Contents

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Chris Morrissey

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I rise with some sadness to report the passing of Chris Morrissey, who in Vancouver and, indeed, across Canada is well known for leading the fight for LGBTQ human rights, and in particular for people who are immigrants, refugees.

Chris became well known in 1992 when she worked to bring her partner over from Ireland and was denied by the Canadian system because they did not recognize that she was married to her partner and just treated her like somebody not related at all. She took the Canadian government to court and indeed, under sexual orientation and human rights protections, won so that LGBTQ couples could immigrate and could come together and reunite in this great country of Canada.

She continued her work with Rainbow Refugee and LEGIT and worked with seniors as well to ensure that their rights were heard, that their voices and identities, orientations, who they loved were all embraced and celebrated.

Chris was a hero. Chris was a trailblazer. She has changed the world immeasurably for the better, and I’m just so honoured to have known her and to know so many people who have come to our great land because of her advocacy for equality against hatred and discrimination.

I will pass on our House’s collective condolences to those who love her, those who knew her and those who are forever changed because of her incredible humanity.

She was a caring person, and she made us better.

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

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

The Speaker: We’ll have the member for West Kelowna–Peachland continue the debate here, and committee in the other room.

On the amendment (continued).

Macklin McCall: I’ll continue from where I left off not just in support of Bill 5, the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, but to build on the discussion already started in this House, because this bill deserves more than a moment of debate. It deserves our full attention, our full effort and our commitment to deliver real, lasting relief to British Columbians.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

What I want to talk about today is urgency, the urgency of now, because what we’re dealing with isn’t a budgetary theory or an abstract economic shift. It’s real people, real pressure and a real crisis in affordability that’s only getting worse with each passing month.

[1:05 p.m.]

What happens in this chamber must connect to what’s happening at the kitchen tables across British Columbia, where parents are budgeting down to the penny, seniors are reading grocery flyers like survival manuals and too many young people are wondering whether they’ll ever be able to afford life in their own province. This amendment, while modest in its design, meets the moment in ways the current government has failed to.

Let’s remind ourselves what Bill 5 actually does. It increases the basic personal amount, allowing every British Columbian to keep an extra $500 of their own money every year. That’s $1,000 for two working adults in a household, year after year. It’s automatic. It’s universal. It’s fair.

This isn’t another rebate people have to apply for. It doesn’t come with small print or bureaucratic delay. It’s there in every paycheque. It’s permanent structural relief, not temporary political theatre.

I was speaking with a café owner who told me their food costs have risen 30 percent over the last two years. That same café, which used to donate leftover pastries to a local food program, now can’t even afford to keep their shelves full. That’s the story of affordability in B.C. today: businesses cutting back, families cutting meals and governments cutting promises.

This Premier campaigned on a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. It was bold, it was welcome, and it gave people hope. But then, like far too many promises made before an election, it vanished: no rebates, no follow-through, just more excuses.

This amendment is not just a policy amendment; it is a restoration of trust. If we expect British Columbians to believe in our democratic system, to keep participating in good faith, then we must show them that their votes and the promises they vote on actually matter.

I heard from a young couple in Kelowna, both working full-time, both contributing to their community. They told me that they’re now financing groceries on their credit card because after rent, after daycare, after insurance, there’s nothing left. They didn’t ask for a handout. They just ask: “Where’s the help we were promised?” That’s a question this House must answer.

The Premier has said: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.” If that statement was made in good faith, then this bill should have unanimous support, because this amendment does exactly that: support delivered right away, without delay and without discrimination.

What I also want to highlight today is that this amendment is not partisan by nature. It’s practical. It’s a tax measure, yes, but more importantly, it’s a cost-of-living measure. It says to every British Columbian, whether you’re in Kitimat or Kelowna, whether you’re a nurse, a truck driver, a student or a senior: “We see you, we hear you, and we’re giving you some of your own money back, because you need it more than the government does right now.”

I want to acknowledge the multiplier effect of this policy. A family that saves $1,000 in taxes this year doesn’t just survive the month; they spend more locally. They might support their neighbourhood grocer instead of a big-box chain. They might keep their kid in sports. They might be able to fill up their gas tank and attend a family gathering they otherwise would have skipped. This isn’t just relief; it’s economic stimulus. At a time when local economies across B.C. are under strain, this amendment helps them breathe.

[1:10 p.m.]

We often hear that good policy is about values and action. So let me ask: what values does it show when a government makes a promise to working families and fails to deliver it? What message does that send to a single mom in Burnaby, working overtime to make ends meet while the help she was promised never comes? What does it say to our young people, our next generation, who are watching this government say one thing and do another? This amendment answers these questions with action, not slogans.

Now, I know there will be those who try to spin this as unaffordable or as irresponsible tax relief. But let’s be honest: British Columbians are already paying for the cost of inaction. They’re paying in rising food prices. They’re paying in unaffordable housing. They’re paying in lost time, lost health and lost hope.

Let’s not forget this money belongs to the people. This isn’t a gift from government. This is about reducing what the government takes from those who earn it. It’s about respecting taxpayers and delivering a fairer system, especially for the middle class and working poor.

So today I urge every member in this House to look beyond the political lines. Look at the grocery stores in your ridings. Look at the food bank usage. Look at the moms and dads checking their bank balance in the checkout line. Those are the people we work for. They’re not asking for miracles; they’re asking for relief that was promised, relief that is needed right now.

Before I close, I want to share something personal. Before entering political life, I spent years serving British Columbians as an officer with the RCMP. That experience shaped my values: service, accountability and justice. I’ve seen up close how poverty, stress and instability can harm not just families but entire communities. When people are financially secure, crime drops, substance use declines, domestic tensions ease, people thrive.

That is why I support this amendment. It’s more than a tax change; it’s a social safety net for our most vulnerable. It will make our incredible province of British Columbia safer, stronger and fairer for everyone. I ask my colleagues in this chamber to consider not just the budget line but the human impact. I hope everyone in this House will support this important amendment, because public safety begins with economic stability.

Provincial history will remember this moment. People will remember what we did when British Columbians cried out for relief. Let us make sure that people remember that we answered the call for assistance, not with government’s usual staged press conferences and broken promises but with immediate action, with strong policy and with the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act.

I stand proudly in support of the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, and I urge every member of this House, regardless of party, to do the same. British Columbians deserve relief. Now let’s deliver it.

Bryan Tepper: Hon. Speaker, esteemed colleagues, fellow British Columbians listening today, I rise today not just to speak about an amendment but to speak for those whose voices too often go unheard in this chamber — families feeling the squeeze of inflation, seniors living on fixed incomes and working people stretched thinner and thinner by rising costs. This speech is for the people of British Columbia who ask for no special treatment, only fairness and a fighting chance to build a life of dignity and opportunity.

[1:15 p.m.]

We’ve all seen the statistics, but more importantly, we’ve heard the stories. The grocery bills that used to be $150 are now closer to $250. Gas, rent, utilities — all up. And wages? Far too often stagnant. Every member in this House has heard it. The question is: will we do something about it?

I stand before you today to champion the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, an amendment that will deliver real, immediate and lasting relief to every British Columbian grappling with the high cost of living. This is more than legislation. It’s a commitment to families, workers and seniors who are working hard to get by. It’s a bold step to ensure no one in our province is left behind.

At its core, this amendment saves every British Columbian who files taxes $500 a year by increasing the basic personal amount on their provincial income taxes. For a two-income household, that’s $1,000 a year, every year. That’s $1,000 more to cover groceries, pay rent or keep the lights on. That’s $1,000 to help families end the day just a little further ahead.

Let’s talk about what this means in real life. Just yesterday one of my colleagues was talking about what you could do with $1,000. One of those things was to buy a new pair of running shoes. I’ve been holding off buying a new pair of trainers myself, something many might take for granted. I need those shoes not for fashion but for function. As I’ve been milking for sympathy, I am recovering from some health issues, and a solid pair of shoes would make that easier.

That’s what this amendment does. It gives others with health issues, and countless others, the financial breathing room to live healthier, better lives.

Speaking of health, if we’re truly serious about helping British Columbians get ahead, then we also must consider what’s not in the budget — why we aren’t adding a fitness tax credit to promote healthier living. I know that’s not on the amendment, but I will put that forward now. It is another amendment we could be debating, one that puts up prevention before cure and recognizes that affordability and wellness go hand in hand.

Instead, what do we get from the government? More delays, more bureaucracy. Our plan, the one the Premier mocked as the long wait, was called a thoughtful approach by those who actually read it. But the Premier’s $1,000 grocery rebate turned into the Premier’s no-show rebate, promised with a smile but never delivered.

Why does this government insist on overcollecting from British Columbians only to turn around and spend money mailing out ICBC rebates and designing elaborate programs with strings attached? It would not be for me to say this is being done for optics, but the people see it for what it is. Instead of choosing simplicity, like raising the basic personal amount and cutting out the overhead, this government clings to flashy announcements and complex giveaways.

This isn’t a handout for billionaires like the Premier’s massive EV rebates, which until recently still included high-end luxury brands like Tesla. Now the Premier vilifies the very vehicles his own policy promoted. And why? So much for deeply held environmental beliefs. This amendment offers something better: real, practical help for everyone, not just the affluent who can afford electric vehicles but for the families trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.

[1:20 p.m.]

It gives people a choice not just about what car to drive but whether they can buy groceries, afford shoes or pay rent. That’s the choice this amendment empowers. That’s the dignity it restores.

If I may, this approach also follows the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes, who taught us that during times of economic strain, it’s not only the government’s right but its responsibility to step in and stimulate the economy. Keynes understood that empowering individuals to spend, to participate fully in economic life, was the fastest path to recovery. This amendment channels that same spirit — not just relief but recovery, not just tax reform but stimulus with a purpose.

I will note that the party opposite has always liked to follow the Keynes model. While sometimes I have not in the past, I am pointing out that this is something that we should be looking at.

Those are not just numbers on a page though. That’s the difference between despair and breathing room. That’s a family being able to afford fresh produce instead of packaged food. That’s a senior no longer needing to ration medication. That’s a single parent no longer having to choose between a child’s field trip and next month’s phone bill. We all know the pressures British Columbians face. The cost of living is climbing, and for far too many, stability is out of reach.

I’ve heard from constituents who are just $200 away from paying their bills, $200 away from peace of mind. This amendment is for them: the single parent choosing between groceries and utilities, the senior stretching a fixed income, the young couple saving for a future that feels uncertain. This amendment says: we see you, we hear you, and we’re acting now.

Let’s be clear. This is not about partisan political games. It’s about principle. We were elected to serve, not to shrug. We were elected to respond to the realities British Columbians face, not just to speak to them but to act.

Let’s talk about why this amendment is urgent. Last year the NDP promised a $1,000 annual grocery rebate to help families afford food. It was a promise that gave hope. It was an election promise. But after the election, it was abandoned, leaving people waiting for support they were counting on. That’s not acceptable. British Columbians deserve leaders who keep their word, who deliver relief when it’s needed most.

We cannot let this become the new normal, where promises are made during campaigns and conveniently forgotten after ballots are cast. When the government promises $1,000 to struggling families, then fails to deliver it, that’s not just political disappointment. That’s personal betrayal for those counting on that money, for those that voted for that money.

The Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act fixes that broken promise. It revives the promised grocery rebate not as a one-time cheque but as a permanent tax cut that puts $500 back into the pockets of every tax-filing British Columbian, and $1,000 for two-income households, year after year.

This isn’t temporary relief. It’s a lasting guarantee you can count on with every tax return. This is real help in real time for real people. And because it’s structured as a change to the basic personal amount, it’s built into the very foundation of how we calculate taxes in British Columbia.

[1:25 p.m.]

That means no more waiting, no more wondering if you’ll qualify, no more red tape. Just simple, immediate relief. That relief without the show of collecting the money, paying somebody to distribute it back and mailing those cheques out. Why a tax cut? It’s because tax cuts empower people, and we believe in the empowerment of the people of British Columbia.

May I seek leave to do an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Bryan Tepper: I would like to welcome two of the staff members at the Legislature here — Bella Scrase, whose maiden name is Avagyan, arrived in Canada in 2007; and Marina Burunsuzyan, who arrived in Canada in 2009. Both are Armenian. They’re having a bit of a difficult day with the remembrance of the Armenian genocide.

We’d like to just have them here and remember that we all in this House — no matter what political party, whether working as an MLA or anybody else — support you fully in what you’re doing today. You’re in our hearts, because Armenians face an existential threat today in Armenia and throughout the world.

Thank you for being here. We appreciate you.

Debate Continued

Bryan Tepper: All right, I’m going to start right here again on my speech.

It revives the promised grocery rebate, not as a one-time cheque but as a permanent cut that puts $500 back in the pockets of every tax-filing British Columbian, and $1,000 for two-income households, year after year. It isn’t temporary relief. It’s a lasting guarantee you can count on with every tax return.

This is real help in real time for real people. And because it’s structured as a change to the personal amount, it’s built into the very foundation of how we collect taxes in British Columbia. That means no more waiting, no more wondering if you’ll qualify, no more red tape. Just simple, immediate relief.

Why a tax cut? It’s because tax cuts empower people. They let you decide how to use your money, whether for groceries, child care or paying down debt. Unlike the complex rebate programs, a tax cut is simple, immediate and fair. By increasing the basic personal amount, we ensure every British Columbian benefits, especially low- and middle-income earners, without bureaucratic delays or eligibility hurdles.

Let’s call it what it is: a fair and effective way to get help into the hands of people who need it most. No fancy programs, no convoluted eligibility rules, just common sense. Every dollar British Columbians save on taxes is a dollar they can reinvest in their lives, their family and their communities.

This amendment is about supporting the heart of the province — everyday people who just want a fair shot at getting ahead. It’s for the nurse working overtime, the teacher raising a family, the retiree pinching pennies. It’s relief for those struggling with high grocery costs. It’s delivered right away, not 18 months from now. It’s help you can feel in your bank account today. Make no mistake. The need is urgent.

You don’t need to read an economist’s report to understand the pain in our province. You just need to talk to your neighbour or the cashier at your local grocery store or the parents lining up outside of food banks. This amendment speaks to their neglected realities.

Now, let’s address some potential concerns. Some may incorrectly claim this tax cut favours the wealthy. Let me be clear. This is a tax cut for everyone who files taxes in B.C. The basic personal amount benefits low- and middle-income earners most proportionately. This isn’t about a handout to billionaires; it’s a lifeline for ordinary people, the backbone of our community.

[1:30 p.m.]

This isn’t theory. It’s math. Because of how our tax system is structured, the increase to the basic personal amount provides the greatest relative benefit to those earning the least. It gives everyone a break, but it gives those who need it the most the biggest leg up.

Others might argue we can’t afford this tax cut. To that, I say that we can’t afford inaction. When families can’t buy groceries, when small businesses struggle because customers can’t spend, doing nothing is not an option. This tax cut is an investment in British Columbians. By putting $500 back into every taxpayer’s pocket, we’re boosting our economy, supporting local shops and helping families stay afloat. That’s smart policy, and that’s the right thing to do.

This is not a cost; this is a necessary correction to the status quo that has seen governments overcollect while underdelivering. If there is a surplus in the treasury, it belongs not to politicians but to the people who earned it. If there is no surplus, then the government should look inward — at its waste, its mismanagement, its priorities — before it asks British Columbians to sacrifice more.

This relief is permanent, not tied to political cycles. It’s a commitment that says: “We’re here to help you today, tomorrow and every year after.” It’s $500 for individuals, $1,000 for two-income households, every year, starting now. That’s a promise of support you can rely on. It’s about building confidence, stability, a signal that says you can plan your budget because we’re planning with you in mind. That’s how we rebuild trust in this institution, in public service.

I point out that, as well, we had a vote and supported the $1,000 rebate just yesterday. I urge my colleagues to think of the people we serve. I think of the families in your ridings making tough choices: fresh produce or the hydro bill, school supplies or car repairs. Think of the seniors who worked their whole lives now facing rising costs. Think of the young people wondering if they’ll ever get ahead.

This amendment is for them. It’s our chance to show we’re on their side, fighting for their futures. Because at the end of the day, our job is not to pass the time; it’s to pass the legislation that makes life better for everyone.

Let this amendment be a symbol that we still remember that responsibility, that this Legislature still knows how to deliver. I believe yesterday we showed we know how to deliver. We had a near-unanimous vote, both sides of the House, that we should deliver this relief. The Premier has said people need relief now to get ahead. I agree. This amendment delivers that relief fairly, sustainably and immediately.

I hope every member of this House will support the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act and send a message to British Columbians. We hear you. We value you. We’re acting to make your lives better. The time for study is over. The time for excuses has passed. The time for action — real action — is now.

Let’s not make people wait. Let’s pass this important amendment and deliver the tax relief British Columbians deserve: $500 for every taxpayer, $1,000 for every two-income household, every year. Let’s keep our promise and build a stronger, fairer British Columbia together.

I look forward to this House’s support.

[1:35 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: It’s an important day in this Legislature. In fact, every day here is important. What we do here, although sometimes done with theatrics, affects the very lives of those we have been chosen to serve. We must never take this job for granted. Every decision we make is important. Sometimes we must choose the right decision, the tough decision, not the easy one.

I believe in accountability. That’s why, yesterday afternoon, I stood up and withdrew a comment I made in these chambers. But I believe all of us should be made accountable for the words we say, including the Premier.

On September 29, 2024, the Premier said: “People need help now so they can get ahead. John Rustad would make ordinary people wait 18 months to receive any support.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder, no names, even if it’s in a quote.

Misty Van Popta: Oh, even in a quote?

Deputy Speaker: No.

Misty Van Popta: Oh, apologies. Okay.

Deputy Speaker: For sitting members in the House.

Misty Van Popta: All right.

“That’s if you believe him at all. Our tax cut for the middle-income class supports people now who are struggling with high costs of groceries.”

The next day he said: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the year after that.”

But the big winner statement was on October 9, 2024. “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.”

Late last night I spoke to Bill 5. A big part of my speech was highlighting how Bill 5 didn’t affect the everyday people that the Premier said he’s on the side of. There’s no relief for the farmer, no relief for the small business owner, no relief for the educator, no relief for the truck driver, no relief for the construction trades worker.

There are no small business tax credits. There’s no fuel tax relief for farmers and truckers. There’s no tax relief for independent tradespeople. There are no tax credits for out-of-pocket education expenses for teachers. Most importantly, there are no home retrofit or mobility equipment credits for seniors.

This amendment is the missing piece to Bill 5, relief to everyday British Columbians that the Premier promised. We must be accountable for the promises we make, and I am happy to support this amendment. The grocery rebate achieved through reduced income taxes makes it permanent. This reduction to income taxes will save British Columbians $500. That’s $1,000 per two-income household that people were promised in the fall. That’s so important to people who are $200 away from not paying their bills.

Let’s talk about what an extra $1,000 a year can provide British Columbian families. To the low-income family, that is soccer registration and gear for two kids — soccer cleats, jerseys, extra practices. For a single mom, that’s school supplies, a new jacket and the coveted character backpack and lunchbox their kid has been begging them for, just to feel like they fit in. For the seniors, it’s a new adaptable shower handle or an elevated toilet seat installed in their home so that they can age in place.

[1:40 p.m.]

I have been a single mom for ten years, and it has only been in the last two years that I have felt like I was finally catching up. I know what it’s like to accept handouts and help. I have received anonymous gift cards in the past, dropped off at my door, to put gas in my car.

So $500, to a single mom, is life-changing. It’s about not saying no to your kids for basic things that they deal with every day. It’s saying yes to field trips. It’s saying yes to going to Playland. It’s an away weekend for a volleyball tournament in another province.

And $500 or $1,000 in this House may not be life-changing for those of us in this chamber, but for the struggling young adult just launching into life, it’s a lump sum payment on their student loans. It’s a lump sum towards their first month’s rent for those still living with their parents, like my kids are.

For the family’s car, it’s new brakes or new tires, the repair items that get pushed as long as they can go because money set aside for regular maintenance is just not an option for some. It’s an overnight trip to Vancouver Island for a family of four from the Lower Mainland, using the ferry, dining out in a local restaurant and staying in a hotel, because we should be tourists in our own province.

So $500 to $1,000 is tangible. It offers relief to some British Columbians, offers hope to some British Columbians, and it offers opportunity to some British Columbians. Like a single parent who digs deep into their pockets to provide for their families, this government needs to somehow dig deeper into our spending and offer relief to British Columbians that they so desperately need and were promised.

We need British Columbians to trust government, and this is accomplished by following through on the things we say. When people place an X on their ballot, based on the things they were promised, it’s with an expectation that their lives will be changed by how they voted. We owe it to British Columbians that everyone benefits with tax credits, not just select sectors.

I am supporting this amendment. Why? It’s because I support British Columbians. I support the farmer. I support the small business owner. I support the tradesperson. I support the senior. I support the educator. I support my fellow single mothers, single fathers, grandparents who are raising their grandkids. I support my low-income constituents. I support everyone who voted for the NDP with the expectation that they would get what they were told.

This side of the House supports British Columbians, and this amendment is proof of that. I hope that we can all come together in recognizing, in honouring and being held accountable to the things that we say.

Lawrence Mok: I rise today in this House, representing the constituency of Maple Ridge East not just to speak but also to take real, tangible actions on behalf of British Columbians who are struggling to keep up.

Across this entire province of B.C., I hear the same message repeatedly from families, seniors, single parents and hard-working workers, and that is that the weight of the high cost of living is crushing them. Grocery bills are skyrocketing. Wages aren’t keeping up. Savings are shrinking. And where is the government all this time? Almost nowhere to be seen.

[1:45 p.m.]

That’s why I’m proud to rise in this chamber today in support of an important and practical amendment, the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act. If passed, and I hope it will be, this amendment would allow every British Columbian to claim $500 per year through refundable provincial income tax relief. That’s $1,000 back for a two-income household every year. It’s direct; it’s simple. It’s targeted relief at exactly the time when people need it most.

Let’s make one thing very clear. This is not a handout. This is a response to a broken promise, a promise made by the Premier last year to the people of B.C., and then walked back without any explanation, without any apology and without justification. Last fall this government pledged to provide all British Columbians with a $1,000 grocery rebate. That commitment was made publicly. It was accounted for in the provincial budget. It was celebrated by the Premier and his caucus.

Then just like that, it vanished into thin air — not because the province ran out of money, not because of any legitimate fiscal restraint but because of some vague reference to U.S. trade pressure. The rebate was announced long before any tariff threats came into play. Blaming external factors for a broken internal promise is not just misleading; it’s insulting to those very people counting on that tax relief.

We’re not going to let that slide away easily. That’s why we have urgently brought forward this amendment, because if this government won’t stand behind its word, then this Conservative Party of B.C. will. This amendment isn’t complicated at all. It is not built on bureaucracy. It’s designed to give hard-working British Columbians a fair break, and it’s built on one principle: that British Columbians deserve better than empty promises.

They deserve real support today, not tomorrow or next year, while grocery prices are set at historic highs, while many families are stretching every dollar they have, and while seniors are choosing between prescriptions and produce. They deserve a government that puts them first — not special interest groups, not politically connected industries but real people trying to get ahead in their daily living.

Let’s talk about who this amendment is meant for. Well, it’s for the mom in Maple Ridge who spends hours daily calculating what she can and cannot afford in the produce aisles. It’s for the grandparents in Mission who saved for their whole lives, only to see their pensions swallowed by all kinds of inflation. It is for the welder in Fort St. John, the teacher in Prince George, the waitress in Victoria and the retiree in Campbell River.

These are not statistics. They are real people, and they are asking for one simple thing: tax relief. This amendment gives them that. Let’s not pretend the government can’t afford it. They have shown no hesitation in handing out tens of millions in targeted tax breaks to the digital media sector, many of whom reside in downtown Vancouver’s flashy office towers, while families in 100 Mile House, in Williams Lake, in Kitimat and in Terrace are cutting meals to keep the lights on.

[1:50 p.m.]

Meanwhile, the government’s broader financial direction is something to worry about. Deficits are ballooning year after year. Debt is accelerating, and by 2028, this province will be paying more than $2 million per hour just in interest payments alone. This is not sustainable at all, yet in the face of this financial storm, this government chooses to do almost nothing for the ordinary British Columbian, not even delivering on the one bit of relief they committed to last year.

We, the Conservative Party of B.C., are offering them a second chance, an opportunity to make it right, to do what they should have done months or even years ago. This amendment is more than fiscal policy; it’s a statement of values. It tells British Columbians: “We have got your back covered.” When government overpromises and underdelivers, we won’t look the other way. We will step up, we will hold them accountable, and we will propose commonsense solutions that actually make a difference.

British Columbians have lost trust, not because they are cynical but because this government keeps proving that trust is misplaced. Whether it’s health care, public safety, education, housing or affordability, this government has let down the people again and again. Well, this is where it should stop.

This is where the Conservative Party of B.C. comes in and draws a line in the sand. We are not here for symbolic gestures. We are here to get things done right for the people who sent us here. We will fight every day for policies that make sense and make their lives easier, more affordable and more hopeful.

If this government won’t fix their broken promises, we, the Conservative Party of B.C., will. If they won’t deliver on their commitment, we will. And if they can’t hear the cries for help from families in this province, we will be their voice, loud and clear.

This amendment is the first of many commonsense policies we will bring forward, because British Columbians deserve a government that doesn’t just say the right things but does the right things. I therefore encourage all members of this House — whether Conservative, NDP, Green or independent — to support this amendment today, to stand with working families, to honour the work that was given to them and to send a clear message that hope isn’t gone in this chamber; it is just changing hands.

Lynne Block: Members of this House and fellow British Columbians, if they are tuning in, I am here today to speak in favour of this Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act.

I stand before you today not just as a legislator but as a mother and a grandmother and as someone who has walked the long road of a working-class struggle.

I was raised in a council house in England. For those who are not familiar with what that is, please read some of the non-fiction works about them. No car. Nobody I knew ever had a car. No fridge. Just a pantry. No washer or dryer. We dried our clothes on the clothesline outside or hung them on rails in the kitchen. Definitely no phone. Definitely no central heating. Just a fireplace that burned coal from our coal shed out the back.

[1:55 p.m.]

I thought everyone lived like this. I didn’t know any different until we immigrated to Canada. I remember very clearly how extremely difficult it was for my parents — my parents who struggled so.

My father, a World War II veteran in North Africa and Italy, fought for democracy. My mom, in her early 20s, became what they call difficult, because she had to have a permanently stiff leg. She had physical difficulties, and my father suffered from PTSD the rest of his life, which was undiagnosed because we didn’t know anything about it. The pressure that they endured, their anxiety, that stress — it doesn’t leave you. It’s imprinted for life, and it forms a quiet part of your character. That’s why I am so grateful for my quality of life that I enjoy today.

But now I see that same struggle today on the faces of people across this province. From Kamloops to Kitimat, Nanaimo to Nelson, people are falling behind not because they are lazy or don’t work hard but because this system that they rely on is no longer working for them.

That’s why this bill matters. The Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act is about….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a clarification. The discussion on the floor is the amendment to Bill 5.

Lynne Block: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: You mentioned the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment. It’s not that one.

Lynne Block: I beg your pardon. I just thought the whole thing…. My apologies.

This amendment act is about keeping a promise, providing real relief and choosing to govern with courage and compassion. This legislation will save every single British Columbian $500 a year through a permanent increase to the basic personal amount, the tax-free threshold before you begin paying provincial income tax. In a two-income household, that’s $1,000 in savings every year for good. That’s not a temporary rebate, not an election season gimmick. This is structured, responsible, ongoing tax relief.

What does $1,000 mean? Let’s see. What does it actually look like in the lives of British Columbians? That’s three to four grocery trips for a family of four. That’s a month’s rent supplement for a student or a senior. That’s a full winter coat, new boots and supplies for your growing child. That’s being able to fill your tank and still pay the hydro bill. That’s breathing room. That’s dignity.

And yes, this bill also does something else. It corrects a broken promise. You’ll remember that just last year British Columbians were promised a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. That promise was made in the heat of an election campaign, and like too many promises, it was quietly set aside after the votes were counted. We are better than that.

I know some of the members in this House appreciate the writings of Kahlil Gibran, so I’d like to quote his words here. As Kahlil Gibran once wrote: “You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite and bends you with his might that his arrows may go swift and far.”

When we make a promise to our people, especially our children, we’re bending that bow. We aim for trust. We aim for stability. We aim for hope. We must not miss the mark.

[2:00 p.m.]

The media took notice, too, about the NDP election promise, and all of them, amazingly enough, thought it was a good idea.

Global B.C.: “A policy shift with broad appeal, the grocery rebate guarantee uses the tax system to avoid bureaucracy and deliver results immediately.”

Vancouver Sun: “A rare moment of clarity in tax policy. Universality makes this proposal both fair and efficient.”

Then the Tyee: “Opposition says it’s a gimmick” — that wasn’t us then — “but for struggling families, it’s the difference between groceries or going without.”

This bill is not about ideology; it’s about impact. Now, some critics will say this tax reduction undermines our ability to fund social programs. They’ll wave the flag of big government as if that’s the only path to fairness. To them I say: we cannot tax our way to prosperity. I’ll repeat that: we cannot tax our way to prosperity. We must empower people to build prosperity themselves.

I do love Margaret Thatcher. What a strong woman, the Iron Lady. She stated that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, and she’s so right. This is not austerity; this is balance. This is giving back a portion of what people already earned.

We’re not cutting services. We’re cutting unfair burdens. We’re giving people tools, not handouts. Another Thatcher quote I love, because it bears repeating: “Pennies do not come from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth.” So let’s reward that effort. Let’s honour the work. Let’s give people back some of what they’ve already earned.

This is a more collaborative vision that I have. To quote Kahlil Gibran again, who reminds us of our shared purpose in public service: “You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.” This is not about numbers on a ledger. This is about giving of ourselves, giving our courage, giving our conviction, giving our compassion to create policy that lifts people up without trapping them in dependency.

We must not let ideology blind us to common sense. Who are we fighting for? This is about the grocery store cashier putting back items at the till. This is about the senior who cannot afford both her meds and fresh fruit, and we have a lot of them in my riding. We are talking about the student working nights just to afford a microwave meal.

Let me be very clear. Tax relief is not a luxury. I’ll repeat: tax relief is not a luxury. It is a moral responsibility in a time of economic strain. When someone is working hard, playing by the rules and still falling behind, that is a policy failure, and we have a duty to correct it. That is important to recognize. Even when someone is working hard, playing by the rules, paying their taxes and still falling behind, working two jobs, that is a policy failure, and we have a moral duty to correct it.

Let’s govern with our hearts. This is not the time for delay. This is not the time for game playing or politics. This is the time for courage and to do the right thing. As Kahlil Gibran also reminds us: “Progress lies not in enhancing what is but in advancing toward what will be.” That’s what I’m absolutely encouraging everyone to do today: advance toward what will be, should be, could be.

[2:05 p.m.]

Let’s stop chasing the past and reminding everybody of past failures. We all have that. So let’s stop chasing the past. Let’s stop defending broken systems out of habit — knee-jerk reactions. Let’s embrace the opportunity to do better for everyone.

Growing up in England, I learned that dignity does not come from what you have. It comes from knowing you’ve done right by others. My parents did not have much, but they had pride. They had honour. They had integrity. They had compassion. They taught me to keep my promises, to tell the truth and to never look away when someone is struggling.

That’s why I am here today, and that’s why I support this bill. It does what we said we’d do. It brings real relief, it respects working people, and it restores faith in this Legislature. For my colleagues across all parties, across the aisle, in other rooms…. To my colleagues across all parties, I say: “Let’s stand for integrity. Let’s stand for relief. Let’s stand for real leadership. Let’s pass this amendment together and show British Columbians that we not only hear them but that we are truly here for them.”

Reann Gasper: There’s a difference between being in government and being in leadership. Leadership is heavier; it requires more than words. Today we have a choice to make that what we say more about who we are than any political platform or press release could ever….

We are here today because a promise was made and that promise hasn’t been kept. A $1,000 grocery rebate was pledged to the people of British Columbia — not floated, not proposed, promised. When a government makes a promise like that, people make plans around it. They budget for it. They believe in it. They take us at our word, because if a government’s word doesn’t mean anything, then nothing else does.

When I was campaigning, we knocked on hundreds of doors. There was one particular door that I knocked on, and a single mother showed up, opened her door. I said to her, as I did, who I was, what I was doing, and she said to me: “I didn’t even know there was an election. I’m just trying to raise my daughters, pay rent, buy food.”

We stood there, and we talked, because human to human, you’re a human first, politics aside. We talked about the struggles, and I said to her: “You’re not alone.” I said: “I may be going door to door, but I have to worry about how we’re getting food on the table, how we’re paying the rent. You’re not alone.” So we talked as mothers.

[2:10 p.m.]

When this motion came forward, in my newness to being a member, I actually thought the other side would be happy. I actually started penning notes to speak to this amendment. The first lines were: “We have an opportunity to be unified. We have an opportunity to spread hope. We have an opportunity to actually be true to our word and come together and see something that benefits not just one person. Everybody in British Columbia will benefit.”

In my zeal for this motion, I thought everybody would be excited. As I was listening to the dialogue, I thought: “Okay, well, that’s not our reality, unfortunately.” So here we are.

People didn’t ask for luxury; they asked for relief. They didn’t demand miracles; they just asked for what was promised to be delivered. But instead of delivering it, this government has delayed it, stretched it out, split it up over the next few years and called it reform. Now families that need help in 2025 are being told it will come by 2028. That’s not support; it’s a spin. And that’s not how we build trust; that’s how we burn it.

The bill we’re debating today, the grocery rebate guarantee amendment act, offers something….

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re debating the amendment for Bill 5, the amendment under the Budget Measures Implementation Act. It’s not entitled the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee).

Reann Gasper: Okay, sorry. Thank you for that correction.

The amendment offers something real. It provides $500 in direct income tax relief to every tax-filing British Columbian. That’s $1,000 for a working household — simple, consistent and immediate. Not abstract relief. Not delayed relief. Actual relief now.

The people of British Columbia know how to spot a pattern. The one they’re seeing now is familiar: a promise made with urgency, met with delay and delivered without hesitation. Let’s talk facts. The $1,000 — not sure if I can say this — grocery rebate was a campaign promise. It made headlines, it showed up in debates, and it helped win votes. Once the election was over, it disappeared, replaced with a phased-in tax credit spread over three years, not even close to what was originally promised or pledged.

Meanwhile, what did happen? Cabinet expanded, new ministerial titles were created, parliamentary secretaries were appointed, and government payroll increased. That wasn’t in the platform, and it wasn’t promised to the public, but it happened quickly, quietly, with zero delay. That is the contradiction that becomes clear. What was promised to the people was postponed. What was never promised at all was prioritized.

Let’s be honest. The government didn’t need more time to deliver the rebate. It just gave that time to something else. If you can act swiftly on what benefits your paycheques, you can act swiftly on what benefits your people. That’s what this bill amendment is about. It’s not just dollars but dignity. It’s not just relief, but it’s restoring integrity.

Here’s the hardest truth. If the things you didn’t promise get done faster than the things you did, that’s not policy; that’s a breach of trust. The people of this province deserve more than timelines; they deserve follow-through. If we’re not willing to pass the amendment to this bill, then we should stop pretending we meant it in the first place, because you don’t get to govern with delays when you’ve campaigned with urgency. It is not right. It’s never been right.

You cannot campaign and get people riled up to trust you and then not actually deliver on the very thing that you said you would do. And you certainly don’t get to ask for trust again if you delivered it when you served it on your side of the table.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m sorry. I’m super passionate about this. When I stand in this place and I advocate for families and for children, and I hear an opportunity that we have to actually make a difference…. It wasn’t our great idea, as my colleague pointed out. It actually came from the other side. It’s a great idea.

Here we are. We have a choice before us, presented with the amendment this bill that does what this government said it would do. It delivers $1,000 that British Columbians were told was coming. Presented with this bill, it keeps the promise, and now we find out if that promise meant anything. This isn’t about whether we can afford it. It’s about whether we’re still willing to stand by what we said, even when the spotlight moves on.

If this House votes no, then let’s be honest with the public that the rebate was useful as a headline but not important enough to honour. Let’s not insult their intelligence with more planning language and phase predictions. They’ve heard enough of that. They don’t want more lines; they want line items delivered.

I say to this House: “You promised. They waited. It’s time to deliver.” You can’t tell people you’re on their side and then make them stand at the back of the line when it’s time to deliver. If we fail to pass this bill, let the record show it wasn’t because the math didn’t work; it was because the will didn’t work.

I believe we still have time to get it right. I believe we still have time to show the people of this province that our word is still worth something. It is not a sound bite, it is not a slogan, but it is a commitment.

Let’s pass this bill, let’s deliver the promise, and let’s make sure British Columbians know we’re not just here to win trust. We’re here to earn it back.

Hon Chan: I rise today to speak in strong support of the amendment to Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025 — an amendment that, if passed, would deliver immediate, meaningful and lasting relief to every single British Columbian.

The amendment reads as follows: “that Bill 5 not be read a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax credit, provided in section 4.3 of the Income Tax Act, to $22,462.” Let’s be clear. This is not just a technical amendment; it is a lifeline for many British Columbians.

I rise today to speak not just in favour of this amendment to Bill 5, but on behalf of millions of British Columbians who are tired of being misled, squeezed and forgotten by this government. This amendment calls for one simple, powerful change: increase the basic personal amount under the Income Tax Act to $22,462. What does that mean? It means putting $500 back into the pockets of every British Columbian who files income tax. For a two-income household, that’s $1,000 every single year.

Let me be clear. It’s not a handout of money. It’s letting hard-working people keep more of the money they have already earned. It’s for those who have worked long hours, picked up extra shifts or held down multiple jobs just to stay afloat. This is their money, and when they keep more of it, they don’t stack it. They spend it in their communities, at local restaurants, mom-and-pop stores, child care centres and grocery stores. This is how you stimulate a local economy.

[2:20 p.m.]

British Columbians are hurting. Inflation is biting. Food prices are out of control. Interest rates, even though paused just this week, are still much higher than before. Every time they walk into grocery stores, they feel like they’re being punished for just trying to live a normal life.

Who is paying the price? Not the billionaires, not the wealthy speculators, not the NDP ministers, not the NDP spin doctors, not the big corporations they keep rewarding. It’s the low- and middle-income families, single parents, seniors on fixed incomes, the backbone of this province, who are paying the price. They’re working harder than ever and falling further and further behind. They don’t want handouts, but they want fairness. This amendment delivers that fairness.

Let’s talk about a broken promise and — you know what? — a chance to fix it. During the last election, this Premier promised British Columbians a $1,000 grocery rebate. He promised it loudly through glossy ads and big speeches and even press conferences. People voted for them because of that promise. Arguably, it is the reason why they can be sitting on that side of the House today.

I recall, just last week, one of the ministers even said: “The Conservatives are going down.” Well, we have all seen the numbers, and clearly, that minister needs a refresher on basic facts and math. This NDP lost more than ten seats in the last election, yet they have a minister claiming that someone else is losing.

This government continues to make claims that are not only misleading but remind me of an old Chinese saying: mag dai ngan gong dai wa. It means “people spread lies without even blinking an eye.”

Hon. Speaker….

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

Point of Order

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member just alleged in his remarks that lies were spread. It’s completely unparliamentary language, and I would ask him to withdraw.

Hon Chan: I’m just referring to an old Chinese saying and explaining it means people spreading lies without even blinking an eye.

Deputy Speaker: Have a seat for a minute.

Member, just a caution to steer away from unparliamentary language — generally we try to avoid terms such as “lying” in these chambers — and ensure that it’s not directed to anyone. I’ll just caution you.

Hon Chan: I will be more cautious, even though this is not directly speaking of the other members. But I will be more cautious.

Debate Continued

Hon Chan: If anyone is going down, like the minister said, it’s not the Conservatives, but it’s the NDP. This government is not in touch. They’re not grounded in reality.

Most importantly, they’re not keeping their promises. What happened to the $1,000 grocery rebate? After the B.C. election, and before Donald Trump was even elected in the U.S., that promise was quietly swept under the rug — no apology, no explanation and no help.

When we were young, our teachers taught us that if you make a promise, you keep it. And if you can’t keep a promise, just don’t make it in the first place. It’s simple. This Premier is the head of this province. He’s the leader of the governing party. He made their promise, he broke it, and now he refuses to even acknowledge it.

To top it off, we’ve got a Finance Minister who, for the first time ever, suddenly decided to talk about balancing the budget when she was responding to this amendment yesterday — interesting timing.

[2:25 p.m.]

This government has run a record-breaking $10.9 billion deficit, the highest in British Columbia’s history. Yes, the NDP made history by piling billions of dollars in debt onto the back of our future generations.

Let’s be honest here; it’s not $10.9 billion. The real number is closer to $14 billion. Now they want to lecture us about responsible fiscal management, just yesterday. I’m sorry, but if this Minister of Finance can’t even do basic math, she should think twice before giving us a lecture on budgets.

I always find it ironic and, honestly, something I can never quite understand. This government constantly brags about how well they’re doing, how much extra funding they have provided, how many projects they have launched, how much work they have supposedly done, but here’s the simple truth: I have yet to meet a single person who tells me that life is better today than it was ten or 15 or 20 years ago.

Everyone I speak to tells me the situation of finance has gone downhill. They can’t afford a car, let alone a house. Our university rankings have dropped. Our business closure rate is higher than ever before. Emergency room closures are so frequent…. If they are open, the wait time is significantly longer than it used to be.

So I have one simple question. Despite all this hard work and so-called historic funding, why is everything getting worse? It’s exactly because of these worsening conditions, because of the real, daily struggles of British Columbians, that we must introduce this amendment.

This amendment is the antidote to the broken promises and fuzzy math. It’s real, it’s honest, and it’s effective. By increasing the basic personal amount, we give British Columbians the breathing room they so desperately need. We give families $1,000 a year, we put money back into their pockets, permanently, and we do what this government failed to do: keep their word. I urge every member of this House, especially those on the other side, to remember why they were first elected.

Anyway, this amendment helps them to fix that broken promise. This is not a one-time cheque. This is not a flashy campaign gimmick. This is reliable, structural and fair tax relief that people can count on every single year. During the last election, this Premier promised every single one of us this $1,000 grocery rebate — a very specific promise. It was made loudly, and families needed that relief. You know what? They still do.

The Premier once said, and I quote: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you will get it right away. The leader of the Conservatives of B.C. would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.” Guess what. Let’s take a look around. Who is waiting for help now? That’s exactly what this Premier is doing — handing out tax breaks to corporations, giving incentive to lobbyists and wealthy developers, while ordinary families, working people and small businesses are left struggling.

The facts speak for themselves. Let’s look at the latest MNP consumer debt index conducted by Ipsos, a respected and credible research firm. Their findings are deeply alarming and, frankly, they should be a wake-up call for every single member of this Legislature.

Here’s what the report tells us. Some 49 percent of British Columbians do not believe they can cover their expenses over the next 12 months without going further into debt. Almost one in two British Columbians are saying: “I can’t afford to live here without borrowing more money.” Let that sink in. And 46 percent of people surveyed are saying that they are just $200 away from not being able to pay their bills and debt obligations. That means if there is an unexpected car repair, a rent increase, a dental bill, it could push nearly half of the province over the financial edge.

[2:30 p.m.]

Here’s the most chilling statistic. Nearly one-third of British Columbians told Ipsos that they are already unable to meet their existing financial obligations. Let me repeat that. A full third of the people in this province are already falling behind.

Let me be very clear about what this amendment delivers. It raises the basic personal amount, the amount of income you can earn before paying provincial income tax, to $22,462. It provides $500 in annual tax savings to every British Columbian who files taxes. For a family of two incomes, it means a $1,000 real relief every single year. It makes this relief permanent, predictable and fair, so families can actually plan for their budgets and have peace of mind. Most importantly, it restores the $1,000 groceries rebate that this Premier promised and then broke.

These are real policies for real people. These are for the single mom working two jobs to make rent, the seniors deciding between groceries and medications, the young couple trying to start a family but drowning in student loans and housing costs.

These are the people we were elected to help, and this amendment is for them. It’s good policy, good economics and the right thing to do. Because when families have a bit more room to breathe, they’re not forced to choose between bills and groceries. When they can keep more of the money they have earned, they not only feel a little bit more secure, but they help build a stronger economy, and that’s Team B.C. This is how we build a province that works for everyone, not just insiders. That’s a Team B.C. approach.

I say to all members of this House: this is your chance to stand with working families, seniors, students, small business owners. This is your chance to vote not for a party line but for a Team B.C. approach, unless you don’t want to stand with British Columbians. To the members across the aisle, are you really going to look your constituents in the eye and say: “No, you don’t deserve to keep more of your hard-earned money. No, you should keep paying more so that the billionaires can get tax breaks. No, you don’t get relief, but lobbyists do”?

The people of British Columbia are not asking for much. They’re asking for balance. They’re asking for a little breathing room. They’re asking for you to keep your promise. Let’s give them the relief they deserve. Let’s pass this amendment. Let’s put British Columbians first. Let’s be part of Team B.C.

Pete Davis: I rise today with a real sense of urgency, because what we’re debating here in this House this afternoon is not just a line in a budget. It’s not just an amendment to a bill. It’s not just another political issue that comes and goes. What we’re debating is something far more important. It’s about whether this House, this place that belongs to the people of British Columbia, is finally ready to stand up and deliver real help to the families who need it most. I’m talking about the families who do everything right, the ones who work hard, play by the rules, raise their kids with strong values and try their very best every single day.

They don’t ask for much. They just want a fair shot, a chance to build a good life. But somehow, despite all their efforts, they’re falling behind. Groceries cost more, housing is out of reach, and it feels like no one is listening to them.

That’s why I’m here today, not just as an elected official but as a father, a neighbour and someone who grew up with those same values. I know what it feels like to worry about making ends meet. I know the pride that comes with providing for your own family and the pain that comes when you feel like the deck is stacked against you.

[2:35 p.m.]

Today we’re debating whether Bill 5, as it stands, will be allowed to move forward without addressing the immediate financial strain British Columbians are living under right now, or whether this House will do the right thing and amend it. The groceries rebate guarantee amendment we are proposing is simple. I would argue it’s arguably just that Bill 5 not be read a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax credit under section 4.3 of the Income Tax Act to $22,462.

What does this mean in plain English? It means that every single British Columbian who files taxes will keep an additional $500 of their own money each and every year. It means that two-income households will keep $1,000 more in their pockets, not through a rebate that may or may not come, not through an online application process or a limited pilot program but automatically, directly and permanently.

That matters. It matters more than many people in this chamber might understand. Because $500 can mean a lot to many different people in our province. It’s a tank of fuel to drive to see a parent, a child or a close friend in another town. It’s a difference between getting into a job site or staying home and being unpaid. It’s the cost of winter boots for two kids growing faster than their parents’ paycheques. I know how that is because I’ve got four.

It could be the difference between a Christmas present or having to tell your kids: “Well, sorry, maybe next year.” It’s a birthday that feels like a celebration instead of a reminder of the struggle. It’s groceries for the week when the fridge is empty and the paycheques are still a few days away. It’s heating your home in the middle of a brutal Kootenay winter, and $500 could mean the difference between holding on to hope or falling deeper into despair.

I know what it means, because I lived it. I grew up on welfare. I grew up in community housing. That wasn’t just a political statement; it was my reality. I remember watching my mother sit at the table in the kitchen late at night, pencil in her hand, bills spread out, doing the math to see how far she could stretch what little we had. I can tell you that $500 would have meant everything to her and to me and my brother. It wouldn’t have meant less worry. It would have meant fewer skipped meals, maybe one less night of my mom lying awake, wondering how she was going to make things work.

It was hard back then, and if it was hard back then with the prices when they were lower, when the costs of housing hadn’t spiralled out of reach, when groceries hadn’t doubled, then today’s families are facing an almost impossible climb. I don’t know how single parents do it. I really don’t.

In the face of all this, the Premier promised to help. Let’s not forget what was said during the election. The Premier stood before cameras and said: “People need help now so they can get ahead. Our tax cut for the middle class supports people now who are struggling with the high cost of groceries.” The very next day he promised this: “We’re delivering a $1,000 grocery rebate this year and the year after that and the year after that.”

Then also a few days later, he doubled down. He said: “Under this plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.” The Premier also said that the leader of the Conservative Party would hand tax breaks to billionaires and spectators while leaving you wanting for the help you need now.

[2:40 p.m.]

Well, what happened? Where’s the grocery rebate? Where’s the $1,000? Where’s the support that was supposed to come right away? The answer is very simple. It vanished — gone, abandoned the moment the ballots were counted.

I think people are tired of this. They’re tired of governments that show up every four years to make promises they never intend to keep. British Columbians are tired of hearing, “Help is on the way,” while their fridges are empty and their bills pile up. They’re tired of polished campaign slogans that fade into dust the second real leadership is required.

That’s why this amendment to Bill 5 matters so much. This amendment gives us a chance to make at least one of those broken promises right. It gives us a way to bring back the grocery rebate not as a gimmick, not as a one-time, pre-election cheque but as a permanent, principled tax reduction. It lets people keep more of what they earn. In a time like this, it’s just not good economics. It’s basic decency. Times are tough.

I know this amendment is not going to fix everything. It won’t solve the housing crisis or lower interest rates. It’s not going to undo years of fiscal mismanagement, but it’s a start. It’s a start in the right direction. If we can’t even take this step, what are we all doing here?

Now I want to talk directly to the members across the aisle. I know the pressure from the party brass might be heavy, but I ask you to think about your constituents. Think of the parents that you meet in your communities, the young workers, the seniors, the single-income households, the small business owners that are just trying to make their businesses stay alive. They’re just trying to keep their doors open.

Ask yourself: “Can I look them in the eye and say I voted against $500 in their pockets? Can I tell them that I chose political loyalty over their families’ grocery bills?” I hope not, because that’s what’s at stake here.

My colleagues in this House, like me, represent rural and working-class ridings, the ridings where paycheques don’t stretch like they used to — it’s everywhere; where heating costs hit harder; and where people drive long distances to go to work. In my riding, people drive two hours from their home to go work in the mines. They spend days away from their families to bring those paycheques home to look after their families, the people that they love.

I ask you to stand up for your people, the people in your ridings. You know what? They deserve a break. They were told that they were going to get one, and then it was taken away. We need to deliver this to our people, to the people of British Columbia, the people that voted us in here, the people that put us in these seats, the people that are asking us for help. That’s why we’re here.

Let’s vote for this amendment. Let’s amend Bill 5. Let’s raise the basic personal income tax to $22,462 and finally give British Columbians what they were promised. They were promised a tax cut that actually would help. They were promised help. You know what? We don’t need any more empty promises. They need some reasons to believe that the people that are sitting in this House care about the people of British Columbia, that we care about the single moms and that we care about the single fathers.

[2:45 p.m.]

We care about the young people that are just trying to start out, and we care about the double-income families that are still struggling as well. I can tell you having four kids is very expensive. The people of B.C. need action. They need relief, and they need it now.

To all the members in this House today: I urge you to vote with your conscience. Vote for the people you represent. Please vote to amend Bill 5 and deliver the $500 that could make all the difference in the lives of the people that elected you and that you serve.

Korky Neufeld: As the MLA for Abbotsford West, I speak for those who have no voice. Some of them are marginalized, and many are on the brink of losing their homes. Many are working day and night at more than one job.

I am speaking to the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, to amend it to say Bill 5 not be read a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax credit provided in section 4.3 of the Income Tax Act to $22,462. I want to thank the leader of the B.C. Conservative Party, my leader, the MLA for Nechako Lakes, for bringing this forward.

This matter is vitally important for families across the province. We all know the high cost of living, but it’s because of, I think, specifically the crushing burden that the price of groceries has placed on working people. Now think about that. These people have jobs, they work, and they can’t buy enough groceries in British Columbia, Canada.

You know, the one thing that is booming in Abbotsford is the food bank — record number of people in need, record amount of food being distributed, record number of families, record number of seniors lining up at the doors. It’s not just in my riding but in every corner of the province of British Columbia. Families are making impossible choices. I want to ask everybody who’s listening: have you ever had to make that choice?

I grew up in South Vancouver, 44th and Fraser. That’s where I was raised, in a family of ten children and my mom and dad. So there were 12 of us living in this three-storey house. I don’t think I ever had…. Actually, I’ve never had my own bedroom. I was sharing it with my brothers, and then I got married, and I’m sharing it with my wife, and she’s got about three-quarters of it, but never mind.

You know what? In our growing-up years, we may not have had new shoes. We may not have had those jeans that we were hoping for. We may not have had that banana bike. Remember that bike with the banana seat on it? We never had that. But one thing my dad made sure of. He worked six days a week, brought home the dollars, and my mom stretched them. You could hear that dollar screaming down the block for miles because she stretched every penny out of that, making home-cooked meals, making bread, making buns.

My mom and dad took their blue Suburban from 44th and Fraser and they drove it down the highway to Abbotsford to pick up a half a beef. They brought that half a beef back, and they hung it in our basement. They carved it out and made steaks and beef and meat for us. Then the next week they’d travel with that same truck all the way to Abbotsford. They’d pick up flats of eggs, and they’d distribute those flats of eggs so it could pay for their gas and pay for our eggs. That’s how they made it work.

Imagine having to choose between paying rent and putting nutritious food on the table. These people are in our communities. These people are our neighbours, choosing between filling their gas tanks and filling their kids’ lunchboxes, if they’re able to even have that choice.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have a program that was birthed in Abbotsford. It’s called the starfish pack program. What it is, is backpacks filled with food, by volunteers and donations, that children can take home for the weekend. How did this thing start? Well, it started off as a pilot project with six backpacks, as a response to an Abbotsford teacher’s cry for help.

The beautiful thing about Abbotsford is that it’s the most generous community in all of Canada. Well, they stepped up. Word started to spread. Needs became apparent, and it wasn’t just, all of a sudden, one teacher. Now it became several teachers, and it moved all across our district. Today it totals 4,419 packs that have been served. That’s right: 285 schools and over 24 locations around the province. Now it has moved across the border. Washington state schools have picked it up.

All from one teacher’s cry for help. She saw Johnny walk into the classroom on Monday morning. Johnny’s stomach was growling. Johnny couldn’t read, couldn’t sit still, couldn’t write. So she said: “I’ve got to do something about it.” She took money out of her own pocket. She went and bought groceries. She bought nutritious food, and she fed Johnny.

You know what? That spread, and that became a much-needed program. But it’s actually a wake-up call for us. We’re not talking Haiti. We’re not talking Africa. We’re not talking other countries. We’re talking British Columbia, Canada. The need to feed is real. The need to feed is real for many British Columbians. The need for tax relief is now, and the need for tax relief is today.

In this moment of economic pressures, British Columbians deserve more than words. Words don’t fill the stomach. Words don’t pay the bills. Words don’t fill a gas tank. They’re just words until they become action. They deserve action; they deserve swift action. They deserve certain action. In other words, they need to count on this action, and it has got to be meaningful. It has got to be meaningful to them today, for their families, for their children.

That’s exactly what this amendment to the bill provides, money in their pockets today — not out of their pockets daily but into their pockets. The income tax amendment act is common sense. It’s very compassionate. It’s a powerful response to an urgent, urgent problem.

Let’s break down the details of this immediate tax relief. As others have said, it proposes a $500 annual tax break for every British Columbian who files taxes, through an increase in the basic personal amount, the amount of income exempt from provincial taxes.

For those of us who may not be tax experts, like myself, let me put it plainly. If you file income taxes in British Columbia, you can save 500 bucks every single year under this legislation. It’s not a one-time gift, but you can count on it year after year, money so desperately needed by so many British Columbians. For a two-income household, that means $1,000 in tax savings, money that stays in your pocket, where it belongs.

It doesn’t actually go to some bureaucratic entity in the institution and then eventually come back to you. This is money that comes right out, up front. What a difference that could make. It would take the pressure off many people in British Columbia, unlike the promises that were made and forgotten.

This bill guarantees permanent relief, year after year. This is not a one-time cheque or a political gimmick or a temporary measure to score points for an election. It’s a structured tax cut that’ll help people now and today and, more importantly, every year to come. They can count on it, year after year after year.

How did we get here? Well, let’s remember that this last year, the current NDP government promised British Columbians a $1,000 grocery rebate. That was actually at the centre, one of their centrepieces of the campaign. I believe many British Columbians bought that hook, line and sinker.

[2:55 p.m.]

We have a summer home that my whole family uses up at Mahood Lake, up in the Cariboo, and I was teaching my grandson how to fish. We were sitting on the dock, and we put the line out, and then we waited. He looked up at me, and he was wondering what was taking so long. Then I reminded him: “Well, it’s fishing. It’s not catching.”

Well, this promise caught a lot of people. It gave them hope, thousands of them, so much so that they voted accordingly. What happened after the election? That promise vanished into thin air. It was abandoned, discarded like yesterday’s news. This bill rectifies that broken promise. In fact, it fulfils it. But more than that, it strengthens it, because it’s not one time. It’s each year for taxpaying British Columbians — each year. It’s not a temporary rebate.

It delivers permanent savings through the tax system. That means you don’t have to wait for a cheque to arrive in the mail sometime. You don’t have to wonder if the government will change their minds. How often has that happened, especially in the last eight years? This relief is built into your income tax, where it’s reliable, automatic and immediate.

This Premier himself has said: “People need relief now.” We would agree. That’s why our leader brought this forward, because we’ve heard it time and time again. If you knocked on doors, I’m sure you heard it.

This amendment does exactly that. It gives relief to the single mom earning minimum wage. Many of them, working two or more jobs, still can’t make a go. I mean, you used to get a part-time job above your normal job so you could buy extra toys and extra holidays and do extra things with it. It was a choice you made. This is not a choice anymore. People are working two jobs because they have to, because they can’t make ends meet. They’re doing it to survive.

To the small business owners scraping by…. I don’t know if you’ve talked to a small business owner lately. The costs are increasing.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Welcome to the chair. I appreciate you being here. I’ll try to say “Mr. Speaker” instead of “Madam Speaker,” but forgive me if I do.

There are increased costs for a small business, costs that they’re not getting any benefits from. I think most businesses would say: “I don’t mind paying costs for something if I get something in return.” But they see it going into thin air year after year after year.

They have safety issues. I know of a person in Abbotsford who has had a business in Abbotsford for over 30 years. He’s closing his doors. He’s moving. Why? Because every day he has got to clean up in front of his shop because it’s dangerous with needles. It’s full of feces; it’s full of vomit. And he’s the one cleaning it up. He never asked for that. Workers don’t want to stay there late because it’s not safe. He’s closing his doors. And I’m sure there’s more than just one business owner with those issues.

Then the retired people are watching every dollar. This is probably the most painful part of all. It’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing to see seniors, who have built this province, who have built this country, begging for food.

Our Abbotsford homeless camp…. I walked through there. Yes, there are families with kids. They’ve actually carved out a little area for a playground. They’re trying to make a community out of it, some living in their cars, some living in a camper. Then there are seniors. They can’t afford to live anywhere else. That’s where they’re living. They have paid taxes their whole life.

[3:00 p.m.]

It gives relief to tens of thousands of British Columbians who are just $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. We’re not saying it’s a handout like the promise in the election was. We’re proposing fairness for all. We’re proposing dignity for working people who do their part and deserve a break. They are working harder today, longer hours today but still fall behind. They run out of money before they run out of month.

Now, I’ve heard the Premier say that their plan supports people right away while accusing us, or our leader, of making people wait. I’d like to ask the members across the aisle: what is the definition of “right away?” More importantly, British Columbians would like an answer to that. What does the word “right away” mean? Well, who’s making British Columbians wait now, wait today, wait tomorrow?

Let’s be honest with British Columbians. The NDP did not deliver on their $1,000 rebate. It was nothing but just talk. They said: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, and the year after that.” But where is it? Well, there’s nothing this year, there’ll be nothing next year, and there’ll be nothing the year after that. That’s what they got. Families need help this year, not a maybe promise for some time in the future, if it ever comes.

This Premier says he stands on the side of everyday people. Well, Mr. Premier, everyday people in British Columbia are still waiting. No more empty promises. No more excuses.

With this amendment, relief is here. It is real, it is lasting, and it is fair. This will mean the difference for many, many British Columbians — to many feeding their families, not having to make those unthinkable choices for themselves or their families.

I ask all members of this House, regardless of party affiliation, to look beyond partisanship and think about the people we serve. Think about the parents packing their school lunches — for those who can. Many cannot. For the seniors counting their pennies, the families trying to build a future, this amendment is not about scoring political points; it’s about doing the right thing. It’s about trust. It’s about keeping promises. Above all, it’s about delivering relief to those who need it most.

Let us do what we are elected to do: serve the people of this province. Maybe this term is outdated, but we are public servants, not party servants, not our riding’s servants. We are public servants. We can never, ever forget that. All British Columbians — urban, rural, large, small communities — will benefit from this. I urge all members to support this bill. Let’s give British Columbians the tax relief they deserve, the support they were promised and the dignity that they’ve earned.

I want to spend some time on that word “dignity.” Dignity is a real issue. If you’ve been around your community and you’ve seen the hardships, seeing adults at homeless camps, lined up at food banks…. Good people. Many of them are working, but they’re walking around with broken spirits, unable to make ends meet. They are ashamed because they can’t meet their own needs, never mind the needs of their family.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’ve witnessed this firsthand, talking to these people, looking them in the eyes, and it’s gut-wrenching. This would relieve some of that. We can restore the dignity by supporting this income tax amendment act.

I would encourage every person in this House to think soberly about this before you stand or don’t stand. I would encourage you, however you vote, in this week of Easter season, to go to some of those hard places. Go to the Salvation Army. Go to the local camps, maybe some homeless people, and ask yourself the question: what would $500 mean to them today? It would make a huge difference.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Larry Neufeld: I rise today, proud to represent the people of Peace River South. I’m even more proud to speak in strong support of this amendment to Bill 5, an amendment that embodies what good governance ought to be — practical, principled and people-focused. What we have before us is not just a line item in a budget or a policy change. It is a statement. It says to British Columbians: “We hear you, we see you, we understand the pressures you’re under, and we believe that you should keep more of what you earn.”

This amendment proposes raising the basic personal amount, the amount of income you can earn before paying income tax, to $22,462. What does that mean for working British Columbians? What that means for working British Columbians is $500 back in their pockets each and every single year. For couples, that’s $1,000.

I don’t know about the other members in this chamber, but I can tell you an extra $1,000 in my pocket is something special, and it’s something that I would certainly appreciate to have.

Unlike some flashy campaign promise, this amendment discusses a change that is not a one-time cheque. It is permanent. It is dependable. It is something you can count on year after year, when you’re looking at saving for your child’s education, when you’re looking at saving for your future, when you’re looking at paying the basic bills of everyday life. It is dependable, and it can be counted on. That predictability is powerful.

Let me tell you something. In Peace River South, $500 is not just spare change. It is a winter heating bill. It’s hockey equipment for a growing child. It’s groceries for a month. Well, I don’t know if it necessarily is nowadays, depending on the size of your family. I will admit that my wife does the grocery shopping, and I suspect $500 probably doesn’t do it for two of us. But it would go a long way. Even more so, if you shop smart and make every dollar stretch, like so many of our families do, that $500 or $1,000 per couple would go so much further.

Let me walk you through what the $500 really means in communities like Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge and all the small communities in between. It means that a working mom can afford healthy food options without choosing between milk or meat. It means a family does not need to delay buying boots for their kids or repairing the old truck that dad gets to work with during icy winter mornings. Having lived in the North my entire life and worked the last 30 of those on icy winter mornings, I can tell you that’s a real thing, without question.

[3:10 p.m.]

It further means that seniors can turn the heat up when the temperature dips below. Grandma doesn’t need to sit there until her fingers bleed, knitting, crocheting and sewing blankets in order to stay warm. To those of you that have not been to my wonderful region, I can tell you for a fact that we do get minus 40, and that’s minus 40 Celsius — which is the same difference, Fahrenheit or Celsius. That’s where the scale meets, and minus 40 is cold.

That does happen where I live, and denying someone the basic human ability to heat themselves is something that I don’t want to do and that I don’t want to be a part of. What this amendment to Bill 5 does is to allow that senior to turn the heat up without worrying about how they’ll afford the next hydro bill, the next Fortis bill, the next Pacific Northern Gas bill or any other main cost of living, on a monthly basis.

Furthermore, this amendment to Bill 5 means dignity, it means peace of mind, and it means restoring a bit of the breathing room that so many in our region have lost over the past few years.

Yes, my region has, in the past, been wealthy through the extraction and production of oil and gas. That is not what it once was, and I can tell you I’ve met with an awful lot of people that are not in the situation, financially, that they were a decade ago. This amendment to the bill, I believe, would go a long way to again allowing those folks to sleep better at night and to have more peace of mind.

Let us think even bigger about what this means for a community. In Peace River South, when families have more to spend, that spending does not go to faceless corporations. Yes, absolutely, we do have Amazon deliveries, we do have everything that has been talked about in this House, but I can tell you that the wonderful, hard-working people of my region do go out of their way to shop locally. It goes to the local butcher — his name is Fred, a great guy; and the baker on Main Street. Her name is Julie, an equally great individual; I quite enjoy her time.

It also goes to the family-run hardware store, not to mention the amazing.... I don’t know if I’m allowed to say it in this speech, but we do have an amazing hunting and gunsmithing shop in town. I guess if they see this, maybe they’ll get a little bit of a shout-out from it. It’s actually so fantastic that it does attract people from across the border and from across the northern part of this province.

In addition, the $500 that is provided from this amendment to Bill 5 supports a more self-reliant, more resilient British Columbia. It’s not just for my region; it is for everyone in this province. It empowers people to make their own choices. How can you argue with giving someone dignity and the ability to make their own choices?

It empowers them to invest in their own families. It’s just an incredible thought: to be able to invest in your own children, in your extended family, in your ability…. I’ve had the fantastic ability in my life to be able to support my relatives. I can tell you that that feels incredible. I believe that the amendment to Bill 5 will go a long way in helping others within British Columbia to do the same. It really does warm the heart. I can tell you that for a fact.

The amendment to Bill 5 allows individuals to support their own communities. As I spoke to earlier, in my wonderful region, people do go out of their way to shop local. I encourage them to do so, and they’ve been fantastic at doing it. When you go down and you talk to the butcher…. Again, we have a fantastic meat-packing plant; we have an incredible set of people that work there.

When you buy local, the money stays in town. It goes to the wages of those individuals. Those individuals send their kids to hockey, to dance, to judo, to many, many, many different events, and it’s really heartwarming to see the benefit of that local money staying in town. In my estimation and in my very firm belief, that’s exactly what the amendment to this bill does: to allow that money to stay local. I think that’s an incredibly powerful thing. It’s the kind of bottom-up growth that we should be promoting.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think everyone in this house would agree that this province needs some economic stimulus and needs the people at home to be making more of their own decisions. They need to be able to make….

I’ve said that incredibly many times on the campaign trail. I feel very firmly that the individual knows how to spend their money better than I do. They do. They know their needs; they know their wants. They know what their children need; they know what their children want. Who am I to stand here in this place of honour and pretend that I know better than they do on how to spend their money?

Why do we need this amendment now? It’s because people are hurting, there’s no question — not just in cities, not just in the Lower Mainland, but in particular in our northern communities, our rural communities, on our farms and in our small businesses. It’s not just the very poor that are suffering. It’s the middle-class families who have been pushed to the brink — to the brink. It’s small business owners who cannot make payroll.

I can attest. I have been a small business owner, a medium-sized business owner for 20-odd years. The stress of trying to go to sleep at night, when payroll is the next day and you’re 90 to 120 days behind on receivables, is palpably real.

That is incredibly real because you are responsible for the livelihoods, the ability of your staff to make their mortgage payments, to make their car payments, to be able to pay their gas bill. The weight of that will keep a person of conscience awake all night long. And you need to be back in that desk the next day earning and bringing more work in so that those individuals can work.

The weight of that is incredible. Until a person has experienced it…. I don’t believe that I could fully explain it. Again, a person of conscience would have an exceptionally difficult time sleeping at night with that weight of: does that bank account actually have enough money to make payroll the next day? It’s an incredibly powerful feeling, and it’s not a positive feeling.

In addition to the small business owners, it’s young couples who can’t save for a down payment because groceries eat up every last cent. I have three adult children, and I’m very proud. I think I should have announced it in this place of honour that my wife and I have been blessed with our first grandchild. So I have three adult children and a grandchild. I can tell you one of the first things that comes out of my adult children’s mouths is: “I don’t think I will ever own a home.” To me, that saddens my heart. It truly does.

I believe that the amendment to Bill 5 will in fact assist in that direction. Again, it will free up more equity or more ability for these young individuals to save for that down payment.

A recent study said that nearly half of Canadians are just $200 away from being able to make their monthly bills. Again, I believe that I have…. I don’t say that with shame in any way whatsoever, but I believe that I have said in this House that I grew up below the poverty line. I did. I grew up in a family where…. I’m not exaggerating, but we, not literally, were able to push two nickels into a quarter because we simply had to, to survive.

I can tell you that $200, $500 is…. The thought of having the heat turned off, the thought of having the electricity removed…. It’s incredibly weighing on the mental health of an individual. We’ve talked about the $200 away from not being able to meet their monthly bills. Again, I’ve experienced that. They’re moments away from crisis. They’re moments away from losing their ability to survive with dignity. It’s a sad, sad situation.

That $200 is not just a number. It absolutely is not a number. That $200 is a neighbour in Pouce Coupe. It’s a single mom in Tumbler Ridge. It’s a welder in Dawson Creek who just got laid off and is stretching every last dollar to pay his gas bill so that he doesn’t freeze.

[3:20 p.m.]

I had a lady come into my MLA office shortly before I came down this week. As other members of this House would know, it’s heartbreaking to hear the stories of how devastating the suffering is for people in this province. It’s devastating. It hurts to hear the pain that these people are going through.

Our inability, as elected officials, to help to the level that they deserve, the level that we want to help, is painful. As a human being, that’s painful not to be able to help. Again, the amendment to Bill 5, I do believe, will go a long way to assist in that help. I believe that that’s something that’s very important.

Again, we talked about the neighbour in Pouce Coupe. We’ve talked about the single mom in Tumbler Ridge, the welder in Dawson Creek. These are real people; they are not statistics. They are real people that are doing their best, and because of circumstances beyond their control, they are not making it, or they are within $200 of being on the street.

These are the families who wake up before dawn to get their kids ready. Any of us that have had small children that have ever been in any kind of sporting event absolutely would know what I’m talking about. These are the families that drive long distances to go to work.

Having worked in the northeast for the last, well, again, more years than I should probably admit, I would suggest that driving four hours plus to a jobsite, one way, is a real thing. It absolutely is. That’s very real. Try doing that at minus 40 when you’re packing extra fuel in the back of the truck to make certain that you’re not going to freeze to death on the side of the road. That’s very real where I live. That is incredibly real where I live.

These people of incredibly strong constitutions still have the energy to volunteer in their communities. I volunteer in a number of very prominent groups in my community, and I’m incredibly impressed and incredibly proud of what those individuals accomplish.

I do believe, again, that the amendment to Bill 5 will be a very powerful thing to help those community groups, because that’s the $20 a month that the single mom was giving to the Lions or giving to…. I don’t know if I’m allowed to give…. Am I allowed to give names of different groups, to various charitable not-for-profits? I believe that that is going to make a significant difference.

Again, that’s the difference between hockey school…. That’s the difference between so many different things. When we think back, those of you that may or may not have grey hair like I, to the times when your children were young…. I had three children in diapers at the same time. That’s a second job. You need a second job to do that. That’s just incredible. Imagine what this extra $1,000 per couple would do.

Again, the people of my area are…. I couldn’t be more proud. I couldn’t. I could try, and I will try, but I could not be more proud. They are the hardest-working, most resilient…. Very many of them are entrepreneurial. We were the economic…. I don’t know if I could say economic capital of the province, but certainly, we had an economic boom a number of years ago. We attracted talent, economic talent, raw talent from across this country.

I am proud to call many of those people my friends. I can tell you that they are talented because they work incredibly hard. They do not want handouts. They want the ability to work, and they want the ability to survive.

I have said this many times during the campaign, and I have also said it during various events that I’ve attended in Vancouver. I started my first business 20 years ago, and given the circumstances in this province today, I truly, truly do not believe that I would be able to do that again today. That business has employed many dozens of people. It has paid incredible taxes. It has paid commercial taxes. It’s provided money for personal income taxes.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s incredible to me at why, 20 years later…. Well, again, my grey hair, and I don’t know that I should be saying those big, big numbers…. It’s incredible to me, and it’s disappointing. It is disappointing to me that my daughter, who followed me through engineering to take the same program that I did, would not have the same opportunity in this province that I did.

I moved to this province from Alberta. I was scoffed at; I was teased. It was suggested to me that there was something wrong with me because I was moving the wrong direction. Well, I chose British Columbia. I wasn’t forced here; I chose it.

I moved from a very vibrant city, a very wealthy city in Alberta. I started my first business, and it was successful, because again, the entrepreneurial spirit of the people in my region is exceptional. It’s really something that…. Well, again, I’ve said it more than once, and if I can get the indulgence of the members of this House, I’ll repeat it once again.

I am exceedingly proud, exceedingly proud of the people of my region, and there are a great many reasons why. The people of my region, again, do not want handouts. They don’t want government programs layered in bureaucracy. They want the ability to work hard and create an equitable living for their families. They want fairness. Who doesn’t? Who doesn’t want fairness? They want to be respected for their hard work.

I’ve lived in the North my entire life. I’ve lived in northern Saskatchewan, I’ve lived in northern Alberta, and I’ve lived in northern British Columbia. And I can tell you, well, first and foremost, as a westerner…. I’m sure we all have experienced the sense of alienation when it comes to federal politics, but triple that or quadruple that when you’re a northerner. We’re not heard. We don’t seem to count, and our needs don’t seem to be taken into account.

Back to the Bill 5 amendment. It’s going to go a long way to help with the grocery bill, as we’ve already talked about. It’s going to go a long way to help putting fuel in the tank of your vehicle. It’s going to go an incredibly long way to helping with the utilities, your insurance, everything.

I don’t know if anyone here has actually had a reduction in the rates of any of the things that I’ve just listed, but I certainly haven’t. And this $1,000 per couple, $500 per person would go a very long way to help with those day on day on day constant increases in the cost of living.

And while people are juggling these rising costs, this government has the audacity to break a major promise. Do you remember it? I do. Last year, just before the election, the NDP promised a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. They said help was on the way. They stood in front of the cameras, made the pledge and asked for trust. And then? Nothing. That promise disappeared faster than a litre of milk in a family of five. That is disappointing.

I would suggest that British Columbians have noticed. The people that I represent…. If I brag too much more, I might get run out of this wonderful place of honour on a rail by my colleagues. I don’t know, but I don’t think I ever will stop bragging about the wonderful people of the South Peace. The people that I represent are straight shooters. They are hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, straight-shooting people.

In Peace River South, your word still means something. When you shake someone’s hand, it means something. We don’t sit down and write contracts. I own some farmland there. When I lease out my land to the neighbour for him to graze his cattle and to take the bales off it, we don’t sit down and write a contract. I don’t have to have it notarized. I don’t have to have it witnessed. When you shake a hand in my region, it means something, and that’s part of why I’m so incredibly proud to be from there.

The people of that area…. Again, I’ve described their character. If you say you’re going to do something, you do it. If you don’t, you’re going to be held to account by your neighbours and by the people that you’re working with. And if something goes wrong, as with myself, you own it, you apologize, you fix it, and you illustrate how this isn’t going to happen again.

[3:30 p.m.]

This amendment is about doing what the government would not. It’s about keeping a promise that they broke. But we’re doing it in a conservative way, one that trusts people, not bureaucracy. We’re not introducing a new program with overhead, red tape and criteria that leave people behind. We’re just raising the basic personal amount so that everyone who files a tax return gets the same fair shot — no gimmicks, no forms, just more of your own money staying in your own hands. What an incredible thought.

Now, critics will ask: can we afford this? I would ask in return: can we afford not to? When people are drowning in rising costs, doing nothing is not an option. Tax relief is not a loss; it’s a gain. It’s an economic stimulus that actually works. Why? It’s because people don’t hoard it. They spend it in local stores, at small businesses in their communities.

Would you rather have government sitting…? Oh, I’m not going to read that.

Let’s talk about that mother that I spoke about previously. I met someone like her not long ago. She works two part-time jobs. Her husband was in construction, but the work has slowed. Their daughter is in grade 5. It was a heart-wrenching experience. It was a sad story.

They do everything right. They budget carefully, they volunteer at the school, and they volunteer with the Rotary club. But they are one unexpected repair, one dental bill, one flat tire…. Name any of 50,000 different things that could happen to any of us on any given day that would create an increased expense in our lives. They’re one of those incidents away from real trouble.

I don’t know how many members in this House have ever had to fear for their ability to put a roof over the head of their family or their children. I can tell you that that is a gut-wrenching, incredibly soul-sucking experience.

What would that extra $1,000 for that family mean? It would mean food security. It would mean peace of mind. It would mean a weekend away that they haven’t had in…. Well, it says three years, but where I grew up, that was ten. The weekends didn’t exist. That’s when you worked.

I can say for a fact that this amendment matters. It really does. That $1,000 is real. For families that are $200 away from crisis, $1,000 is real. It matters. I want to emphasize that this is not just a rural issue. It’s a British Columbia issue. Out in Peace River South, where the distances are long and the winters are cold, it hits especially hard. I talked about the minus 40. I talked about the incredible challenges that we have in that region. This $1,000 is real. To many or most of the people in my area, it’s incredible.

Driving from Tumbler Ridge to Fort St. John for a medical appointment is not optional. What do you do if you don’t have $150 to fill up the tank in your vehicle nowadays? What do you do when you have to get your child to that medical appointment from Tumbler Ridge to Fort St. John and you don’t have that $150?

The other thing that I would suggest…. I’ve already talked about the cold. Can you imagine trying to choose whether to heat your home in January? I’ve done it in my youth, when I was close to this situation. You turned the heat down, and you wore long underwear in the house. You make choices. You have nothing to…. You have to make those choices.

[3:35 p.m.]

In the region of Peace River South, we pay more because of geography. This amendment to Bill 5 is one small way to level the playing field.

Let’s be honest. People are losing faith. They’re losing faith in politicians, in institutions, in promises made from podiums. It is our job to restore that trust. That starts by keeping our own promises and calling out broken ones. It also means proposing solutions that make sense — conservative solutions. We believe in self-reliance, in rewarding work and in small government that respects the taxpayer. This amendment to Bill 5 checks all of those boxes.

You know, I often hear from constituents who say government just doesn’t get it. I actually do hear that quite often. They think every problem needs a program, but the truth is most people just want to be left alone. They want to be left alone to work hard, to raise their kids and to have a fair shot at getting ahead. This amendment does that. It respects the taxpayer. It trusts the individual.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today in firm support of the amendment, referred to as: “Bill 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 to $22,462.” This is not as a partisan talking point, but as a matter of principle and a matter of people for B.C.

British Columbians were promised a $1,000 grocery rebate in last year’s election — not hinted at, not vaguely discussed. promised. It was announced with fanfare, with urgency. The Premier himself said people couldn’t wait for the tax break and that relief was needed now. They used words like “immediate support” and “affordability crisis.” They told seniors, single parents, working families and low-income British Columbians that help was on the way in the form of a $1,000 grocery rebate.

Then the election was over. They walked away. An announcement came that it had been cancelled. They just quietly let the promise disappear and hoped no one would notice. Well, I can tell you that the people in Boundary-Similkameen noticed.

Now, I want to be clear. The Conservative Party of B.C. saw the need for relief for British Columbians, which is why we included the tax break in our election platform. At the time, this government said that British Columbians could not wait that long, that our plan was not good enough, that people needed it immediately, and that is why they were going to provide a $1,000 rebate immediately.

They also promised to follow our lead and remove the carbon tax, which we did on March 31. We need to remember that both of those promises were made at a point in time where this government said they were $7 billion in debt. To have the minister stand in the House yesterday and say that we simply cannot afford to honour that promise…. We knew we couldn’t afford that promise when it was made in October.

While they are deflecting and saying that Trump is the reason we cannot afford this rebate, they also tabled a budget that shows an increase in government revenue. Which one is it, that the government expects lost revenue due to Trump tariffs or that this budget really is a fudge-it budget, made-up numbers that don’t make sense?

When you make a promise of that magnitude during an affordability crisis, when you’re billions of dollars in debt, you owe the people an explanation of why you made that promise that you had no intention of keeping. To have this government now speak out against this amendment, when they could support and honour their commitment to the people of British Columbia by supporting it….

For the people in my riding of Boundary-Similkameen, I’m speaking up in support of this amendment to provide them with a $500-per-person rebate and $1,000 per family. This rebate will come as a tax relief, not something they need to apply for — no government bureaucracy. It is what is needed.

[3:40 p.m.]

For some, $1,000 may not seem like a lot, but in rural B.C., that’s the difference between eating fresh or eating boxed. It’s the ability to fill your gas tank, to say yes to that school field trip, to replace shoes that have holes in them.

Here’s the thing: this wasn’t our promise. The Conservative Party of British Columbia didn’t float a headline and then pull it back. We promised this relief through tax cuts — predictable, stable and honourable policy. It was this government that said that wasn’t good enough. They said British Columbians needed help faster, that families were desperate, so they offered direct cash. They made the promise because they knew the need. They broke the promise because they hoped we would forget. But we have not forgotten.

We are here today with this amendment to make good on that broken word, to honour the commitment they made, even if they won’t, and to stand for families, seniors and small business owners who built this province and now find themselves slipping behind.

This amendment is about bringing that $1,000 back to the table. More than that, it’s about restoring faith in leadership. It’s about demonstrating that when a promise is made, it must be kept. If we want British Columbians to trust their institutions, to vote and to believe in public service, we must show them that their voices matter, that their hardships are seen and that this government doesn’t say one thing before the election and do another the minute the cameras are off.

Let’s be honest. Rural British Columbians already feel they’re at the back of the line. They see billions being spent while rural B.C. falls further behind. They hear about affordable housing while their neighbours live in campers in the winter. They’re told about equity and inclusion, but not when it comes to infrastructure dollars, hospital closures or cell service providers.

When a $1,000 promise that could have actually made it to the front pages…. For once, they felt seen. They saw that headline and they thought: “They see me.” And then they weren’t. It just disappeared, and they were left behind. Let’s talk about the real-world value of $1,000, because for many in this House, it’s easy to lose perspective. In rural B.C., $1,000 isn’t abstract. It isn’t spare change in the couch. It is survival.

In towns like Rock Creek, Tulameen or Midway, $1,000 is ten tanks of fuel, and those aren’t for pleasure trips. That’s the drive to town to work, as there are not enough jobs locally. It’s taking their child to a medical appointment in Kelowna, because there are no specialists that service our area. It’s to get groceries from the only store, which might be 50 kilometres away, or to help a neighbour bring feed to livestock because they had crop failure last year.

When the tank is empty, the economy stops. Kids don’t get to school. Farmers can’t move equipment. Parents miss shifts. Seniors cancel appointments. Gas isn’t a line item for rural B.C.; it’s the foundation of everything else.

Now walk with me through a small-town grocery store. Imagine a mother with two kids standing in front of the produce section. The apples are $4.99 a bag, the imported applesauce is $1.29 a tin, the milk is nearly $7 a jug, and the boxed cereal is twice what it was last year. She does the math, she calculates the shelf life, and she chooses the cheapest but not the healthiest.

That $1,000 would change her choices. It would mean carrots instead of frozen fries, fresh ground beef instead of another night of noodles, and yogurt and bananas for the lunch kits — maybe even juice boxes for the first time in months.

Let’s not forget the local producers, orchardists, ranchers and small farms. When families can afford to buy B.C. grown, they do. That money supports jobs and keeps B.C. food on B.C. tables. So yes, that rebate will help the family, but it would also help the grower down the road who’s been barely hanging on. That’s why I support this amendment.

Come August, families in Boundary-Similkameen aren’t vacationing; they’re budgeting. Back-to-school costs aren’t just pencils and paper anymore. They need scientific calculators, headphones, indoor and outdoor shoes, specific brand-name binders and clothing that’s going to fit growing kids. I met a family in Cawston last summer who had three kids in school. They expected to spend over $600 on supplies, and that didn’t include clothing or food for their lunches.

That $1,000 means that each child has the tools they need to learn. They show up proud, not embarrassed, and they get the same start as everyone else. That’s not just economic; that’s social inclusion.

Beyond school, that rebate helps with a proper winter jacket in Greenwood, where temperatures drop well below freezing, or new running shoes in Keremeos, where the gravel roads tear through shoes, or laundry money for a family living in a rental that doesn’t have a washer and dryer.

[3:45 p.m.]

These things add up, and without support, families just start cutting corners. That is where this amendment can provide real support to the people of Boundary-Similkameen.

What happens when there is just a little bit left over? A child in Osoyoos might finally get to join a soccer team. A family in Christina Lake might buy a paddleboat to enjoy some family time. A teenager in Oliver might be able to get a cell phone that provides communication for his family in rural B.C. — small moments but big for mental health, big for confidence and big for community connection. That $1,000 doesn’t just patch holes; it provides hope. That’s what this amendment does.

When we talk about affordability, we often focus on bills, groceries, rent and utilities. Those are important, but true affordability also means the ability to care for your health, maintain your mental well-being and live a life that feels worth living. The cost of doing nothing, of allowing people to slip through the cracks, is far greater.

In Keremeos, a retired woman in her early 60s was advised by her doctor to exercise more. Her blood pressure was up, her arthritis was flaring, and she was feeling socially isolated. What options did she have? The local rec centre charges a monthly fee, walking is hard without proper shoes, and a basic gym pass in Keremeos is out of reach when you’re choosing between groceries and prescriptions.

Now imagine that same woman with $1,000 in her family’s pocket. She buys decent runners, a punch pass to the pool this summer and the gym next winter and a reflective jacket so that she feels safe walking in the early morning hours. She doesn’t just improve her fitness; she reconnects. She makes friends. She gets stronger. She sleeps better. She doesn’t end up in the ER with a fall that could have been prevented. That’s what $1,000 can do and why I support this amendment.

In Princeton, a teenager struggles with anxiety. Social media is overwhelming. School is stressful. They feel disconnected, and there’s nowhere to go, nothing to do, no outlet. I know; I grew up there. The parents use the rebate to buy a mountain bike. Suddenly this young person is out exploring the trails, riding with a friend, getting fresh air and feeling strong. They’re not cured, but they’re coping. They’re outside. They’re moving. They’re healing quietly, steadily and naturally.

In Osoyoos, a single parent who works two jobs gets a paddleboard on sale and uses it on their day off to take their kids out on the lake. It becomes a new family ritual. They laugh, they unplug, and for a few hours, the stress melts away. That’s what $1,000 can do. That’s why I support this amendment and hope that the other side of the House chooses to support an amendment that delivers on their promise of $1,000.

Let’s not underestimate the ripple effect. A gym membership means fewer chronic conditions. A bike means fewer missed days from school. Recreation gear means more outdoor time, better sleep, lower screen time and improved social skills. These aren’t luxuries. They’re lifelines, particularly in rural B.C., where mental health services are often far away or impossible to access. Let’s give people the tools they need before they’re in crisis. Let’s support wellness, not just emergency response.

With this amendment, we can support what $1,000 really buys, mental peace. It’s one less night lying awake doing math in your head. It’s the ability to breathe when the hydro bill hits because you know you can cover it. It’s the freedom to say yes to your child’s school field trip instead of dodging the form. It’s a birthday dinner out with your partner, something you haven’t done in years. It’s a gym pass, a pool membership, a new pair of hiking boots that helps you reclaim some part of yourself.

In rural B.C., where support systems are thin and travel is long, these small moments of joy and connection aren’t trivial. They are essential. That’s why I support this amendment.

If we define affordability only by survival, we miss the point. People don’t want to just survive; they want to thrive. They want to take care of their health. They want to connect with their kids. They want to enjoy the places they live — the lakes, the trails, the mountains that make rural B.C. special. They want to be able to say yes, not just “maybe” or “not this time,” and $1,000 offers them that yes. When we offer that, we offer hope.

Let’s talk about stability — the kind that keeps households afloat and communities standing. So $1,000 isn’t just money in the bank; it’s the difference between managing a setback and spiralling into crisis. That’s why I support this amendment.

[3:50 p.m.]

In Beaverdell, a family’s only car breaks down. It’s 19 years old and well past its best-before date, but it’s what they’ve got. With no transit, that car is how they get to work, to school and to the grocery store. The repair estimate comes back at $960. Without that car, both parents miss shifts. Without shifts, the rent doesn’t get paid. Without rent, they face eviction. That $1,000 keeps the car running, it keeps food on the table, and it keeps two people employed and two kids in school.

Now stretch that story across every town in Boundary-Similkameen. Each one has a different version of it, and it all comes back to this: $1,000 can be the bridge between disruption and disaster. That’s why I support this amendment.

In Grand Forks, a small mechanic’s shop sees dozens of customers each month who defer safety repairs because they don’t have the cash to fix their cars. In Oliver, a farmstand owner says people are coming less often and spending less each time. In Keremeos, a local café had to reduce their hours not because of staff shortages but because people don’t have any discretionary money to spend.

The amendment wouldn’t just benefit families. It would support every local business, where those dollars would land. It’s not a handout; it’s a stimulus. And unlike top-down economic theory, this is direct, local and immediate. That is why I support this amendment.

Now, let me speak to something I hear again and again in my riding: seniors are slipping through the cracks.

In Bridesville, a senior woman lives on CPP and old age security. She worked hard her entire life, paid into the system, raised her children, volunteered for her community. Now she’s choosing between filling her prescriptions or buying her groceries. She uses one space heater instead of turning on her furnace, and she cuts her pills in half to try to make them last longer. This is not how people who built this province should be living.

That $1,000 for her household could pay for medications for several months. It could let her turn up the heat during the coldest weeks of January or the air conditioning in the hottest weeks of August. It would allow her to buy fresh fruit without guilt and maybe, just maybe, give her enough money to see her granddaughter graduate. That’s what dignity looks like. That’s what we owe her and why I support this amendment.

In Osoyoos, a single dad gets an unexpected dental bill. In Hedley, a couple gets hit with a septic tank repair they didn’t see coming. In Rock Creek, a family living on one income needs to replace a broken dryer before winter sets in.

These aren’t dramatic stories. They don’t make headlines, but they’re daily life in rural B.C. The $1,000 in those moments isn’t just helpful; it’s transformational. It means rent still gets paid, groceries still arrive, the credit card doesn’t max out, and the family doesn’t fall further behind. It’s that moment of relief when the other shoe doesn’t drop and why I’m supporting this amendment.

Let’s not forget that $1,000 doesn’t really leave the region. It’s spent at the corner store in Tulameen, the butcher shop in Keremeos, the pharmacy in Oliver, the clothing store in Osoyoos, the hardware shop in Princeton. Every single transaction sends a signal that we believe in you, we support small business, and we’re still here, because when people spend locally, businesses stay open, jobs stay filled, and communities stay vibrant. That is why I support this amendment.

We often talk about investing in infrastructure, in systems, in policy. But sometimes the best investment we can make is in the people who live there — the ones who fix the roads, teach the kids, prune the vines and stock the shelves. That’s who this rebate was promised to, and that’s who this amendment is for.

I want to close by grounding this debate in something we don’t talk about enough in this chamber, lived experience. We talk about numbers. We debate projections. We quote inflation rates and housing starts, but in towns and villages across Boundary-Similkameen, people aren’t talking about those things.

They’re talking about why the furnace stays off until the house hits 15 degrees, whether they can stretch their groceries until the next cheque, what bill they can skip this month without losing services and how they’re going to afford registration for their children’s sports leagues.

These are not hypotheticals. These are real conversations happening right now at kitchen tables across my riding — I suspect across rural B.C.

It’s important to acknowledge that rural residents already start from behind. If you live in Vancouver, you likely have access to transit, walkable grocery options, centralized medical care, after-school programs. If you live in Beaverdell or Tulameen, you’ve got none of that — no bus routes, no medical service, no licensed child care options, no 24-hour pharmacy. And convenience stores, not grocery stores.

[3:55 p.m.]

When the cost of living rises, rural families don’t just feel it, they get hit twice as hard. They have farther to travel, fewer services to rely on and less margin for error, which is why this $1,000 rebate, this small measure of relief, would have gone farther in rural B.C. than almost anywhere else. That is why I continue to support this amendment.

I won’t stand here and pretend I’ve lived every hardship. I’ve worked hard to build a life, and I’m proud of it. But I’ve also never forgotten where I’ve come from. I’ve seen what people in the province go through. I’ve experienced eating the noodles rather than the vegetables, or a parent that had to work in remote regions of our country to make ends meet. My dad was in Inuvik and Iqaluit.

I’ve sat at the tables where people share more than just coffee. They share worry and weariness and hope. And I see it in their eyes. They’re doing everything right, and it still feels like it’s not enough. They’re tired of making sacrifices while government makes excuses, tired of being promised relief only to watch it vanish in a cloud of bureaucracy and spin.

They don’t expect miracles, but they expect honesty. When a government says, “We’re going to give you $1,000 because we know you’re struggling” and then quietly does nothing, that’s not just bad politics; it’s a betrayal of public trust.

Leadership isn’t about flashy announcements. It’s about follow-through. It’s about doing what you said you would do, especially when it’s inconvenient.

We’re here to do what the government failed to do by proposing this amendment: acknowledge the hardship, honour the promise and deliver the help. This amendment is more than a line item. It’s a gesture of trust, restoration for the province of B.C. Every member of this House, whether they sit on this side or that, has the chance today to say: “Yes, I remember that promise, and I believe it should be kept.”

The people of Boundary-Similkameen and communities like it across the province deserve more than just nods during campaigns and silence afterwards. They deserve to be heard. They deserve to be supported. They deserve to matter. And if this $1,000 rebate reminds them, even for a moment, that their government hasn’t forgotten them, then it’s worth every dollar.

Today I ask this House to stand with rural British Columbians, to stand with families, with seniors, with workers who are doing everything right and still struggling to get ahead. Let’s do more than acknowledge their struggle. Let’s act. Let’s give them the $1,000 they were promised. Let’s show them what real leadership looks like. Let’s honour our word, even when others won’t.

Let’s pass this amendment, because in rural B.C., that money matters, and so do the people we serve.

David Williams: I rise today on behalf of the people of Salmon Arm–Shuswap to speak in support of the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025. This amendment is more than a procedural proposal. It is a matter of principle. It’s a matter of rural equity, and it’s a matter of keeping one’s word.

The motion before us reads: “That Bill 5 not be read the second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax credit provided in Section 4.3 (1.1) of the Income Tax Act (RSBC. 1996, c.215) to increase the basic personal amount to $22,462.”

Remember that number, because that’s significant to a lot of people in this province. That number didn’t just come out of nowhere. It is the exact threshold required to deliver the $500 in annual income tax savings that this government proposed to every single British Columbian during the last election, a promise that quietly disappeared from the Budget Measures Implementation Act now before us.

The amendment we are debating today seeks to do one simple thing, to enshrine the grocery rebate guarantee into law — not to merely talk about affordability but to deliver it; not to announce relief in the abstract but to legislate it into the tax code and, importantly, to do so in a way that’s automatic, universal and permanent, not filtered through bureaucratic programs, not hidden in delays or narrow eligibility.

[4:00 p.m.]

Why does that matter? Well, I’d like to explain why this isn’t just a matter of tax code mechanics. It’s a matter of basic fairness. It affects real people, real lives, in real communities, in real time. In every corner of my riding, from Sorrento to Malakwa, from Seymour Arm to Desert Cove in the south, the same refrain is heard: “We’re doing everything right, but we’re falling further and further behind.”

Imagine a two-parent household in a small rural community. One works in the trades, the other in the service industry, which is a very common practice out in the country. They earn a modest combined income, they pay their bills on time, and they try to save. But with rising food prices, fuel surcharges, mortgage renewals, utility costs, their margin for error has vanished. They just don’t qualify for income-tested assistance programs. They’re just above the line. But they don’t feel middle class; they feel squeezed.

A $500 reduction in income tax would mean more than just numbers on a return. It would mean breathing room. It’d be a little less anxiety. It might mean being able to register their kids in sports without dipping into credit. It might mean fewer tough choices at the checkout counter. This amendment is good for families like that, not wealthy enough to be comfortable, not poor enough to be eligible but working hard and asking only for one thing, fairness.

Promises and accountability are really important factors. Let’s not forget what was promised. The government made it clear — a commitment to every British Columbian — that a $1,000 grocery rebate for households would be delivered. It was not a suggestion; it was central to their affordability platform.

These are direct quotes. “People need help now so they can get ahead.” “A $1,000 tax cut this year, next year and every year.” Those were the Premier’s own words, yet here we are. A promise has not been fulfilled. It’s not in this budget, it’s not in this legislation, and now, without this amendment, it will not be delivered.

I understand that governments face challenging circumstances, but British Columbians understand something else: the difference between adaptation and abandonment. This amendment is about restoring a promise, not symbolically, not in spirit, but tangibly, through legislative change that every British Columbian can see and feel on their tax return.

In communities across Salmon Arm–Shuswap and in rural areas across this province, trust in government has been strained for years. People feel decisions are made in Victoria that don’t reflect their lives. They feel forgotten in the rush to address urban challenges. And frankly, they’re not wrong. From slow broadband to distant health care, from fuel taxes to carbon rebates they never see, the pattern is clear.

Imagine a senior in a remote lakeside village who heats with propane. They live on a fixed pension. Groceries have doubled. The nearest pharmacy may be 45 minutes away. That $500 in tax savings could be the difference between filling the propane tank or waiting for warmer weather. We all hope for warmer weather, of course. They shouldn’t have to fight for that relief. If they were promised it, this amendment makes sure they’d receive it, without forms, without special status, without being told: “Wait for future measures. Wait for another day.”

We understand the cost of real inflation when you live out in the country. Let’s talk about the inflationary impacts in rural B.C., where they hit harder and earlier.

[4:05 p.m.]

Imagine a small business owner in a town with one grocery store, one gas station, and of course, there’s no transit. Their overhead has gone up. Every delivery they receive now includes a surcharge. Every item they sell, from basic goods to locally produced crafts, has to be priced higher, but their customers cannot afford to pay more. They also are struggling.

This is not an isolated hardship. It’s structural. People in rural areas are bearing the brunt of global inflation without the tools to navigate it. They don’t have multiple transit lines to avoid tax prices. They don’t have budget grocery chains on every corner, the big mega-stores. They don’t have density or scale that brings the cost down.

The solution? Pretty simple. A universal, efficient, broad-based form of tax relief that reaches everyone, including them. That is exactly what this amendment offers.

Why the basic personal amount? Because it’s fair. Raising the personal basic amount to $22,462 means that every British Columbian gets to keep more of what they earn without means-testing, without strings attached. This particularly is important to the people who fall in that gap between poverty and prosperity, those who are never eligible for subsidies, but they always feel a pinch. Unlike the one-time rebates, this isn’t a temporary fix. It’s structural. It’s permanent. It provides consistent, predictable relief year after year.

Let’s look at it from a two-income household perspective. Let’s consider a hypothetical household in rural B.C. Two adults working full-time. Perhaps one is a millwright and the other is a support worker. They don’t own a big house. They don’t go on vacations. They might have one used vehicle and a second-hand truck. Their net family income is around $80,000 a year. They’re not poor by traditional measures, but by the time they get paid, by the time they pay their property tax, the hydro, the food, the insurance and the fuel, there’s little left. And when unexpected expenses arrive like a dental procedure or a home repair, and we’ve all had those, they go into debt.

The amendment would give them back $1,000 a year. That might cover their entire winter heating bill. It may cover school supplies. God forbid, it might actually mean new shoes for the kids or car repairs when it happens — real costs met with real help.

Let’s talk about the farmers. Small-scale agriculture is vital in regions like Salmon Arm–Shuswap, but as we know, margins are razor thin. Fertilizer prices have risen, feed costs are up, fuel is volatile, yet prices haven’t kept pace. A hypothetical small farm with two partners working off-farm jobs to make ends meet won’t qualify for many of the government’s targeted affordability supports. They still pay full taxes. They still pay full prices.

Just last weekend I went to the cheese fest in Armstrong. Many of these small agriculture producers are ma-and-pop operations. They may have a couple people working for them. They barely get by. They would certainly welcome a $1,000 rebate. It would be put to good use. It may keep those businesses afloat. Every little bit helps. Raising the basic personal amount would allow each partner to retain more of their income, putting money back into the local economy, into equipment maintenance, into payroll for seasonal help. It’s relief that respects their independence while recognizing the economic reality.

We don’t often talk about economic stimulus as though it must be some kind of complex programming, but its simplest and most powerful stimulus is this: letting people keep their own money — what a novel idea — and trusting them to spend it in ways that matter, another novel idea.

[4:10 p.m.]

When a taxpayer receives $500 in relief, it doesn’t go into offshore accounts. It goes into grocery stores. It goes into local businesses. It goes into tools from local hardware suppliers. It goes into meals from local diners down the road. This is a stimulus that stays local. It’s not filtered through administration. It doesn’t require a government grant writer or a consultant. It just happens quietly, effectively and immediately.

Now, everybody’s going to say: “We have revenue concerns.” Well, yes, raising the basic personal amount has a cost. It reduces government revenue. It does so in the most direct and empowering way possible, by giving British Columbians more control over their own budgets. More important to recognize is that this cost is not only a loss to the economy; it’s redistributed. It strengthens household balance sheets. It reduces reliance on credit. It builds local resistance.

If we want to be fiscally responsible, we must also be economically smart, and few things are as smart as helping families to avoid the debt trap by lowering their tax burden, especially when we promise to do so.

Some affordability programs introduced in recent years have come with eligibility formulas so complex that even accountants struggle to explain them. Many rural residents, especially seniors and newcomers, don’t apply, simply because they’re unsure how to qualify or how to access any kind of benefit that’s available to them. This amendment bypasses that confusion. It delivers the relief through an existing structure, one that already interfaces with every taxpayer.

Another crazy idea: no new application process, no rollout delays, no wait-and-see announcements, just simple, honest tax relief. This could be a signal to rural British Columbia.

Passing this amendment would send a powerful message to rural residents that their needs matter, that their contributions are respected and that they are not forgotten in a political landscape too often shaped by urban concerns. Whether it’s a student in Sorrento working two jobs to cover rent, a tradesperson in Sicamous trying to save for a down payment, or a retiree in Silver Creek budgeting for propane by the litre, this amendment offers rare, broad, accessible, meaningful help.

During the campaign, a couple of my team went to a house, and it was a younger couple. People have misfortunes in life. They had jobs. The truck broke down, then they had no jobs. They were waiting for benefits. It didn’t come. Struggling to put food on the table. All they needed was a little help up. They didn’t really qualify for any benefit programs, but the whole reason their car broke down was because they were living paycheque to paycheque.

The two people that were helping campaign with me wanted to go back and help them. Today we can help them without anybody having to go back there. We can help them by passing this amendment, because there’s more than just that couple. There are many people out there, whether they’re seniors, students, struggling young families or newcomers. There are many people that would benefit by what we can do here today, this week and going forward.

The best way to help people is put money in their pockets. Quit taking money from them. If the money doesn’t get redistributed to the economy, I probably wouldn’t be here today, because I’d be living in some paradise resort island. People spend money when they have it. That’s good for local economies, and it’s especially good for rural local economies.

In closing, we know that politics involves trade-offs, budgets involve choices, but some choices are clearer than others. This government made a promise that every British Columbian would receive 500 bucks in income tax relief through an increase in the basic personal amount, and they have not delivered.

[4:15 p.m.]

This amendment gives them and it gives us all, working together collaboratively to make it right, to keep our word, to strengthen trust, to help the very people that ask for support. Let’s raise that basic personal amount to $22,462. Let’s restore the grocery rebate guarantee. Let’s show British Columbians in every region of this great province, every income bracket, that their legislators are listening. Let’s not do it with platitudes. Let’s do it with legislation.

Oh, one more thing before I close here — just a little, quick rundown. If you had $100 and you were a student…. Okay, here’s a grocery haul for a student. They could get a dozen eggs, one loaf of bread, a jar of peanut butter. They can get a litre of milk, but if they don’t like milk, they can get oat milk. They can get a pack of pasta, a sauce to go with that pasta, a bag of rice and a can of chickpeas.

They can get a bag of frozen veggies, a pound of apples or bananas and a block of cheddar cheese. They can get a five-pack of instant noodles, one pack of ground beef, one pound of chicken or beef. They can get yogurt or oats. They can get cereal and, of course, they can get coffee or tea — all for less than 100 bucks. I think that would go a long ways for people who are struggling.

Another grocery haul, okay? Protein. Let’s go with protein. You can get a dozen eggs, ground beef, chickpeas. Whole wheat bread, rice, pasta. Vegetables — carrots, onions, spinach, lettuce, tomatoes. Tuna, salmon. Peanut butter, oats, cooking oil. Those are all things…. Of course, you can get the spices to go with it. All for less than 100 bucks.

It’s not just that. Personal care items — people need personal care items as well. For $100, you can stock up on non-basics for a family. Toilet paper. Toothpaste, a two-pack. The toilet paper was a 24-pack. Shampoo and conditioner. Laundry detergent, a large jug. Dish soap, cleaning spray or disinfectant, feminine hygiene products, diapers for those who have children, baby wipes — all for less than 100 bucks.

How many people are going out for these items right now? Ask yourself. There are probably people out there struggling who can’t afford to buy those items that we all take for granted. This is why this bill should be passed.

In closing, I would say that everybody here today should think long and hard on making sure that we pass this amendment, because it’s good for B.C. and, most of all, it’s good for people. It’s good for people in our constituencies. It’s just a good thing to do.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members.

Just another reminder that, of course, we are speaking to the amendment with respect to Bill 5. While that conversation does have a fairly wide berth, we do want to make sure that we’re focused on comments surrounding why Bill 5 should or should not pass. I am terribly interested in hearing details about that. Thank you very much.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: It is my honour to rise and speak on this amendment to Bill 5.

The mention to amend Bill 5 amends the bill to raise the basic personal income tax credit to $22,462. This is so important for everyone, not just the people in my riding but all of B.C. This amendment will save each and every British Columbian $500 a year. That’s a lot of money. That could help a lot of people.

[4:20 p.m.]

That would buy a single person living in Surrey enough groceries for a month. For many, an extra $500 would buy them a tank of gas. For people struggling, who are just getting by, just making ends meet, $500 is a lifeline. Half of British Columbians are $200 from not paying their bills. This amendment will help so many people. The $500 would help them weather the storm and get them to a place where they can have some hope for the future. That’s why this amendment is so important for everyone.

People have been left behind, and they are scared. They don’t know what is going to happen with our economy. They don’t know what’s going to happen with their jobs. They don’t know what is going to happen in their homes. If you are a parent today, you worry about paying your bills and keeping your lights on so that your children can feel safe, comfortable and learn in a welcoming environment. These things matter. They are not small points. They matter a lot. They matter to everyone.

I will tell you what has mattered and why this amendment that provides every British Columbian with $500 a year is so important and why this government must support this amendment: because they left British Columbians behind. In the 2024 election, they promised a $1,000 grocery rebate. People do not need broken promises. People need help.

Here is what the Premier said last year during the provincial election:

“People need help now so they can get ahead. John Rustad would make ordinary people wait 18 months to receive any support — that’s if you believe him at all. Our tax cut for the middle class supports people now who are struggling with the high cost of groceries. A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the year after that. I am on the side of everyone, people and families, who just want to end the day a little further ahead than when they started it.”

These are the words of the Premier of the province who was losing an election and needed something to promise to voters. So he threw out a promise to people who were depressed, and people believed him. Who wouldn’t? You expect people to follow through on their commitments. The people of British Columbia expected the Premier to follow through. But instead, he didn’t. He changed his mind after he won the election, and the relief people needed was removed.

[4:25 p.m.]

That’s why the amendment must be supported. It gives the lifeline that people critically need right now. I talk to seniors in my riding who are scared. They do not know if they will be able to make it when everything costs so much. They choose between food and medication. They choose between medication or heating their house. They choose between heating their homes or putting gas in their cars. These are painful choices.

Supporting this amendment to increase the basic personal amount is a way to show the people that they can trust the Conservative Party of B.C. to have their backs, because we do. We have proven with this amendment, and we have proven with our work since the House returned, that we care about British Columbians.

I am the MLA for Surrey North. Surrey North is a very proud community. I am very proud to represent my community in this House. These residents matter. They want to succeed, and they do not want government to stand in their way. Communities like Bridgeview, St. Helen’s Park, South Westminster, all across the riding, want to know their government has their back. This government doesn’t, but we do.

This amendment helps everyone. We’re supporting this amendment. A two-income household would save $1,000 each and every year. That might not be a lot of money to the Premier or to his ministers, who all get pay raises. It might not mean much to the government staff who are hired at high five- and six-figure salaries, but to many families struggling in South Surrey, $1,000 is a lot of money. It is a sign of hope, a sign of our following through, something this government doesn’t understand.

How could they? They killed their grocery rebate. The Premier said: “People need help now.” They do. They need help right now. Right now people want to feel hopeful again in B.C., and people want to trust their elected officials. This amendment shows them they can trust us. We will fix the broken promise of this government. We will fix the lost hope for the people of this province. We will fix the lost opportunity in this province. People deserve to be rewarded for their trust, not punished. British Columbians have been punished over and over again. Enough is enough.

Members must support this bill. I hope they will, because I saw them yesterday get up on the other side, so it appears they will support this bill. I saw the Premier get up and support this amendment when we voted. I hope that means he feels shame for going back on his promise and will do the right thing and support this for Surrey families. They want to believe again. Let’s show them that they can.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Jody Toor: Today I rise to speak in strong support of the amendment to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025. This amendment proposes a change that is both practical and urgently needed, providing every British Columbian with a $500 indirect annual tax relief through an increase on the basic personal income tax credit. For a two-income household, that’s $1,000 back — real, tangible relief that doesn’t require jumping through hoops or filling out complicated forms.

[4:30 p.m.]

This amendment establishes a structural change that will show up every year, helping families plan, budget and breathe. It provides predictability, consistency and stability. For some, $500 might not seem like much, but for many British Columbians, it’s a critical buffer. It’s a week of groceries. When prices have been higher…. It helps with the heating bills, or put extra towards rent, school supplies or an emergency that couldn’t wait. It can offer peace of mind to anyone who may be financially struggling.

This amendment is a chance to bring that hope back for British Columbians, a chance for this House to keep the commitment that was made to the people we serve, because when government says it’s going to do something, especially something as basic as helping with affordability, it has a responsibility to follow through.

The problem is based on…. It directly, magically disappears…. When families are telling us they’re $200 away from not making it to the end of the month, we cannot afford delay. Introducing this amendment is about doing the right thing. It’s about helping people now in a way that it lasts. It does something the government has failed to do. It delivers on a promise made to the people of this province.

We are in an affordability crisis, and it is deepening. Everywhere you look, the cost of living is rising faster than paycheques can keep up. Grocery prices have gone beyond recognition. Gas prices in this province are still kept deeply at the pump. Rent has become unaffordable for many. Mortgage rates have surplussed and, for far too many families, the dream of owning a home feels further out of reach than ever before.

While all of this is happening, families are being forced to make impossible choices. Mothers are stretching meals to make groceries last another day. Children are feeling the stress their parents carry, even if they don’t fully understand what’s going on. People are cancelling after-school programs, putting off dental appointments and skipping out on weekend outings because there’s nothing left in the budget. These are small, quiet sacrifices that add up to a big, invisible weight on families across the province.

During my speech yesterday, I was able to tell about a mother. I’m going to repeat that a little bit, because it shows…. When a family, let’s say, has two children, and one wants cereal and one wants yogurt, but the mom has to make that decision at the grocery store of which child she gets to please, and the other child doesn’t understand why the mom has to make that choice, we’re in a difficult time. That is why the amendment before us today is so important. It offers a real solution, a practical, lasting adjustment to the tax system that gives people more of what they’ve already earned.

Let’s talk about who this helps. It helps workers, people who are showing up every single day, doing their best, juggling between multiple jobs or side hustles just to scrape away. It helps the delivery driver, the grocery store cashier, the warehouse labourer and the community nurse, who are paying more for gas, more for food, more for rent, but seeing no relief. They’re just asking for fairness and enough to get by. This amendment helps deliver that.

In recent months, many workers in my riding of Langley-Willowbrook have brought that up to me in my office, finding themselves facing challenges as they navigate through tougher economic landscapes. The rising cost of living coupled with standing wages has created a situation where hard-working individuals and families are feeling the strain.

As the prices of essential goods and services continue to climb, many residents are wrestling with tough decisions each day. Whether it’s choosing between essential expenses, such as housing, groceries, or transportation, the pressures are mounting. These struggles are not just statistics. They represent real people, dedicated employees, parents striving to provide for their children.

Local businesses are also feeling the effects, as fewer customers are being able to spend freely. This creates a ripple effect throughout the community, impacting jobs and services. Many workers are putting in longer hours or taking on additional jobs just to keep their heads above water. It’s clear these effects are not enough for many.

[4:35 p.m.]

Furthermore, the challenges faced by workers are often composed by…. It’s a lack of affordable housing and support services. As Langley continues to grow and evolve, it is essential to address these pressing issues and advocate for solutions that will ease the burden on our workforce. This amendment won’t solve all problems, but it will give some relief.

It helps our seniors, those who have worked their whole lives helping to build this province and now find themselves unable to keep up with costs they have never planned for. Seniors can’t go out and work overtime to cover that gap. Seniors are skipping meals, rationalizing heat in the winter or leaning on food banks. For the first time in their lives, this amendment acknowledges them. It puts a little more money back in their hand, money they’ve earned, and money they deserve to keep.

One of the most pressing issues for seniors I’m hearing in Langley-Willowbrook is the cost of living. With prices for everything, essential goods and services, including food, health care, and housing…. Many seniors are struggling to make ends meet on fixed incomes. The financial strain often means difficult choices between essential needs such as medication and groceries, leading to increased stress and declining well-being. This amendment, even if it’s just $500, will help them.

Moreover, transportation barriers pose another challenge for seniors who need to access services, health care facilities and social engagements, which are very important for seniors. Most seniors are avoiding engagements or going to different events or going out for dinner, which is very important for their mental wellness. Having that extra $500 will make a difference for them, making it…. Also, very important that they stay connected to their community. With providing some direct tax relief, this can provide some peace of mind.

Of course, it helps families, especially those raising young children in an era where everything from formula to fruit costs more, families that are doing everything right and still feeling like they’re falling behind. This amendment won’t solve every challenge, but it provides a measure of security. It eases that pressure, and sometimes that’s all a family needs to stay on track.

As a mother of two, I understand this pressure deeply. I know what it’s like to stand in a grocery store calculating what can go back on the shelf because the bill has added up way too fast. As per my husband, I’m banned from going to Costco, because he thinks I spend too much every time I go, and we can use that money towards our children’s activities.

I know what it means to stretch that budget, to make sure your kids have what they need even if it means going without something you need yourself. Parents across this province are having these quiet moments of sacrifice every single day. They need a government that understands the sacrifices of the people and does something to change that for people.

British Columbians need tax relief that lands in their pockets now, and the most effective way to do that is through this amendment. It’s a kind of support that meets people where they’re at: working hard, raising families, caring for the loved ones and trying to make ends meet in one of the most expensive places in the country.

This proposal should not come as a surprise. In fact, it should sound very familiar, because it’s what the Premier himself promised British Columbians last fall, over and over again. In press conferences, on social media, on the campaign trail, he told families struggling with raising prices that help was on the way. He said they should count on a $1,000 grocery rebate. Not someday — soon. He told people this was a government that understood their challenges, that their concerns were heard, that their budgets would finally get a break.

After the election, the promise disappeared, despite many British Columbians relying on that extra bit of support. This isn’t a minor oversight. This was the centrepiece of their affordability messaging. It was a public commitment made to every family across the province.

[4:40 p.m.]

This amendment we are debating today does more than offer relief. It restores trust in British Columbians. It picks up the thread where the Premier left it hanging, and it says: “If you made a promise to the people of British Columbia, you should keep it.” Meanwhile, this government continues to spend astonishing amounts of money. A $6 billion surplus has become a $14.3 billion deficit. We’ve received two credit downgrades in less than a year, and this government’s only plan seems to be: spend more, deliver less, and sweep its financial mismanagement under the rug.

There seems to be extra money for projects, for insiders, for consultants. So why not for hard-working British Columbians just trying to get through the week, people that are working hard every single day, working multiple jobs, hustling on those side hustles just to get through, just to pay their mortgages, just to take their kids on those extra little trips, to pay for their kids’ extra activities?

It’s not that we can’t afford this amendment; it’s that this government chose not to. When people keep more of their income, they reinvest in their own communities. They support local businesses. They pay for their kids’ activities. They fix the car that has been making noise for months. They put food on the table, without having to rely on credit or to delay other bills.

That kind of stability doesn’t just help individuals; it creates stronger, more resilient neighbourhoods. When communities thrive, our province thrives. That’s that small café, the mother that has been running this café for 20-plus years in my riding who doesn’t know if she can afford to continue having her business run because of the prices that are rising. She doesn’t know if she can pay for the groceries, because she’s putting all her extra income into her business. She might have to shut those doors. This might be a relief for her.

The problem isn’t just how much we’re spending; it’s how little we’re growing. Year after year, we’ve seen a government that taxes more, borrows more and delivers less. If we want a more resilient, future-facing economy, then we need to empower the very people who drive it, the workers who keep things running, the families raising the next generation, the small business owners struggling to stay afloat and the younger people just starting out and wondering if they’ll ever be able to get ahead.

This amendment is about giving them a fair chance, about shifting from top-down spending to bottom. This amendment is about respect for taxpayers who are stretched thin, respect for workers who keep our economy moving, respect for families and seniors who are doing their best to stay afloat and, most of all, respect for the commitments made to the people of this province.

We’re not asking for a handout. We are asking this government to keep its word, to fulfil the promise made, loud and clear, during the last campaign, a promise that meant something to the people who heard it.

It was said, over and over by the Premier, that he was there for the people. He understood they were struggling, he understood the need, and he understood that the relief of the $1,000 rebate was needed now — not in 18 months, now. The promise gave people hope that real relief was coming, that hope was on its way, but then it disappeared.

This amendment delivers to that promise in a way that is fair, fast and permanent. It doesn’t force families to jump through hoops or fill out complicated paperwork. It’s simple: an adjustment to the basic personal exemption, so that British Columbians can keep more of what they earn, starting now, starting today. This isn’t about politics; it’s about the people of this province and the responsibility of the government to deliver on its promise.

If we, as elected officials, say we are here to serve the people, then we must prove it, especially when it matters most, especially when people are struggling today. This amendment gives every member of this House a clear opportunity to just do that.

In closing, I urge you all to please support this amendment on the other side of the House, like you all did yesterday. Deliver the rebate to the people of British Columbians, to the hard-working individuals that are building up this province. Honour the promise.

[4:45 p.m.]

Tony Luck: Families in British Columbia are reeling. I don’t know about you, but every time I go and fill up my tank with gas or go to the grocery store to buy groceries, I am shocked. It seems to be higher than it was the previous day or the previous week. Do you remember when you could go get a bag of groceries for $5, then $10, then $20? I think we’re up around $50 or $60 now for basics for families. I just don’t know how young people can do it anymore.

Now that’s not just a political talking point. It’s a stark daily reality for countless British Columbians, in every corner of this province. Whether you live in the Lower Mainland, the Interior, the North or on the Island, the story is the same. The cost of living is rising faster than people can keep up.

I just read a headline today that the fastest inflation is going to be with food prices, up about 3 to 5 percent this next year. Families can look forward to paying an extra $800 for groceries next year. Soaring grocery prices, surging rents and shrinking paycheques are leaving families with less and less at the end of the month. It’s not a matter of budgeting better. It’s a matter of not having enough to begin with.

We’ve heard the numbers time and time again, but they remain deeply troubling. Almost 50 percent of people in B.C. are only $200 away from being unable to pay their bills. That’s half our population living on the financial edge.

Nearly three-quarters of British Columbians have cut back on spending or delayed a major purchase, not because they want to, but because they have to. Families are hunkering down, sacrificing long-term plans and making incredibly difficult choices just to stay afloat in the area of economic uncertainty.

Perhaps most alarming of all, and you’ve heard this stat before, one in two of our young people are considering leaving this province entirely. They just can’t afford to live here anymore. They don’t see a future. They’re giving up on the dream of building a life in their own communities because housing prices are now the highest in Canada. Not only that but this government now is imposing another hydro rate increase, this time by another 7½ percent over the next two years. It just never stops.

This isn’t just about economics anymore. It’s also about trust. A recent headline captured the growing sentiment perfectly: “Confidence in Government Crashes as Canadians Feel Left Behind.” Public trust in political leadership is plummeting to new depths, and it’s not hard to see why.

Poll after poll suggests that the biggest issue isn’t just policy failure; it’s behaviour. It’s a growing sense that politicians are out of touch with everyday realities. They’re not listening, they’re not responding and not doing enough to earn the trust of the very people that they represent. People aren’t just frustrated; they’re losing faith.

That should alarm every single one of us in this chamber. Those of us in this Legislature work hard. We need to work hard to regain the confidence of the public. We know that trust is not given; it is earned. And right now, after years of rising costs, broken promises and political inaction, that trust is so fragile.

That’s why this amendment to Bill 5 is so important. This will go a long way to hopefully rebuilding the trust that we have lost. Supporting this amendment is an opportunity to start rebuilding that trust in a very meaningful way. It’s a chance to show British Columbians that we hear them and we understand the pressure they’re under and that we are ready to act in their best interest.

This amendment isn’t just about numbers on a tax form. It’s about sending a message to the people of this province and giving them hope again that their government is on their side to help them through this difficult time.

[4:50 p.m.]

Rebuilding credibility doesn’t happen overnight. It takes consistent, compassionate and thoughtful decision-making, especially in times of crisis. Believe me, we’ve been hearing about it over and over again, what a crisis we are in. There’s no doubt about it. With the tariffs that may come in, that’s not going to help the situation, but interest rates and all those things are not helping our young people either.

This is one of those moments. By everyone in this House supporting this amendment, we begin to shift the narrative not just with words but the most important thing, and that is action. What do they say? Put your money where your mouth is.

We demonstrate that we are capable of setting aside partisan differences to what is right for the families who are struggling to make ends meet — those families that we went out and campaigned with and made promises to about changing things in this province. We need to do it now. I truly hope this government will rise to the occasion and show the compassion that the people of this province so desperately need in these times.

British Columbians are watching, and they’re hoping that someone in this chamber will stand up and fight for them. Well, I know this side of the House is. That’s why we presented this amendment. We’re here to fight for the people of British Columbia. I’m hoping we can get the same reaction on the other side of the House. Let’s not miss this moment.

Our constituents aren’t asking for luxury; they’re asking for the basics. They want to afford a roof over their heads, food on their tables and heat in their homes. These are fundamental needs that should be met in a province as resilient and resource-rich as British Columbia, yet more and more families have to make impossible choices.

When working families, seniors, students and vulnerable individuals are feeling the pinch, it’s a clear sign that our system has failed, but not only the system. We’re part of the system. We’re failing the people of British Columbia. British Columbians are carrying some of the highest per-capita consumer debt in the entire country. In fact, a recent study by Savvy New Canadians found that Vancouver tops the list, holding the highest per-capita consumer debt of any city in Canada.

Now, that’s not a badge of honour; it’s a red flag. It begs the question: why is this happening? The answer is simple and deeply concerning. You probably know them. Many British Columbians are being forced to rely on credit cards and lines of credit just to cover the basic necessities of life — shameful in a province like British Columbia — like food, gas, housing and utilities. I don’t see boats or a Mercedes-Benz on that list. It’s the basic necessities, ladies and gentlemen, and we’ve got to change what we’re doing.

For far too many families, debt has become a survival tool, not a financial strategy. People aren’t taking on debt to fund extravagant lifestyles. They’re doing it because their incomes aren’t keeping pace with the rising cost of living. At the end of the day, government is one of the biggest problems with inflation. We borrow too much; we print too much. Too much money in the system is what causes the inflation, so we need to change the system.

When the essentials of daily life are out of reach without borrowing, something is seriously broken in the economic framework of our province. This amendment will go a long way to helping those people to deal with some of the issues. And $500 may not be much for you and me at this particular point in our lives, but it is for those families and those people that are trying to make ends meet.

That’s why I rise in the House today to speak in support of the amendment, which will amend Bill 5 and offer real and immediate relief to British Columbians by putting money back into the pockets of those who really need it.

This amendment offers a clear and practical solution to help ease the financial burden so many British Columbians are facing. It proposes an increase of the basic personal exemption amount that individuals can claim on their income tax. In simple terms, this change would result in a $500 tax cut for every hard-working, stretched-thin member of our community. For a household with two incomes, it adds up to $1,000 in real, tangible savings.

[4:55 p.m.]

Every single year that will be in place, and they’ll get that savings — every single year. That’s a car payment. That’s two weeks’ worth of groceries. That’s enough to breathe, and that’s all they’re asking. They want a little bit of room, a little bit of wiggle room to help them over the coming year.

It’s not just a one-time cheque that disappears in a flash. This is a permanent relief built into the tax code, locked in year after year, as I’ve said. This is a permanent adjustment that would provide ongoing relief to families across the province, helping them keep more of their hard-earned money where it belongs: in their pockets.

Recently I had a thought here. Personal exemptions are great. In 2002 — I don’t know if you know this — the low-income measure, poverty level, basically was $28,514 for a single-person household. That was in 2002. With inflation, we’re probably up closer to $30,000 now, but let’s leave it alone at that. This amendment will bring the personal exemption to just over $22,000, still $6,000 short of what people believe the poverty level is in British Columbia.

So even though this amendment is changing the personal exemption, it still isn’t high enough. People are still struggling. We should be looking at moving that personal exemption even higher.

I personally support this amendment because it offers predictability, stability and fairness. It locks in tax relief in a way that’s long overdue. For too long, the personal exemption amount has remained stagnant while the cost of living has surged. It simply hasn’t kept pace with the realities British Columbians are living with today.

We live in the highest tax jurisdiction in Canada, yet the pressure on household budgets continues to mount. This amendment is a step towards rebalancing that equation. It’s not just about cutting taxes. It’s about restoring fairness and helping people breathe a little easier and acknowledging that government has a responsibility to its citizens to ease the load, not add to it. We do that enough every day in this House. We need to help ease the burden of our citizens.

Let me be very clear. This is not a tax giveaway to the wealthy. This is not a gimmick. This is not a handout. This is responsible, targeted tax relief for working families who are being crushed by the cost of living in this province. This is about everyday working people who are the backbone of our province, who are in our communities and a part of our strong economy.

It’s about the grocery clerk who takes public transit to her evening shift. It’s about the plumber who just started out trying to cover his rent in Surrey. It’s about the single parent in Merritt working two jobs and still falling behind.

The other day I rose to speak on Bill 4, and I said clearly that this side of the House is ready and willing to work with the government to do what is right for British Columbia. That wasn’t just rhetoric from my side. It was a commitment, and today we are standing by that commitment. We are once again showing that we are here in good faith with genuine intentions and a real desire to collaborate for the benefit of the people we serve. Our hand is still out. We’re ready to work with you when you’re ready.

This isn’t about scoring political points either. I think that may have been done during the election campaign. It’s about responding to the urgent needs of families who are struggling. This side of the House is extending a hand of cooperation because we believe that when people are hurting, the responsibility to act transcends party lines.

We are putting forward a practical, concrete solution, one that directly addresses affordability and aligns with the very promise made by the Premier himself. We’re not just criticizing; we want to contribute. It’s very important for us to do that. We are offering a path forward that is both compassionate and fiscally responsible. The question now is whether the government will take that hand, rise to the occasion and follow through on the commitments made to the people of British Columbia, the people that they’re here to serve.

Last year the Premier promised families a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. Some have suggested it was a blatant bribe. Water under the bridge for me; it doesn’t matter at this point. But after the election, that promise has quietly disappeared.

[5:00 p.m.]

Remember the commitment I made earlier? Confidence in government crashes as Canadians feel left behind. This bill will help rectify that broken promise. It brings back the grocery rebate, but this time to reduce income taxes, not one-time cheques.

It provides certainty, it provides consistency, and it helps now — not in 18 months, not in the next election cycle or the next campaign cycle. Now it is a genuine reform to our tax system, one that ensures British Columbians keep more of their money without having to apply for it, wait for it or wonder if it’s going to be clawed back again. It is cleaner. It is more efficient and much more respectful to the people we serve in this great province.

Just a few months ago the Premier stood before British Columbians and said people need help now so they can get ahead. I don’t even think it’s a matter of getting ahead. It’s a matter of trying to catch up with what’s been going on in this province with inflation and the cost of living. I don’t even think they’re trying to get ahead. They’re just trying to catch up.

He made it very clear that relief shouldn’t be delayed, that action must be taken immediately to support families across this province, or we’re going to have more families leave this province. As I mentioned earlier, one in two young people wants to leave this province. I don’t want any more of my children leaving. I don’t think any of you want any of your children leaving this wonderful province either. We need them here to continue to build this province, to strengthen this province.

He made it clear that relief shouldn’t be delayed, that action must be taken immediately to support families across this province. He also said, and I quote: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the year after that.” Well, this amendment will help the Premier fulfil his promise to the citizens of this province.

Let’s build the trust with the people again, and let’s get this done. That’s not vague. That’s not aspirational. That’s a clear and measurable promise to the people of British Columbia. Today we are putting forward this amendment that can fulfil that very promise, and we can grasp hands and work together and show the people of British Columbia that we’re prepared to do things that need to be done for them. If this government is willing to work with us, if they are serious about their commitment, then this amendment delivers exactly what the Premier pledged: real, lasting relief for every citizen and every family in this province.

Let’s not forget what else the Premier said: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.” Well, so far, it has been about six months, and they haven’t got it yet. You know what? Under our plan, bringing this amendment in as quickly as we can, we can get that working for them as quickly as we can. Especially when you change the personal exemption amount, it can happen almost within months. We can get this working for them.

These are not words buried in a policy document. They were front and centre in this message to the public. Now we are offering that support right here, right now. This amendment provides that relief. It offers families the $1,000 tax cut not as a temporary one-time gesture, as we said, but as a permanent change that puts money back in the pockets year after year.

I say directly to the Premier and to his government: keep your word. Stand behind the promises you made. Support this bill. Yes, it’s going to take some courage on your part, but I challenge you to stand when we stand and say aye to this bill. I’m hoping that you will be there with us. Support this bill. Stop pushing help down the road and start delivering it today.

British Columbians are watching. They lack trust in government. This is a time to get together, hand in hand, and do what’s right for this province. They deserve action not tomorrow, not in the next budget cycle, as I said, but today. We all know the reality outside these walls, and I’ve spoken a bit about it. It’s impossible to ignore.

Every one of us, if we’re paying attention, has heard the same stories from our constituents, our neighbours, our friends. People are skipping meals so their kids can eat. Seniors are stretching a single can of soup into two meals. Parents are working two, sometimes three jobs, not for the luxuries but just to make rent, buy groceries and cover the basics.

[5:05 p.m.]

The dream of stability, of building a life with some sense of security, feels further out of reach than ever before for so many British Columbians. Groceries have never been more expensive. You can walk into a store with $100 and leave with only a few bags of the essentials. According to the latest forecast, food price inflation is expected to rise between 3 to 5 percent in 2025. For a family of four, that’s an increase of $800 just for the food.

Even if we pass this and get this amendment in, that amendment is just going to cover the increase in cost of the food that they’re going to have to pay for this next year. There are no luxuries. They’re barely keeping up. Not for vacations, not for savings or extracurriculars for the kids, just food. That number is staggering when you consider how many families are already living paycheque to paycheque. And for some, there’s no paycheque at all.

This amendment, with its modest tax relief, would come close to offsetting that increase in food costs. It won’t solve everything, but for many households it could be the difference between making it to the end of the month or falling short again. It could mean keeping the lights on without fear of a late notice. It could mean affording gas to get to work or a little extra breathing room for unexpected expenses, like a child’s medication or a broken appliance.

Let’s be honest. Families are tired. They’re not just stretched financially; they’re stretched emotionally, mentally and physically. Many are at the breaking point, and, more than anything, they are asking us for one thing: helping us to catch our breath. That’s all they ask. Give us a little room to breathe, a moment of relief that might feel a little satisfying.

I ask the members of this House plainly and directly, once more and from the heart: if not now, then when? If we can’t come together to offer relief during a time of economic hardship, rising inequality and growing discontent, then what exactly are we doing here? Our job is not to just debate policy; it’s to improve lives. In this moment, that means choosing compassion over delay, action over another excuse. Supporting this amendment is a chance to do just that, to say loud and clear that we are listening, we care, and we are prepared to act.

This bill is a chance to unite around a common cause, relief for British Columbians. Not partisan spin, not empty slogans, not practicable but measurable help that people will feel in their wallets in every single month.

I urge all members, especially those across the aisle, again, to remember the words you’ve said, remember the promises you’ve made, and remember the people counting on us to act.

I am on the side of every person and family who just want to end a day a little further ahead. Well, we’ve already talked about that. I don’t know if this is going to get them ahead, but it’s going to get them close to maybe breaking even for a change. Those were the Premier’s words in the last election. I like to think that those were not the words of a hollow promise.

The public has spoken. They are asking for action. They are asking for relief. We have the power to deliver it together. By passing this amendment, we have the opportunity to make a small yet meaningful difference in the lives of British Columbians. It’s not about grand gesturing or lofty promises. It’s about showing the people that we work with unity, that we are capable of making decisions that directly improve their lives, and we understand that.

You know one of the things that I heard on the campaign trail a lot as well when I was out there? When are you going to work together and not work separately? I heard that so many times. Can you get in that House and help make the House work together rather than the vicious partisanship that we see so many times in this House?

Let’s pass this amendment and demonstrate in no uncertain terms that we are on the side of the people and not the political side. You know what? It is going to take some courage to do this. It’s going to take some arrangements and rearrangements. It’s like a family budget. Something comes in, something goes out. You have to take the time and sit down and work the budget. We’re prepared to work with you on that. Let’s do it, though, and let’s get this done.

This is our chance to show that we can do better, to show that we can be better. For all these reasons, I am in full support of this amendment, and I hope you are too across the House. I believe it is a step in the right direction. It’s a concrete and immediate way to provide the support our communities so desperately need.

[5:10 p.m.]

I urge all members of this House to seize this opportunity, to set aside the usual barriers of partisanship and come together in a spirit of cooperation and compassion. Remember that word, compassion? This is not about one party or one person. It’s about the people of British Columbia. It’s about giving them the help they deserve, the relief that they have been asking for.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I’ve been listening carefully and feel as though comments have strayed from the reasoned amendment to the second reading of Bill 5. The debate this afternoon is not a general debate on affordability. The debate is on the amendment to delay the implementation of Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025.

The effect of the amendment is to effectively reject the bill, and the amendment puts forward a particular tax change.

I encourage members to address remarks not to the past election campaign or general affordability comments. Address the bill before the House and the proposed amendment to delay the bill.

Claire Rattée: I’m rising today to talk about this amendment because I rose yesterday in the evening, and I was speaking to Bill 5. And one of the things that I said when I spoke to Bill 5 last night was that British Columbians didn’t vote for this. They didn’t vote for that bill. This amendment actually corrects that. It corrects one thing that they truly did vote for and wasn’t delivered on.

A $1,000 grocery rebate was promised, and this amendment is going to actually put that in place. It’s in a slightly different form. It’s coming through the form of tax relief. It’s going to change the personal exemption on income taxes, and it’s going to ensure that every single British Columbian is going to be able to save an extra $500 a year on their taxes. It’ll do it in perpetuity, and that’s important because the cost of living keeps rising, and British Columbians deserve some relief.

It was a promise that was made by the Premier that every single person that sits across the aisle from me campaigned on, and they campaigned on it heavily. Although their victory might have been narrow, it likely was framed around that promise. So the reason that we brought forward this amendment is because British Columbians do deserve some help right now. They do deserve a break.

It’s not to be a handout. It’s tax relief, something that Bill 5 was sorely missing. That’s why this is an amendment to Bill 5: to ensure that the cost-of-living crisis is actually being addressed in that bill. It was not. This would address it.

I want to talk a little bit about why tax relief is important, why this tax relief is important right now for the people in my riding and the people all throughout this province that are struggling right now, because there are many of them.

I want to talk about one gentleman in my riding that has a disability. He has a permanent brain injury, and he lives in some of the very rare, subsidized housing in my riding that’s run through B.C. Housing. His rent increased recently, 36 percent, and now he’s facing eviction. He has a $17,000-a-year income, which isn’t cutting it. This extra $500 a year could be the difference for that man between having to be evicted from his home and being able to stay there. That’s incredibly significant. That makes a big difference in the lives of these people.

I think about another man that’s on dialysis treatment in my riding, who has to take a public bus between Kitimat and Terrace to be able to receive his dialysis treatment. He has to do that multiple times a week. He has a car. His wife could drive him, but they can’t afford the gas. It’s too expensive.

Being able to afford gas is a very important part of living in the North. This money could make that difference. This money could ensure that this man is able to be driven to and from the hospital with his wife so that he can recover from his dialysis treatments with a little bit of dignity, rather than having to take a public bus system an hour either way when the weather is poor, which is very frequent in my riding.

[5:15 p.m.]

There are so many stories, so many people that could really use this money and why we need to support this amendment.

Another person that I’m thinking about right now is another elderly woman this time, a senior in my riding. She and her husband have significant health challenges. Her husband is completely disabled. She has significant and complex health challenges, and recently her disability cheque was cancelled in December, without notice.

It took my office and me over a month to be able to figure out what was going on and get her the cheque so that she could afford basics like groceries and heat. They went through significant financial hardship during this time.

At the very least, if this government isn’t able to provide people in this province with those basics when they live with a disability, and make sure that they get their disability because it turned out to be a very simple clerical error of some missing paperwork, then the least they could do is provide them with some tax relief. That’s a bare minimum.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

That would be $1,000 a year for that couple. That could make a really big difference. They went a month without eating properly and without having heat in their home.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue.

Claire Rattée moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until — let me get the right date here — ten o’clock, Monday, April 28.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:04 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, the Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, to order. We are on clause 7 as amended.

On clause 7 as amended (continued).

[1:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I’m very pleased to rejoin discussion again.

Picking up off of a discussion that the member for Kelowna-Mission was having earlier today, and then actually last night as well. Although I couldn’t be in the House because I was in the larger chambers yesterday evening…. I just want to thank the folks in Hansard broadcasting services and written for the excellent work so we can continue debate. I knew exactly what was going on, and, indeed, the public does as well.

We’ve been discussing for quite some time now in regards to procurement directives on community benefits agreements, restrictive labour agreements and then ensuring that the rights of all workers are upheld to work on projects in the public realm. That’s been a subject of much discussion throughout this clause.

We’ve also been discussing the challenge of certain union dues being paid to the United States leadership. The member for Kelowna-Mission had raised some concerns that the Confederation of Canadian Unions had raised recently on union dues going towards American headquarters, in some cases even to the campaign of President Trump and his counterparts as well.

I just want to pick up on that regard, because it is related to procurement. It’s related to how we have an open, fair procurement. It’s also about how we’re protecting Canadian workers to make sure that they’re aligned with the intent and the values of what we’re trying to achieve in legislation, if we’re trying to achieve a Team Canada approach. It is very important for us to align and make sure that our procurement is meeting the objectives.

I’m just wondering if as well we can go through a little bit of the comments from the Confederation of Canadian Unions just to frame a little bit of the context for this.

Canada remains the only country in the world where a number of its labour unions pay dues to unions…. Sorry, this is a quote, rather. I’ll speak again. “Canada remains the only country in the world where a number of its labour unions pay dues to unions based in another country, in our case the United States. This practice doesn’t only lead to poorer accountability, lack of national sovereignty, autonomy and local empowerment; it causes the loss of tens of millions of Canadian dollars each year to union offices in the United States, many of them working actively against progressive values and the rights of Canadian workers.”

In this context of this conversation, I’m wondering if the Attorney General can confirm that it’s something that would be possible — to ban Canadian union dues on public procurement projects in British Columbia through the authority of clause 7 and overall within the context of Bill 7.

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: So another shot with a new person at this question. Let me answer again.

The net effect of this line of questioning and the use of the powers as the members direct would be uncertainty and lack of access to procurement opportunities for thousands of workers in B.C. I can’t imagine that’s a result that the member opposite is interested in even pursuing.

I’m going to take another approach to answering this question, which might help explain. For example, through this procurement policy, there are many companies that have subsidiaries in Canada. They may be based in America, but they have a subsidiary. You can think of a number of tech companies that are in that situation.

Our procurement policy would be targeted not to harm B.C. workers. If we were to put, for example, a procurement policy in place that said if you have a head office that’s based in America, even if you have a subsidiary here, you can’t access our procurement policy, the net effect of that would be thousands of people potentially laid off because of, already, the tariffs and now the government excluding them from procurement.

You can follow the exact same thread of reasoning to what the member opposite is suggesting, which is that unions that have been around in our province, some since 1889 and even earlier, with members who have helped to build this province and who have, maybe, been generational members of these unions…. If we were to have a directive to say that if you want to bid on procurement, none of your union fees can be directed towards American unions, we could piece through all the catastrophic things that might happen because of that, one of them being freedom of association.

People have a right in this country, which has been well established through our courts, for freedom of association in the unions that they choose.

Another one is the effect that I’ve already talked about, which is the direct cutting off of access to the companies that might have that unionized workforce in them so that those companies wouldn’t be able to access procurement, even though they’re based in B.C. and they’re employing B.C. workers through those unions. That could result in the exact opposite of what the procurement policies would intend, which is to have a stabilization effect on our workforce and our economy.

Although we might dislike what the unions and the way that individuals have associated themselves through unions…. As the member suggests, there are some distasteful contributions to the Trump administration through those union dues, and that may be true, but we have to focus on supporting B.C. workers, B.C. unions and B.C. companies as much as we can. We will use the procurement directives to do that.

Kiel Giddens: I think maybe the minister misinterpreted my comments, but that’s completely fine. I do believe that the unions — building trades unions, in this case in particular — do have a long and proud history in British Columbia. I’m not suggesting that they should be excluded in any way.

Under the authority of this provision and the government powers given under this, we’re trying to decipher whether a mechanism like this would, in fact, be possible to do. The Attorney General went on to say that people have a right, obviously, and I fully agree with that right to organize in a collective way for workers. They have that right.

I’ll maybe just quote the federal Labour Minister. This request from the Canadian Confederation of Unions was rejected, actually, by the federal Labour Minister.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, the Chair is having difficulty hearing the questions and answers.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, the federal Labour Minister did reject this. But the reason for it was: “Under the Canada labour code, employees have the freedom to choose their union representatives, some of which may be based in the U.S. Employees who are concerned about being represented by a U.S.-based union or having their dues used outside of Canada have multiple options.”

[1:15 p.m.]

Then he went on to say, later on in this letter, that even after a union is certified, workers have options. But in the context of B.C., workers do have less options, because public procurement has been limited to only workers who join one of these specific unions.

So we’re trying to decipher how, within our procurement practices and directives as a part of this clause, we can protect that right of workers of all different affiliations to be part of the right to work in this province, making sure that we have it, whether that’s someone who’s in the Building Trades or whether that’s someone non-union or some other form of collective organization of workers, making sure that they have the ability to work on public procurement projects.

I guess I’m having a hard time getting an answer. I don’t know if I’m going to get one on this specific topic of the union dues. I’m going to move on from that, but I will just continue with a few more questions on the types of directives and ones that could be perhaps restrictive under procurement directives.

We’ve talked a little bit about community benefits agreements, as well as restrictive project labour agreements. I’m wondering if the minister could describe if there are any other procurement directives that could be used under this clause that would restrict non-union or alternative union workers from public procurement, aside from community benefits agreements, which we’ve already discussed, or project labour agreements.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The line of questioning is really…. It sounds like the members are really against unionized labour, because the questions are all about that. It’s interesting.

I answered before that the tools of this act and the way we’ve approached procurement…. I think I was asked a direct question about this. We already have the ability as a government through Crown agencies to direct the procurement. The goal of these provisions and the way we’ve structured this section is to make sure that there are immunity provisions for when we direct our Crown agencies and the government procurement entities to do something that may actually be against trade agreements that are at play right now or increase the liability of their actions. That’s the goal of this.

The line of questioning that I’m getting is very much about whether or not…. Maybe they prefer that we make sure that no unionized labour gets procurement. I’m not sure if that’s the line of questioning that we’re getting to here.

I’ll just say that our goal, in general, is to support B.C. workers, and this procurement process helps us to direct government resources towards those companies in a more direct way and also helps us respond to the trade war and the threat coming from the States.

Kiel Giddens: I certainly reject the assertion that myself or others are anti-union — or anti-worker, for that matter — at all. We’re trying to stand up for workers.

[1:20 p.m.]

I’ve described earlier in the course of this discussion my experience in working in large construction projects. I’ve seen that the best model is when we have an open competition, the ability to compete between all types of different labour models. Certainly, the unionized construction sector has an excellent value set. They have excellent training. They have excellent ability to compete and work on public and private projects.

I certainly have to just reject that notion that we are anti-labour in any sort of way. We’re trying to protect workers and, at the same time, trying to make sure that taxpayers are protected and ensuring that there is best value for the taxpayer and that procurement directives are being used in the appropriate way.

With that, I’m going to move on a little bit from this and focus on other types of mechanisms of procurement and specifically would like to ask the Attorney General, respectfully, about direct awards and whether this clause would give greater authority for direct award procurement than currently exists in legislation. If that could be elaborated on further, that would be appreciated.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This particular power as drafted doesn’t increase or affect our ability to do direct awards. We couldn’t do direct awards through this directive policy. There is a direct-award policy that’s already in place in government, and it’s complicated. I believe it’s for under certain amounts that that’s possible.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that.

Just to confirm, this doesn’t give any additional authority to that direct-award process over and above the existing process — just to clarify.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Kiel Giddens: Okay, so just moving on from that.

With regards to procurement directives that are used under this power, I’m wondering if they will be published publicly, and in the same vein, will they be subject to legislative or judicial review process?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are two clear mechanisms in this section for the public availability of this. Once it…. Since it’s through regulation, so it’s an LGIC…. Those are publicly available.

The added one is the amendment that we put in place that a directive issued must be published as soon as possible. So it makes it clear that it should be done as soon as you can.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response.

I guess the other aspect of procurement directives and policy and regulations that surround it, just for the public, I think they…. Again, transparency and making sure of fairness and accountability is very important.

I’m wondering if the government could describe…. Are there mechanism safeguards in place to prevent abuse of centralized procurement authority? For example, how will government ensure that this clause is not used to politically favour certain contractors, unions or regions?

Say it was an election year, for example. How can that process still remain transparent and fair, and is there anything that the Attorney General can provide in that regard?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have a few lines of response here that set out the protections against the type of behaviour that the member is describing.

The first one is under subsection 2. This section particularly exempts two sections of the Financial Administration Act, and no other sections, so that those two sections give the power to issue directives, as we want to do under this act.

But this piece of legislation, the Financial Administration Act, supersedes all of our other types of legislation. Unless you specifically exempt provisions, it applies to everything. Under that act, we have policies that are in place that talk about how procurement should take place — just all the things that you would want under procurement policy that would make it so you’re adhering to fair practice and process that are under those policies.

The other thing that I would say is that there are strong laws, apart from this legislation, to protect the public against types of behaviours that the member describes, including misfeasance of public office and other offences that are out there.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that response. I think it’s helpful to understand.

Is that the totality of the specific problems or inefficiencies in the current procurement process that this clause is, in fact, attempting to solve, or are there any other problems or inefficiencies in the current process that this clause is trying to manage?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is under one of our tariff response bills. The goal of these directives is to make sure that we can unlock the potential of procurement in an economically unstable time. That means issuing these directives to direct procurement away from American companies or American suppliers and, hopefully, through all those processes, really stimulate the economy here in B.C.

Kiel Giddens: Of course, being from Prince George–Mackenzie, I do have to put the rural lens on things, from time to time, and my own constituency.

I appreciate the response from the Attorney General about how we’re looking at trying to unlock economic growth. That’s, I hope, what we can get to in this province, and job creation as an effect of that. I’m thinking in resource-based communities as well as urban centres.

I’m wondering if there is anything within this clause or any analysis, perhaps, that has been done on the impact to rural contractors, Indigenous-owned businesses or firms in regions like, for example, Prince George–Mackenzie?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s exactly the power of this enabling bill.

In the uncertain times, and we don’t know which regions or what areas or what sectors will be impacted the most, it gives the ability of government to use these tools to respond. You can imagine a situation under a procurement directive where if there is a particular area of the province that is especially hit, then you could design something that responds to that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, and I do hope we can respond quickly.

I think of the forest sector, for example. It’s certainly an area where it’s under threat right now not just from tariffs but from unfair duties as well. As a province, collectively — this is not a partisan thing by any means — we need to fight back however we can to support our forestry sector.

Places like Mackenzie are really hurting right now, and I’ve spoken with the Minister of Forests previously and noted we have to do whatever we can to support the last mill standing, so to speak, in Mackenzie, the Conifex mill.

Thank you very much for clarifying that.

Maybe I’ll change a little bit. Just on the internal government decision-makings and processes that result from the procurement directives, I’m wondering if the Public Service Agency was consulted on how procurement directives may affect the chain of command of internal decision-making processes within ministries? That work certainly is across ministries. How will that work between agencies?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe we have another line of clarity on that question. PSA doesn’t have a particular or special role in directing procurement. If there’s another question that the member has on that, I’m happy to answer.

[1:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: That’s fair. That’s perhaps an error on my part. The Public Service Agency perhaps doesn’t need to be included in there.

I guess the latter part of my question was really around the chain of command within government and internal decision-making processes between ministries. Are there any changes that would occur because of that? Can that be described a little bit further, perhaps, on how…?

Obviously, it’s enabling legislation. It overrides existing. But how does that decision-making flow happen from the legislation to the regulation and…?

Sorry. I’ll leave it there.

Hon. Niki Sharma: What this process allows the opportunity to do is, I think, in line with the question that the member is asking. It would allow government internally to…. Not midstream, but at the beginning of a procurement, if there was an opportunity to streamline a process, a minister would bring that to cabinet, and it would be a cabinet decision to issue a directive.

For example, if there was a procurement going through a ministry and there was a way to make it so that it was very clear which minister was leading and what the decision-making authority is and how that procurement would be approached, then this could be a tool that’s used for that to unlock the maximum potential for our economy.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response.

In issuing those directives, I understand that would be cabinet, and the directives being made there. I’m just wondering if any of those would bypass the normal statutory reporting obligations to the Legislature, or would those existing reporting obligations remain in effect and unchanged?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This process is done by OIC. We talked about the public reporting requirements that would go along with that. Sometimes we table reports at the Legislature, and that’s the way things are made public for people to see.

In this circumstance, there’s a different mechanism for that. It would be the OIC, which is made public, and then there’s also a specific clause in there, as amended, that says that it would be publicly available on a website.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that response.

Along the same lines, would normal requirements to document and archive all decisions, including internal memos, implementation steps…? Would that all remain the same, or are there any different, extraordinary powers under clause 7, or overall in this section, that would change anything?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are many ways to protect against, I think, what the member was talking about. I think what he’s saying is: could you direct under a directive to, say, destroy all your records, raise procurement or whatever?

The first protection is the clear one, I think, and then there are other ones. The clear one is that the procurement directive can only be used in relation to the procurement of goods and services. On that legal basis, I can’t here think of a legal reason why the destroying of records or anything else you put in that directive would fit within the use of this directive. It would probably be easily challenged that that was outside the power of this.

Then another level of protection…. Let’s say that somebody does go outside of that or wants to go outside of that legal authority — it would be clearly outside, I think, if it’s things like destroying records and stuff like that — they would have to expressly put that in the directive. That express notion in that directive would be public through the OIC and put on a publicly available website.

So I think there are many ways to…. Then, I think, there are probably many legal opinions that could be made about whether or not the rule…. There are many other laws that relate to budget accountability and transparency and the rest of the FTA that would govern things that would probably make….

You’d have many legal opinions on that, whether or not that was a possible thing to do. So there are a lot of different protections in that.

Kiel Giddens: That’s a very helpful response. Thank you to the Attorney General.

Just to make sure I captured it correctly: there would be no changes to records retention, information management or archival procedures that would be subject to regular FOI rules that would be changed.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Kiel Giddens: Excellent. Thanks for the confirmation.

Maybe just as a dutiful Public Accounts Committee member…. I sit on Public Accounts. Along the same lines, I want to confirm on behalf of my fellow committee members: will this affect any timelines, structure or reporting frameworks that the Auditor General would use in their regular performance audits?

I know public procurement would be a very standard kind of audit and very needed. I’m just wondering if it would change anything that would result in what goes to the Auditor General, as well as change anything that the Public Accounts Committee would, in effect, see later on then.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Kiel Giddens: A quick response. Thank you very much to the Attorney General.

Again, I’ll maybe just go back to that interministerial coordination when we’re moving quickly and making sure that decision-making is done properly and records managed and decisions within the system proper. Has the ministry prepared a risk register, perhaps, of any of those effects on coordination, or is that needed or required at all?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Government has many areas within where procurement is managed, so we have those kinds of teams.

The real thing about procurement directives that would give it the ability to manage risk is that the procurement directives have been issued or drafted in a way that says we’re in revival. So the structures that are in place to assess the risks that may be posed through adhering to the directives and/or affect the front-line services or cost-effective nature of that delivery are all risk-managed, through not only the wording of the directive but the things that might come through that directive and the decisions made on the particular procurement decisions.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General.

I appreciate that this line of questions is just around transparency and documentation and trying to keep an understanding of the normal course of how that currently exists.

There are a number of whistleblower protections in other legislation, I guess. That is one where, say, there was a hypothetical example that within a public procurement project, there was a whistleblower who felt that a certain directive was unfair or something like that. Would those current protections remain in effect, or could there be enforceable actions against that individual that are changed in any way under this clause or bill?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Those protections would very much be in place.

I’m actually really proud of the work that we’ve done as a government to strengthen whistleblower protections throughout. Apparently, the expert, or one of the experts, is sitting right beside me.

The Chair: The Chair will call a recess until 2:10.

The committee recessed from 1:58 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act back to order. We are on clause 7.

Rob Botterell: The question that I have for the Attorney General on clause 7 is: how will the impact of directives be measured and monitored as they’re implemented?

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have a whole bunch of ways that this is going to be overseen. I’ll start with the actual procurement directives.

The procurement directives will have specific language in them to ask the entities that they’re directed at to assess the viability and/or impacts on front-line services for any procurement process that they have underway. That’s going to require an entity-specific analysis of how they’re directing procurements and how viable they are or how they’re going to affect their ability to deliver with services. In that analysis, you’ll have an organization-level understanding of the impacts and how it’s going.

In terms of government, we have a few ways that we track procurement policies and their impact.

One is, I would say, just the general working of government. Citizens’ Services has a procurement plan that provides oversight to current policies and how they’re being used and how they’re being impacted. There’s a team there that is seized with that. Then there’s the Ministry of Finance, which is always there to assess economic impacts of all of our actions, particularly when there’s procurement and money going out.

I think, more than that, what this whole situation with Trump’s big threats to us and Trump’s actions on our sovereignty have necessitated are new ways of working together.

Along with the implementation of this bill, we are working on a governance structure of how…. It’s taking shape in many different ways. We have a tariff response committee in government where ministries are responding, and JEDI has given us regular updates of what’s happening on the ground or what we’re hearing. And then we have our TEST committee that is giving us their expertise, where their perspectives are from, on what’s happening in their sectors on the ground.

What we’re developing is some kind of governance structure and tracking structure that will go along with the implementation of this bill to make sure that we’re harnessing our abilities and the powers under this in the best way possible.

Kiel Giddens: I was just looking to see if the Third Party House Leader was getting up again. No, I appreciated him joining the discussion. I listened to the question and listened intently to the answer.

[2:25 p.m.]

Before we took a pause there, we were talking about whistleblower protections. I did appreciate the Attorney General’s response, and I want to commend the staff here in the room that were involved in whistleblower protection. I think that’s important work. British Columbians are very proud of that.

I’m wondering if the Attorney General, with the help of this expertise that we do have available, could explain this a bit further. Which legislation specifically protects procurement directives, and how does it relate to clause 7? It would be helpful just to get clarity for the public on which legislation applies in this case.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The legislation that we’re referring to is the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which is the primary piece of legislation that is commonly called whistleblower legislation in the province. There are other whistleblower-type provisions scattered throughout other types of legislation in the book, but it’s the primary one.

Through that act, we’ve covered the public sector and the public service. That includes our Crowns, the tribunals, K-to-12, health authorities. Basically, it’s whistleblower protection that’s available for the public service and the public sector.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate having such expertise in the room, so thank you.

Maybe just moving along here, I want to talk a little bit about Crown corporations.

First of all, within directives under clause 7, I’m wondering if the Attorney General can guarantee that decisions affecting Crown corporations or other arm’s-length agencies of the government will still be subject to full accountability before the Legislature as normal.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: All the transparency provisions in each of the acts that set up a Crown agency would still be applicable. Through that, there are still legislative requirements that would still be applicable, which would be the tabling of annual reports and those things that happen on a regular course to ensure transparency. None of that would change.

[2:30 p.m.]

I guess, on top of that, it adds a level of, again, transparency through these directives with the public reporting and the OIC’s public nature.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response.

Just to clarify so I understand correctly, would these procurement directives apply to all Crown corporations and to arm’s-length agencies of government, or are there any exclusions they wouldn’t account for?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I would just refer the member to the extensive conversation we had on the last clause. Really, we talked a lot about what’s included — what is a government procurement entity, what is a government reporting entity, so what is included under procurement directive. That is, I think, a full answer to the question.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the clarification. I think that’s useful. Crown corporations in particular…. There are complex supply chains that Crowns do utilize as well.

I want to maybe touch on an example, just so we can elaborate on it, with the challenge that Crowns and their procurement process might have in being intertwined with a U.S. company, a policy directive government presumably would have to try to deal with.

This is just by happenstance. A constituent of mine sent an email to me this week, didn’t know that I would be actually participating in this discussion whatsoever. But he did say that ICBC has partnered with a group called IAA. This is an insurance salvage company that assists insurance companies with the disposal of salvage vehicles. Obviously, that’s a big part of what ICBC has to look after.

Well, an interesting thing here is that it is an American company. They don’t have any Canadian locations, and all their operations are in the U.S. This constituent of mine has been really in the auction business. I think he worked for Ritchie Bros. for a period, so that’s why he’s very fully aware of this particular business. They generally make up their revenue through service fees, so about 15 percent of the sale of a salvage vehicle.

All those funds would be flowing into a U.S. location, part of the supply chain. I guess, procurement directives…. Where an existing relationship is in place, where there is no Canadian alternative in this case…. There could be. But if the Crown is using an existing U.S. company and they get a procurement directive, what would change for a Crown like ICBC in this case? Would they have to repatriate or cut that contract or sever it if that was the directive? If that could be clarified.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the question goes to the heart of all the complexities related to procurement and the many different ways government procures and why we’ve taken not only a strong approach but an approach that takes into account the complexities related to procurement.

This tool gives us the ability to respond in a way that does that. Right now procurement directives would have some kind of viability assessment. We would be directing, in the example, ICBC through a viability assessment to exclude American suppliers, if possible, through their procurement processes. Obviously, that doesn’t mean breaching contracts that might be existing, because of the law-abiding nature that we expect ground agencies to adhere to.

That viability assessment would help understand and make sure that any changes in procurement that would exclude American suppliers don’t disrupt services, are viable in terms of their ability to achieve it and don’t result in breaches of contract or any other things.

Still, we think that that ability to unlock that potential for procurement with those checks and balances…. You can imagine if there is a hospital that needs to supply a mask that — at this stage, this is all hypothetical — is coming from a U.S. supplier, we wouldn’t want the health authority to feel like they had to change midstream. But if there is an opportunity that’s viable with their procurement to do that, then we would expect them to.

There’s a viability assessment that would happen with the undertaking of the directive.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response.

I don’t know, in this particular example, if ICBC put this tender out to include Canadian companies for this software service. I guess, within this current example we’re discussing, could an example of a procurement directive be to — recognizing that we don’t want to breach any contracts or anything like that….

In the initial tendering process, could a procurement directive be that tender to look for Canadian companies first to handle the business?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, the tools of the procurement directive give us an ability to design procurement in a way. Also, I think we’re in lockstep with other provinces to make sure that as a jurisdiction, we’re directing an exclude-U.S. approach.

We were just looking at Alberta and Ontario’s approach. It’s similar to ours, in that we are also in trade agreements with other countries, including Mexico under CUSMA, and we are looking to diversify our trade opportunities. In that scenario, we have to also be careful not to infringe upon any other of our trade agreements when we’re designing our procurement.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the response.

I think, just to clarify, that risk of managing any legal risk of violating some of these trade agreements, those mentioned, obviously, with Mexico, CETA, for example, and others…. All that has been thought out and is being contemplated in this, is what I’m hearing. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Kiel Giddens: Okay. I just want to look at another complex example that we just want to ensure the public protection on, and it would be data storage. I actually have data storage in my own riding. We need more of that in Canada, in British Columbia, in fact. I think my own riding would be an excellent area for it if we could get them the power. So all members in the chamber, if we can figure that out, I think we’d have some really good solutions.

There is a lot of Canadian and British Columbian data stored on U.S. servers. In terms of any risks to Canadian and British Columbian data of members of the public, of government data and of business data that could be on U.S. servers, are there any risks that were contemplated or contemplated and procurement directives that we need to mitigate? If so, what are the mitigations?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, interesting question. I think it’s at times like this where we realize how integrated we are with the States. We were commenting how we’re all using Microsoft right now, which is not a bad thing. There are lots of people that are employed with Microsoft right here in B.C.

I think that what the member describes is a security-risk scenario, which…. I’m hopeful that it won’t, but let’s say it escalates to the point where we, as a jurisdiction, have reason to believe that our data crossing borders is a risk.

This tool, as an enabling piece of legislation, would give the ability…. You can contemplate using it if that comes up, and a minister feels or the government feels like there is a real data security risk. You could issue a directive to particular Crown agencies that hold that data, or if there’s a particular threat in a certain area, direct how they use their data away from crossing the border. So it is one of the things that could be contemplated with the powers under this bill.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the very direct response. I think that’s exactly the risk to be looking at. I think that I can appreciate the mitigation mentioned and how that would be handled.

I do think, overall, the integrated nature of our trade relationship, our business connections — this is incredibly complex, this part of it. Obviously, that’s why we’re asking so many questions on this, because it is such a complicated matter. I appreciate the time we’re taking on this.

Along the same, I guess, complex supply chain piece of things here, there are a lot of cases where there are specific services that are not available in Canada, so a Canadian provider contracts to a U.S. company, whether it’s technology or…. In the case of one very high-profile example, Starlink is one that certainly could impact things. I believe it’s Rogers that has the exclusive contract to use Starlink. In rural B.C., a lot of the connectivity that is currently being integrated by Rogers is actually, in effect, using Starlink technology. So I guess that is something.

Just wondering if the government has a response on a procurement directive where a network that government procurement is involved with — if that is a risk, if it has been contemplated, if it’s something that needs to be managed further.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s right that the member says we have a very integrated system. So a couple of things to answer this question. The work that’s happening to bring better connectivity to, especially, remote areas of northern B.C. is vitally important for emergency services communications. I think we canvassed that a lot, and everybody would agree that’s an important initiative of government.

When we look at the integration of the economy that we have right now between America and the states, the approach we’ve taken is if there’s a Canadian subsidiary, even if it’s an international company, an American-based company, that we wouldn’t exclude procurement from that subsidiary because it’s set up in Canada under Canadian laws and incorporated in it. There’s a complicated, bigger corporate structure. That’s solely with the intent of ensuring Canadian jobs and B.C. jobs are maintained and understanding that integration.

I understand Starlink and the connection there. I think people feel a really strong reaction against the particular individual, Elon Musk, and the impact he’s having, along with Trump, on the world, in fact. In this circumstance, the work underway is so critically important. We would expect that there would be a viability assessment each time there is a different procurement decision made.

In this circumstance, Rogers, a Canadian company, is positioned to change things through the use of Starlink in a way that we…. I think the assessment is that through that viability assessment that it’s a provider that’s going to provide those services at this stage.

I think that viability assessment that we would expect all Crown agencies to do once they’re directed would help us, or help understand, with the public interest in mind at all times, the efficiency of resources and the jobs lens — how we make those decisions.

Kiel Giddens: Appreciate that. That’s a very helpful response, I think, for the folks in rural B.C., companies working in the area. I think that’s useful knowledge for them, including, indeed, for Canadian companies who may have to understand how this could affect them. So thank you.

Actually, I think, with that, I may be out of my questions. I’m going to yield my time to the member for Richmond-Queensborough, but I thank the Attorney General for the time to speak.

Steve Kooner: I want to thank the Attorney General for answering our questions today. It’s really helpful, and I know for the people that are listening, the extra information is going to go a long way.

Thank you for answering those questions.

In my line of questioning, the questions I now want to ask are about the wording and content of these directives.

I’ll start with clause 7(1) that states: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may issue directives in relation to the procurement of goods and services by the government or government procurement entities.”

Specifically in regards to directives here, the first thing that pops to my mind is how would this directive be phrased? How would it look when there’s a government procurement entity and then there’s a decision by cabinet vis-à-vis Lieutenant Governor in Council? What would the actual directive look like? Is there a sample of how it would look like, wording wise?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As mentioned, this bill gives us new legislative tools to do this.

A likely directive could be flexible. A likely directive would identify the government procurement entity. That would give the directive the flexibility of designing that directive specifically for that entity and/or the space it’s in or the sector or whatever. So it could be designed for that.

It would identify, likely, which goods or which services are in there. There would be some kind of viability assessment that puts what we were talking about in effect, that we would expect them to, where viable, make moves to exclude American.

There would likely be some kind of legal and financial framework and general rules of application that we would put in there.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

For clarification purposes, in regards to these directives, would they only be negative directives? I’ll give an example. A government procurement entity X — let’s just call it X — shall not purchase X country goods. That could be a negative example.

Or would it be more like a positive-framed directive, such as should a government procurement entity X purchase X goods, they can only do so from X corporation or X country? How would the wording or phrasing look like? Would it be in the negative form or would it be in the positive form?

Am I missing something? Is there a better example than what I just presented?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Actually, there’s nothing in here that limits it. It could be a positive or a negative, in terms of it. I think that we talked about the law a little bit earlier, about the directive being about excluding U.S. procurement.

Just to say, we also talked earlier about how there’s no power of direct awards. You couldn’t put in the directive, “Crown agency, you will contract with this company,” because that, in essence, would be a direct award, which is not allowed.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for the explanation that was just given by the Attorney General. That response leads me to my next question, in regards to limitations about wording.

Is there any limitation in the legislation that would prevent a procurement directive from telling a government procurement entity that they must buy X number of goods — referring to quantity, amount — of a certain product from a specific source? Would it go as detailed as that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Maybe some clarity…. Can the member clarify the meaning of “source”?

Steve Kooner: Source could be a corporation or a non-profit. It could be any entity that’s producing those goods or supplying those goods. That’s what it refers to.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, then the answer would be no, because that would, in essence, be a direct award to a particular company or non-profit. There would be no power to do that.

Steve Kooner: Where is the limitation wording in regard to direct awards? Where is that wording in this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Asked and answered. Thanks.

Steve Kooner: If the goal of directives is tariff response — I believe that wording was supplied earlier in an answer by the Attorney General, “The goal of directives is for tariff response” — then why isn’t there any legislative provision in this Bill 7 legislation that differentiates or signifies that these particular directives are only to be addressed in terms of limiting any sort of trade with the U.S.?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The enabling viewpoint of this is exactly to give powers to ministers to respond in different ways.

Unfortunately, in an escalating global trade war, we’ve seen other actors come to the table with imposing tariffs on Canada, which includes China, which has, I’m sure the member knows, really put into place tariffs against our seafood industry. That is, unfortunately, very damaging to them. We actually don’t know where the other places may or may not come as the global stability of international trade is now uprooted in many ways.

This will give the flexibility…. When you design legislation, and I’d say especially with this type of legislation, you want to give the powers with maximum flexibility and then the ability of responses to be flexible enough to change and amend as situations change, which is a big thrust of this legislation. I think we’ve talked many times about the uncertainty that we’re facing right now. The powers that are in here are to stabilize and also give the flexibility of response.

We wouldn’t specifically, in name, exclude U.S. Although right now, it is certainly the biggest threat to us right now with Trump and what he’s talking about and what he’s doing and what he’s saying about the 51st state. We may have other actors step into the tariff, as China has as well, that we may have to respond to.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General would agree with me that this legislation was created in response to the U.S., and this was specifically designed to deal with tariffs coming from the Trump administration, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, that’s very true. I think we’ve talked at length, and all of us have talked at length, about the threats that Trump is putting upon us, and Canadians have a newfound patriotism that was always there but is more vocal now, and we’re all very happy about that. So of course this was designed in response to the Trump tariffs.

What Trump has done is destabilize the world economy. The tariff threat and the trade war that’s escalating leaves everybody really uncertain as to where the next few months, where the next threats will come from. So we’ve designed this bill to be with the maximum flexibility for a response to stand up for British Columbians in any way that we may need to.

Steve Kooner: I would suggest the messaging that’s out there in the public is Bill 7 is to deal with U.S. tariffs, but what has been stated here today is that this legislation will be adaptable for other countries as well. That’s not the information that’s out there in the public. When people think about this particular legislation, they’re thinking about U.S. tariffs.

So the question back to the Attorney General is that. When exactly will this legislation also start targeting other foreign countries in addition to the U.S.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m not saying it will. I think, definitely, our biggest threat is America and the actions that they’re having upon us. What I am saying is when you design legislation, you design it with the maximum flexibility to respond.

In the uncertain times with the escalating trade war and also escalating tariffs from China against B.C., you would make sure that the legislation was clear and had enabling powers clear enough to be able to design whatever response would come.

But yes, I think we can all agree that the threat is from the States.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General tell us what discussions were had amongst different ministries about not only the U.S. being a target of this legislation but also other countries being a target of this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to be clear. I think I’m saying this, but I’ll say it again. There haven’t been any in this circumstance. There’s no reason or position that the government is taking against another jurisdiction with these powers.

[3:10 p.m.]

My point was that we are in uncertain times right now, and we want to make sure that the legislation is designed in the way for us to maximize our ability to respond with the tools that are flexible and in place.

Actually, you might have reasons where there are positive procurement directives you could put in place, as the member suggested. We may have other trade agreements or diversification opportunities that come up through this process that are happy things that we could use these tools to direct towards. So in the nature of assembling these tools, both positive and negative, it’s better for them to be broad in their application so they can be flexibly applied.

Rob Botterell: The line of questioning from my colleague relates to the scope, content and detail of directives. My question is that…. These directives, presumably, will be subject to legal review before they’re issued and will also be subject to laws of general application, such as conflict-of-interest legislation or broader across-government purchasing type of legislation.

There’s a very extensive and sophisticated regulatory framework for purchases and procurement. So I just would appreciate…. I’ll make it shorter. It would be helpful to have a bit of a sense of the umbrella legislation that will guide these directives.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the question. Yes, there would be a legal review after every procurement directive comes into place. There are many laws and processes that would apply to these directives, and I’ll just start by breaking down some of them.

The first confine in the use of these directives is that they must be in relation to procurement of goods and services. So the scope of the use is squarely on that.

The second one is under the Financial Administration Act. There are only two sections that are specifically named. That is a piece of legislation that applies to everything unless it’s exempted. So it supersedes everything else. Therefore, underneath it, any of the financial administration policies that would apply — I think the member mentioned some of them in the question — would apply to the processes that were in place here. Legislation like FOIPPA and all those other ones are still in place.

Then, thanks to the member and some of the additions, there’s an added transparency level in this particular section with subsection (5), which would make sure that it’s very clear to everybody that the procurement that was directed was directed at where wanted, too, and wasn’t in foul of any of the laws that it shouldn’t be.

Steve Kooner: Earlier we were talking about foreign countries other than the U.S. and how the Attorney General said that this could be adaptable to those other foreign countries, because there are other disputes going on.

I have another question in regard to that. Has there been any form of…? I know that a reference was made. Maybe there haven’t been discussions. Has there been any sort of governmental action or brainstorming of how this act could become adaptable to other foreign countries?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, there have been no active conversations anywhere about any actions against other jurisdictions, but I just want to reiterate that one of the real powers of this tool is for positive outcomes for our procurement.

Let’s say, for example, not all procurement is subject to trade agreements. Even if they are, if we are able to form diversification or access other markets or do anything that is actually a positive thing about diversifying with other countries, and I know that JEDI and a lot of our ministers are hard at work at trying to figure out how to do that, then the beauty of the flexibility of this tool is that it would actually help you design a procurement directive that may be in a positive way with another country besides America, and thereby help us with our economic stabilization.

Steve Kooner: If there haven’t been any discussions about adapting this legislation, is the Attorney General willing to commit that this specific piece of legislation in Bill 7 will not be applied to other foreign countries other than the U.S.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, and actually, I wouldn’t be the one that’s a decision-maker on that, to commit to that, nor would I want to bind any future ministers or any actions.

I think what’s clear is that we are in a very uncertain time when it comes to global trade, and what we’re seeing is an escalating trade war in different parts of the world. I think it would be wildly irresponsible for me to say how a minister or the cabinet may have to respond in the future, because even in the past three months, where we’ve faced what Trump has been doing to us and the executive orders coming at us pretty quickly, we face the uncertainty.

So I can’t make that assurance, and I wouldn’t. I think it would be irresponsible to do that. I’m hopeful that there will be positive things that come out of our discussions, as I mentioned, that actually could be a useful thing for these procurement directives.

Steve Kooner: The only reason I asked whether the Attorney General could commit is because this legislation was designed by her department. It’s coming from the Attorney General’s department, and the Attorney General seems to be the authority here that we’re dealing with in terms of this legislation. That’s why I was asking.

The other reason why I was asking this line of questioning…. Yes, we need to protect British Columbians. We need to protect the residents that live in B.C., and we need to make sure there are protections for them.

There’s also a thing called accountability. Accountability is also important in this province, and people want legislation to be transparent. They want to know what they’re getting themselves into. They don’t want any sort of executive overreach. They want properly debated legislation, and they want public discourse to happen. They want conversations to happen.

When I heard earlier that this could be adaptable to other foreign countries, that was the first time I was hearing that, so that’s why I brought up those points.

[3:20 p.m.]

If that was the first time I was hearing that, I’m pretty sure for a lot of people in the public, that would probably be the first time they’d be hearing it as well.

The Chair: Do you have a question?

Steve Kooner: Yeah. The next question I have, I want to move to what the member from…. The Third Party House Leader had a question, and I have a follow-up to that question.

He was talking about how these directives fit in with other pieces of legislation. The Attorney General did mention that with certain legislation, there would be legal review to make sure that this legislation worked hand in hand with other legislation.

A follow-up question to that. If we go a little bit further in this clause, in subclause 7(3), it states that if there is a conflict or inconsistency between an enactment and a directive issued under subsection (1) — that’s the section that we’re looking at — the directive prevails.

How does that fit in with the answer that was provided to the Third Party House Leader?

The Chair: Members, we will take a ten-minute recess, reconvening at 3.30 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:22 p.m. to 3:32 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, back to order.

We are on clause 7, and it looks like the minister is consulting with her team.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We need to understand the subsection that the member is talking about through the section in its entirety. Then we get to where that subsection fits into the legal mechanism that exists there.

I went over…. When the House Leader of the Third Party asked the question about all the protections that are in place…. Maybe I’ll go through them again just so we have them, in the context of subsection (3), in place.

The first one is, off the top, subsection (1) says that the directives can only be issued in relation to goods or services, by government or government procurement entities. It’s narrow in its scope. A directive that steps outside of that particular section wouldn’t have the power of this and would be not upheld by this bill.

The second thing is subsection (2), which very clearly only exempts two sections of the Financial Administration Act. The Financial Administration Act, along with acts like FOIPPA and PIPA, is held above every other piece of legislation. They, no matter what, apply unless they’re specifically exempted.

The Financial Administration Act really is the tool of how we administer government finances, and it has underneath it all these policies and directives that — we talked about it at length before — protect how we use government services and avoid improper procedures and processes. So that’s in place.

Then we come to subsection (3). Subsection (3), in the context of all of that, is there…. If there are any laws that are in place that are related to procurement of goods or services, they have to be related to that. In that context, there could be in who knows what number of statutes, or maybe not many but some that are…. There are sections in there that are related to the procurement of goods and services. It’s narrowed to that.

Even in that circumstance, there’s a legal doctrine that’s called the presumption of coherence. Legally we presume that legislation is not enacted to work against itself, or two pieces of legislation aren’t enacted to conflict with themselves. If that isn’t true, and there are circumstances where these two provisions related to the procurement of goods or services can’t operate together, because it doesn’t make sense that they would both be in power, then the guidance of this legislation is that the directive would prevail over the enactment.

That’s how it fits into the entire procurement powers here.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General saying that because one of the aspects of this piece of legislation limits to goods and services, that provides a level of accountability? Is that what the Attorney General is saying?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In response to the question, just to clarify, it’s the procurement of goods and services. It’s not the goods or services. The directives are related to the procurement of goods and services.

[3:40 p.m.]

The next thing that I would just add, which I think is a good example of where subsection (3) might be triggered, is that Destination B.C., I’m told, has a part of their legislative makeup that is about being able to issue directives as well. In that, there may be a direct conflict where the presumption of coherence just wouldn’t apply. What we’re saying, then, is that in that instance these directives prevail over that power under Destination B.C.

Steve Kooner: I understand the bit in terms of directives for procurement of goods and services. But when you provide directives for procurement of goods and services, essentially, those directives are attached to the goods and services. These directives for procurement are limited to goods and services.

Is that what the Attorney General is saying — because there’s that limit, that’s one level of accountability?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way I would explain it that maybe will bring some clarity to this conversation is: the qualification under section 7(1) is how the power of issuing directives can be used. So the power of issuing a directive can only be used in the relation of procurement of goods or services by a government or government procurement entity.

That power doesn’t extend to — we talked about it at length earlier — directing somebody to destroy records or directing somebody to change their accounting principles or all those other things, because they are not related to the procurement of goods or services.

Steve Kooner: When we speak of procurement, there are some financial implications of doing that because procurement involves procurement of goods and services. Goods and services can be very costly. If you have lots of directives — you’re purchasing a lot of items; you’re purchasing a lot of goods and services — that could be in the millions. It could be in the billions of dollars.

When the suggestion was provided that there’s a level of accountability because the directives are limited to procurement of goods and services…. I would suggest that that limit alone is not good enough, because we’re not only talking about a subject matter that’s in the millions, maybe not even just in the millions; we’re talking about subject matter that might be in the billions in terms of goods and services.

My question is, again: is my understanding correct that the Attorney General is suggesting that because the directives are limited to procurement of goods and services, that is a level of accountability to these directives?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think that’s a little bit of a different question from the one earlier…. We’re losing the conversation a little bit.

The question that was posed to me that started this line of questioning was: how does subsection (3) fit into the rest of this part? I went through how subsection (3) fits into the whole regime. When I was referring to subsection (1) about the legal power of issuing a directive being confined to procurement of goods and services, it in a sense limits subsection (3), because it’s only certain types of legislation. It’s only…. We went through that earlier. So that’s what I was referring to.

Generally speaking, the member is right in the sense that what we’re hoping to do is unlock…. I think it’s up to the point of $600 million in procurement that sits there through government services that could be used in a way that supports our economy and excludes U.S. businesses in the time of the tariffs.

Very rightly so that we should, I think, in our view, be doing what we can as a province and a jurisdiction that can support B.C. businesses in a different way, in a new way, and can use a tool like this to unlock those millions of dollars in a different way.

[3:45 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Also, in the earlier discussion, I believe it was one of my colleagues that was asking the question, and an answer was supplied. I believe the answer was that clause 7 is a type of enabling clause. So if it’s an enabling clause, my understanding is that…. I believe the words may have been used “it has a broad authority” there.

Would the cabinet not have sweeping powers as a result of this enabling clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I know what cabinet would have the power to do is unlock procurement in a way that effectively drives the economy, that effectively makes sure that all Crown agencies, all government reporting entities, all of us are working together to ensure that we’re responding and stabilizing our economy. That’s what it would have the power to do, which is exactly the power it needs at the time that we’re in.

Steve Kooner: Going to that point that was just mentioned, I understand the intention of the government is to work to see what would be better for the economy, but where is it in the legislation that refers to certain criteria that this legislation has to follow in order to better the economy? What are the criteria? Where is the criteria? Where is the regulatory framework for that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have walked through all the powers in subsection (1), (2) and (3) and (4) and (5) with the public accountability measure there that was amended, thanks to work with the Green Party. So I’ve gone through the regulatory and legislative regime that describes all the guidelines, all the laws, everything that applies to this power, in detail.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, I do understand all five subsections with the amendment. I do understand all of them. I’ve read them. I understand them.

What I’m getting at is accountability. The Attorney General suggested that the government would follow through with these directives to help the economy or to stabilize the economy. But what would help guide them? What would be their limits? What would be the framework that they would be following to actually carry through that agenda?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, so I’ll take another shot at this, because I have answered this question before.

Subsection (1) talks about the directives only being able to use in relation to the procurement of goods or services by government or government procurement entity. All these things are defined clearly in the act.

Subsection (2) talks about, except for those sections 4 and 4.1, the Financial Administration Act applies and all the guidelines and services related to that act that put in all of the rules about how the finances of government are to be used that still apply.

I mentioned before, the other pieces of legislation that would guide us — FOIPPA, PIPA — that are also in there. Then in the circumstance that there….

We’d mentioned this in where subsection (3) would be, the next one is that an OIC is public and would be public when it’s made. Then there’s an extra measure in there to make it clear that if any directive was issued under here that it would be made publicly available on a publicly available website.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for her response.

I was looking at the Financial Administration Act earlier, and I noticed that the provisions that are referred to under sections 4 and 4.1 have to deal with accounting principles, standards that are put forward and accounting principles that the government should be following. But these accounting principles that I can maybe refer the Attorney General’s attention to….

[3:50 p.m.]

I was reading section 4, and I did read section 4.1. As I was reading it, it does refer to accounting practices, and I believe those are based upon Canadian standards.

How does this help? When you’re just chopping those sections out, how does this help with accountability? When you’re chopping those specific sections out that have to deal with accounting principles that are generally accepted in Canada…?

[3:55 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have many levels of response to that question, and I’ll just talk through them.

The member points to the Financial Administration Act and within that, the sections that are listed there, 4 and 4.1, give a power to Treasury Board, which is also a committee of cabinet. It is a committee of cabinet that is empowered under that provision to do certain things.

The essence of this is to also give the authority in this circumstance to cabinet instead of Treasury Board to issue these directives. So you see what happens with this provision is it says the section is Lieutenant Governor in Council. So then cabinet is making…. We’ll go through the filter that I already talked about before. It’s only related to procurement of goods and services. It’s only a directive that goes to government and government entities.

I want to note a very important part of the legislative drafting in this section. It says: “This section applies despite….” So this section applies despite these sections, which allows them to exist unless there’s a conflict between them.

[4:00 p.m.]

What this opens up room for in our legislation is for cabinet to issue these types of procurement directives, related to goods and services, to these entities.

I’ll just give you an example. Let’s say Treasury Board — again, Treasury Board is another cabinet authority — has issued a directive that says not that it’s out there, but that the procurement process has to be the lowest bidder. What this power does is it gives cabinet the ability to issue a directive that may go against that Treasury Board power, in order to enact the provincial directives that are related to procurement of goods or services.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for the response. It was a thoughtful response.

When I was reviewing sections 4 and 4.1 of the Financial Administration Act, I understood…. I read the sections. I understood the Treasury Board is essentially a creature of the cabinet. I get that. But what I was referring to is that there are some accountability mechanisms there because even the Treasury Board has to follow certain accounting principles inside this legislation.

This legislation doesn’t just stop here. In section 4 of the Financial Administration Act, subsection (3) refers to section 23.1 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. It states: “A regulation or directive under subsection (2) respecting accounting policies and practices must be consistent with section 23.1 of the Budget Transparency Act.”

The Budget Transparency Act goes further. Under section 23.1, it says: “Despite any other act, all accounting policies and practices for the government reporting entity, the government as reported through the consolidated revenue fund, and government organizations must conform to the set standards and guidelines that comprise generally accepted accounting principles for senior governments in Canada or if the Treasury Board makes a regulation under subsection (2), the set of standards and guidelines that comprise generally accepted accounting principles.”

When I was reviewing these sections, I understood that — the Lieutenant Governor in Council, cabinet; Treasury Board, cabinet. I understood that aspect. But when I was going a step further, I was looking at what are the limits placed on cabinet, and I saw that there are specific accounting principles that were set as limits.

There’s a difference in where I was going with my question and the answer that was applied to me by the Attorney General. With that provided, does the Attorney General have a further explanation of how there’s accountability when you’re taking away some of these accounting principles that are in here?

I understand that you’re taking decisions away from the Treasury Board, but the Treasury Board had to comply with certain accounting principles.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, there won’t be a conflict here, and there won’t be anything that overrides accounting principles.

I’ll just go back to the different filters in this section. It has to do with issuing directives in relation to the procurement of goods or services. Accounting principles are not that. That’s the first lens you have to apply when you’re doing your analysis of what applies or what doesn’t.

The second one is that it says: “This section applies despite….” There are many subsections related to that particular section. I was looking at some of them just now, about personnel decisions and all those types of things. Of course, they wouldn’t be relevant because they’re not relating to procurement of goods or services, along with the accounting principles.

Once you filter through all of that, there is a clear pathway to there being the power to issue a directive, and only if there is anything that conflicts with the issuing of that directive in the procurement of goods or services would there be an issue with another enactment.

[4:05 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: What recourse, if any, does a government procurement entity have if a directive compels it to act contrary to its legislated mandate, contractual obligations or good procurement practices?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The first thing that would kick into place before a directive was issued was that there would be an ability to do a policy, fiscal and legal review of any directive before it’s issued. What that would do is help really understand what that government reporting entity’s situation is and how a directive would apply so that you could design that directive for that entity.

The other thing to make clear is that subsection (3) does give a power, in the case of a conflict, for the directive to be the one that’s followed instead of a statute, if there’s an enactment that conflicts with the directive.

I gave the example of Destination B.C. Destination B.C. has, under its legislation, its ability to procure in different ways and issue some levels of directives. In that case, you actually may need the directive that’s issued under this procurement directive to be the one that overrides, in a way, that legislative power.

[4:10 p.m.]

The next one is that there is no…. We don’t expect our government reporting entities to violate contracts or their other legal obligations that are in place. That’s why, when we talked about the way this would be approached, there’s a viability assessment that would obviously need to happen in the context of anything that’s under there.

Then the ultimate way that we can make sure all those entities know that we have their backs is the immunity provisions in sections 8 and 9, which say to them: “If you operate in good faith under these directives, we will protect you.”

Steve Kooner: From that explanation, I just have a follow-up question to that. Ultimately, a procurement entity cannot say no to the government. They can’t say: “Look, we’re not proceeding forward with that.” The government’s decision will override. Correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct.

Steve Kooner: What safeguards are in place to ensure that the procurement directives power is not used to award contracts or direct procurement — you mentioned direct procurement — in a way that circumvents competitive, merit-based or non-partisan procurement standards?

The Attorney General got into a little bit about that, but this goes directly to the basis of how…. Would there be tendering? How would that process actually work? If there are a few people interested in supplying goods and services, and they come within the criteria of being able to supply those goods, how would these directives work towards those goods and services?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In order for these procurement directives to have the effect that we intend, for the example of excluding the U.S., we would be directing these agencies to say: “Exclude the U.S.” We would be directing certain things within the procurement directive, but we wouldn’t be directing the procurement process.

If they have a…. Like the viability assessment that I mentioned earlier, which would have to go into whether you can or can’t have a viable exclusion.

The next thing would be that you can frame your procurement directive before you’re issued. For example, if a procurement directive goes at the start of a procurement process, it gives that government reporting entity an opportunity to design their procurement processes in a way that, in this circumstance, would exclude a U.S. supplier. But it wouldn’t step in, in the case of midstream or contracts that are underway.

In that way, we’re able to unlock the potential of all of these agencies that procure millions and millions of dollars of contracts in a way that is more effective for the economy.

[4:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I guess the concern is that if the definition of a government procurement entity is pretty expansive and broad to include many different categories of entities that could be included, and then there are directives for procurement of goods and services, and there’s more involvement from the government in terms of procurement….

I guess the exact question is: what safeguards are there in place in terms of clause 7 that protect from a government procurement entity going further and exercising favouritism and avoiding certain competitors that have fit in within the Canadian market — just deciding to go with a person, a supplier, that they may know and have good relations with? There may be some favouritism there. How do you avoid that situation? What safeguards are there in here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In the instance described, it would be that they wouldn’t be complying with the directive, and then they wouldn’t have the protection of the immunity if they did something that was as the member describes.

Steve Kooner: Would the government be willing to commit to publicly disclosing all procurement directives issued under clause 7, including their rationale and legal basis, to ensure transparency and public trust?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That is precisely what the amendment in subsection (5) does.

Steve Kooner: I did read that section as well. I’ll read it again: “A directive issued under subsection (1) must be published as soon as practical by the minister on a publicly available website.”

I get that. You list the entities. I get that much. But the question actually goes a little bit further. The question says: “Including the rationale and legal basis to ensure transparency and public trust.” So not only just listing the directives but also listing the rationale and legal basis.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The rationale will be very clear on the face of the directive. I think we went through earlier what the directive would include. We wouldn’t disclose, publicly, legal advice.

Steve Kooner: Just going a little bit back, on the relationship between directives and government procurement entities. Just going a little bit further in the discussion, I believe I asked a question about Crown corporations. It may have been yesterday. The Attorney General did explain that Crown corporations can be included as part of government procurement entities.

Today we’re talking about directives in regard to government procurement entities. I believe it may have been brought up earlier in terms of a specific Crown corporation, but there are Crown corporations that actually do business in the United States.

What safeguards are in this legislation that will encourage whatever business they’re doing in the United States to bring it home so that we have our workers busy working here in B.C. when the economy may be suffering as a result of tariffs?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s exactly why this power is designed flexibly. I think I mentioned earlier that you could design your procurement directive or choose not to issue it to certain Crown agencies or government reporting entities based on their situation.

Then the next level of protection is that even if you do, you…. We talked about the viability assessment. We would be asking them to undertake that or to do things where viable.

Steve Kooner: So would the Attorney General agree with me in terms of Crown corporations that fit in the definition of a government procurement entity that are currently doing business in the United States but could be doing their business here and hiring British Columbians? Would it not make more sense that they move some of their operation back to B.C.?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to describe what this tool is. It’s not a tool to tell an organization how they hire or where they’re located. It’s a procurement of goods and services tool. As a procurement of goods and services tool, it would be there to direct the procurement of that entity for their goods and services. That’s the power that’s been given.

You know what? Of course, we all want jobs to come and stay in B.C., and that would be clearly something that we would all support. But this is a legal tool for procurement of goods and services.

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: Madam Chair, I’d like to rise on a point of order.

This line of questioning is focused on items that are unrelated to procurement directives. This is a line of questioning that relates to ancillary matters that are not on topic. So I’m rising on a point of order because the line of questioning is not on topic. I invite the member to take a different line of questioning.

The Chair: I will confer. Just everybody hold, please.

[4:25 p.m.]

The Chair thanks you for your information and your suggestions.

At this point, we hear the member for Richmond-Queensborough exploring the directives component of things. We’re prepared to continue that line of questioning for a wee bit longer, as long as it remains relevant to the clause. Thank you.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, it’s my submission that it’s the Chair’s determination to determine rather than a member’s determination to determine.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. If you could stay with the clause, that would be great.

Interjection.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

If we can stick with the debate related to the amendment to clause 7, please.

Debate Continued

Steve Kooner: As I was stating earlier, Crown corporations are a part of the government procurement entities, and we are talking about directives to government procurement entities, which are Crown corporations as well. Crown corporations do provide services. They do hire labour as well. So there are services that are supplied by Crown corporations, which comes under the clause of procurement — goods and services has to do with goods and services. So Crown corporations can be providing services and getting services, procuring services.

At this point, I’d like to introduce an amendment to this section. Essentially, I’d like to move an amendment to clause 7 to add a subsection (6).

[Clause 7 is amended by adding the following

(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may issue a directive for Crown Corporations to relocate offices back to the Province of British Columbia from specified foreign jurisdictions.]

The Chair: At this moment, the committee will be in recess while we assess the amendment to see if it’s in order, and then we will carry on.

We’ll take a five-minute recess, please. I’ll see you back in your seats at 4:31 on my watch.

The committee recessed from 4:27 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members, thank you for coming back to order.

We have an amendment on clause 7 as amended in front of us.

Interjections.

The Chair: We will take another five minutes for the review of the amendment. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:35 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. I call the committee back to order.

All right. We have an amendment to clause 7 as amended. The amendment is noted to be in order.

On the amendment.

[4:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: As I mentioned earlier, the amendment would read: “(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may issue a directive for Crown corporations to relocate offices back to the province of British Columbia from specified foreign jurisdictions.”

This wording is permissive. It’s not obligatory, but it allows for a mechanism to have the Crown corporations that are government procurement entities to come back in this trade war that we’re experiencing right now, that we’re in the middle of. What this amendment would essentially allow…. It would provide authority for cabinet to make regulations demanding that Crown corporations move their offices back within Canada. This would provide that authority.

Currently B.C. Hydro has a subsidiary business in Boston called Powertech USA. Also, InBC has offices in New York and London. This wouldn’t mean that they would have to shut down. Whoever gets requested to shut down their offices…. It doesn’t mean that they’d be obligated to shut down their offices right away, but it would give the cabinet the authority to do this type of manoeuvring in the middle of a trade war.

If we’re serious about bringing interprovincial trade and jobs back to Canada and B.C., then we should be considering bringing our provincial public sector Crown corporations back within our own borders. So I feel that this clause fits right in with clause 7. It allows another tool to deal with government procurement entities. They can be directed to bring back some of their operations that are happening in other places. All of this would be a good thing within the trade war that we’re experiencing right now.

Those are my submissions, and I urge all people on both sides of the House, all sides of the House, to support and vote in favour of this amendment.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to say the issue of Powertech Labs and its subsidiary was dealt with in estimates last Thursday, and detailed answers were given to the opposition’s questions. The purpose of that entity is to create jobs in British Columbia, to sell the innovations that we create in British Columbia in the American market, which makes a lot of sense for developers, for innovation in B.C. That’s what we want to do with innovative organizations like Powertech Labs, which plays a unique role in hydrogen.

The amendment is not necessary to the bill. B.C. Hydro is there to promote British Columbia and to promote Powertech Labs and to promote the people working for it and the businesses associated with it, which creates jobs in B.C.

It’s not the case that we’re performing activities outside of Canada or outside of British Columbia that we would normally be producing or doing in British Columbia. Rather, we’re using this as a means, in that case, of using technology developed in British Columbia, developed at Powertech Labs, to sell in other jurisdictions. To shut it down in that way would be counterproductive to the interests of the people of British Columbia.

Trevor Halford: I think it’s important to note that this is about optionality as well.

The Minister of Energy can laugh. I don’t find it that funny. We’re talking about…. The fact is we’re dealing with unprecedented times in a trade war.

We’re not naming specific entities in this. He’s citing them. I’m not. That’s fine if others cite them as well. We know what they are. It’s not a secret. Government has offices outside of British Columbia, outside of Canada. It has done that for decades. We understand that.

The fact of the matter is that these are unprecedented times right now. The Minister of Energy and others have said that. The Premier has said that.

[4:45 p.m.]

This amendment here is about flexibility. This whole bill, this government keeps getting up and talking about being able to act quickly, nimbly. We’re trying to be productive here and give options.

If that’s humour, I don’t know. I don’t get it. The fact of the matter is there are other Crown corps that eventually could be looking at expanding in other areas. I think this talks about that precedent. So I see nothing wrong with this amendment. We’re talking about wanting to keep things in British Columbia as much as possible. The minister didn’t reference the offices that are in B.C., Invest B.C. — offices in New York, offices in London, I believe. At a time right now….

We want to be promoting B.C. I get it, yes. But we have to be able to look at how we’re doing that, where we’re doing it, who we’re employing. This isn’t a decision that…. We are not saying in the amendment…. It says we can relocate back. I’m not sure why the minister is taking such great offence to that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t support this amendment. It’s for various reasons, and I’m going to go through that.

I’ll start by saying that I do find the proposal and the wording of this amendment quite shocking from a party that is talking pretty clearly about checks and balances and guardrails that are needed in an exercise of power. What’s being presented here under this amendment is vague. There are no guardrails or understanding of how that power would be used or in what circumstances.

It creates a huge level of uncertainty for, I think, Crown…. First of all, “Crown corporations” is not the right term, so it’s not defined properly. But it creates huge uncertainty for all those Crowns that are out there in the world doing work that we want them to do.

For example, the Minister of Energy and low-carbon solutions mentioned one, but there are trade offices that are now needed more than ever across the country, and yes, also in America. Right now we have a trade and innovation B.C. office there that’s helping to support B.C. businesses in this really critical time. There are good reasons for us having our reaches out in foreign jurisdictions, particularly in the time that we’re in right now.

The other issue with this amendment, along with the stuff I already mentioned, is that it’s very awkward to situate this under clause 7. Clause 7 is completely constructed to deal with procurement of goods and services, along with all of the very clear checks and balances that would be needed to exercise such a directive, including which acts are exempted and how consistencies would work and how the power exercised by Lieutenant Governor in Council would work and what transparency is included.

What’s included in this amendment is zero level of transparency, zero level of understanding how this would be used, zero level of legal analysis of what the implications would be, needed or not needed, for such a thing.

If there was a directive that was issued to move a Crown from a foreign jurisdiction, that would be a costly endeavour. Would it be necessary or would it not be necessary to have cabinet have the power just to direct that without the certainty and other ways that we’ve constructed other levels of the bill?

I’m actually quite shocked, given the way the debate has gone over these last few years, this is the amendment that they’re proposing.

Kiel Giddens: I’d have to disagree with the previous speaker, the Attorney General saying this is an arbitrary amendment. We’re talking about this in the context of a bill where the entire thing is arbitrary. The overreach is arbitrary, and that is not just me saying that.

We’re talking about this amendment in the context of part 2 of this bill, and I’ll read about part 2: “Part 2 allows the cabinet to issue procurement directives that are arbitrary without legislative scrutiny, bypassing financial controls and shielding officials from liability.” That’s not me saying that. That was a quote from the Business Council of British Columbia.

[4:50 p.m.]

To say this is arbitrary is in the context of an entire bill that’s arbitrary, so I take that argument out.

I think that as we’re looking to create jobs in British Columbia, we should be directing our Crown corporations, like B.C. Hydro, to be directing jobs here and generating power here and opportunities here.

I talked in the context of this debate about data centres, for example. My riding has the opportunity for data centres, but it’s constrained by the ability for us to get power generation. So I think in the context of this, let’s do things that can actually repatriate some of our opportunities to British Columbia.

That’s why I think this amendment can help within the context of this very arbitrary bill that is flawed in itself, but we’re trying to come up with other solutions as the official opposition.

Rob Botterell: I rise to speak against this amendment for several reasons. I don’t take issue with my colleague’s desire to look at ways to see offices in particular circumstances relocated back to British Columbia, but the particular drafting of this clause is of concern to me.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council may issue a directive for Crown corporations to relocate offices. This doesn’t allow for the flexibility that seemed to be indicated in the remarks for a Crown corporation or a particular office. It’s broader than that. It may issue a directive for Crown corporations to relocate offices.

That would suggest all Crown corporations, all offices, back to the province of British Columbia from specified foreign jurisdictions. Who specifies the foreign jurisdiction? I mean, normally what you would use is prescribed foreign jurisdiction. So from a drafting perspective, it raises significant concerns for the Green caucus in terms of potential misinterpretation.

The second point…. I fully respect the decision of the Chair to rule this section in order. But this is not procurement. This does not relate to procurement directives, which is the whole purpose of this section or clause of the act. So it doesn’t fit within the scheme of this clause.

The third thing is that government has the tools it needs if it wishes, if the Lieutenant Governor in Council wishes to look at ways in which, in particular circumstances, to encourage relocation of offices of Crown corporations. We’ve talked about labour mobility. We’ve talked about other potential tools in the government’s toolkit to deal with tariff threats and how to improve interprovincial trade.

There’s no need for this section in this act in order to enable a government for public policy reasons to incentivize or direct a Crown corporation to take certain actions. We see this all the time, for better or for worse, with ICBC and other Crown corporations where the government looks at the public interest and directs that Crown corporation to undertake certain actions.

For all of those reasons, I will not be supporting, and the Green caucus will not be supporting this amendment.

Amelia Boultbee: I’m speaking in support of this amendment. I thank the member for his comments, but I’m going to respectfully disagree, especially on the matter of it being thematically out of line with procurement. In order to have offices, I think there’s procurement involved in that, so it is thematically related.

[4:55 p.m.]

In addition, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, this is enabling legislation. It isn’t something that goes into the level of detail of a regulation. The word “may” is important here because it signals that this is permissive.

In terms of introducing a lot of uncertainty to Crown corporations, that could be telegraphed other ways and communicated that it’s something that’s being thought about. It gives the government the flexibility to repatriate jobs back to British Columbia, and I think it’s an important signal, as well, to the public of the intention and the spirit that the government says they want this legislation to be.

Gavin Dew: I also rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate what I believe is a good faith amendment brought forth by my colleague for Richmond-Queensborough.

Firstly, to address the comments from the Minister of Energy, I think there is or should be broad agreement that the effort of selling innovation and technology around renewables in the United States has always been a good thing. We want to be doing trade. We have wanted to be doing trade. We have historically had a very positive trade relationship. I think that that’s something that is good. But you can believe that at the same time as you believe in the importance of optionality and believe in the importance of tools in the toolbox for all manner of different purposes.

I think what we’re hearing during the course of this debate, and in particular this section, is a level of inconsistency from the government around optionality, flexibility. There is simultaneously a desire for great optionality but a discomfort with introducing more optionality in the form of this amendment.

I still am mildly confused. The Minister of Energy and Climate Change suggested that such an action would be counterproductive to the people of British Columbia. If that is counterproductive to the people of British Columbia, I would return then some time back on this debate to the matter we discussed around community benefits agreements and around whether or not there should be enabling powers in here to address community benefits agreements and to address the fact that hard-working Canadian union labour workers are paying dues that are rolling up to the United States and being donated to Donald Trump.

So I’m a little bit confused by the inconsistency around the optionality tools in the toolkit and the approach taken here. For those and other good reasons and in the spirit of adding optionality and the spirit of a good faith amendment designed to produce more tools in the toolbox, I’ll be supporting this amendment.

Ward Stamer: I concur with my colleagues in support of our member for Richmond-Queensborough. We’ve talked about…. We’ve heard about tools in the toolbox, and I think it’s important that we have the opportunity to be able to react not only to what’s happening to the south of us but also any other foreign jurisdictions in the world.

I think by allowing this amendment to the bill in clause 7, it gives us the opportunity, it gives the government the opportunity to have the checks and balances provided with the Lieutenant Governor in being able to seek that advice and to be able to have that opportunity with the Lieutenant Governor in Council and obviously the cabinet to be able to make those choices necessary for B.C. if other foreign jurisdictions are going to be hostile to British Columbia’s interests.

I disagree that we have the necessary tools now. I think that this whole bill and the clauses associated with it have such a broad scope in understanding exactly how things are supposed to shift with the wind in the economics of the world.

I think this is an important step in being able to have those additional checks and balances in our system so that if the government needs to be able to bring those resources back to B.C., as my colleagues have mentioned, then maybe that’s the best course of action. That’s why I will be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to clause 7 as amended pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: Shall clause 7 as amended pass?

A division has been called.

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

I call everyone back to order.

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

Clause 7 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 7
Sunner	Wickens	Choi
Routledge	Dix	Sharma
	Botterell
NAYS — 5
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok		Williams

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:07 p.m.