make sure either to extend some of those regulations or to do the work of making them permanent.

Kiel Giddens: I very much appreciate that response. I think it was an important one to be read into the record to understand the intent of permanence of provisions. I think that’s good clarity, and that’s something that I wanted confirmed, so I appreciate that.

With regards to the sunset clause and coming back to the Legislature, I’m wondering if the Attorney General can provide some context of at what point that could occur. Obviously, we don’t know the time limit of the tariff response and what is needed there, but could this be at any point, and would there be anything that would prevent coming back to the Legislature at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. We would expect that work to be done very quickly and if not already underway, as soon as possible. It gives the opportunity for the space between where the sunset clause would kick in, and there would be two opportunities before the Legislature and/or through other forms of regulation to make those changes.

Kiel Giddens: To clarify, it would come back to the Legislature two times prior to the sunset clause coming in. Sorry. Maybe I misheard it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I didn’t describe that properly. There are two legislative sessions in between. That’s what I meant by that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the clarification there.

Maybe moving on to another topic, the power to make regulations. A lot can be done through policy, obviously, and this is part of the intent of the bill as a whole. But in policy, that’s where the political aspects come into play. In many cases where political parties enact their political platforms, some of that is through legislation, but a lot of the work and detail end up being through policy and regulatory ability.

For example, I look at things that have been created that are more political in nature, the way our regulations are granted, and I want to use the example of community benefits agreements. I’m saying this as critic for Labour for the official opposition, because those agreements do exclude the vast majority of contractors and their workers from public projects. That could be construed as a politically motivated act to do that.

There are workers across the province who aren’t able to work on these public projects unless they agree to join a union that is improved by the government. Obviously, that has driven up the cost of public projects. It also, in this context, is a little bit ironic, because American-headquartered unions are the only ones that are included on that list.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m wondering how this bill, in terms of the regulatory power, might work for businesses that are coming…. Regulations being enacted for goods and services of a business coming from outside the province — how does this impact B.C. Infrastructure Benefits and community benefits agreements overall?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of the legal mechanisms in this part of the bill, a CBA wouldn’t fit the definition of a regulatory measure, which was the very first clause, if you remember back, that we talked about. So it wouldn’t necessarily apply to or be implicated in any of the powers here.

What I would say is that we are, at some point, going to get to the discussion about procurement, and I wonder if there’s a procurement question that’s in the member’s inquiry or line of inquiry there.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, we will get in a fair bit to procurement.

The reason I’m asking is because I’m wondering how businesses and supply chains, just as they’re adjusting…. How can they adjust if the internal trade part of the bill has the sunset clause? How can they adjust to regulations? How will they be publicly disclosed to make sure that businesses are aware?

We’ll leave it at that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: All regulations are public, and there will be, as we mentioned in this discussion, that negative list that’s created. So it’ll be very clear which regulations and what the authorities do.

Steve Kooner: In reviewing section 5(1)(a), it states that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: exempting a good from the application of section 2 (1).” But when you review clause 2, you see that there’s a lot of discretion of the minister to still exclude certain goods. I’m just wondering. Isn’t this section redundant? Is there a reason why we have another exempting provision in clause 5?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is no exemption power in clause 2 that we talked about. This is the exemption power found under regulation.

Steve Kooner: There was a discussion that was had in terms of clause 2, in terms of…. Certain provisions can be excluded. They can be overruled. We went on at length about the words of “subject to other laws” and stuff like that. Basically, that’s what I’m referring to. There were certain qualifications that I spent a lot of time talking about in clause 2.

[6:00 p.m.]

When I’m talking about the exempting language, is it the interpretation of the Attorney General that exempting is different from a qualification on a clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, they are very different things, legally.

Steve Kooner: Then in regard to the second, I have a point in regards to subsection (b) of clause 5, and that refers to exempting another province of Canada from the application of section 2(1). When I view this, it’s like…. What I view it as….

Is this suggesting that the province of British Columbia could say: “Look, we’re not going to do interprovincial trade with a certain province in this country”? Is that what this is trying to get at?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it provides the minister with the ability to exempt — we’re talking about a specific good, because it will be through a negative list — from the dropping of trade barriers for a specific province.

Steve Kooner: Has the government contemplated any sort of reactionary measures that may be encountered by our government with another province if certain goods are exempted and that are actually coming from certain other provinces?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Although we would never intend to use such a provision, the reason it was put in, in this piece of enabling legislation, is that through the examination of….

We’re all taking a Team Canada approach and making sure that we’re all working together to do that. But in an instance where there is a province that either has a standard that is what we’d consider below a standard that we would set a good at or is an outlier when it comes to a certain good or, in this situation, a good, then the minister has the flexibility to be able to do that particular exclusion.

Steve Kooner: Would it also be fair to say under this provision, which states, “exempting another province of Canada from the application of section 2 (1),” which refers to goods, there’s nothing stopping the Lieutenant Governor in Council from exempting all goods from that province, pursuant to this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s right. The way it’s drafted, it could be used flexibly for the minister, including as the member describes.

Steve Kooner: Having that particular language in our legislation here…. Doesn’t that send a message that we’re being protectionists rather than being open for free trade, in this province, with other provinces?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Other provinces that have enacted legislation or are presenting legislation are taking the approach of what we talk about as reciprocity. They’re saying: “Our trade barriers will drop if another province enacts similar legislation.” How we’ve designed this bill is to be more flexible, so what you could do, depending on how it goes, is you could drop a trade barrier without reciprocity from another province.

[6:05 p.m.]

In that scenario, if it is how we’re making sure that we also have the ability to protect B.C.’s businesses in instances when we would need to, from a province that is maybe not acting in a mutual way that we would want them to, we would have the ability to protect or put up those restrictions against that province, against the goods.

To some extent, all of the conversations that have happened about trade amongst provinces require a level of reciprocity for them to work, and we’re really hopeful that the Team Canada approach will get that level of mutual agreement across the way. We are working towards that.

In the instances where that doesn’t happen, or if there is a particular good that a B.C. business or a certain sector is asking our minister or the ministry to say, “Hey, this could be the implication if we drop it with this province,” and it would be a negative thing for B.C. business, then it gives the minister the flexibility to adjust and accommodate that circumstance.

Steve Kooner: Doesn’t that create uncertainty to the business community? They’re thinking that it’s a Team Canada approach, that there’s going to be free trade across the country, but then there’s a provision such as this giving discretion to a minister to kind of exclude all goods from a particular province.

Does that not go against the principles of free trade, go against what the business community is wanting and go against what the rest of the country is wanting in terms of lowering down interprovincial trade barriers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to take a step back and again reiterate that this is enabling legislation. When you contemplate enabling legislation, you set up scenarios through the regulation that give the powers that you think may or may not be necessary during this dropping of interprovincial trade barriers and the work that’s happening on every table.

There could be a scenario where provinces have actually agreed amongst themselves that we are going to delay the dropping of the trade barrier on this particular good for a certain period of time. This provision would give the minister the power, then, to say: “Well, for this good, we have a separate agreement with this province, and this is how we’re going to go about it.” Maybe that minimizes impact to that industry or that business.

Interprovincial trade barriers and how they show up are extremely complicated. Our approach is to drop them and then give the regulatory power for the work of exempting things that we know would either go against B.C. businesses or jobs or be something that is a standard that, as British Columbians, we wouldn’t want to have for certain goods in our province. With that enabling legislation and the regulatory powers that are laid up, it gives us that flexibility to do that.

With respect to the certainty question, I think we have to remember that this part is in force once that regulation is in place. So when the regulation is in place, what it will create is a negative list. That negative list will provide the certainty to all those in this particular situation — goods that would be under this regulation. So that will give the business community certainty related to that.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response.

I have a follow-up question to that. If there is a negative list after considering exemptions…. That’s not a one-time thing, though, right? There can actually be subsequent lists as well.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in the context of legislation and regulatory and legislative process, there’s no permanence related to legislation or regulation. Changes of government can change legislation and regulation as they sit, so you would never be able to provide an absolute level of certainty to communities.

What we can do through these provisions is make sure that the ministers that are tooled up with this enabling piece of legislation can have the tools and ability to be flexible, to change if needed, to respond to stakeholders and their concerns, to understand the changing landscape that’s happening with mutual trade agreements and the shifting of provinces working together in a different way and to enact them quickly if we need to. Or there’s an opportunity there for the B.C. community and workers or businesses or any other thing.

Also, something really important to remember is: why would you want an exempting provision? Well, the reason you’d want one is that there might be health and safety reasons. There might be public interest reasons why we would want to exempt a certain good from dropping an interprovincial trade barrier. That’s important work to have a lens on.

The power of clause 2 is the dropping of all trade barriers except these exemptions, so it’ll be very clear to the public and all actors what they are.

Steve Kooner: For businesses that are concerned about uncertainty…. Certain businesses will probably change their business practices. If they want to come and do business here in B.C., they’ll probably change how they’re structured.

When a business is planning, they want to know that there are some certain terms, so if they change their practices, which could be labour-intensive or cost-intensive, they would want to know that the situation won’t turn on them in terms of regulations and legislation that’s in place or certain negative lists that exist.

I feel that maybe the business community can be given a certain soothing if they were assured there are certain checks and balances on a minister’s discretion to exercise some of these provisions in here. Are there any sorts of checks and balances that are applicable to a minister’s discretion in regards to this section?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are two significant checks and balances on the use of this power.

I just want to say that we heard from the opposition in response to the bill that they find it very important that the Legislature is involved in processes and that there are democratic protections against the use of powers. So this is why not only the amendments were made to this bill but why the bill is structured the way it is.

One of those checks and balances is the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so that means cabinet makes the regulation under clause 5. And the other one is the sunset clause, which allows for there to be clarity about what exists and allows us to work through permanent changes to make sure that when those changes happen, they come back to the Legislature or some kind of legislative process to do that.

There also would be…. On the tables that we’re sitting in when we’re negotiating with our other provinces, there is going to be a lot of pressure of progress and new avenues to drive changes through those.

[6:15 p.m.]

We would have to justify any changes that we would make provincially at those tables and through those agreements. So everything…. All the work is moving towards certainty and permanence but with the rights, checks and balances in place.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General just explain the first check and balance? I thought I heard “tenant” governor in council. Was it “Lieutenant Governor in Council?” Can the Attorney General please explain that first check and balance?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I said “lieutenant.” I think I said that correctly, although I’m often corrected if I say “Lieutenant” instead of “Lef-tenant” Governor in Council, which means that it is not a regulation that the minister makes. It’s a regulation that cabinet makes, which is a different sort of regulation.

Steve Kooner: But that is technically a regulation that’s made by ministers, because ministers are in cabinet. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The difference is sometimes enactments grant the minister responsible the regulatory-making power, and some legislation grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which means cabinet, so it’s an all-of-cabinet decision.

Steve Kooner: For the people listening at home, can that process be explained? When a decision is being made by Lieutenant Governor in Council, by cabinet, is it just a recommendation by a minister and it goes to the Premier and somebody signs off on it? How does that work? How much say does the minister that’s handling the file actually have in that decision?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Like many cabinet processes, what would happen is the responsible ministries, or the ones doing the policy work, would present whatever that would be, in this case a regulation, and then it would be up to cabinet to sit around the table, discuss that and make the decision on that regulation.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the second check and balance, which was referred to as a sunset clause that will allow for, eventually, some permanent changes…. In regard to permanent changes, does the government have any timeline when permanent changes may start to come in regard to some of these provisions in clause 5?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was asked and answered previously.

Steve Kooner: It may have been answered in a previous clause.

I guess I’m just seeking clarity if what was discussed in terms of the sunset clause in regard to previous clauses — if that’s applicable to this as well.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: Going on to subclause 5(2), if you read along (b), there’s a wording about establishing, defining classes of goods, services or provinces of Canada. When I read that phrase “provinces of Canada,” and then I put into perspective what I’ve just heard in terms of explanations for this particular clause, in terms that a particular province could be exempted….

As per this, just to clarify, it could be more than one province that could be exempted, more than one province that could be exempted from the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, that’s correct. There are some really good reasons for a minister eventually making a decision like that.

[6:20 p.m.]

What we’ve seen with trade across Canada is oftentimes, or maybe more often than nationally, B.C. has been able to form agreements with more neighbouring provinces. And the northwest trade agreement is an example of that, where it’s provinces that are close to us.

Through those other agreements, there may be examples where those provinces agree to do something a certain way, and it just makes more sense regionally or for some reason like that. This would give the minister the ability to make sure that’s clear through regulation.

Steve Kooner: If there were no safeguards and, say, the legislation just said that trade was open, what’s the worst downside of just having free-for-all, open trade across the provinces in regard to goods and services?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There might be any number of reasons.

First of all, the approach generally is, and it’s actually through the wording of the legislation, to do a general dropping, except for the exemptions. There would be, kind of, more of a widespread approach of not having trade barriers — if we’re talking about goods now, here, and we’ve described services in detail before — except for the exemptions.

Why would you want to have an exemption? Well, you could think of a health and safety standard that exists in a good that we, for some reason, feel doesn’t meet something that we would permit to be sold in the province as a good. It allows the minister, through regulation and, I guess, eventually cabinet, to act in the public interest. If there’s a public interest reason that that good, in this instance, or service…. If we need to make sure there’s a barrier in place from it being sold in B.C., it gives them that ability.

Things like ICBC…. We have a different approach to car insurance in B.C. than other provinces, which has resulted in cheaper car insurance rates here in B.C. than other provinces. If there’s something that we, in the public interest, would say is excluded from the dropping of all barriers, it would give us the tools and ability to do that.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response.

There was something that the Attorney General spoke about, how we may have different standards here in terms of health. There were a few other examples that were mentioned, but I’d like to refer back to an earlier part of the debate. I believe there was some discussion that there are a lot of common standards right across the country. If there are a lot of common standards right across the country, doesn’t that take care of this fear that we need to be still more protectionist here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, the approach that this legislation sets out is the dropping of all barriers to goods, and I think I mentioned that before. The default stance is the dropping, and the regulation is just an ability in a circumstance, and I gave an example of ICBC, where we would have a different approach and we would maybe want to exempt it from that dropping. It gives the regulatory authority to do so.

Steve Kooner: Earlier in part of this debate, not too long ago, there was a reference to how if certain other provinces did not bring down their barriers, the exempting provisions would actually help to address that situation.

To that particular issue, is the Attorney General of a belief that other provinces would not offer reciprocal or free trade, and is that a justification for this legislation?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have no reason to believe that, and actually, it’s quite the opposite. The legislation is pretty broad and, I think, a strong leadership stance in our position when it comes to interprovincial trade barriers and how they impact the economy because of the powers and the balance of this bill and what it will do.

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think there has ever been a bill before the House in this province that has had more of an ability to drop interprovincial trade barriers than the one that’s before us.

Steve Kooner: Has the Attorney General been in any discussions with this government’s provincial counterparts, and can certain examples be shared today with our side of the House to tell us how many provincial jurisdictions are actually willing to engage in interprovincial trade and relieving these restrictions?

Have there been discussions amongst other provinces and other jurisdictions that have suggested that they will reciprocate, they will remove their interprovincial trade barriers? Have there been those discussions? If there have been those discussions, how many actual provinces have said that they’re going to bring down the barriers? Is it all the provinces, or is it just some of them?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve had a chance to talk about this quite a bit, I think, on clause 1. We are at every table, and I think it’s all of them. All provinces and territories are at the table for dropping interprovincial trade barriers.

Steve Kooner: At any point in any of those discussions with those other governments, were there any concerns that they would be exempting some of their goods and services?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not that I’m aware of.

Steve Kooner: Does the Attorney General’s office have a current list that they want to exempt under this clause 5 readily available that they anticipate producing into the public in the near future?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. The ministries are working on it, and once it becomes a regulation that’s passed, it will be very clear what that negative list is.

Steve Kooner: Is there a timeline to when this side of the House can actually be able to see that list?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t have a date right now, but I know that JEDI is working very hard, so it would be as soon as possible.

Steve Kooner: I know an example was given earlier about certain goods that would be excluded, that violate health standards, but can the Attorney General’s department be more clear about which goods, exactly, have been considered and that they are aware are going to be on that example list?

Hon. Niki Sharma: My team recommended that I say as soon as practical, which I thought was kind of funny. Inside joke.

Interjections.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you.

To the question, I, of course, cannot bind any cabinet process right now. Any regulator would go to cabinet to do that. That would be something that will be coming and is being worked on as we speak.

Steve Kooner: Is it fair to say that there are certain goods in the government’s minds that they’re thinking about putting on an exempting list but they’re not in a position to disclose those right now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, the work is being done right now to identify that.

[6:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Is that the same for services? I understand that there’s a process in place. Is there a similar process for services as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: I was told that the timeline is as soon as practicable for goods. Is that the same for the services, as well, or will that be faster than the goods?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Same timeline.

Gavin Dew: In reviewing section 5(1)(b), (c), (e), (f) and other areas, I find myself somewhat confused around scope. I note in the explanatory note of the bill: “Part 1 of this bill provides for the removal of barriers to the sale and use of goods and the supply of services in British Columbia in relation to goods and services from another province or territory of Canada.”

The language used within the bill itself specifies in all those instances — again, 5(1)(b), (c), (e), (f) and other areas — only another province of Canada. From my basic research, it would appear that best practices for the drafting of bills are that “province” and/or “territory” should be spelled out, given that the two are constitutionally distinct and that such an omission could lead to legal ambiguity.

Could the Attorney General please clarify whether this is a drafting error, or whether it is intentional and we do not intend to pursue reduced interprovincial or interterritorial trade barriers with our friends in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to appreciate the member’s very specific question about a specific clause and the wording of the clause. Excellent.

The answer to that question is in the Interpretation Act. I can get you the section. It’s section 29. It says if “province” is used on its own, it by default means all the territories as well.

Gavin Dew: I’m still uncertain as to why, in the explanatory note, we are explicitly spelling out province or territory, but in the bill itself, we’re choosing to use only province. While I recognize the salience of the other applicable interpretations, I simply don’t understand why in the bill itself we are signalling to territories our disinterest in reducing trade barriers with them.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The explanatory note is often used like a plain-language description, so it helps people understand the content of the bill. The Interpretation Act is a piece of legislation in B.C. that helps us guide how we draft and what language we use and how it is meant to be interpreted. So in that way, the use of “province” legally clearly means also territories.

Gavin Dew: Recognizing the legal meaning, I do still have concerns about the clarity of the bill, and I would like to request a recess as we consider bringing forth an amendment accordingly.

[6:35 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: It’s standard drafting practice in this province that legislation incorporates definitions in the Interpretation Act. In doing so, if you repeat the interpretation in the actual legislation, you create legislative confusion. So it’s just standard practice.

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I’d like to direct a question to the Attorney General, to understand whether my interpretation of how the Interpretation Act provides an umbrella of definitions that apply across all the thousands of pieces of legislation in B.C. is correct.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member is correct.

Gavin Dew: This is the part where we come up with questions so that we can draft an amendment. Thank you all for sticking with the “drafting an amendment” show, as our folks draft amendments. Super fantastic.

I have lots of questions, which just haven’t come into my mind yet. You know, I feel like 14½ minutes is very achievable. I’ve got all these great Bill 7 jokes. I’ve got all these great tariff jokes. It’s fantastic. My act has been prepared for forever and ever and ever.

Returning to my prior question, can the Attorney General please expand on any consultation undertaken with the territories that might reasonably have led toward the belief that it was not significant — or perhaps it was significant — to those territories that they be explicitly included in the bill, in plain language, rather than relying on the underlying Interpretation Act to provide that clarity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve met with the AG and the Premier of Northwest Territories personally about how we could be of assistance to each other in dropping interprovincial trade…. I know the Premier has as well, but also they’re at every table when it comes to trade barriers. That’s part of the conversation.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General expand on whether there’s any reason why she and her colleagues on the government side of the House would not vote accordingly to amend the bill to explicitly spell out “province or territory”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s because it would be unnecessary. As I think we’ve already canvassed, there is a legal order to how we draft and include legislation. If you do specific things that are outliers in one piece of legislation, it wreaks…. Well, the legislative drafters would say it would provide havoc to the rest of the legislation. So you just don’t do that.

Gavin Dew: Based on that explanation, can the Attorney General edify me as to why, if that inconsistency would be problematic, we have that exact inconsistency included in the bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s not in the bill; it’s in the explanatory note. Again, the Interpretation Act provides a full answer to the question.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General generally agree that it would be a positive gesture toward our friends in the territories to more explicitly spell out, in the bill, our preference for a fulsome and inclusive definition that would allow for them to fully appreciate our appreciation of them and fully appreciate just how important the territories are to interprovincial trade?

[6:40 p.m.]

It’s recognizing that by its very nature, the terminology we use around interprovincial trade, in itself, marginalizes our friends in the territories, who might very well ask why it is that we refer repeatedly to interprovincial trade, rather than some other terminology that would duly provide them with a greater sense of inclusion in this great country of ours.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered.

The Chair: Member, I would ask that you redirect your questioning to a new line.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. An amendment is presently on the way and will be arriving shortly. As that amendment proceeds down the hallways of the Legislature, hopefully moving at the speed….

Oh, look at that. Look at that. How wonderful. An amendment has arrived, as if from the very heavens, just in the nick of time. After all of that stalling, all of that super-interesting discourse, I have now brought this proposed amendment, and I would be pleased to provide said amendment.

Having expertly prepared this amendment on a just-in-time production basis — a grand metaphor in a time of trade integration, as we think about the production of vehicle manufacturing and other such things…. Using a just-in-time production methodology, we have developed this proposed amendment, which I would like to bring.

The amendment reads as follows:

[SECTION 5, by adding the underlined text as shown:

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) exempting a good from the application of section 2 (1);

(b) exempting another province or territory of Canada from the application of section 2 (1);

(c) providing that an enactment or regulatory measure applies to a good, or to goods from another province or territory of Canada, despite section 2 (2);

(d) exempting a service from the application of section 2 (3);

(e) exempting another province or territory of Canada from the application of section 2 (3);

(f) providing that an enactment or regulatory measure applies to a service, or to services from another province or territory of Canada, despite section 2 (4);

(g) prescribing regulatory authorities for the purpose of the definition of “regulatory authority” in section 3.

(2) In making a regulation under this section, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may do one or more of the following:

(a) establish terms and conditions;

(b) establish or define classes of goods, services or provinces or territories of Canada;

(c) make different regulations in relation to different goods, services or provinces of Canada, or different classes of goods, services or provinces of Canada.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 6:43 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I call the Committee of the Whole, Section A, back to order.

Member, the proposed amendment is out of order on the basis of redundancy, given the drafting standards and the provisions of the Interpretation Act noted earlier.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have an amendment to move with respect to this particular clause, and I believe it’s been previously circulated to all members. Specifically, it changes the definition of government procurement entity.

[CLAUSE 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Definitions for this Part

6 In this Part:

“government procurement entity” means

(a) a government organization, as defined in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, other than a corporation or organization that is excluded from this definition by regulation under section 11 of this Act, and

(b) a corporation or organization that is included in this definition by regulation under section 11;

“government procurement entity” means a government organization, as defined in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act;

“procurement”, in relation to the procurement of goods or services, includes sourcing, selecting, receiving and contracting for goods or services and other steps taken to acquire goods or services;

“protected person” means the following:

(a) a government procurement entity;

(b) a person who is a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity.]

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 6. You’ll find a copy of the amendment in the orders of the day.

The amendment is in order.

Amendment approved.

On clause 6 as amended.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the definition of protected person under clause 6, does the definition of a protected person include the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Would the Legislative Assembly, as it receives funds from a consolidated revenue fund, be considered a procurement entity under clause 6?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it’s not.

Steve Kooner: In the new amended definition, under clause 6, it now refers to how a government procurement entity means a government organization, as defined under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

I had a chance to review that Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the definition of government procurement entity. I believe what it said was that it means a corporation or organization that is within a government reporting entity. Can the Attorney General explain this definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: To give more clarity on what that definition is, the BTAA contains some extensive and detailed definitions, but broadly speaking, a government reporting entity is made up of the corporations and organizations that, under the applicable public sector accounting standards, are considered to be controlled by the government, directly or indirectly.

Steve Kooner: Could the Attorney General elaborate on that definition? It seemed a bit technical to me, but just try to maybe summarize it in a few sentences, so I can understand it better.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s all the corporations and organizations that are under government control, so that would include Crown corps, health authorities, things like that.

Steve Kooner: Would it also include municipalities, cities? Would they be considered government procurement entities? They do operate under enabling legislation, and they’re entities through provincial statute. Would they actually come under this government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. They’re not a government reporting entity.

[6:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: So although they’re not a government reporting entity…. Just to clarify, they’re not a government procurement entity, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Steve Kooner: The example was mentioned, Crown corporations. Would that include all Crown corporations, or are there some exceptions?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It does include them all, but the way this is structured, the government may or may not choose to issue the directives at all of them, but it includes Crown corps.

Steve Kooner: In addition to Crown corporations, are there certain organizations…? What would be an example of organizations included within the government procurement entities?

Hon. Niki Sharma: An example would be health authorities.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General able to provide an extensive list of every organization that would be under a government procurement entity, since my understanding is that not all Crown corporations would be part of this?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is actually a very complicated question to answer because what a government reporting entity is changes every year. But the clearest way of knowing what the current list is, is to look at the public accounts, because they’re documented on there. It would be 29 Crown corporations, for sure, and every other government reporting entity means that they have to show up in public accounts with their reporting.

I’d just refer the member to the public accounts year-end. The list of all government reporting entities would be included in that accounting.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General referred the House to examples of organizations. The example that was given was health authorities. My understanding about health authorities is that they get funding from the provincial government, and there are also regulatory frameworks that actually create those authorities. If there are other bodies that also are created by the province through statute and also they are funded by the province, would they also be classified as a government procurement entity as well?

I’m just trying to understand this. I don’t have a proper understanding of it, so I’m just trying to understand it. I know it’s health authorities; that’s one example. Is there easy criteria that I can get? So I can figure out, okay, this must be caught under the organization.

I know there is a legal definition, but it’s pretty technical. Maybe an example could be provided to me on how a health authority becomes a government procurement entity — because it has these specific criteria, and that’s how it becomes it. That type of example would really help me understand. I’d be grateful if the Attorney General could provide a response with such an example.

Hon. Niki Sharma: There’s a definition under the BTAA of a government reporting entity. If you walk through what the entity is, based on that definition, a health authority would be captured for a couple reasons. One is identifying a health sector organization specifically in that definition. But the key one, which is an accounting principle, is: through the generally accepted accounting principles, is it considered to be controlled by a government organization? In that sense, I think, as the member described, a health authority would fit that definition.

[7:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: There seem to be two main criteria. One is that an organization is an entity through legislation, gets some sort of authority from legislation from the provincial government under a provincial statute. The other criteria are accounting principles that show that the organization, financially, is essentially controlled by the provincial government. Am I correct in my understanding?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It can show up more complicated than that, but I think essentially that’s correct.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the accounting principles and being controlled, could it be that the authority also has funds coming from another source other than government? Or is it essentially that it would only be controlled by government if all the fund sources were coming from the provincial government?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The key point to make clear to, I think, everybody on this is that you know if you’re a government reporting entity because you have tipped off the general accounting principles of that provision that says you’re essentially government-controlled or enough controlled by government that you are a government reporting entity. That means that you have to provide information that shows up on public accounts.

Its not a surprise to the entities if they meet that test or not because of the way it applies to them. It’s really a multifactorial approach to it. You can be, for example, a non-profit organization that receives government funding and not a GRE. Or you can be an entity that receives government funding and other sources of funding and be a GRE that reports. It’s a very fact-specific analysis, which is why it changes every year and could change every year with respect to that.

Steve Kooner: In regard to the reference to non-profits, some non-profits essentially established themselves because there’s a provincial need, and certain provincial government services are essentially contracted out. Those entities, the non-profits, essentially set themselves up to provide a form of government services.

A lot of them do get essentially all of their funding from, say, the provincial government to operate, so is it fair to say a non-profit could also be a government procurement entity?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, it depends. It’s a fact-based analysis. For example, ICBC is a non-profit, so it would be, obviously, a GRE. I think it’s hard to give an answer in an absolute when it comes to this, because it’s related to so many factual…. It’s a factual analysis that makes you an GRE or not.

[7:10 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General speak to the implications of procurement as defined in terms of the applicability to collective bargaining agreements?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Unless there’s further clarity on the question, the process in the definition of procurement doesn’t mention or include collective agreements.

Gavin Dew: To add clarity to the question, or attempt to do so, when I read, under procurement — the selecting, receiving and contracting for goods or services — under services, I would assume that there could be implications to the organized labour complement of a government procurement entity. Would that be correct, or would that be incorrect?

I’m just trying to understand whether there are potential implications for collective bargaining agreements or for the potential for government to breach or override collective bargaining agreements.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just confirming that the definition of procurement does not include collective bargaining in scope.

Gavin Dew: I may have to explain further in order to understand what I’m getting toward.

If, for example, a government procurement entity, in the course of procuring services for construction or for other such things, wishes to mandate a community benefits agreement or wishes to mandate a requirement, for example, that a service provider be unionized or not be unionized or exist in some other status, what are the implications there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to clarify, I don’t think we see a connection on this side between collective bargaining or CBAs and procurement policies in the sense of where the procurement directives and the powers of this would be about goods and services and the directive about what they are procuring. There wouldn’t be…. The CBA and collective bargaining process is quite apart from that.

[7:15 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the good-faith answer. I think that the Attorney General is answering the question that she thought I asked. I will try to clarify my question a little further.

I understand where we’re at around collective bargaining agreements. What I am referring to are not collective bargaining agreements themselves, but requirements imposed through the procurement process.

To provide an example, if a government procurement entity, in seeking a contractor to build a piece of infrastructure, in seeking a partner in delivering a government service or in otherwise engaging in procurement of goods or services…. Does this enable government to impose, for example, a requirement that there be a community benefits agreement or a project labour agreement or that a service provider or a goods provider be a unionized shop?

Does this give government the power to impose, either on a forward-looking basis or on an immediate basis, that certain labour conditions, as an example, be met in order for an entity, from which goods or services are being procured, to be eligible to provide those goods or services?

The Chair: Member, I believe your question would be better suited in clause 7.

I would invite you to relate it to this section, clause 6, please.

Interjection.

The Chair: It’s just that we’re at clause 6, which is just the definitions, at this point.

Gavin Dew: I take your point, Madam Chair.

Steve Kooner: Earlier we were discussing government procurement entities, organizations and corporations and how they would be considered within that definition. Were there any considerations, when this definition was being made, as to whether this was too broad of a definition?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m just wondering which definition the member is referring to.

Steve Kooner: The definition is the “government procurement entity.” I know it was amended recently, but still….

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, this is one of those incidents where we took into account concerns that were raised, particularly with our Green Party members here, related to that. The general concern was, with the subsection (b) as it existed before, that it may be interpreted as too broad, because it’s a corporation or organization, and that the power would have given the regulatory power to add them.

We decided, after analysis on that, to remove it, just to make it really clear that government procurement entity meant, basically, anybody under the GRE.

Steve Kooner: Could the Attorney General explain the legal implications for an individual or entity being designated as a protected person. What are the legal consequences? What are the legal restraints in regards to being considered a protected person?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this definition will be for the application of sections 8 and 9 related to indemnity provisions.

Steve Kooner: How did the government come to this definition for including these particular entities within “protected person”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think subsection (a) is clear. We needed to provide that protection for government procurement entities. The reason for (b) was that we wanted to give the assurance also to, as in that list, a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity — that they were included in that indemnity.

Steve Kooner: In regards to protected person, as it was just referred to by the Attorney General, it refers to a government procurement entity. Also, in (b), it refers to a person who is “a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity.”

Many of these individuals may have different levels of decision-making within the government procurement role, but the protection is a blanket protection. They’re all protected.

Why did the government decide…? Despite the level of decision-making power in regard to a diverse category, why was a blanket protected person category given to all of these people in these particular categories?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for the broad definition there is to make sure that the people that were actually enacting the directives were clear and that it was broad enough to cover any possible version of that.

Steve Kooner: Is the definition and use of “protected person” in Bill 7 consistent with how this term is used in other B.C. statutes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The term “protected person” is used in many statutes, but obviously, every time it’s used, it has to be designed to fit the particular situation of the protected person you would like to protect. It has to be, I guess, custom-designed for that particular statute.

[7:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that response. That was helpful.

I have a follow-up question. If there are unique situations in different B.C. statutes and there’s not a uniform use, the way that we’re using protected person here in this legislation, what are the intended legal effects of distinguishing it here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The intended legal effect will be clear once we get to sections 8 and 9, because I will be able to describe how they’re being used.

Steve Kooner: Earlier I asked a question about whether the cabinet would be included in the government procurement entity by referring to Lieutenant Governor in Council, and the response was no.

I’d like a further clarification. Is there a restriction from not being included? Is there a legal restriction in legislation from not being included?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s just that cabinet is not a government procurement entity.

Steve Kooner: On the basis that there’s not an actual legal provision prohibiting cabinet from being a government procurement entity but that it seems like it’s not being done, out of practice, I am moving an amendment right now to clause 6.

[Clause 6 is amended by striking the word “of a government procurement entity”. And substituting: “Of a government procurement entity; (c) but does not apply to the Premier or any member of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”.]

I have that amendment, which I’d like to pass up.

The Chair: Members, we will take a brief recess to distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 7:28 p.m. to 7:40 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole, Section A, back to order.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 6 as amended.

On the amendment, Member, do you have any further remarks?

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: When I was going through these definitions and I was trying to get clarification, I was trying to determine what the government’s role would be, what the cabinet’s role would be, in these definitions, and the Premier’s role.

Outside in the public, in regard to part 2, there are a lot of concerns around fiscal management. There are general political issues that are driving those concerns around this particular bill in regard to part 2, specifically around budget and stuff — concerns being a high rate of deficit. The high rate of deficit…. What was quoted by the Finance Minister was $10.9 billion, but it’s much, much higher than that. It’s probably another $3 billion higher than $10.9 billion.

The concerns are that just a few years ago or a couple of years ago the current government inherited a surplus of $6 billion in terms of budget, and now there’s a difference of, essentially, $20 billion. There’s the concern in the public that they want more accountability. They want more restraint in terms of how further funds are being expensed and how they’re being spent.

The questions, when I was asking those questions, are to see if the cabinet is also a part of, say, the government procurement entity and also, I would say, if it’s a part of the protected person. If that is the case, and if there is no legal statutory provision that is preventing the cabinet or the Premier to be included in any of these definitions, there’s an issue. There’s an issue that there might be unfettered discretion exercised in terms of the fiscal situation in this province.

For those reasons, to have more accountability…. Some of these provisions make sense. There might be people that are exercising some authority because the government has told them to do that, to go make certain purchases.

They should have certain protections because they don’t have the full insight of the legislation. They don’t have the full power of being decision-makers, whether they would like to carry out certain actions. But the government, the cabinet and the Premier do have that control to determine if they’re going to take certain actions, so there needs to be a higher level accountability set there.

For that reason, for the accountability and because there are no specific provisions preventing the cabinet to be included in, say, the government procurement entity definition…. As far as I understand from what I’ve learned so far, there isn’t a specific protection restraining the cabinet from being considered a protected person, so this amendment was brought forward.

[7:45 p.m.]

It’s an amendment that’s brought forward to protect the public so there’s more accountability, so the public doesn’t need to be concerned about fiscal management getting out of control. It has already gotten out of control to a point of a difference of $20 billion. This would allow some assurances to the public that if it’s the cabinet making decisions, they’re not supposed to be included in these protections here.

Those are my submissions too, and I urge the House on both sides to support this amendment, because it’s about accountability. It’s about accountability to British Columbians. That’s what it’s about.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Just to confirm, the amendment is in order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I won’t be supporting this amendment, and it’s for quite a few reasons.

I’ll start with the one that it’s a wholly unnecessary amendment. As I’ve described, we’ve already put in the protection that the member is seeking here by making it clear — and I have, on a whole line of questioning that we’ve just had — that “government procurement entity” does not include cabinet and does not include, by default, the Premier or government.

Because of that, the first definition not including it, adding it under “protected person” as a subsection (c) actually wouldn’t make any sense. I guess it’s the way I would put that. It doesn’t add anything to the structure of the bill because the government procurement entity already doesn’t include cabinet. Not only is this not helpful; it actually is unnecessary because we’ve already sought to include that protection in the actual definition of procurement entity.

We won’t be supporting this amendment.

Peter Milobar: You know there are always disagreements on wording in bills, and from my perspective, what this does is it provides a bit of certainty to people. Again, I think it’s in taking the entirety of Bill 7 in context why we as opposition are saying that something like this would provide a greater comfort, especially to the public service and those being directed by the Premier and the cabinet.

We do want those people protected for following through on directives that they have been given, but this is about procurement. This is about procurement that may or may not run in contravention to international trade agreements and the exposure that that may create. Certainly you want those other people to be protected, but we want to make sure that the Premier and the cabinet are actually doing everything in their powers to ensure they’re not being fast and loose with the directives.

I would point out that this bill started out with the Premier challenging people to take them to court over it because he felt he could be all-powerful with it. Then there was a bit of withdrawal — a bit. But all the same groups that wanted part 4 of this bill removed also wanted part 2, which we are on now, removed, and they wanted part 3 removed, because there’s a concern on how these parts will actually be used by the Premier and the cabinet, moving forward.

By having this amendment in place saying that it does not apply to the Premier or any member of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is really sending that signal to those same broad community people out there from all walks of life and all political stripes that felt parts 2, 3 and 4 were dramatic government overreach, that indeed things will be dealt with very sensitively, especially around procurement, that all measures will be taken to make sure we aren’t just doing performative press conferences, making directives.

We’ve had, I believe, three press conferences from February 1 till now all announcing the same thing about government contracts and procurement. The bill style hasn’t even been passed, but the Premier has made three different press conferences around it, directing the public service on what they are supposed to be doing in the absence of any legislation already being passed, while groups were saying they have significant concerns about part 2, which we are on, as well as part 3 and part 4.

[7:50 p.m.]

Based on the actions of the Premier himself on how he’s been dealing with the tariff situation, the procurement measures and practices of government, the directives he’s already been providing to the public service three times now, each time, I guess, desperate to have the press conference about it — no really fundamental changes to what he’s been saying, but every two weeks it seems to be a reannouncement — this is a way to ensure that that fast and loose style is reined in a bit.

Again, when the bill was introduced by the Premier, he invited challenges to this bill and said that he invited lawsuits, essentially, by saying that. That makes people in the public service a little bit nervous. Yes, they will be indemnified in this, but that doesn’t necessarily protect the taxpayers of B.C. overall to any potential exposure or successful claims that may be launched. The person may personally be fine, but the taxpayers as a collective could still be at risk if the Premier and the cabinet do not have some check and balance within this bill at the same time.

That is why I can support the amendment, and I do hope the government takes it seriously and sees that…. Maybe in the Attorney General’s mind, we’re overstating, in a bill like this that’s supposed to have only a one-year shelf life anyways. There’s not really much harm in overstating, but leaving things wide open to interpretation is a bigger problem to me than overstating some things.

Thank you for the time on it.

Gavin Dew: I would echo what’s been said by my colleagues about the importance of clearly, clearly stating what’s happening here. I think the entire history of Bill 7 has been characterized by a lack of transparency. It’s been characterized by a feeling of overreach. It’s been characterized by a fear of a government attempting to take more power without accountability, and I think it has been a tremendous, tremendous detriment to the precious trust that exists between this government and the people that it is supposed to serve.

I can see no reason why this government would be opposed to providing complete and total clarity with this amendment. Stating very explicitly that protecting people is not applicable to the Premier or any member of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I can see no defensible reason why the Attorney General and why the government would vote against this. I think that it would be a terrible signal about an unwillingness to take accountability and an unwillingness to be explicit about accountability if the government is not willing to vote for this amendment to provide clarity.

This amendment would enable someone to sue the Premier and cabinet for the actions they take under this legislation, which is an outcome that…. As the member for Kamloops Centre flagged, the Premier invited that outcome. When you stand up, and you’re the Premier, and you invite people to sue you, you need to be consistent in what you’re inviting. If you’re inviting people to sue you and then you intend to make it impossible to sue you, that’s not a lot of integrity. That’s not a lot of consistency.

It is my full hope and expectation that the members opposite, those members of government, will be consistent with past statements made by the Premier, will be consistent with the values they claim to stand for and will vote unanimously to pass this amendment.

Rob Botterell: I don’t know if you’ve heard this word in a committee setting before, but I’m gobsmacked by the comments of my colleague.

It would be a completely inappropriate approach to legislative drafting and developing laws on a very serious issue to be supporting this type of motion. Ostensibly, it’s because in a public setting where there was public debate going on, the Premier somehow invited this, so let’s do this.

[7:55 p.m.]

That is flawed logic. The correct logic is to create the protection against legal proceeding in a way that is measured and approaches this in a thoughtful and defined way.

We in the Green caucus…. We have difficulties with this legislation, and we’re working through this committee process to get the clarifications we need and to look at the amendments we need, but this is not one of those amendments.

We do not support this amendment. We think that creating a situation where the Premier and cabinet are open to being sued…. What sort of environment does that create? That is not good public policy.

We will not be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment to clause 6 as amended.

Division has been called.

[8:00 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough to clause 6 as amended.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok		Williams
NAYS — 7
Kang	Sandhu	Choi
Routledge	Popham	Sharma
	Botterell

[8:05 p.m.]

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening. The question is on clause 6 as amended.

Clause 6 as amended approved.

On clause 7.

Peter Milobar: Just a couple of overarching questions.

I was reading through clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, even 11. I wasn’t 100 percent sure where it would slot in. It’s kind of like our amendments. You know, it’s the Wayne Gretzky rule, where you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take, so we’ll keep trying the odd amendment throughout this bill. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get lucky on one of those shots.

Same with the questions I have here to the Attorney. They are really meant to be that overarching — just to make sure we don’t skip past that one clause. I know the Attorney has been good about humouring us in that regard, to this point, as well.

In terms of the procurement directives in clause 7, I think it’s pretty clear. I think everyone can agree that these directives are needed, because there’s a broad agreement out there that, essentially, actions taken by the United States have been in contravention of existing trade agreements. Responses are needed. I think everyone understands that. Everyone agrees with that. They might not agree with every single response, but the overarching concept of…. Some type of response is needed.

[8:10 p.m.]

That being said, our understanding, my understanding at least, is that if a new federal trade agreement is struck — with Canada and the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Canada and anywhere — that, in fact, would supersede anything in this bill, especially in part 2.

Can the Attorney confirm that any federal trade agreement, particularly with the United States, that gets developed will actually supersede any procurement directives in part 2?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I neglected to move the amendment for section 7. We will get an answer to the member’s question, but I’m wondering if I can just do that quickly first.

I think that everybody has a copy of the amendment that we are proposing. It is just subsection (5) that says:

[CLAUSE 7,by adding the underlined text as shown:

Procurement directives

7 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may issue directives in relation to the procurement of goods or services by the government or government procurement entities.

(2) This section applies despite sections 4 and 4.1 of the Financial Administration Act.

(3) If there is a conflict or inconsistency between an enactment and a directive issued under subsection (1), the directive prevails.

(4) A government procurement entity must comply with a directive of the Lieutenant Governor in Council issued to the government procurement entity.

(5) A directive issued under subsection (1) must be published as soon as practicable by the minister on a publicly available website.]

Amendment approved.

On clause 7 as amended.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re in a very complicated time when it comes to our legal adherence to trade agreements and how that shows up.

Generally, we’ve taken the approach, along with other provinces, that although we are upholding all of our trade commitments, it’s an exclude-U.S. approach that we’re taking because of the upending of all the norms with this very particular trading partner. How that shows up and how we adhere or don’t adhere to trade agreements is a bit tricky, because we would uphold those provisions with respect to other trading partners.

The way that the mechanism would work, to the member’s question, is that if there was a new trade agreement, which we’re all hopeful for, it would be just a negotiation of a new CUSMA or some version of that, and we would have an actor with the States that abided by those provisions, which would be the next thing that we would have to see. Then we would have, of course, the really flexible ability just to drop the directives or amend the directives in accordance with that.

Peter Milobar: Given we’ve been under a softwood dispute, which appears to be in contravention, in Canada’s eyes and B.C.’s eyes, of the trade agreement, but it had a carve-out…. I get that the softwood is another whole complicated mess on top of that, so I’m not trying to go into that rabbit hole.

Based on this bill coming forward, based on government directives and things of that nature, at what date did the government of B.C. feel that the United States had breached the free trade agreement sufficiently that it was no longer valid and that we could amend our procurement practices as a result?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To answer the question, I think it’s interesting how much has changed with the executive orders over time. We were tracking it. February 1 was the very first executive order. We waited — just like, I think, a lot of Team Canada’s approach — before we saw if it was going to happen, until the legal words of that executive order, which made it pretty clear that it wasn’t just words, that there was going to the action, through executive order, that did violate the trade agreement.

Peter Milobar: I guess, to put a finer point on the question, it wasn’t when the proverbial sabre-rattling started with the United States. When did the province of B.C…? What was the date they feel the United States actually breached the free trade agreement and took actions that were in contravention of the free trade agreement? Not words, but actual actions.

Hon. Niki Sharma: There was a lot of intention, or expressed intention, by the President to enter a sort of trade war with the States ever since — I think even maybe a little bit before — he became President in January.

In terms of when we came to terms with the fact that he was serious about breaching the trade agreement, which I think is the heart of the question, February 1 was the executive order that was issued about the 25 percent tariffs. There’s been a lot since then. It’s been kind of a whirlwind, but that was the first clear… And my legal team pored over that, when we read the executive order, to understand what powers he was using and what legal effect they had.

It was after that date where you saw actions from the government, including procurement directives and things like that.

Peter Milobar: Again, though, just to be very clear, my understanding of the February 1 directives or statements coming out of the White House — the stated actions that were going to unfold were for dates into the future. Is it the province of B.C.’s contention, then…? Is it the Attorney’s contention that, as of February 1, despite no actual action other than issuing a paper of intent by the federal government of the United States, the President of the United States, that was deemed to be the contravention point of the trade act?

Or was it the date within those statements on February 1 that the province of B.C. deemed the contraventions would begin of the trade act between Canada and the United States?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of course, this has been a Team Canada approach, so a lot of the discussions about coordinated responses were happening.

In terms of legal action, it’s the federal government that would lead that, and through the WTO. I’m sure through their materials, although I don’t pretend to be part of that process at this stage, that they would show February 1st’s executive order as the first clear, written, legal mechanism or indication that there was going to be a breach of that trade agreement, which has led to very subsequent off-and-on-again swirl of “they’re in place; they’re not in place” up to the end.

What’s clear is that the uncertainty, and the intention, that was created from that point would indicate an actor that was not abiding by their commitments under CUSMA. I think there are probably tons of provisions you could find in CUSMA that would show the conduct of that behaviour was offline.

Peter Milobar: We’ll have lots of other questions in part 2 around this, so I would just ask if we can get a firmer date, moving forward — I don’t need it tonight, obviously — of when the province of B.C. and the justification of the actions…. Again, I’m not trying to be an apologist for the United States. I’m trying to figure out the exact legal date of that contravention.

As we’ve heard, the federal trade agreements supersede anything going on provincially. So if it wasn’t broken and the province was taking steps, in anticipation, that was breaking that agreement, technically we would have been breaking the agreement before the Americans were. We may not have been. Again, it may be that they say the February 1 date is the actual date.

I guess the question, then, is that I don’t see…. Again, a broader general question around part 2 now that we’re through the definitions for this part. Other than the sunset clause later on in the bill, I don’t see where in part 2 specifically…. Given that this is a section meant to override what would otherwise be procurement issues that would be tied to an international trade agreement, I don’t see any clear language that says that with a new agreement being signed, these procurement directives are cancelled.

In other words, you could have Crowns out there still following this — even though there’s now a Team Canada approach, a federal agreement in place, being signed — signing contracts and out there with indemnification in their minds.

Why was there not a clause in part 2 that would be very clear that if and when a new agreement is signed between Canada and the United States, these provisions would immediately expire?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a very uncertain time, and I think everybody would agree that we are in a time where we have a leader of the United States that…. It’s very unclear when they are going to abide by agreements and when they are not. I think there’s a hopeful scenario where we’re in a world where there’s a new version of a trade agreement and, on top of that, there’s adherence to that trade agreement by the President and the leadership in the States. Both things, I would say, are very uncertain at this stage.

But I will say that legally speaking, every time there’s a power to make regulation, there’s a power to rescind regulation. That’s inherent in the legal structure of this. In that context, if we get to a scenario where there’s a stable trade relationship with the States, although I think we can all agree that it has fundamentally changed our relationship, then of course, there would be an ability to normalize relationships.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General itemize what limits, if any, exist on the content or scope of directives issued under this section?

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are many levels here. I’ll just talk through all of them.

The first one is that the procurement directive is limited to the procurement of goods or services. So that is a confine. We talked extensively about goods and services already.

The other one is that it only applies to a government reporting entity. Government reporting entities, under that definition, would be organizations that are essentially, as described earlier, deemed to be enough controlled by government to be under that umbrella. The scope of it, like I said, is goods and services. The decision-making authority sits with cabinet.

[8:30 p.m.]

What this does, in effect…. There is a whole series of potential legislation or other things that is involved in procurement in the province. It gives a reconciliation of that, to direct it towards this solution. Of course, it would be bound by the rule of law in general and any contracts or commercial relationships that would flow from that.

The analyses, which I think you’ve seen in the procurement directives that have been issued, are about procuring goods or services, excluding the States whenever viable. There’s a whole bunch of qualifications about how it could be used, because there is, of course, a series of laws that govern these types of things. It is a matter of structuring it in a way that could be targeted the most effectively.

Gavin Dew: Would the Attorney General agree that the powers enumerated under section 7 would allow government to mandate community benefit agreements, project labour agreements or other similar requirements through regulation or directive rather than through legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to be clear, to start this off, government already has that ability. Any government that’s in power can decide the manner in which procurement occurs, especially for closely held entities. That’s something that exists already.

What this does is bring clarity to the procurement directives issued under the context of this trade war and what we’re deciding to do to support B.C. companies and exclude American companies through the procurement process. It is meant to be a legal structure that streamlines that and brings immunity provisions to those entities that act on behalf of government directives issued in the context of this trade war.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General be a little bit more specific around the exact changes in the nature of the authorities available to government to mandate community benefits agreements or project labour agreements or similar arrangements that she touched on?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I mean, it’s a big question, because procurement processes are happening in many ways across government. A lot of them are held by ministries. Generally speaking, there are guidelines that attach themselves to that procurement process, and the political influence on that is kept separate.

So you have a procurement process that ends up going on, with the guidelines that are set in place that are not necessarily legislative. They could just be corporate rules for that ministry. They go about their procurement process, and they’re clearly stated to all entities that provide or want to bid on the process. It’s kept very separate from a political influence.

Gavin Dew: I read in subsection (3) that if there’s a conflict or inconsistency between an enactment and a directive issued under subsection (1), the directive prevails. Recognizing the powers that are enshrined in here, I’m still failing to understand how this does not add greater power to government to more quickly and more directly impose procurement conditions that could include the presence of something like a community benefits agreement or a project labour agreement, beyond the powers currently existing. Are there no additional powers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: One of the sole purposes of this procurement part or section is to trigger the immunity provisions for government reporting entities, because we’ll be asking them, through the procurement directives, to act quickly to say: “Direct your procurement this way.” In that way, we want to make sure that they can act with the confidence of the immunity provisions in sections 8 and 9. That’s the real legislative tool that we were hoping to accomplish through this part.

[8:35 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: What I’m hearing is that there would now be greater speed and greater immunity with which a government procurement entity could take action to impose new procurement conditions either before or during a project.

For example, could a direction be issued midstream on a project that, having previously been tendered on an open-shop basis, or having previously been tendered without the requirement to have a community benefits agreement…? Could such a project have a directive issued midstream which would require it to have such a community benefits agreement or a project labour agreement put in place?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the question shows the complications of procurement.

In that situation, there would be contractual obligations that were, obviously, placed upon that government reporting entity that would prohibit it from ending a procurement process midstream. There’s nothing in this legislation that provides an override to a contractual agreement, or what ends up being…. When you enter a procurement process and there are bidders, there are legal protections in that one. In that scenario, I would just say it wouldn’t be applicable.

Gavin Dew: For greater clarity, is the Attorney General providing assurance that the powers enumerated in Bill 7 will not be used to impose procurement conditions such as community benefits agreements or project labour agreements on projects?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know we’re getting late in the day, but I think he changed the question from…. He was talking about midstream, and the next one, I think, is about whether this power would be used to impose CBAs.

Of course not. That’s not the intent or purpose of these procurement directives. They’re there to help us respond to a trade war. But there are mechanisms that governments have, beyond this procurement directive, to design procurement in different ways that would include having a CBA as part of it.

Gavin Dew: I hear that that is not the intent or purpose, but my question is not whether the intent or purpose of the legislation is to impose CBAs but whether the legislation grants greater power to impose community benefits agreements, project labour agreements or the like. I’m not sure I heard a clear answer on that front.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I’ve answered that question now a few times — about what the bill does or doesn’t do related to CBAs. I mean, the point that I said, I think, earlier is that governments do have the power at the start of procurement processes to put things in the procurement like CBAs. That’s not a thing that is changed or triggered by these powers.

What happens with these is…. Our intent is to issue procurement directives to give guidance on making sure that government entities are participating in our response to this trade war, which is to design their procurement in a way that excludes American suppliers wherever possible. That’s the whole purpose of this.

The member is importing other examples that would just not happen.

Gavin Dew: I don’t think I’m importing other examples. I’m simply looking for a very clear answer.

Can the Attorney General provide an ironclad guarantee that the powers enumerated in Bill 7 will not be used to impose project labour agreements, community benefits agreements or similar requirements on procurement?

I’m not looking for a hypothetical. I’m not looking for discourse. I’m simply looking for the Attorney General to provide an ironclad guarantee that these powers will not be used in that way, given that that exact concern has been flagged by people in the business community.

[8:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I think I’ve said this. Yes, the purpose of these procurement directives is to respond to the trade war that is before us, and that’s how they’ll be used.

Gavin Dew: That was, again, not an answer to the question. I recognize that, at a broad level, the intent of the bill is to respond to a trade war. But the question that I am asking — very specifically, and I’m looking for a very direct answer on — is whether the powers enumerated in Bill 7 will be used, can be used to impose project labour agreements or community benefits agreements.

I’m looking for an ironclad, clear, simple answer — not about intention, not about the broad intention of the bill. I’m looking for the Attorney General to stand up and state unequivocally that the powers enumerated will not be used to impose project labour agreements, community benefits agreements or similar labour requirements on government procurement.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I said this already. I don’t know how to say it clearer. This power will not be used to impose the things that the member has identified. The point of this power and this procurement directive is to direct government entities.

Just if I can add, what we see with this ability is to unlock at least $600 million of infusion into our economy and support B.C. businesses through a very difficult time.

The member is trying to import all these, I guess, hypothetical situations that are irrelevant to the trade war that we are facing right now and the ability that we can use through procurement to support our province through that trade war and the uncertainty that’s happening right now.

Gavin Dew: I find it strange that the Attorney General believes that simple questions about the use of powers is somehow importing…

The Chair: Member.

Gavin Dew: … outside issues. This is very simple, clear stuff.

Can the Attorney General confirm whether the powers enumerated can be used to terminate the requirement for collective benefit agreements, or, for example, might be used in a context where community benefits agreements have been required for major infrastructure projects and those community benefits agreements involve partnerships with friendly unions who are headquartered in the United States of America?

I’m trying to understand, given how specific the Attorney General has been about the desire to exclude American content from procurement…. Do these powers provide government with the ability to terminate or change requirements around community benefits agreements or project labour agreements that involve organized labour organizations that are headquartered in the United States and directly engaged in the United States?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, this does not give any powers for cabinet, in this case, to go into a community benefits agreement and alter or change the term in any of those agreements.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:43 p.m.

Contents